IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tcpoxx/v21y2021i10p1328-1346.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A green COVID-19 recovery of the EU basic materials sector: identifying potentials, barriers and policy solutions

Author

Listed:
  • Olga Chiappinelli
  • Timo Gerres
  • Karsten Neuhoff
  • Frederik Lettow
  • Heleen de Coninck
  • Balázs Felsmann
  • Eugénie Joltreau
  • Gauri Khandekar
  • Pedro Linares
  • Jörn Richstein
  • Aleksander Śniegocki
  • Jan Stede
  • Tomas Wyns
  • Cornelis Zandt
  • Lars Zetterberg

Abstract

This paper explores climate-friendly projects that could be part of the COVID-19 recovery while jump-starting the transition of the European basic materials industry. Findings from a literature review on technology options in advanced development stages for climate-friendly production, enhanced sorting, and recycling of steel, cement, aluminium, and plastics, are combined with insights from interviews with 31 European stakeholders in these sectors about the practical and economic feasibility of these technology options. Results indicate that with an estimated investment of 28.9 billion Euros, up to 20% of EU’s basic materials could be produced through low-emission processes or additional recycling by 2025 with technologies that are commercially available or at pilot scale today. However, our stakeholder consultation also shows that in order to make these short-term investments viable, six main barriers need to be addressed, namely: (i) the lack of effective and predictable carbon pricing, (ii) the limited availability of affordable green electricity, (iii) the lack of a regulatory framework for circularity, (iv) low technology market readiness and funding, (v) the lack of infrastructure for hydrogen, CO2 and power, and (vi) the lack of demand for climate-friendly and recycled materials. Based on these insights, the paper proposes elements of a policy package that can create a framework favourable for investments in these technologies; these policies should ideally accompany the recovery package to give credibility to investors that the business case will last beyond the recovery period.Key policy insightsTechnologies for climate-friendly materials production, sorting and recycling can be supported as part of the recovery package but require an enabling policy framework.Combining continued free allocation with a Climate Contribution within the EU ETS can enhance economic viability of climate-friendly options.Project-based Carbon Contracts for Difference can eliminate carbon price uncertainty for climate-friendly processes.Auctions for publicly backed Contracts for Difference and Power Purchasing Agreements can guarantee price-stability of low-emission electricity.Green public procurement and public-private partnerships can provide infrastructure for hydrogen, CO2 and electricity while creating demand for climate-friendly materials.Revising regulations on product design and end-of-life emissions can improve sorting and recycling incentives.

