Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:55:16.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Securing Decarbonisation and Growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Dimitri Zenghelis
Dimitri Zenghelis*
Affiliation:
Cambridge University; LSE; Llewellyn Consulting
*
E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Executive summary

The need to decarbonise the economy in order to slow the pace of climate change is now recognised as one of the most pressing international policy challenges. While the UK cannot by itself materially affect global climate change, it has an opportunity to play an influential role, both by persuading others of the need for action but also by reshaping its domestic economy to benefit from a low-carbon transition.

Far from hampering competitiveness, adoption of a coordinated policy approach to climate change today would generate positive benefits for the UK economy, especially if it addresses the multiple market failures that promote pollution and places decarbonisation at the heart of structural economic policy.

Desirable strategies would include public support for research, development, and deployment of new technologies, and measures to foster an environment where innovation can rapidly shift the economy from dirty to clean production systems. Focusing UK industrial strategy on securing strong domestic supply chains for green products and services, for example, could help create an early mover advantage in rapidly growing global market sectors. Interventions could include the establishment of a National Infrastructure Bank to support decarbonisation in crucial sectors such as energy and transport, and would also need to encompass measures to assist structural adjustment in affected industries and their workforces.

Type
Research Articles
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 250 , November 2019 , pp. R54 - R60
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper has benefited from significant and substantive comments from Nicholas Stern (LSE). Disclaimer: The views, judgements and policy proposals expressed in this chapter are those of the author, but not necessarily those of the critical commentator, Gatehouse Advisory Partners, Llewellyn Consulting, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

