Publications

Environmental and health co-benefits of public action: “it’s (also) the economy, stupid!”

27 May 2020 - Climate Brief - By : Benoît LEGUET

In sharp contrast with the stimulus strategy adopted in France in 2008, which focused exclusively on directly visible economic benefits, each public euro invested to recover from the crisis will have to value the environmental and health co-benefits. This is the thesis of this article by I4CE and Terra Nova. With the increase of the French public debt and the eventual reduction of budgetary room for manoeuvre, valuing all the co-benefits of public action is no longer a simple option but an imperative. It would reduce the 50 billion euros/year costs of air pollution in France, among other societal benefits.

 

Story or legend, the “It’s the economy, stupid!” slogan that supposedly helped bring Bill Clinton to power in 1992, highlights the tendency of voters to prioritize the economy in times of crisis. After the lockdown imposed by Covid-19, there may be a strong temptation, when developing and implementing an exit strategy, to favour taking into account directly observable economic impacts, without any other considerations, as was the case after the 2008 crisis.

 

Here we show that any exit policy must be subject to a broad set of requirements which values the economic, environmental and health “co-benefits” of public action. Among other examples, decarbonized transportation measures (from bicycles to rail freight) have direct effects in terms of the economy (jobs, added value in the sectors involved), the environment (reduction of air pollution which costs France about 50 billion euros/year, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) and health (this same pollution kills 50,000 people/year, and weakens populations when they are exposed to pandemics).

 

Doing this is a matter of responding to “social demand”: in the same way, as Emmanuel Macron recently observed, when we emerge from the crisis, “people will no longer tolerate breathing polluted air” 1. And, since between the triggering of the subprime crisis in 2008 and the exit from the emergency phase of the Covid-19 crisis, French debt will have increased by 50% of GDP, reducing the public authorities’ margin for budgetary manoeuvres, maximizing the co-benefits of action is no longer simply an option, it is an imperative: “It’s (also) the economy, stupid!

 

To learn more
  • 03/28/2025 Hors série
    The pathway for climate investments in turbulent times – annual report 2024

    We are witnessing a withdrawal of commitments to climate action. In the US, President Donald Trump does not hide his hostility to what he calls the ‘climate hoax’. In Europe and in France, new narratives around competitiveness, strategic autonomy and security are gaining ground, reflecting a new political reality. If there is still a broad consensus on the long-term objective of climate neutrality, how to get there is increasingly challenged, generating uncertainty. The scarcity of fiscal resources impacts the willingness to embark on the green transition.

  • 03/24/2025
    TRAMe2035 Scenario for a transition of households dietary habits by 2035

    Current food production and consumption trends contribute to a range of public health, social and environmental problems. The need for a transition is no longer in doubt: we must move towards a system that produces healthy food with a low impact on ecosystems, is accessible to all, and ensures fair remuneration for producers. There’s no denying that the questions we raise here are politically and socially sensitive, as food is deeply connected to cultural, economic, environmental and health issues. Nevertheless, it is essential to develop ways to foster open discussion. IDDRI and I4CE have therefore joined forces with several other actors to provide insights for the debate.

  • 03/21/2025 Blog post
    In the absence of a carbon tax in Canada, measures to fill the gap are essential 

    On his first day in office, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the elimination of the consumer carbon tax, in response to political pressures rather than evidence-based concerns about its effectiveness or impact on affordability. The tax had played a crucial role in reducing the country’s GHG emissions, and along with other carbon pricing policies, was expected to contribute nearly half of Canada’s emissions reductions by 2030. Additionally, the majority of revenues collected were redistributed to citizens, protecting vulnerable households. Thus, without alternative policies to compensate, eliminating the tax could slow emissions reductions and increase inflationary pressure, particularly for low- and middle-income families who benefited financially from the Canada Carbon Rebate funded by the tax. 

See all publications
Press contact Amélie FRITZ Head of Communication and press relations Email
Subscribe to our mailing list :
I register !
Subscribe to our newsletter
Once a week, receive all the information on climate economics
I register !
Fermer