This database aims to collect as many examples as possible where city, state, and national leaders are making COVID-19 recovery plans in ways that could also produce benefits in racial, gender, and economic equity and in climate change mitigation and resilience.
Are you aware of relevant policies or initiatives that are not yet cataloged in this database? Please submit them using this form.
A Green Recovery: The Case for Climate-Forward Stimulus Policies in America’s COVID-19 Recession Response
29 October 2020
Authors: Rhiana Gunn-Wright, Kristina Karlsoon, Kitty Richards, Bracken Hendricks, and David Arkush
The authors argue for a green stimulus plan, “building the dual goals of reducing emissions and speeding the transition away from fossil fuels into efforts to induce greater investment, job creation, and financial flows across the wider economy.” They also build the case for ensuring that this recovery helps the nation make progress toward racial and economic equity.
The report includes 6 principles for a green and equitable recovery. The stimulus must:
- Match the scale of the economic crisis
- Start quickly, be fast-acting, and be immediately impactful
- Move money effectively, not just rapidly
- Support true recovery, continuing until the economy is strong
- Protect health and safety and advance public welfare
- Anticipate future needs to build sustainable prosperity
COVID-19 Recovery Funds Dwarf Clean Energy Investment Needs
16 October 2020
Authors: Marina Andrijevic, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Matthew J. Gidden, David L. McCollum, and Joeri Rogelj
$12 trillion are slated to be spent worldwide as part of COVID-19 economic recovery packages. In this Science Article, authors find that around 10% of those funds could be sufficient to cover the additional costs in the energy sector required to set the world on a path to meeting the goals of the Paris agreement.
A Just Green Recovery
29 June 2020
Authors: John Larsen, Emily Wimberger, Ben King, and Trevor Houser
This paper examines a proposal from US Representatives Grijalva and McEachin, along with 43 of their colleagues, suggesting 16 proposed environmental justice investments as part of recovery package. Initiatives include home weatherization, energy efficiency block grants, and assistance for low emissions vehicle fleets. The study finds that altogether, the programs would create 300,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs over the next five years.
Climate Change and Development in Africa Post COVID-19: Some Critical Reflections
2 June 2020
This white paper argues that a COVID-19 recovery should “go beyond fiscal and monetary adjustments whose sole aim is to ensure the survival and perpetuation of the current system of production, consumption and distribution which is responsible for the climate crisis.” The authors call for “transformative actions based on society wide discussions and agreements on how to implement a just transition.”
The report names 12 elements of transformative action, including:
- Timely action
- A ‘whole of society’ approach
- A socially fair transition that leave no-one behind
- Developed countries supporting others on a green and equitable path
Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change?
4 May 2020
Authors: Cameron Hepburn, Brian O’Callaghan, Nicholas Stern, Joseph Stiglitz and Dimitri Zenghelis
The authors of this paper surveyed more than 200 central bankers, finance ministers, and other experts about a range of possible financial stimulus investments. Based on the expert input they identified five types of investments with both high potential to support economic recovery and the ability to reduce climate change:
- clean physical infrastructure,
- building efficiency retrofits,
- investment in education and training,
- natural capital investment, and
- clean R&D.
The authors also asked the respondents, many of whom will be shaping COVID-19 response plans in their countries, about the attractiveness of various policies and investments. The paper reports that “many climate-positive policies were perceived by our respondents to have high overall desirability; most climate-negative policies had relatively low desirability. This was true even for climate-positive policies that took more time to implement.”