Study suggests choice between green energy or economic growth

February 2, 2017

Poverty, unemployment and zero economic growth are the likely outcome for countries which choose renewable energy sources over fossil fuels, according to a study.

Energy from fossil fuels appears to ignite economies into greater and more sustained growth, whereas energy from wind and solar power not only fails to enhance or promote economic growth, it actually causes economies to flat-line.

The results, from an in-depth study of more than 100 countries over 40 years, pose a serious ethical dilemma, according to the lead author, economist Dr Nikolaos Antonakakis, Visiting Fellow at the University of Portsmouth Business School and Associate Professor at Webster Vienna University.

Dr Antonakakis said: "Put simply, the more energy a country consumes, the more it pollutes the environment, the more its economy grows. And the more the economy grows, the more it needs, and so on.

"This poses big questions. Should we choose high economic growth, which brings lower unemployment and wealth for many, but which is unsustainable for the environment?

"Or should we choose low or zero economic growth, which includes high unemployment and a greater degree of poverty, and save our environment?"

Dr Antonakakis and co-authors, Dr Ioannis Chatziantoniou, at the University of Portsmouth, and Dr George Filis, at Bournemouth University, set out to study whether environmentally friendly forms of energy consumption were more likely to enhance economic growth.

In the light of recent policies designed to promote the use of green energy, including tax credits for the production of renewable energy and reimbursements for the installation of , the authors predicted that environmentally friendly forms of energy consumption would enhance economic growth.

Dr Antonakakis said: "It turned out not to be the case."

They argue that societies now need to rethink their approach toward environmental sustainability, and strongly question the efficacy of the recent trend in many countries to promote as a reliable alternative for helping achieve and maintain good economic growth.

The researchers gathered data on gross domestic product (GDP), CO2 emissions and total and disaggregated energy consumption for 106 countries from 1971-2011.

The results were the same across all countries, from rich to poor.

Dr Chatziantoniou said: "It's a very thought-provoking result and could, in a roundabout way, help explain why no country or state has yet managed to fully convert to renewable energy.

"It could also be that we have not yet learned how to fully exploit the benefits of renewable energy – we don't yet have the level of know-how."

Of the countries studied, not one showed good economic growth while promoting and investing in .

The authors say the question now needs to be how should countries, especially rich ones which produce and therefore pollute a lot, protect the environment and create well balanced, sustainable societies.

Dr Filis said: "We should probably start considering different paradigms, such as those of de-growth or a-growth, which could lead to a sustainable future without sacrificing economic resources and increasing unemployment.

"Countries need to also invest in education and strengthen the quality of their institutions – including promoting law and accountability and fighting corruption and the rise of autocracies.

"The realisation that GDP isn't a successful measure of well-being, should be a turning point for societies."

Although gloomy for the environment and those fighting to protect it, the findings did include a small measure of hope.

Dr Antonakakis said: "The findings suggest we should wean ourselves off using GDP as an important measure of success and wealth.

"GDP measures standard of living but doesn't take into account environmental pollution, the hours of unpaid work people do in their households and communities, the underground economy, the quality of goods and services, to name just a handful of factors not measured but which are vital to our wellbeing.

"What you measure affects what you do, and if you don't measure the right thing, you don't do the right thing. This has substantial implications for economic policy makers who base their decisions solely on GDP terms."

Economists have been working for some time, he said, on alternative ways of measuring success, including the Genuine Progress Indicator and the Human Development Index.

The research is published in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.

Explore further: Economic growth no longer translates into more greenhouse gas: IEA

More information: Nikolaos Antonakakis et al. Oil shocks and stock markets: Dynamic connectedness under the prism of recent geopolitical and economic unrest, International Review of Financial Analysis (2017). DOI: 10.1016/j.irfa.2017.01.004

Related Stories

Economic uncertainty sparks suicide

October 10, 2016

Younger and older males in the USA are more likely to commit suicide at times of increased policy-related economic uncertainty, according to a new study.

Polluting China for the sake of economic growth

April 27, 2012

China's economic growth will continue to be energy-intensive and highly polluting for the foreseeable future with emissions and efficiency far below capital growth on the agenda, according to a study published in the International ...

Recommended for you

AI wins as Google algorithm beats No. 1 Go player (Update)

May 23, 2017

Google's computer algorithm AlphaGo narrowly beat the world's top-ranked player in the ancient Chinese board game of Go on Tuesday, reaffirming the arrival of what its developers tout as a ground-breaking new form of artificial ...

35 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
2 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2017
We can exist without a robust economy, but NOT without a robust environment, which makes our oxygen, cleans our water, and provides us with food.

These "figurers" have lost sight of the Real World.

