Recent calls by world leaders recommend that policy responses to the COVID crisis incorporate “green stimulus” or “green recovery” as a vital element. In a 2014 article in this journal, we argued that green stimulus would be an inefficient way to either boost demand and restore full employment in the context of the global financial crisis or pursue long-run environmental goals. In this paper, we argue that the attempt to marry green and COVID recovery programs may prove an even less fitting response to the near-term crisis, while still threatening to put environmental policy on paths that prove inefficient in the long run. We argue that green stimulus/recovery, while yielding more long-term climate benefits, would likely generate a slower and smaller recovery in jobs and activity than a traditional macroeconomic stimulus. This creates a trade-off for policymakers. The global financial crisis provides our primary real-world experience of green stimulus/recovery policies. A small but growing number of ex post empirical studies suggest that these measures' near-term growth impact was less than expected or obtained at a relatively high cost. There is also a danger that orienting green programs toward near-term shocks like the global financial crisis and COVID could compromise public understanding of, political support for, and the quality of environmental and climate policies in the long run.

中文翻译：

---

批评绿色刺激措施促进 COVID 复苏

世界领导人最近的呼吁建议，应对 COVID 危机的政策将“绿色刺激”或“绿色复苏”作为重要因素。在本期刊 2014 年的一篇文章中，我们认为，在全球金融危机的背景下，绿色刺激对于刺激需求和恢复充分就业或追求长期环境目标而言，将是一种低效的方式。在本文中，我们认为，将绿色和 COVID 恢复计划结合起来的尝试可能被证明是对近期危机的更不合适的回应，同时仍然威胁着将环境政策置于长期低效的道路上。我们认为，与传统的宏观经济刺激相比，绿色刺激/复苏虽然会产生更多的长期气候效益，但可能会产生更慢、更小的就业和活动复苏。这为政策制定者创造了一种权衡。全球金融危机为我们提供了绿色刺激/复苏政策的主要现实经验。少量但越来越多的事后实证研究表明，这些措施的近期增长影响低于预期或以相对较高的成本获得。从长远来看，将绿色计划针对全球金融危机和 COVID 等短期冲击可能会损害公众对环境和气候政策的理解、政治支持和质量，这也存在危险。近期增长影响低于预期或以相对较高的成本获得。从长远来看，将绿色计划针对全球金融危机和 COVID 等短期冲击可能会损害公众对环境和气候政策的理解、政治支持和质量，这也存在危险。近期增长影响低于预期或以相对较高的成本获得。从长远来看，将绿色计划针对全球金融危机和 COVID 等短期冲击可能会损害公众对环境和气候政策的理解、政治支持和质量，这也存在危险。