As the world continues its battle with the coronavirus pandemic, economists from around the world warn that we are witnessing the unfolding of something much darker than the 2008 financial crisis – the Great Depression 2.0.

The signs are: unprecedented destruction of jobs and capital, reduced consumer spending, poor performance in almost all major financial markets, and a collapse in the global financial order.

Even the world’s economic powers have not been spared, with California – one of the wealthiest states in the United States, thanks to its thriving technology sector – wiping out all job growth over the last decade in just two months.

But now, the Energy Brain Trust says that channeling global incentives for renewable energy investment can not only help address climate issues but also bring great economic benefits after COVID-19 for decades to come.

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), an organization dedicated to promoting global adoption of renewable energy and promoting its sustainable use, states that normalizing global economic conditions will cost 95 trillion USD.

Investment in renewable energy sources (RES) at 110 trillion USD, on the other hand, could potentially stimulate even more robust economic recovery after COVID-19 by generating massive socio-economic benefits and could lead to savings of 50 trillion USD to 142 trillion USD by 2050.

The big question is: Will the world governments be ready to put their money in such a place?

IRENA argues that targeting all of these incentives in the RES sector would increase global gross domestic product (GDP) by about 2.4 percentage points faster than expected and would lead to a 13.5% increase in global welfare indicators, such as education and healthcare.

But this is not the most important thing. Investing this amount in renewable energy can double the number of jobs in the sector to 42 million, and create tens of millions more in industry-related industries. This will easily create many more than the 26 million jobs that the US has lost so far due to the pandemic.

IRENA Director-General Francesco La Camera says COVID-19 has “uncovered the very vulnerabilities of the current system”, especially the fossil fuel sector, which is in a difficult situation due to the epic collapse in the search for a global lockdown. Francesco La Camera stated that the world needed more than a quick start and that accelerated development of RES could potentially achieve multiple economic and social goals that could help build a more sustainable economy.

For the post-2050 period, the report identifies investments in the “five major pillars of decarbonization”, namely electrification, renewable energy production, system flexibility, green hydrogen, and innovation – all needed to achieve a carbon-neutral global economy.

Not surprisingly, industry officials applauded the report, such as Jose Ignacio Sanchez Galan, CEO of Spanish energy company Iberdrola, saying that harmonizing economic incentives with climate goals is crucial to boosting the long-term viability of the global economy.

A previous report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) provided almost similar views, with its executive director Fatih Birol saying that some of the stimulus packages that governments are launching or about to be introduced need to be invested in the RES sector.

But what are the chances of working on an ambitious IRENA scenario that aims to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by 70% by 2050 by channeling trillions of dollars into clean energy?

The report has already warned of the “growing gap between rhetoric and action” by governments on climate change.

The IEA warned that it is very likely that governments will significantly reduce the investment in clean energy of the subtle economic damage caused by the coronavirus. This year, solar power is expected to record its first decline in nearly four decades.

Meanwhile, sales growth for electric vehicles is expected to slow for the first time in more than ten years, as well as a dramatic turnaround in the decommissioning of coal-fired power plants.

Cheap coal, which would be particularly comfortable for a suffering economy, will hamper the development of clean energy projects, at least in the short term, with governments choosing to redirect money to other sectors than to RES.