If, on the one hand, it would imply an annual increase of 3.5 billion dollars in capital expenditures in physical assets, on the other hand, it would allow a balance of 15 million new direct and indirect jobs, between those that would be generated and those that would be lost.

These are examples of how much the economic transformation needed for the world to reach the goal of zero net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 could cost and be worth, according to a study published Tuesday by McKinsey & Company.

According to Negócios, one of the report's main conclusions is that "the transition would be universal," that is, "all economic sectors and countries would be affected as all energy and land use systems that underpin economies and are responsible for generating emissions are reviewed."

And, in this context, that the scale of economic transformation would be "significant." "Capital spending on physical assets would total about $275 trillion by 2050 - approximately $9.2 trillion per year - or a 3.5 trillion increase in the annual spending that is done today, as high emission activities decrease and lower emission activities increase." There would, however, be a paradigm shift: "For example, today 65% of energy and land spending goes to products responsible for high emissions," and in the future 70% would go to products with low emissions and the necessary infrastructure, reversing the current trend."

The report, over 200 pages long, also anticipates the possibility that the transition to a net zero emissions scenario will require a "massive redistribution of labor" that would result in "some 200 million direct and indirect jobs generated" on the one hand and "185 million lost by 2050" on the other.

To achieve decarbonization by that date, McKinsey & Company also estimates that changes would need to be brought forward, with the next decade proving "decisive." Thus, it signals, "spending, now around 6.8% of GDP, would rise to 8.8% between 2026 and 2030, before declining," while electricity generation costs would rise immediately, but fall after peaking.

The consultancy warns, however, that "the impact of the transition would be felt unevenly across sectors, countries and communities." "Most exposed would be sectors with high emissions products or operations; countries with lower 'per capita' incomes and those with large fossil fuel resources; and communities whose local economies depend on exposed sectors," the consultancy says, pointing out that they currently account for about 20% of global gross domestic product (GDP).

Already another 10% of GDP is in sectors whose supply chains have high emissions, such as construction, McKinsey & Company says. The consultancy also notes that "lower income households around the world may be most affected." Not only "by the increased cost of electricity in the short term," but also "by the capital-related costs they may need to purchase products with lower emissions, such as new heaters or electric cars."

The consultant warns, however, that, "the transition carries risks if not managed well, including energy shortages and rising prices." "If it is not done in time or occurs abruptly, the transition increases the risk of stagnant assets and relocation of workers." Still, he points out, "the results would be much worse without any measures: achieving zero net emissions and limiting warming to 1.5 °C would avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change."

"The short-term risks of a poorly thought-out transition cannot be ignored," warns Bruno Esgallhado, a partner at McKinsey and leader for sustainability in the Iberian Peninsula, quoted in the same press release. "The economic transition to achieve zero net emissions will be complex and challenging, but it is necessary. The question now is whether the world can act boldly and scale up the response and investment needed over the next decade," he emphasizes.

For McKinsey, even though the impacts are "unevenly distributed," "an orderly transition offers opportunities for growth and lasting benefits that go beyond decarbonization," plus it "would pay dividends, including the potential for a long-term decline in energy costs, better health outcomes, and conservation of natural capital.

"Growth areas could be more efficient operations based on decarbonization and the creation of new markets for low-carbon products," the consultant lists in the same note accompanying the study.