I hosted a wonderful speech last Monday Conversation between Michael Spence and Diana Urge-Vorsatz, The first is the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, the second is the professor of climate science and policy and the co-chair of the working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As a moderator, I had hoped that there would be a conflict in disciplinary viewpoints—a sharp conflict between the efficiency evangelism that is so common in economics and the absolutism of the laws of physics that scientists often use. Instead, they focus on some points that are sometimes surprising (at least to me).

I let them imagine that by 2050, we have really achieved the goal of net zero carbon emissions. If this becomes possible, what will the world look like? How will our economy, society and lifestyle change? Will the future life be completely different from our current life, or – Just like the ozone layer ——Does success mean that our lives are more or less like we are used to?

Before you continue reading, think about your own answers-I think this is a very enlightening exercise and I would love to hear your thoughts.

I was surprised to hear that Spence and Urge-Vorsatz are both focused on answering this question ValuesIf we reach net zero, everyone suggests, it will be because we are relatively less concerned about material growth and more concerned about other aspects of prosperity and well-being. This does not mean the “de-growth” vision of the sweater economy; the two also agreed that the only politically feasible way to achieve net zero must be to allow the world’s poor to achieve a certain degree of material comfort.

If we succeed, it will also be because we are more concerned about the distribution aspect of the carbon transition. The following are three important facts raised during the discussion.First, Spence pointed out that since around 1990, almost all Grow Annual carbon emissions come from emerging countries (see chart):

Second, however, the per capita emissions of rich countries are still much higher:

Third, rich personal Worldwide emissions far exceed those of poor countries-shocking.according to the study Urge-Vorsatz pointed out that between 1990 and 2015, the world’s richest 10% of the population accounted for 46% of total emissions growth, while the lower half of the world’s population accounted for only 6%.This Stockholm Environmental Research InstituteWork on “carbon inequality” includes the “dinosaur chart” below, which shows how much of the post-1990 emissions increase came from the consumption of the top 10% of people in the world.

What are the policy implications of these facts? In my opinion, they are comprehensive, ranging from political economy and distribution issues to technical and financial policies.

The political and economic challenges are obvious. If the poor—within and between countries—are expected to pay adjustment costs, net zero will not be achieved.in Recent column, The economist Barry Eichengreen uses Mancur Olson’s classic analysis of collective action to explain the difficulty: Even though the benefits are widespread, the costs are concentrated on identifiable groups that can prevent change. In China, positive social changes may not take place. In terms of climate, these groups range from fossil-dependent sectors and regions to developing countries that are still committed to industrialization and industrialization. Yellow vestRich man-style protesters. But the same logic points to the solution: buy the losers.

This means that rich countries must eventually seriously consider funding the carbon transition of poor countries. The G7 summit reaffirmed its “commitment” to the $100 billion annual climate finance commitment made in Copenhagen a decade ago; this is equivalent to continuing Unbelievable. Within the country, a just transition requires Carbon dividend policy, Which will raise the price of emissions and redistribute income to the population at once.

In addition to compensating costs, the world’s poor must also achieve a higher level of prosperity.In our conversation, Spencer mentioned being called So identity: Total emissions depend on per capita income, total population, energy intensity of economic output, and carbon content of energy. On the first two factors, more people must be allowed to earn a higher income than today, so on the latter two factors, better performance is required. As Urge-Vorsatz urged, this means changing our consumption patterns, moving towards more energy-efficient and carbon-efficient development, and investing in technologies that achieve the efficiencies we need.

In turn, achieving this goal depends on formulating correct financial policies.At this point, we are making rapid intellectual progress because forum Our conversation is part of the explanation. Isabel Schnabel of the European Central Bank put forward an argument against “market neutrality” in his opening speech. This is a traditional central bank principle that monetary policy should not hinder the effective allocation of capital.Read the full text Speech, But I will explain this argument like this: when the market itself is distorted by low-priced carbon emissions, the apparent neutrality is not neutral at all, but reinforces the distortion. The central bank may have reason to adjust its policies to take this into account.

The central bank is considering how to do this: a good overview of current thinking is a Recent speech Proposed by Andrew Hauser of the Bank of England. But most of the innovation we need must be provided by the private sector. More government investment will also encourage private investors to invest more in green technology. But the market structure is also important: There is evidence The stock market is better at funding green technological innovation than banks. This is an important finding for a bank-intensive region like the Eurozone. In terms of climate policy, everything complements each other. If the EU takes its green ambitions seriously, it must also take its plans to achieve sustainable development seriously. Capital Market Alliance.

Other readability

• After the G7 Cornwall summit, the ball was handed over to the G20, which includes large emerging economies that need to be part of solving any of our global challenges.Which means this is International moments in Italy — The country will hold the G20 presidency throughout 2021.

• It is unwise to expect the leaders of the two countries to make great progress in US-Russia relations this week.But in one Mobile account In the history of the struggle between the “Westerners” and the “land people” in Russia, Anna Nemtsova believes that US President Joe Biden can help Russia’s dissidents by “strengthening the democratic cause of the West itself”. Play a role.

Digital news

• The Fed’s last meeting finally brought The normalization of monetary policy is comingBut this prospect is indeed far away: Fed policymakers are now expected to raise interest rates before the end of the year, which shocked the US bond market. .. 2023!