Search

Begin New Search Topic Green Transition Publishing Institution Center for Global Development (CGD)

1. Meeting Skill Needs for the Global Green Transition: A Role for Labour Migration?

Author:
Samuel Huckstep and Helen Dempster
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
The green transition will generate an enormous demand for workers. This paper reviews demand for, and supply of, skills relevant to the green transition in five countries in the Global South and five in the Global North. It focuses on the installation and maintenance workforce needed in two sectors: solar photovoltaic panels and heat pumps. It finds that in almost all of the 10 countries studied, supply of the necessary skilled workers is unlikely to meet demand. In particular, Global North countries, which must cut more emissions sooner, face challenges in obtaining sufficient workers against a backdrop of ageing populations. If green transition targets are to be met, migration is likely to be needed as a complement to domestic training and reskilling. Given that the shortage of green-skilled workers is global, however, migration must be accompanied by support for training and retaining workers at home.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Migration, Labor Issues, and Green Transition
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Options for Green-Skilled Migration Partnerships: A Guide for Policymakers

Author:
Helen Dempster and Samuel Huckstep
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
The green transition is widely expected to lead to high levels of net job creation, with roles distributed across the pay and skill spectrum. To fill these roles, many countries of destination will need to use migration alongside their domestic labour supply. Yet few countries of origin have enough skilled workers to meet their own green transition targets. As a result, any green-skilled migration facilitated by countries of destination should be linked with investments in the training, recruitment, and retention of workers into ‘green’ jobs within countries of origin. This paper explores three models that link training and migration in a partnership framework—fixed-term migration; Global Skill Partnerships; and migration with parallel investments—to maximise both economic development and carbon reduction benefits. For each model, the paper outlines key considerations that should be taken into account along with a worked example. It also includes a "guide," walking policymakers through the different models to understand which would best meet the needs of countries of origin, countries of destination, and employers.
Topic:
Economics, Migration, Economic Development, and Green Transition
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. The EU’s Global Role: A Third Node of Power

Author:
Mikaela Gavas and W. Gyude Moore
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
In recent years, a quest for economic security and strategic autonomy have come to define the European Union (EU)’s politics. The need to compete globally for the finite resources required for the green and digital transitions, and rivalries between the US and China for global dominance, are all driving this agenda. And while the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine highlighted countries’ global dependencies, deepening geopolitical tensions have brought national security considerations to the fore. At the same time, the rise of populist parties across Europe is fuelling calls for countries’ national interests to play the defining role in development cooperation. This presents a challenging environment for EU development cooperation. Caught up in this new paradigm, development cooperation is increasingly viewed as a lever of hard power and an instrument of influence which can be used to reinforce Europe’s strategic autonomy and economic security. With European interests central to EU development cooperation strategy, the climate of distrust between Europe and its partners is being heightened, given the not-so-distant memory of European vaccine “nationalism” during the COVID-19 pandemic, the different standards some Europeans apply with regards to fossil fuel exploration and the negative repercussions the Green Deal will have on African countries’ growth and development. However, shaping EU development policy in this fashion, with geostrategic interests at its forefront will be more detrimental than helpful for the EU in the medium to long-term, and carries the risk of fuelling conflicts of interest with partners. Geo-economic fragmentation and a trust deficit when it comes to governments and societal institutions are threatening our ability to address pressing global challenges. In Africa, this fracturing is evident in the plethora of Africa plus-one summits, for example, the first ever Korea-Africa summit. Instead of using multilateral vehicles to address development cooperation, this new environment has spawned a diversion of resources toward more bilateral initiatives, where the geopolitical returns are direct and attributable. In this piece, we propose a reset of the EU’s international relations narrative and “third way” for the EU to position itself as a global development player.
Topic:
International Relations, Development, European Union, and Green Transition
Political Geography:
Europe

