The Relationship between Climate Action and Poverty Reduction Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Hans Peter Lankes, Rob Macquarie, Éléonore Soubeyran, and Nicholas Stern There is growing awareness that actions by policymakers and international organizations to reduce poverty, and those to mitigate and adapt to climate change, are inextricably linked and interwoven. This paper examines relevant academic and policy literature and evidence on this relationship and explores the potential for a new form of development that simultane- ously mitigates climate change, manages its impacts, and improves the wellbeing of people in poverty. First, as a key foundation, it outlines the backdrop in basic moral philosophy, noting that climate action and poverty reduction can be motivated both by a core principle based on the right to development and by the conventional consequentialism that is standard in economics. Second, it reviews assessments of the current and potential future impacts of weakly managed climate change on the wellbeing of those in poverty, paying attention to unequal effects, including by gender. Third, it examines arguments and literature on the economic impacts of climate action and policies and how those affect the wellbeing of people in poverty, highlighting the importance of market failures, technological change, systemic dynamics of transition, and distributional effects of mitigation and adaptation. Finally, the paper surveys the current state of knowledge and understanding of how climate action and poverty reduction can be integrated in policy design, indicating where further research can contribute to a transition that succeeds in both objectives. JEL Codes: O130, Q540, Q580 Keywords: climate, poverty, development, growth, wellbeing. Introduction Climate change, poverty, and action to tackle each are closely interwoven. In this paper we argue that an effective response to these challenges requires the under- standing and creation of a new form of development that simultaneously mitigates climate change, manages its impacts, and improves the wellbeing of people in poverty. Failure to tackle climate change will dramatically increase poverty across its many The World Bank Research Observer © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkad011 39:1–46 dimensions.1 Well-designed measures to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change can drive a new form of sustainable, resilient, and inclusive development, especially in emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs), which can offer avenues out of poverty for people both in the present and in the future. This paper examines a range of relevant theoretical and empirical literature on the relationship between climate action and poverty reduction. While not an ex- haustive survey, our examination indicates that the nature of the problems requires Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 innovation beyond the standard models used for economic analysis, which poses a vitally important research agenda. It must address complex dynamics, distributional consequences, and systemic change. Yet the science is very clear about the necessary urgency of action. Therefore, the dilemma common to all policy making—that action and research are needed simultaneously—is particularly intense in this context. Section 2 examines the ethical issues around linkages between climate change and poverty. It focuses on the standard utilitarian/welfarist approach in economics and on rights and justice. Both bring insights of importance, but both have intrinsic problems in any attempt to calibrate a values-driven “trade-off ” between climate action and poverty reduction. Section 3 examines the evidence on the impacts of climate change and demon- strates that delayed climate action will likely be profoundly damaging for efforts to reduce poverty in the future. Current impacts already indicate that poorer people suf- fer particularly severely from a changing climate. The distributional issues, including in relation to power and gender, are of real significance. Section 4 appraises economic analyses of commonly articulated trade-offs between climate action and poverty reduction. It argues that trade-offs are not inevitable, by highlighting the deficiencies of much of the existing economics literature in rec- ognizing the static and dynamic implications of a collection of key market failures. And it points to actions that can tackle any negative impacts on poor people. The systemic dynamics of the creation of a new approach to sustainable, resilient, and inclusive development will not be simple, but basic logic requires these transition dynamics to be center stage. We argue that such rapid systemic change cannot be shoe-horned into standard aggregate growth models which only recognize modest or marginal perturbations associated with climate impacts, and that attempts to do so have been misleading. However, economics does offer certain insights into these development challenges, and section 4 also examines a newer body of work reflecting the key vectors of systemic change and their distributional consequences (including geographical, intergenerational, and gender dimensions) relevant for the overall impact on poverty. In so doing, it highlights important areas for further research. The science is clear on the necessary urgency of action, and the paper indicates some priorities for action and decisions now on climate and poverty which, we argue, are supported by current understanding. Section 5 emphasizes these priorities, but also indicates gaps that call for further work. Section 6 briefly summarizes. 2 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) Ethics, Values, Justice Making policy in relation to climate and poverty reduction requires an understand- ing of what are just or moral actions and how to assess and weigh changes in current wellbeing, and in the wellbeing of people in the future. That requires consideration of ethical frameworks. This section first examines the dominant utilitarian or welfarist framework used in economic analysis,2 including for analyses on climate, growth, Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 and poverty, noting some key limitations of this approach. We also consider an important alternative view based on rights and justice, which has been prominent in discussions of climate policymaking. While not our main focus, we make references to other potentially relevant ethical approaches, although they have not featured as strongly in public discussion. Both the utilitarian/welfarist and rights/justice approaches encounter serious difficulties in assessing potential trade-offs between climate action and poverty reduction. That further underlines the importance of finding strategies that take account of both. Utilitarian/Welfarist Approaches Standard analyses of policies and choices in economics typically compare conse- quences on paths with and paths without some policy under consideration. This consequentialist approach usually takes the form of making value or welfare com- parisons using social welfare functions (SWFs), sometimes in terms of sums of social utilities. Sen (1979) characterizes this approach as “welfarism,” using “util- itarianism” in a narrower way as concerned with the sum of utilities (which, in some frameworks or with some authors, are seen as measurable). Utilitarianism and welfarism lie within the consequentialist approach. In the utilitarian/welfarist framework, risk is usually analyzed in terms of the mathematical expectations of the SWF. These standard approaches have characterized much of the economics of climate change. Having a single overall criterion can enable quantification of trade-offs between outcomes on different dimensions. The standard approaches have, in large measure, served economics well in policy analysis, particularly where that analysis is of marginal change or small pertur- bations around some specified counterfactual. But they can run into difficulty and confusion as ethical frameworks when the potential consequences are extreme or, for many, potentially existential (Stern 2022; Stern et al. 2022a). For example, global warming of 3°C, 4°C, or 5°C could have potentially catastrophic outcomes involving mass destruction of lives and livelihoods, forced migration, and conflict. Indeed even warming of 2°C or 2.5°C could involve very heavy loss of life.3 An expected utility framework is limited in how it can assess such outcomes in a way that is useful for decision-making. Placing an infinite value on loss-of-life leads to unbounded objective functions.4 That would in general make it impossible to compare different Lankes et al. 3 policies and thus the use of such objective functions would in many cases fail to give policy conclusions. However, specifying a finite valuation of a life, particularly where the potential scale of loss of life is so large, inevitably results in large sensitivity of “recommended” policies to that valuation under the standard approach; and relative valuations across different groups can themselves be extremely problematic.5 In theory and in policy regarding the changing climate, the possibility of catas- trophic outcomes has motivated the idea of a “guard rail” which places some limits Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 on the extent and severity of outcomes. While that approach could also be seen as consequentialist, the foundations of such an approach go beyond standard welfare economics, as discussed in Stern et al. (2022a). The guard rail approach has been adopted in public discussion of upper bounds for temperatures and is the science- based approach embodied in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Paris Agreement of 2015 and the Glasgow Pact of 2021. Adopting guard rails imposes an absolute limit on welfare trade-offs. Given the limitations of the standard approach, it is important to recognize the potential relevance of other ethical frameworks and values available for thinking about climate and poverty. Stern (2014a, 2014b, 2015) provides a closer exami- nation and review of relevant literature on moral philosophy in relation to climate change (including contractarian, Aristotelian, and Kantian approaches); many non-Western philosophies also offer ethical frameworks with less individualistic foundations which can nevertheless motivate a concern for sustainable development and the protection of nature or natural capital (Schonfeld 2013; Spahn 2018). Here, we examine just one alternative approach, that of rights and justice, since it has been prominent in discussions of climate, inequality, and poverty. Rights and Justice Amongst ethical approaches to, and public discussion of, climate change, the idea of justice, or injustice, looms large. Sen (2009) provides an analytical framework for applying the concepts of common humanity and fundamental equality amongst human beings, which have a long heritage (e.g., Paine 1791; Wollstonecraft 1792). Sen argued that whilst “justice” is not always easily defined in ways that can guide thought and action, it is possible, in many circumstances, to define and identify “injustice.” Injustice can be considered in terms of the denial of rights and entitle- ments. In the context of climate and poverty, the core relevant right is arguably the “right to development.” Sen writes in terms of the right to pursue a life and outcomes that individuals “have reason to value” (2009, 231 and Chapter 11). The “right to development” has a long history in discussion of public action on development (e.g., UN General Assembly Resolution 41/128). In bringing attention to this approach, we must note that it may not be clear how to offer an ethical evaluation of damage to “rights” caused by public action. 4 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) For the analysis of poverty and climate change, the logic that begins with the “right to development” would first ask whether continued emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), are compatible with reduction in poverty, and second whether they are necessary for it. Since this perspective is grounded in rights held by all, a right to development held by some does not imply a right to harm others: indeed, as the then Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, argued on Africa Day at the UNFCCC COP17 in Durban, South Africa, “it is not justice to foul the planet because others Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 have fouled it in the past” (2011).6 Importantly, GHG emissions create both intragenerational and intergenerational injustices. Climate change is causing especially deep damage now to the development prospects, or rights to development, in poorer countries and for poorer people as a consequence particularly of past actions and forms of growth in richer countries (Callahan and Mankin 2022) and the economic habits of the world’s richest people (Kartha et al. 2020). Poor people suffer earliest and hardest despite having con- tributed least to causing the problem. It also damages the development prospects of those living in the future. These injustices relate not only to poverty, but also to characteristics that confer social power, including ethnicity and gender. Those in less powerful positions can be less able to defend against and adapt to the impacts and are often last to escape locations devastated by extreme weather events. However, action on climate change may also be seen as having potentially unjust consequences if it results in some people’s wellbeing being impaired by price or cost changes or by the dislocation caused—for example through job losses or limited energy access caused by the phase out of coal or oil sectors (McCauley and Heffron 2018). The policy challenge could then be to design protection for poorer groups against changing prices or to find ways to manage dislocation through the provision of new opportunities or support (Green and Gambhir 2020). These two approaches to the problem—standard welfare and justice—frame the remaining sections of this paper. But they do have their limitations as each is problematic in this context in terms of providing a calibration for an ethical trade-off between climate action and poverty reduction. As in much of economic policy, it is important to take account of a range of ethical perspectives. The Impacts of Climate Change on Poverty The impacts of climate change are critical to understanding both the effect of climate action or inaction on poverty and how to adapt to those impacts that are already “locked in.” Section 3.1 reviews the literature on past and current impacts as indi- cators for the future. However, historical experience carries only limited information and guidance on the challenges ahead, because the climate is already outside the limits of human experience and likely headed far outside that experience. Further, past trends do not capture the risks of non-linear changes and of crossing dangerous Lankes et al. 5 tipping points, such as the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet or the collapse of the Amazon ecosystem, which could push the Earth system into a completely different state. In section 3.2 we examine potential consequences of future impacts. One of the important rationales for early action on climate is the uncertainty around future impacts, which could be large, unstable, and irreversible, and around potential feedback loops that could accelerate climate change. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Current Impacts Climate change amplifies the extreme events and major shocks that force people into poverty and keep them there. Because poor people are often more exposed, more vulnerable and lack the resources to cope and recover from these shocks (“adaptive capacity”), they suffer most from climate change (Birkmann et al. 2022). Likewise, evidence suggests that impacts are greatest for women and girls, as well as the youngest and oldest in the population. Several main channels through which climate change already affects poverty are explored below. These include impacts both from extreme events and “slow-onset” phenomena. Costs of Physical Damage Climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of natural hazards in many parts of the world, and while most (88 percent) of economic losses due to weather, climate and water extremes from 1970 to 2020 have occurred in upper-middle and high-income countries due to their larger assets, low- and lower-middle income countries suffered a disproportionate 82 percent of all fatalities during the same period (WMO 2021). Hallegatte et al. (2017) conclude that natural disasters are already pushing upwards of 26 million people temporarily or permanently under the international extreme poverty line every year; this does not, of course, include the impact on those who are already below or who remain just above the poverty line. Socioeconomic disparities shape both the severity of shocks on the affected popu- lation and the duration of the recovery (World Bank 2021). Poorer households do not have the same adaptive capacity as richer households (such as financial savings or in- surance), so take longer to recover from a disaster and thereby face greater long-term impacts on their economic and physical wellbeing. Hallegatte and Rozenberg (2017) find that the poorest 40 percent of the population experience income losses from climate change that are 70 percent larger, relative to their wealth, than those of the average population. And within developed countries, poor people stand to lose more than wealthier people from natural disasters (Bleemer and van der Klaauw 2017). Impacts Via Disruption to Agriculture By disrupting agricultural production, climate volatility and extreme weather events are a significant threat both to rural communities, who depend on the agricultural 6 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) sector to survive and as a means through which to escape poverty, and to poor people in urban areas, due to cascading impacts on food prices (FAO et al. 2018). Climate change makes it more expensive and difficult for farmers to sustain livestock and crops as it exacerbates water scarcity, land degradation, and difficulties with weather and precipitation patterns. Human-induced land and water degradation combined with worsening climate impacts have already pushed many regional agricultural systems to breaking point (FAO 2021), slowing agricultural productivity growth Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 around the world (Ortiz-Bobea et al. 2021; Trisos et al. 2022). The resulting crop and livestock losses not only affect agricultural incomes, but also cause high and volatile food prices, one of the most important channels (together with effects on health) of the impact of climate change on poverty (Jafino et al. 2020). Because people in poverty tend to spend more of their income on food, even a small increase in food prices can have large impacts on them (Hallegatte et al. 2017). The disruption to agricultural systems from both extreme events and slow-onset phenomena also encourages migration (Falco et al. 2019) and exacerbates the risk of conflict (Wischnath and Buhaug 2014; Koren et al. 2021), both of which are driving forces of poverty. The intensification of drought by climate change increased armed conflict in West Asia and North Africa in the period 2011–2015, which in turn drove an outflow of asylum-seekers (Abel et al. 2019). In the Syrian Arab Republic, climate change exacerbated the 2007–2010 drought amidst growing water scarcity and poor water management, leading to widespread crop failures and mass migration from rural to urban areas, which contributed to the causes of civil war (Kelley et al. 2015). Even though the impacts of climate change on migration and conflict cannot be estimated without important uncertainties, they may come to dominate everything else, especially in regions already facing political turmoil and persistent violent conflicts, like the Sahel. Impacts on Health Climate change amplifies major health outcomes—including death from natu- ral disasters, mental health issues, heat-related illnesses (such as cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and respiratory conditions) and vector-borne diseases such as malaria—and puts pressure on healthcare systems and facilities (Watts et al. 2018; Romanello et al. 2021), with disadvantaged and vulnerable populations being the most severely affected. Extreme heat and cold events led to around 1.7 million deaths globally in 2019, with the majority of heat-related deaths concentrated in South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East (Burkart et al. 2021). Changing environmental conditions are in- creasing the transmission risk of climate-sensitive infectious diseases (Romanello et al. 2021) and are aggravating over half of known pathogenic diseases that affect humans (Mora et al. 2022). Impaired crop yield and water scarcity resulting from Lankes et al. 7 climate shifts also worsen malnutrition, with severe implications for health and child development (Alderman et al. 2006). Health shocks are a well-documented driver of poverty (e.g., Moser 2008), because of the income loss from an inability to work and the costs of medical care for which poorer households are often uninsured. These shocks push an estimated 100 million people into poverty every year, with the impacts of climate change contributing to this trend (Hallegatte et al. 2015). Agricultural workers in EMDEs are among the Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 most vulnerable: in 2020 they suffered almost half of the 295 billion potential work hours lost due to extreme heat (Romanello et al. 2021). Furthermore, fossil fuel combustion adversely affects health by worsening air quality—again, disproportionately harming poor people. While estimates vary, a recent study of outdoor air pollution from fossil fuels suggest it contributed to around 9 million premature deaths in 2018, in the context of total global deaths of around 57 million a year (Vohra et al. 2021).7 People in EMDEs tend to be more exposed to toxic air than those in advanced economies. Household air pollution due to poor ventilation and the use of polluting fuels for cooking and heating contributed to an estimated 2.3 million deaths in 2019 (about 4 percent of all global deaths), almost all in Sub-Saharan Africa, South and East Asia, and Oceania (Health Effects Institute 2020). Women are 40 percent more exposed than men to this type of pollution (Romanello et al. 2021). Disproportionate Impacts on Women and Girls Insufficient attention has been given to how climate change worsens the cycle of poverty for women and girls. A growing body of research shows that women and girls are more vulnerable than men to climate change impacts and are less able to cope and recover. Indeed, existing gender inequalities and unequal power dynamics amplify their vulnerability and limit their adaptation to climate-related impacts (Schipper et al. 2022). The bottom line is that natural disasters disproportionally affect women’s life expectancy, unemployment, labor force re-entry, and relative losses of assets (Erman et al. 2021).8 An important reason for this effect is that unequal control over and access to resources—including land, water, food, credit, and technology—hampers women’s ability to efficiently cope with and adapt to climate impacts (Eastin 2018). Although women represent 43 percent of the agricultural workforce, with significantly higher rates in agriculture-dependent countries in Asia and Africa, only 15 percent are agricultural landholders (OECD 2019). As such, they have limited access to credit for climate change adaptation practices, for example, to invest in climate-smart tech- nologies to increase harvests, increase resilience, or invest in off-farm activities (Atela et al. 2018).9 Furthermore, climate change disproportionately affects women’s health and well- being. In rural areas, where women are often the primary providers of food, water 8 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) and fuel, resource scarcity can force them to travel long distances, often through unsafe areas, reducing the time available to generate income and disrupting girls’ education (see, for example, Yadav and Lal 2018).10 More generally, competition over scarce resources can exacerbate gender-based violence as a means of control and reinforcement of unequal power dynamics. The devastating impacts of climate- induced disasters on communities (resource stress, loss of property and livelihoods, financial pressures, and post-traumatic stress disorder) have been shown to in- Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 crease the incidence of domestic violence, child marriage, and sexual exploitation (Castañeda et al. 2020; Allen et al. 2021; van Daalen et al. 2022). Future Impacts The Earth has already warmed by around 1.2°C compared with the 1850–1900 average. If today’s development patterns do not change, and without deep emissions reductions, global warming will far exceed the temperature goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement set at COP21: containing temperature rise to “well below 2°C,” while pur- suing efforts for an upper limit of 1.5°C (IPCC 2023). Many estimates place the me- dian warming by 2100 between 2.5°C and 3°C under governments’ current policies. Every extra increment of warming will have increasingly devastating impacts on lives and livelihoods across the world, but poor and marginalized communities will suffer the most. Jafino et al. (2020) estimate that depending on the level of tempera- ture increase, between 32 million and 132 million more people could be pushed into poverty as a result of climate change in 2030,11 compared to a world with a stable climate. The impacts of climate change on poverty are extremely sensitive to different levels of warming (Byers et al. 2018). The number of people exposed to multiple climate risks could double between 1.5°C and 2°C of warming,12 and almost double again at 3°C of warming, to half the global population, with 91–98 percent of the exposed and vulnerable population living in Asia and Africa (ibid). Impacts on Livelihoods Increases in global temperatures will both intensify and increase the frequency of many climate-related extreme events, as well as accelerate slow-onset impacts including sea level rise and desertification, thereby amplifying impacts on food and water systems. Poor populations are particularly vulnerable to slow-onset events due to their limited capacity to anticipate and adapt to these phenomena, for example, by migrating to safer areas (Benveniste et al. 2022). Agricultural and ecological droughts in drying regions that occurred once every 10 years on average in past centuries before industrialization,13 as well as extreme temperature events that occurred once every 50 years, would occur more frequently with every increment of warming (IPCC 2021). Climate events such as droughts and extreme heat could also Lankes et al. 9 coincide more often in the future, with more severe impacts in poor and rural areas (Yin et al. 2023), and exacerbate the damaging impacts on global crop yields (Lesk et al. 2021). As a result, the number of people exposed to lower crop yields would be 10 times higher under 2°C warming compared with 1.5°C, most of them living in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa; some 600 million people would be exposed to water stress (Roy et al. 2018). Marine fisheries would decline by more than 3 million metric tons per degree of warming (Cheung et al. 2016). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Impacts on Health The impacts identified in section 3.1 are expected to accelerate with additional warming. The proportion of the global population exposed to severe heat at least once every five years is likely to increase from 14 percent at 1.5°C of warming to 37 percent at 2°C of warming (Dosio et al. 2018). For instance, at 2°C, Pakistan and India would likely experience similar conditions to their deadly 2015 heat- waves on an annual basis (Matthews et al. 2017).14 Greater warming will extend the transmission seasons and geographical range of climate-sensitive food-borne, water-borne, and vector-borne diseases. For instance, dengue risk would increase in Asia, Europe, Central and South America, and Sub-Saharan Africa, potentially putting additional billions of people at risk by the end of the century (IPCC 2022a). At 2°C or higher levels of warming, the IPCC warns that “food security risks due to climate change would be more severe, leading to malnutrition and micro-nutrient deficiencies, concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Central and South America, and Small Islands” (ibid.). Morbidity (incidence or prevalence of a disease) would also increase, with consequences for poverty. Projected Impacts, Thresholds, Tipping Points, and Irreversibility A range of expected climate impacts under different temperature scenarios are summarized in Table 1. In all of them, poor people are shown to be the most vulnerable. Although projections involve margins of uncertainty, especially many decades out, the scientific evidence makes clear that unmanaged climate change would ren- der many regions uninhabitable and would radically change lives across the world for the worse, especially those of poor people. Some of the future impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise and more severe heatwaves, are already “locked in” and therefore unavoidable, even if GHG emissions are cut rapidly. The IPCC (2022a) stresses that “many ecosystems are near the hard limits of their natural adaptation capacity.” That is, ecosystems are approaching the thresholds beyond which they cannot successfully adapt to avoid severe risks. Once these hard limits are reached, no additional adaptation actions can prevent irreversible loss and damage. People in 10 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) Lankes et al. Table 1. Impacts under Different Levels of Warming Impacts 1.5°C 2°C 4°C Sources Food systems 10-year agricultural and ecological 10-year agricultural and ecological 10-year agricultural and IPCC (2021) droughts in drying regions will droughts in drying regions will ecological droughts in drying likely occur every 5 years (range likely occur every 4 years (range regions will likely occur every 2–10) 1.7–7.7) 2.4 years (range 1.4–5.9) 32–36 million people exposed to 330–396 million people exposed to Information unavailable Roy et al. (2018) lower yields lower yields Ecosystems 70–90% of coral reefs at risk from 99% of coral reefs at risk from Information unavailable Roy et al. (2018) bleaching bleaching 49% (±9%) of glaciers will likely Information unavailable 89% (±7%) of glaciers will likely Rounce et al. (2023) disappear disappear Water scarcity 496 (range 103–1,159) million 586 (range 115–1,347) million Information unavailable Roy et al. (2018) people exposed and vulnerable to people exposed and vulnerable to water stress water stress Health 14% of global population exposed 37% of global population exposed Information unavailable Dosio et al. (2018) to severe heat at least once every to severe heat at least once every 5 years 5 years Source: Authors’ analysis based on review of selected literature. Note: Included impacts are not exhaustive. 11 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 poverty will be especially affected given that they generally depend on ecosystems for their livelihood (Robinson 2016) and for protection against climate impacts. Beyond 1.5°C of warming, multiple climate tipping points could be triggered (McKay et al. 2022). Every increment of warming increases the risk of passing major thresholds, which could generate dangerous feedback loops. Examples include the collapse of the Amazon and boreal rainforests, thawing of permafrost, destabilization of polar ice sheets, and large-scale die-offs of coral reefs. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Implications for Society and Humanity Based on past experience, as the frequency and intensity of shocks increase, greater warming could trigger mutually reinforcing economic, social, and political instabil- ity, leading to cascading disruptions including impoverishment, food insecurity, mi- gration and displacement, and civil and political conflict (see, for example, Kemp et al. 2022). For instance, as temperatures rise, the existing trends of rural–rural and rural–urban migration might accelerate suddenly and significantly, involving tens to hundreds of millions of people with climate-sensitive livelihoods in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. This could lead to large-scale ethnic or civic strife, as is already being witnessed, for example, between pastoralist and agricultural communities in Nigeria and the Sahel, and would put extreme pressure on urban areas, triggering conflicts (Birkmann et al. 2022). The increasing frequency and intensity of extreme precipi- tations associated with flooding, tropical cyclones, droughts, and sea level rise would also drive displacement (IPCC 2022a). Under a high emissions scenario leading to global temperatures increasing above 3°C by the end of the century, rising sea levels threaten land that is home to between 2.5 and 9 percent of the global population with annual coastal flooding by the year 2100 (Kulp and Strauss 2019; Kirezci et al. 2020; Rohmer et al. 2021). This would trigger large-scale humanitarian crises and is likely to be highly destabilizing for societies, in a way that most exposes people in poverty. In summary, poorer people are affected more severely by the impacts of climate change. Already, the effects of climate change are materializing earlier than expected and at a greater scale and intensity than anticipated, most severely affecting EMDEs and poor communities. The Impact of Climate Action on Poverty In this section we examine how action on climate change might itself affect poverty, particularly in the shorter term. Broadly speaking, there are four interwoven argu- ments or mechanisms which could lead to climate action increasing poverty. Each has substance and raises important questions, yet in each case well-designed policy can combine effective climate action with poverty reduction. Without such policies, the effects could go the other way. 12 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) The first argument suggests that in an efficient world, introducing an additional criterion—here, the future state of the climate—must involve reduction on some other dimension. However, this position is not a sound basis for analyzing a world that has many important inefficiencies. Well-designed climate action can and should overcome market failures and crucial inefficiencies. Second, there is an argument that development needs energy and that energy needs fossil fuels and thus that development must involve increased GHG emissions. However, such historically Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 observed relationships