A brown economy is one in which economic growth is largely dependant on environmentally destructive forms of activity, especially fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. One of the byproducts of this form of economy is massive levels of climate change causing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions profile, (including carbon dioxide and methane). Air and water pollution are also a defining feature of this type of economy with their concomitant adverse impacts on a wide range of life forms. In this system economic development depends on finite resources and the level of environmental pollution generated is severe as it is threatening the health of people and the planet.

“Brown growth describes economic development that relies heavily on fossil fuels and does not consider the negative side effects that economic production and consumption have on the environment,” says Uwe Deichmann, Senior Environmental Specialist at the World Bank.

“Green growth,” continues Deichmann, “implies moving to a far cleaner energy system that uses energy more efficiently and to much better natural resource management especially on agricultural lands and in forests.”

The world is shifting from “brown” economy based on fossil fuels to a “green” low-carbon and climate-resilient economy.

An already shifting climate is contributing to floods, droughts, heat waves, forest fires, and other natural disasters.  In 2017, global economic losses from natural disasters and man-made catastrophes were the highest ever amounting to $337 billion. G20 countries, particularly the emerging economies in the G20, are increasingly exposed to the impacts of climate change. According to the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index (ND-GAIN), India, Japan, Indonesia and Brazil are the G20 countries most exposed. In 2012, several countries in the Europe and Central Asia region lost between 25 and 50 percent of the region’s grain crops as a result of droughts and floods.

By taking climate action, countries can mitigate the negative impacts of climate change while simultaneously increasing their economic efficiency and productivity for tomorrow. By shifting from coal-fired electricity generation to lower-emission natural gas and renewables, for example, countries can not only lower their greenhouse gas emissions but also reduce air pollution that causes respiratory health issues – highlighting the types of economic co-benefits which can contribute to making countries more competitive. Although some mitigation measures continue to have net costs – including transition or adjustment costs – the costs associated with future damages that could result from continuing shifts in climate will likely be much higher.

Most estimates place the cost for climate action at approximately 1 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per year and many predict that these costs will eventually transform into benefits – for example in the form of health improvements, reduced energy expenditures and greater productivity. These associated costs nonetheless require countries to identify priority areas for investment.

“Green growth implies moving to a far cleaner energy system that uses energy more efficiently and to much better natural resource management especially on agricultural lands and in forests.”

A green economy is defined as low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive. In a green economy, growth in employment and income are driven by public and private investment into such economic activities, infrastructure and assets that allow reduced carbon emissions and pollution, enhanced energy and resource efficiency, and prevention of the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

A Green Economy can be thought of as an alternative vision for growth and development; one that can generate growth and improvements in people’s lives in ways consistent with sustainable development. A Green Economy promotes a triple bottom line; sustaining and advancing economic, environmental and social well-being.

A Green Economy is characterized by substantially increased investments in economic sectors that build on and enhance the earth’s natural capital or reduce ecological scarcities and environmental risks. These sectors include renewable energy, low-carbon transport, energy efficient buildings, clean technologies, improved waste management, improved freshwater provision, sustainable agriculture and forest management, and sustainable fisheries. These investments are driven by or supported by national policy reforms and the development of international policy and market infrastructure. These investments and policy reforms provide the mechanisms and the financing for the reconfiguration of businesses, infrastructure and institutions, and the adoption of sustainable consumption and production processes. Such reconfiguration leads to a higher share of green sectors contributing to GDP, greener jobs, lower energy and resource-intensive production, lower waste and pollution, and significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions. It can also assist in the reduction of persistent poverty through targeted wealth transfers, new employment, as well as improvements in access and the flow of ecosystem goods and services to the bottom of the economic pyramid.

The passage of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the Paris Agreement on climate change marked a crucial moment, demonstrating a new global consensus that sustainable development needs to be anchored in green solutions if these challenges are to be overcome. As countries move forward on this agenda, partnerships are emerging to generate new pathways for a green economy.

The world will need to build resilient zero carbon economies quickly, which will radically alter some business models and potentially eliminate others. In order to achieve virtual zero carbon (i.e. 90 percent reduction) by 2050 and actual zero (net zero carbon) towards the end of this century, the world needs to phase out fossil fuels, increase the use of renewable energy and dramatically decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) had estimated that $16.5 trillion will need to be invested by 2030 to achieve the ambitious goal of the below 2°C trajectory.

