Make Our Planet Great Again

An Analysis of President Macron’s Climate Policy and Climate Diplomacy


by Clayton Becker


President Macron’s climate research initiative recently announced its initial laureates. These researchers are of a high caliber and serve as a important symbol of French leadership in climate science. Likewise, his climate diplomacy has received billions of dollars in commitments from corporations and countries to intensify their fight against climate change.  However, the French government has also recently slashed overall funding for science and Macron’s climate diplomacy has yet to achieve concessions from  the biggest carbon emitters; he has not engaged in the hard negotiations necessary to effectively combat climate change. As a result, neither of his policies are well designed enough to stand on their own. Their success will be determined by whether others follow his lead.  


On June 1st, 2017, French President Emmanuel Macron announced a new initiative in the wake of President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accord. The purpose of this initiative, dubbed “Make Our Planet Great Again” in a rebuke to the American President, was simple: for American climate researchers to emigrate to France and conduct their research at French laboratories. President Macron followed up on his invitation with a concrete offer: a $70 million research fund to provide grants for scientific research,1 run through the National Center for Scientific Research and the National Research Agency.2 The first round yielded 1,800 applicants, students and researchers alike, and at the One Planet Summit in December, Macron announced the initial 18 recipients.3

At this event, more than 60 countries and dozens of corporations announced billions of dollars in new investment for green technologies.4 It acts as the clearest example of Macron’s pursuit of climate diplomacy in order to encourage other nations and corporations to intensify the fight against climate change. However, Macron’s  programs are not entirely altruistic. They are also intended to poach top scientific talent from other nations’ laboratories in order to elevate the reputation and quality of French research. Likewise, the initiatives are intended to establish France as a global leader in the fight against climate change, which would have many diplomatic ramifications. This analysis will therefore examine both of these aims in order to determine the impact the programs are likely to have on both French research and on Macron’s climate diplomacy.  

Contextualizing “MOPGA”

The fact that only 18 out of 1,800 applications were selected to receive funding is testament to the selectivity of the program. There are a number of qualifications that researchers must meet in order to be qualified: not only must applicants be respected, established scientists studying climate change and related phenomenon, they must also have a research proposal that will take between three and five years to complete, keeping them in France for an extended period of time.5 As a result of these conditions, only 450 of the 1,800 applicants were deemed eligible for a potential grant and only 90 were invited to submit concrete research proposals in collaboration with a French institution. Ultimately, out of all the original applications, the National Research Agency received 57 complete research proposals.6  

The deliberation process was equally selective, conducted by a nine member international panel chaired by Corinne Le Quéré, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich, U.K. The Jury decided among the 57 proposals, all of which Le Quéré described as “high quality and in cutting edge fields.”7 According to the National Research Agency:

“The 18 laureates, 7 of [whom] are women, come from 6 different countries, mostly the USA (13 projects). The selected projects are of very high level and address especially important issues, such as the impact of climate change on hurricanes, the effect of clouds in climate models, the effects of climate change on pollution as well as the public health consequences of climate change and the impact of climate change on circular economy.”8 

The National Research Agency plans to send a second call for applications in Spring 2018 intending to eventually give out 50 grants worth up to 1.5€ million each.9,10 This second call will be organized in partnership with Germany’s Federal Ministry of Education and Research, which has pledged 15€ million of their own funds to supplement the French effort.11 Thus far however, there are no concrete plans beyond these 50 grants and no countries other than Germany have joined the French effort. 

Likewise, Macron’s initiative must also be considered in the broader framework of the Paris Climate Accords. Macron wants France to lead the charge towards more action on climate research and green development. He has previously said that he will match every dollar in the Green Climate Fund missing as a result of President Trump’s decision not to honor the US’ commitment.12 However, no funding has been allocated towards this fulfilling this promise in the French budget and it is difficult to see where the money will come from given that the Green Climate Fund is supposed to grow to $100 billion annually by 2020 and is currently nowhere close, with a mere $8.7 billion in assets as of December 2017.13,14 Therefore, while France’s effort is admirable, at first inspection it appears that practice is falling short of rhetoric. 

