Number of results to display per page
Search Results
12. Future of Construction
- Author:
- Oxford Economics
- Publication Date:
- 10-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Oxford Economics
- Abstract:
- Future of Construction gives forecasts for global construction to 2030 as well as perspectives on climate related challenges for the construction industry. Global construction output in 2020 was US$10.7 trillion (in 2017 prices and exchange rates) and we expect this to grow by 42% or US$4.5 trillion between 2020 and 2030 to reach US$15.2 trillion. The Global Construction industry is set to be a global engine for economic growth and recovery from COVID. Shorter term, global construction output is expected to reach US$13.3 trillion by 2025 – adding US$2.6 trillion to output in the five years from 2020. Asia Pacific will account for US$2.5 trillion of growth in construction output between 2020 and 2030, up by over 50% to become a US$7.4 trillion market by 2030. Construction output in North America will grow by 32%, or US$580 billion from 2020 to 2030, to US$2.4 trillion in 2030. Western Europe is forecast to grow by 23% between 2020 and 2030 and is expected to push up construction output to US$2.5 trillion in 2030. Average annual growth in construction of 3.6% per annum over the decade to 2030 will be higher than manufacturing or services.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Economics, Green Technology, Manufacturing, and Construction
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
13. Green Hydrogen in a Circular Carbon Economy: Opportunities and Limits
- Author:
- Zhiyuan Fan, Emeka Richard Ochu, Sarah Braverman, Yushan Lou, Griffin Smith, Amar Bhardwaj, Jack Brouwder, Colin McCormick, and Julio Friedmann
- Publication Date:
- 08-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
- Abstract:
- As global warming mitigation and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reduction become increasingly urgent to counter climate change, many nations have announced net-zero emission targets as a commitment to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Low-carbon hydrogen has received renewed attention under these decarbonization frameworks as a potential low-carbon fuel and feedstock, especially for hard-to-abate sectors such as heavy-duty transportation (trucks, shipping) and heavy industries (e.g., steel, chemicals). Green hydrogen in particular, defined as hydrogen produced from water electrolysis with zero-carbon electricity, could have significant potential in helping countries transition their economies to meet climate goals. Today, green hydrogen production faces enormous challenges, including its cost and economics, infrastructure limitations, and potential increases in CO2 emissions (e.g., if produced with uncontrolled fossil power generation, which would be hydrogen but would not be green). This report, part of the Carbon Management Research Initiative at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, examines green hydrogen production and applications to understand the core challenges to its expansion at scale and the near-term opportunity to enable deployment. An analysis using Monte Carlo simulations with a varying range of assumptions, including both temporal (i.e., today versus the future) and geographical (e.g., the US, the EU, China, India, Japan) factors, anticipates emissions intensity and costs of producing green hydrogen. The authors evaluate these production costs for different scenarios as well as associated infrastructure requirements and highlight near-term market opportunities and policies to motivate development of the green hydrogen industry.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Energy Policy, Green Technology, and Carbon Emissions
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
14. Promoting Energy for Development in a World Accelerating to Net-Zero: Roundtable Report
- Author:
- Hon Xing Wong, Jonathan Elkind, Philippe Benoit, and Aashna Aggarwal
- Publication Date:
- 10-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
- Abstract:
- On September 14, 2021, Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL) and Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) co-hosted a high-level virtual roundtable on energy for development and climate objectives, the first of a series of discussions focusing on the intersection between these two policy priorities. Among the roundtable participants were senior leaders representing major international organizations, development finance institutions, civil society, philanthropic foundations, academia, youth activists, and energy and finance industries. Convened a week before the United Nations (UN) High-Level Dialogue on Energy—the first in 40 years—the virtual roundtable occurred at a time when the focus of many decision makers around the globe was on accelerating climate change mitigation to fulfill the goals of the Paris Agreement. Amid this sense of urgency to accelerate decarbonization, the roundtable served as a timely reminder of energy’s role in alleviating poverty and promoting growth. With 2.6 billion people (more than a third of the world’s population) lacking access to clean cooking and almost 760 million people (roughly 10 percent of the world’s population) lacking access to electricity, bridging the energy gap by 2030 should remain at the top of the global agenda.[1] Energy access is essential for economic development, especially for the 9.1–9.4 percent of the world that still lives in extreme poverty (defined as living on less than $1.90 per day).[2] Moreover, the role of energy extends beyond basic access: it is critical to generating broad-based economic growth to lift people out of poverty and enable quality healthcare, education, gender equity, food security, and other benefits enjoyed by middle-class populations worldwide. Roundtable participants discussed options to promote energy for development and climate change mitigation, considering matters of policy, finance, and technology. This report summarizes the roundtable discussion and presents participants’ key questions. The discussion occurred on a not-for-attribution basis under the Chatham House rule.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Development, Energy Policy, and Green Technology
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
