- Addressing climate change involves multiple approaches, including incentives, fiscal measures, and new and improved standards.
- Mitigating climate change is an economic—and moral—imperative because the overall costs of unmitigated climate change to society far outweigh the costs of mitigation.
- However, there are short-term costs, and we need to understand who those costs fall on versus who gains. Costs are always unwelcome, but we need to demonstrate the benefits, including energy security and new green jobs.
- A just transition is essential to ensure widespread support and avoid delays that will simply result in greater climate change.
- A just transition means fairness must be an integral part of the fiscal/policy response to climate change.
- To gain acceptance, the proceeds of taxes/duties must be perceived as well spent to be popular, gaining political and social legitimacy.
It’s widely understood that climate change on the current trajectory would be economically devastating across society. Economists warn that 2˚C of warming by 2050 could result in a 2.5% to 7.5% reduction in global GDP, with the worst effects felt by countries in Africa and Asia. In the long run, the costs and devastating effects associated with adaptation to climate change are far greater than the costs of acting now to reduce the temperature rise.
We know that climate change itself is likely to have the greatest impact on the poorest individuals, communities, and countries—those least able to mitigate its effects. We have evidence already: The COVID crisis has shown that extreme events disproportionately affect the poorer members of society and exacerbate preexisting income gaps within countries. So we must act, but how we do so will influence whether mitigation continues to have popular support.
Crucial to achieving consensus on climate change action is a fair and equitable approach to its implementation—a just transition that addresses the risk that the costs of addressing climate change fall disproportionately on those unable to afford it. Likewise, those who have worked hard in challenging conditions to extract fossil fuels need training and jobs in the new industries created by the transition to cleaner energy.
"The transition towards inclusive and low-carbon economies must be just and fair, maximizing opportunities for economic prosperity, social justice, rights and social protection for all, leaving no one behind."
—UNFCC, April 21, 2020
Momentum is building among countries and businesses to implement initiatives designed to curb reliance on polluting through carbon pricing. In 2021 alone, 65 carbon pricing initiatives were selected by 45 national jurisdictions and 34 subnational jurisdictions, representing 11.65 GtCO2e, or 21.5% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These costs threaten a near-term inflation pickup as businesses essentially pay to pollute or, alternatively, invest in the new technology required to avoid emitting GHG.
Carbon pricing approaches
Cap the total level of GHG permitted and allow lower-emitting industries in certain sectors to save, or sell, on any surplus allowance
Create a supply-and-demand dynamic for emissions allowances that allows emissions trading systems (ETS) to set a market price for GHG emissions
Governments decide emissions cap allowances across given industries or entire economies that typically decline over time
Define a taxation rate for GHG emissions or, more often, on the carbon content of fossil fuels (rather than on their emissions)
Aim to make individuals and companies pay the full social costs of their carbon pollution
Raise revenue that can be used to mitigate the effects of pollution
As the International Monetary Fund sharply cuts its growth forecast for 2022, with a warning that higher-than-expected inflation and the Omicron variant have worsened the outlook for the global economy, some politicians have started to attack these green taxes as inflation begins to bite in both developed and developing nations. In the United States, the Biden administration faced a watering down of its US$3.5 trillion social spending and climate bill, with some Democrats warning that the proposed US$555 billion earmarked for climate and clean energy investments could be reduced or scrapped.
Taxes on energy disproportionately affect the less wealthy, but it's crucial to achieving net zero that green taxes continue to incentivize a shift to sources of low emissions energy. In the long term, solving climate change can benefit society broadly and, more particularly, its poorest people, communities, and countries, but it’s vital that the proceeds of green taxes are clearly earmarked to show clear value to society and positive direct benefits in the short term.
What is a just transition?
At its core, the Paris Agreement recognised the importance of achieving “the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities." When tackling climate change, we also need to consider wider sustainable development goals, including reducing inequalities and offering decent work and affordable, clean energy. Broadly, when considering a just transition, we should be considering workers, supply chains, communities, and consumers, which are all affected by fiscal measures.
Why should we aim for a just transition?
1 For purely ethical reasons
2 To ensure the social legitimacy of the transition
3 To ensure the widest possible political acceptance and avoid protests and delays, along with their associated financial and environmental costs
"One of the major challenges in moving towards a low-carbon economy is enabling workers in declining industries to find new jobs and livelihoods."
