solar power africa

Coronavirus relief funds could easily pay to stop the worst of climate change while rebooting economies

Are governments and companies willing and able to turn toward a cleaner, more prosperous future to the benefit of all?

As of late summer, governments around the world had pledged US$12.2 trillion of relief in response to the coronavirus pandemic.


That's around 15 percent of global GDP, three times larger than government spending put forward during and after the 2008-2009 global financial crisis and enough for every adult in the world to receive a $2,000 check.

A good chunk of initial COVID-19 aid funding is being used – quite rightly – to support health care systems, preserve people's livelihoods and stabilize employment. But much is slated for investment into infrastructure and economies. Whether those are climate-friendly investments or not still remains to be seen.

While the world's bout with the virus is far from over, there is already talk amongst leaders like Joe Biden and Boris Johnson about rebuilding toward a more sustainable, more resilient future.

The global economic rebuild could include efforts to avoid the worst impacts of one of today's looming mega-threats: climate change.

Money needed to achieve climate goals

Moving toward a cleaner energy world is cheaper than many people perceive.

My work at the Electric Power Research Institute, University of Tennessee and with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focuses on the costs and benefits of energy and climate decisions made by governments and companies.

According to research done by me and my colleagues, we estimate it would cost around $1.4 trillion per year over the next five years in clean-energy investment to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement. This amount – if invested around the globe in things like solar and wind power, advanced power grids, carbon capture and storage, biofuels, electric vehicles, better insulated homes and other carbon-saving efforts – would start to bend the emissions curve, putting the world on a path to net-zero emissions by midcentury.

In other words, it is by no means impossible to hold global temperature rise to +1.5 C (2.7 F).

A lot is already being spent on climate initiatives

While $1.4 trillion per year sounds like a lot of money, it's actually not so much greater than what is already being spent on clean energy worldwide.

Countries are projected to invest an estimated $1.1 trillion per year over the next five years into low-carbon energy strategies. This pathway would take the world toward 3 degrees Celsius of warming, a level that could be quite harmful for the planet.

Much of this funding comes in response to national, state and local policy mandates and incentives. But a lot is happening thanks to pure economics as well: companies aiming to profit from new clean energy installations, which are becoming increasingly more affordable in many places.

Thus, taking into account the $1.1 trillion per year baked into the system already, the additional amount of clean energy investment needed to get on a 1.5 C track comes to just $0.3 trillion – or $300 billion – per year over the next five years.

For the entire globe, $300 billion per year over five years – or $1.5 trillion cumulative – is not an outrageous sum of money. It represents just one-eighth of the $12.2 trillion governments around the world have announced for COVID-19 relief to date.

Thus, a fraction of current bailout funding could provide the extra near-term boost the world needs to get on track to meet +2 or 1.5 C (+3.6 or 2.7 F) of warming, the levels countries committed to in the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

Change course, then move forward

President-elect Joe Biden is calling for some $1.7 trillion investment in clean energy and energy efficiency over the next 10 years. This level of investment, if also realized in other countries, could put the world on a path to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement.

The U.S. has already committed trillions of dollars for COVID-19 relief, much of which is going toward important needs like patient care, vaccine research and direct economic bailouts. But economic recovery plans contain money for long-term economic growth, too. And that's the money I am suggesting could be directed toward climate-friendly investments.

Meeting the Paris goals will ultimately demand continued and increasing investments going forward, climbing above the $300 billion per year over the next five years that would get the world on track to 1.5 C (2.7 F). Nevertheless, an initial injection of funds into clean energy could achieve two goals: boost the global economy through large infrastructure spending and accelerate the deployment of clean energy production and energy efficiency measures.

Like with so many things, the question seems to be one of political will – are governments and companies willing and able to turn toward a cleaner, more prosperous future to the benefit of all?

Public funding appears to be available – for now – and given how massive this funding is, it provides a unique opportunity to catalyze the development, deployment and dissemination of clean technologies during the next decade, an absolutely critical period in the fight against climate change.The Conversation

David L. McCollum, is a Senior Research Scientist at the University of Tennessee

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Banner photo: The United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) inaugurating a new solar farm in February 2020. (Credit: UNMISS/flickr)

climate crisis insects biodiversity
Photo by MD_JERRY on Unsplash

Why the climate crisis is making our insects run for the hills

Around the world, different species are shifting their habitats upwards, with potentially catastrophic results for our ecosystems.

Senator Whitehouse & climate change

Senator Whitehouse puts climate change on budget committee’s agenda

For more than a decade, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse gave daily warnings about the mounting threat of climate change. Now he has a powerful new perch.
richard revesz pollution climate
Photo by Xan Griffin on Unsplash

Richard Revesz and his agency are remaking the pollution fight

Richard Revesz is changing the way the government calculates the cost and benefits of regulation, with far-reaching implications for climate change.

How Ron DeSantis shaped Florida’s environment

Ron DeSantis won his primary and the governorship, in part by riding the tide of environmentalism in Florida. But four years later and after officially launching a presidential bid, environmentalists and others offer praise and disappointment — sometimes simultaneously.

Planet-friendly farming takes root in drought-hit Tunisia

Permaculture, as an alternative to industrial agriculture, aims to work in harmony with the environment, keep soil structures intact, and do without artificial inputs such as chemical fertilisers or pesticides.

global warming climate flooding
Image by WikiImages from Pixabay

Global warming fueled both the ongoing floods and the drought that preceded them in Italy’s Emilia-Romagna region

In a part of the country famous for its agriculture and cultural identity, climate-driven swings between extreme precipitation and deep drought threaten historic architecture, ancient art and beloved foods.

Leaner snowpack and earlier melt has Western water out of whack, study shows

A new study out of the University of Colorado Boulder shows that less snow is falling and snow is melting earlier in the Mountain West, a trend that has big implications for agricultural, wildfire risk and water supplies.
Thom Krystofiak climate opinion warren buffet
Photo by Maxim Hopman on Unsplash

Thom Krystofiak: Warren Buffett misses the point on climate change

Isn’t there a point where a corporation and its investors have amassed so much wealth that they should be able to recognize there are other goals besides money that desperately need to be pursued?

From our Newsroom
halliburton fracking

How the “Halliburton Loophole” lets fracking companies pollute water with no oversight

Fracking companies used 282 million pounds of hazardous chemicals that should have been regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act from 2014 to 2021.

President Joe Biden climate change

Op-ed: Biden’s Arctic drilling go-ahead illustrates the limits of democratic problem solving

President Biden continues to deploy conventional tactics against the highly unconventional threat of climate change.

oil and gas wells pollution

What happens if the largest owner of oil and gas wells in the US goes bankrupt?

Diversified Energy’s liabilities exceed its assets, according to a new report, sparking concerns about whether taxpayers will wind up paying to plug its 70,000 wells.

Paul Ehrlich

Paul Ehrlich: A journey through science and politics

In his new book, the famous scientist reflects on an unparalleled career on our fascinating, ever-changing planet.

oil and gas california environmental justice

Will California’s new oil and gas laws protect people from toxic pollution?

California will soon have the largest oil drilling setbacks in the U.S. Experts say other states can learn from this move.

Stay informed: sign up for The Daily Climate newsletter
Top news on climate impacts, solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered to your inbox week days.