With the rise of the green economy, countries strive to balance economic growth and environmental protection. This article discusses ways in which countries can implement eco-friendly practices without losing their competitive edge, considering challenges such as financial strain and industry resistance.

—

The green economy is an economic framework that promotes development while at the same time minimizing environmental degradation; it encourages development while sparing the environment. 

The United Nations Environment Programme defines it as improving human well-being and social equity while significantly reducing ecological risks and resource scarcity. This model represents low carbon footprint, resource efficiency, and social inclusivity.

Over the past decade, numerous governments have adopted the green economy as a potential alternative to the traditional economic model that has too often been synonymous with inequality, waste, and the depletion of natural resources. 

The green economy framework combines the three critical aspects: environmental, social, and economic objectives – aiming at attaining sustainable development through renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and innovative waste management practices.

Economic Challenges of the Green Transition

The low-carbon energy transition presents several economic challenges. Of these, one of the more substantial concerns is how to reconcile climate policy imperatives with a wider set of macroeconomic priorities, notably regarding employment and economic stability. 

Electric vehicle batteries and energy management digitization are technologically promising but will require extensive investment and sensitive intervention, partly to avoid potential side effects such as increased energy consumption by low-income segments of society. The green transition also demands changes in the labour market, with possible short-term job losses in carbon-intensive industries while new opportunities arise in emerging green sectors. This is a structural change that requires careful policy planning to ensure a just transition for affected workers and communities. 

Furthermore, the green economy necessitates substantial upfront capital investments in infrastructure and technology that may be beyond public and private budgets, especially for developing countries with limited financial resources.

Other complicating factors are political-economic. For instance, fossil fuel-based industries typically resist reforms that threaten their financial interests. In countries whose economies depend on fossil fuel revenues, this creates the dual problem of needing to decarbonize existing infrastructure while investing in sustainable alternatives. 

While the transition to a green economy presents many challenges, it must be considered that maintaining the status quo may be costlier. The long-term economic benefits of sustainable practices could include job creation in new sectors and reduced healthcare costs from improved air quality, among many others, offsetting initial investments. Moreover, the political resistance from fossil fuel industries may be overstated, as most energy companies are already beginning to diversify their portfolios with renewable technologies, recognizing the inevitable shift towards cleaner sources of energy.

The greening of the economy remains highly challenged by financing, especially in developing countries that lack proper regulatory frameworks and capital access. High indebtedness and lack of policy further hinder progress, and most nations have remained stuck on how to get the resources needed to achieve long-term sustainability. 

These are financial challenges that the international community is instrumental in addressing – developed nations should live up to their current pledges on climate finance and, at the same time, explore innovative mechanisms for fundraising. Multilateral development banks and private sector partnerships are potentially game-changing elements to mobilize resources and knowledge for sustainable projects in developing countries. Equally important could be the development of capacity-building and technology transfer programs that would be instrumental in bridging wide gaps between nations for mutual benefits from the green transition.

Effective Policies and Strategies

Progress made by countries in green economy initiatives has shown the potential for effectiveness in policies and strategies. For example, a circular economy sustainable consumption and production patterns aimed at minimal waste generation through recycling, reusing, and repairing, can bring alternatives to traditional ways of consumption and production. Similarly, green entrepreneurship and environmental economics emphasize the role of bringing sustainability into business models and economic planning. 

Other green finance mechanisms, such as green bonds and sustainable investment funds, would complement these by channeling capital toward environmentally friendly projects. Equally, the adoption of carbon pricing systems and implementation of sustainable procurement policies can act as an effective incentive for businesses and consumers to adapt to environmentally friendly practices. They can encourage innovation in clean technologies and promote sustainable urban planning, which will help to create resilient communities that can withstand environmental challenges.

These sustainability initiatives sound quite promising but are very challenging in terms of implementation. 

The circular economy concept often faces problems related to scalability and economic viability, especially in the case of industries with complex supply chains. Moreover, green entrepreneurship and environmental economics are not always exactly in line with short-term profit motives, which may discourage businesses from fully adopting them. Also, critics have pointed out that it is possible to game or manipulate the mechanisms of green finance and carbon pricing. Likewise, this might result in greenwashing rather than real environmental progress.