The European Commission expects its carbon cap to cost 0.3–0.7 percent of GDP to 2020.

The World Bank estimates the cost of adapting to a 2°C increase in global average temperatures will be $ 85–121 billion per year between now and 2050, an investment  that will create new business opportunities for some and impose an additional burden on others. Mapping the existing investment in climate adaptation is difficult as few entities report on this as an explicit ledger item, but the Climate Policy Initiative estimated investment flows for climate adaptation of $ 12–16 billion in 2011, implying a shortfall of $ 69–109 billion per year in adaptation investment.

At least $5 trillion of funds have committed to some sort of divestment from fossil fuel companies. Analysis by Arabella Advisors in December 2016 found that 688 institutions and 58,399 individuals across 76 countries have committed to divest from fossil fuel companies.

What is important is to design climate policies that keep these costs as low as possible, which includes taking advantage of economic opportunities that a low-carbon transition brings.

In December 2017, the World Bank announced it is ending its financial support for new oil and gas extraction within the next two years in response to the growing threat posed by climate change. The bank had already ceased lending for new coal-fired power stations.

In order to take advantage of the coming decade and transition towards greener growth, the Growing Green: The Economic Benefits of Climate Action report – which was issued by the World Bank in 2013 – highlighted three strategic areas of investment – energy efficiency, cleaner energy, and improved natural resource management. As energy efficiency offers the best opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, many countries in the region continue to prioritize this sphere for ongoing investment. Large gains are possible in industrial production and the construction sector. Energy efficiency enables a decoupling of economic growth from energy use and emissions and opportunities to reduce energy consumption exist in practically every economic sector.

While energy efficiency improvements stabilize overall energy use and emissions, continued economic growth requires other measures to be introduced as well in order to reduce emissions. Transitioning to cleaner energy sources can help achieve these reductions. Switching from coal to gas for power generation and heating, for example, can reduce emissions by half. Cleaner power generation and transport based on natural gas and renewable energy can also reduce public health costs associated with pollution. An additional opportunity to exploit is the reduction of avoidable emissions from operating the vast gas pipeline networks in the region.

A third strategic area for investment is the rural sector – through improved natural resource management.  The rural sector can augment the mitigation gains from more efficient and cleaner energy use and climate action in the farming and forestry sectors can provide triple wins; lowering emissions, improving crop yields, and increasing the overall resiliency of the sector to climate change. Collectively, greenhouse gases released from agriculture activities in Europe and Central Asia (ECA) account for approximately 6-8 percent of the region’s total. Improvements in farming practices, land management, and livestock keeping can significantly reduce emissions, improve productivity, and increase yields – providing additional food and incomes. In addition to these benefits, expansion of forestry lands in the region and improved forestry practices could greatly reduce emissions. Forests in ECA store 44 billion tons of carbon and topsoil stores an additional 55-120 tons – a combined equivalent of between 8 and 12 times global annual GHG emissions. Furthermore, if forest management in ECA is improved to Scandinavian levels, the region could create 3 million more jobs and expand the global carbon sink even more.

Globally, heat-trapping emissions should drop by 80–90 percent by 2050 in order to reduce the risk of more frequent and severe impacts from flooding, heat waves, droughts, and forest fires in ECA.

Today, as a shifting climate begins imposing some of the biggest challenges for the Europe and Central Asia Region, countries there need to begin a third transition in as many decades – moving from brown growth to green. By continuing on a path that prioritizes energy efficiency, cleaner energy, and more productive farms and forests, countries in this region can overcome many of these anticipated challenges – ensuring future growth that is both ecologically and economically sound.

Energy efficiency and cleaner energy would address severe market failures contributing to the climate change problem. One of these failures is that households and firms often use more energy to perform a given task than is necessary and economically beneficial. Lower or zero-emission energy more directly addresses the contribution of traditional fossil-fuel emissions to local air pollution and global warming.

To ensure a reliable energy supply by 2030, Europe and Central Asia will need to invest in up to 778 gigawatts (GW) of new power generation capacity (additions and replacement of outdated plants), $522 billion in transmission and distribution, and additional resources in an expansion of natural gas networks. These large investments present a chance to transition to a more reliable and more sustainable energy system.