are not necessarily stable and it is clear that alternative path- ways are possible in the future: for instance, low-carbon sources of energy are now cheaper than fossil fuels in many sectors and geographies. These two arguments are examined in section 4.1. A third argument is that using resources for climate action will reduce those going to growth, and further that growth reduces poverty and increases resilience. How- ever, well-designed climate action can also drive growth, as section 4.2 highlights. That section also reviews analysis and modelling of output, jobs, and resilience gains from climate action and discusses the challenges and limitations of some widely used models. Fourth, climate action can involve a whole range of policies around pricing, technologies, and phasing out of fossil fuel extraction, which could, in principle, increase costs and reduce opportunities for poor people. Again, that directly raises the question of how policies can be designed to overcome such effects. These effects and associated policies are the subject of 4.3. Absence of an Inevitable Trade-off Between Climate Action and Poverty Reduction Inefficiency and Market Failure The argument that pursuing sustainability may be at odds with improved wellbe- ing for those in poverty has precedent in the economics profession (Solow 1991; Beckerman 1992). There is an argument that if the existing equilibrium is efficient, relative to an existing set of criteria, then progress against a new criterion can be achieved only at some cost to other objectives. However, the world is characterized by multiple market failures and inefficiencies of direct and major relevance to the implications of climate action for poverty. Beyond the externality of GHG emissions, these include underinvestment in knowledge (including research and development (R&D)) as a public good, imperfect information, problems in coordinating networks, failures in capital markets, and failure of markets to value other benefits (such as nature or health) (Stern and Stiglitz 2023). Despite the negative consequences of rising temperatures for multiple dimensions of poverty identified in section 3, a range of studies have questioned whether action to meet climate goals (usually focused on mitigation) is desirable from the perspec- tive of the poorest individuals and households. For example, several studies using Lankes et al. 13 Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) suggest that the benefits of climate mitigation for poorer regions or countries are smaller than the economic costs, with net negative impacts on people’s wellbeing (Akimoto et al. 2012; Hussein et al. 2013; Hasegawa et al. 2018; Campagnolo and Davide 2019; Fujimori et al. 2019). Climate policy measures affect the costs of production factors (particularly land and energy), feed back into higher prices, and reduce the relative income and consumption of poor households. However, it is important to note that studies relying on average national Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 or regional household incomes (e.g., Hasegawa et al. 2018; Fujimori et al. 2020; Lomborg 2020) can overlook differentiated impacts between households of different income level within these broader geographic zones (Dennig et al. 2015). And, as we argue, these models have narrow and misleading assumptions in relation to climate impacts, growth, and market failures. The suitability of IAMs to analyze the relationship between climate action and poverty is compromised because they typically omit crucial market failures from their description of the underlying economy (Stern et al. 2022a). Grant et al. (2020) highlight that baseline scenarios describing an efficient world with a total absence of climate mitigation are far removed from actual policy and do not address which climate policies and strategies would perform best under more realistic conditions of uncertainty, inefficiency, and structural change. Climate policy is frequently mod- elled as the global application of a carbon price (Hussein et al. 2013; Davies et al. 2014; Franks et al. 2018; Hasegawa et al. 2018; Campagnolo and Davide 2019; Dorband et al. 2019; Fujimori et al. 2019, 2020; Budolfson et al. 2021; Soergel et al. 2021). In a world without further market failures, fully pricing in the externality of GHG emissions would result in cost-efficient mitigation pathways. By contrast, comprehensive climate action that addresses the range of relevant market failures entails a suite of interventions across many additional policy spheres, including long-term public spending commitments; investment in natural capital, R&D and infrastructure; and education and training (IPCC 2023). Evidence from the empirical literature reflects many available opportunities for re- solving market failures across economic sectors. For example, evidence from Mexico, Indonesia, and Oman (Amann et al. 2021; Calì et al. 2022) shows that investment in R&D and the deployment of renewable energy can lead to productivity improvements in industry, contrary to some modelling approaches, which assume that increasing these flows will have an opportunity cost for other sectors (Campagnolo and Davide 2019). Resource-efficient design for buildings in cities and improving mass public transportation to tackle urban congestion can reduce costs to households and posi- tively affect health by reducing pollution (Johansson et al. 2012; Kwan and Hashim 2016; Lovins 2018). R&D in food systems is currently underfunded in EMDEs (Nin- Pratt 2021), even though increased investments in R&D could have joint benefits for climate mitigation, adaptation, and poverty reduction (e.g., Boeckx et al. 2020; 14 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) Tesfaye et al. 2021) and could reduce hunger by 20–40 percent in these countries (IFPRI 2022). Development, Energy, Income, and Emissions The second argument that climate action necessarily implies a trade-off with poverty reduction is based on an understanding of development, energy, and emissions Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 focused on historical relationships. For instance, several econometric studies show that GHG emissions and income are correlated at country level in international panel data (e.g., Masron and Subramaniam 2019; Koçak and Çelik 2022). Steckel et al. (2013) argue that lower levels of energy use under climate mitigation scenarios are below threshold levels of per-capita energy consumption identified in historical data, so that these scenarios are inconsistent with economic development. The assump- tions behind these approaches are that reducing poverty requires growth and energy use, and that energy use entails emissions. Yet, as section 4.2 elaborates further, the expectation that fossil sources will continue to provide energy at lower cost than low-carbon alternatives (e.g., Jakob and Steckel 2014; Collins and Zheng 2015) is already starkly at odds with reality (IRENA 2022a). An alternative lens on the problem is to consider the consequences for global emissions and climate goals of increasing the income of the poorest people under different assumptions. Wollburg et al. (2023) estimate the annual difference in emissions associated with growth rates high enough to raise income per capita above poverty lines in all relevant countries. They find that incremental emissions in 2050 associated with ending extreme poverty would represent 4.9 percent of 2019 global emissions (15.3 percent for surpassing the $3.65 per day lower-middle- income poverty line or 45.7 percent with the $6.85 upper-middle-income poverty line). Annual emission reductions needed to meet net zero emissions in 2050 rise by approximately four percent compared to a scenario with no poverty reduction (i.e., no growth in countries where extreme poverty is concentrated). Therefore, these authors argue that the need to eradicate extreme poverty cannot be used to justify limiting climate ambitions. Importantly, for comparing potential development pathways, the central poverty-reduction scenario assumes that countries’ growth elasticity of poverty, energy-intensity, and carbon intensity match their historical av- erages. If instead all countries match the best historical performance—representing lower inequality, energy efficiency, and decarbonization, respectively—the emis- sions increase in 2050 becomes only 0.54 percent. Recognizing the rapidity of technical change for clean activities, often underestimated, would lead to still stronger conclusions. These findings corroborate those of Hubacek et al. (2017) and Bruckner et al. (2022), who conclude that climate mitigation is not in conflict with eradicating extreme poverty (albeit using a different method which raises the income and energy consumption of only the poorest households, rather than using growth Lankes et al. 15 across the board to achieve the same effect). All three papers suggest that the greater challenge lies in decarbonizing while sustaining middle-income levels. Perspectives that center on market failures and inefficiencies suggest that histor- ical data make it appear more costly and polluting to improve living standards than is necessary. In this vein, Malerba (2020) finds that the “carbon intensity of poverty reduction” (CIPR) is non-linear with income, declining at low and increasing at higher incomes, and decreases if socioeconomic inequality is reduced. Improving Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 the quality of national political and economic institutions, by strengthening the legal system, reducing corruption, and increasing bureaucratic capacity, nullifies the trade-off between growth and lower emissions in panel data (Kornek et al. 2017; Rizk and Slimane 2018; Koçak et al. 2019)—in other words, the same factors con- tribute to persistent poverty, low wellbeing, and high emissions. Energy efficiency and leapfrogging energy-intensive processes could also reduce inefficiencies and bring the per capita energy consumption required for economic development below the historical averages that Steckel et al. (2013) view as constraints on future pathways (Lovins 2018, 2020). Some authors reach a similar conclusion—that alternative development path- ways are possible and even desirable—focusing on the multidimensional nature of poverty, which studies on income and energy do not fully capture (Rao et al. 2017; Wollburg et al. 2023). Rao et al. (2014) investigate the relationship between national emissions and the population share meeting a minimum standard of living with re- spect to five material dimensions of basic needs: nourishment, water, sanitation, electricity, and non-slum urban housing. They find that countries with the highest share of people whose needs are met have a lower income and lower sectoral carbon emissions per capita on average than those in the middle group. However, emissions for the highest group span a wide range, implying “a diversity of emissions paths that countries have followed.” Market failures cannot be removed entirely but the above examples illustrate that commitment to action on climate can make decision-makers more willing to tackle those failures. That greater willingness would in general imply a move towards policies and actions that could reduce inefficiencies and obstacles to innovation and investment, and thus an improvement in economic performance and overall welfare. Potential of Climate Action to Drive Growth and Development Related to the two arguments considered in section 4.1, a third questions whether money spent on climate action now has an opportunity cost by not prioritizing in- creases in wellbeing for poor people. For instance, Dercon (2014a) argues that poor countries could use any window of opportunity before the most devastating impacts of climate change to boost growth and that this would, in any case, reduce the costs 16 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) of those impacts, since rapid socioeconomic development is one of the best ways of re- ducing the impacts of climate change on wellbeing (Hallegate and Rozenberg 2017). On the other hand, Stern and Stiglitz (2023) identify several drivers of growth implied by climate action. These include resource efficiency; increasing returns to scale in key new technologies; stronger productivity of systems such as energy, transport, cities; rapid innovation from shared social priorities with direction and urgency; higher investment; reinforcing effects of international coordination; im- Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 proved health (labor productivity and lower costs of care); and behavior change. Thus, climate action can drive growth. This section describes aggregate models which estimate employment and output gains from investing in mitigation, adaptation, and biodiversity and nature-based so- lutions, and comments on the emerging literature on economic gains from adapta- tion. Both low-carbon and adaptation investments can be sources of greater wellbe- ing for poor people, by raising incomes and providing stable employment, building resilience to shocks, and through other co-benefits (such as improved health by re- ducing urban and industrial pollution). Finally, we also note the potential of techno- logical change to drive even more rapid and dramatic changes in economic structures, which could only be captured in models and analytic approaches which incorporate endogenous growth. Employment and Output Gains15 Several aggregate models estimate that a comprehensive policy package to tackle cli- mate change could boost output and generate new job opportunities at the global level (OECD 2017; NCE 2018; IMF 2020). Other studies focusing on emerging markets or on specific countries reach similar conclusions (IFC 2021; World Bank 2022a). There is also some evidence to suggest that climate-friendly investments create more jobs per $1 million of investment than unsustainable investments (Jaeger et al. 2021). Many of these job opportunities can benefit poor people, provided they have the sufficient skills and human capital (which is explored further in section 4.3.3). Table 2 presents the findings on aggregate gains across several prominent studies. However, the effects of climate action on employment and output vary across sectors, geographies, and over time. Several studies confirm that the low-carbon transition can contribute to a net increase of employment in the energy sector (Garcia-Casals et al. 2019; Malerba and Wiebe 2021; Pai et al. 2021; IRENA 2022b), but evidence of the labor impacts in other sectors is more limited (O’Callaghan et al. 2022). There are differences across regions and countries (Saget et al. 2020; IRENA and AfDB 2022); the ILO (2018) suggests that in the short to medium term, Africa and the Middle East may see net job losses, while the Americas, Asia, and Europe would see net job creation. The magnitude of impacts also depends on the strin- gency of mitigation. Malik et al. (2021) show that while in the near-term energy employment increases under a 1.5°C scenario, it decreases in the long run due to im- Lankes et al. 17 18 Table 2. Some Estimates of the Output and Employment Benefits of Climate Action Macroeconomic impacts Study Countries Sectoral coverage Time period Jobs gains Output gains IFC (2021) 21 emerging 10 investment areas 2020–2030 New (direct) jobs: Information unavailable markets +213.4 million NCE (2018) Global All 2018–2030 New jobs: +65 million +1.7% ($26 trillion) by Net effect: +27 million 2030 OECD (2017) G20 All 2050 Information unavailable Without climate damages: +2.8% With climate damages: +4.7% IMF (2020) Global All 2021–2030 New jobs: +12 million +0.7% p.a. on average p.a. for 2021/27 until 2035 Pai et al. (2021) Global Energy 2020–2050 Net effect from current Information unavailable level: +8 million Net effect from current policy scenario: +5 million Garcia-Casals et al. Global Energy 2018–2050 Net effect: +0.14% +1.5% in 2031 (2019) +1% in 2050 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Table 2. Continued Macroeconomic impacts Lankes et al. Study Countries Sectoral coverage Time period Jobs gains Output gains IRENA and AfDB Africa Energy 2021–2050 Net effect: +3.5% +6.4% (2022) IRENA (2021) Global Energy 2050 Net effect from current Without climate policy scenario: damages: +0.3% +0.55% (20.2 million With climate damages: jobs) +3.9% IRENA (2022b) Global Energy 2022–2030 Net effect from current +2.2–2.3% on average policy scenario: +1.2–1.6% (43–57 million jobs) Saget et al. (2020) Latin America and All 2020–2030 New jobs: +22.5 million Information unavailable the Caribbean Net effect: +15 million (+4%) Malerba and Wiebe Global Energy 2030 Net effect: +0.3% Information unavailable (2021) Malik et al. (2021) Global Energy 2025 & 2050 Net effect (2020): Information unavailable +838,500 Net effect (2050): -2.2 million Source: Authors’ analysis based on review of selected literature. Note: Included impacts are not exhaustive. 