Some countries have already had success with these approaches. A 2024 World Bank report points to successful policies in countries from Egypt to Peru. These case studies drive home the importance of aligning national policies with international sustainability goals, as in the 2015 Paris Agreement. While there may be difficulties in implementing green policies, successful cases that are well-designed and efficiently implemented indicate their practicality and usefulness. These examples—like Germany’s Energiewende, Costa Rica’s renewable energy, and Norway’s EV adoption—are very important lessons for other countries in developing their sustainable strategies. Furthermore, they show the importance of international cooperation and sharing knowledge in dealing with global environmental challenges.

The Role of International Trade

International trade plays a central role in shaping global economic and environmental outcomes. Emphasizing sustainable trade practices in support of the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, the International Chamber of Commerce underlines the fact that trade policies can support both economic growth and lower carbon emissions. The fact that economies are linked to each other through trade implies cooperation in the protection of the environment and sustainable development. The country can utilize trade agreements and partnerships to encourage the use of green technologies and sustainable ways of production across borders. International trade will foster innovation and competition in eco-friendly industries, thereby hastening the transition toward a sustainable, global economy. 

Critics argue that putting environmental sustainability at the forefront of trade policies will increase costs for businesses and consumers, smothering economic growth in developing nations. Others will also contend that very tight environmental regulations can act as trade barriers to restrict access to the market in countries whose green technologies are not that advanced. 

Another concern is that an emphasis on sustainability will lead to the marginalisation of other key trade issues, including job creation and poverty reduction in poor economies.

Challenges, however, do exist for the balance of trade with sustainability, especially for low-income and export-dependent countries. Equitable sharing in the green transition for these countries will have to be ensured through coherent policies and investment. Sustainable trade proponents argue that the long-term gains of sustainable practices far outweigh the short-term economic costs, and that a shift is needed at the global level toward more sustainable patterns of production and consumption. They call for capacity-building initiatives and technology transfer programs to help developing nations adapt to and take advantage of green trade policies. 

Moreover, proponents argue that integrating sustainability into trade agreements could lead to new economic opportunities – like the development of eco-friendly industries and green jobs – potentially contributing to both environmental preservation and economic growth in the long run.

Challenges and Barriers

Resistance to change, high initial investment costs, and the absence of comprehensive tools for measuring progress are significant barriers to the green economy transition. Developing nations face unique challenges, including surging energy demands and limited access to sustainable technologies. Ensuring that vulnerable workers and communities are not left behind is crucial for a just and equitable transition. 

These challenges necessitate a multifaceted approach that combines policy innovation, technological advancement, and social support mechanisms. Addressing these barriers requires collaboration between governments, businesses, and civil society to create inclusive strategies that balance economic growth with environmental sustainability. Moreover, international cooperation and knowledge-sharing can play a vital role in overcoming technological and financial constraints, particularly for developing nations. While collaboration and international cooperation are often touted as solutions, they can sometimes lead to unintended consequences such as dependency on foreign aid and technology. Additionally, the push for rapid environmental sustainability might inadvertently hinder economic growth in developing nations, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities.

It is also worth considering that a one-size-fits-all approach to sustainable development may not adequately address the unique cultural, economic, and geographical contexts of different developing nations. Effective collaboration and international affairs cooperation, while crucial for sustainable development, must be carefully implemented to avoid potential pitfalls such as aid dependency and economic stagnation in developing nations. A nuanced approach that considers the unique circumstances of each country is essential to ensure that environmental sustainability efforts do not inadvertently widen existing inequalities or impede economic progress.

Final Thoughts

The green economy contributes to reaching the aim of sustainable development through its coherent policy actions on a national and international basis. Addressing economic, social, and environmental issues at once can let a nation trace pathways toward securing the future through inclusivity and resilience for generations. While transitioning to a green economy is important, it may not be feasible or beneficial for all nations, particularly developing countries with limited resources and pressing socioeconomic challenges. 

The focus on environmental sustainability could potentially divert attention and resources from more immediate concerns such as poverty alleviation, healthcare improvement, and basic infrastructure development. Moreover, the implementation and practice of green technologies are so expensive that most developing nations might not afford them, leading to greater differences in economic aspects on an international scale.

The post Green vs. Global: Can Sustainability and Economic Growth Go Hand in Hand? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Governments worldwide are scrambling to finance environmental initiatives, and wealth taxes are being proposed as a solution. Could taxing the richest 1% fund the green revolution we desperately need, or would this approach backfire and drive investment away?