In September 2013, scientists confirmed human activity is causing the climate to change and that the world urgently needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, around 65 percent of which come from burning fossil fuels. The argument underpinning the growing fossil fuel divestment movement is that over 2/3rds of the world’s reserves of oil, coal and gas are “unburnable” if the world is to prevent global temperatures increasing by 2°C – and therefore improve its chances of avoiding runaway climate change.

With the world population predicted to be over 9 billion by 2050, the International Energy Agency predicts energy demand could double by 2050.

 In 2012, renewable energies provided around 10 percent of energy consumed globally, compared to 87 percent from coal, oil and gas. In 2013, investments in renewable energy totaled around $245 billion, with the head of the UN climate change negotiations Christiana Figueres calculating around double that amount is being invested in fossil fuel projects.

It is in the national interest of countries to take climate action, which coincides with other social needs, supports the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and offers substantial economic benefits.

Globally, government revenues could increase to $2.8 trillion by 2030 due to subsidy reform and carbon pricing alone.

On average, 82 percent of the energy supply in the G20 countries – which include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States -was sourced from fossil fuels – the share even increased in Canada, India and Indonesia between 2012 and 2017. The United Kingdom managed to significantly reduce its share of fossil fuels in the energy mix, followed by China and France.

G20 countries account for about 79 percent of global GHG emissions (excluding emissions from forestry) and about 81 percent of global energy-related CO2 emissions.

Climate change requires collective action on a global level; major change has to come from the biggest emitters and economies.

The Chinese city of Huainan has opened the world’s largest floating solar farm, which is built atop a former coal mine, which had become a lake after being flooded with groundwater. The 40MW power plant consists of 120,000 solar panels covering an area of more than 60 American football fields. The $45-million investment could help power 15,000 homes. A floating solar farm is more expensive to build, in order to deal with salt and humidity from water. But, it is on an unused surface, keeping land for agriculture, for instance, and cooling from the water helps improve the efficiency of the solar panels.

Several G20 countries have made major climate policy announcements. Argentina has, for example, announced the launch of a $5.7 billion investment program to push renewable energies. India has also announced the release of the draft Cooling Action Plan, to cut cooling demand by 20 percent to 25 percent by 2037.

France, Japan and the United Kingdom lead with phase-out plans for fossil fuel cars. The US, Canada and Australia have the highest transport emissions per capita.

The UK and France, India and Norway, and the Netherlands already announced in 2017 they will only sell hybrid and electric vehicles from 2040, 2030, and 2025 respectively. The Mayors of London, Los Angeles, Paris, Mexico city and several other major world cities also pledged to ban gasoline and diesel vehicles from “large parts” of their cities by 2030.

The United States is rated poor for its non-existent efforts in phasing out fossil fuel-based light duty vehicles (LDVs). It aims, however, to purchase electric vehicles for 50 percent of its government fleet by 2025. In 2018, the administration delayed implementation of fuel efficiency standards that had mandated doubling fuel efficiency of new vehicles by 2025. The adjusted regulation will no longer require cars and trucks to become more fuel-efficient every year from 2020 onwards.

Canada has the second highest transport emissions per capita in the G20, although these decreased between 2012 and 2017. The country’s motorization rate is high – 669 vehicles per 1,000 inhabitants. With 1.1 percent, its market share of electric vehicles is small compared to its G20 peers. Canada’s policies on phasing out fossil fuel-based LDVs are rated medium. The government has adopted emission and fuel standards for LDVs. Some provinces provide financial incentives on the purchase of electric vehicles.

Australia has the third highest transport emissions per capita in the G20. These still show an increasing trend. For every 1,000 inhabitants, there are 762 vehicles in Australia. The country’s share of electric vehicles (0.1 percent) is negligible. Australia receives a poor rating as there are very few policies in the transport sector. The government provides exemptions from some vehicle taxes for highly efficient vehicles. In contrast to other developed countries, Australia does not have any efficiency or CO2 emissions standards for passenger vehicles. Passenger vehicles are responsible for the largest share of emissions.

