I recently came across a study regarding the potential for economic growth in a green economy. I found this especially interesting since one of the key components of the anti-green argument has been that economic growth is not possible in an economy shifting towards sustainability. The argument usually goes that we are too dependent on fossil fuels, and renewable energy resources are still too expensive for them to be economically viable. This line maintains that the only way for the economy to continue to grow is to use fossil fuels. This new study argues that shifting to a green economy feasible, and also necessary. 

During the strong growth of the world economy before the 2008 financial crisis, greenhouse gas emissions surged. This came largely from fossil fuel emissions along with deforestation and industry. On its current trajectory, the average global temperature could increase by four degrees Celsius, which could have disastrous effects. It could result in increased frequency of natural disasters, severe pressure on water, and loss of ecosystems and species. The economic costs of just an increase of two degrees Celsius could be even greater. According to the IPCC, it could result in the loss of 0.5-2 percent of global GDP. The question here is not the correctness of global climate change, but is it possible to move to a more sustainable economy without jeopardizing growth? It seems the answer is yes. The commission points to three possible solutions to moving towards a green economy. 

The first potential solution revolves around using land more efficiently. The first point addressed in land use is more mature urban planning. The study focuses on cities becoming more compact and reducing urban sprawl. To do this they point to using buildings more efficiently and increasing public transport infrastructure. Cities, like Atlanta, that are sprawled over a large areas lead to increased driving and fossil fuel emissions. Curtailing the size of cities is possible. In comparison, Barcelona contains the same population size as Atlanta, but covers a much smaller area.

Additionally, agricultural land needs to be used more efficiently. Currently, the focus by policy makers is on agricultural inputs such as fertilizer. Countries provide funding for inputs to increase productivity, but they can also lead to waste and environmental damage. The commission recommends that, “governments should phase out direct agricultural input subsidies, and redirect the savings to pay for the provision of social goods and provide more direct supports to low-income farmers.” They also suggest increasing funding to research and development for more efficient agricultural methods, as well as halting land degradation.

Nearly one quarter of agricultural land in the world is severely degraded. There are methods to reverse this. The commission points to the Loess Plateau in China. Between 1994 and 2005, China mobilized $491 million in funding to curb land degradation. The projects increased grain yields and lifted more than 2.5 million people out of poverty. 

The commission recommends shifting energy policy away from fossil fuels and towards renewable resources. They say that policy makers should only allow new coal construction if all other options are ruled out and the benefits of oil outweigh the costs. Renewable energy resources have emerged as economically viable options. Over a quarter of the growth in electricity generation, between 2006 and 2011, came from renewables. These methods are becoming increasingly affordable and need to be emphasized as an energy source. A first step could be the ending of direct subsidies to fossil fuel production, which has been estimated to be as much as $90 million per year. These subsidies are costly and could be used more efficiently to achieve the same social goals.

The commission also recommend that “governments develop comprehensive plans for phasing out fossil fuels.” They recommend a carbon tax, possibly through a cap-and-trade program. They claim that this will tax,  "an ‘economic bad’ and raise revenue for governments. With smart recycling of revenues they also have the benefit of being relatively non-distortionary in the short run and providing an effective signal to reallocate resources over the medium- to long-term.” These methods could curb the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, curtailing the increase in temperature.

Overall, the commission has put together an economically feasible strategy to a more sustainable future. Achieving this will not be easy. Climate change deniers, and other vested interests, are sure to resist and have the funds to influence politicians. The key is to continue to push.

Last week hundreds of thousands of people flooded New York to raise awareness for climate change. Politicians cannot continue to ignore demands for a better future. It is key that we make sure that people understand what is at stake and that we need to change things. We only have one planet, one chance.