4.6 Article

Science policy frameworks for a post-pandemic green economic recovery

Journal

ENERGY STRATEGY REVIEWS
Volume 45, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.esr.2022.101035

Keywords

Climate-compatible growth; Energy systems model; Input-output model; Multi-criteria decision analysis; Stakeholder engagement; Sustainable development goals

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents a multi-stakeholder framework for designing an economic recovery strategy that aligns with climate stabilization goals. The study employs quantitative energy and economic models and engages government, enterprises, and civil society in a multi-criteria decision-making process. The findings suggest that a 'return-to-normal' economic stimulus is environmentally unsustainable and economically inferior compared to most green recovery schemes.
As current production and consumption patterns exceed planetary boundaries, many leaders have stressed the need to adopt green economic stimulus policies in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper provides an integrated multi-stakeholder framework to design an economic recovery strategy aligned with climate sta-bilisation objectives. We first employ quantitative energy and economic models, and then a multi-criteria de-cision process in which we engage social actors from government, enterprises and civil society. As a case study, we select green recovery measures that are relevant for a European Union country and assess their appropri-ateness with numerous criteria related to climate resilience and socio-economic sustainability. Results highlight trade-offs between immediate and long-run effects, economic and environmental objectives, and expert evidence and societal priorities. Importantly, we find that a 'return-to-normal' economic stimulus is environmentally unsustainable and economically inferior to most green recovery schemes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available