Urgent action in G20 countries is needed to reduce emissions in this sector to zero by 2050 if the Paris Agreement goals are to be reached. Policy efforts in the transport sector in these countries are still limited. France, Japan and the United Kingdom are the only ones that have a high policy rating.

India has the lowest transport emissions per capita in the G20, but at 20 percent it has the third highest growth rate in the past five years. India’s motorization rate is still the lowest; there are 17 vehicles per 1,000 inhabitants. Its market share of electric vehicles remains very low (0.06 precent in 2017). With regard to phasing out fossil-based LDVs, India receives only a medium rating; the government promotes the deployment of electric vehicles (EVs), however, it has recently dropped the target of 100 percent EV sales by 2030. In 2018, the government launched a new National Electric Mobility Program focusing on charging infrastructure and government procurement of EVs.

Indonesia has the second lowest transport emissions per capita in the G20. Indonesia’s motorization rate – 50 vehicles per 1,000 inhabitants – is higher than that of India, but is still low compared to the G20. Indonesia is rated poor for its transport policy as it has no target to phase out fossil fuel-based LDVs.

Away from the transportation sector, buildings account for about 40 percent of world energy consumption, therefore the rising trend of making buildings more energy efficient is smart business with assists to make local market jobs and added benefits to the environment, even though the main inspiration for energy efficiency initiatives has always been energy cost savings, government incentives and improved public image were important.

Increasing energy efficiency through measures such as building efficiency has the possibilities to gradual the development of energy demand in developing nations around the world by more than 50 percent by 2020. Building efficiency codes and standards are regulatory instruments that need a minimum amount of energy efficiency in buildings, appliances, equipment or lighting when they are properly designed, they might cost-effectively lower energy costs over each and every item’s lifetime. Energy efficiency improvement targets are aims which can be established for a country or town. Setting a targeted for the whole geography can stimulate greater measures particularly if there is an organization accountable for achieving that target. Furthermore, governments can set efficiency enhancement goals for publicly-owned properties to develop capacity and promote the building efficiency industry.

Emission intensity in the industry sector is heavily influenced by the structure of industry; many developed countries have outsourced heavy industries leading to a lower intensity when emissions are counted and attributed according to territorial boundaries. If emissions from goods produced elsewhere were taken into account, developed countries’ emissions would be roughly 10 percent to 20 percent higher. Considering industrial production emissions (e.g. byproduct of conversion of raw materials to mineral, metal or chemical products), South Africa, China and Russia have the highest emission intensity in the industry sector and lack ambitious policies with a long-term vision.

 South Africa has by far the highest emission intensity in this sector compared to its G20 peers.

China has the second highest emission intensity in the industry sector. For the top 10,000 energy-consuming companies, a program for energy conservation and low-carbon developments is in place.

Russia has the third highest emission intensity in the industry sector with a slightly decreasing trend of 3 percent. The country requires mandatory energy audits for large energy consumers and transition to best available technologies by 2025.

Moreover, forestry is one of key factors that can curb greenhouse gas emissions.Indonesia, Argentina and Brazil have the highest forest loss in the G20.

In 2017, Argentina adopted a National Action Plan on Forests and Climate Change, to reduce GHG emissions from the forest sector.

Brazil had in 2008 set itself a target of reaching “net zero deforestation“ by 2015 but has corrected this to a target of “zero illegal deforestation“ by 2030. The country’s climate policy in the forest sector is thus rated medium. The deforestation rate in the Amazon forest dropped by 76 percent from 2005 to 2012 but increased again by 52 percent from 2012 to 2017. This recent trend is not consistent with Brazilian National Determined Contributions (NDC) goals. The government plans to reforest an area of 12 million hectares by 2030, and launched in 2017 a revised monitoring system to fight illegal logging.

China, Germany and India present targets for reaching at least net zero deforestation by the 2020s, which is 1.5°C-compatible. These countries thus receive a frontrunner rating. China aims to increase the country‘s tree coverage from 21.7 percent to 23 percent from 2016 to 2020, leading to net zero deforestation. According to its 2050 Climate Plan Germany aims to increase its forest area over the next decades.

The Indian government is currently revising its forest policy to align with India‘s NDC; the draft policy aims to have at least one-third of the total land area under forest and tree cover. The current level is 24.4 percent, so India is seeking to increase its total forest cover.

