David Amaglobeli, Joaquim Guilhoto, Samir Jahan, Salma Khalid, Waikei R Lam, Gregory M Legoff, Brent Meyer, Xuguang Simon Sheng, Pawel Smietanka, Sonya Waddell, and Daniel Weitz
The energy price shock in 2022 led to government support for firms in some countries, sparking debate about the rationale and the nature of such support. The results from nationally representative firm surveys in the United States and Germany indicate that firms in these countries were generally resilient. Coping strategies adopted by firms included the pass-through of higher costs to consumers, adjustment of profit margins (United States) and investments in energy saving and efficiency (Germany). Firms in energy-intensive industries would have been significantly more affected if international energy prices were fully passed through to domestic prices in Europe. Survey responses further reveal that most firms are uncertain about the impact of recent policy announcments on green subsidies. Firms take advantage of fiscal incentives to accelerate their climate-related investment plans are often those that have previous plans to do so. These findings suggest better targeting and enhancing policy certainty will be important when facilitate the green transition among firms.
The world is not decarbonizing fast enough, with global warming on track to reach as much as 4°C over the next century absent a global green transition. Policymakers in Europe—and beyond—still have an opportunity both to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 and to strengthen economic prospects by increasing energy efficiency, along with changing the energy mix from fossil fuels to renewables. In this paper, we assess energy efficiency (or intensity) in a panel of 38 European countries over the period 1980–2021 by using the stochastic frontier analysis and obtain statistically significant and intuitive results. We have two key findings. First, price signals, including through the introduction of a carbon tax and the removal of fossil fuel subsidies, are critical for energy efficiency, as consumers respond to changes in energy prices. Second, stronger environmental policies and institutions generate unambiguous improvements in energy efficiency by inducing investment in energy efficient equipment and buildings and nudging consumers for energy conservation. These results—robust to alternative specifications and methods—have important policy implications for green growth with higher energy efficiency.
Global warming is the most significant threat to ecosystems and people’s health and living standards, especially in small island states in the Caribbean and elsewhere. This paper contributes to the debate by analyzing different options to scale up climate change mitigation and adaptation. In particular, the empirical analysis indicates that increasing energy efficiency and reducing the use of fossil fuel in electricity generation could lead to a significant reduction in carbon emissions, while investing in physical and financial resilience would yield long-run benefits. From a risk-reward perspective, the advantages of reducing the risks associated with climate change and the health benefits from higher environmental quality clearly outweigh the potential cost of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the short run. The additional revenue generated by environmental taxes could be used to compensate the most vulnerable households, building a multilayered safety net, and strengthening structural resilience.