If we need more employment,we can improve other parts of our lives, not increase pollution until it kills us. This is the kind of conservatism I decry, the short-sightedness endemic in those not fully educated.
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
5 / 5 (2) Feb 04, 2017
We can exist without a robust economy, but NOT without a robust environment, which makes our oxygen, cleans our water, and provides us with food.

These "figurers" have lost sight of the Real World.

If we need more employment,we can improve other parts of our lives, not increase pollution until it kills us. This is the kind of conservatism I decry, the short-sightedness endemic in those not fully educated.


My thoughts when reading this terrible press release.
strichi
3 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2017
I can not belive, what is written in this press releae ...

Could it be that it is Fake News in the post factual age of the new great USA?

Sorry, but I´m living in Germany and it don´t look here that we would be a poor country. In the meantime we have lots of solar panels on top of our rooftops and big areas with wind parks (on- and offshore). I have solar panels on our roof too and they produce two times more electric energy as we need ourself.

And you can belive me that the people here in germany have more money, a better health care system, more free time and holidays (and so on ...) as many other nations in Europe, in the world and in particular as the US population (except the obscene super rich people like Bill Gates or your new great president and so on).

Greetings from Germany ...

gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2017
What businessman wrote this article?

Send him to school.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2017
...living in Germany ... we have lots of solar panels on top of our rooftops and big areas with wind parks (on- and offshore). I have solar panels on our roof too and they produce two times more electric energy as we need ourself...
Greetings from Germany ...
so why is Germany burning more and more coal?
"German emissions increased in 2016 for a second year in a row as a result of the country closing one of its nuclear plants and replacing it with coal and natural gas"
"Less sunshine and wind meant less more power from solar/wind — a dramatic illustration of the limits of weather-dependent energy sources."
http://www.enviro...-closure
"Green Energy Is Causing Power Shortages In Europe During An Awful Winter"
http://dailycalle...-winter/
strichi
not rated yet Mar 06, 2017
so why is Germany burning more and more coal?


Why are you asking? You have answered it yourself:

"... as a result of the country closing one of its nuclear plants and replacing it with coal and natural gas"...


And we are planing to close all nuclear plants one by one the next years ...

So I could imagine that there could be no other chance to replace fast enough the nuclear energy source by cleaner energy forms and so they choose coal until we replace it again by the meanwhile fast growing renewable energy sources.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2017
"The German Energiewende serves as a sad example of what can happen if ideology trumps reality. The German decision to shutter their nuclear plants has led to renewable energy replacing nuclear power, not fossil fuels. As a result, emissions have been reduced only marginally."
"Finnish Green candidates call for nuclear power" - March 6, 2017
https://jmkorhone...r-power/
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2017
Progress is not always easy, Willie.

Maybe they want to dodge the kind of cost they see in Fukushima.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2017
After trillions euros spent on intermittent renewables, there's no progress in terms of CO2 reduction. Not even Greenpeace trusts in intermittent renewables to propel their ship and motorboats.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2017
Greenpeace does not use nukes, either. How do you know they do not use biofuel in their boilers?

And your Finnish "candidates" were in municipal elections, not regional or national. It helps to actually read the item you post.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2017
Greenpeace does not use nukes, either. How do you know they do not use biofuel in their boilers?


Because their ships don't have boilers?

Their ship MV Esperanza uses Wärtsilä-Sulzer 12 cylinder diesels. Two of them. They use No 2 fuel oil.

Their other ship MV Arctic Sunrise uses a single MaK diesel electric for the main propulsion and two electric bow thrusters. It uses heavy fuel oil.

Cher, if they ran on "bio-fuels", they could not do what they do (go anywhere and be able to purchase fuel when they got there).
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2017
You are incorrect. We already have biodiesel. It is cleaner than petroleum Diesel fuel.

You can look up the specifics, but not understand the issue.

Even that 9,000 hp polluter you ride on could use it, if you were environmentally educated.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2017
You are incorrect. We already have biodiesel. It is cleaner than petroleum Diesel fuel.
Non I am not incorrect Skippy. I did not say there was non biodiesel... I said the Greenpeace ships don't use it. I KNOW they don't and I KNOW why the CAN NOT use it. I even told you why they can't.

You can look up the specifics, but not understand the issue.
Cher, I have right here on my computer a database of ALL existent ships.

Even that 9,000 hp polluter you ride on could use it, if you were environmentally educated.
Non Cher. We can not. Not because we don't want to, because it is not available when and where we need it. The same with the Greenpeace ships, like I said.

You are an idiot who should try not to prove how stupid you are at every opportunity.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2017
Get over it, "Ira". You resent the fact I am George Kamburoff, a real person, and you are an internet sniper hiding to dodge responsibility for your words. You got mad because I proved my experience. You have proven nothing about who you are.