Consequences of the “Make Our Planet Great Again” Fund 

The research fund is intended to fulfill two complimentary but distinct goals. The first is altruistic, to provide funding for research that would otherwise not be conducted as the Trump Administration cuts funding to climate projects. Macron intends to attract scientists doing vital research in order to further understanding of climate change and how to combat it. The second goal is to improve the standing of French research by attracting top scientists from other countries to join French institutions. Both of these aims require that the scientists applying for and receiving these grants are top quality researchers. 

It is thus important, first and foremost, to investigate who these researchers are and what the quality of their research is likely to be, as the program can only achieve both of its aims if it attracts quality researchers and researchers with innovative and important projects. So, who are these researchers, what are they researching, and would this research be conducted anyway, without the aid of the research fund? 

After the panel came to its final conclusion following an in depth exploration in the the aforementioned questions, the National Research Agency published a list of all 18 laureates, their home institution, their project area, and the lab where they will be working in France.15 The interested reader can find the full list in the accompanying endnote. For the sake of length, this review will not examine all of the laureates in depth. 

One of the researchers to receive an initial grant is Nuria Teixido, a senior researcher at Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn in Naples, Italy, and currently a visiting scientist at  Stanford University’s Micheli Laboratory.16 Dr. Teixido is moving from the Micheli Lab to the Riviera’s own Villefranche-sur-Mer and the Laboratoire d'Océanographie de Villefranche in order to pursue her research, which is focused on predicting what the oceans of the future will look like as a result of large scale changes in the climate.17 Teixido has said that the grant will allow her more independence in her research and provide her with more resources to hire assistants.18 Likewise, much of her previous research has focused on the effects of climate change in the Mediterranean Sea,19 meaning that having a home base in the Mediterranean will improve her ability to conduct this research. 

Another notable recipient of the grant is Alessandra Giannini, a research scientist with the Earth Institute at Columbia University moving to the Laboratoire de météorologie dynamique at the Université Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris.20 Her research project examines the processes of climate change in the tropics, an area of extreme importance as the tropics are the region likely to experience the most drastic changes in weather and the most severe weather phenomena as a result of climate change.21 Giannini’s research could be conducted in the United States, but France offers her better funding and a more secure contract. While Columbia is one of the wealthiest universities in the world, with an endowment of $10 billion as of June 2017, Giannini says that her research is, “almost entirely supported by federal research grants,” and that her contract with the Earth Institute, “is renewed yearly contingent on funding.”22 Thus, if President Trump were to cut funding further, as is a very real possibility, then Giannini could find herself without a research lab. Likewise, the five year contract allows Giannini to undertake longer research projects that she would otherwise not be able to carry out under the cloud of a one year contract. 

But perhaps the best example of top the quality research scientists being brought to the program is Louis Derry, a scientist at Cornell University who is involved in research into the Earth’s ‘critical zone’—a field which integrates biological, chemical, and geological research into changes from the outermost parts of the crust to the top of the tree canopy. Dr. Derry is also director of the National Science Foundation office for nine critical zone observatories. Since President Trump has previously suggested deep cuts to the NSF’s budget to the tune of 11%, or around $800 million (later nixed to just $134 million by Congress),23 the grant money that Dr. Derry will receive will help him to continue his research, which will focus on how water moves through the watershed.24 This is an area of pressing concern as droughts become more severe across the globe.25 For example, California just came out of the worst drought in recent memory, Cape Town is expected to run out of water by April, and the Iberian Peninsula is currently experiencing the worst drought in a century with the entire country of Portugal in either severe (24.8%) or extreme (75.2%) drought as of October 2017.26

In addition to these three profiles, it is also possible to quantifiably gauge the impact of researchers through their citation metrics. Figure 1 presents the citation metrics for both those listed as senior and junior researchers by the National Research Agency’s press release.  The data for these metrics was collected via Google Scholar Citations and includes papers for which the researchers were lead as well as contributing authors. Footnotes 27 and 28 explain the meaning of the indices.

Screen Shot 2018-02-07 at 4.26.51 PM.png

The researchers have indeed been prolific and influential in the course of their careers. They have been cited thousands of times on average by their peers and have a high number of often cited papers. For example, Camille Parmesan, another one of the laureates, is in the 99th percentile of climate researchers by citation count.29 Further, the average H-index of the laureates is on par with other highly cited researchers listed by the Institute for Scientific Information.30 Moreover, they are more highly cited than many European researchers, to whom they would more likely be compared. However, many of these scientists have careers of varying lengths, meaning that a possible discrepancy could exist based on how long these researchers have been working; perhaps some are less productive now than they were in earlier years, or perhaps some of their earlier work continues to sustain their face-value influence. In order to account for and control this sort of bias, Figure 2 shows the same citation metrics as above, but for the last five years instead of for their whole career. 

Screen Shot 2018-02-07 at 4.26.58 PM.png

This closer look at the data reflects the fact that on average, these scientists have actually received more than half of their citations in the last five years. In the case of the junior researchers, nearly all of their citations have come in the past five years, indicating that they are beginning productive careers. These statistics moreover support Corinne Le Quéré’s comments that nearly all of the applicants “are in the middle of productive careers” and that about half are 12 years into their post PhD research.31 

These researchers have thus proven to be of a high caliber, conducting necessary research, and in the middle of productive careers. It is thus unlikely that they would choose to take a 3-5 year break from serious research, especially for the junior researchers who are still trying to make their way in the field; in other words, this is not a just a vacation with a nice payday. However, there are other developments to take into consideration; the research fund is not the only development currently affecting French science and technology. 

First and foremost, despite the $70 million allocated for grants to foreign researchers, the French government recently imposed an overall cut on science funding of $350 million, five times the  amount of the research fund.32 This has left many at the National Research Agency and the National Center for Scientific Research wondering where the funding for foreign researchers is going to come from, and some are worried that it will be taken away from French scientists who would otherwise receive the money.33 If Macron’s goal is to improve the standard of French scientific research, then cutting overall funding  and hoping that importing top foreign scientists will cover the difference is a tough needle to thread. 

Many French scientists are also skeptical of the impact of the research fund. Among the most prominent dissenting voices is the Syndicat National des Chercheurs Scientifiques, which criticized the effort as “an operation of pure communication which does not bring any supplementary support to French research” and “an insult to French scientists…whose commitment is not properly recognized in their own country.”34 Likewise, the SNCS points out that French scientific funding is not nearly as strong as in many other countries. France spends 2.22% of its GDP on scientific research, below the OECD average of 2.38%, and well below countries such as the United States (2.78%), Switzerland (3.42%), Sweden (3.28%), Germany (2.93%), and South Korea (4.23%).35

Despite the initially perceived benefits of Macron’s initiative, the fact remains that without more adequate funding, the standard of French research will not live up to the ambitions of the plan’s architects. The SNCS, among other groups, are worried that Macron is using the publicity from the program and its outward symbolic value as a substitute for substantive action to improve the quality of French research, a distraction to keep the cameras focused elsewhere while needed investment remains unforthcoming. 

Likewise, the foreign researchers will occupy a peculiar space in the French research landscape. They will be operating within the main framework of French institutions, but outside of the classical research system and at much higher salaries than their French colleagues according to Didier Swingedouw, a climate dynamics physicist at the Oceanic and Continental Environments and Paleo-Environments Laboratory in Pessac.36 It is not clear how this will affect the working relationship between the researchers, but Swingedouw says that he “could easily imagine that [it] will create some sources of tension.”37 As a result, the quality of their work may suffer.  

There are concerns that this is not the most prudent way to invest in the future of France’s scientific research, as the initiative runs the risk of quickly becoming a Catch-22 for French funders and the scientific community at large. With the program looking towards offering 50 grants total, there is well-founded concern about what will happen when the term of the grants concludes. “If France invests in new instruments and new areas of research and then the people leave … you lose all this investment,” says Le Quéré.38 If the government were to invest this money in young French researchers then this worry would not as relevant. By the same token, if these foreign researchers decide to stay in France then the funders of the program will be forced to figure out how to maintain funding for the infrastructure and equipment that are created for the projects funded by the initial grants. 

In essence, while the initiative is well intentioned and has the potential to combat climate change, it is not well designed enough to control its own success. The success of the program will be determined by the decisions of the researchers and the reactions of other nations to Macron’s call for further action on climate change.  

These issues are not enough to render the vision of the initiative inert; much remains to be seen as to how the initiative will play out over the course of its lifespan and for now the worries surrounding the program are merely speculative. 

And while there is doubt in the French scientific community as to the effectiveness of the plan as a whole, few doubt that it has weighty symbolic value. For Frédéric Parrenin, a paleoclimatologist at the Institute for Geosciences of the Environment in Grenoble, while 50 grants aren’t going to dramatically change the landscape of French research, “[the] program is highly symbolic: France now takes a leading role in the world to push forward climate policies.”39 For Camille Parmesan, from the University of Texas at Austin, Macron’s announcement in June alone was “such a psychological boost, to have that kind of support, to have the head of state saying I value what you do.”40

In the end, the success of the initiative will perhaps not be measured in the specific research it produces or the number of researchers who stay in France after the term of their contract is up, but by how much it engages the rest of the world and galvanizes them to take action on climate change. This is why it is also vital to consider the grants in the broader context of Macron’s nascent climate diplomacy. 

Macron’s Wider Climate Diplomacy

Macron’s initiative is about more than the research the laureates will conduct or the improvement in quality and status they might bring to French science. It is also a part of a broader policy of action and diplomacy on climate change and green technology development. Macron’s presidency is still young but the One Planet Summit hosted in Paris in December already provided a glimpse of the objectives and potential of his efforts. 

Much like the research fund, Macron’s larger diplomatic strategy appears intended to serve two goals. Primarily, it represents a concrete and genuine effort to combat climate change, but it also is designed to establish France as the global leader in that fight, improving their soft power on climate and other issues by improving France’s global image. And much like the research fund, its success or failure will depend on how private individuals and other nations react.

By bringing together leaders from the private sector such as Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and international leaders such as Mexico’s Enrique Peña Nieto, British Prime Minister Theresa May, and World Bank President Jim Yong Kim, the One Planet Summit serves the clearest example of the direction this diplomacy is heading.41,42 Even more so than the research fund, Macron’s climate diplomacy has already garnered significant commitments from countries and private industry. Among the many pledges received at the Summit were a commitment from French insurance giant Axa to quadruple its investment into green projects from €3 billion to €12, a policy from Caribbean leaders to invest $8 billion into  creating a “climate smart zone” in their nations to wean them off their costly dependence on fossil fuels, announcements of the creation of two large scale carbon trading markets in China and the Americas by Chinese diplomat Xie Zhenhua and Enrique Peña Nieto, and a pledge from 16 countries to adopt and implement policies to make their economies carbon-neutral by mid-century.43,44  

However, the most notable commitments came from two private coalitions: Climate Action 100+, a coalition of 225 companies which have committed to pressure the world’s 100 biggest corporate emitters to reduce their emissions, and The We Mean Business Coalition, a group of 655 companies that have committed to aligning their emissions plans with the 2015 Paris Climate Accord by 2019.45,46 Climate Action 100+ includes companies and funds such as Allianz Global Investors, BNP Paribas Asset Management, CalPERS, and UBS Asset Management; in total, the coalition partners have more than $26.3 trillion in assets under management.47 The group plans to focus on companies like BP, Airbus, and PepsiCo in order to pressure them to commit to lower their emissions to the level mandated by the Paris Accords. With the financial muscle of $26 trillion in assets, there is high likelihood that they will be able to make substantial progress towards these goals.48

The We Mean Business Coalition promises even more concrete action. With a combined market capitalization of $15.6 trillion and some of the largest companies in the world, more than 1,100 individual commitments have already been made.49 Corporations like Apple, General Motors, Google, and Heathrow Airport have committed to 100% Renewable Energy production for all their facilities; Carrefour, Nestle, Tesco, and P&G have committed to mitigating and ameliorating deforestation; BNP Paribas, Unilever, and Şekerbank T.A.Ş. have committed to carbon pricing; and IKEA, HP, Baidu, and PG&E have committed to the Electric Vehicle 100 initiative,50 to name just a few examples. 

Further, Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire media owner, and Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, announced an expansion of support for the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. The TCFD now includes 237 companies worth $6.3 trillion in market cap and with $81.7 trillion in assets under management.51 The task force is intended to publicize the risks associated with climate change in the financial sector and bring climate financial reporting to a more mainstream financial audience.52

Macron has also backed more ambitious climate policies at the government level. At the COP 23 Summit in Bonn he committed to replacing funding for the IPCC cut by the Trump Administration, and announced his intention to work to raise the price of carbon within the EU to €30/ton as well as place a tariff on goods produced in countries that do not share the climate goals of EU nations.53 These latter policies are intended to provide a further incentive for companies to move towards green technology, energy efficiency, and renewable power generation, as well as to pressure countries outside the EU to adopt more ambitious climate policies. Considering that the EU represents the second largest consumer market in the world, its efforts are likely to entice some of the world’s more reticent nations  to increase their commitment. 

However, most of these new investments were likely preplanned with the announcements timed for the Summit in order to take advantage of the optimum press environment.54 Likewise, the commitments that were announced and the progress made so far by nations in limiting temperature increases to two degrees Celsius are nowhere near close to the level of investment that is needed.55

According to Brussels based climate reporter Dave Keating, “[following] a report published this year by the OECD, $6.3 trillion is needed annually until 2030 to meet the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting temperature rise to no more than two degrees Celsius. So far, governments have committed to only $100 billion per year,”56 and that estimate doesn’t even consider reinvestment needed to cover damage already caused or likely to be caused by climate related phenomena. The OECD’s report specifically states that “investment needs[to] reach USD 6.9 the trillion per year in the next 15 years” in order to be consistent with the most likely climate scenario.57 Governments are seriously lagging behind this target and private industry has simply not covered the deficit.

Many leaders were conspicuously missing from the One Planet Summit, coming from the 12 largest emitters, including China’s Xi Jinping, Indian PM Narendra Modi, Japan’s Shinzo Abe, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, and of course U.S President Donald Trump, all of whom were either not invited to the Summit or chose not to attend.58 Without the largest greenhouse gas emitters on board, there is only so much room for Macron’s encouragements and overtures on the importance of climate change to work. 

There is also the danger that Macron, Bloomberg, and others will just be preaching to the choir. Instead of engaging in difficult negotiations with countries like India or Canada whose leaders, unlike Trump or Putin, might be amenable to lowering emissions if pressured, Macron has largely chosen to engage in softer diplomacy with more adulation and more symbolic value, diplomacy which is perhaps better for France’s image around the world, but not the kind of diplomacy that will make sweeping changes on its own. 

That isn’t to say that the symbolic value of the Summit and Macron’s broader vision cannot make any progress. As his presidency matures, Macron can use the image of France that he is now cultivating to achieve more stringent concessions from other nations. Likewise, the private initiatives which have been given a public platform for their efforts are a great example of how Macron’s efforts are making climate action fashionable. If he is able to parlay these initial successes into more substantial gains in the next few years, and if President Trump is not reelected in three years time, then Macron might suddenly find himself with a much more agreeable partner in the fight against climate change and be able to make up more ground while still maintaining France’s leadership role even once the United States comes back into the fold. 


Both President Macron’s research fund aimed at foreign scientists and his broader aims of climate diplomacy are admirable and hold potential to be influential. They are welcome and needed initiatives coming in the wake of President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accords, cut scientific funding, and promote environmentally damaging policies and products. The research coming down the pipeline as a result of Macron’s MOPGA program is extremely promising, and his diplomacy has resulted in more commitments for climate action from governments and corporations. 

The carbon trading markets in China and the inter-American market—including Mexico, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Peru, and the US State of California—represent important steps towards putting a universal value on carbon worldwide. Once the Chinese market begins operations it will be the world’s largest.59

However, Macron’s research fund and his climate diplomacy do not stand on their own. Perhaps that is to be expected, given that combating climate change is necessarily a collaborative effort, but the fact remains that the fate and significance of both of the programs will be determined by how others change their climate policies. Likewise, the action that has been taken thus far is woefully inadequate to solve the problem of climate change: there is not enough investment in green technologies, the governments that need to step up for the effort to be a success have remained unforthcoming, and Macron has not been bold enough in his diplomatic efforts to force them to come to the negotiating table. 

President Macron’s lofty aims of better climate research, more climate action, and a world-leading France may yet come to pass. But at the end of the day, his policies thus far leave much to be desired; they are not enough to mitigate the catastrophic effects of climate change and they are not tailored nor developed enough to achieve their stated ends. Only if he intensifies his efforts and convinces other countries and companies to join him will we be talking about Macron’s initiatives as a turning point rather than just another missed opportunity to save the planet. 



1. Thomson, Peter, and Adeline Sire. "US scientists answer France's call to come 'make our planet great again'." Public Radio International. August 1, 2017. Accessed January 09, 2018.

2. ""Make Our Planet Great Again": Chateaubriand Fellow Shares Her Experience at the One Planet Summit - Office for Science & Technology of the Embassy of France in the United States." December 15, 2017. Accessed January 09, 2018. 

3. Press Release: "Make our planet great again : the 18 first researchers have been selected." December 11, 2017. Accessed January 9, 2018.

4. Worland, Justin. "50 World Leaders Will Discuss Climate Change in Paris. Donald Trump Wasn't Invited." Time Magazine. December 11, 2017. Accessed January 09, 2018.

5. Pain, Elisabeth. "French president's climate talent search nabs 18 foreign scientists." Science | AAAS. December 12, 2017. Accessed January 09, 2018.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid. Press Release

9. Ibid.

10 . Offord, Catherine. "France Announces Winners of “Make Our Planet Great Again” Grants." The Scientist Magazine. December `12, 2017. Accessed January 9, 2018.

11. "Franco-German Fellowship Programme on Climate, Energy and Earth System Research under the French Initiative." Forschung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung (FONA). September 12, 2017. Accessed January 09, 2018.

12. Kentish, Ben. "Emmanuel Macron vows to replace every dollar Donald Trump withdraws from climate change efforts." The Independent. November 16, 2017. Accessed January 09, 2018.

13. Ibid. Worland.

14. Lyman, Eric J. "Macron Tries to Keep the Paris Agreement Alive." Pacific Standard. December 19, 2017. Accessed January 09, 2018.

15. Ibid. Press Release 

16. "Nuria Teixido: Research in Community Ecology." Micheli Lab. Accessed January 09, 2018.

17. Ibid. Press Release

18. Ibid. Pain.

19. Ibid. Nuria. 

 20. "Alessandra Giannini." International Research Institute for Climate and Society. September 20, 2013. Accessed January 09, 2018.

21. Ibid. Press Release

22. Mufson, Steven. "Promising to ‘Make Our Planet Great Again,’ Macron lures 13 U.S. climate scientists to France." The Washington Post. December 11, 2017. Accessed January 09, 2018.

23. Mervis, Jeffrey. "Trump cuts to NSF mostly rejected by House panel, but it nixes new ships." Science | AAAS. December 08, 2017. Accessed January 09, 2018.