—

As the climate crisis accelerates, the costs of inaction are scaling sky-high. Devastating wildfires, floods, and rising sea levels are inflicting a heavy financial burden on governments around the world. 

Traditional ways of financing climate action, from carbon taxes to increased borrowing, have proven either inadequate or unpopular. Wealth tax has become a radical solution to this notion, with proponents arguing that it can redistribute wealth and directly finance environmental projects. Critics also argue that wealth tax will have a host of self-defeating side effects, such as undermining the fight against climate change, whereby a wealth tax deters investment in green technologies and persuades the wealthy to flee into tax havens, reducing available capital to tackle the climate. Critics also point out that imposing a wealth tax might be too impractical or not administratively enforceable. Therefore, they would raise less revenue than could be used in climate action.

Critics still object to wealth taxes because such levies discourage investment and result in capital flights. They refer to numerous past experiences where the wealth tax has failed to raise expected revenues, as in France, which repealed the “solidarity tax on wealth.” 

This debate on wealth tax as a mechanism for funding climate action underlines the complex interplay between environmental policies, economic considerations, and social equity. This result could have significant repercussions for how the globe thinks about future mechanisms of climate finance and the redistribution of wealth, potentially reinforcing efforts on climate change and economic inequality. Further, by financing climate action, wealth taxes could be instrumental in bringing changes in global economic dynamics concerning investment patterns, flows of capital, and efficiency in environmental policy. Such development may reshape international strategies of climate finance and the distribution of wealth and carry significant spillovers for the capacity of the global community to handle both climate change and economic inequality.

Why We Should Care About a Wealth Tax

In addition to the stark economic issues that wealth inequality presents, there is also an environmental base for the argument. The wealthiest are responsible for a disproportionate amount of global carbon emissions through their high-consumption lifestyles, private jets, and investments in polluting industries. 

Proponents say that a wealth tax could hold the wealthy accountable for their environmental impact, while raising substantial funds to invest in green technologies, renewable energy, and climate resilience. The wealth tax to take action on climate change may have a deep impact; it can revolutionize environmental policy and the distribution of wealth worldwide. The effect of such a tax could not only raise substantial funds for climate initiatives but also tackle the disproportionate environmental damage caused by the ultra-wealthy, thus probably opening a path toward a more just and sustainable future. It could set a precedent in linking economic and environmental policies, inspiring similar measures around the world while readjusting the landscape of climate finance and social equity.

Opponents note, however, that it is a monumental administrative undertaking since valuation for things like art collections and privately held companies is very complex, and enforcement costs can deeply cut into the revenue brought in. The other risk is that, over time, the politically powerful rich work to erode or water down that tax in ways that make it ineffective. Critics argue that a new tax on ultra-rich people to fund climate programs would bring its own set of unintended consequences, including less domestic investment, to hurt economic growth and job creation. They further argue that this may not be an efficient way to tackle climate change because its sources are systemic, requiring wider policy solutions without hitting one segment of the population. Other economists warn that taxes will drive away entrepreneurship and innovation, which are the bases necessary for the development of new technologies and solutions against climate change.

Global Examples: Successes and Lessons Learnt

Countries such as Norway and Sweden have been quite successful in imposing wealth taxes. Their respective models are often referred to when debates on the ultra-wealthy and how to tax them without deterring economic growth are engaged. They have been able to utilize this wealth to benefit one another by engaging in public services and, at times, funding environmental projects. 

Nevertheless, critics say their results might not be replicable in larger and more diverse economies: the populations in Scandinavian countries might be small, with much better levels of social trust and welfare systems already established. Some economists further argue that these wealth taxes indirectly contributed to slower economic growth and lower entrepreneurship in these countries than would otherwise have been possible. We also see examples of how things can turn out wrong with a wealth tax. 

France’s experiment with wealth taxes led to a significant flight of capital, as many of its wealthiest citizens relocated to tax havens. Critics may indicate that this is evidence of the ease with which wealth can flee across national borders, making it difficult to capture worldwide. Most probably, wealth tax would need to be coordinated internationally, a task not easily realized in today’s competitive global economy. 