19 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 provements in labor productivity, although total jobs are still higher in this scenario than in a weak emissions reduction scenario. Whether the distribution of employ- ment, income, and wellbeing will benefit the poorest depends on model structures, analytical approaches and, importantly, assumed social and political context. Adaptation Gains Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 The impacts of climate change set out in section 3 could be, and have been, devastat- ing for people in poverty. Integrating adaptation and resilience interventions to de- velopment strategies can help reduce some of these impacts (Castells-Quintana et al. 2016). Further, many of the required investments promote resilience while reducing emissions and fostering development. For example, there is increasing evidence that “nature-based solutions” to adaptation play an important role in improving the ability of people to sustain their livelihoods (Griscom et al. 2017; Mwangi and Evans 2018; Chausson et al. 2020; Seddon et al. 2020). Preserved and restored wetlands and forests not only act as carbon sinks but also reduce disruption to economic activity by absorbing storm surges, improving water systems, and reducing risk from floods and droughts, and they support local economies through improved soil quality, pollination, and habitat protection (Kapos et al. 2019; Powell et al. 2019; Tye et al. 2022). The economic returns from adaptation efforts are potentially significant: the Global Commission on Adaptation (2019) estimates that a $1.8 trillion investment in strengthening early warning systems, making water resource management and new infrastructure resilient, improving dryland agriculture crop production, and protecting mangroves would deliver $7.1 trillion in returns over the next decade. Again, well-designed climate action can yield high returns and benefits for poor people. Broader Challenges for Modelling: Multiple Market Failures and Endogenous Growth There are limits to the insights into development pathways that can be gained from existing models where technological progress and growth are exogenous and ex- trapolated from past trends, and which therefore might understate the speed and extent of structural and technical change. Correspondingly, the costs of low-carbon technologies have fallen much faster than anticipated in much of modelling, includ- ing for renewable energy generation and lithium-ion batteries (SYSTEMIQ 2020, 2021; Ziegler and Trancik 2021; Clarke et al. 2022; Way et al. 2022). Other key technologies, such as for battery electric vehicles (BEVs), green ammonia, and green hydrogen, are expected to reach tipping points before 2030, which in turn will trigger their scaling-up to mass market (SYSTEMIQ 2023).16 Improving data analytics and efficiency in production processes and supply chains and increased capabilities in 20 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) research and innovation associated with general purpose technologies (Andres et al. 2022) might also hasten positive tipping points (Sharpe and Lenton 2021; Chui et al. 2022). Economic transformation of the kind required to successfully manage climate change can be understood in terms of endogenous growth, driven by the dynamics of discovery, innovation, and investment (Aghion et al. 2021; Akcigit and Van Reenen 2023). Technology creation and diffusion, in this view, is driven by frequent and pur- Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 poseful policy intervention, in combination with entrepreneurship, with a focus on structural and institutional enabling conditions (Rodrik 2014; Grubb et al. 2021). How poor countries might pursue such a form of growth and what the consequences for poor people would be are two key framing questions for the remainder of this paper. Strategic Choices Over Development and Vectors for Impacts on Poverty For the relationship between climate action and poverty, it matters how the effects of new technologies and activities will be distributed by income, demographics, and across countries, and whether countries where poverty is concentrated have the necessary resources and capabilities to purposefully steer structural economic change (Barbier 2016). Therefore, modelling must be complemented by closer at- tention to the strategic choices countries face and the specificity of policy design in the context of country circumstances. Countries must face the challenges of navi- gating a nationally specific series of structural, micro, and macro effects to achieve both climate and development goals simultaneously. Many of these challenges are examined in detail in the World Bank’s Country Climate and Development Reports (CCDRs) (World Bank 2022b). Such analyses suggest that perceived costs of climate action for poverty often stem from a failure to incorporate poverty concerns in policy design or to provide an accompanying set of social policies (Hallegatte et al. 2014; Dercon 2014b; Montmasson-Clair 2021). On the macroeconomic side, structural change will affect countries’ fiscal and currency positions—crowding out, debt sustainability, and absorptive capacity are key (but varying) constraints. Domestic revenue mobilization and aid flows can assist public investment increases (Gurara et al. 2019), and are indeed relevant policy interventions for tackling poverty. Here, we identify four significant “vectors” of climate action where context and decision-making matter for the impact on poverty: resource extraction (fossil fuels and transition minerals) and fossil-fuel phase-out; carbon pricing instruments (in- cluding fossil fuel subsidies); the creation and distribution of new green jobs; and the inclusivity and local effects of low-carbon technologies, adaptation measures, and land-use change. When considering impacts, the counterfactual and time horizon are important framing: what does the alternative to climate action look like, and how does wellbeing for people in poverty in either scenario evolve over time? Lankes et al. 21 Resource Extraction and Fossil Fuel Phase-out Phasing out the extraction and burning of coal, oil, and fossil gas for energy use has been presented as a challenge for developing countries that might otherwise plan to use these activities to increase energy access, generate employment, and raise fiscal revenue (e.g., Kalkuhl et al. 2019; Laan and Maino 2022). However, “locking in” fossil fuel assets, infrastructure, and value chains transfers economic risks (as well as increased physical climate risks) onto future populations in a matter of decades or Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 even just a few years. Most existing fossil fuel reserves cannot be exploited if the world is to remain below 2°C (Welsby et al. 2021). Demand-side policies and investments in pursuit of this good, in low-carbon energy, will lead to declining fossil fuel prices (Boer et al. 2023). Pye et al. (2020) present evidence and modelling to show that even if an entitlement to provide future fossil fuel supply were redistributed primarily to lower-income countries—which faces large practical barriers—the benefits for those countries are limited by trade and energy system costs, falling prices, and negative side effects. Fossil fuel infrastructure often has strongly negative health impacts on poor people via air pollution, displacement, and destruction of natural ecosystems that provide sources of income (Saha and Carter 2022; Du et al. 2023; see also section 3 of this paper). By contrast, short-term profits often benefit foreign investors or, to the extent they flow to domestic interest groups, increase potential “resource curse” effects: clientelism and rent-seeking that depress growth (Lane and Tornel 1996; Saha and Carter 2022). However, some authors ask whether similar effects could occur in some countries due to the extraction of transition minerals or renewable energy exports, pointing to the importance of domestic political economy for ensuring that green investments support broad-based development (Månberger and Johansson 2019; Leonard et al. 2022). A growing literature addresses how phasing out from existing fossil fuel value chains and development of new “green” supply chains must both be carefully man- aged to prevent disruption from structural change harming people in poverty (e.g., Muttitt and Khartha 2020). Time, again, is a factor: for example, Zhang et al. (2022) find that continued development of coal-fired power generation in China could result in up to 90 percent of workers in coal plants losing jobs between 2030 and 2040, who would struggle to find re-employment in a mature clean energy economy. Beginning the phase-out now creates less severe impacts on wellbeing than concentrating it in some future, compressed timeframe. However, some poor communities are also highly vulnerable to immediate phase-out, such as in Madhya Pradesh, India, where entire local economies are based around the coal industry, including both formal and in- formal sectors (Pai 2021). Informality in labor markets and land tenure, weak social safety nets, limited availability of social and economic data, and low state capacity all make “just transition” policies more challenging for governments to orchestrate in EMDEs (Atteridge et al. 2022). Contextual factors are also found to be pivotal for 22 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) how mineral extraction affects poverty, such as the scale of mining operations and nature of governance (Gamu et al. 2015; ETC 2023a). These considerations all point to a need for more granular transition planning that differentiates phase-out and transition strategies by regions within countries, and over time, to isolate the most concentrated impacts on poverty. Carbon Pricing and Redistribution, Fossil Fuel Subsidies Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Carbon price instruments can have a highly variable impact on wellbeing, poverty, and inequality, depending on effects through four channels: on consumption, in- come, health, and potential recycling of revenues (Shang 2023). Studies modelling the global application of a carbon tax often find that redistributing revenues can sub- stantially alleviate, indeed reverse, the negative impact on low household incomes (Davies et al. 2014; Franks et al. 2018; Campagnolo and Davide 2019; Fujimori et al. 2020; Budolfson et al. 2021). Studies at the national level support this result, for instance in South Africa (Altieri et al. 2016), Brazil (Grottera et al. 2017), and Peru (Malerba et al. 2021). However, some studies find that the poorest countries are constrained by their available domestic resources and would face real difficulties in fully compensating all poor households, suggesting that international redistribution is also required to compensate the negative impacts of carbon pricing on house- holds in poverty (Davies et al. 2014; Campagnolo and Davide 2019; Fujimori et al. 2020). Moreover, designing and implementing carbon pricing and redistributive policy instruments might be challenging for EMDEs with low state capacity and large informal sectors (Aleksandrova 2020). For example, in Latin America, even while compensation could be achieved for poor and vulnerable households with 30 per- cent of carbon pricing revenues on average (Vogt-Schilb et al. 2019), characteristics which drive exposure to carbon pricing vary widely across countries and even within income groups—consequently, existing cash transfer programs do not cover all of the poorest, most vulnerable households, calling for a bespoke approach to revenue recycling (Missbach et al. 2022). In many countries, fossil fuel subsidies represent a more immediately accessible opportunity for carbon pricing reform. Although subsidies are widely considered to be regressive overall, their removal could still harm some of the poorest households by leading to higher prices—Damania et al. (2023) present recent evidence from a wide survey of countries. Corresponding to the literature on carbon taxes, a range of studies demonstrate positive effects on poverty reduction if fiscal savings from subsidy reform are transferred to households (e.g., Dennis 2016; Vandeninden et al. 2022; Klaiber et al. 2023), although it is important to note that impacts vary sig- nificantly by region within countries, again making it important to adopt a tailored approach (Rentschler 2016). Most impact studies are conducted ex ante, and the challenging political economy of reform has prevented a wider range of successful cases. Deeper understanding and in-country guidance is needed to embed subsidy Lankes et al. 23 reform in a durable social contract—likely based on a package including social safety nets, improving wider government services, and engagement with the public (Couharde and Mouhoud 2020; Vidican Auktor and Lowe 2022). Green Job Creation Given climate action’s broadly positive aggregate effects on output and employment Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 shown in section 4.2, the potential to reduce poverty through job creation in the long term will also depend on the distribution of skills, access to the labor market, and the geographic distribution of jobs, other factors of production, and supply chains (Taheripour et al. 2021). Jobs are also not a guarantee of decent work: 6.4 percent of the world’s working population lives in extreme poverty, with much higher figures in low-income countries where the working poverty rate reaches nearly 40 percent (ILO 2022). Several authors make the case for actively including job quality, regional effects, and gender in all climate policymaking to ensure a just transition and poverty reduction (e.g., Garcia-Casals et al. 2019; Saget et al. 2020; Malerba and Wiebe 2021). Effects on labor often differ by gender, and nuanced transitional impacts can be important for wellbeing: for example, technologies for mechanization in rice production or dairy intensification can lead to negative short-term impacts on women, even if there are long-term income gains from productivity (Kabir et al., forthcoming). Tailored communication, support (including training to take up tech- nological shifts), and incentives for firms are key conditions to ensure women have full access to social and economic opportunities from mitigation and adaptation (Janikowska and Kulczycka 2021). An important avenue for research into climate action and poverty is how EMDEs can develop the human capital necessary for economic diversification, mapping onto a global geography of opportunities in the production of low-carbon technologies. Noting the variable poverty-reduction potential of growth in different sectors, and that many lower-income countries have deindustrialized comparatively early in their economic development (Rodrik 2016), climate action may present opportunities for more durable income gains than current models. For instance, Behuria and Goodfellow (2019) highlight how even in a comparatively successful economy such as Rwanda, a mismatch between education policies and service-based growth can be observed, in stark contrast with successful East Asian development models in the 20th century. Global policies and standards for technology supply chains will be very significant for impacts on poverty—such as for lithium, which in Africa is mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo and recycled in Ghana (Otlhogile and Shirley 2023). However, it is worth noting explicitly that these issues would arise similarly in a pathway without climate action. 