Part 2 — Opportunity: A stroke of fate in the middle of a “perfect storm”
How we can change
Prologue
This story is part of a climate policy discussion paper titled “The next 30 years: The #GreatTransition to #NetZero<2050”. Overall, the paper consists of three parts (this story is Part 1 — Necessity):
Part 2 — Opportunity: A stroke of fate in the middle of a perfect storm. This part describes how we can change and shows how a #GreatTransition would be technically and economically feasible.
What the #GreatTransition could look like
The previous part explored the necessity of a #GreatTransition in order to fight the climate crisis. It is possible to paint a fairly detailed picture to illustrate what a #GreatTransition would look like in practice. A recently published roadmap, for example, describes 36 solutions, which could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030, if accelerated[1]. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has published a roadmap until 2050 for a pathway toward a less than 2 degrees C mean temperature increase above preindustrial levels by 2100 (the REmap Case), in contrast to the business-as-usual scenario based on current and planned policies (the Reference Case)[2]. An important synergy identified in this roadmap is the combination of low-cost renewable energy supply, flexible power grids, energy storage and electrification technologies for end-use applications in transportation and heating/cooling. It is estimated that this synergy alone can provide two-thirds of the emissions reductions needed to set the world on a pathway towards meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement. A recent study by Child et al (2019) shows that a 100% renewable energy mix by 2050 would not only be technically feasible in Europe, it would also be economically attractive, with electricity cost savings between 19% and 26% compared to current levels[3]. Based on current and anticipated policies, IRENA’s REmap Case envisions that by 2050 (see figure 3):
1) 16 trn USD of investment capital that otherwise would have gone into fossil fuels (primary supply) is being shifted into renewable energy infrastructure projects
2) additional transformational infrastructure projects worth 15 trillion USD are being developed, funded and implemented
By mobilizing 15trn USD of additional transformational infrastructure projects/investments while at the same time reallocating roughly 16 trn USD investments that normally would have gone into fossil fuel infrastructure, a total volume of 31 trn USD will need to be developed and funded beyond the Reference Case: +4 trn USD into the modernization of power grids, +9 trn USD into electrification (e.g. transportation and heating), +10 trn USD into renewable power and +8 trn USD into energy efficiency (next to comparatively smaller reallocations from fossil fuels and nuclear power into hydrogen, biofuels, and renewables end uses). Overall, these re-allocations are expected to achieve over 90% of the energy-related CO2 emissions reductions needed for #NetZerBy2050.
In addition, structural and behavioral changes in Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) must be considered an integral part of the #GreatTransition. Driven largely by methane emissions from cattle and rice fields, and nitrogen fertilizer overuse[5], deforestation, and the conversion of peat lands, the AFOLU sector accounts for roughly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, substantial volumes of transition capital will need to be mobilized in order to scale up nature conservation, sustainable forestry, regenerative agriculture[6], carbon recycling, and other ecological restoration efforts. About 300 bn USD would be needed, for example, to transform 900 million hectares of degraded soil back into pasture, food crops or trees, converting enough carbon into biomass to slow down climate change by about 15–20 years[7]. Changing consumption patterns, including a substantially reduced use of disposable plastics[8] as well as reduced meat consumption[9] will be integral to achieving #NetZero<2050. In summary, “Great Transition” projects can be understood as transformative large-scale economic and/or environmental activities that either enable or contribute to #NetZero<2050 by:
- Retiring and substituting current and planned fossil fuel–based energy infrastructure with renewable energy supply in combination with upgrading flexible power grids and energy storage
- Rapidly expanding and improving electrification (e.g. heating/cooling, transportation) and energy efficiency across carbon emission-intensive industries (e.g. steel, building & construction,…),
- Driving the protection and restoration of natural climate solutions (e.g. through sustainable forestry, improved land use practices etc)
- Promoting the rollout of regenerative agriculture practices as well as the de-carbonization of global food chains (e.g. through meat substitution) and consumer industries (e.g. through circular economy)
Three policy instruments to facilitate and accelerate the #GreatTransition
Numerous developments are currently facilitating a green transition, albeit a relatively small one. The economics of renewable energy have become increasingly competitive relative to fossil fuel-based energy. Financial markets are allocating growing volumes toward sustainable investment opportunities, especially green bonds. Large corporations are pro-actively moving towards more sustainable pathways, as initiatives like the “We mean business coalition[10]” indicate. In 2019, the Business Roundtable, a group of about 180 CEOs from US corporations, called for a new definition of the purpose of the corporation which deprioritizes the maximization of shareholder value in favor of “stakeholder value[11]”. It remains to be seen to what extent fiduciary duties will allow those CEOs to follow through in practice[12]. Building on this momentum, an actual “game changer” could be realized by adding 26 words to the current corporate law framework, according to an idea articulated by Robert Hinkley back in 2002[13]. Following Joel Bakan, who analyzed the legally determined behavioral constraints of modern corporations in his classic piece “The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power[14]”, Hinkley suggests to legally require directors and officers to fulfill their duty towards shareholders “[but] not at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public safety, the communities in which the corporation operates or the dignity of its employees”. This seemingly small reprogramming of the economy’s operating system could lead to dramatic behavioral changes driven by corporate malfeasance concerns. Some scholars are even suggesting a “constitutional protection for future generations from climate change[15]” based on the realization that the constitutions that were written in the 19th and 20th century are unable to properly account for 21st century challenges.
