Search

To meet the Paris temperature targets and recover from the effects of the pandemic, many countries have launched economic recovery plans, including specific elements to promote clean energy technologies and green jobs. However, how to successfully manage investment portfolios of green recovery packages to optimize both climate mitigation and employment benefits remains unclear. Here, we use three energy-economic models, combined with a portfolio analysis approach, to find optimal low-carbon technology subsidy combinations in six major emitting regions: Canada, China, the European Union (EU), India, Japan, and the United States (US). We find that, although numerical estimates differ given different model structures, results consistently show that a >50% investment in solar photovoltaics is more likely to enable CO2 emissions reduction and green jobs, particularly in the EU and China. Our study illustrates the importance of strategically managing investment portfolios in recovery packages to enable optimal outcomes and foster a post-pandemic green economy.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impacts, scientists and policymakers alike have been advocating for green recovery packages focusing on clean energy technologies, to align economic recovery with climate change mitigation. In this study, we use three energy-economy models combined with portfolio analysis to estimate the emissions and employment benefits of a potential allocation of announced recovery packages towards clean energy projects, in six major emitting regions: Canada, China, EU, India, Japan, and USA. Despite trade-offs and regional differences, we find potential technology portfolios that both reduce emissions and increase employment across all regions and models. Solar PV is the dominant technology for achieving both emissions cuts and employment gains in most countries, while optimal packages also include funds for other low-carbon technologies. The selected packages significantly contribute to achieving NDC objectives and reducing pandemic-driven unemployment in the EU, China, and Canada. In USA and India, the proposed packages are too small to make a significant contribution. We find strong model structure-driven differences in outcomes, confirming the relevance of applying diverse models to avoid false precision in outcomes.

The Paris Agreement is the last hope to keep global temperature rise below 2°C. The consensus agrees to holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to aim for 1.5°C. Each Party’s successive nationally determined contribution (NDC) will represent a progression beyond the party’s then current NDC, and reflect its highest possible ambition. Using Ireland as a test case, we show that increased mitigation ambition is required to meet the Paris Agreement goals in contrast to current EU policy goals of an 80–95% reduction by 2050. For the 1.5°C consistent carbon budgets, the technically feasible scenarios' abatement costs rise to greater than €8,100/tCO2 by 2050. The greatest economic impact is in the short term. Annual GDP growth rates in the period to 2020 reduce from 4% to 2.2% in the 1.5°C scenario. While aiming for net zero emissions beyond 2050, investment decisions in the next 5–10 years are critical to prevent carbon lock-in. Key policy insightsEconomic growth can be maintained in Ireland while rapidly decarbonizing the energy system.The social cost of carbon needs to be included as standard in valuation of infrastructure investment planning, both by government finance departments and private investors.Technological feasibility is not the limiting factor in achieving rapid deep decarbonization.Immediate increased decarbonization ambition over the next 3–5 years is critical to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, acknowledging the current 80–95% reduction target is not consistent with temperature goals of ‘well below’ 2°C and pursuing 1.5°C.Applying carbon budgets to the energy system results in non-linear CO2 emissions reductions over time, which contrast with current EU policy targets, and the implied optimal climate policy and mitigation investment strategy. Economic growth can be maintained in Ireland while rapidly decarbonizing the energy system. The social cost of carbon needs to be included as standard in valuation of infrastructure investment planning, both by government finance departments and private investors. Technological feasibility is not the limiting factor in achieving rapid deep decarbonization. Immediate increased decarbonization ambition over the next 3–5 years is critical to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, acknowledging the current 80–95% reduction target is not consistent with temperature goals of ‘well below’ 2°C and pursuing 1.5°C. Applying carbon budgets to the energy system results in non-linear CO2 emissions reductions over time, which contrast with current EU policy targets, and the implied optimal climate policy and mitigation investment strategy.

In a climate constrained future, hybrid energy-economy model coupling gives additional insight into interregional competition, trade, industrial delocalisation and overall macroeconomic consequences of decarbonising the energy system. Decarbonising the energy system is critical in mitigating climate change. This chapter summarises modelling methodologies developed in the ETSAP community © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015.

The Paris Agreement is the last hope to keep global temperature rise below 2°C. The consensus agrees to holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to aim for 1.5°C. Each Party’s successive nationally determined contribution (NDC) will represent a progression beyond the party’s then current NDC, and reflect its highest possible ambition. Using Ireland as a test case, we show that increased mitigation ambition is required to meet the Paris Agreement goals in contrast to current EU policy goals of an 80–95% reduction by 2050. For the 1.5°C consistent carbon budgets, the technically feasible scenarios' abatement costs rise to greater than €8,100/tCO2 by 2050. The greatest economic impact is in the short term. Annual GDP growth rates in the period to 2020 reduce from 4% to 2.2% in the 1.5°C scenario. While aiming for net zero emissions beyond 2050, investment decisions in the next 5–10 years are critical to prevent carbon lock-in. Key policy insightsEconomic growth can be maintained in Ireland while rapidly decarbonizing the energy system.The social cost of carbon needs to be included as standard in valuation of infrastructure investment planning, both by government finance departments and private investors.Technological feasibility is not the limiting factor in achieving rapid deep decarbonization.Immediate increased decarbonization ambition over the next 3–5 years is critical to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, acknowledging the current 80–95% reduction target is not consistent with temperature goals of ‘well below’ 2°C and pursuing 1.5°C.Applying carbon budgets to the energy system results in non-linear CO2 emissions reductions over time, which contrast with current EU policy targets, and the implied optimal climate policy and mitigation investment strategy. Economic growth can be maintained in Ireland while rapidly decarbonizing the energy system. The social cost of carbon needs to be included as standard in valuation of infrastructure investment planning, both by government finance departments and private investors. Technological feasibility is not the limiting factor in achieving rapid deep decarbonization. Immediate increased decarbonization ambition over the next 3–5 years is critical to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, acknowledging the current 80–95% reduction target is not consistent with temperature goals of ‘well below’ 2°C and pursuing 1.5°C. Applying carbon budgets to the energy system results in non-linear CO2 emissions reductions over time, which contrast with current EU policy targets, and the implied optimal climate policy and mitigation investment strategy.

In a climate constrained future, hybrid energy-economy model coupling gives additional insight into interregional competition, trade, industrial delocalisation and overall macroeconomic consequences of decarbonising the energy system. Decarbonising the energy system is critical in mitigating climate change. This chapter summarises modelling methodologies developed in the ETSAP community to assess economic impacts of decarbonising energy systems at a global level. The next chapter of this book focuses on a national perspective. The range of economic impacts is regionally dependent upon the stage of economic development, the level of industrialisation, energy intensity of exports, and competition effects due to rates of relative decarbonisation. Developed nation’s decarbonisation targets are estimated to result in a manageable GDP loss in the region of 2 % by 2050. Energy intensive export driven developing countries such as China and India, and fossil fuel exporting nations can expect significantly higher GDP loss of up to 5 % GDP per year by mid-century. © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015.