15. The Impact of ESG on National Oil Companies
- Author:
- Luisa Palacios
- Publication Date:
- 11-2021
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
- Abstract:
- The rise of ESG investing—investment focused on environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and corporate governance—in the 21st century has created significant pressures on oil companies. Some shareholders of international oil companies (IOCs) have pressed them to pay closer attention to ESG goals and diversify their business models away from hydrocarbons and into other sources of energy amid efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions.[1] National oil companies (NOCs)—which currently control about 50 percent of the world’s oil production—have different corporate mandates than their IOC peers that might imply a more complicated relationship with ESG goals. NOCs are mainly owned by governments in the developing world, and thus face vastly different demands than IOCs answering to private sector shareholders.[2] But different does not mean NOCs do not or will not feel pressure to address ESG issues. Given NOCs’ significant share of global oil production—and the fact that this share may increase as IOCs diversify—the pressures they face and changes they make could have a significant impact on the future of the oil and gas industry as well as countries’ abilities to meet climate goals. During the November 2021 COP 26 meetings in Glasgow, Saudi Arabia and India became the latest countries with strong NOCs to pledge to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in the next decades.[3] This commentary examines how the ESG agenda is impacting NOCs through the ecosystem of organizations and principles that have emerged from the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement as well as from investors and regulators in global financial markets. The piece then describes the three components of the ESG framework in relation to NOCs and the challenges of accurately measuring adherence to them due to insufficient standardization of metrics and the variety of reporting frameworks. Also, because environmental, social, and governance competence are not strictly related to one another, companies may be strong in some areas and weak in others, making it difficult to evaluate their ESG performance as a whole.[4] Finally, while ESG pressures are coming alongside discussions about the energy transition and climate change, ESG assessments do not evaluate companies’ energy transition plans, even if some aspects of ESG scores might provide insights about them. The commentary pays special attention to the importance of corporate governance for national oil companies in achieving overall ESG goals, given the key differences between their ownership structure and that of private sector companies working in the oil industry.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Energy Policy, Oil, Natural Resources, and Green Technology
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
16. Green gifts from abroad? FDI and firms' green management
- Author:
- Peter Kannen, Finn Ole Semrau, and Frauke Steglich
- Publication Date:
- 11-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
- Abstract:
- Improvements of firms' environmental performance crucially determine the speed of a country's green economic transformation. In this paper, we investigate whether firms with foreign ownership are more likely to adopt 'green' management practices, which determine the capability to monitor and improve a firm's impact on the environment. By using multi-country firm-level data, we show that foreign ownership increases the likelihood of implementing green management practices. Considering country heterogeneity, we reveal that only firms based in more developed economies and in countries with better environmental performance benefit from foreign direct investment, while this is not the case for firms based in less developed economies or countries with weak environmental performance. In addition, we find that the effect is more robust for manufacturing sector firms than for service sector firms. Overall, our results suggest that foreign ownership can contribute towards a country's green economic transformation.
- Topic:
- Development, Economics, Environment, Green Technology, and Green Transition
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
17. Building the Banking Sector’s Capacity for Green Infrastructure Investments for a Low-Carbon Economy
- Author:
- Takashi Hongo and Venkatachalam Anbumozhi
- Publication Date:
- 01-2020
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
- Abstract:
- The construction of green infrastructure, using advanced technology and retiring inefficient technology, is essential for the low-carbon transition. Various green infrastructure programs are being implemented, and banks play an important role in facilitating these programs. Many lessons have been learned in improving finance for green infrastructure: (i) measurement, reporting, and verification is a useful tool for identifying green infrastructure investment; but just reduction is not enough for Green Infrastructure and three requirements – carbon dioxide emission reductions, improving energy access, and contributions to sustainable economic growth – connected with the Sustainable Development Goals are necessary; (ii) banks can contribute to realising a positive cycle of cost reduction and diffusion of advanced technology for reducing costs by scaling up markets; and (iii) carbon pricing is essential for removing carbon externalities and making green infrastructure commercially viable. Banks are recommended to have long-term strategies, improve their capacity for scenario analysis, have more dialogue with industry, and develop innovative finance such as carbon markets. Governments are recommended to adopt carbon pricing to encourage finance for green infrastructure.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, Infrastructure, Green Technology, Renewable Energy, and Banking
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
18. Net-Zero and Geospheric Return: Actions Today for 2030 and Beyond
- Author:
- Julio Friedmann, Alex Zapantis, Brad Page, Chris Consoli, Zhiyuan Fan, Ian Havercroft, Harry Liu, Emeka Richard Ochu, Nabeela Raji, Dominic Rassool, Hadia Sheerazi, and Alex Townsend
- Publication Date:
- 09-2020