24 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) Social Inclusion and Local Effects Mitigation and adaptation activities will have distributive and wellbeing impacts beyond the growth in aggregate income and employment associated with po- tential development pathways. An immediate question concerns access for the poorest countries and households. A survey of mitigation options presented by the IPCC (2022b) highlights that technology solutions in agriculture, forestry, and other land use are not yet at cost parity with reference (higher-carbon) options. Even solar Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 technology, which in terms of up-front and operating costs is now almost universally cheaper than fossil alternatives, faces barriers to deployment because of geographic variability in the affordability of up-front costs (Szabó et al. 2021), particularly in relation to the availability and cost of finance. These near-term constraints have implications for good policy design to achieve both climate and poverty objectives. For example, carbon taxes on households’ fuel consumption have been found to dis- courage people from switching to gas away from traditional solid fuels, with negative health impacts (Cameron et al. 2016; Greve and Lay 2023). By contrast, subsidies for roll-out of distributed renewable energy are found to have positive impacts on poverty reduction in lower-income countries (Lamb et al. 2020). The potential for poverty reduction also depends on the extent to which local and national power structures and decision-making processes consider the needs and rights of vulnerable people and communities. For example, in some EMDEs, utility- scale wind and solar plants have been associated with private enclosure of communal land in contexts with weak regulation and limited representation for poor, rural, often indigenous groups (Lamb et al. 2020). Relatedly, Hussein et al. (2013) model inter- national payments for forest protection (alongside a carbon price) and find that these could undermine food security and increase poverty—yet assumptions about land ownership are critical. The impact of nature-based solutions depends on who cap- tures rents from new (lower-carbon) uses of land. Can land-grabs by large landown- ers be prevented, and can information and knowledge barriers to equal participation and fair governance be overcome (Barbier 2014)? Climate adaptation measures, if badly designed, can also introduce new risks for poorer communities while benefit- ing more politically and economically powerful actors (Mustafa and Wrathall 2011; Warner and Kuzdas 2016; Henrique and Tschakert 2021). Retrofitting adaptation onto existing development agendas risks maladaptation (Eriksen et al. 2021), yet ig- noring existing processes of economic integration and development can trap people in locations or industries that are in economic decline (such as marginal land in ur- ban areas that is prone to flooding) (Dercon 2014b). All of these findings show the importance of designing programs and interven- tions with the participation of affected communities, wider reforms of governance and markets, and tools for assessing whether specific projects and investments are aligned with macro pathways for decarbonization and resilience. There are real op- Lankes et al. 25 portunities in combining mitigation, adaptation, and development. There are many examples. However, taking advantage of these opportunities requires good policy. These issues present an important research agenda into the conditions and sequenc- ing of structural economic change for both climate and poverty reduction objectives. An Integrated Approach to Policy for Climate and Poverty Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Reduction Goals It is clear from the range of the literature covered in section 4 that achieving devel- opment pathways which reduce poverty and manage climate change will require comprehensive policy approaches designed not only to drive the transition but also to enable the opportunities of the low-carbon transition to be widely shared and to support those who might be adversely affected. The appropriate policy mix will vary by country, according to economic and social structures, political cultures, and patterns of power and influence among national and local stakeholders (Rogge and Reichardt 2016; KCI 2022; IPCC 2023). Lessons on how to navigate these issues are emerging from the frontier of policy practice and related research; we discuss three such lessons in this section: the need for stepped-up broad-based investment, the importance of combining climate policies with investment in people and social protection, and the crucial role of international financial partnerships. With good policies and actions the evidence suggests that climate action and poverty reduction can be achieved together and indeed can be mutually supportive. First, the literature highlights investments in all of physical, human, natural, and social capital as core elements of both climate action and poverty reduction. Increases in investment—including in education, health, access to justice and infrastructure such as energy, water, sanitation, and transportation—are necessary to achieve the SDGs under both “business-as-usual” scenarios and low-carbon transition scenarios (Bhattacharya et al. 2016; Gaspar et al. 2019; OECD 2017; Kharas and MacArthur 2019; Rozenberg and Fay 2019). Assessments of the investment implications of climate action have focused par- ticularly on the requirements for the energy transition, usually the largest of the incremental investment requirements. However, research indicates that meeting climate goals in EMDEs will also entail a scaling up of investment across sectors in order to transform the supply and demand of energy (IEA 2021; ETC 2022; IEA and IFC 2023), to promote sustainable agriculture, forestry, and land use practices (Deutz et al. 2020; UNEP 2021), and to adapt and cope with the loss and damage from ad- verse climate change impacts (Baarsch et al. 2015; Markandya and González-Equino 2019; Chapagain et al. 2020; UNEP 2022). Songwe et al. (2022) estimate that the required investments in these four areas (energy, nature, adaptation and resilience, loss and damage) would need to reach between $2–2.8 trillion by 2030 in EMDEs 26 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) other than China. Their analysis reveals that there are important complementarities between development and climate goals, and thus a large part of the investment requirements for climate action are already embodied in the investments required for development, such as the large-scale deployment of energy infrastructure. Simply put, climate objectives are nested within the SDGs and a poverty-focused climate agenda will need to take the SDGs into account and can drive progress towards them. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 The breakdown of investment needs for EMDEs by income groups (Kharas and McArthur 2019; ETC 2023b) indicates that while aggregate spending for both de- velopment and climate action will be higher in middle income countries, spending relative to GDP will be substantially higher in low-income countries, thus high- lighting the particular challenge that increasing investment poses for low-income countries. For example, the World Bank (2022b) identifies that incremental climate and development-related annual investment needs average 1.4 percent of GDP over 2022–2030 for all countries for which a CCDR has been prepared, and 8 percent of GDP in low-income countries to achieve growth and be on track to reduce emissions by 70 percent by 2050. Second, measures to scale up investment in physical capital will need to be ac- companied by investment in human capital and in places (or mobility) if the aim is to create opportunities for poor people. Active labor market policies can help incorporate people in poverty into the more formal economy and equip them with the necessary skills to benefit from new green job opportunities. These include, for example: education and training programs (Keese and Marcolin 2023); gender- sensitive policies including gender-sensitive training opportunities (Kwauk and Casey 2022) and greater investment in childcare to free up women to transition to formal employment (OECD 2021); and mobility support services to connect workers to emerging green sectors (Rigolini 2022). In addition to a substantial literature emphasizing the importance of social protection policies to help populations adapt to the impacts of climate change (Kuriakose et al. 2013; Schwan and Yu 2018; Tenzing 2020; Ulrichs et al. 2019; Aleksandrova and Costella 2021; Rana et al. 2022), policy initiatives and research now regularly highlight the importance of specific social protection programs and policies if people in poverty are to be pro- tected and benefit from changes in local economic development (e.g., ILO 2023; Mukherjee et al. 2023). Third, for many EMDEs, navigating the low-carbon transition effectively will require strong collaboration with advanced economies. Research underscores the importance of international financial support for countries with limited financial resources as they confront the economic challenges posed by global climate objec- tives and the effects of climate change (Lenferna 2018; Muttitt and Kartha 2020). This support would complement domestic resource mobilization. It would include a combination of expansion of support from international financial institutions Lankes et al. 27 Table 3. Examples of Policy Initiatives to Tackle the Poverty and Distributional Impacts of Climate Action 28 Vectors of impacts of climate action on poverty Organization, Initiative Intended mechanism for intervention Strategic choices World Bank Country Climate Helps countries prioritize the most impactful actions that can reduce GHG and Development reports emissions and boost adaptation, while delivering on broader development (CCDRs) goals. Identify main pathways to reduce GHG emissions and climate vulnerabilities, including the costs and challenges as well as benefits and opportunities from doing so. Asian Development Bank, Aims to help countries and communities in Asia and the Pacific scale up Community Resilience investments in climate adaptation, especially investments at the community Partnership Program (CRPP) level, that explicitly target the nexus between climate change, poverty, and gender. Resource extraction and Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance Convenes national governments and stakeholders to commit to and phase-out of fossil fuels (BOGA) collaborate on the managed phase-out of oil and gas production. UNDP and WWF, The Alliance Helps advance inclusive community-centered dialogue with all relevant for Just Energy stakeholder groups (communities, civil society, policymakers, and private Transformation sector) to facilitate and to identify common ground to ensure the path to energy transition is socially just and sustainable. Carbon pricing, fossil fuel Coalition of Finance Ministers Develops and builds capacity for fiscal and financial policy measures, subsidies, and (CoFM), Initiative on Carbon including effective carbon price mechanisms with attention to redistribution Pricing Measures distributional impacts and revenue use to support development objectives. Distribution of changes in International Labour Ensures that the need for decent jobs and social justice is taken into account in jobs Organization, Climate Action designing and implementing action on climate change. for Jobs Initiative United Nations, Global Helps countries create 400 million decent jobs, including in the green, digital, Accelerator on Jobs and Social and care economies, and to extend social protection coverage to the 4 billion Protection for Just Transitions people currently excluded. The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Table 3. Continued Lankes et al. Vectors of impacts of climate action on poverty Organization, Initiative Intended mechanism for intervention World Bank, Partnership for Global partnership with a mission to support the adoption of government-led Economic Inclusion (PEI) economic inclusion programs that promote access to labor markets. Economic inclusion programs provide a bundle of coordinated, multidimensional interventions that support extreme poor and vulnerable groups, with a special focus on women, to increase their incomes and assets. Impact of and access to Coalition for Sustainable Meets the energy needs of the world’s population with clean energy through new technologies Energy Access the strengthening of South–South cooperation in technology transfer and improving the understanding of roles of existing institutions and initiatives in the Global South. IEA Global Commission on Examines the social and economic impacts of the shift to cleaner energy People-Centered Clean Energy technologies, including issues of affordability and access. Transitions Just Rural Transition Supports governments to develop inclusive roadmaps for sustainable land-use and food system change. Building effective Just Energy Transition Country-led partnerships to expand public and private finance to accelerate international Partnerships (JETPs) country-led energy transition in EMDEs. cooperation Blended Finance Taskforce Helps mobilize large-scale capital for the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Source: Authors’ analysis based on review of selected policy and institutional documentation. Note: Included initiatives are not exhaustive. 29 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 and development banks, private sector finance, official development assistance, and other low-cost or grant finance (Bhattacharya et al. 2022; Songwe et al. 2022). However, successive analyses by official and independent sources have concluded that existing facilities and conditions, such as improved tax and transfer systems in EMDEs, financial market regulation and de-risking, and the efficient use of multilateral development bank (MDB) capital, are inadequate (UNEP 2015; Chenet et al. 2017; Clark et al. 2018; Yeo 2019; G20 2021; Bhattacharya and Stern 2021; Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Bhattacharya et al. 2022; G20 2022; Songwe et al. 2022; World Bank 2022b; Lankes and Robins 2023). There is a clear and shared conclusion that a major and urgent scale up of finance is required if the necessary investment is to be achieved. Country ownership, including of building a platform for investment and policy- making, particularly in relation to the conditions for investment, is central to aligning international financial support with domestic priorities. Close involvement of the private sector in these platforms and in the implementation of policies is crucial. However, research suggests that, in practice, such ownership does not always create participation and equity since existing state processes can fail to respond to local needs of vulnerable populations (Omukuti 2020a, 2020b; Kuhl and Shinn 2022; Shawoo et al. 2022). Technology is another area where the literature highlights mutual benefits from an international collaborative approach (Pigato et al. 2020). However, while there are interesting examples (such as digital applications that help with agricultural practices for small farmers), further research is required on larger-scale policy interventions that enable those in poverty to benefit from these technologies. Table 3 summarizes some examples of the growing number of policy initiatives to enable climate action to be positive for people in poverty, categorised under the framework of strategic choices and the four vectors presented in section 4.3. Conclusion: Policy, Collaboration, Research The theory and evidence assembled in this paper shows that failure to tackle climate change would lead to severe consequences for people in poverty. Sustainable, resilient, and inclusive development requires investment and careful policy design to focus on all of mitigation, adaptation and resilience, loss and damage, and natural capital. We have argued that these activities and objectives are in many cases interwoven and mutually supporting, particularly through the necessary investments. However, the extent, pace, and nature of structural change involved in achieving climate goals and delivering this new form of development present a series of challenges in the creation of very different development pathways from those of the past, including around distributional impacts and impacts on poverty in the process of change. Further research is needed to connect these various factors and understand how to drive rapid technical, behavioral, and systemic change that also reduces poverty. 30 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) This research should include analytic approaches and models that can account for unprecedented climatic conditions and impacts, with biophysical systems linked to economic ones that exhibit complexity, feedback loops, non-linearities, and endoge- nous change. However, macro-system models cannot capture every layer of nuance affecting people in poverty and are limited by the granularity of available data. Research is needed to identify and evaluate strategies and tools promoting climate action which are sensitive and responsive to the impacts of people in poverty, par- Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 ticularly in the context of limited state capacity which characterizes many EMDEs. Mainstreaming climate justice and the just transition into assessments of policies and mechanisms is another pillar of this agenda. The physics points inexorably to urgency. Thus, research must take place simul- taneously with action, and each should inform and improve the other. For example, clarifying how different combinations of policy and investment affect job creation and the distribution of value chains across sectors could inform better design of just transition partnerships between international funders and EMDEs in need of financial support. While understanding of challenges and responses can and should be greatly improved, our review of the science shows that taking weak or no climate action would be the worst options of all for seeking to end global poverty. Conflict of Interest All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to diclose. Funding The authors acknowledge funding from the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, the Quadrature Climate Foundation, and the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in addition to support from the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) funded by the UK Economics and Social Research Council (ref. ES/R009708/1). Data Availability Statement Regarding data access, no new data were generated or analysed during this study. Notes Hans Peter Lankes (h.lankes@lse.ac.uk): Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science and ODI; Rob Macquarie (rj.macquarie@gmail.com): Independent Researcher, formerly Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science; Éléonore Soubeyran Lankes et al. 31 (e.soubeyran@lse.ac.uk), and Nicholas Stern (corresponding author, n.stern@lse.ac.uk): Grantham Re- search Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science. 1. There are various ways to define and measure poverty. In this paper, we use different concepts based on the availability of data and studies, and the questions at hand, but overall we support and employ a multidimensional account. As highlighted by Atkinson et al. (2019), “The measurement of poverty is not a purely technical subject [. . .] the right answers depend on views that are politically influenced and, at heart, matters of moral judgement.” Various approaches are used to measure poverty, Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 including measures of income (the international poverty line of $2.15/day for extreme poverty; income thresholds relative to the national average are often set at 60 percent); measures of income combined with direct measures of consumption (e.g., the EU’s “persons at risk of poverty and social exclusion” indicator); and multidimensional measures that take into account other dimensions of welfare beyond income, such as education, health, housing, and personal security (e.g., the Alkire-Foster measure). 2. For definitions, see 2.1 below and references therein. 3. Global heating here is measured in a now standard way as the difference in average global surface temperature from the second half of the 19th century. 4. Weitzman (2009) emphasized that the possibility of catastrophe could give, in standard ap- proaches, expectations of the sum of utilities over time of minus infinity. The models then have very limited usefulness for policy guidance. 5. We recognize that valuing a life in this way can have some usefulness in a micro context, for ex- ample, in allocating resources to the prevention of accidents. But for a global strategic problem the dif- ficulties can be overwhelming, for the reasons indicated. 6. Nicholas Stern was present on the relevant panel. 7. It is striking to see how limits on sources of industrial pollution, especially in urban areas, includ- ing steel and coal plants, reduced the number of premature deaths in China over the period 2012 to 2018, from 3.6 to 2.4 million due to a 43.7 percent reduction in PM2.5 particulate matter deriving from fossil fuel combustion. 8. The literature shows that children and the elderly are also particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts, but our focus here is on women and girls. 9. See illustrative case study on Tanzania in Wangui and Smucker (2018). 10. See illustration of impact in Darfur in MSF (2005). 11. This estimate considers all the impacts of climate change on poverty (including health impacts and the impacts of climate change on labor productivity) projected for the year 2030, whereas the Hallegatte and Rozenberg (2017) estimate cited above only covers the effect of today’s natural disas- ters on poverty. 12. Defined as the number of people in locations where two or more sectors surpass a tolerable level of risk (see Byers et al. (2018) for further details about the specific thresholds). 13. The IPCC defines drying regions as “the AR6 [Sixth Assessment Report] regions in which there is at least medium confidence in a projected increase in agricultural/ecological drought at the 2°C warming level compared to the 1850–1900 base period in CMIP6 [Coupled Model Intercomparison Projects 6]. These regions include W. North-America, C. North America, N. Central-America, S. Central-America, Caribbean, N. South-America, N.E. South-America, South-American-Monsoon, S.W. South-America, S. South-America, West & Central-Europe, Mediterranean, W. Southern-Africa, E. Southern-Africa, Mada- gascar, E. Australia, S. Australia (Caribbean is not included in the calculation of the figure because of the too small number of full land grid cells)” (IPCC 2021). 14. The author writes before the 2022 heatwaves that exceeded the intensity of 2015. 15. It should be noted that this section does not provide an exhaustive review of all the studies that have considered the future impacts of climate-driven growth, but rather it highlights a number of mod- elling approaches that have attempted to overcome some of the flaws highlighted in section 4.1.1). 16. Socio-economic tipping points exist when a set of conditions are reached that allow new tech- nologies or practices to out-compete incumbents. 32 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) References Abel, G. J., M. Brottrager, J. Crespo Cuaresma, and R. Muttarak. 2019. “Climate, Conflict and Forced Migration.” Global Environmental Change 54: 239–49. Aghion, P., C. Antonin, and S. Bunel. 2021. The Power of Creative Destruction: Economic Upheaval and the Wealth of Nations. Translated by J. Cohen-Tanugi. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Akcigit, U., and J. Reenen, eds. 2023. The Economics of Creative Destruction: New Research on Themes from Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Aghion and Howitt. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Akimoto, K., F. Sano, A. Hayashi, T. Homma, J. Oda, K. Wada, M. Nagashima, K. Tokushige, and T. Tomoda. 2012. “Consistent Assessments of Pathways toward Sustainable Development and Cli- mate Stabilization.” Natural Resources Forum 36 (4): 231–44. Alderman, H., J. Hoddinott, and B. Kinsey. 2006. “Long Term Consequences of Early Childhood Malnu- trition.” Oxford Economic Papers 58 (3): 450–74. Aleksandrova, M. 2020. “Principles and Considerations for Mainstreaming Climate Change Risk into National Social Protection Frameworks in Developing Countries.” Climate and Development 12 (6): 511–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1642180 Aleksandrova, M., and C. Costella. 2021. “Reaching the Poorest and Most Vulnerable: Addressing Loss and Damage through Social Protection.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 50: 121–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.03.010 Allen, E. M., L. Munala, and J. R. Henderson. 2021. “Kenyan Women Bearing the Cost of Climate Change.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18 (23): 12697. Altieri, K. E., H. Trollip, T. Caetano, A. Hughes, B. Merven, and H. Winkler. 2016. “Achieving Develop- ment and Mitigation Objectives through a Decarbonization Development Pathway in South Africa.” Climate Policy 16 (sup1): S78–91. Amann, J., N. Cantore, M. Cali, V. Todorov, and C. F. C. Cheng. 2021. “Switching It up: The Effect of Energy Price Reforms in Oman.” World Development 142: 105252. Andres, P., E. Dugoua, and M. Dumas. 2022. “Directed Technological Change and General Purpose Tech- nologies: Can AI Accelerate Clean Energy Innovation?” Centre for Climate Change, Economics and Policy Working Paper 403/Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper 378, London School of Economics and Political Science, London. Atela, J., K. Gannon, and F. Crick. 2018. “Climate Change Adaptation among Female-Led Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises in Semi-Arid Areas: A Case Study from Kenya.” Grantham Research Insti- tute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper No. 304, London School of Economics and Political Science, London. Atteridge, A., N. Hunjan, T. Lestari, A. Azifa, D. Angelia, K. A. Anaman, P. Anartey, H. Garcia, S. Mor- tuza, and S. A. Selim et al. 2022. “Exploring Just Transition in the Global South.” Climate Strategies; South to South Just Transitions Research Consortium. Baarsch, F., T. Lissner, C. F. Schleussner, J. Granadillos, K. de Bruin, P. Mahé, M. Schaeffer, and B. Hare. 2015. “Impacts of Low Aggregate INDCs Ambition, Technical Summary.” Research Commissioned by Oxfam. Climate Analytics, Berlin. Barbier, E. B. 2014. “Climate Change Mitigation Policies and Poverty.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 5 (4): 483–91. ———. 2016. “Is Green Growth Relevant for Poor Economies?” Resource and Energy Economics 45: 178– 91. Beckerman, W. 1992. “Economic Growth and the Environment: Whose Growth? Whose Environment?” World Development 20 (4): 481–96. Lankes et al. 33 Behuria, P., and T. Goodfellow. 2019. “Leapfrogging Manufacturing? Rwanda’s Attempt to Build a Services-Led ‘Developmental state’.” European Journal of Development Research 31 (3): 581–603. Benveniste, H., M. Oppenheimer, and M. Fleurbaey. 2022. “Climate Change Increases Resource- Constrained International Immobility.” Nature Climate Change 12 (7): 634–41. Bhattacharya, A, M. Dooley, H. Kharas, C. Taylor, N. Stern, A. Velasco, T. Besley, H. P. Lankes, and J. Rydge. 2022. “Financing a Big Investment Push in Emerging Markets and Developing Economies for Sustainable, Resilient and Inclusive Recovery and Growth.” Grantham Research Institute on Cli- mate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, London; and Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. Bhattacharya, A., J. Meltzer, J. Oppenheim, M. Z. Qureshi, and N. Stern. 2016. “Delivering on Sustainable Infrastructure for Better Development and Better Climate.” Brookings Institution, Washington DC. Bhattacharya, A., and N. Stern. 2021. “Beyond the $100 Billion: Financing a Sustainable and Resilient Future.” Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, London. Birkmann, J., E. Liwenga, R. Pandey, E. Boyd, R. Djalante, F. Gemenne, W. Leal Filho, P. F. Pinho, L. Stringer, and D. Wrathall. 2022. “Poverty, Livelihoods and Sustainable Development.” In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, edited by H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tig- nor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, and V. Möller et al., 1171–1274. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Bleemer, Z., and W. van der Klaauw. 2017. “Disaster (Over-) Insurance: The Long-Term Financial and Socioeconomic Consequences of Hurricane Katrina.” Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Staff Re- ports, No. 807. Boeckx, P., M. Bauters, and K. Dewettinck. 2020. “Poverty and Climate Change Challenges for Sustain- able Intensification of Cocoa Systems.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 47: 106–11. Boer, L., A. Pescatori, and A. Stuermer. 2023. “Not All Energy Transitions Are Alike: Disentangling the Effects of Demand- and Supply-Side Policies on Future Oil Prices.” IMF Working Paper WP/23/160. International Monetary Fund, Washington DC. Bruckner, B., K. Hubacek, Y. Shan, H. Zhong, and K. Feng. 2022. “Impacts of Poverty Alleviation on National and Global Carbon Emissions.” Nature Sustainability 5 (4): 311–20. Budolfson, M., F. Dennig, F. Errickson, S. Feindt, M. Ferranna, M. Fleurbaey, D. Klenert, U. Kornek, K. Kuruc, and A. Méjean et al. 2021. “Climate Action with Revenue Recycling Has Benefits for Poverty, Inequality and Wellbeing.” Nature Climate Change 11 (12): 1111–6. Burkart, K. G., M. Brauer, A. Y. Aravkin, W. W. Godwin, S. I. Hay, J. He, V. C. Iannucci, S. L. Larson, S. S. Lim, and J. Liu et al. 2021. “Estimating the Cause-Specific Relative Risks of Non-Optimal Temperature on Daily Mortality: A Two-Part Modelling Approach Applied to the Global Burden of Disease Study.” Lancet (British Edition) 398 (10301): 685–97. Byers, E., M. Gidden, D. Leclère, J. Balkovic, P. Burek, K. Ebi, P. Greve, D. Grey, P. Havlik, and A. Hillers et al. 2018. “Global Exposure and Vulnerability to Multi-Sector Development and Climate Change Hotspots.” Environmental Research Letters 13 (5): 55012. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 1748-9326/aabf45/meta Calì, M., N. Cantore, L. Iacovone, M. Pereira-López, and G. Presidente. 2022. “Too Much Energy the Perverse Effect of Low Fuel Prices on Firms.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 111: 102587. Callahan, C. W., and J. S. Mankin. 2022. “National Attribution of Historical Climate Damages.” Climatic Change 172 (3): 1–19. Cameron, C., S. Pachauri, N. D. Rao, D. McCollum, J. Rogelj, and K. Riahi. 2016. “Policy Trade-Offs be- tween Climate Mitigation and Clean Cook-Stove Access in South Asia.” Nature Energy 1 (1): 1–5. 34 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) Campagnolo, L., and M. Davide. 2019. “Can the Paris Deal Boost SDGs Achievement? An Assessment of Climate Mitigation Co-Benefits or Side-Effects on Poverty and Inequality.” World Development 122: 96–109. Castañeda, C. I., L. Sabater, C. Owren, and A. E. Boyer. 2020. “Gender-Based Violence and Environment Linkages: The Violence of Inequality.” IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Castells-Quintana, D., M. del Pilar Lopez-Uribe, and T. K. J. McDermott. 2016. “Coping with Climate Risk: The Options.” In The Economics of Climate-Resilient Development, edited by S. Fankhauser and T. J. K. McDermott, 53–76. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Chapagain, D., F. Baarsch, M. Schaeffer, and S. D’haen. 2020. “Climate Change Adaptation Costs in Developing Countries: Insights from Existing Estimates.” Climate and Development 12 (10): 934–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1711698 Chausson, A., B. Turner, D. Seddon, N. Chabaneix, C. A. J. Girardin, V. Kapos, I. Key, D. Roe, A. Smith, and S. Woroniecki et al. 2020. “Mapping the Effectiveness of Nature-Based Solutions for Climate Change Adaptation.” Global Change Biology 26 (11): 6134–55. Chenet, H., A. Hilke, and W. Duan. 2017. “Finance Sector Alignment with International Climate Goals Reviewing Options and Obstacles.” Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3322324 or http: //dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3322324 Cheung, W. W. L., G. Reygondeau, and T. L. Frölicher. 2016. “Large Benefits to Marine Fisheries of Meet- ing the 1.5°C Global Warming Target.” Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 354 (6319): 1591–4. Chui, M., R. Roberts, and L. Yee. 2022. “Generative AI Is Here: How Tools like ChatGPT Could Change Your Business.” McKinsey. Clark, R., J. Reed, and T. Sunderland. 2018. “Bridging Funding Gaps for Climate and Sustainable Devel- opment: Pitfalls, Progress and Potential of Private Finance.” Land Use Policy 71: 335–46. Clarke, L., Y.-M. Wei, A. De La Vega Navarro, A. Garg, A. N. Hahmann, S. Khennas, I. M. L. Azevedo, A. Löschel, A. K. Singh, and L. Steg et al. 2022. “Energy Systems.” In Climate Change 2022: Miti- gation of Climate Change, edited by P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, and R. Fradera et al. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/chapter/ chapter-6/ Collins, D., and C. Zheng. 2015. “Managing the Poverty–CO2 Reductions Paradox: The Case of China and the EU.” Organization & Environment 28 (4): 355–73. Couharde, C., and S. Mouhoud. 2020. “Fossil Fuel Subsidies, Income Inequality, and Poverty: Evidence from Developing Countries.” Journal of Economic Surveys 34: 981–1006. Damania, R., E. Balseca, C. de Fontaubert, J. Gill, K. Kim, J. Rentschler, J. Russ, and E. Zaveri. 2023. “Detox Development: Repurposing Environmentally Harmful Subsidies.” World Bank, Washington, DC. Davies, J. B., X. Shi, and J. Whalley. 2014. “The Possibilities for Global Inequality and Poverty Reduction Using Revenues from Global Carbon Pricing.” Journal of Economic Inequality 12 (3): 363–91. Dennig, F., M. B. Budolfson, M. Fleurbaey, A. Siebert, and R. H. Socolow. 2015. “Inequality, Climate Impacts on the Future Poor, and Carbon Prices.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences–PNAS 112 (52): 15827–32. Dennis, A. 2016. “Household Welfare Implications of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reforms in Developing Coun- tries.” Energy Policy 96: 597–606. Dercon, S. 2014a. “Climate Change, Green Growth, and Aid Allocation to Poor Countries.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 30 (3): 531–49. Lankes et al. 35 ———. 2014b. “Is Green Growth Good for the Poor?” World Bank Research Observer 29 (2): 163–85. Deutz, A., G. M. Heal, R. Niu, E. Swanson, T. Townshend, L. Zhu, A. Delmar, A. Meghji, S. A. Sethi, and J. Tobinde la Puente. 2020. “Financing Nature: Closing the Global Biodiversity Financing Gap.” The Paulson Institute, The Nature Conservancy, and the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability. Dorband, I. I., M. Jakob, M. Kalkuhl, and J. C. Steckel. 2019. “Poverty and Distributional Effects of Carbon Pricing in Low- and Middle-Income Countries–A Global Comparative Analysis.” World Development 115: 246–57. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Dosio, A., L. Mentaschi, E. M. Fischer, and K. Wyser. 2018. “Extreme Heat Waves under 1.5°C and 2°C Global Warming.” Environmental Research Letters 13 (5): 054006. Du, X., J. Rentschler, and J. Russ. 2023. “People’s Unequal Exposure to Air Pollution: Evidence for the World’s Coal-Fired Power Plants.” Policy Research Working Paper No. 10400, World Bank, Wash- ington, DC. Eastin, J. 2018. “Climate Change and Gender Equality in Developing States.” World Development 107: 289–305. Eriksen, S., E. L. F. Schipper, M. Scoville-Simonds, K. Vincent, H. N. Adam, N. Brooks, B. Harding, D. Kha- tri, L. Lenaerts, and D. Liverman et al. 2021. “Adaptation Interventions and Their Effect on Vulnera- bility in Developing Countries: Help, Hindrance or Irrelevance?” World Development 141: 105383. Erman, A., S. A. De Vries Robbe, S. F. Thies, K. Kabir, and M. Maruo. 2021. “Gender Dimensions of Disaster Risk and Resilience: Existing Evidence.” Washington, DC, World Bank. ETC. 2022. “Degree of Urgency: Accelerating Action to Keep 1.5C on the Table.” Energy Transition Commission. ———. 2023a. “Material and Resource Requirements for the Energy Transition.” Energy Transition Commission. ———. 2023b. “Financing the Transition: How to Make the Money Flow for a Net-Zero Economy.” Energy Transition Commission. Falco, C., M. Galeotti, and A. Olper. 2019. “Climate Change and Migration: Is Agriculture the Main Channel?” Global Environmental Change 59: 101995. FAO. 2021. “The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture–Systems at Breaking Point.” Synthesis Report 2021, FAO, Rome. FAO, International Fund for Agricultural Development, United Nations International Children’s Emer- gency Fund, World Food Programme, World Health Organization. 2018. “The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018. Building Climate Resilience for Food Security and Nutrition.” FAO, Rome. Franks, M., K. Lessmann, M. Jakob, J. C. Steckel, and O. Edenhofer. 2018. “Mobilizing Domestic Resources for the Agenda 2030 via Carbon Pricing.” Nature Sustainability 1 (7): 350–7. Fujimori, S., T. Hasegawa, V. Krey, K. Riahi, C. Bertram, B. L. Bodirsky, V. Bosetti, J. Callen, and J. Després et al. 2019. “A Multi-Model Assessment of Food Security Implications of Climate Change Mitigation.” Nature Sustainability 2 (5): 386–96. Fujimori, S., T. Hasegawa, and K. Oshiro. 2020. “An Assessment of the Potential of Using Carbon Tax Revenue to Tackle Poverty.” Environmental Research Letters 15 (11): 114063. G20. 2021. “G20 Sustainable Finance Roadmap.” ———. 2022. “Boosting MDB’s Investing Capacity: An Independent Review of Multilateral Develop- ment Banks’ Capital Adequacy Frameworks.” Gamu, J., P. Le Billon, and S. Spiegel. 2015. “Extractive Industries and Poverty: A Review of Recent Find- ings and Linkage Mechanisms.” Extractive Industries and Society 2 (1): 162–76. Garcia-Casals, X., R. Ferroukhi, and B. Parajuli. 2019. “Measuring the Socio-Economic Footprint of the Energy Transition.” Energy Transitions 3: 105–18. 36 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) Gaspar, V., D. Amaglobeli, M. Garcia-Escribano, D. Prady, and M. Soto. 2019. “Fiscal Policy and Develop- ment: Human, Social and Physical Investments for the SDGs.” IMF Staff Discussion Notes No. 19/03, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. Global Commission on Adaptation. 2019. “Adapt Now: A Global Call for Leadership on Climate Re- silience.” Grant, N., A. Hawkes, T. Napp, and A. Gambhir. 2020. “The Appropriate Use of Reference Scenarios in Mitigation Analysis.” Nature Climate Change 10 (7): 605–10. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Green, F., and A. Gambhir. 2020. “Transitional Assistance Policies for Just, Equitable and Smooth Low- Carbon Transitions: Who, What and How?” Climate Policy 20 (8): 902–21. Greve, H., and J. Lay. 2023. “‘Stepping down the Ladder’: The Impacts of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Removal in a Developing Country.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 10 (1): 121–58. Griscom, B. W., J. Adams, P. W. Ellis, R. A. Houghton, G. Lomax, D. A. Miteva, W. H. Schlesinger, D. Shoch, J. V. Siikamäki, and P. Smith et al. 2017. “Natural Climate Solutions.” Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences–PNAS 114 (44): 11645–50. Grottera, C., A. O. Pereira, Jr, and E. L. La Rovere. 2017. “Impacts of Carbon Pricing on Income Inequality in Brazil.” Climate and Development 9 (1): 80–93. Grubb, M., P. Drummond, A. Poncia, W. McDowall, D. Popp, S. Samadi, C. Penasco, K. T. Gillingham, S. Smulders, and M. Glachant et al. 2021. “Induced Innovation in Energy Technologies and Systems: A Review of Evidence and Potential Implications for CO2 Mitigation.” Environmental Research Letters 16 (4): 043007. Gurara, D., G. Melina, and L.-F. Zanna. 2019. “Some Policy Lessons from Country Applications of the DIG and DIGNAR Models.” IMF Working Paper No. WP/19/62, International Monetary Fund, Wash- ington, DC. Hales, S., S. Kovats, S. Lloyd, and D. Campbell-Lendrum. 2014. “Quantitative Risk Assessment of the Effects of Climate Change on Selected Causes of Death, 2030s and 2050s.” World Health Organiza- tion. Hallegatte, S., M. Bangalore, L. Bonzanigo, M. Fay, T. Kane, U. Narloch, J. Rozenberg, D. Treguer, and A. Vogt-Schilb. 2015. “Shock Waves: Managing the Impacts of Climate Change on Poverty.” World Bank, Washington, DC. Hallegatte, S., M. Bangalore, L. Bonzanigo, M. Fay, U. Narloch, J. Rozenberg, and A. Vogt-Schilb. 2014. “Climate Change and Poverty: An Analytical Framework.” Policy Research Working Paper No. 7126, World Bank, Washington, DC. Hallegatte, S., and J. Rozenberg. 2017. “Climate Change through a Poverty Lens.” Nature Climate Change 7 (4): 250–6. Hallegatte, S., A. Vogt-Schilb, M. Bangalore, and J. Rozenberg. 2017. “Unbreakable: Building the Re- silience of the Poor in the Face of Natural Disasters.” World Bank, Washington, DC. Hasegawa, T., S. Fujimori, P. Havlík, H. Valin, B. L. Bodirsky, J. C. Doelman, T. Fellmann, P. Kyle, J. F. L. Koopman, and H. Lotze-Campen et al. 2018. “Risk of Increased Food Insecurity under Stringent Global Climate Change Mitigation Policy.” Nature Climate Change 8 (8): 699–703. Health Effects Institute. 2020. “State of Global Air 2020. Special Report.” Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA. Henrique, K. P., and P. Tschakert. 2021. “Pathways to Urban Transformation: From Dispossession to Climate Justice.” Progress in Human Geography 45 (5): 1169–91. Hubacek, K., G. Baiocchi, K. Feng, and A. Patwardhan. 2017. “Poverty Eradication in a Carbon Con- strained World.” Nature Communications 8 (1): 1–9. Hussein, Z., T. Hertel, and A. Golub. 2013. “Climate Change Mitigation Policies and Poverty in Develop- ing Countries.” Environmental Research Letters 8 (3): 1–10. Lankes et al. 37 IEA (International Energy Agency). 2021. “Financing Clean Energy Transitions in Emerging and De- veloping Economies.” IEA , Paris. IEA and IFC. 2023. “Scaling up Private Finance for Clean Energy in Emerging and Developing Economies.”. IEA, Paris. ILO (International Labour Organization). 2018. “World Employment Social Outlook 2018: Greening with Jobs.” Geneva: ILO. ILO (International Labour Organization). 2022. “ILO Modelled Estimates Database, ILOSTAT.” https: Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 //ilostat.ilo.org/data/. Accessed February 10, 2023. ———. 2023. “Just Transition Policy Brief .” ILO Policy Brief, ILO, Geneva. IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2021. “Ctrl-Alt-Delete: A Green Reboot for Emerging Markets.” World Bank, Washington, DC. IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). 2022. “2022 Global Food Policy Report: Climate Change and Food Systems.” International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2020. “World Economic Outlook: A Long and Difficult Ascent.” Washington, DC. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2021. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, edited by V. Masson-Delmottet al. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University. IPCC. 2022a. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnera- bility, edited by H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, and V. Möller et al., 3–33. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York, USA: Cambridge University. ———. 2022b. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, edited by P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas and R. Fradera et al. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University. ———. 2023. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report, edited by H. Lee and J. Romero [Core Writing Team], 1–34. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). 2021. “World Energy Transitions Outlook: 1.5°C Pathway.” International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. ———. 2022a. “Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2021.” International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. ———. 2022b. “World Energy Transitions Outlook 2022: 1.5°C Pathway.” International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. IRENA and AfDB. 2022. “Renewable Energy Market Analysis: Africa and Its Regions.” International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi, and African Development Bank, Abidjan. Jaeger, J., G. Walls, E. Clarke, J. C. Altamirano, A. Harsono, H. Mountford, S. Burrow, S. Smith, and A. Tate. 2021. “The Green Jobs Advantage: How Climate-Friendly Investments Are Better Job Creators.” Working Paper. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Jafino, B. A., B. Walsh, J. Rozenberg, and S. Hallegatte. 2020. “Revised Estimates of the Impact of Cli- mate Change on Extreme Poverty by 2030.” Policy Research Working Paper No. 9417, World Bank, Washington, DC. Jakob, M., and J. C. Steckel. 2014. “How Climate Change Mitigation Could Harm Development in Poor Countries.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 5 (2): 161–8. 38 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) Janikowska, O., and J. Kulczycka. 2021. “Just Transition as a Tool for Preventing Energy Poverty among Women in Mining Areas—A Case Study of the Silesia Region, Poland.” Energies 14 (12): 3372. cenovi´ Johansson, T. B., A. P. Patwardhan, N. Naki´ c, and L. Gomez-Echeverri, eds. 2012. “Global Energy Assessment: Toward a Sustainable Future.” New York: Cambridge University Press. Kabir, K., S. A. De Vries Robbe, and C. Gondinho. Forthcoming. “Decarbonizing Agriculture: A Review of Socio-Political Barriers.” WIRES Climate Change. Kalkuhl, M., J. C. Steckel, L. Montrone, M. Jakob, J. Peters, and O. Edenhofer. 2019. “Successful Coal Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Phase-Out Requires New Models of Development.” Nature Energy 4 (11): 897–900. Kapos, V., S. Wicander, T. Salvaterra, K. Dawkins, and C. Hicks. 2019. “The Role of the Natural Environ- ment in Adaptation.” Background Paper for the Global Commission on Adaptation. Global Commission on Adaptation, Rotterdam and Washington, DC. Kartha, S., E. Kemp-Benedict, E. Ghosh, A. Nazareth, and T. Gore. 2020. “The Carbon Inequality Era: An Assessment of the Global Distribution of Consumption Emissions among Individuals from 1990 to 2015 and Beyond.” Oxfam International and Stockholm Environment Institute, Oxford. KCI. 2022. “Implementation of Just Transition and Economic Diversification Strategies: A Compilation of Best Practices from Different Countries.” UNFCCC, Bonn. Keese, M., and M. Marcolin. 2023. “Labour and Social Policies for the Green Transition: A Conceptual Framework.” OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 295, OECD, Paris. Kelley, C. P., S. Mohtadi, M. A. Cane, R. Seager, and Y. Kushnir. 2015. “Climate Change in the Fertile Cres- cent and Implications of the Recent Syrian Drought.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences– PNAS 112 (11): 3241–6. Kemp, L., C. Xu, J. Depledge, K. L. Ebi, G. Gibbins, T. A. Kohler, J. Rockström, M. Scheffer, H. J. Schellnhu- ber, and W. Steffen et al. 2022. “Climate Endgame: Exploring Catastrophic Climate Change Scenar- ios.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – PNAS 119 (34): e2108146119. Kharas, H., and J. McArthur. 2019. “Building the SDG Economy: Needs, Spending, and Financing for Universal Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.” Working Paper 131, Brookings In- stitution, Washington DC. Kirezci, E., I. Young, R. Ranasinghe, S. Muis, R. Nicholls, D. Lincke, and J. Hinkel. 2020. “Projections of Global-Scale Extreme Sea Levels and Resulting Episodic Coastal Flooding over the 21st Century.” Scientific Reports 10 (1): 11629. Klaiber, C., J. Rentschler, and I. Dorband. 2023. “Distributional and Health Co-Benefits of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reforms: Evidence from 35 Countries.” Policy Research Working Paper No. 10398, World Bank, Washington, DC. Koçak, E., and B. Çelik. 2022. “The Nexus between Access to Energy, Poverty Reduction and PM2.5 in Sub-Saharan Africa: New Evidence from the Generalized Method of Moments Estimators.” Science of The Total Environment 827: 154377. glu, and Z. S Koçak, E., R. Ulucak, M. Dedeo˘ ¸ . Ulucak. 2019. “Is There a Trade-Off between Sustainable Society Targets in Sub-Saharan Africa?” Sustainable Cities and Society 51: 101705. Koren, O., B. E. Bagozzi, and T. S. Benson. 2021. “Food and Water Insecurity as Causes of Social Unrest: Evidence from Geolocated Twitter Data.” Journal of Peace Research 58 (1): 67–82. Kornek, U., J. C. Steckel, K. Lessmann, and O. Edenhofer. 2017. “The Climate Rent Curse: New Challenges for Burden Sharing.” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 17 (6): 855– 82. Kuhl, L., and J. Shinn. 2022. “Transformational Adaptation and Country Ownership: Competing Prior- ities in International Adaptation Finance.” Climate Policy 22 (9-10): 1290–305. Lankes et al. 39 Kulp, S., and B. Strauss. 2019. “New Elevation Data Triple Estimates of Global Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding.” Nature Communications 10 (1): 4844. Kuriakose, A. T., R. Heltberg, W. Wiseman, C. Costella, R. Cipryk, and S. Cornelius. 2013. “Climate- Responsive Social Protection.” Development Policy Review 31 (s2): o19–34. Kwan, S. C., and J. H. Hashim. 2016. “A Review on Co-Benefits of Mass Public Transportation in Climate Change Mitigation.” Sustainable Cities and Society 22: 11–18. Kwauk, C. T., and O. M. Casey. 2022. “A Green Skills Framework for Climate Action, Gender Empower- Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 ment, and Climate Justice.” Development Policy Review 40 (S2): e12624. Laan, T., and A. G. Maino. 2022. “Boom and Bust: The Fiscal Implications of Fossil Fuel Phase-Out in Six Large Emerging Economies.” Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development. Lamb, W. F., M. Antal, K. Bohnenberger, L. I. Brand-Correa, F. Müller-Hansen, M. Jakob, J. C. Minx, K. Raiser, L. Williams, and B. K. Sovacool. 2020. “What Are the Social Outcomes of Climate Policies? A Systematic Map and Review of the Ex-Post Literature.” Environmental Research Letters 15 (11): 113006. Lane, P. R., and A. Tornell. 1996. “Power, Growth, and the Voracity Effect.” Journal of Economic Growth 1: 213–41. Lankes, H. P., and N. V. Robins. 2023. “Mobilising Private Capital for Climate Action and Growth in the Global South.” Policy Brief, T20 India Task Force 5. Lenferna, G. M. 2018. “Can We Equitably Manage the End of the Fossil Fuel Era?” Energy Research & Social Science 35: 217–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.007 Leonard, A., A. Ahsan, F. Charbonnier, and S. Hirmer. 2022. “The Resource Curse in Renewable Energy: A Framework for Risk Assessment.” Energy Strategy Reviews 41: 100841. Lesk, C., E. Coffel, J. Winter, D. Ray, J. Zscheischler, S. I. Seneviratne, and R. Horton. 2021. “Stronger Temperature–Moisture Couplings Exacerbate the Impact of Climate Warming on Global Crop Yields.” Nature Food 2: 683–91. Lomborg, B. 2020. “Welfare in the 21st Century: Increasing Development, Reducing Inequality, the Im- pact of Climate Change, and the Cost of Climate Policies.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 156: 119981. Lovins, A. B. 2018. “How Big Is the Energy Efficiency Resource?” Environmental Research Letters 13 (9): 090401. ———. 2020. “Reframing Automotive Fuel Efficiency.” SAE Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Energy, Environment, & Policy 1 (1): 59–84. Malerba, D. 2020. “The Trade-Off between Poverty Reduction and Carbon Emissions, and the Role of Economic Growth and Inequality: An Empirical Cross-Country Analysis Using a Novel Indicator.” Social Indicators Research 150 (2): 587–615. Malerba, D., A. Gaentzsch, and H. Ward. 2021. “Mitigating Poverty: The Patterns of Multiple Carbon Tax and Recycling Regimes for Peru.” Energy Policy 149: 111961. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0301421520306728 Malerba, D., and K. S. Wiebe. 2021. “Analysing the Effect of Climate Policies on Poverty through Em- ployment Channels.” Environmental Research Letters 16 (3): 35013. Malik, A., C. Bertram, E. Kriegler, and G. Luderer. 2021. “Climate Policy Accelerates Structural Changes in Energy Employment.” Energy Policy 159: 112642. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0301421521005073 Månberger, A., and B. Johansson. 2019. “The Geopolitics of Metals and Metalloids Used for the Renew- able Energy Transition.” Energy Strategy Reviews 26: 100394. Markandya, A., and M. González-Eguino. 2019. “Integrated Assessment for Identifying Climate Finance Needs for Loss and Damage: A Critical Review.” In Loss and Damage from Climate Change. Climate Risk 40 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) Management, Policy and Governance, edited by R. Mechler, L. Bouwer, T. Schinko, S. Surminski, and J. Linnerooth-Bayer. Springer. Masron, T. A., and Y. Subramaniam. 2019. “Does Poverty Cause Environmental Degradation? Evidence from Developing Countries.” Journal of Poverty 23 (1): 44–64. Matthews, T. K. R., R. L. Wilby, and C. Murphy. 2017. “Communicating the Deadly Consequences of Global Warming for human Heat Stress.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – PNAS 114 (15): 3861–6. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 McCauley, D., and R. Heffron. 2018. “Just Transition: Integrating Climate, Energy and Environmental Justice.” Energy Policy 119: 1–7. McKay, S. A., J. F. Abrams, R. Winkelmann, B. Sakschewski, S. Loriani, I. Fetzer, S. E. Cornell, J. Rock- strom, and T. M. Lenton. 2022. “Exceeding 1.5°C Global Warming Could Trigger Multiple Climate Tipping Points.” Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 377 (6611): 1171. Missbach, L., J. C. Steckel, and A. Vogt-Schilb. 2022. “Cash Transfers in the Context of Carbon Pricing Re- forms in Latin America and the Caribbean.” IDB Working Paper No. IDB-WP-01404, Inter-American Development Bank , Washington, DC. Montmasson-Clair, G. 2021. “A Policy Toolbox for Just Transitions.” TIPS Working Paper, Trade and Industrial Policy Strategies. Mora, C., T. McKenzie, I. M. Gaw, J. M. Dean, H. von Hammerstein, T. A. Knudson, R. O. Setter, C. Z. Smith, K. M. Webster, and J. A. Patz et al. 2022. “Over Half of Known Human Pathogenic Diseases Can be Aggravated by Climate Change.” Nature Climate Change 12 (9): 869–75. Moser, C. O. N. 2008. “Reducing Global Poverty: The Case for Asset Accumulation.” Brookings Institu- tion, Washington, DC. MSF (Médecins Sans Frontières). 2005. “The Crushing Burden of Rape: Sexual Violence in Darfur.” Brief- ing Paper for International Women’s Day, March 8, 2005. Mukherjee, A., Y. Okamura, U. Gentilini, M. Almenfi, A. Kryeziu, M. Montenegro, N. Umapathi, and D. Gencer. 2023. “Cash Transfers in the Context of Energy Subsidy Reform: Insights from Recent Experience.” Energy Subsidy Reform in Action Series. World Bank, Washington, DC. Mustafa, D., and D. Wrathall. 2011. “Indus Basin Floods of 2010: Souring of a Faustian Bargain?” Water Alternatives 4 (1): 72–85. Muttitt, G., and S. Kartha. 2020. “Equity, Climate Justice and Fossil Fuel Extraction: Principles for a Man- aged Phase Out.” Climate Policy 20 (8): 1024–42. Mwangi, E., and M. Evans. 2018. “Communities Restoring Landscapes: Stories of Resilience and Suc- cess.” Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. NCE (New Climate Economy). 2018. “Unlocking the Inclusive Growth Story of the 21st Century: Accel- erating Climate Action in Urgent Times.” Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. Nin-Pratt, A. 2021. “Agricultural R&D Investment Intensity: A Misleading Conventional Measure and a New Intensity Index.” Agricultural Economics 52 (2): 317–28. O’Callaghan, B., N. Yau, and C. Hepburn. 2022. “How Stimulating Is a Green Stimulus? The Economic Attributes of Green Fiscal Spending.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 47: 697–723. OECD. 2017. “Investing in Climate, Investing in Growth.” OECD, Paris. ———. 2019. “Society at a Glance 2019: OECD Social Indicators.” OECD, Paris. ———. 2021. “OECD Economic Surveys: Chile.” OECD, Paris. Omukuti, J. 2020a. “Do Country-Owned Adaptation Interventions Reflect Local Level Priorities? Appli- cation of a Framings Approach.” Climate and Development 12 (9): 827–39. ———. 2020b. “Country Ownership of Adaptation: Stakeholder Influence or Government Control?” Geoforum 113: 26–38. Lankes et al. 41 Ortiz-Bobea, A., T. R. Ault, C. M. Carrillo, R. G. Chambers, and D. B. Lobell. 2021. “Anthropogenic Cli- mate Change Has Slowed Global Agricultural Productivity Growth.” Nature Climate Change 11 (4): 306–12. Otlhogile, M., and R. Shirley. 2023. “The Evolving Just Transition: Definitions, Context, and Practical Insights for Africa.” Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability 3 (1): 013001. Pai, S. 2021. “Building Bridges to a Just Transition: Connecting India’s Challenges and Solutions with International Experience.” International Institute for Sustainable Development Brief . Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Pai, S., J. Emmerling, L. Drouet, H. Zerriffi, and J. Jewell. 2021. “Meeting Well-Below 2°C Target Would Increase Energy Sector Jobs Globally.” One Earth 4 (7): 1026–36. Paine, T. 1791. Rights of Man. London: H.D. Symonds. Pigato, M. A., J. B. Simon, D. Dussaux, Z. Mao, M. McKenna, R. Rafaty, and S. Touboul. 2020. “Technol- ogy Transfer and Innovation for Low-Carbon Development.” International Development in Focus. World Bank, Washington, DC. Powell, E. J., M. C. Tyrrell, A. Milliken, J. M. Tirpak, and M. D. Staudinger. 2019. “A Review of Coastal Management Approaches to Support the Integration of Ecological and Human Community Planning for Climate Change.” Journal of Coastal Conservation 23 (1): 1–18. Pye, S., S. Bradley, N. Hughes, J. Price, D. Welsby, and P. Ekins. 2020. “An Equitable Redistribution of Unburnable Carbon.” Nature Communications 11 (1): 3968. Rana, I. A., S. Khaled, A. Jamshed, and A. Nawaz. 2022. “Social Protection in Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation: A Bibliometric and Thematic Review.” Journal of Integrative Environ- mental Sciences 19 (1): 65–83. Rao, N. D., K. Riahi, and A. Grubler. 2014. “Climate Impacts of Poverty Eradication.” Nature Climate Change 4 (9): 749–51. Rao, N. D., B. J. van Ruijven, K. Riahi, and V. Bosetti. 2017. “Improving Poverty and Inequality Modelling in Climate Research.” Nature Climate Change 7 (12): 857–62. Rentschler, J. 2016. “Incidence and Impact: The Regional Variation of Poverty Effects due to Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform.” Energy Policy 96: 491–503. Rigolini, J. 2022. “Social Protection and Labor: A Key Enabler for Climate Change Adaptation and Miti- gation.” IZA Policy Paper No. 184, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn Rizk, R., and M. B. Slimane. 2018. “Modelling the Relationship between Poverty, Environment, and In- stitutions: A Panel Data Study.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 25 (31): 31459–73. Robinson, E. J. Z. 2016. “Resource-Dependent Livelihoods and the Natural Resource Base.” Annual Re- view of Resource Economics 8 (1): 281–301. Rodrik, D. 2014. “Green Industrial Policy.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 30 (3): 469–91. ———. 2016. “Premature Deindustrialization.” Journal of Economic Growth 21: 20. Rogge, K. S., and K. Reichardt. 2016. “Policy Mixes for Sustainability Transitions: An Extended Concept and Framework for Analysis.” Research Policy 45 (8): 1620–35. Rohmer, J., D. Lincke, J. Hinkel, G. Le Cozannet, E. Lambert, and A. Vafeidis. 2021. “Unravelling the Impor tance of Uncer tainties in Global-Scale Coastal Flood Risk Assessments under Sea Level Rise.” Water 13 (6): 774. Romanello, M., A. McGushin, C. Di Napoli, P. Drummond, N. Hughes, L. Jamart, H. Kennard, P. Lampard, B. Solano Rodriguez, and N. Arnell et al. 2021. “The 2021 Report of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change: Code Red for a Healthy Future.” Lancet 398 (10311): 1619–62. Rounce, D. R., R. Hock, F. Maussion, R. Hugonnet, W. Kochtitzky, M. Huss, E. Berthier, D. Brinkerhoff , L. Compagno, and L. Copland et al. 2023. “Global Glacier Change in the 21st Century: Every Increase in Temperature Matters.” Science 379 (6627): 78–83. 42 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) Roy, J., P. Tschakert, H. Waisman, S. Abdul Halim, P. Antwi-Agyei, P. Dasgupta, B. Hayward, M. Kan- ninen, D. Liverman, and C. Okereke et al. 2018. “Sustainable Development, Poverty Eradication and Reducing Inequalities.” In Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Develop- ment, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty, edited by V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, and R. Pidcock et al. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Rozenberg, J., and M. Fay. 2019. “Beyond the Gap: How Countries Can Afford the Infrastructure They Need While Protecting the Planet. Sustainable Infrastructure.” World Bank, Washington, DC. Saget, C., A. Vogt-Schilb, and T. Luu. 2020. “Jobs in a Net-Zero Emissions Future in Latin America and the Caribbean.” Inter-American Development Bank, Washington DC, and International Labour Or- ganization, Geneva. Saha, C. K., and A. V. Carter. 2022. “Phase-out or Lock-in Fossil Fuels? Least Developed Countries’ Burn- ing Dilemma.” Extractive Industries and Society 11: 101140. Schipper, E. L. F., A. Revi, B. L. Preston, E. R. Carr, S. H. Eriksen, L. R. Fernandez-Carril, B. C. Glavovic, N. J. M. Hilmi, D. Ley, and R. Mukerji et al. 2022. “Climate-Resilient Development Pathways.” In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, edited by H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, and V. Möller et al., 2655–2807. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovern- mental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Schonfeld, M., ed. 2013. Global Ethics on Climate Change: The Planetary Crisis and Philosophical Alterna- tives. New York: Routledge. Schwan, S., and X. Yu. 2018. “Social Protection as a Strategy to Address Climate-Induced Migration.” International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 10 (1): 43–64. Seddon, N., A. Chausson, P. Berry, C. A. J. Girardin, A. Smith, and B. Turner. 2020. “Understanding the Value and Limits of Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change and Other Global Challenges.” Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 375 (1794): 20190120. Sen, A. 1979. “Utilitarianism and Welfarism.” Journal of Philosophy 76 (9): 463–89. ———. 2009. The Idea of Justice. Allen Lane. Shang, B. 2023. “The Poverty and Distributional Impacts of Carbon Pricing: Channels and Policy Im- plications.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 17 (1): 64–85. Sharpe, S., and T. M. Lenton. 2021. “Upward-Scaling Tipping Cascades to Meet Climate Goals: Plausible Grounds for Hope.” Climate Policy 21 (4): 421–33. Shawoo, Z., A. Dzebo, M. Funder, and K. Dupuy. 2022. “Country Ownership in Climate Finance Coor- dination: A Comparative Assessment of Kenya and Zambia.” Climate Policy 22 (9-10): 1266–80. Soergel, B., E. Kriegler, B. L. Bodirsky, N. Bauer, M. Leimbach, and A. Popp. 2021. “Combining Ambitious Climate Policies with Efforts to Eradicate Poverty.” Nature Communications 12 (1): 1–12. Solow, R. M. 1991. “Sustainability: An Economist’s Perspective.” 18th J. Steward Johnson Lecture to the Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, June 14, 1991. Songwe, V., N. Stern, and A. Bhattacharya. 2022. “Finance for Climate Action: Scaling up Investment for Climate and Development.” Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, London. Spahn, A. 2018. “‘The First Generation to End Poverty and the Last to Save the Planet?’—Western Indi- vidualism, Human Rights and the Value of Nature in the Ethics of Global Sustainable Development.” Sustainability 10 (6): 1853. Steckel, J. C., R. J. Brecha, M. Jakob, J. Strefler, and G. Luderer. 2013. “Development without Energy? Assessing Future Scenarios of Energy Consumption in Developing Countries.” Ecological Economics 90: 53–67. Lankes et al. 43 Stern, N. 2014a. “Ethics, Equity and the Economics of Climate Change Paper 1: Science and Philosophy.” Economics and Philosophy 30 (3): 397–444. ———. 2014b. “Ethics, Equity and the Economics of Climate Change Paper 2: Economics and Politics.” Economics and Philosophy 30 (3): 445–501. ———. 2015. Why Are We Waiting? The Logic, Urgency and Promise of Tackling Climate Change. MIT Press. ———. 2022. “A Time for Action on Climate Change and a Time for Change in Economics.” Economic Journal 132 (644): 1259–89. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Stern, N., and J. Stiglitz. 2023. “Climate Change and Growth.” Industrial And Corporate Change 32 (2): 277–303. Stern, N., J. Stiglitz, and C. Taylor. 2022a. “The Economics of Immense Risk, Urgent Action and Rad- ical Change: Towards New Approaches to the Economics of Climate Change.” Journal of Economic Methodology 29 (3): 181–216. SYSTEMIQ. 2020. “The Paris Effect: How the Climate Agreement Is Reshaping the Global Economy.” SYSTEMIQ Ltd, London. ———. 2021. “The Paris Effect – COP26 Edition: How Tipping Points Can Accelerate and Deliver a Pros- perous Net Zero Economy.” SYSTEMIQ Ltd, London. ———. 2023. “The Breakthrough Effect: How to Trigger a Cascade of Tipping Points to Accelerate the Net Zero Transition.” SYSTEMIQ Ltd, London. Szabó, S., I. Pinedo Pascua, D. Puig, M. Moner-Girona, M. Negre, T. Huld, Y. Mulugetta, I. Kougias, L. Szabó, and D. Kammen. 2021. “Mapping of Affordability Levels for Photovoltaic-Based Electricity Generation in the Solar Belt of Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and South Asia.” Scientific Reports 11 (1): 3226. Taheripour, F., M. Chepeliev, R. Damania, T. Farole, N. Lozano Gracia, and J. D. Russ. 2021. “Putting the Green Back in Greenbacks.” Policy Research Working Paper No. 9742, World Bank, Washington DC. Tenzing, J. D. 2020. “Integrating Social Protection and Climate Change Adaptation: A Review.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Climate Change 11 (2): e626. https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/ showCitFormats?doi=10.1002%2Fwcc.626 Tesfaye, W., G. Blalock, and N. Tirivayi. 2021. “Climate-Smart Innovations and Rural Poverty in Ethiopia: Exploring Impacts and Pathways.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 103 (3): 878– 99. Trisos, C. H., I. O. Adelekan, E. Totin, A. Ayanlade, J. Efitre, A. Gemeda, K. Kalaba, C. Lennard, C. Masao, and Y. Mgaya et al. 2022. “Africa.” In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, edited by H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf , S. Löschke and V. Möller et al., 1285–1455. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Tye, S., J. R. Pool, and L. Gallardo Lomeli. 2022. “The Potential for Nature-Based Solutions Initiatives to Incorporate and Scale Climate Adaptation.” Working Paper. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Ulrichs, M., R. Slater, and C. Costella. 2019. “Building Resilience to Climate Risks through Social Pro- tection: From Individualised Models to Systemic Transformation.” Disasters 43 (S3): S368–87. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2015. “The Financial System We Need: Aligning the Financial System with Sustainable Development.” Inquiry: Design of a Sustainable Financial System. Geneva, Switzerland. ———. 2021. “The Adaptation Gap Report 2020.” UNEP, Nairobi. ———. 2022. “State of Finance for Nature 2021.” UNEP, Nairobi. 44 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024) United Nations General Assembly. 1986. Resolution 41/128, Declaration on the Right to Develop- ment, A/RES/41/128 (4 December 1986). https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/ instruments/declaration-right-development. van Daalen, K. R., S. S. Kallesøe, F. Davey, S. Dada, L. Jung, L. Singh, R. Issa, C. A. Emilian, I. Kuhn, I. Keygnaert, and M. Nilsson. 2022. “Extreme Events and Gender-Based Violence: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.” Lancet Planetary Health 6 (6): e504–23. Vandeninden, F., R. Grun, and F. Fecher. 2022. “Energy Subsidies and Poverty: The Case of Fossil Fuel Subsidies in Burkina Faso.” Energy for Sustainable Development 70: 581–91. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Vidican Auktor, G., and M. Loewe. 2022. “Subsidy Reform and the Transformation of Social Contracts: The Cases of Egypt, Iran and Morocco.” Social Sciences 11 (2): 85. Vogt-Schilb, A., B. Walsh, K. Feng, L. Di Capua, Y. Liu, D. Zuluaga, M. Robles, and K. Hubaceck. 2019. “Cash Transfers for Pro-Poor Carbon Taxes in Latin America and the Caribbean.” Nature Sustainabil- ity 2 (10): 941–8. Vohra, K., A. Vodonos, J. Schwartz, E. Marais, M. Sulprizio, and L. Mickley. 2021. “Global Mortality from Outdoor Fine Particle Pollution Generated by Fossil Fuel Combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem.” En- vironmental Research 195: 110754. Wangui, E., and T. Smucker. 2018. “Gendered Opportunities and Constraints to Scaling up: A Case Study of Spontaneous Adaptation in a Pastoralist Community in Mwanga District, Tanzania.” Climate and Development 10 (4): 369–76. Warner, B. P., and C. Kuzdas. 2016. “Manufactured Global-Change Risk Pathways in Industrial-Based Agrarian Development.” Climate and Development 8 (5): 385–96. Watts, N., M. Amann, N. Arnell, S. Ayeb-Karlsson, K. Belesova, H. Berry, T. Bouley, M. Boykoff , P. Byass, and W. Cai et al. 2018. “The 2018 Report of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change: Shaping the Health of Nations for Centuries to Come.” Lancet (British Edition) 392 (10163): 2479– 514. Way, R., M. C. Ives, P. Mealy, and J. D. Farmer.2022. “Empirically Grounded Technology Forecasts and the Energy Transition.” Joule 6 (9): 2057–82. Weitzman, M. L. 2009. “On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change.” Review of Economics and Statistics 91 (1): 1–19. Welsby, D., J. Price, S. Pye, and P. Ekins. 2021. “Unextractable Fossil Fuels in a 1.5° C World.” Nature 597 (7875): 230–4. Wischnath, G., and H. Buhaug. 2014. “Rice or Riots: On Food Production and Conflict Severity across India.” Political Geography 43: 6–15. Wollburg, P. R., S. Hallegatte, and D. G. Mahler. 2023. “The Climate Implications of Ending Global Poverty (English).” Policy Research Working paper No. 10318, World Bank, Washington, DC. Wollstonecraft, M. 1792. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. London: J. Johnson. World Bank. 2021. “Overlooked: Examining the Impact of Disasters and Climate Shocks on Poverty in the Europe and Central Asia Region.” World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2022a. “Argentina Country Climate and Development Report.” CCDR Series, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2022b. “Climate and Development: An Agenda for Action: Emerging Insights from World Bank Group 2021-22 Country Climate and Development Reports.” World Bank, Washington, DC. WMO (World Meteorological Organization). 2021. “WMO Atlas of Mortality and Economic Losses from Weather, Climate and Water Extremes.” WMO-No. 1267. Yadav, S. S., and R. Lal. 2018. “Vulnerability of Women to Climate Change in Arid and Semi-Arid Re- gions: The Case of India and South Asia.” Journal of Arid Environments 149: 4–17. Lankes et al. 45 Yeo, S. 2019. “Where Climate Cash Is Flowing and Why It’s Not Enough.” Nature 573 (7774): 328–31. Yin, J., P. Gentine, L. Slater, L. Gu, Y. Pokhrel, N. Hanasaki, S. Guo, X. Lihua, and W. Schlenker. 2023. “Future Socio-Ecosystem Productivity Threatened by Compound Drought-Heatwave Events.” Nature Sustainability 6 (3): 259–72. Zenawi, M. 2011. “Remarks at ‘Africa Day.’” UNFCCC COP17 Durban. Personal communication. Zhang, X., X. Cui, B. Li, P. Hidalgo-Gonzalez, D. M. Kammen, J. Zou, and K. Wang. 2022. “Immediate Actions on Coal Phaseout Enable a Just Low-Carbon Transition in China’s Power Sector.” Applied Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/39/1/1/7504628 by World Bank and IMF user on 02 February 2024 Energy 308: 118401. Ziegler, M. S., and J. E. Trancik. 2021. “Re-Examining Rates of Lithium-Ion Battery Technology Improve- ment and Cost Decline.” Energy & Environmental Science 14 (4): 1635–51. The World Bank Research Observer © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkad011 39:1–46 46 The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 39, no. 1 (2024)