The potential consequences of introducing such a measure provide a background on how intricate it can be to make adequate policies of wealth tax amidst an integrated world economy. The challenges of different nations bring into focus international cooperation to tackle inequality in wealth, a consensus that is hard to achieve.

Challenges: Implementation, Evasion, and Fairness

The benefits of a wealth tax are obvious: billions in revenue could be channeled into clean energy, reforestation, and environmental protection. The challenges, however, are similarly huge. 

The most pervasive argument put forward is one of tax evasion: the rich have a long list of financial tools and overseas accounts with which to hide their assets from such taxation. Although difficult to implement and sustain, innovative taxation models need to be explored in an attempt to engage in global environmental concerns and sustainable development. In the unlikely event that a wealth tax was used to finance an environmental program, strong measures against tax evasion would be a prerequisite for its success. Such measures would include coordinated international efforts, a lift of banking secrecy, and tight control over foreign accounts. Lastly, such a tax must, above all, be fair; it should not burden some industries or persons while exempting others from fulfilling their obligations.

Others feel that the problem could be overcome by international cooperation. In a harmonized system where countries collaborate on shutting the loopholes and implementing policies of wealth tax, governments could avoid the rich concealing their wealth abroad. Global coordination is, however, the biggest challenge, and critics milled the one question that did arise on whether international taxation agreements would work in the real world. Further, some critics say that international cooperation in tax policy is both idealistic and highly impractical, considering how different the economic interests and legal ways are in different countries. They further assert that such agreements would either face opposition from influential nations or influential people who would try to find a way out of the agreement to make it ineffective. Aside from this, critics point out that even if a single approach is agreed upon, it may be very difficult and costly to enforce the same across the border.

There is, however, the equity issue. The taxation of the rich, though sounding quite appropriate, would discourage entrepreneurship and innovation. Or, the more the burden of taxes on ultrarich people, the more they will be hesitant to invest in enterprise businesses. This would certainly have huge implications for economies. 

There is also the additional complicating factor of determining who the tax should be levied upon and at what rate. Should the tax be imposed upon billionaires alone, or should millionaires be included too? The right balance must be struck to make it fair but effective; some are very apprehensive that the broadness of the tax may hurt small business people and investors. This may dampen economic growth and innovation by discouraging investment and entrepreneurship because high-income earners would bear the increased tax burden. This, in turn, might reduce opportunities for employment and the rate of technological progress, ultimately affecting not just the ultra-rich but the general population. 

It is such taxes that have to be carefully brought in so that their objectives are realized and not at the cost of wider unforeseen detriments to the economy and society at large.

A Path Forward: Unlocking Green Potential

If well-designed, wealth taxes could unlock new funding for climate action. Progressive wealth taxes – in other words, the larger the fortune, the higher the rate – could ensure fairness in the tax burden. Giving further incentives for green investments would also align the incentives of the wealthy with global climate objectives. Not only is this a progressive approach to addressing wealth inequality but it also creates avenues for channeling resources to urgent environmental priorities. Critics also claim that the wealth tax would dull economic growth and innovation because it may generally discourage investments and specifically entrepreneurship. They further indicate that any resulting risk of capital flight could be reduced by wealthy individuals liquefying their assets and transferring these to more tax-friendly countries. The opponents further argue that the administrative costs and complications of implementation and enforcement could offset assumed benefits for funding climate action.

Critics of the latter approach think that incentives for green investments would weaken incentives of the wealth tax by introducing too many loopholes. If the wealthy are allowed to reduce their tax burden with eco-friendly investments, some might question whether the tax will garner the revenue it needs. Another risk is that revenues from a wealth tax might not be hypothecated by governments to environmental programs but instead dissipated in other budgetary uses. In turn, advocates of a green tax on wealth may argue that many of these concerns are overblown and that prudent tax policy design can balance the two goals of revenue raising and green incentives. Even if the wealthy shield some of their tax liability through green investments, a green wealth tax is an important environmentalist and economic strategy. Incentivizing green actions has value on its own terms, whatever the tax advantages.

Can Wealth Taxes Spur Climate Action?

There is little mistaking the potential of the wealth tax to serve as a financial engine for environmental initiatives. Theoretically, a properly designed wealth tax could redistribute wealth and underwrite everything from renewable energy infrastructure to strategies for climate adaptation. Reality, however, is a good deal trickier. As attractive as it is from those standpoints, using a wealth tax for climate action raises some very thorny questions about equity, effectiveness, and possible unintended consequences that will need to be thoughtfully weighed.

