1932

Abstract

When deep recessions hit, some governments spend to rescue and recover their economies. Key economic objectives of such countercyclical spending include protecting and creating jobs while reinvigorating economic growth—but governments can also use this spending to achieve long-term social and environmental goals. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, claims have been made that green recovery investments can meet both economic and environmental objectives. Here, we investigate the evidence behind these claims. We create a bespoke supervised machine learning algorithm to identify a comprehensive literature set. We analyze this literature using both structured qualitative assessment and machine learning models. We find evidence that green investments can indeed create more jobs and deliver higher fiscal multipliers than non-green investments. For policymakers, we suggest strong prioritization of green spending in recovery. For researchers, we highlight many research gaps and unalignment of research patterns with spending patterns.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112420-020640
2022-10-17
2024-07-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/47/1/annurev-environ-112420-020640.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112420-020640&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Higuera PE, Abatzoglou JT. 2021. Record-setting climate enabled the extraordinary 2020 fire season in the western United States. Glob. Change Biol. 27:1–2
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Hepburn C, O'Callaghan B, Stern N, Stiglitz J, Zenghelis D. 2020. Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change?. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 36:S359–81
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    O'Callaghan B, Kingsmill N, Waites F, Aylward-Mills D, Bird J et al. 2021. Roadmap to Green Recovery Oxford Univ. Econ. Recovery Proj. Rep., Smith Sch. Enterp. Environ. Univ. Oxford. Oxford., UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Keynes JM. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Palgrave MacMillan
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Sweeney J, Sweeney RJ. 1977. Monetary theory and the great Capitol Hill Baby Sitting Co-op crisis: comment. J. Money Credit Bank. 9:86–89
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Krugman P. 2008. The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008 New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Elmendorf DW, Furman J. 2008. If, when, how: a primer on fiscal stimulus Rep. Brookings Inst. Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    O'Callaghan B, Murdock E. 2021. Are we building back better? Evidence from 2020 and pathways to inclusive green recovery spending Rep. UN Environ. Progr. Nairobi, Kenya:
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    Zenghelis D. 2014. In praise of a green stimulus. WIREs Clim. Change 5:7–14
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Carney M. 2021. Clean and green finance. Finance Dev. 58:320–22
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Hepburn C, Bowen A. 2013. Prosperity with growth: economic growth, climate change and environmental limits. Handbook on Energy and Climate Change R Fouquet 617–38 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    Ward JD, Sutton PC, Werner AD, Costanza R, Mohr SH, Simmons CT. 2016. Is decoupling GDP growth from environmental impact possible?. PLOS ONE 11:e0164733
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Hickel J, Hallegatte S. 2022. Can we live within environmental limits and still reduce poverty? Degrowth or decoupling?. Dev. Policy Rev. 40:e12584
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Costanza R, Kubiszewski I, Giovannini E, Lovins H, McGlade J et al. 2014. Development: time to leave GDP behind. Nature 505:283–85
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    Stiglitz JE, Sen A, Fitoussi J-P. 2009. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Rep. Comm. Meas. Econ. Perform. Soc. Progr. Paris:
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Hamilton K, Hepburn C, eds. 2017. National Wealth: What is Missing, Why it Matters Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Røpke I. 2004. The early history of modern ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 3–4:293–314
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Georgescu-Roegen N. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Kallis G, Kostakis V, Lange S, Muraca B, Paulson S, Schmelzer M. 2018. Research on degrowth. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 43:291–316
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Raworth K. 2017. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Carleton TA, Jina A, Delgado MT, Greenstone M, Houser T et al. 2020. Valuing the global mortality consequences of climate change accounting for adaptation costs and benefits NBER Work. Pap. 27599
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Scovronick N, Budolfson M, Dennig F, Errickson F, Fleurbaey M et al. 2019. The impact of human health co-benefits on evaluations of global climate policy. Nat. Commun. 10:2095
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Watts N, Adger WN, Ayeb-Karlsson S, Bai Y, Byass P et al. 2017. The Lancet Countdown: tracking progress on health and climate change. Lancet 389:1151–64
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change) 2014. AR5 Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Nemet GF, Holloway T, Meier P. 2010. Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking. Environ. Res. Lett. 5:014007
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Stern N. 2006. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Kahn ME, Mohaddes K, Ng RNC, Pesaran MH, Raissi M, Yang J-C. 2019. Long-term macroeconomic effects of climate change: a cross-country analysis Work. Pap. 19/215 Int. Monet. Fund Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Lamperti F, Bosetti V, Roventini A, Tavoni M. 2019. The public costs of climate-induced financial instability. Nat. Clim. Change 9:829–33