Agriculture also lies at the heart of a green economy. In the coming decades, the world will need to feed billions of people against a backdrop of declining soil fertility and growing water scarcity. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that annual food production will have to increase from 8.4 billion tons to 13.5 billion tons to provide for a projected population of 9.7 billion in 2050.

According to the Food and Agriculture Authority, one-third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally, which amounts to an estimated 1.3 billion tons per year. That means a third of the inputs are wasted, whether scarce water or fertilizers. Reducing food waste has multiple benefits.

Many G20 governments are putting policies in place for greening the financial system and (re)directing finance towards low-carbon, climate-resilient opportunities. These include policies on climate-related financial disclosure, green market development such as green bonds standards, climate-related credit policies and lending requirements for banks or climate-related investment requirements of public funds and development finance institutions. Argentina, China, Italy and South Africa are all developing financial system roadmaps, or plans to enhance the financial system’s ability to mobilize private capital for green investment. While increasing numbers of G20 countries are pursuing routes to increase green finance, few have systematically joined these to plans for phasing out or redirecting brown financing.

Green bonds are one of key ways for financing green projects. In 2008, the World Bank issued the first green bond—and with it, created a new way to connect financing from investors to climate projects. The bond created the blueprint for today’s green bond market. It defined the criteria for projects eligible for green bond support.

The World Bank green bond raised awareness for the challenges of climate change and demonstrated the potential for investors to support climate solutions through safe investments without giving up financial returns. It formed the basis for the Green Bond Principles coordinated by the International Capital Markets Association (ICMA). It highlighted the social value that bonds could create and the need for a sharper focus on transparency.

Since then, the World Bank has raised more than US$13 billion through almost 150 green bonds in 20 currencies for institutional and retail investors all over the globe.

At the end of the fiscal year 2018, there were 91 eligible projects and a total of $15.4 billion in commitments. Of these commitments, $8.5 billion in Green Bond proceeds were allocated and disbursed to support projects in 28 countries and another $6.8 billion had yet to be disbursed.

As of mid 2018, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency and Clean Transportation projects represented the largest sectors in the Green Bond eligible project portfolio. Together, these sectors made up approximately 69 percent of the Green Bond commitments.

Public finance also has  a significant impact on the transition to a low-carbon economy – in stimulating innovation, helping to mainstream new technologies, overcoming market barriers to private investment, as well as providing direct investment to climate action. In advanced economies, for example, public resources contribute about 40 percent of the infrastructure investment. Governments steer investments through their public finance institutions, both at home and overseas, including development banks and green investment banks. Developed G20 countries also have an obligation to provide financing to developing countries; public sources are a key aspect of these obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Business Green journalist James Murray called for exercising more pressure on governments to deliver national policies in support of these corporate goals. Corporates who are desperate to buy clean power will urge governments to deliver.

National plans to deliver the Paris Agreement should be strengthened, he added, noting that the market or the clean tech companies who can make the Science Based Targets a reality will be gargantuan. The world’s largest multinationals are saying ‘build this stuff at a good price and we will buy it’. This is the point that clean tech R&D has been betting on.

He added that there is a widening divergence between the fossil fuel industry’s projections and the implied projections of other corporate giants.

By 2017, more than 300 companies had used Science-Based Targets, with a total market capital equivalent to the entire NASDAQ –  an American stock exchange. It is the second-largest stock exchange in the world by market capitalization.

These companies are aiming to achieve 30-40 percent cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and over 80 percent reductions by 2050. In effect, these goals amount to re-imaging the entire business model for these companies.

13 of the UK’s 15 largest industrial sectors are less effective than global competitors in low-carbon innovation. Large parts of UK industry may therefore be at risk of losing market share to cleaner competitors in Germany, Japan and elsewhere.

The price of off-shore wind has halved in two years (2015-2017). The UK Government awarded contracts for 3.2GW of new capacity to three projects with an average price of £66 per MWh. These results mean offshore wind, onshore wind and solar are now cheaper than new gas and new nuclear projects.

A Solar Settlement in Freiburg, Germany, comprises 59 homes that are the world’s first to have a positive energy balance, with each home producing $5,600 per year in solar energy profits.