Legal reforms represent important demands from the climate movement, since they could substantially strengthen the legitimacy for climate action and weaken the fossil fuel industry’s license to operate[16]. However, due to their general nature, they tend to provide direction with regard to what not to do rather than what to do. Moreover, it may take considerable time until they can become a political reality. Under current laws and policies, the speed and scale of current transition efforts is insufficient to make the difference that is actually needed. The International Renewable Energy Association (IRENA) estimates, for example, that the overall share of renewables in the energy mix (including power, heat and transport) will need to grow six times faster than is currently the case[17]. Due to the long timeframes which energy supply infrastructure, power grid and electrification projects require to be developed and implemented, substantial reallocations of public spending and private investments need to take place as soon as possible. In addition, a significant portion of the currently existing fossil fuel energy infrastructure, will need to be retired prematurely as soon as possible[18]. So what could be additional measures to facilitate and accelerate the #GreatTransition? A combination of three mutually reinforcing systemic climate policy instruments seems particularly promising:
1) An effective Price on Carbon Emissions (#EPOCE) — a regulation that is internalizing an increasing share of the external costs of greenhouse gas emissions into market prices
2) An ambitious Green New Deal (#AGND) — a comprehensive government initiative that includes a massive public spending campaign in order to jumpstart and drive the #GreatTransition
3) A huge Catalytic Transition Fund (#HCTF) — a flexible pool of non-repayable catalytic capital used to facilitate:
a. financial enhancements of promising transition investment opportunities
b. technical assistance for transition project development
c. Great Transition projects not covered by an #EPOCE or an #AGND
An effective price on carbon emissions (#EPOCE): Re-adjusting distorted “market rates” of economic profit and financial return to more fundamental levels
An effective price on carbon emissions (#EPOCE) can be interpreted as an extraordinary interest payment charged by society in proportion to the societal and environmental debt which fossil fuel-based economic activities are accumulating. Whereas an #EPOCE provides a relative competitive advantage to more climate-friendly offerings, fossil fuel subsidies serve as a perverse incentive for negative climate impact activities. The IMF has estimated that the economic performance of fossil fuel intensive projects is artificially inflated by an obscene volume of direct and indirect subsidies with a combined annual value of around 5.2 trn USD (2017 IMF)[19]. It therefore suggests itself that an #EPOCE and the phasing out of direct fossil fuel subsidies (globally worth about 400 bn USD in 2018[20]) are two sides of the same coin. By internalizing an increasing share of the cumulative external costs to human society caused by greenhouse gas emissions, an #EPOCE (in addition to phasing out direct fossil fuel subsidies in oil and gas-exporting regions[21]) could at least partially re-adjust currently distorted “market rates” of economic profitability and financial return towards more fundamental and ethically justified levels. In this context, the absence of an #EPOCE has been described by the economist Nicholas Stern in 2007 as “the greatest market failure the world has ever seen[22]”. To get an initial sense of the magnitude at which current market prices for fossil fuel generated energy are distorted, one might put the IMF’s estimate of 5.2 trn USD annual direct and indirect fossil fuel subsidies in relation to the aggregate revenue of 3.7 trn USD generated by the 30 largest public oil & gas companies (with an aggregate profit of 338 bn USD in 2018[23]).
The success of carbon pricing policies needs to be measured by the speed and the extent by which they can reduce the annual volume of greenhouse gas emissions to #NetZero<2050[24]. For a price on carbon emissions to be effective, it needs to incentivize lasting behavioral changes for companies and households. Moreover, the #EPOCE needs to apply across all sectors, it needs to increase in a predictable manner at a rate needed to meet or exceed #NetZero<2050, and it needs to be rigorously monitored and enforced. In response, we should be able to observe substantial shifts in the strategic priorities, resource allocations and innovation activities among corporations and investors. Promising carbon pricing policy proposals such as the Energy Innovation and Carbon Divident Act[25] (starting relatively low at 15 USD per ton of carbon emissions but increasing by 10 USD every year) are addressing issues of economic inequality by using the revenues to pay households an attractive “carbon dividend” that compensates for anticipated consumer price increases and rewards changes in consumer behavior. Border adjustments are proposed to assure fair international trade terms with countries where priced carbon emissions are comparatively lower priced. According to an estimate from the IMF, a carbon price of e.g. 70 USD per ton could generate an annual income of about of 1–2.5% of GDP for the G20 countries[26]. Based on an aggregate GDP of 63 trn USD[27], this implies a potential income of about 630 bn to 1.57 trn USD per year. But there is still a long way to go. As of January 2019, according to the Worldbank, only 70 jurisdictions (46 national and 24 sub-national) have implemented, or are scheduled to implement, carbon pricing initiatives covering around 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Collectively they generated 33 bn USD in revenues in 2017[28].
According to the Climateactiontracker[29], major polluting countries which (based on current carbon emissions pledges and pathways) are continuing to push the world toward a devastating 4 degrees C scenario by 2100 include the US, China, Russia, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey and Ukraine[30]. In the absence of situational awareness, responsible leadership, and an openness to international cooperation, establishing an #EPOCE as part of a globally binding climate treaty is unlikely to happen any time soon. Instead, an exemplary group of leading nation states will have to start implementing #EPOCEs on their own. In this context, a typical conservative argument that a single country with relatively small annual contributions to global carbon emissions won’t make a significant difference and therefore should not take the lead in the #GreatTransition must be emphatically rejected. Aside from the fact that the causal responsibility for the climate emergency includes cumulative contributions since the industrialization, the #GreatTransition is actually expected to deliver substantial economic, social and ecological benefits. Moreover, in order to solve a collective action problem[31], every contribution counts. Especially early pioneers can serve as inspiring role models. In order to overcome the “bystander effect[32]”, a situation in which a person is less likely to intervene and help someone in need when other people are present, it is necessary that someone makes a first move and asks other bystanders directly for their assistance[33]. Immanuel Kant’s approach to practical reasoning[34] encourages us to act consistently with how we reasonably would want others to act, as matter of principle and integrity: because we believe that it is the right thing to do, not because of someone else doing it first. Climate action has been delayed for too long to keep maintaining a “wait and see” position. Now we have to start acting while continuing to convince hesitant countries to join our common destiny. Eventually, from a position of ethical and practical leadership, other countries lagging behind can be more effectively pressured to catch up. As the climate emergency unravels and its catastrophic potential becomes undeniable, more and more countries can be expected to realize that supporting #NetZero<2050 is in their own interest.
An ambitious Green New Deal (#AGND): A unique opportunity in human history
Numerous proposals for an ambitious Green New Deal (#AGND), dedicated to facilitating and accelerating a #GreatTransition in the US, have been brought forward by the democratic presidential candidates in preparation of the 2020 elections. Among the most ambitious proposals is the GND from Bernie Sanders[35], which features a cumulative public spending initiative of 16.3 trn UDS (about 80% of 2018 US GDP) over 10 years, and aims to pay for itself over 15 years, while avoiding estimated economic losses of 34.5 trn USD by the end of the century compared with of a business-as-usual trajectory. It is notable that in contrast to his rival’s proposals, Sanders is positioning the state as the primary driver and funder of this transition, generating 6.4 trn USD in revenue from selling energy via power marketing authorities, 2.3 trn USD from income taxes from about 20 million new unionized jobs created under the plan, and 1.2 trn USD from reducing military expenses related to protecting oil shipping routes. In addition, depending on the political room to maneuver, an #AGND may include legal reforms as well as climate policies (such as an #EPOCE and a #HCTF). At a global level, calls for a Green New Deal have been articulated by Michael Bloomberg and several mayors[36] as well as by the economist Jeremy Rifkin[37], for example. It remains to be seen how ambitious in comparison the European GND announced by the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen[38] is going to be at EU and EU-country levels[39]. An initial step has been taken with a new sustainable finance legislation[40] with the goal to incentivize private capital flows into green projects.[41]
Considering the current economic conditions for an #AGND, a unique window of opportunity has opened up in front of policy makers. In the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008, extensive quantitative easing[42] has enormously increased the worlds’ money supply and established an unprecedented zero to negative interest rate environment. A 200-year long-term trend[43], a secular decline in innovation and productivity growth[44] as well as various warning signals for a looming global recession[45] indicate that this unprecedented situation in economic history represents a “new normal”. As of today, about 16 trn USD worth of bonds are trading at a negative yield, while governments like Germany can even issue 30 year bonds at negative interest rates[46]. At the same time, a vast amount of capital currently managed by risk-averse institutional investors (including pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, insurers etc) is seeking adequate low-risk low-return investment opportunities (ideally with a positive climate impact), but often without much success[47]. The fact that the need for a capital intensive #GreatTransition and the risk of an economic recession on the one hand coincide with a zero-to-negative interest rate environment with trillions USD of underutilized or excess capital on the other, can be recognized as a stroke of fate in the middle of a “perfect storm[48]”. In order to respond to the combined threat of a climate emergency and an economic crisis, countries with robust credit ratings have the opportunity to issue, for example, prime-rated 20- to 30-year “Great Transition bonds” at zero (or extremely low) interest rates to eager institutional investors, including pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and insurers. This way trillions of USD could be mobilized globally from mainstream capital markets and transformed into purpose-driven transition capital. In this context, Adam Tooze argues that long-term public debt issuances dedicated to fight the climate crisis should be supported by central banks (e.g. acting as a buyer of last resort or using capital requirements and collateral rules to favor transition investments)[49]. To increase their attractiveness even more, Great Transition bonds could potentially feature an additional success-based variable interest rate payment (e.g. with values ranging between 0.0% and 1.0% p.a.), depending on measurable progress made towards #NetZero<2050.
The transition capital raised this way would provide governments with the enormous financial resources needed to commission the private sector with large scale #GreatTransition projects, while assuring a socially agreeable transformation process and creating millions of decently paid, purposeful jobs for decades to come. In addition, development cooperation spending could be significantly increased to help emerging economies (especially those with less robust credit ratings) to decarbonize their economic growth. A substantial share of the SDGs could be solved within “planetary boundaries”[50], while at the same time strengthening resilience and reducing the likelihood of future climate migration flows. Raising the public spending needed for the #AGND is going to require a temporary suspension of outdated public debt ceilings that were established in the high interest rate environment of the late 20th century. From an ethical point of view, it can be argued that the public debt raised to fight the climate emergency (as well as an economic recession at the same time) represents a different kind of burden to future generations compared to public debt raised in the past. This is especially true given the capital efficiency of debt raised at interest rates approaching zero. But even if interest rates were slightly positive (or success-based), our responsibility to protect future generations against a singular existential threat, such as the climate emergency, justifies an extraordinary measure proportionate to its magnitude. It is therefore in the full interest of 21st century-born generations that governments go ahead with the #GreatTransition as quickly as possible and with every amount of public spending that can possibly be mobilized to this end. In fact, it would be irresponsible NOT to do so. While the capital expenditures needed for a #GreatTransition may appear daunting, they are easily surpassed by the economic, environmental and human welfare gains to be realized relative to the business-as-usual scenario.
A huge catalytic transition fund (#HCTF): Funding anything else to reach #NetZero<2050
Let’s assume that major economies have put in place #EPOCEs and are in the process of commissioning unprecedented volumes of public infrastructure projects dedicated to driving the #GreatTransition by virtue of #AGNDs. Will this be enough to achieve #NetZero<2050? Not all viable drawdown measures may be covered by an #AGND, and especially in the early years, an #EPOCE may not yet provide a sufficiently high incentive to abolish fossil fuels. And not all countries might be able or willing to establish an effective POCE and/or an ambitious GND. Especially emerging economies with less robust credit ratings will be more dependent on the private sector and/or additional development cooperation funding for a #GreatTransition. In this context, many transition projects may be deemed too small or too risky to meet institutional investors’ requirements. In order to support activities that may not be sufficiently supported by #EPOCEs and #AGNDs, a huge catalytic transition fund (#HCTF) would pool and manage a substantial amount of non-repayable capital (ideally with a cumulative target volume of several hundred billion USDs) without any constraints other than serving the primary purpose of #NetZero<2050. Using the metaphor of a vehicle, we might compare an #EPOCE to the control system, comprising of an actually functioning steering wheel (as opposed to being stuck with driving into only one direction) and a navigation system with #NetZero<2050 as its destination, showing us the fastest travel route. An #AGND provides us with the energy resources needed to travel to our new destination at the highest possible speed, in a race against the clock. Following this metaphor, a #HCTF serves three main purposes:
1) It ensures that all moving parts are running smoothly and increases the performance level of the engine by virtue of a generous technical assistance funding for project development and capacity building. For the #GreatTransition to be successful it is imperative that a sufficient pipeline of adequate transition projects can be built up rapidly by project developers. To this end, project developers need to be supported by generous technical assistance funding that reduces upfront cost and operational/implementation risks and leads to substantially more project developments than normally would have been the case. In case of a successful implementation, some of this technical assistance funding could flow back into the #HCTF.
2) It provides an extra source of energy, comparable to a range extender, by de-risking and financially enhancing all those transition investment projects that otherwise might not have been implemented (inspite of technical and entrepreneurial feasibility) to such an extent, that they become irresistible for financial markets. Especially in emerging economies, the #HCTF could help secure funding for smaller or greenfield transition projects that usually do not meet the standard requirements of institutional investors e.g. including high levels of bankability and prime credit ratings, insurances against country and currency risks, or substantial volumes. Various instruments can be applied to this end, such as:
· Reducing loss potential e.g. by providing guarantees and facilitating blended finance structures with first-loss or patient capital tranches
· Increasing scale and diversifying risk e.g. by securitizing a portfolio of smaller transition projects into prime-rated low-interest “transition bonds”
· Eliminating volatility and loss potential: e.g. risk-takers could assure risk-averse investors a low but stable financial return while in turn benefiting from the financial upside potential in case of strong performance
· Reducing uncertainty: e.g. by sponsoring insurance solutions against various types of risk
3) It provides a “turbo boost” that further accelerates the speed of the transition by funding additional non-repayable projects that #AGNDs may not be able to sufficiently address. There are numerous promising interventions that the #HCTF could support, typically in combination with philanthropic “transition philanthropy” activities. Some ideas, many of which are complementary rather than mutually exclusive, include purchasing and locking up mining rights for coal and gas reserves[51], planting 1 trillion trees[52], restoring 500 million hectares of ecosystems[53], restoring 900 million hectares of degraded land[54], protecting and restoring 30 percent and more of the world’s marine and land environments[55], producing negative emissions based on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)[56], and providing girls with employment opportunities and birth controls[57]. Project drawdown[58] offers useful insights to this end.
To conclude, the #HCTF would function as a powerful economic incentive dedicated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond what would normally be expected from POCEs and GNDs alone. Ideas about how a #HCTF might be fundraised include a climate emergency wealth tax comparable to the wealth tax proposed by Elisabeth Warren with support from a group of billionaires[59], a dedicated financial transaction tax, or “emergency” contributions (e.g. taxes, levies etc) from particularly carbon-emission-intensive industries (e.g. aviation, industrial meat production, construction, …) and most importantly the fossil fuel industry (e.g. exploration, imports & exports). Regarding the management of the #HCTF, one could imagine either a supranational organization supported by a coalition of leading nation states, or a collective of regional and/or national organizations. The collective would ideally be supported by an overarching backbone organization that provides strategic guidance and facilitates peer learning, collaboration and data sharing. It is paramount that the organization(s) tasked with managing the #HCTF are characterized by high levels of transparency, digital efficiency and political independence, and capable of continuously managing and improving their impact with a strong focus on their mission (#NetZero<2050”). Supervision could be provided by an independent board consisting of experts, climate activists, and stakeholders.
[1] https://exponentialroadmap.org/
[2] https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Apr/IRENA_GET_REmap_pathway_2019.pdf
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148119302319
[4] https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Apr/IRENA_GET_REmap_pathway_2019.pdf
[5] https://globalecoguy.org/the-three-most-important-graphs-in-climate-change-e64d3f4ed76
[6] https://medium.com/circulatenews/regenerative-agriculture-how-to-grow-food-for-a-healthy-planet-9a5f637c0f3e
[7] https://time.com/5709100/halt-climate-change-300-billion/
[8] https://www.ecowatch.com/fossil-fuels-single-use-plastics-2565595371.html
[9] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-reduction-in-meat-eating-essential-to-avoid-climate-breakdown
[10] https://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org/
[11] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/19/the-ceos-of-nearly-two-hundred-companies-say-shareholder-value-is-no-longer-their-main-objective.html
[12] https://medium.com/volans/exorcising-the-ghost-of-milton-friedman-d2557d3381fc
[13] https://www.commondreams.org/views02/0119-04.htm
[14] https://www.thecorporation.com/film/book
[15] https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=hastings_environmental_law_journal
[16] Even in their absence, several group are currently attempting to hold fossil fuel companies legally accountable for the damages caused by their pollution and misconduct
[17] https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/Apr/Global-energy-transformation-A-roadmap-to-2050-2019Edition
[18] In order to counter law suits or economic compensation claims that can be expected from the fossil fuel industry in response, a constitutional protection for future generations or a social-environmental responsibility clause to corporate law could certainly turn out to be helpful.
[19] https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies-climate-imf
[20] https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2019/june/fossil-fuel-consumption-subsidies-bounced-back-strongly-in-2018.html
[21] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/maybe-cutting-fossil-fuel-subsidies-wouldnt-do-much-good/552668/
[22] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/nov/29/climatechange.carbonemissions
[23] https://www.forbes.com/global2000/list/#industry:Oil%20%26%20Gas%20Operations
[24] In this regard, the climate legislation package from the German Government announced in September 2019 has been widely considered an embarassing failure, as prices ranging between 10–60 EUR per ton of carbon emissions are unlikely to live up to this measure.
[25] https://energyinnovationact.org/how-it-works/
[26] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2018/08/30/Mitigation-Policies-for-the-Paris-Agreement-An-Assessment-for-G20-Countries-46179
[27] https://www.theglobalist.com/the-g20s-economic-weight/
[28] https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2017/12/01/carbon-pricing
[29] https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/
[30] https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/04/interactive-chart-explains-worlds-top-10-emitters-and-how-theyve-changed
[31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem
[32] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect
[33] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bystander_effect
[34] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
[35] https://www.vox.com/2019/8/22/20827396/bernie-sanders-2020-climate-policy-green-new-deal
[36] https://www.edie.net/news/11/C40-Global-Green-New-Deal-Bloomberg-Mayors-LA-Paris/
[37] https://www.foet.org/books/the-green-new-deal/
[38] https://bruegel.org/2019/07/von-der-leyens-green-deal-isnt-just-a-plan-for-the-environment/
[39] An alternative proposal for a GND from DiEM25, for example, includes an annual public transition spending of about 500 bn EUR.
[40] https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/180524-proposal-sustainable-finance_en
[41] The new legislation includes a unified green classification system, enhanced sustainability-related disclosure requirements, and a new category of benchmarks to help investors compare the carbon footprint of investments.
[42] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing
[43] https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/02/01/the-fed-is-irrelevant-low-interest-rates-are-the-new-normal/#33fd3bef76ae
[44] https://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/less-than-zero-the-new-normal-for-interest-rates-12366
[45] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/16/global-economy-awfully-high-chance-of-economic-recession-moodys-says.html
[46] https://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/less-than-zero-the-new-normal-for-interest-rates-12366
[47] In the absence of an #EPOCE and an #AGND it should come at no surprise when Mark Carney, governor of the bank of England, asserts that global capital markets have currently provided 85 trn USD in stocks and 105 trn USD in bonds to carbon-producing projects that will raise mean global temperatures increase to over 4 C by 2100.
[48] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_storm
[49] https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/20/why-central-banks-need-to-step-up-on-global-warming/
[50] https://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.51d83659166367a9a16353/1539675518425/Report_Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals_WEB.pdf
[51] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/every-climate-concerned-billionaire-should-do-this-to-save-the-world/413020/
[52] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/17/world/trillion-trees-climate-change-intl-scn/index.html
[54] https://time.com/5709100/halt-climate-change-300-billion/
[55] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/opinion/earth-biodiversity-conservation-billion-dollars.html
[56] https://www.carbonbrief.org/beccs-the-story-of-climate-changes-saviour-technology
[57] https://www.wired.com/story/to-stop-climate-change-educate-girls-and-give-them-birth-control/
[58] https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank
[59] https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1342-wealthtaxletter-june2019/1852b1968e8e0d52b1a0/optimized/full.pdf#page=1