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Karlsson M, Alfredsson E, Westling N 2020. Climate policy co-benefits: a review. Clim. Policy 20:292–316
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    O'Callaghan B, Murdock E, Yau N 2021. Global Recovery Observatory: draft methodology document Work. Pap. Smith Sch. Enterp. Environ., Univ. Oxford Oxford, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Finkelstein I, Langgut D, Meiri M, Sapir-Hen L. 2017. Egyptian imperial economy in Canaan: reaction to the climate crisis at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Egypt Levant 27:249–60
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Petraglia MD, Groucutt HS, Guagnin M, Breeze PS, Boivin N. 2020. Human responses to climate and ecosystem change in ancient Arabia. PNAS 117:8263–70
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Weir M, Skocpol T 1985. State structures and the possibilities for “Keynesian” responses to the Great Depression in Sweden, Britain, and the United States. Bringing the State Back In PB Evans, D Rueschemeyer, T Skocpol 107–64 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Maher NM. 2007. Nature's New Deal: The Civilian Conservation Corps and the Roots of the American Environmental Movement. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Roosevelt FD. 1933. Executive Order 6101 Starting The Civilian Conservation Corps. The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-6101-starting-the-civilian-conservation-corps
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Hall PA 1989. The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism Across Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Palley T. 2004. From Keynesianism to neoliberalism: shifting paradigms in economics. Foreign Policy in Focus, May 5. https://fpif.org/from_keynesianism_to_neoliberalism_shifting_paradigms_in_economics/
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Blinder AS. 1988. The fall and rise of Keynesian economics. Econ. Rec. 64:278–94
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Thorne K. 2010. Does history repeat? The multiple faces of Keynesianism, monetarism, and the global financial crisis. Adm. Theory Praxis 32:304–26
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Robins N, Clover R, Singh C. 2009. A climate for recovery: The colour of stimulus goes green Rep. HSBC Bank plc London:
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Aldy JE. 2013. A preliminary assessment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act's clean energy package. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 7:136–55
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Mundaca L, Richter JL. 2015. Assessing ‘green energy economy’ stimulus packages: evidence from the U.S. programs targeting renewable energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42:1174–86
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Council of Economic Advisors 2016. A Retrospective Assessment of Clean Energy Investments in the Recovery Act Exec. Off. Pres. U. S. Rep., White House Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Vona F, Marin G, Consoli D. 2019. Measures, drivers and effects of green employment: evidence from US local labor markets, 2006–2014. J. Econ. Geogr. 19:1021–48
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Steinberg D, Porro G, Goldberg M. 2015. Preliminary analysis of the jobs and economic impacts of 1603 Treasury Grants Program Rep. NREL/TP-6A20-52739 Off. Sci. Tech. Inform., US Dep. Energy Oak Ridge, TN:
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Edwards PET, Sutton-Grier AE, Coyle GE. 2013. Investing in nature: restoring coastal habitat blue infrastructure and green job creation. Mar. Policy 38:65–71
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Elliott RJR, Lindley JK. 2017. Environmental jobs and growth in the United States. Ecol. Econ. 132:232–44
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Mundaca L, Damen B. 2015. Assessing the effectiveness of the ‘Green Economic Stimulus’ in South Korea: evidence from the energy sector Paper presented at the 38th International Association for Energy Economics (IAEE) International Conference, Antalya Turkey:
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    OECD (Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev.) 2017. OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Korea 2017 Paris: OECD
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Jung Y-M. 2015. Is South Korea's green job policy sustainable?. Sustainability 7:8748–67
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Jaeger J, Westphal MI, Park C. 2020. Lessons learned on green stimulus: case studies from the global financial crisis Rep. World Resourc. Inst. Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Pollitt H. 2011. Assessing the Implementation and Impact of Green Elements of Member States’ National Recovery Plans Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Econom.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    Barbier EB. 2010. Green stimulus, green recovery and global imbalances. World Econ 11:149–77
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    Agrawala S, Dussaux D, Monti N. 2020. What policies for greening the crisis response and economic recovery?: Lessons learned from past green stimulus measures and implications for the COVID-19 crisis Work. Pap. 164 Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev. Paris:
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Tienhaara K. 2018. Green Keynesianism and the Global Financial Crisis Andover, UK: Taylor & Francis
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    Popp D, Vona F, Marin G, Chen Z. 2020. The employment impact of green fiscal push: evidence from the American Recovery Act NBER Work. Pap. 27321
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Kronenberg T, Kuckshinrichs W, Hansen P. 2012. Macroeconomic effects of the German government's building rehabilitation program. . Work. Pap. 38815 Munich Personal RePEc Archive Munich, Ger:.
  58. 58.
    Ferragina E, Zola A 2021. The end of austerity as common sense?: An experimental analysis of public opinion shifts and class dynamics during the Covid-19 crisis. New Polit. Econ 27:329–46
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.
    O'Callaghan B, Yau N, Murdock E, Tritsch D, Janz A et al. 2020. Global Recovery Observatory Oxford, UK: OUER Project https://recovery.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/tracking/
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.
    Vivid Economics 2021. Greenness of Stimulus Index Rep. Vivid Econ. London:
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.
    O'Callaghan B, Adam J-P, Armah B, Boketsu Bofili JP, Chavula HK et al. 2021. Are COVID-19 fiscal recovery measures bridging or extending the emissions gap?. Emissions Gap Report 2021: The Heat Is On UN Environ. Progr. (UNEP) 38–46 Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    de Coninck H, Revi A, Babiker M, Bertoldi P, Buckeridge M et al. 2018. Strengthening and implementing the global response. Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty V Masson-Delmotte, P Zhai, H-O Pörtner, D Roberts, J Skea et al.313–443 Cambridge, UK: Intergov. Panel Clim. Change
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    UNFCCC (UN Framew. Conv. Clim. Change) 2021. Executive summary by the Standing Committee on Finance on the first report on the determination of the needs of developing country Parties related to implementing the Convention and the Paris Agreement Bonn, G: er.: UNFCCC
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    Pollitt H, Lewney R, Kiss-Dobronyi B, Lin X 2021. Modelling the economic effects of COVID-19 and possible green recovery plans: a post-Keynesian approach. Clim. Policy 21:1257–71
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.
    Malliet P, Reynès F, Landa G, Hamdi-Cherif M, Saussay A. 2020. Assessing short-term and long-term economic and environmental effects of the COVID-19 crisis in France. Environ. Resourc. Econ. 76:867–83
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    Lewney R, Kiss-Dobronyi B, Van Hummelen S, Barbieri L, Harfoot M, Maney C. 2021. Modelling a global inclusive green economy COVID-19 recovery programme. Partnersh. Action Green Econ. Rep., Camb. Econom., Cambridge UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    Lahcen B, Brusselaers J, Vrancken K, Dams Y, Da Silva Paes C et al. 2020. Green recovery policies for the COVID-19 crisis: modelling the impact on the economy and greenhouse gas emissions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 76:731–50
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    IEA (Int. Energy Agency) 2020. Sustainable Recovery: World Energy Outlook Special Report Paris: IEA
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.
    O'Callaghan B, Bird J, Murdock E 2021. A prosperous green recovery for South Africa: Could green investment bring short-term economic recovery? Rep. UN Econ. Comm. Afr. Addis Ababa, Ethiop:.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.
    Vivid Economics 2021. Delivering a green recovery. Vivid Economics https://www.vivideconomics.com/casestudy/delivering-a-green-recovery/
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    Batini N, di Serio M, Fragetta M, Melina G, Waldron A 2021. Building back better: How big are green spending multipliers? Work. Pap. 2021/087 Int. Monet. Fund Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.
    Rochedo PRR, Fragkos P, Garaffa R, Couto LC, Baptista LB et al. 2021. Is green recovery enough? Analysing the impacts of post-COVID-19 economic packages. Energies 14:5567
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    Gusheva E, de Gooyert V. 2021. Can we have our cake and eat it? A review of the debate on green recovery from the COVID-19 crisis. Sustainability 13:874
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.
    Lehmann P, de Brito MM, Gawel E, Groß M, Haase A et al. 2021. Making the COVID-19 crisis a real opportunity for environmental sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 16:2137–45
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.
    Klenert D, Funke F, Mattauch L, O'Callaghan B. 2020. Five lessons from COVID-19 for advancing climate change mitigation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 76:751–78
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Mikolov T, Chen K, Corrado G, Dean J. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv:1301.3781 [cs.CL]
  77. 77.
    Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI. 2003. Latent Dirichlet Allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3:993–1022
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Hinton G, Roweis S. 2002. Stochastic neighbor embedding Paper presented at the 15th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Cambridge, MA, USA:
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    van de Schoot R, de Bruin J, Schram R, Zahedi P, de Boer J et al. 2021. An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews. Nat. Mach. Intel. 3:125–33
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J 2008. Searching for studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions JPT Higgins, J Thomas, J Chandler, M Cumpston, T Li et al.95–150 Chichester, UK: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Wang Z, Nayfeh T, Tetzlaff J, O'Blenis P, Murad MH 2020. Error rates of human reviewers during abstract screening in systematic reviews. PLOS ONE 15:e0227742
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    Haddaway NR, Westgate MJ. 2019. Predicting the time needed for environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Conserv. Biol. 33:434–43
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    Michelson M, Reuter K. 2019. The significant cost of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a call for greater involvement of machine learning to assess the promise of clinical trials. Contemp. Clin. Trials Commun. 16:100443
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Marshall IJ, Wallace BC. 2019. Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis. Syst. Rev. 8:163
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Park S, Wang AY, Kawas B, Liao QV, Piorkowski D, Danilevsky M. 2021. Facilitating knowledge sharing from domain experts to data scientists for building NLP models. 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI '21), April 14–17, 2021, College Station, TX, USA585–96 New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    Fisch-Romito V, Guivarch C, Creutzig F, Minx JC, Callaghan MW. 2021. Systematic map of the literature on carbon lock-in induced by long-lived capital. Environ. Res. Lett. 16:053004
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    Guo L, Vargo CJ, Pan Z, Ding W, Ishwar P. 2016. Big social data analytics in journalism and mass communication: comparing dictionary-based text analysis and unsupervised topic modeling. J. Mass Commun. Q. 93:332–59
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    van der Maaten L, Hinton G. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 9:2579–605
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    Arthur D, Vassilvitskii S. 2007. K-means++: the advantages of careful seeding. SODA ‘07: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms1027–35 New Orleans, LA: Soc. Ind. Appl. Math.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    Collett K, O'Callaghan B, Mason M, Godfray C, Hepburn C. 2021. The climate impact of alternative proteins Rep. Smith Sch. Enterp. Environ., Univ. Oxford Oxford, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.
    Sen A, Meini L, Napoli E, Napoli C. 2021. Beyond energy: incentivizing decarbonization through the circular economy Work. Pap. EL 44 Oxford Inst. Energy Stud. Oxford, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.
    Wei M, Patadia S, Kammen DM. 2010. Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: How many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US?. Energy Policy 38:919–31
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.
    Blyth W, Gross R, Speirs J, Sorrell S, Nicholls J et al. 2014. Low carbon jobs: the evidence for net job creation from policy support for energy efficiency and renewable energy Rep. UKERC/RR/TPA/2014/002 UK Energy Res. Cent. London:
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.
    Nair CTS, Rutt R. 2009. Creating forestry jobs to boost the economy and build a green future. Unasylva 60:2333–10
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.
    Houser T, Mohan S, Heilmayr R. 2009. A green global recovery? Assessing US economic stimulus and the prospects for international coordination Rep. World Resourc. Inst. Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.
    Bowen A, Kuralbayeva K, Tipoe EL. 2018. Characterising green employment: the impacts of ‘greening’ on workforce composition. Energy Econ 72:263–75
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    Consoli D, Marin G, Marzucchi A, Vona F. 2016. Do green jobs differ from non-green jobs in terms of skills and human capital?. Res. Policy 45:1046–60
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.
    Blanco MI, Rodrigues G. 2009. Direct employment in the wind energy sector: an EU study. Energy Policy 37:2847–57
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.
    Scholtens B. 2001. Borrowing green: economic and environmental effects of green fiscal policy in The Netherlands. Ecol. Econ. 39:425–35
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.
    Kammen DM, Kapadia K, Fripp M. 2004. Putting renewables to work: How many jobs can the clean energy industry generate? Rep. Renew. Appropr. Energy Lab., Univ. Calif. Berkeley:
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.
    Spencer T, Bernoth K, Chancel L, Guerin E, Neuhoff K. 2012. Green investments in a European Growth Package Work. Pap. 11/12 Inst. Dev. Durable Relat. Int. Paris:
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.
