I worry that the scale of the green stimulus that our economy requires is misunderstood. Business Green has reported that:
[A new report from WWF] - entitled Keeping us Competitive and produced by Vivid Economics - suggests transitioning to net zero emissions could offer at least 210,000 jobs in 2030 and 351,000 in 2050 from sectors such as green buildings, electric vehicles and power.
It also calculates the net zero transition could yield over £90bn of annual benefits to the UK through improved health and living conditions, delivering economic gains that significantly outweigh any costs.
"A green stimulus is the best way to support economic recovery and build resilience," the report states. "Investment in low carbon infrastructure can boost long-term productivity and high returns, as every pound spent on low-carbon investment options returns 3-8 times the initial investment."
This comes amid many reports that the government is planning a green stimulus package next month.
But let's get clear the scale of the change required.
To get to scale it would probably cost £100 billion a year.
To tackle unemployment it needs to create vastly more than 210,000 jobs: there are going to be many millions unemployed.
And to create real change it is going to have to be big.
Just think of it like this. There are 30 million properties in the UK. Most are hopelessly energy inefficient. To upgrade them all between now and 2050 (which is far too late) will require that 20,000 a week are tackled. That's 20,000 sets of windows, and insulation, and heat pumps and solar panels, every week.
That's the scale of what is required.
That's a massive investment.
Alone that requires a large part of £30 billion year, which is what WWF are suggesting spending.
And it's only a part of the green agenda. The real cost could easily be £100 billion a year.
We need to stop playing on the peripheries of this issue: the scale of action required is enormous and more than enough to sustain this economy. Besides which, we really have no choice.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
An outfit called Carbon Tracker have produced a report called: Decline & Fall – the size and vulnerability of the fossil fuel system. It makes for very sobering reading. In terms of the Uk and the two big companies Shell and BP, they need to get their skates on – the end of fossils is in sight. I mention this because an energy transition needs large well organised companies (as well as new growing companies) if we are going to get where we need to be. There is also the aspect, often mentioned by you, that pension funds need in invest in assets that provide a return. Very soon the spaces that BP & Shell play in – will not offer any sort of return – where dividends then?. “Soon” is likely to be 3, 5, 8 years – take your pick.
The report is well worth a read. I agree with the £100bn/year & you would think that if the gov’ made low cost money available, it would suck in the likes of the big fossil players. My final concern is that the current gov’ of clowns is functionally incapable of doing what needs to be done.
Carbon Tracker has a good track record
Interesting article in the Guardian by Andrew Bailey (BoE Governor), Mark Carney (ex-Gov) plus the Governor of the Banque de France.
Well, the article itself is not ground breaking but they fact that they have authored it is. Or at least I hope it is.
Now subject to comment on the blog – thanks for sending me that way
…. and the London Metal Exchange will start to trade “green” aluminium.