—UNFCC, April 21, 2020
Failing to properly transition jobs from high carbon to low carbon risks policy reversal if those who have worked hard in difficult conditions to extract fossil fuels (e.g., coal miners) fail to see real action to develop jobs in renewable industries in their areas.
There are a huge number of jobs forecast to be created by the transition—18 million jobs could be created by 2030 in pursuit of the Paris Agreement goals—but workers need to see real action to ensure that jobs in renewable industries are encouraged in their areas and know they’ll be qualified and trained for them.
There are overlaps in transferable skills between occupations in polluting and renewable energy industries: The skill set of electrical engineers employed in operating fossil fuel power stations can be adapted to renewable power plants and former shipyard workers could be successfully retrained to build offshore wind farms, as could displaced coal workers for the solar industry. Ambitious pilot projects have been launched to lure workers to relocate to far-flung green industrial megaprojects, but these industries (e.g., wind farms) may already lie in similar locations to existing, polluting industries (e.g., offshore oil rigs). More localised projects may help to convince workers that these new jobs really will be coming to their areas, often to the same industrial heartlands that will see polluting industries decline.
The UN’s just transition white paper suggests that companies, industries, and state or federal governments could establish and finance public retraining programmes to enable reskilling within the context of regional economic development strategies. Companies should identify their community engagement, especially in regions in which stranded asset risk is highest, and unions will need to ensure their members receive the training they need through the collective bargaining process.
What’s amplifying the issue today?
Current inequalities are worsened by rising energy prices, a prime factor behind overall rising inflation in many countries. By nature, energy expenditure by households is fairly inelastic; generally, people need to heat their homes and reduce spending on other expenses. This is increasing pressure on politicians to find ways of reducing prices, and anything that’s perceived to increase costs, such as carbon taxes, is a potential target. This pressure is coming from not just the poorest segment of society but more broadly; those on middle incomes are also feeling an inflationary squeeze.
In a politically charged environment with substantial scrutiny, it's important to distinguish these near-term taxes—incentives to tackle climate change—from wild claims about the impact on consumers of other transition activities. For example, a recent report by the World Economic Forum identified a relatively low impact on costs in many industries of between 1% and 4%; however, with large numbers regularly cited and carbon taxes being easy to identify, it’s crucial that proponents of action are clear on costs and benefits.
A main driver of today's higher energy prices is geopolitical challenges; for example, the invasion of Ukraine is likely to result in disruption to energy supplies to Europe. In addition, to hit 2050's net-zero targets, energy systems are likely to require a global investment of US$5 trillion a year by the end of this decade. And as every industry is pushed to decarbonise—by governments, consumers, and shareholders—this green revolution might cause short-term costs that contribute to global inflation.
Meanwhile, climate change itself may be responsible for lessening the availability of some renewable energy sources. In 2021, the United Kingdom's renewable generation fell to its lowest level in four years, driven by a wind drought that saw wind generation drop by 30% year over year as wind speeds fell. Similarly, a megadrought in the U.S. southwest is drying up the potential of hydroelectric power generation from the Colorado River while also harming crops intended for biofuels.
Various studies have tried to analyse how this inflation rate is experienced by different levels of income. OECD research shows that low-income households spend a greater share of their income on rent and energy services, including electricity. Other studies in the United Kingdom and Australia confirm near-term trends in rising nondiscretionary average prices that disproportionately affect those in the lowest income quartile.
Why stay the course?
Of course, we will all—especially the poorest in our communities—lose in the event of irreversible climate change. Ultimately, a transition to renewable energy helps everyone, especially those least able to afford mitigation measures (e.g., flood defences) and who are more likely to live in the most affected areas. But the gilets jaunes, or yellow vest, protests in France in 2018, sparked by hikes in gas and diesel taxes, serve to highlight that solutions to climate change that don't acknowledge the reality of economic inequality are perceived as both unfair and politically impractical. Those advocating for climate action in today’s political climate need to anticipate how opponents will portray their proposals and ensure that they’ll be seen as fair.
There are further risks of political instability in oil-producing countries that fail to adapt to the transition toward a low carbon economy. Analysts suggest that some countries, including Nigeria, Iraq, Algeria, and Chad, are vulnerable to "a slow-motion wave of political instability" as they battle "doom loops of shrinking hydrocarbon revenues, political turmoil, and failed attempts to revive flatlining non-oil sectors." Many countries will be too hampered by insufficient infrastructure, human capital, and economic and legal institutions to effect a smooth diversification away from fossil fuels.
