The United States has committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030 and to net-zero emissions by 2050. This is in line with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5C. Multiple studies show that achieving these targets is technologically feasible and would have net direct costs of less than 1% of GDP (and possibly negative), not accounting for climate benefits or other externalities. Robust federal, state, and local policies would be needed to ensure that infrastructure to enable decarbonization is built at the required pace and scale. Simultaneous investments in adaptation and resilience infrastructure, including upgrading green and grey infrastructure, will be needed to adapt to the consequences of climate change that can no longer be avoided and increase economic and social resilience to more frequent or severe extreme weather events. These kinds of climate smart infrastructure – infrastructure required to support rapid decarbonization and withstand unavoidable climate change impacts – are expansive and varied. Infrastructure investments to enable decarbonization include renewable and other zero- or near-zero-emissions electricity generation; short- and long-duration energy storage; robust and flexible electricity transmission and distribution; charging and refueling infrastructure for zero-emission vehicles; and clean hydrogen and carbon dioxide capture, transportation and storage. Infrastructure investments in adaptation include supporting infrastructure for extreme heat, drought, and wildfire resilience; coastal and inland flood resilience; and public health resilience. Physically deploying this infrastructure depends on a significant investment focused on addressing the causes and impacts of climate change, as well as an intentional effort to adopt processes and practices at all levels of government to facilitate such large-scale infrastructure deployment and reconstruction. Shifting from a status quo to a transformational approach to infrastructure investment and deployment will be essential to addressing the climate crisis. It will also provide an opportunity to rethink how to design and implement infrastructure in a way that increases equity and delivers for the communities it serves.
Many economic modelers believe that there is an “optimal economic path” for solving the climate problem that exists independent of human choices. This belief rests on the notion that Integrated Assessment Models can determine the path that “maximizes global welfare” and, in turn, this path should drive climate policy. This commentary focuses on an under‐appreciated problem with that belief. We argue that the existence of pervasive increasing returns to scale, network externalities, learning curves, spillovers, and other nonlinear effects puts the idea of a single optimal economic path at odds with our current understanding of the most important forces driving the development of real economic and technological systems. We further argue that this idea is detrimental to rigorous understanding of climate solutions.This article is categorized under: Assessing Impacts of Climate Change > Scenario Development and Application Climate Economics > Economics and Climate Change Climate Economics > Economics of Mitigation
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.