4. A Win-Win: Migration Partnerships for an Aging EU Workforce

Author:
Helen Dempster, Pete Baker, and Samuel Huckstep
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
European Union (EU) member states have ambitious green transition targets and healthcare strategies in place, requiring the relevant sectors to expand. Yet these sectors are already suffering from large workforce shortages. Expanding skilled migration from third countries to the EU to meet these shortages risks stripping countries of origin of the talent they need for their own goals. Any skilled migration therefore needs to be pursued within partnerships which prioritise meaningful benefits to the country of origin to combat “brain drain”, a “win-win” policy solution. This can be done through the Global Skill Partnership model, wherein the country of destination pays for the training of workers within the country of origin, some of whom migrate. While migration is a member state competence, there is real opportunity for the incoming European Commission to make a global difference in three ways: (1) expand funding for pilot projects; (2) support the development of new partnerships; and (3) be a positive voice for the role of skilled migration.
Topic:
Migration, European Union, Skilled Labor, European Commission, and Green Transition
Political Geography:
Global Focus

5. MENA and the Global Energy Conundrum

Author:
Rabah Arezki and Adnan Mazarei
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
The Middle East and North Africa region (MENA) is addicted to fossil fuels, but so too is the rest of the world economy. Solutions to the energy transition have thus to be found in a coordinated global shift in both the supply and demand for fossil fuels and clean(er) energy, where multilateral institutions can play an important role. These institutions could help bolster international technology transfers to MENA, as well as scale up investment and trade in clean energy to facilitate the global energy transition. Given the potential in MENA for solar power, the region could remain a global hub, this time for clean energy.
Topic:
Climate Finance, Economy, Fossil Fuels, Energy, and Green Transition
Political Geography:
Middle East and North Africa

6. The JETPs of South Africa and Indonesia: A Blueprint for the Move Away from Coal?

Author:
Annika Seiler, Hannah Brown, and Samuel Matthews
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
The Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) are a novel approach to intensifying ongoing efforts toward carbon neutrality, combining country-led strategies to decarbonize the energy sector and addressing development priorities resulting from the ensuing structural transformation with focused, long-term, and plurilateral partnerships. The launches of the $8.5 billion JETP for South Africa in 2021 and the $20.0 billion JETP for Indonesia in 2022 provide momentum for this effort. However, the legacies of coal-based power and modest renewable energy deployment in both countries present key challenges in the areas of political economy, policy alignment, finance, and supply chain development. This paper consolidates available information about these two JETPs and analyzes the approaches taken by South Africa and Indonesia, with the aim of providing a thought framework for these JETPs. It seeks to identify risks and gaps that could obstruct these JETPs’ advancement and to assess whether these JETPs can serve as blueprints for other countries looking to accelerate their move away from coal. Further, this paper highlights complementary action that could enhance the effectiveness of these JETPs and guide the development of similar partnerships in the future. The paper finds that while the JETPs for South Africa and Indonesia appear to deliver a blueprint for moving away from coal in their respective contexts, barriers, risks, and gaps call into question whether the targets can be delivered at the planned pace and scale.
Topic:
Climate Change, Climate Finance, Renewable Energy, Energy, and Green Transition
Political Geography:
Africa, Indonesia, South Africa, and Southeast Asia

7. Let Them Eat Carbon

Author:
Vijaya Ramachandran and Arthur Baker
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
The push for the World Bank and others to link their investments to addressing climate concerns stems from a fear that, unless developing countries take action to decarbonize now, their economic growth will lead to vast emissions that will derail all global efforts to limit climate change. This approach, which treats low- and middle-income countries as a monolith, is unhelpful to the conversation about climate change. To understand better where emissions are concentrated and how to address them, we projected carbon dioxide emissions to 2035—the point at which observers believe they will level off in most countries due to technological advances and accumulating wealth—under some simple assumptions. Emissions from the world’s poorest 64 countries, those which get IDA loans, will remain very low for decades to come, even if their economies grow rapidly and without action to reduce emissions. Pressuring low- and lower-middle-income countries to replace plans for gas power with solar or wind energy will have limited climate benefits compared to replacing coal generation in richer countries. It is just more efficient—and just—to focus on climate mitigation where emissions are high, and on poverty reduction where poverty is high. And given that there is no sign of an increase in aid spending, especially in the poorest countries, rich countries must not cannibalize development aid or reinvent the development finance architecture
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, World Bank, Finance, Banking, and Green Transition
Political Geography:
Global Focus

