As the world fights for green and clear energy, an analysis by a group of researchers point out that government investment in clean energy and energy efficiency makes more sense on traditional economic metrics than dirty alternatives and also called on to break free of fossil Stockholm Syndrome.
Kin an analysis, Oxford researchers said that green policies could be faster to implement, create more jobs, and better support economic growth. Though they say that the research is still in its infancy, they claimed that economic evidence is mounting in this respect.
“Two years ago, the slogan ‘build back better’ looked to a green recovery from the global pandemic. And our work shows these calls were warranted. Alongside the obvious health and environmental benefits, our paper explains, the overall economic characteristics of green fiscal investment appear positive and are likely superior to dirty investment options,” said Brian O’Callaghan, Lead Researcher and Project Manager, Oxford Economic Recovery Project, Oxford’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment.
Noting that the governments in 2021 began to heed these perspectives, directing around $1 trillion to green investments, he said that the next step should be to reinforce these positive actions, continuing a decadal shift that builds from political one-year plans. Going backwards should not be on the agenda..
Warning that the countries would be hesitant about any new expansionary fiscal policy at the time of economic uncertainty, he said “it is understandable to be hesitant about any new expansionary fiscal policy. Yet, if governments choose to spend or introduce new tax subsidies, despite the risks, as is demanded by fossil fuel lobbies, green alternatives make far more sense. With a review of over 900 research papers, we find consensus that green measures outperform traditional ones on the most fundamental of economic criteria – job creation, fiscal multipliers, and speed of implementation.”
He said that the politicians and policy makers should break free of their fossil fuel Stockholm syndrome. They must think beyond a one or two-year horizon and be proactive in building resilience. If governments had prioritised resilience two years ago, they would have gone all-in on renewable energy systems – despite having natural gas trading at its lowest price in 30 years. Those who had done this, would be in a much stronger position today, he added. .
