A green growth agenda requires policy makers, from local to supranational levels, to examine and influence behavior that impacts economic, social, and environmental outcomes on multiple scales. Behavioral and social change, in addition or conjunction with technological change, is thus a crucial component of any green growth strategy. A better understanding of how and why people consume, preserve, or exploit resources or otherwise make choices that collectively impact the environment has important and far-reaching consequences for the predictive accuracy of more sophisticated models, both of future states of the world and of the likely impact of different growth strategies and potential risk management strategies. The prevailing characterization of human decision making in policy circles is a rational economic one. Reliance on the assumptions of rational choice excludes from consideration a wide range of factors that affect how people make decisions and therefore need to be considered in predictions of human reactions to environmental conditions or proposed policy initiatives.
Green growth policies confront firms and workers with adjustments that may create welfare costs for different segments of the population and cause reductions in near-term actual versus potential gross domestic product. There is little evidence on the cost of adjustment to climate change measures, and only limited evidence for more general environmental policies, especially in developing countries. Therefore, this paper canvasses the research on adjustment costs to trade policies to draw analogies and highlight differences compared with the potential impacts of green growth policies. Trade policies affect prices and work directly on technology choice. In the presence of adjustment costs, firms may experience impacts on wages, employment, and incentives to adopt alternative technologies. Both types of trade policy impacts may be amplified by technology availability and credit constraints. Many green growth policies are likely to work via the same mechanisms, that is, taxes on emissions or changes in technology requirements. However, trade liberalization is typically seen as offering higher total incomes, albeit with winners and losers.
This paper studies the reality and the potential for green industrial policy. It provides a summary of the green industrial policies, broadly understood, for five countries. It then considers the relation between green industrial policies and trade disputes, emphasizing the Brazil-United States dispute involving ethanol and the broader United States-China dispute. The theory of public policy provides many lessons for green industrial policy. The authors highlight four of these lessons, involving the Green Paradox, the choice of quantities versus prices with endogenous investment, the coordination issues arising from emissions control, and the ability of green industrial policies to promote cooperation in reducing a global public bad like carbon emissions.
This book outlines the Republic of Korea’s goals for green growth, including its green growth strategy, legislation and plans. Commercialization of green technologies is highlighted as a key platform for economic growth and job creation. The book was initially published in January 2011 in Korean under the title, “The Right Way to Know about Green Growth” with the support of the Republic of Korea Presidential Committee on Green Growth.
The government as an entity is quite often the largest, single consumer of goods and services in developed as well as developing countries. Government procurement can be a powerful tool for positive environmental change by creating a market for environmental goods and services. At the same time, procurement policies will need to be designed and implemented in a manner that does not discriminate against trading partners. What sort of space is available in the context of existing trade-rules for governments to pursue proactive procurement policies for sustainable energy goods and services? Is there a need to review existing rules so as to enhance their effectiveness with regards to the objectives of strengthening markets for renewable energy? This paper, by Alan Herve and David Luff, sheds light on these questions and also explains how a possible Sustainable Energy Trade Agreement could spur reform while ensuring a level playing field in procurement markets for producers of sustainable energy goods and services worldwide.