24. Ibid. Mufson.

25. "Drought and Climate Change." Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. November 01, 2017. Accessed January 09, 2018.

26. "Drought across Spain and Portugal raises alarm." Euronews. November 09, 2017. Accessed January 09, 2018.

27. The H-index of an author is a measure of their publications’ impact. It is not an average of the number of citations their papers receive. Rather, it is calculated by ordering the papers from most to least cited and then finding the last paper whose number in that order is greater than or equal to the number of citations it received. For example, if Author A has published five papers receiving 13, 8, 6, 4, and 3 citations, the H-Index will be 4. This is intended to minimize the impact of particularly heavily cited and particularly lightly cited papers but is not without problems. For example, Author B, with five papers receiving 54, 45, 32, 4, and 1 citations would also receive and H-Index score of 4 even though they are clearly more influential than Author A. Likewise, the H-Index is almost always lower than the average number of citations an author receives. In this table the index means that on average, the 39th most cited paper of the senior researchers has been cited 39 times.

28. The i10-Index is simpler than the H-Index. It is simply a reflection of the number of papers from a given author which have received at least 10 citations. So an i10-index of 10 means that 10 of an author’s papers have received at least 10 citations. In this case, it means that on average the senior researchers have published 87 papers which received at least 10 citations. 

29. "Highly Cited Researchers as of 15-12-2017." Clarivate Analytics. December 15, 2017. Accessed January 10, 2018.

30. Iglesias, Juan E., and Carlos Pecharromán. "Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields ." Penn State College of Information Sciences and Technology. Accessed January 10, 2018.

31. Ibid. Mufson.

32. Ibid. Thomson and Sire.

33. Ibid. 

34. Sarka-SPIP, Collectif. "Communiqué de presse du SNCS-FSU - Make our planet great again ." December 11, 2017. Accessed January 09, 2018.

35. "Research and development (R&D) - Gross domestic spending on R&D - OECD Data." Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2016. Accessed January 09, 2018.

36. Ibid. Pain.

37. Ibid. 

38. Ibid.

39. Ibid. 

40. Corbet, Sylvie. "France names winners of anti-Trump climate change grants." AP News. December 11, 2017. Accessed January 09, 2018. 41104e70f22e459782b5e7fa4ed23df1/France-to-name-winners-of-anti-Trump-climate-change-grants.

41. Ibid. Worland.

42. Keohane, David, Andrew Ward, and Rochelle Toplensky. "Emmanuel Macron steps up fight against climate change." Financial Times. December 12, 2017. Accessed January 09, 2018.

43. "One Planet Summit: Finance commitments fire-up higher momentum for Paris Agreement - United Nations Sustainable Development." United Nations. December 12, 2017. Accessed January 09, 2018.

44. Ibid. Lyman.

45. Ibid. Keohane et al.

46. Ibid.

47. "Investors." Climate Action 100. December 15, 2017. Accessed January 09, 2018.

48. "Companies." Climate Change 100. Accessed January 09, 2018.

49. "Home." We Mean Business Coalition. Accessed January 09, 2018.

50. "Companies." We Mean Business Coalition. Accessed January 09, 2018.!

51. Ibid. Keohane et al.

52. "Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures | TCFD - About." TCFD. Accessed January 09, 2018.

53. Ibid. Kentish.

54. Keating, Dave. "What Was The Point Of Emmanuel Macron's Climate Summit?" Forbes. December 12, 2017. Accessed January 09, 2018.

55. Roberts, David. "There's a huge gap between the Paris climate change goals and reality." Vox. October 31, 2017. Accessed January 09, 2018.

56. Ibid. Keating.

57. "Investing in Climate, Investing in Growth: A Synthesis." Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2017. Accessed January 9, 2018. Pg. 14. 

58. Ibid. Lyman.

2016. Accessed January 09, 2018.

59. Ibid. Lyman.