The Welfare Effects of Degrowthas a Decarbonization Strategy

  1. Javier Andrés
  2. J.E. Boscá
  3. R. Domenech
  4. Javier Ferri
Revista:
Documentos de trabajo ( FEDEA )

ISSN: 1696-7496

Año de publicación: 2024

Número: 4

Páginas: 1-40

Tipo: Documento de Trabajo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Documentos de trabajo ( FEDEA )

Resumen

We evaluate the welfare and macroeconomic implications of three distinct strategies aimed at reducing carbon emissions, which could be categorized within the diverse landscape of ideas encompassed by the degrowth literature. These strategies include penalizing fossil fuel demand, substituting aggregate consumption with leisure, and curbing consumption by limiting total factor productivity growth. Using an environmental dynamic general equilibrium model (eDGE) that incorporates both green renewable technologies and fossil fuels in the production process, our study sets an emissions reduction target aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement by 2050. The results reveal that the strategies analyzed, which most closely align with the strictest interpretations of degrowth—namely, a reduction in the consumption of goods and services compensated by an increase in leisure, or strong impediments against conventional economic growth—may entail significant economic consequences, leading to a notable decline in welfare. In particular, a degrowth scenario aimed at curbing consumption through a decline in Total Factor Productivity (TFP) yields the most pronounced reduction in welfare. Conversely, inducing a reduction in fossil fuel demand by increasing the price of fossil fuels through taxes, despite potential social backlash, shows noticeably less detrimental effects on welfare compared to other degrowth policies. Furthermore, under this degrowth strategy, our findings suggest that a globally coordinated strategy could result in long-term welfare gain.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Andrés, J., Boscá, J.E. Doménech, R. and J. Ferri (2024): "Transitioning to Net- Zero: Macroeconomic Implications and Welfare Assessment". Estudios sobre la Economía Española 2024/01. Documento de Trabajo, Fedea.
  • Annicchiarico, B., Carattini, S, Fischer, C., and G. Heutel (2021): "Business cycles and environmental Policy: Literature Review and Policy Implications". NBER Working Paper No 29032.
  • Annicchiarico, B.; Carattini, S.; Fischer, C.; and G. Heutel (2022): "Business cycles and environmental policy: A primer." Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, 3(1), 221-253.
  • Batten , S. (2018): "Climate change and the macroeconomy: a critical review". Bank of England, Staff Working Paper No. 706.
  • Bolt, J. and J. L. van Zanden (2020): "Maddison style estimates of the evolution of the world economy. A new 2020 update", Maddison-Project Working Paper WP-15.
  • Brienen, R. J. W., Caldwell, L., Duchesne, L., Voelker, S., Barichivich, J., Baliva, J. Cecca- ntini, G., Di Filippo, A.; Helama, S., Locosselli, G. M., Lopez, G. M., Piovesan, G., Schöngart, J., Villalba, R. and E. Gloor (2020): Forest carbon sink neutralized by ervasive growth-lifespan trade-offs", Nature Communications, pp. 1-10.
  • Cosme, I., Santos, R., and O’Neill, D. W. (2017): "Assessing the degrowth discourse: A review and analysis of academic degrowth policy proposals", Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 321-334.
  • Demaria, F., Scheneider, F., Sekulova, F., and J. Martinez-Alier (2013): "What is Degrowth? From an Activist Slogan to a Social Movement" Environmental Values, vol. 22, pp. 191–215.
  • Dietz, S. and N. Stern (2015): "Endogenous Growth, Convexity of Damage and Climate Risk: How Nordhaus’ Framework Supports Deep Cuts in Carbon Emissions". The Economic Journal, vol. 125(583), pp. 574-620.
  • European Commission (2023): Draft Update of the Plan Integrated National Energy and Cli- mate 2023-2030.
  • Evroux, C., Spinaci. S. and A. Widuto (2023): "From growth to ’beyond growth’: Concepts and challenges". EPRS / European Parliamentary Research Service.
  • Fabra, N., Lacuesta A. and M. Souza (2022): "The implicit cost of carbon abatement during the COVID-19 pandemic". European Economic Review, vol. 147, 104165.
  • Friedlingstein, P. et. al. (2023): "Global Carbon Budget 2023", Earth System Science Data, 15, 5301–5369.
  • Golosov, M., Hassler, J, Krusell, P. and A. Tsyvinski (2014): "Optimal taxes on fossil fuel in general equilibrium", Econometrica, vol. 82(1), pp. 41-88.
  • Jackob, M. and O. Edenhofer (2014): "Green growth, degrowth, and the commons", Ox- ford Review of Economic Policy, 30(3), 447-468.
  • Kallis, G., Kostakis, V., Lange, S., Muraca, B., Paulson, S., & Schmelzer, M. (2018): "Re- search on degrowth." Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 43, 291-316.
  • Nordhaus, W. D. (1991): "To Slow or Not to Slow: The Economics of the Greenhouse Effect." The Economic Journal, vol. 101(407), pp. 920-937.
  • Our World in Data (2024): https://ourworldindata.org/
  • Schneider, F., Kallis, G., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2010): "Crisis or opportunity? Economic de- growth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue." Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 511-518.
  • van den Bergh, J. (2011): "Environment versus growth — A criticism of "degrowth" and a plea for "a-growth"". Ecological Economics, 70, 881-890.
  • Weiss, M., and Cattaneo, C. (2017): "Degrowth–taking Stock and Reviewing an Emerging Academic Paradigm." Ecological economics, 137, 220-230.
  • Warlenius, R. H. (2023): "The limits to degrowth: Economic and climatic consequences of pessimist assumptions on decoupling". Ecological Economics, 213, 107937.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet