Criticism of environmentalism as a middle-class preserve is a bit awkward given the existential importance of the environment to our species. Worse still, it is politically obstructive when used by reactionary forces to oppose environmentalism while pretending to care for the interests of the poor. Such is the narrative around a transition to green energy.
Unfortunate, but at the same time it contains a grain of truth. The problem lies in the distribution of costs and benefits in moving to net-zero. Looking at electricity generation specifically, a transition to low-carbon production could have a negative impact on some regions, depending on their vulnerabilities and capacity to adapt. Conversely, it could have a positive effect on more wealthy and privileged areas.
Researchers in Geneva have mapped1 the socio-economic consequences of electricity decarbonisation for 296 European regions by the year 2050. Their work shows that the southern and south-eastern regions of the continent could be the most vulnerable in economic terms.
Electricity in Europe is produced largely in power plants burning coal and gas, and this sector alone is responsible for a quarter of the continent’s greenhouse gas emissions. Decarbonising electricity has therefore become a political priority, even if practical policy initiatives seem superficial. Low-carbon electricity is also a prerequisite for the decarbonisation of heating and transport.
The benefits of low-carbon electricity are obvious, and include not only a better living environment, but also new jobs and opportunities for reskilling. But the process could at the same time reinforce or create new economic imbalances between regions. To take one example, an area with a decommissioned coal-fired plant will lose jobs and tax revenues, and be further penalised if there is little land available to build new renewable energy facilities.
The Geneva researchers simulated a number of different scenarios, taking into account all existing means of electricity production for each region, including nuclear, hydro, photovoltaic, wind and fossil fuels, as well as electricity transmission and storage. “We studied their possible configurations in 2035 to be on the way to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 2050,” says Jan-Philipp Sasse, lead author of the Nature Communications study.
In order to model potential economic impacts, vulnerability criteria were selected for each region. These included air pollution, electricity price, nature of local employment, the amount of land available for new facilities, and investments that may result from a low-carbon transition.
“Our results show that the benefits of a transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 would be tangible already by 2035,” says Sasse’s colleague Evelina Trutnevyte. “In terms of air quality, investment and job creation, these benefits tend to be concentrated in the richer regions of northern Europe. Those in southern and south-eastern Europe are generally more vulnerable.”
Looking at the economic map, one can see that northern Jylland in Denmark would benefit from additional investment in offshore wind. Residents of Sicily and Campania, on the other hand, would suffer an increase in electricity price. And to compound the problem, geographical constraints mean that these two southern Italian regions would be unable to import electricity easily from places where it is cheaper.
The hope is that the cost-benefit indices generated with the Geneva model can be integrated into established energy transition strategies. That is easier said than done, as there may be political resistance based on the extant tension between nation-states and European institutions.
Jan-Philipp Sasse & Evelina Trutnevyte, “A low-carbon electricity sector in Europe risks sustaining regional inequalities in benefits and vulnerabilities”, Nature Communications 14, 2205 (2023); doi:10.1038/s41467-023-37946-3.