There are, however, major issues with the implementation of a wealth tax. On the one hand, proponents tout wealth taxes as a means to foster climate action. On the other hand, critics confront them with the argument that such a tax will choke innovation and investment in green technologies by tying valuable capital up in the hands of a few wealthy individuals and corporations. Because of this, opponents argue, wealth taxes could choke off broader economic growth and reduce the pool of resources available for climate mitigation and adaptation. 

Other scholars suggest that market-oriented measures offer a less disruptive alternative to wealth taxes in pursuit of sustainable climate policy: carbon pricing or other incentives targeting investments in clean energy. While a wealth tax can provide the much-needed financing for the green revolution, it has to be wisely designed and brought in because potential side effects may appear. With an appropriate global framework in place and a crystal-clear commitment to funding climate action, wealth taxes could be a game changer in the fight against climate change. 

The idea is bold, yet shortcomings might occur if proper safeguards are not considered and collaboration on the international plane is absent. Any wealth taxes applied to help pay for the programs aimed at combating climate change may very well have a profound, long-lasting effect on worldwide economic dynamics and environmental progress. To the degree that such taxes can yield considerable funding for initiatives in green technology, they may be pulling down overall economic growth and, with it, the very initiatives they aim to help. Full consideration of alternative market-based solutions and international cooperation must be underlined to properly balance finance raising for climate action with economic stability.

You might also like: Regulations, Subsidies, Cap-and-Trade, Carbon Taxes…Is There a ‘Perfect’ Climate Policy? 

The post How a Bold Tax on the Ultra-Wealthy Could Address Climate Change’s Financial Crisis appeared first on Earth.Org.

As the world accelerates towards a low-carbon future, the balance of power shifts at unprecedented rapidity. The race to decarbonize is also about geopolitics and economics in a world where countries with access to the right resources, technology, and finance position themselves to rule. It is climate finance that lies at the heart of that transformation, driving investments in renewable energy and other green technologies. But as trillions of dollars flow into this emerging sector, who will control the future of global trade and influence? This article explores the nexus between decarbonization and climate finance and how they go about rewriting the global economic order.

—
In a world racing toward addressing climate change, the interplay between geoeconomics and climate finance becomes more vital. However, critics suggest that an overly strong focus on climate finance diverts attention and resources from pressing short-term economic needs in the developing world. Some economists argue that such a rush into climate-related investments may well impede economic growth in emerging markets, particularly in those economies reliant upon the fossil fuel industries. It also creates a fear that the current geoeconomic approach to climate finance will result in increased inequality among nations, as richer countries are much better positioned to invest in green technologies and adaptation measures.

The transition to a decarbonized world economy is one of not only environmental stewardship but also economic strategy and international power. This shift of priorities globally also raises a series of questions about the equitability and efficiency of international climate agreements. Some say the current climate finance approach’s hidden agenda might form new kinds of economic dependency, where developing nations become dependent upon financial support from more developed countries to meet their climate obligations. Besides, there are also some concerns that green technologies may be used to create a new frontier of geopolitical rivalry by countries competing for leadership in the development of industries such as renewable energy and electric vehicles. 

Here’s a deeper look at why knowledge of these links is key to understanding the future of climate action.

China’s Green Energy Strategy: A Global Play For Power

No country exemplifies more clearly how geoeconomics shapes climate policy than China. Over the last decade, China has invested billions in renewable energy, and today it is the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles. In 2022, it accounted for over 50% of global investment in renewables and further consolidated its hold on the sector. This aggressive push has not only reduced the country’s reliance on fossil fuels but also positioned it as an important player in the global transition to renewable energy.

Becoming a renewable energy power affords China a two-fold advantage: it reduces its domestic energy dependence – a strategic goal for a nation always dependent on coal. This positions China as a key supplier of the green technologies that the rest of the world will need if their climate targets are to be met. Such dominance provides China with critical bargaining chips in international climate and trade negotiations, as other nations will be reliant on Chinese technologies to meet renewable energy needs. It puts China center stage in terms of climate policy worldwide while shrewdly linking economic and geopolitical interests.