Hitachi Europe is working to make the United Kingdom’s Scilly Isles the ‘Smart Energy Islands’, which will be a test-bed for its work developing smart grid technologies.

Policies in different countries have pushed companies to consider their waste. For instance, landfill and incineration taxes introduced in a number of countries across the world are enforcing the application of extended producer responsibility on a number of product streams; there are a growing number of ‘zero waste’ / ‘circular economy’ strategies being adopted by regions and cities.

Even as companies were pushed, they found opportunities. Companies that have pursued a circular economy have found many business benefits. There are often significant cost savings through increased resource efficiency. They also help companies tap into new growth opportunities that ensure the future of the company in the face of risks and changing customer expectations.

American company Newlight has commercialized a carbon capture technology that combines air with methane-based greenhouse gas emissions to produce a plastic material that can match the performance of oil-based plastics and out-compete on price.  By weight, in its most basic form, this plastic is approximately 40 percent oxygen from air and 60 percent carbon and hydrogen from captured carbon emissions. It has been independently-verified as a carbon-negative material, including all energy, materials, transportation, product use, and end-of-life/disposal associated with the material.

Cambridgeshire based Aponic Ltd have developed vertical, soil-less growing designs that use 90 percent less water than traditional agriculture, run on rain water and solar power and, due to their closed-loop, recirculating system do not emit harmful run-off into the environment whilst massively reducing the need for fossil fuels in food production. The designs can be wall or frame mounted to fill any space and their inherently modular nature generates the potential for crops to be grown in town centers, on the doorstep of customers and retailers alike – shifting the ‘farm to fork’ concept to one of ‘plant to plate’. Furthermore, crops can be grown on low-value, contaminated land or in abandoned buildings. Food miles and expensive transit facilities are eliminated, with the point of harvest being closer to consumption. This also contributes to fresher produce and helps to reduce food waste as growing tends to be based on orders rather than bulk supplies.

Newlight illustrates the overlap between material innovation and the circular economy. New materials can be the result of recovering ‘waste’ in new ways. Also, material innovation is needed so products can keep their performance during the ‘use’ phase, but then be easy to go round the next loop.

Jaguar Land Rover’s REALCAR is innovative in technology and industrial process. When Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) is planning its future fleet – which has to have lower carbon emission for compliance reasons – they want lightweight materials, like aluminium. But creating new aluminium from bauxite is very energy intensive.That makes it a risky material to rely on in the move to a low-carbon economy. Recycled aluminium is much less energy intensive. But the aluminium used in cars is a different alloy from that used in cans, which is different again from that used in electronics.

Hence, JLR is developing a new alloy called RivAlloy, which can tolerate higher levels of impurities from aluminium scrap castings that were previously disregarded. This reduces the amount of aluminium sent to landfill, whilst also cutting transport emissions since UK materials can be used, rather than the current imports.

This is a keystone company pursuing the benefits of a circular economy, from security of supply to buttressing a licence to operate. It also shows the complexity of reconfiguring the status quo. There is an existing linear way of doing thing that is embedded into the nitty gritty of how the supplier incentives, the known performance of materials, the ownership and disposal of cars, and more. Reconfiguring to a circular economy requires innovation throughout, from the materials being used to the incentives and infrastructure that gets the aluminium back.

Bank of England Governor Mark Carney has made it clear that: “Financing the de-carbonization of our economies implies a sweeping reallocation of resources and a technological revolution. The speed at which such re-pricing occurs is uncertain but could be decisive for financial stability. There have already been a few high profile examples of jump-to-distress pricing because of shifts in environmental policy or performance.”

In the context of the continued aftermath of the financial crisis: “ …green finance is a major opportunity. By ensuring that capital flows finance long-term projects in countries where growth is most carbon intensive, financial stability can be promoted. By absorbing excess global saving, equilibrium interest rates can be raised and macroeconomic stability enhanced. And by allocating capital to green technologies, the prospects for an environmentally sustainable recovery in global growth will increase.”

In September 2017, the UK government initiated a Green Finance Taskforce, to build on the UK’s global leadership in the sector, that brings together senior leaders from the financial sector.

This Taskforce was planned to work with industry to accelerate the growth of green finance, and help deliver the investment required to meet the UK’s carbon reduction targets.