Suggested Citation

  • Olga Chiappinelli & Timo Gerres & Karsten Neuhoff & Frederik Lettow & Heleen de Coninck & Balázs Felsmann & Eugénie Joltreau & Gauri Khandekar & Pedro Linares & Jörn Richstein & Aleksander Śniegocki &, 2021. "A green COVID-19 recovery of the EU basic materials sector: identifying potentials, barriers and policy solutions," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(10), pages 1328-1346, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:21:y:2021:i:10:p:1328-1346
    DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2021.1922340
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14693062.2021.1922340
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14693062.2021.1922340?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karsten Neuhoff & Robert A. Ritz, 2019. "Carbon cost pass-through in industrial sectors," Working Papers EPRG1935, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    2. Jörn Richstein, 2017. "Project-Based Carbon Contracts: A Way to Finance Innovative Low-Carbon Investments," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1714, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    3. Nemet, Gregory F. & Zipperer, Vera & Kraus, Martina, 2018. "The valley of death, the technology pork barrel, and public support for large demonstration projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 154-167.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Angela Köppl & Margit Schratzenstaller, 2022. "Macroeconomic Effects of Green Recovery Programmes. Conceptual Framing and a Review of the Empirical Literature," WIFO Working Papers 646, WIFO.
    2. Chiappinelli, Olga & Seres, Gyula, 2024. "Optimal discounts in green public procurement," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    3. Xi Sun, 2023. "The Role of Carbon Pricing in Promoting Material Recycling: A Model of Multi-Market Interactions," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 2034, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    4. Honma, Satoshi & Ushifusa, Yoshiaki & Okamura, Soyoka & Vandercamme, Lilu, 2023. "Measuring carbon emissions performance of Japan's metal industry: Energy inputs, agglomeration, and the potential for green recovery reduction," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    5. Han-Sol Lee & Ekaterina A. Degtereva & Alexander M. Zobov, 2021. "The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions’ Determinants: New Empirical Evidence from Quasi-Poisson and Negative Binomial Regression Models," Economies, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-13, November.
    6. Wilde, Kerstin & Hermans, Frans, 2024. "Transition towards a bioeconomy: Comparison of conditions and institutional work in selected industries," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 50, pages 1-1.
    7. Chiappinelli, Olga & Giuffrida, Leonardo M. & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2023. "Public procurement as an innovation policy: Where do we stand?," ZEW Discussion Papers 23-002, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Jeddi, Samir & Lencz, Dominic & Wildgrube, Theresa, 2021. "Complementing carbon prices with Carbon Contracts for Difference in the presence of risk - When is it beneficial and when not?," EWI Working Papers 2021-9, Energiewirtschaftliches Institut an der Universitaet zu Koeln (EWI), revised 16 Aug 2022.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stuart Evans & Michael A. Mehling & Robert A. Ritz & Paul Sammon, 2021. "Border carbon adjustments and industrial competitiveness in a European Green Deal," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 307-317, March.
    2. Christopher J. Blackburn & Mallory E. Flowers & Daniel C. Matisoff & Juan Moreno‐Cruz, 2020. "Do Pilot and Demonstration Projects Work? Evidence from a Green Building Program," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 1100-1132, September.
    3. Stede, Jan & Pauliuk, Stefan & Hardadi, Gilang & Neuhoff, Karsten, 2021. "Carbon pricing of basic materials: Incentives and risks for the value chain and consumers," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 189.
    4. Deleidi, Matteo & Mazzucato, Mariana & Semieniuk, Gregor, 2020. "Neither crowding in nor out: Public direct investment mobilising private investment into renewable electricity projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    5. Wang, Nan & Akimoto, Keigo & Nemet, Gregory F., 2021. "What went wrong? Learning from three decades of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) pilot and demonstration projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    6. Zoya Pourmirza & Seyed Hamid Reza Hosseini & Sara Walker & Damian Giaouris & Philip Taylor, 2022. "The Landscape and Roadmap of the Research and Innovation Infrastructures in Energy: A Review of the Case Study of the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-24, June.
    7. Sato, Misato & Rafaty, Ryan & Calel, Raphael & Grubb, Michael, 2022. "Allocation, allocation, allocation! The political economy of the development of the European Union Emissions Trading System," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115431, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Jonas Meckling & Clara Galeazzi & Esther Shears & Tong Xu & Laura Diaz Anadon, 2022. "Energy innovation funding and institutions in major economies," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 7(9), pages 876-885, September.
    9. Elizabeth Jiménez-Medina, René Yepes-Callejas, Jim Giraldo-Builes, Iván Dario Rojas-Arenas, 2021. "Valle de la muerte: factores que dificultan el éxito de innovaciones tecnológicas," Revista CEA, Instituto Tecnológico Metropolitano, vol. 7(15), pages 1-23, September.
    10. Olga Chiappinelli & Karsten Neuhoff, 2020. "Time-Consistent Carbon Pricing: The Role of Carbon Contracts for Differences," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1859, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    11. Timo Gerres & Manuel Haussner & Karsten Neuhoff & Alice Pirlot, 2019. "Can Governments Ban Materials with Large Carbon Footprint? Legal and Administrative Assessment of Product Carbon Requirements," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1834, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    12. Åhman, Max & Skjærseth, Jon Birger & Eikeland, Per Ove, 2018. "Demonstrating climate mitigation technologies: An early assessment of the NER 300 programme," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 100-107.
    13. Bossink, Bart, 2020. "Learning strategies in sustainable energy demonstration projects: What organizations learn from sustainable energy demonstrations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    14. Jugend, Daniel & Fiorini, Paula De Camargo & Armellini, Fabiano & Ferrari, Aline Gabriela, 2020. "Public support for innovation: A systematic review of the literature and implications for open innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    15. Bento, Nuno & Fontes, Margarida, 2019. "Emergence of floating offshore wind energy: Technology and industry," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 66-82.
    16. Alex Borodin & Vladislav Zaitsev & Zahid F. Mamedov & Galina Panaedova & Andrey Kulikov, 2022. "Mechanisms for Tax Regulation of CO 2 -Equivalent Emissions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-15, September.
    17. Dean, Tereza & Zhang, Haisu & Xiao, Yazhen, 2022. "The role of complexity in the Valley of Death and radical innovation performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. S. Andresen & G. Bang & J. B. Skjærseth & A. Underdal, 2021. "Achieving the ambitious targets of the Paris Agreement: the role of key actors," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 1-7, March.
    19. Mariana Mazzucato & Gregor Semieniuk, 2017. "Public financing of innovation: new questions," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(1), pages 24-48.
    20. Joelle Noailly, 2022. "Directing innovation towards a low-carbon future," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 72, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L61 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Metals and Metal Products; Cement; Glass; Ceramics
    • L65 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Chemicals; Rubber; Drugs; Biotechnology; Plastics
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:21:y:2021:i:10:p:1328-1346. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tcpo20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.