    Garrett-Peltier H. 2017. Green versus brown: comparing the employment impacts of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and fossil fuels using an input-output model. Econ. Model. 61:439–47
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 103.
    Huntingdon HG. 2009. Creating jobs with ‘green’ power sources Energy Model. Forum Rep., Stanford Univ. Stanford, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 104.
    Frondel M, Ritter N, Schmidt CM, Vance C. 2010. Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energy technologies: the German experience. Energy Policy 38:4048–56
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 105.
    Simas M, Pacca S. 2014. Assessing employment in renewable energy technologies: a case study for wind power in Brazil. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 31:83–90
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 106.
    Álvarez GC, Jara RMJ, Julián JRR, Bielsa JIG. 2010. Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources. Rev. Procesos de Mercado 7:113–70
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 107.
    Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Cameron MA, Coughlin SJ, Hay CA et al. 2019. Impacts of Green New Deal energy plans on grid stability, costs, jobs, health, and climate in 143 countries. One Earth 1:449–63
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 108.
    OECD (Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev.) 2017. Employment implications of green growth: linking jobs, growth, and green policies Rep. OECD, Paris
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 109.
    Schmalensee R. 2012. From “green growth” to sound policies: an overview. Energy Econ 34:S2–6
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 110.
    Bowen A, Kuralbayeva K. 2015. Looking for green jobs: the impact of green growth on employment Policy Brief, Grantham Res. Inst. Clim. Change Environ., Lond. Sch. Econ. Polit. Sci .
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 111.
    Gülen G. 2011. Defining, measuring and predicting green jobs Rep. Cph. Consens. Cent.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 112.
    Michaels R, Murphy RP. 2009. Green jobs: Fact or fiction? An assessment of the literature Rep. Inst. Energy Res. Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 113.
    Morriss AP, Bogart WT, Dorchak A, Meiners RE. 2009. Green jobs myths. Mo. Environ. Law Policy Rev. 16:326–473
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 114.
    Furchtgott-Roth D. 2012. The elusive and expensive green job. Energy Econ 34:S43–52
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 115.
    Lantz E, Tegen S. 2009. NREL response to the report “Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources” from King Juan Carlos University (Spain) Tech. Rep. NREL/TP-6A2-46261 Natl. Renew. Energy Lab. Golden, CO:
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 116.
    Marsh R, Miers T. 2011. Worth the candle? The economic impact of renewable energy policy in Scotland and the UK Rep., Verso Econ. Rep. Kirkcaldy, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  117. 117.
    Böhringer C, Rivers NJ, Rutherford TF, Wigle R. 2012. Green jobs and renewable electricity policies: employment impacts of Ontario's feed-in tariff. B.E. J. Econ. Anal. Policy 12:1–40
    [Google Scholar]
  118. 118.
    Lehr U, Nitsch J, Kratzat M, Lutz C, Edler D. 2008. Renewable energy and employment in Germany. Energy Policy 36:108–17
    [Google Scholar]
  119. 119.
    Blazejczak J, Braun FG, Edler D, Schill W-P. 2014. Economic effects of renewable energy expansion: a model-based analysis for Germany. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 40:1070–80
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 120.
    Ragwitz M, Schade W, Breitschopf B, Walz R, Le Hir B 2009. EmployRES. The impact of renewable energy policy on economic growth and employment in the European Union: final report Rep. EmployRES The Netherlands:
    [Google Scholar]
  121. 121.
    Hillebrand B, Buttermann HG, Behringer JM, Bleuel M. 2006. The expansion of renewable energies and employment effects in Germany. Energy Policy 34:3484–94
    [Google Scholar]
  122. 122.
    Way R, Ives M, Mealy P, Farmer JD. 2021. Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition Work. Pap. 2021-01 Inst. New Econ. Think., Oxford Martin Sch., Univ. Oxford Oxford, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 123.
    IRENA (Int. Renew. Energy Agency) 2021. Renewable power generation costs in 2020 Rep. IRENA Abu Dhabi, UAE:
    [Google Scholar]
  124. 124.
    Nemet GF. 2019. How Solar Energy Became Cheap: A Model for Low-Carbon Innovation Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  125. 125.
    Summers LH. 2008. Fiscal Stimulus Issues: Testimony before the Joint Economic Committee http://larrysummers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/1-16-08_Fiscal_Stimulus_Issues.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  126. 126.
    Hanna R, Xu Y, Victor DG. 2020. After COVID-19, green investment must deliver jobs to get political traction. Nature 582:178–80
    [Google Scholar]
  127. 127.