The UAE has also joined the march of the green economy. As a hub for private sector investment and innovation, the UAE is well positioned to help catalyze progress towards 2030, building on its role as one of the world’s leading providers of development and humanitarian assistance, and the vision for Dubai to emerge as a global capital of the green economy. In June 2017, the financing for Phase 3 of the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park in Dubai was completed. This phase set a world-record-low tariff for solar power generation; 2.99 US cents per kilowatt-hour. On completion in 2030, the 16 square-kilometer 5000MW photovoltaic plant will be the largest of its kind in the world, generating around 2.5 million MWh of electricity per annum. Unlike conventional solar power arrays, the third phase of the solar park will use tilting panels that track the sun, thereby maximizing output.

Dubai has a number of policies around energy that are combining for a green economy. In 2015, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, announced the Dubai Clean Energy Strategy 2050. This has a progression of targets, to 75 percent of renewable energy sources by 2050. As one of the first steps to facilitate this goal, the Dubai Electricity & Water Authority (DEWA) created the Shams Dubai solar program in early 2015. This program allows DEWA customers to install solar panels on their property, and utilize the produced solar energy to reduce their monthly electricity bill.

Back in 2014, the Dubai Municipality launched Green Building Regulation and Services, which covered all new public and private buildings. In July 2016, Dubai launched the Al Safat (‘date palm’) rating system, which has Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum levels.

Dubai’s efforts sit within the United Arab Emirates’ plans to invest $163 billion to boost its use of alternative energy over the next three decades. That should increase clean energy’s share of UAE consumption from 25 percent to 50 per cent by 2050. The country also hopes to increase energy efficiency by 40 percent over the same period.

Turning from brown economy to Green economy will also have a remarkable impact on jobs. Ambitious climate action could create more than 65 million new low-carbon jobs worldwide and prevent 700,000 premature deaths from air pollution in 2030.

The Better Business, Better World 2017 report  said that achieving the Global Goals opens up $12 trillion of market opportunities in the four economic systems; food and agriculture, cities, energy and materials, and health and well-being. They represent around 60 percent of the real economy and are critical to delivering the Global Goals. The Better Business, Better World report identified 60 sustainable and inclusive market ‘hotspots’ across four sectors; energy, cities, food and agriculture, and health and wellbeing. It predicts economic growth in these hotspots to be two to three times faster than average GDP during the next 10-15 years, generating at least $12 trillion and creating 380 million jobs by 2030.

There are national or regional governmental initiatives to learn from in Australia, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, Indonesia, South Africa and the United States. For example, a federal taskforce develops a just transition plan for coal workers and communities in Canada. The Chinese government will allocate 30 billion yuan ($4.56 billion) over the next three years to support the closure of small, inefficient coal mines and redeploy around 1 million workers. Currently there are nearly 3.5 million workers in coal mining.

France’s draft finance bill for 2019 includes a ten-year compensation fund to make up for the loss of revenue for local authorities caused by the closure of coal power stations. France’s “Just transition” entered the French political discourse following President Emannuel Macron’s election in 2017, with the formation of the Ministry of Ecological and Inclusive Transition. France’s Climate Plan prioritizes closing the four remaining coal power stations by 2022; national coal and shipping unions have expressed opposition to this deadline. The plan calls for a “managed transition”, emphasizing the need to support affected workers in the short and medium terms. Subsequently, the draft finance bill for 2019 plans to create a ten-year compensation fund to make up for the loss of revenue for local authorities caused by the closure of coal power stations. Meanwhile, similar local support schemes have already been agreed with nine other regions, which support local mitigation projects or green start-ups, rather than wholesale industrial restructuring.

Indonesia is the world’s fourth largest producer of coal and the tenth largest producer of natural gas, and is increasingly reliant on oil imports. In 2015, Indonesia introduced a new fuel pricing mechanism that effectively reduces subsidies on imported oil and gasoline. While it is difficult to determine impacts on employment, the reduced budget allocation to fuel subsidies allowed greater spending in socially linked programs to boost growth and reduce poverty indirectly including developing a universal health coverage program

South Africa’s economy is highly coal-dependent, and the coal mining sector employs 80,000 workers. South Africa has high levels of poverty and unemployment; ensuring a just transition has therefore been explicitly recognized as a priority in national policy. Moreover, South Africa is the only country to directly refer to “an inclusive and just transition” in its NDC. Currently, a social dialogue process has been launched by South Africa’s National Planning Commission to develop just transition sustainable development pathways, but explicit transition policies for workers and communities are not yet in place.