These are significant known unknowns, but it's essential that the global climate change agenda stays the course. Already, the cost of renewables has been consistently falling, which will offer benefits across society as, for example, renewable generation sources begin to match fossil fuels on cost. By 2025, the U.K. government predicts that both wind and solar will offer approximately half the levelised cost of electricity generation as gas for new projects. We expect that we’ll eventually gain lower energy costs and an energy supply that is, by definition, renewable—not subject to limits in global supply—and that does not irreversibly damage the planet.
What’s the right framework for change?
Green taxes, regulations, and tariffs are important components of the transition to clean energy, helping to correct market imbalances that can favour unsustainable fossil fuels. But we cannot ignore that the concept of taxation is unpopular in isolation, and it will be vital to clarify exactly what green taxes pay for to enable a discussion around what they’re intended to achieve. As proponents of action on climate change, we have a responsibility to ensure this message is well delivered and, for these programmes to be popular, we need comprehensive messaging about the tangible benefits resulting from the revenues raised.
Both institutional investors and shareholders can use their influence on global companies to ensure that just transition measures are in place, in consultation with workers, communities, and unions. And ESG-labeled bonds, including sovereign bonds linked to climate action, have seen a significant increase in issuance over the last couple of years. Additionally, building on the success of green bonds, social sovereign bonds direct funding towards projects with positive social outcomes, which can include training, education, and employment generation linked to climate change. Investor interest in these bonds has soared during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the market turns to sources of capital that deliver social benefits while funding recovery.
Positive support from policymakers and investors points to real progress
Political support is growing: Forty-six countries have committed to the introduction of national planning to aid a just transition, and 161 investors, representing US$10.2 trillion in assets, have publicly stated their commitment to supporting the Principles for Responsible Investment’s (PRI’s) recommendations for investor action.
The PRI's five areas for investor action
|1 Investment strategy—Assessing exposure to the social dimension (including employment impacts) of the transition, pursuing dialogue with workers and other key stakeholders, and integrating just transition factors into investment beliefs and policies|
|2 Corporate engagement—Including just transition factors in investor expectations, requesting disclosure, benchmarking performance, and pressing for improvement|
|3 Capital allocation—Incorporating the social dimension into strategies for climate investment across all asset classes, including listed equities, bonds, private equity, and real assets|
|4 Policy advocacy and partnerships—Making the just transition a part of policy dialogue at subnational, national, and international levels as well as within place-based partnerships|
|5 Learning and transparency—Understanding emerging lessons and disclosing results so that the efficiency and effectiveness of action on the just transition improve|
In June 2021, EU member states approved a €17.5 billion Just Transition Fund targeting support for regions and sectors most affected by the transition to the green economy, which is conditional on member states submitting territorial just transition plans.
Mitigating the devastating environmental and financial impact of climate change by moving to an environmentally sustainable economy is simply common sense. We must replace employment in polluting industries with new, high-quality jobs. We must incentivise investment and more sustainable practices while penalising pollution. We must set higher standards. Some of these come with short-run costs, and we must ensure we understand who pays and who gains and, in doing so, ensure that we demonstrate that we aim for a just transition. This is the crucial prerequisite for building and maintaining public support for transformational change.
“Saving our planet, lifting people out of poverty, advancing economic growth … these are one and the same fight.”
—Ban Ki-moon, Eighth Secretary-General of the United Nations
A widespread health crisis such as a global pandemic could cause substantial market volatility, exchange-trading suspensions and closures, and affect portfolio performance. For example, the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has resulted in significant disruptions to global business activity. The impact of a health crisis and other epidemics and pandemics that may arise in the future could affect the global economy in ways that cannot necessarily be foreseen at the present time. A health crisis may exacerbate other preexisting political, social, and economic risks. Any such impact could adversely affect the portfolio’s performance, resulting in losses to your investment.
Investing involves risks, including the potential loss of principal. Financial markets are volatile and can fluctuate significantly in response to company, industry, political, regulatory, market, or economic developments. These risks are magnified for investments made in emerging markets. Currency risk is the risk that fluctuations in exchange rates may adversely affect the value of a portfolio’s investments.
