It is possible to grow economically and emit less carbon, experts say

For many decades, since the Industrial Revolution, economic growth has been linked to increased greenhouse gas emissions. This relationship, however, is ceasing to be a reality.

Experts heard by CNN explain that countries that managed to reduce emissions managed to maintain economic growth

“Since 2005, 32 countries with populations of at least 1 million people have reduced their emissions while experiencing economic growth,” says researcher Joel Jaeger of the World Resources Institute (WRI).

In the absolute reduction of emissions, there is an explicit drop in emissions even with the growth of the Gross Domestic Product. Among those leading this movement, Jaeger mainly cites Europeans, such as Denmark and the United Kingdom, and the United States. In recent years, Japan, Mexico, El Salvador and Singapore have started to stand out.

Developing countries and small economies present another stage in decarbonization, a relative reduction. Emissions increase along with economic growth, but more slowly, as is the case in India.

The difference in the drop in emissions can also be explained because the large economies start from a higher level, which is related to the countries’ commitments.

The United States has taken on a zero emissions target by 2050, while India has committed to zero by 2070.

Brazil has a recent example that it is capable of reaching lower levels of emissions with economic growth.

Tasso Azevedo, technical coordinator of the Climate Observatory, recalls that, in 2004 and 2005, Brazil emitted 2 gigatonnes, and this decreased to 1.2 gigatonnes in 2012. During this period, Brazil managed to reduce deforestation. It was also when the country registered the best marks in GDP. “If you take this period, Brazil had the greatest reduction in greenhouse gases, both in relative and absolute terms. Afterwards, emissions started to grow again”.

Change in the energy matrix

There are two large blocks responsible for the world’s emissions, the generation of electricity and the burning of fossil fuels for transport and industry. “The easiest way to generate energy in low-emission renewable form is in the form of electricity. The idea is to electrify the world. Today, about 20% of the world’s energy is electricity. The ideal is to reach 50%”, says Azevedo. The main sources of renewable energy in the long term are solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal and biomass, in that order, according to the expert. Brazil has 46% of its renewable energy, and when you think about electricity, it reaches 80%, so it is well placed in the area, but has the potential to expand in solar and wind farms, in addition to biofuels, according to the specialist.

For this diversification to become a reality, it is necessary to remove subsidies from fossil fuels, put costs on emissions and benefit from the removal of gases. Azevedo cites Denmark as an example, which made large investments in wind energy and today is the country with the largest share of wind energy in its energy matrix. What heated up the economy, in addition to reducing emissions.

Other examples, mentioned by Alexandre Batista, project coordinator at the Centro Brasil no Clima, are France, Germany and the United Kingdom, which bet on the shutdown of coal-fired thermal plants. The first two invested in expanding nuclear, wind and solar energy. The United Kingdom has a huge expansion of offshore wind energy, that is, offshore. The United States has a growth in shale gas-fired thermals, replacing some coal-fired thermals. In some American states, there has been a great expansion of solar energy and, to a lesser extent, wind energy.

“It’s a combination of factors that allowed large economies to reduce their emissions,” says Jaeger. He also points out as one of the secrets the shift in the base of the economy, from manufactured goods to a service-oriented model.

With the relocation of basic industries to Asia, the United States and Europe developed economies based on services and technology. Due to their high levels of education, they managed to maintain economic growth and reduce emissions, shifting labor to other areas.

A different picture from Brazil, which has its development based on commodities and a low level of education. The solution, for Batista, is to depend less on the export of commodities and develop a model that combines services and bioeconomy. “We need heavy investment in education. We cannot compete in terms of investment with a focus on technology. The bioeconomy makes it possible to develop technology to export sustainably exploited raw materials, such as pharmaceuticals and cosmetics”, he teaches.

Low carbon investment creates more jobs

A successful point of the richest countries in ensuring low-emission growth, according to Jaeger, is investment in infrastructure. By increasing efficiency and shifting the energy matrix from fossil fuels to other low-carbon sources, the economy is stimulated. That means building structures like solar and wind farms, as well as setting industry standards, with requirements for less polluting cars and trucks, for example.

Jaeger’s research at WRI points out that more jobs are created for every dollar invested in low-carbon energy matrices than with the same value applied to fossil fuels. “Investing in solar energy creates 1.5 more jobs, for example. Invest in wind 1.2 more. The most attractive clean energy matrix is ​​the one that best serves the country”, he analyzes.

He also draws attention to city planning and sustainable land use as other factors that can generate trillions of economic benefits while helping to reduce emissions.

For all these changes, money is needed. The WRI researcher uses the example of the pandemic to show how large economies have invested trillions in investments to generate or maintain jobs. Countries that are not part of this select group have fewer opportunities to invest. “Finance is a big issue, an important agenda in Glasgow. Developing countries need support”, he assesses.

Despite the declines in absolute emissions and the slowdown in relative emissions, there is unanimity in saying that the effort is still insufficient to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. “With what we currently have, according to UNEP, we are moving towards a temperature increase of 2.7°C, and it is far from 1.5°C. We need a more ambitious takedown to get there”, concludes Azevedo.