Social impacts of climate change mitigation policies and their implications for inequality

Abstract

The Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set ambitious targets for environmental, economic and social progress. Climate change mitigation policies play a central role in this process. To maximize the benefits and minimize the negative effects of climate change mitigation policies, policymakers need to be aware of the indirect and often complex social and inequality impacts that these policies may have and the pathways through which these impacts emerge. Better understanding of the distributional and inequality impacts is important to avoid negative social and distributional outcomes as countries ratchet up their climate policy ambition in the post-Paris context. This paper synthesizes evidence from the existing literature on social co-impacts of climate change mitigation policy and their implications for inequality. The analysis shows that most policies are linked to both co-benefits and adverse side-effects, and can compound or lessen inequalities depending on contextual factors, policy design and policy implementation. The risk of negative outcomes is greater in contexts characterized by high levels of poverty, corruption and economic and social inequalities, and where limited action is taken to identify and mitigate potentially adverse side-effects. Key policy insights. The risk of adverse social outcomes associated with climate change mitigation policies, including worsening inequality, increases as countries ratchet up their ambition to meet the Paris Agreement targets. Many policies that have so far only been piloted will need to be up-scaled.. Negative inequality impacts of climate policies can be mitigated (and possibly even prevented), but this requires conscious effort, careful planning and multistakeholder engagement. Best results can be achieved when potential inequality impacts are taken into consideration in all stages of policy making, including policy planning, development and implementation.. Climate change mitigation policies should take a pro-poor approach that, in best case scenarios, can also lead to a reduction of existing inequalities.

Eco-Social Divides in Europe: Public Attitudes towards Welfare and Climate Change Policies

“…For example, Dryzek stresses that "many policies that make sense from an environmental perspective, such as heavy taxes on fossil fuels, hurt the poor disproportionately" (as cited in [7], p. 334). Similarly, Markkanen and Anger-Kraavi [8] as well as Büchs and colleagues [4] find in their systematic reviews that climate change policies are likely to have adverse side-effects for poor and marginalised population sub-groups. These policies are often regressive, imposing a heavier burden on low-income people unless some compensatory mechanisms are in place.…”

Gender Parity within the Gender—Sustainability Paradigm: A Case Study on Management Structures of the Romanian Academia

“…The aforementioned approach claims that the three pillars of sustainable development-economic, environmental, and social-are "relevant to discussions of gender equality" [4]. An increasing number of studies [5][6][7][8][9][10] also show that gender inequality generates costs that have a negative social impact and lead to environmental degradation. To verify these results, which are intuited based upon the existing political approach to the new social behavior, further research is required.…”

Achieving Sustainable Development Goals in Nigeria’s power sector: assessment of transition pathways

“…The implementation of the pledges contained in developing country NDCs will be driven largely by the synergies between lowcarbon transitions and the SDGs. Next steps stemming from this study could therefore include an assessment of the scenarios in terms of their impacts on goals other than SDG7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and 13 (Climate Action), such as poverty alleviation, food security, job creation, gender, social inclusion and air quality (Markkanen & Anger-Kraavi, 2019;Nerini et al, 2018;Power for All, 2019;Verolme, 2017). Future research could moreover focus on testing the sensitivities of the results to the most critical demand and supply assumptions.…”