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

A wildfire rages in a forest at night
Support us and go ad-free

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.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

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

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

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.