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
- Abstract:
- The case for rapid and profound decarbonization has never been more obvious or more urgent, and immediate action must match growing global ambition and need. An important new component of this discussion is the necessity of achieving net-zero global greenhouse gas emissions for any climate stabilization target. Until net-zero emissions are achieved, greenhouse gas will accumulate in the atmosphere and oceans, and concentrations will grow, even with deep and profound emissions reduction, mitigation, and adaptation measures. This places a severe constraint on human enterprise: any carbon removed from the earth must be returned to the earth.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Environment, Green Technology, Carbon Emissions, and Decarbonization
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
19. Levelized Cost of Carbon Abatement: An Improved Cost-Assessment Methodology for a Net-Zero Emissions World
- Author:
- Julio Friedmann
- Publication Date:
- 10-2020
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
- Abstract:
- New policies are needed to achieve the net-zero emissions required to address climate change. To succeed, these policies must lead directly to swift and profound abatement of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Policies that appear effective on the surface too often have little real impact or are costly compared to alternatives. Governments, investors, and decision makers require better tools focused on understanding the real emissions impacts and costs of policies and other measures in order to design the most effective policies required to create a net-zero world. This paper, from the Carbon Management Research Initiative at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, puts forward a levelized cost of carbon abatement, LCCA, an improved methodology for comparing technologies and policies based on the cost of carbon abatement. LCCA measures how much CO2 can be reduced by a specific investment or policy, taking into account relevant factors related to geography and specific asset. It calculates how much an investment or policy costs on the basis of dollars per ton of emissions reduced. Previous marginal or levelized cost methodologies that assess carbon reduction options often failed to consider the specific contexts that determine the real, all-in costs of a policy and the real, all-in impacts on emissions. These costs and impacts can vary depending on the contexts and details of geography, existing infrastructure, timing, and other factors. LCCA attempts to improve understanding of the real climate costs and benefits by including specific and local CO2 reductions in all estimations and consistently applying standard financial metrics that more accurately represent and compare costs. Investors and policy makers interested in climate, energy, and decarbonization must balance many competing options. The scenarios and analyses presented in this report can provide a foundation for wider analytical applications, and can help focus investments in innovation for hard-to-abate sectors, determine essential infrastructure required to facilitate market uptake, and estimate the value of grants in deployment. If the LCCA is not estimated, decision makers will not know the value of their policies and investments in terms of achieving greenhouse gas reductions and their carbon goals or the opportunity costs of taking one path over another. Finally, although carbon abatement costs are only one consideration of many in crafting climate policy (e.g., jobs, trade, domestic security), LCCA analysis will deploy efficient and effective approaches of GHG reduction and help avoid waste. This paper uses four scenarios to illustrate the discipline and value of LCCA analysis: first, the $/ton cost of using new solar power (utility or rooftop) to displace power-sector emissions in one market (California); second, the $/ton costs of new rooftop solar generation in several states with different solar resources, grid mixes, and policy environments; third, the $/ton cost of various technology options to decarbonize a range of primary iron and steel production methods; and fourth, the $/ton cost associated with sustainable aviation fuels and direct air capture and storage of CO2. The analysis provides insight into (a) the highest value for carbon reduction, (b) the relative discrete costs and benefits for decarbonization options, and (c) the potential shortfalls in policy or portfolio goals. In this context, the LCCA estimates for even simple cases can prove complicated depending on how emissions reductions are achieved. For example, our first scenario finds the costs of reducing emissions by replacing existing power generation in California with solar PV range from $60/ton (utility solar PV displacing natural gas power generation) to $300/ton (rooftop solar replacing a grid-average mix of generation) to more than $10,000/ton (any solar replacement of nuclear or hydropower). These large ranges are contingent on policy, investment, and/or technical decisions.
- Topic:
- Energy Policy, Natural Resources, Green Technology, and Carbon Emissions
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
20. Don’t Throw Caution to the Wind: In the Green Energy Transition, Not All Critical Minerals Will Be Goldmines
- Author:
- Perrine Toledano, Martin Dietrich Brauch, Solina Kennedy, and Howard Mann
- Publication Date:
- 05-2020
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
- Abstract:
- he green energy transition will be exceedingly mineral intensive. Manufacturing solar panels, wind turbine and batteries to power cleaner energies is set to significantly increase the demand for co-called “critical” minerals. Such a forecast prompts high expectations in mineral-rich countries and suggests promising opportunities for developing countries. However, the projects to increase the primary extraction of critical minerals rest on bullish forecasts and uncertain terrain due to a number of factors explored in the paper that threaten to leave these investments obsolete and economically stranded.
- Topic:
- Science and Technology, Green Technology, Sustainability, and Transition
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
- « Previous
- Next »
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4