The information provided does not take into account the suitability, investment objectives, financial situation, or particular needs of any specific person. You should consider the suitability of any type of investment for your circumstances and, if necessary, seek professional advice.
This material is intended for the exclusive use of recipients in jurisdictions who are allowed to receive the material under their applicable law. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and are subject to change without notice. Our investment teams may hold different views and make different investment decisions. These opinions may not necessarily reflect the views of Manulife Investment Management or its affiliates. The information and/or analysis contained in this material has been compiled or arrived at from sources believed to be reliable, but Manulife Investment Management does not make any representation as to their accuracy, correctness, usefulness, or completeness and does not accept liability for any loss arising from the use of the information and/or analysis contained. The information in this material may contain projections or other forward-looking statements regarding future events, targets, management discipline, or other expectations, and is only current as of the date indicated. The information in this document, including statements concerning financial market trends, are based on current market conditions, which will fluctuate and may be superseded by subsequent market events or for other reasons. Manulife Investment Management disclaims any responsibility to update such information.
Neither Manulife Investment Management or its affiliates, nor any of their directors, officers or employees shall assume any liability or responsibility for any direct or indirect loss or damage or any other consequence of any person acting or not acting in reliance on the information contained here. All overviews and commentary are intended to be general in nature and for current interest. While helpful, these overviews are no substitute for professional tax, investment or legal advice. Clients should seek professional advice for their particular situation. Neither Manulife, Manulife Investment Management, nor any of their affiliates or representatives is providing tax, investment or legal advice. This material was prepared solely for informational purposes, does not constitute a recommendation, professional advice, an offer or an invitation by or on behalf of Manulife Investment Management to any person to buy or sell any security or adopt any investment strategy, and is no indication of trading intent in any fund or account managed by Manulife Investment Management. No investment strategy or risk management technique can guarantee returns or eliminate risk in any market environment. Diversification or asset allocation does not guarantee a profit or protect against the risk of loss in any market. Unless otherwise specified, all data is sourced from Manulife Investment Management. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Manulife Investment Management
Manulife Investment Management is the global wealth and asset management segment of Manulife Financial Corporation. We draw on more than a century of financial stewardship to partner with clients across our institutional, retail, and retirement businesses globally. Our specialist approach to money management includes the highly differentiated strategies of our fixed-income, specialized equity, multi-asset solutions, and private markets teams—along with access to specialized, unaffiliated asset managers from around the world through our multimanager model.
This material has not been reviewed by, is not registered with any securities or other regulatory authority, and may, where appropriate, be distributed by the following Manulife entities in their respective jurisdictions. Additional information about Manulife Investment Management may be found at manulifeim.com/institutional.
Australia: Manulife Investment Management Timberland and Agriculture (Australasia) Pty Ltd, Manulife Investment Management (Hong Kong) Limited. Canada: Manulife Investment Management Limited, Manulife Investment Management Distributors Inc., Manulife Investment Management (North America) Limited, Manulife Investment Management Private Markets (Canada) Corp. China: Manulife Overseas Investment Fund Management (Shanghai) Limited Company. European Economic Area Manulife Investment Management (Ireland) Ltd. which is authorised and regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland Hong Kong: Manulife Investment Management (Hong Kong) Limited. Indonesia: PT Manulife Aset Manajemen Indonesia. Japan: Manulife Investment Management (Japan) Limited. Malaysia: Manulife Investment Management (M) Berhad 200801033087 (834424-U) Philippines: Manulife Investment Management and Trust Corporation. Singapore: Manulife Investment Management (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (Company Registration No. 200709952G) South Korea: Manulife Investment Management (Hong Kong) Limited. Switzerland: Manulife IM (Switzerland) LLC. Taiwan: Manulife Investment Management (Taiwan) Co. Ltd. United Kingdom: Manulife Investment Management (Europe) Ltd. which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority United States: John Hancock Investment Management LLC, Manulife Investment Management (US) LLC, Manulife Investment Management Private Markets (US) LLC and Manulife Investment Management Timberland and Agriculture Inc. Vietnam: Manulife Investment Fund Management (Vietnam) Company Limited.
Manulife, Manulife Investment Management, Stylized M Design, and Manulife Investment Management & Stylized M Design are trademarks of The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company and are used by it, and by its affiliates under license.