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
  • 12/04/2025 Blog post
    Relaxing EU standards on CO2 emissions won’t save the EU’s automotive industry, or help consumers

    Recently, car manufacturers have been calling for a relaxation of CO2 emission standards for cars and vans and the 2035 phase-out target for new internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, by including some flexibilities. They point in particular to the crisis the industry has faced in recent years, growing competitive pressure from China, and insufficient demand for electric vehicles (EVs) in Europe, as reasons for the sector needing more time for the transition required to meet the targets. As the European Commission (EC) prepares to publish its package for the automotive industry, including a revision of CO₂ standards for cars and vans, this blogpost examines the realities behind the difficulties currently faced by car manufacturers and the consequences of relaxing and postponing the planned EU regulations for this sector. 

  • 12/04/2025 Blog post
    Maintaining the 2035 target to support the transition of the French automobile industry

    With the aim to reduce its CO2 emissions and costly fossil-fuel imports, in 2022 the European Parliament adopted a rule that, from 2035, all new vehicles must be zero-emission, which essentially means that they must be electric. However, this rule is now being questioned, with car manufacturers requesting that it be revised to allow plug-in […]

  • 11/28/2025 Foreword of the week
    COP30: The missed turn to implementation – and the coalitions moving ahead anyway

    COP30 concluded with an agreement, proving that multilateralism is still alive. However, the results are underwhelming: no push to transition away from fossil fuels, no decision on deforestation, and mixed outcomes on adaptation metrics.  On climate finance, Belém failed to shift from ambition to implementation. Negotiations quickly drifted back to a battle on yet another high-level quantitative target. The decision to triple adaptation funding by 2035 disappointed many, with its distant time horizon, lack of baseline and non-binding wording. COP30 also missed the opportunity to engage with – and build consensus around – concrete measures outlined in the Baku to Belém roadmap to get to $1.3 trillion. Instead, it defaulted to launching new processes – a work programme on climate finance and a ministerial roundtable on the NCQG.  

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