According to the 2016 Solar Job Census, one out of every 50 new US jobs was in the solar industry, and employment growth in that industry outpaced that of the overall US economy by 17 times as it increased by over 51,000 jobs.

The total of 260,000 US solar workers is more than the 190,000 who are employed at coal, oil, and natural gas power plants. That comes at the same time as many different types of US jobs come under pressure from automation, with estimates varying from 10 percent to 53 per cent in some regions.

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) is fully committed to supporting countries as they transition to a sustainable and inclusive development path, in line with the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement. Transitioning to low-carbon, climate-resilient economies consistent with the ambitions of the Paris Agreement requires mobilizing green finance and redirecting fossil fuel-based, brown finance. The scale of investment needed to meet countries’ NDCs will be substantial. The International Energy Agency (IEA) (2015) estimated that the full implementation of country pledges would require energy sector investment of $13.5 trillion between 2015 and 2030. Even irrespective of climate mitigation considerations, huge infrastructure investments in this sector are required due to the ageing energy system in industrialized countries and lacking or limited energy access in developed countries. Public and private actors need to act. Governments and public institutions are crucially important in creating an enabling environment to finance the transition with three core tools at their disposal are financial policies and regulations; fiscal policy levers; and public finance. Private green investment is both an output of the application of these tools, and a catalyst to further green investment.

Joining the green economy march, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) adopted the Green Economy Transition (GET) approach to help countries where the EBRD works build low carbon and resilient economies. Through the GET approach, the EBRD will increase green financing to 40 percent of its annual business volume by 2020.

To date, the EBRD has signed €30 billion in green investments, financed over 1600 green projects and reduced over 100 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year.

GET investments range from renewable energy projects in Egypt to energy efficiency investments in Ukraine’s corporate sector. They also include interventions in sustainable transport in Eastern Europe, waste minimization projects, and investments that improve the climate resilience of our clients in Central Asia.

Most EBRD countries are middle-income economies in political, economic and social transition. As with any transition, this implies many challenges, including global competitiveness, demographic change, and energy security.

Carbon intensity and climate vulnerability are also key issues for EBRD countries. The regions’ carbon intensity is almost five times higher than the EU average, and EBRD countries are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

As high carbon economies, these countries face significant pressures on their environmental assets – including land, soil, water, air and biodiversity—thus posing a risk to the health and livelihood of their citizens.

The GET approach builds on more than two decades of EBRD experience in financing green investments, with an initial focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy.

The GET approach uses the full range of the EBRD’s financial instruments. EBRD also works closely with donors such as Climate Investment Funds, the European Union, the Global Environment Facility, the Green Climate Fund and other bilateral donors to mobilize climate finance.

The largest climate finance donors are Japan, France, Germany, the European Union and the United Kingdom, each providing between $1.5 billion and $10 billion per year in 2015/2016. The United Kingdom remains the highest contributor via the multilateral climate funds, while Japan, France and Germany remain highest bilateral contributors. A number of developing G20 countries have shown leadership in international climate finance provision. Though not obliged to provide climate finance, many have pledged to the multilateral climate funds. South Korea, Mexico, China, Brazil, Russia, India, South Africa and Indonesia have all provided resources on a voluntary basis, equating to shares of between $0.02 million and $8.9 million of approvals through these funds in 2015/2016.

Along with funding green investments, EBRD also work closely with countries and private sector partners to create enabling environments needed for sustainable investments.This includes supporting countries through the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) Support Program, working with governments to support the development of strong institutional and regulatory frameworks, and collaborating with industry associations to develop low carbon sector pathways.

The GET approach is aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement, and is delivered through the EBRD’s unique business model, and its sector and country  strategies.

The world is striving to turn from brown economy to the green one to save the planet. A green economy is not merely desirable, it is an imperative.

اترك تعليقا

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment *

Name *

Email *

Website

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.