change and the environment, scientists as well as the authors of the green swan try to explain to us what could happen if we don ’ t act. on the health front, we experienced “ skin in the game ” what an unexpected, severe, global crisis can be, because we did not collectively act on time. in advanced economies, thanks to vaccinations, we are seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. this is a relief. however, other crises could occur ; there is no vaccine against climate change and environmental risks. this tangible experience makes the green swan even more interesting to read and to meditate upon now, than when it was published. * at the end of the summer 2020, when we began ‐ at our modest deputy level – to launch this conference, we were convinced that the message of the green swan was worth spreading, but we were far from sure that it would attract such a prestigious set of speakers. this was before the new momentum we are experiencing thanks to the political shift in the united states, following the ambitious italian g20 and uk g7 presidencies. now, only a few months later, the context is quite different. governments are more aware than ever before, that they need to act, to anticipate ; there is more appetite for multilateral cooperation. the private sector is making many commitments to net ‐ zero emissions. however, a number of questions arise that we cannot answer easily. three of them seem particularly important : international energy agency – iea ( 2021 ). net zero by 2050. a roadmap for the global energy sector. accessible at : https : / / www. iea. org / reports / net ‐ zero ‐ by ‐ 2050 should we focus on climate change or broaden the scope? how can we make sure that public policies are consistent? how to thrive within limits? allow me to develop these points. * i. beyond climate? the charter of the ngfs, 4 adopted in december 2017, states that the network aims, in particular, to “ contribute to the development of environment and climate risk management ”. it is key to consider how ecological crises are in fact multiple and interconnected. for instance, the 2019 un global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services ( ipbes ) 5 reminds us that human activity caused a catastrophic decline in earth ’ s biodiversity ( e. g. the current rate of extinction of species is between 100 and 1, 000 times higher than the reference rate of

trade open and fair in order to reap the benefits from private innovation : “ international cooperation should not be limited to the official sector. global trade is just as important and much has been said about this. the pandemic has shown us how collaboration between companies is paramount to foster innovation and boost production of essential medical goods. ” in a nutshell, the changes required by transition are not only changes in policies within the existing institutional or societal framework. they require us to transform the frameworks themselves. this is very challenging. so is the need to rethink our perception of what abundance is. iii. within boundaries some scientists, in particular johan rockstrom and his colleagues, 15 have developed the concept of planetary boundaries to refer to nine earth system processes ( including climate ‐ and biodiversity ‐ related processes ) that are vital to life on earth. human activity is contributing to crossing the boundaries within which these systems can maintain a safe operating space for humanity, and this could have disastrous consequences. this means that the task of our generation is to invent a new model to live ( and live well ) within these planetary boundaries, or within ecological limits. to be clear, living and thriving within limits is, as such, an immense challenge. rockstrom, j. et al. ( 2009 ). planetary boundaries : exploring the safe operating space for humanity. ecology and society 14 ( 2 ) : 32. i would therefore like to elaborate on the relationship between economic growth and ecological limits, as it has profound ramifications, including for central banks. a growing body of literature, including a recent academic paper in nature communications, 16 suggests that it may be difficult to reconcile an ambitious mitigation of climate change with unlimited economic growth. professor dasgupta argues that this tension between economic growth and ecological goals becomes even more evident if we take into account other ecological disruptions than climate change, such as biodiversity loss. in his words, “ our economic possibilities are circumscribed [ … ] by the earth system ’ s workings ”. in order to make progress in the face of such challenges, we must diffuse many of the passionate and intransigent positions that often dominate in public debates. let me mention two pitfalls we must avoid : ‐ ‐ that it is too late and we are doomed, or that we should stop doing everything we do : travelling, innovating, creating, and so on. living within limits doesn't mean that we will not keep investing in innovation