How much China’s strategy is driving other countries became increasingly evident at the 2021 COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, where its stand on targets to cut emissions carried considerable weight. Its investments in green energy not only strengthen its bargaining power but also enable it to push back against pressures from other major economies. 

A Broader Global Contest: Europe and the Us React

This geo-economic race does not belong to China alone. The EU and the US are becoming more ambitious in their respective leadership aspirations for the green energy transition. 

Europe, traditionally loud on the call for climate action, launched its European Green Deal with ambition to become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. It encompasses sizable funding for renewable energy infrastructure, mechanisms for carbon pricing, and finances for member states transitioning to green economies. This far outstrips the goal of a domestic objective for Europe, but it is a geopolitical play to make sure its relevance in the world’s economy is sustained by setting the international standard on sustainable development. 

This could be the global turn toward green energy leadership, one that would change the dynamics of power among nations as they compete for economic and technological supremacy in the renewable sector. The ambitious targets under the European Green Deal are likely to inspire other countries to accelerate their action plans, creating a domino effect with increased global commitment to sustainability. In addition, setting international standards for sustainable development is Europe’s strategy, which will highly affect global trade policy and economic relationships over the coming decades. 

The Biden administration has moved climate policy to the centerpiece of its economic and diplomatic agenda. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 sets aside over $369 billion for climate and clean energy, making it one of the largest investments into the US climate on record. Part of that effort includes rebuilding American manufacturing of solar panels and electric vehicles to lessen dependence on Chinese imports and casting the green energy transition as an economic opportunity as much as a national security issue. 

While the European continent is aiming at leading this global transition into green energy through ambitious policies such as the European Green Deal, other countries may perceive this as an integral part of their economic and technological leadership challenge; therefore, competition and geopolitical rivalry in the renewable sector could intensify.

The New Energy Cold War?

To some analysts, great-power competition to dominate the world of renewable energy has been termed a “new energy cold war.” It resembles the original Cold War: a technological sprint to the top under the shadow of influence in setting global standards and dominance over the most vital supply chains. Just this time, the battlefields are solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles – not nuclear weapons. This new “war” may have far-reaching consequences in the restructuring of geopolitics, economic power relations, and environmental engagements.

The outcome of the competition will show which countries will be leading in the race to a low-carbon future and thus define the course of international relations and the world economy for the following decades. It might also serve to further accelerate innovation in and the adoption of clean-energy solutions around the world, hastening the pace of the global response to climate change. The stakes are gigantic. Whoever controls the renewable-energy technologies of tomorrow will hold enormous sway over global energy markets in much the same way that oil-rich nations have for the past century.

This is a position of power that, surely enough, would hardly end at the borders of energy markets but seep into international trade, investment flows, and geopolitical alliances. For example, Europe’s move towards carbon border taxes – which would punish countries failing to meet emissions standards – shows how climate policy increasingly intersects with global trade policy. Poorer countries that fail to keep pace with those technologies that are environmentally friendly are either excluded from these profit-spinning forms of trade agreements or are forced to see much greater tariffs placed on them, further stratifying global inequalities. That is why investment in the sector by the US, China, and Europe is so huge: dominant green technology thus means strategic advantage. This is a rivalry that will only grow in intensity during the coming decades.

Why It Matters

Long story short, the geopolitics of climate policy will matter, and everything from international trade to energy security to the whole matrix of global power is going to be influenced. Those countries leading in the green energy revolution will be rewarded on more than an economic level; they will have framed the 21st-century political and technological contours. Acceleration of the climate crisis will further accentuate the interplay of economic policy with environmental action and condition choices made by nations, businesses, and people. 

The global shift towards green energy and climate-conscious policies is going to reshape international alliances and create new economic dependencies. Countries that can quickly turn to sustainable practices will gain political leverage in nearly every respect, while the rest may fall further back and experience economic isolation and increased vulnerability to climate-related liability. Additionally, the competition for technological development in clean energy and sustainable solutions could initiate a new phase of competition and cooperation that will also cause a paradigm shift in global innovation. It is not only a question of who saves the planet, but who will be the leader of the post-carbon world.

Featured image: Joan Sullivan / Climate Visuals Countdown.

The post How Global Power Dynamics and Climate Finance Are Shaping the Race to Decarbonize Economies Worldwide appeared first on Earth.Org.