Customize the use of cookies

This website uses cookies to provide more efficient navigation and analyze visitor traffic. You will find detailed information about them below.

Cookies classified as "Necessary" will be stored in your browser, as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. We also use third-party cookies aimed at analytics (Google Analytics), which help us analyze how you use this website. You can choose to enable or disable some of these cookies, but doing so may affect your browsing experience.

Always Active

These cookies are required to provide basic functionality of the website and cannot be disabled. They do not store any private or personally identifiable data.

These cookies allow us to understand how visitors interact with the website and provide information related to the number of visits, traffic sources, and bounce rates.

These cookies are used to provide visitors with personalized ads based on the pages they previously visited and to analyze the effectiveness of advertising campaigns. They are usually related to the integration of social media videos on the website.

Green growth alone causes greater inequality, a new model suggests. But there are socially just alternatives.

By André Cieplinski

Our team at the University of Pisa, in partnership with LOCOMOTION, published the results of our simulation exploring alternative routes towards a low-carbon transition with social justice. ‘Feasible alternatives to green growth’ was published in Nature Sustainability, on 9 March 2020, and compares alternative policy-mixes to achieve EU targets in greenhouse gas emissions while improving employment and income distribution.

The study is based on the Eurogreen model, calibrated for France, which combines recent developments in ecological macroeconomics and post-Keynesian economics to project three alternative scenarios from 2014 to 2050: Green Growth, Policies for Social Equity (PSE), and De-growth.

The Green Growth scenario combines the development of renewable energy sources with market incentives for innovation and energy efficiency. Even if it is successful at reducing emissions, it involves an increase in unemployment and inequality compared with our baseline. Moreover, the environmental performance of Green Growth is due to its failure to boost GDP growth. If it were to increase economic growth, this would lead to higher emissions.

The remaining two scenarios represent alternatives to Green Growth and suggest that there are other viable paths towards a fairer low-carbon economy.

PSE adds radical social policies, such as a job guarantee programme and a reduction of five hours to the working week, to the energy and innovation incentives of green growth. This scenario was designed to reflect the ideas of the proposed Green New Deal in America. PSE reduces emissions as much as Green Growth while improving income distribution and employment, but at the cost of higher public deficits.

The final scenario assessed de-growth or post-growth, i.e. an economy founded on the principles of sufficiency, efficiency and solidarity rather than the pursuit of infinite economic growth. It considered a voluntary reduction in private consumption and a wealth tax on top of all the policies implemented in PSE. Despite its negative effects on GDP, the accompanying radical social policies were still able to maintain low unemployment rates and reduce inequality, while the fall in consumption and production resulted in greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

The article concludes that alternative strategies might be just as or even more effective than green growth to reduce CO2 emissions while also improving social conditions, at the expense of government balances. The take-home message is that, although each policy package brings about trade-off, the road toward a sustainable and just transition must include radical social policies.

The paper details and access link are given below.

DOI :10.1038/s41893-020-0484-y.