SWEX_Swep Exchange 2022

countries’ desire to restart their economies. As with almost all energy sources, generation from renewables soared in 2021. However although this increase was substantial, it was still significantly below what is likely needed to reach net zero emissions by 2050. The increase in renewable energy in 2021 was 7%, but the International Energy Agency estimate that annual renewable electricity generation will need to increase by 12% on average. The share of renewables in global electricity generation increased by only a small 5 amount, 0.4%. Taken together, this suggests that the energy transition flourished only during the unique context of 2020, and that 2021 demonstrated a return to insufficient progress. However, the impact of COVID-19 continues to be felt in many different ways, including in public investment and economic stimulus. Post-pandemic stimulus: a welcome boost or a missed opportunity? After the tragedies and upheaval of 2020, there has been a general consensus that the post-pandemic years should provide an opportunity to reconstruct parts of the economy and make improvements on what was there before. This approach is known as building back better. The main idea is that post-pandemic stimulus spending should do more than prompt economic recovery; it should

also address societal challenges such as inequality, health and the climate crisis. As with the ongoing war in Ukraine, the pandemic has highlighted the vulnerability of the global energy infrastructure, and shown the practical benefits of renewable energy and decentralized systems. Therefore, there was a strong case for focusing stimulus spending on the energy transition. This has happened, to an extent, however doubts have been raised about whether there has been enough investment in clean energy, and whether this investment has been effective. Stimulus spending has been monitored by a number of international organizations. By the end of 2021, the OECD (the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development) 6 estimated that just 33% of their members’ COVID-19 recovery funds have been allocated to “environmentally positive” measures. The Energy Policy Tracker provide a more energy-specific analysis, and 7 estimate that only 38% of energy- related recovery spending went to clean energy. Both these analyses show that significant investment has been made in fossil fuels and other environmentally non-positive projects.

argued that recovery spending has been used to support existing industries and structures, rather than prompting systemic change and boosting the energy transition. On the other hand, it should be remembered that the first priority of recovery spending is economic, so it is unsurprising that support has been given to projects that could deliver quick returns – shale oil in the US being an example. It has also been noted that some economies (notably the EU and South Korea) have spent a far higher proportion of their stimulus packages on climate-friendly measures, so there remains hope that the energy transition will be accelerated at least in some parts of the world. Have we learned anything? During the height of the pandemic, populations were often willing to act in the interests of others. Although a lot of focus has been given to anti-

For some, this has been seen a missed opportunity, and it has been

14 SWEP EXCHANGE