And if you burn dirty Diesel, you are a polluter.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2017
We already have biodiesel. It is cleaner than petroleum Diesel fuel.
Biodiesel is not so clean, it is not carbon-free. The cleanest is carbon-free nuclear power, virtually zero-emissions, lowest fatalities per unit of energy produced.
"Biofuels can increase ozone pollution more than gasoline – study"
http://www.climat...e-study/
"Biofuels cause pollution, not as green as thought - study"
http://www.reuter...20130107
WillieWard
4 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2017
And if you burn dirty Diesel, you are a polluter.
Tell it to Greenpeace.
WillieWard
4 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2017
gskam, tell Greenpeace to stop polluting the oceans with their CO₂-emitter ship and motorboats, share with them your technology of converting greenies' lies into perpetual motion to power their ships.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2017
Gosh, Willie we wasted billions of dollars jamming them down the Nuclear Rat-Hole for decades instead of working on the clean boats.

But I'll bet we will have more the them soon than nukes, which only a few nations can afford.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2017
Get over it, "Ira". You resent the fact I am George Kamburoff, a real person, and you are an internet sniper hiding to dodge responsibility for your words. You got mad because I proved my experience. You have proven nothing about who you are.

And if you burn dirty Diesel, you are a polluter.


I am not mad Cher. You are the moron, so why I should be mad? You are mad because you say something stupid about the Greenpeace ships and I make you look like the idiot, again.

They don't have boilers, like you thought they did. And they can not use bio-fuel like you think they might. I would love to use bio-fuel for our boats, but can't for the same reason that Greenpeace can not either. You can not use it if you can not buy it.

That is not my fault or Greenpeace fault because we are not in the business of producing bio-fuels and setting up networks of fueling facilities.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2017
But I'll bet we will have more the them soon than nukes...
First, focus on quality, not quantity.
But intermittent renewables have no quality to propel a small ship across the oceans. Even so, the greenies want to shove down people's throat huge quantities of unreliable energy.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2017
Okay, quality, . . .

Every kWh we produce with the PV is one kWh not produced with technologies dumping toxic waste on us. When we produce the power, it is mostly when it is needed, and we take out power at night when only the most efficient powerplants are online.

Whine all you want, but solve the problems of nuclear waste and meltdowns first. We are getting more self-sufficient and living clean. Are you?
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2017
Solar does not work at night, on cloudy days, and is on vacations during the winters.
That is, when energy is mostly needed, it does not work.
Solar and wind are poor-quality energy, just a high-cost mystical placebo.
And the poisons such as arsenic and other chemical carcinogens that are present in used solar cells never lose their toxicity, it's worse than asbestos. While nuclear waste is safely stored and loses its radioactivity with time.

gkam
1 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2017
Gosh, Willie, tell that to the former residents of Pripyat or Fukushima.

Let them vote on it.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
besides showing stupidity above re: boats, the following is completely stupid considering your "experience" and degree
Every kWh we produce with the PV is one kWh not produced with technologies dumping toxic waste on us
the point is that you can't use PV for certain things because of the requirement for constant long term production of power (you know, like boats)

you can use PV's to charge batteries so that you can use the power at night, but that will also require not only a sh*tload of batteries (weight, reduced cargo) but also at least double the size, number, array, etc of PV panels so that you can charge the batteries while *also* using the system to operate the boat (otherwise you will need generators or other means to produce electricity)

this means you can't operate effectively, efficiently or cheaply because you own an Aircraft carrier sized ship but only transport a C-130 sized load
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2017
"you can use PV's to charge batteries so that you can use the power at night, but that will also require not only a sh*tload of batteries (weight, reduced cargo) but also at least double the size, number, array, etc of PV panels so that you can charge the batteries while *also* using the system to operate the boat (otherwise you will need generators or other means to produce electricity)"
-----------------------------------------------------

Only folk who are real loners or who do not know better do that. The rest of us tie into the grid, and use it for its benefits.

Who brought up boats? My PV system was for house power and horsepower, and it serves us very well.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
Only folk who are real loners or who do not know better do that
only an idiot liar would think that tying to the grid means you're completely green and your PV's charge your EV at night
The rest of us tie into the grid, and use it for its benefits
so, you can't actually show where your night time energy use is green or carbon free?
this is the point, after all... just because you want to believe you're green and carbon free doesn't mean your power company is providing you green energy (because as everyone but you knows, a PV doesn't work at night)
Who brought up boats?
you did, you idiot
perhaps you should look again:
Greenpeace does not use nukes, either. How do you know they do not use biofuel in their boilers?
@Ira gave you clear, concise, precise facts which you argued against

reported for blatantly false claims, strawman, distraction, fearmongering and stupidity
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
My PV system was for house power and horsepower, and it serves us very well
blatantly false claim and proven false already more than once