8. Greening the US Sovereign Bond Guarantee Program: A Proposal to Boost Climate-Directed Sovereign Finance in Developing Countries

Author:
Scott Morris, Rowan Rockafellow, and Alan Cameron
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
Sovereign bond guarantees (SBGs) are an effective but underutilized instrument available to the US government in support of developing country partners. By protecting bond purchasers in the event of a foreign issuer country’s default, SBGs substantially reduce borrowing costs for developing country governments. In this CGD policy paper, we estimate the costs and benefits of historical US sovereign bond guarantees in order to model the use of SBGs for climate finance purposes. We demonstrate that the US government-provided SBG has the effect of conferring the US government’s cost of borrowing on the partner government. On that basis, it represents substantial savings for these countries. Based on this analysis, we propose a $20 billion “Green” SBG program aimed at financing climate change mitigation efforts in 28 emerging market economies. We estimate that the US government could support $20 billion in bond issuances through a subsidy outlay of $2 billion, resulting in a 22 percent reduction in borrowing cost of the target countries, which represents $4 billion in budgetary saving for their governments. We propose that the subsidy appropriations in support of the guarantees be retained and recycled within the Green SBG program, which would substantially improve the financial leverage of the program over time. We also suggest that the program could be used for climate adaptation purposes by targeting a different group of developing countries
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, Finance, Sustainability, and Green Transition
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

9. Who’s Responsible for Climate Change? New Evidence Based on Country-Level Estimates of Climate Debt

Author:
Benedict Clements, Sanjeev Gupta, and Jianhong Liu
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
In this paper, we introduce the concept of climate debt and provide country-level estimates through 2035 under a business-as-usual scenario. These estimates can help inform the debate on climate change by providing a clear view of which countries have (until the present) contributed the most to climate change, as well as the likely path for climate debt by country over the next 15 years. We then discuss the implications for carbon emissions if the G-20 countries and EU were to adopt either of the two policy options proposed in recent months: the first by President Biden for the US and the other by the EU for its member countries. The implications for fiscal policy are that beyond the need to keep public debt at sustainable levels, countries will also need to allocate funds for expected increases in pension and health spending associated with aging populations. As a result, there may be little room for new expenditures (such as green infrastructure or subsidies for clean energy) to reduce the growth of climate debt. Countries could turn to the revenue side, in particular greater taxation of energy with carbon taxes. This would have the advantage of reducing emissions while also helping countries to fund spending on green infrastructure.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, Humanitarian Response, and Green Transition
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10. Valuing Climate Liabilities: Calculating the Cost of Countries’ Historical Damage from Carbon Emissions to Inform Future Climate Finance Commitments

Author:
Lee Robinson and Ian Mitchell
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
A central commitment of action on climate is the promise of “developed countries” to jointly mobilize $100 billion of climate finance per year by 2020 (and through to 2025), formalised at the UN climate change conference in 2010 (COP16). Five years later, the Paris Agreement reaffirmed this commitment and promised a new goal after 2025 “from a floor of USD 100 billion per year.” We propose an approach for calculating financial climate liabilities for each country based on their historical CO2 emissions, using the idea of an externality: a social cost that has not been borne by the agent whose actions produced it. The paper follows earlier work on calculating carbon debts (e.g., Kunnas, 2014) which we update with recent and authoritative research on carbon pricing methods. We also adjust for awareness, calculating the accruing of liabilities only from the time that countries knew that their emissions were harmful. We present several scenarios adjusting this and other assumptions. The main scenario produces a clearly quantified liability for each country and a total carbon liability to the world of $34 trillion, or $4,500 per capita. If this liability was used to set climate finance goals, it would suggest OECD countries would need to contribute $190 billion a year to 2100. The analysis also highlights that other industrialised countries, notably China and Russia, have also built-up substantial liabilities and should therefore also contribute to future climate finance goals.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, Carbon Emissions, and Green Transition
Political Geography:
Global Focus