This paper conducts a comparative analysis of the results of five recently completed studies that examined the economic case for investment in low-carbon development in five cities: Leeds (UK), Kolkata (India), Lima (Peru), Johor Bahru (Malaysia) and Palembang (Indonesia). The results demonstrate that there is a compelling economic case for cities in both developed and developing country contexts to invest, at scale, in cost-effective forms of low-carbon development.
As economic hubs, cities also have a crucial role to play in mitigating global climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has found particularly great opportunities in fastgrowing urban centres in developing countries, but cities at all levels are pursuing climate action. Many of the measures they are choosing – e.g. retrofitting buildings to be more energy-efficient, improving public transit, promoting biking and walking, encouraging denser development – have also been shown to have broader economic and social benefits. This paper looks at this issue in the other direction: how cities’ economic development strategies are likely to affect global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It examines policies and actions that are already widely used by cities to advance economic development and competitiveness, assess the evidence on their net GHG impact, and identify key issues that cities may want to address if they wish to align their climate and economic development goals.
Shifting our fossil-fuelled civilisation to clean modes of production and consumption requires deep transformations in our energy and economic systems. Innovation in physical technologies and social behaviours is key to this transformation. But innovation has not been at the heart of economic models of climate change. This paper reviews the state of the art on the economics of innovation, applies recent insights to climate change. The core insight is that technological innovation is a path-dependent process in which history and expectations matter greatly in determining eventual outcomes.
In the face of increasingly likely dangerous climate change, many developing countries are designing green economy or low-emissions development strategies, but are simultaneously on a course of investment locking them into high-emission infrastructure. Meanwhile, many high-income countries are working to reduce their emissions but are hampered by the cost of switching from an existing capital stock designed for a fossil fuel-based economy. This paper looks at economic aspects of the challenge of escaping carbon lock-in using a “brown-green capital” model. In the model, brown capital is more productive than green capital in a brown capital-dominated economy, while green capital is more productive in a green capital-dominated economy; that is, the model allows for “carbon lock-out”. The paper also explores possible macroeconomic consequences of policies to drive a transition to a low-carbon economy and policy responses in the case that macroeconomic imbalances result.
This paper presents an overview of trade among the G14 as well as key non-G14 economies in the 54 product sub-categories included in the APEC environmental goods list. It also examines for these 54 sub-headings more detailed trade information at the tariff line level (including at the level of more detailed statistical codes) in an attempt to gain some insight into the relative importance of trade in environmental goods. It also analyses additional climate-related products, derived inter alia from earlier ICTSD research, particularly climate technology mapping studies, which could potentially be added to those included in the APEC list for subsequent inclusion in an Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA). The paper presents a preliminary analysis of trade flows and tariffs for this non-exhaustive list of climate-relevant products and components. Finally, it also puts forward proposals on measures needed to make EGA negotiations more transparent as well as facilitate better estimates of global trade flows in environmental goods.
This paper considers the extent to which the Northeast Asian countries - China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan - are collaborating as a legitimate group to produce “green” R&D. Forcing a revision of traditional institutional analysis, such collaboration efforts can overlap with existing policies of regional coordination, but they can also pave the way for future, formal coordination efforts. Employing a mixed methods approach which triangulates data based on expert interviews as well as green patenting output over the last 33 years, it is confirmed here that the presence of the Northeast Asian environmental regime is strongly associated with the development of green R&D among countries in the region. It can be further confirmed that Northeast Asia is on the cusp of becoming a genuine counterweight to the existing dominance of the U.S. and Western Europe.