References

Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L. and Hémous, D. (2012), ‘The environment and directed technical change’, American Economic Review, 102, pp. 131–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aghion, P., Dechezleprâtre, A., Hémous, D., Martin, R. and Van Reenen, J. (2012), ‘Carbon taxes, path dependency and directed technical change: evidence from the auto industry’, NBER Working Paper No. 18596, December.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aghion, P., Hémous, D. and Veugelers, R. (2009), ‘Kick-starting the green innovation machine’, Bruegel: https://bruegel.org/2009/12/kick-starting-the-green-innovation-machine/.Google Scholar
Aghion, P., Hepburn, C., Teytelboym, A. and Zenghelis, D. (2014), ‘Path dependence, innovation and the economics of climate change’, Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy/Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Policy Paper & Contributing paper to New Climate Economy.Google Scholar
Austin, B.A., Glaeser, E.L. and Summers, L.H. (2018), ‘Jobs for the heartland: place-based policies in 21st Century America’, NBER Working Paper No. 24548, April: https://www.nber.org/papers/w24548.Google Scholar
Averchenkova, A., Stern, N. and Zenghelis, D. (2014), ‘Taming the beasts of ‘burden-sharing’: an analysis of equitable 2030 mitigation pledges’, Grantham Research Institute and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (2019), New Energy Outlook 2019, available at: https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/.Google Scholar
Boyd, R., Green, F. and Stern, N. (2015), ‘The road to Paris and beyond’, Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy and Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, E.A. (2015), ‘Blockadia rising: rowdy greens, direct action and the Keystone XL pipeline’, Critical Criminology, 23, pp. 433–48: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10612-015-9289-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, F.G., Schmidt-Ehmcke, J. and Zloczysti, P. (2010), ‘Innovative activity in wind and solar technology: empirical evidence on knowledge spillovers using patent data’, CEPR Discussion Paper No. 7865.Google Scholar
Collier, P. and Venables, A.J. (2014), ‘Closing coal: economic and moral incentives’, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper No. 157.Google Scholar
Combes, B. and Zenghelis, D. (2014), ‘Tough love’, MacroPlus Comment, Llewellyn Consulting: http://media.wix.com/ugd/264e4c_b24f1969bc844dc1840b7152e5ab0f04.pdf.Google Scholar
Dechezleprâtre, A., Martin, R. and Mohnen, M. (2014), ‘Knowledge spillovers from clean and dirty technologies’, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
Dietz, S. and Stern, N. (2015), ‘Endogenous growth, convexity of damages and climate risk: how Nordhaus’ framework supports deep cuts in carbon emissions’, Centre for Climate Change, Economic Journal, 125, 583, March, pp. 574–620, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12188.Google Scholar
Ekins, and Zenghelis, D. (forthcoming), ‘The costs and benefits of environmental sustainability’, Sustainability Science.Google Scholar
Farmer, J.D. and Lafond, F. (2016), ‘How predictable is technological progress?’, Research Policy, 45 (3), pp. 647–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, C. and Newell, R.G. (2008), ‘Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 55 (2), pp. 142–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Global Commission on the Economy and Climate (2014), ‘Better growth, better climate’, New Climate Economy, www.newclimateeconomy.report/2014.Google Scholar
Green, F. (2018), ‘Anti-fossil fuel norms’, Climatic Change, 150 (1), pp. 103–16: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2134-6., London School of Economics and Political Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haldane, A. (2018), ‘Ideas and institutions – a growth story’, speech given at the Bank of England: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/speech/2018/ideas-and-institutions-a-growth-story-speech-by-andy-haldane.Google Scholar
Hallegatte, S., Heal, G., Fay, M. and Treguer, D. (2012), ‘From growth to green growth – a framework’, http://www.nber.org/papers/w17841.Google Scholar
Hidalgo, C.A., Klinger, B., Barabasi, A.L. and Hausmann, R. (2007), ‘The product space conditions the development of nations’, Science, 317 (5837), pp. 482–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holder, M. (2019), ‘Cheaper than fossil fuels: global renewables costs hit record low’: https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3076511/cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-global-renewables-costs-hit-record-low.Google Scholar
Krugman, P. (1991), ‘History versus expectations’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 2, May, pp. 651–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. (2019), ‘Wells, wires, and wheels – EROCI and the tough road ahead for oil’, BNP Paribas: https://investors-corner.bnpparibas-am.com/investment-themes/sri/petrol-eroci-petroleum-age/.Google Scholar
Lockwood, M. (2013), ‘The political sustainability of climate policy: the case of the UK Climate Change Act’, Global Environmental Change, 23(5), pp. 1339–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mealy, P., Cameron, J. and Hepburn, C.J. (2017), ‘Transformational change: parallels for addressing climate and development goals’, INET, Oxford, October, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34840.44801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (2017), Investing in Climate, Investing in Growth, http://www.oecd.org/economy/taking-action-on-climate-change-will-boost-economic-growth.htm.Google Scholar
Ralph, O. (2018), ‘Insurers go cold on coal industry’, Financial Times, 8 January, available at: https://www.ft.com/content/7ec63f34-f20c-11e7-ac08-07c3086a2625.Google Scholar
Romer, P. (1990), ‘Endogenous technological change’, Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), pp. S71–S102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer, P. (2018), ‘Conditional optimism’: https://paulromer.net/conditional-optimism-technology-and-climate/.Google Scholar
Wagner, G. and Weitzman, M. (2015), Climate Shock: the Economic Consequence of a Hotter Planet, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zenghelis, D. (2018), ‘The role of modelling and scenario development in long-term strategies’, World Resource Institute, Expert Perspectives: https://www.wri.org/climate/expert-perspective/role-modelling-and-scenario-development-long-term-strategies.Google Scholar
Zenghelis, D. (2019a), ‘Mind over matter – how expectations generate wealth’, Bennett Institute, Cambridge: https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/blog/mind-over-matter-how-expectations-generate-wealth/.Google Scholar
Zenghelis, D. (2019b), ‘Nobel for Economics 2018 – a question of imbalance’: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/nobel-for-economics-2018-a-question-of-imbalance/.Google Scholar
Zenghelis, D., Fouquet, R. and Hippe, R. (2018), ‘Stranded assets: then and now’, Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar