Remember, too, that many green technologies and energy-efficient solutions are cheaper than traditionalfossil-fuel-based options and can enable rapid absolute decoupling (at least in terms of carbon emissions).However, they still tend to require large upfront investments, which are easier to manage with larger financial re-sources. Also, higher GDP correlates with large tax revenues, and GDP growth correlates with higher fiscal space,and therefore a greater ability of governments to invest in the infrastructure needed to decarbonize the economy.It also makes them better able to afford the social expenditures needed to help poor people shift to environmen-tally friendly practices and technologies.However, I am quite clear that a focus on GDP growth cannot replace environmental policy. It is especially thecase for global public goods, like biodiversity or climate change, when individual or even local action cannot makea visible impact in the absence of national or global action.6.2|But we can be optimistic about decouplingJason is sceptical about models that suggest that GDP growth can be compatible with sufficiently rapid transitionto zero emissions and extensive material recycling. It is always good to look carefully at the results from thesemodels, and consider their limitations.
20 of 24|HICKELANDHALLEGATTEI share Jason’s views on the risks from bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration, especially for foodsecurity and biodiversity. The scenarios with massive negative emissions do not seem very plausible. I am moreoptimistic on direct air capture. While it would indeed consume a lot of energy, one characteristic of power sys-tems close to 100% of renewable energy is that they tend to generate too much power at certain times of the dayor the year. This is free energy, at least until long-term electricity storage becomes much more mature and cost-competitive, and it could be used for direct air capture.Generally, I remain more optimistic than Jason.•Jason says that most of our material consumption cannot be recycled, citing food, as well as buildings andinfrastructure. Buildings and infrastructure will need to be recycled as basic construction materials—like sand—become rarer, and as this recycling becomes increasingly possible (US EPA, 2021). The big challenge will befood, of course. Healthier and more environmentally friendly diets combined with a sharp reduction in foodwaste should be a priority, but the challenge is not about food itself but about the use of land (Searchinger etal., 2019).•Even though economic models do not explicitly represent technological change and productivity growth (the“manna from heaven” Jason refers to), it remains true that transforming current economies into zero-carboneconomies is expected to have a minor, almost negligible, effect on GDP. And, as I argued repeatedly, manyco-benefits from shifting to zero-carbon economies, such as the reduction in air pollution or the time lost incongestion, are ignored in many of these models and could make that cost negative, especially over the mediumto long run.
Upload your study docs or become a
Course Hero member to access this document
Upload your study docs or become a
Course Hero member to access this document
End of preview. Want to read all 24 pages?
Upload your study docs or become a
Course Hero member to access this document