your PV's do not charge your EV at all
ever

not only do you not have a DC charging car per your own admission
but also, per your own admission, you charge your car at night

and about your "bank" BS claims regarding your power company - that is not only blatantly false, but misinformation per your own company
http://www.pge.co...options/

http://www.pge.co...S_EV.pdf

moreover, this is also repeatedly been explained to you
and you have yet to be able to prove your comments with any evidence, while your power company directly contradicts your claims

lying doesn't help anyone, let alone help those seeking information about climate change, PV's, EV's or anything else
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2017
No we got it for that. Sorry if we did not tell you. I was surprised to see how well it paid off, however. We expected it to take 15 or more years to pay back, but with the addition of the e-Golf, it is paying back at about 22%, then, free electrical house power and "fuel"for the EV for decades.

The utility thing? Again? Since I was a Senior Engineer in Technical Services long ago for the same power company, I think I know how the system works. With our rate schedule, set for EVs, we have a strict system of peak and off-peak time-of-use.

When we generate we are mostly at peak, providing the neighborhood with power without line losses. That generation runs our meter backwards, and displays a negative kW number, showing it is power going out.

Then, at night, the meter runs forward as we take power out of the system, bringing us back to about zero for the day.

This can be confusing to those without education in the field, . . . apparently.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2017
When we generate we are mostly at peak, providing the neighborhood with power without line losses. That generation runs our meter backwards, and displays a negative kW number, showing it is power going out.

Then, at night, the meter runs forward as we take power out of the system, bringing us back to about zero for the day.

This can be confusing to those without education in the field, . . . apparently.
Indeed, perpetual motion is very complicated for most of us, but it is very simple for intelligent people that can see unicorns, because unicorns are always farting somewhere, it is hard to imagine, but when unicorns are not farting in your neighborhood, they are in others...
https://s-media-c...27b5.jpg
https://uploads.d...8da6.jpg
http://humerusonl...s001.jpg
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2017
You seem to have a real nose for farts.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
free electrical house power and "fuel"for the EV for decades.
repeating a lie doesn't make it more true

the rest of your post is OT, irrelevant and proven false by your own admission elsewhere

more to the point, you don't know squat about EV's let alone PV's and your power company, set up and admissions here and elsewhere prove that as well

it can be confusing to those without education in the field, . . . apparently.

per your own request to clean up the site from lying sniping pseudonymous trolls posting misinformation...
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2017
First of all, I have made the choice out of desire to be clean, not because I have to hide from anyone. I stand on my own.

That is right, I am totally ignorant of power even if I was a Senior Engineer in Technical Services for PG&E. My gosh, what was I thinking of when I started to question an internet sniper? They are like Trump, who knows everything. Except Trump reveals himself, not being afraid to do so, like our snipers.

This is about choice of power, and ours worked out more beneficially than planned, so I want to tell others. Sorry if it hurts your feelings. Tell us who you are, and we'll come over with cupcakes.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2017
While we are "discussing" green power, meanwhile, . . .

"October 25th brought reports that there was a release of radioactive iodine from the Halden Reactor. . . It's not the first time the NRPA has had to issue an order to the IFE. The NRPA had been supervising the IFE since 2014 over its lack of safety culture. The incident in October shows this frame of mind persists. "

http://bellona.or...r-misses
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2017
First of all, I have made the choice out of desire to be clean, not because I have to hide from anyone. I stand on my own
Clean as opposed to dirty filthy nukes and disgusting ignorant goobers driving belching smelly ICE cars and tugboats.

"One very interesting aspect of the psychopath is his "hidden life" that is sometimes not too well hidden. It seems that the psychopath has a regular need to take a "vacation into filth and degradation" the same way normal people may take a vacation to a resort where they enjoy beautiful surroundings and culture. To get a full feeling for this strange "need" of the psychopath - a need that seems to be evidence that "acting human" is very stressful to the psychopath - read more of The Mask of Sanity, chapters 25 and 26."

-Principal Wormer
http://gonzotoday...1979.pdf
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2017
Get over it, "Ira". You resent the fact I am George Kamburoff, a real person, and you are an internet sniper hiding to dodge responsibility for your words
"A woman with a staggering record of fraud, deceit, lies, and broken promises concluded a letter to the parole board with, "I've let a lot of people down… One is only as good as her reputation and name. My word is as good as gold.""

"Psychologist Robert Hare cites a famous case where a psychopath was "Man of the Year" and president of the Chamber of Commerce... For two decades he had dodged his way across America one step ahead of those he had hoodwinked. Along the way he had married three women and had four children, and he didn't even know what had happened to them.

"When he was exposed, he was completely unconcerned. "These trusting people will stand behind me. A good liar is a good judge of people," he said. Amazingly, he was right."

-But not here.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.