A new report shows just how cheap and easy it would be to save the world

A wildfire rages in a forest at night
Tracy Keeling

Despite the climate crisis already costing many countries a fortune, some politicians still claim that concerted climate action is too expensive to undertake. However, a new report has put a price tag on such action. It looks at how much it would cost over the next five years to put the world on track to meet the Paris Agreement climate goals. The report found that, in contrast to the ‘too expensive’ claim, it would be relatively cheap and easy to get there.

All we need is the political will and the spirit of comradery. Ah, there’s the rub.

“Well within budget”

Researchers from Imperial College London, Climate Analytics in Berlin, and the Electric Power Research Institute in the United States led the analysis. They tallied up the amounts global governments have promised in coronavirus (Covid-19) stimulus packages and compared this with the investment needed to hit the Paris goals. The Paris Agreement’s core aim is to keep the global temperature rise, aka global warming, “well below” 2C, capping it at 1.5C if possible. The researchers used estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to calculate the cost of the changes in energy production and efficiency required to hit this aim. According to senior author Dr Joeri Rogelj, they concluded:

Our findings show that investing in solutions to limit warming to 1.5°C is well within budget. In fact, the increase in low-carbon energy investments required over the next five years to move the world on track to meet the Paris Agreement targets is about eight times smaller than the total current COVID-19 stimulus.

By August, governments had promised over $12tn in coronavirus stimulus packages. The analysis, meanwhile, found that a yearly investment of only $1.4tn is needed between 2020 and 2024 to make the necessary changes for a greener, more efficient energy system in line with the Paris goals. So if one tenth of the coronavirus stimulus packages pledged so far were directed towards saving the planet, we could make a start on doing exactly that.

Not a trade-off

The researchers made it clear that when it comes to saving the planet and saving economies battered by the pandemic, the two aren’t mutually exclusive either. Climate Analytics’ Marina Andrijevic explained:

If just a fraction of this money was invested in climate-positive recovery plans, the world could achieve net zero carbon energy by mid-century. This is not about diverting money from COVID-19 stimulus or other low-carbon investments in industry, research and development, but providing for the win-win solution of a boosted economy that simultaneously helps our efforts to stall climate change.

Essentially, the researchers argue that governments should provide coronavirus stimulus by investing in the technologies and innovations necessary for tackling the climate crisis. Rogelj said:

Climate-positive recovery packages provide many benefits governments are looking for to get out of this crisis: they can boost employment and stimulate innovation, thus accelerating the development of technologies required for a global low-carbon transformation.

Not a side note

There are a couple of other vital elements to the research. Firstly, alongside putting investments into green energy, governments need to pull investments – such as subsidies – out of dirty energy. Globally, divesting from fossil fuels would save governments around $280bn per year. Of course, these funds could then be used instead for the clean energy investments. Which, in turn, would drop the overall extra investment needed for hitting the Paris targets down further.

Secondly, not all coronavirus stimulus packages are equal. And nor are all countries starting from the same point when it comes to what investment is needed to create decarbonised and comprehensive energy sectors. The US and Europe, for example, have pledged more in their recovery packages than India. But the latter needs more investment, proportionally, when it comes to meeting its population’s green energy needs. As co-author Dr David McCollum said:

The differing situations between developed and emerging economies in these times of crisis remind us of the need to look beyond borders and to collaborate internationally so that a climate-positive recovery benefits everyone, everywhere.

We’re all connected

So we easily have the means to move towards a net zero carbon energy world. We’ve also got a golden opportunity in the coronavirus recovery planning to create a greener economy. All we need now is to employ the political will and “look beyond borders”.

The climate crisis doesn’t pay attention to nation states. CO2 emissions emanating from the US, for example, don’t stop flowing when they hit Donald Trump’s border wall. So to tackle the crisis, we have to act collectively and according to what’s needed in each part of the world. It’s either that or welcoming the “uninhabitable hell” that is our future if we don’t take collaborative and concerted action.

The choice is ours.

Featured image via Lil Dicky / YouTube

We need your help ...

The coronavirus pandemic is changing our world, fast. And we will do all we can to keep bringing you news and analysis throughout. But we are worried about maintaining enough income to pay our staff and minimal overheads.

Now, more than ever, we need a vibrant, independent media that holds the government to account and calls it out when it puts vested economic interests above human lives. We need a media that shows solidarity with the people most affected by the crisis – and one that can help to build a world based on collaboration and compassion.

We have been fighting against an establishment that is trying to shut us down. And like most independent media, we don’t have the deep pockets of investors to call on to bail us out.

Can you help by chipping in a few pounds each month?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. More tripe. You couldn’t resist ‘Trump’s Border Wall’ could you.
      Rio, Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris….all pie in the sky crap with no real focus, just idealistic bs. If emissions are to be truly cut, embracing nuclear power is the only real option. But misinformed hairy soap dodgers will always fight that option in lieu of ineffectual solutions such as solar and wind that cause their own massive ecological damage.

      1. More tripe?? Coming from you??? The irony lol The complete lack of self-awareness. Priceless.

        Can you even hear yourself? Solar and wind are ineffectual solutions that cause massive ecological damage? Nuclear power is the way to go? Really? So when was the last “solar and wind” disaster that left a city abandoned and uninhabitable?

        As for the hairy soap dodger thing… F*** being you.

    2. Despite the rant of DRS bot, and given that we all share the one planet, one has to ask why there appears so much reticence among the 1% to ecological repair. Obviously they have a prefence for ‘green investment opportunities’ that will increase their personal wealth and power even though that rationale is the major contributer to the process of global warming (ie big oil and myth of plastic recycling). However, nutters aside (DRS, Bozo & Don Fart), in the existing situation the more one has the more one has to lose when it comes to material possessions. The rest of us are fucked anyway paying for your ‘free money’.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.