    Ramey VA. 2011. Can government purchases stimulate the economy?. J. Econ. Lit. 49:673–85
    [Google Scholar]
  128. 128.
    Houde S, Aldy JE. 2017. Consumers' response to state energy efficient appliance rebate programs. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 9:227–55
    [Google Scholar]
  129. 129.
    Corsetti G, Meier A, Muller G. 2009. Fiscal stimulus with spending reversals Work. Pap. WP/09/106 Int. Monet. Fund Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  130. 130.
    Bowen A, Fankhauser S, Stern N, Zenghelis D. 2009. An outline of the case for a ‘green’ stimulus Rep. Grantham Res. Inst. Clim. Change Environ., Lond. Sch. Econ. Polit. Sci.
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 131.
    Pollin R, Garrett-Peltier H, Heintz J, Scharber H. 2008. Green Recovery: a program to create good jobs & start building a low-carbon economy Work. Pap. Polit. Econ. Res. Inst., Univ. Mass. Amherst:
    [Google Scholar]
  132. 132.
    Pollin R, Heintz J, Garrett-Peltier H. 2009. The economic benefits of investing in clean energy Rep. Cent. Am. Progr. Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  133. 133.
    Alberini A, Banfi S, Ramseier C. 2013. Energy efficiency investments in the home: Swiss homeowners and expectations about future energy prices. Energy J 34:49–86
    [Google Scholar]
  134. 134.
    Seddon N, Smith A, Smith P, Key I, Chausson A et al. 2021. Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 27:1518–46
    [Google Scholar]
  135. 135.
    UK Government 2020. Getting Building Fund. Gov.UK. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/getting-building-fund
    [Google Scholar]
  136. 136.
    Fankhauser S, Sehlleier F, Stern N. 2011. Climate change, innovation and jobs. Climate Policy 8:421–29
    [Google Scholar]
  137. 137.
    Aghion P, Hepburn C, Teytelboym A, Zenghelis D. 2014. Path dependence, innovation and the economics of climate change. Rep., Grantham Res. Inst. Clim. Change Environ., Lond. Sch. Econ. Polit. Sci .
    [Google Scholar]
  138. 138.
    Batini N, Eyraud L, Forni L, Weber A. 2014. Fiscal multipliers: size, determinants, and use in macroeconomic projections. Tech. Notes Man. 14:041–18
    [Google Scholar]
  139. 139.
    Mahfouz S, Hemming R, Kell M. 2002. The effectiveness of fiscal policy in stimulating economic activity—a review of the literature Work. Pap. WP/02/208 Int. Monet. Fund Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  140. 140.
    Auerbach AJ, Gorodnichenko Y. 2013. Fiscal multipliers in recession and expansion. Fiscal Policy after the Financial Crisis A Alesina, F Giavazzi 63–102 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  141. 141.
    Strand J, Toman M. 2010.. Green Stimulus,” Economic Recovery, and Long-Term Sustainable Development Washington, DC: World Bank
    [Google Scholar]
  142. 142.
    Hasna Z. 2021. The Grass Is Actually Greener on the Other Side: Evidence on Green Multipliers from the United States Cambridge, UK: Univ. Cambridge
    [Google Scholar]
  143. 143.
    Green D, Melzer BT, Parker JA, Rojas A. 2016. Accelerator or brake? Cash for clunkers, household liquidity, and aggregate demand NBER Work. Pap. 22878
    [Google Scholar]
  144. 144.
    Maleček P, Melcher O. 2016. Cross-border effects of car scrapping schemes: the case of the German car scrapping programme and its effects on the Czech economy. Prague Econ. Pap. 25:560–76
    [Google Scholar]
  145. 145.
    Li S, Wei C. 2016. The cost of greening stimulus: a dynamic discrete choice analysis of vehicle scrappage programs. Society for Economic Dynamics 2015 Meeting Papers, 722 Warsaw, Pol.: SED https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/gwiwpaper/2016-25.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  146. 146.
    Castle JL, Doornik JA, Hendry DF, Pretis F. 2015. Detecting location shifts during model selection by step-indicator saturation. Econometrics 3:240–64
    [Google Scholar]
  147. 147.
    Castle JL, Hendry DF. 2014. Model selection in under-specified equations facing breaks. J. Econom. 178:286–93
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112420-020640
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112420-020640
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error