The global power sector's low-carbon transition may enhance sustainable development goal achievement

The global power sector, dominated by fossil fuels and responsible for nearly 40% of energy-related CO₂ emissions, is central to climate mitigation. Yet transitioning this sector affects far more than climate, with implications for water use, pollutant emissions, employment, materials demand, and broader sustainable development. Prior transitions may resolve some problems while exacerbating others (e.g., coal plant closures reduce water withdrawals but cause job losses; expansion of renewables advances climate action but increases critical materials demand). This study asks how low-carbon power transitions influence progress toward multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), accounting for environmental, social, and economic trade-offs and synergies, and how changes propagate across regions via international trade. The purpose is to quantify global and regional SDG impacts of power transitions through 2100 under diverse socioeconomic and climate pathways and to identify where and how SDG progress may be helped or hindered.

Previous research predominantly assessed single-dimension outcomes of power transitions at national or regional scales, such as employment, economic growth, resource use, or emissions. Studies showed, for example, that coal power planning in developing Asia overlooks water resource sustainability, risking SDG 6, and that European renewable directives could negatively affect tropical forests via wood trade, challenging SDG 12. Work on trade-embodied effects reveals that changes in a country’s electricity mix can shift environmental burdens and employment through global supply chains, influencing other regions’ SDG progress. However, an integrated, multi-SDG, multi-region quantification of power transition impacts and trade-mediated spillovers remains limited, motivating this study.

The study develops an integrated assessment framework with three modules linking technology transitions to SDG outcomes from 2015 to 2100 across 49 economies. Base module: Uses the EXIOBASE 3 multi-regional input–output (MRIO) model to quantify direct and supply-chain environmental and socioeconomic impacts of 10 power subsectors (coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, petroleum and other oil derivatives, biomass and waste, solar PV, solar thermal, geothermal). Indicators include CO₂, SOx, NOx, PM2.5/PM10 emissions, blue water withdrawal and consumption, material use (fossil, biomass, metals, nonmetals), employment, value added, wages, and taxes. Scenario module: Employs GCAM to simulate power generation by region and technology and provide time-varying direct impact intensities (e.g., emissions per unit electricity, blue water consumption) under nine SSP–RCP combinations: SSP1/SSP2/SSP5 crossed with RCP2.6/RCP4.5/RCP6.0 (excluding RCP8.5 and RCP1.9). GCAM outputs 32-region power generation and technology mix every five years, informing MRIO parameter evolution (sectoral outputs and intensities). SDG simulation module: Translates environmental and socioeconomic changes into SDG progress using a UN SDG-based approach. Eighteen targets (27 indicators) covering all 17 SDGs are selected based on relevance to power transitions, comparability, and data availability. Indicator values are transformed to per-capita or per-GDP where appropriate and normalized to a 0–100 scale using bounds set by the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of 2015 performance across economies (with absolute thresholds for some indicators). Global and regional SDG index scores are computed as the arithmetic mean of target scores with equal weights; sensitivity analysis assesses robustness to bound settings. MRIO computations: Total outputs X are derived via the Leontief model X = (I − A)⁻¹ F. Direct impacts Dₖ = Eₖ Gₖ, updated over time as D^{t+1} = (E^{t+1}/E^{t})(G^{t+1}/G^{t}) D^{t}. Indirect impacts for subsector k are R_t^k = f_t^k L_t^{-1} X_t^k, updated proportionally by (f^{t+1}/f^{t})(G^{t+1}/G^{t}). 2015 coefficients come from EXIOBASE; future changes in outputs and direct impact intensities are driven by GCAM; the Leontief inverse is held constant (trade structure fixed at 2015).

• Global SDG performance improves under all scenarios, most under stringent climate action: RCP2.6 yields approximately 11% improvement in the SDG index from 54.70 (2015) to 59.89–61.33 (2100). RCP4.5 yields 7.55–8.93% improvement; RCP6.0 yields 4.42–7.40%.
• Emissions: Under RCP2.6, global CO₂ emissions decline markedly by 2100 relative to 2015 (34.85 Gt in 2015): −31.17% (SSP5+RCP2.6), −32.09% (SSP2+RCP2.6), −31.64% (SSP1+RCP2.6). All scenarios project decreasing NOx, SOx, and PM emissions due to stronger pollution controls.
• Water: Industrial blue water withdrawal decreases across all scenarios (circulating cooling adoption), while blue water consumption increases under SSP5 and SSP2 (expansion of nuclear/biomass/gas) but decreases under SSP1.
• Materials: Fossil fuel use declines; biomass, metal, and nonmetal mineral use increase under all scenarios, with RCP2.6 featuring the lowest fossil use and higher non-fossil material needs.
• Socioeconomics: Employment, value added, wages, and taxes from the power sector increase under all scenarios due to growing electricity demand; RCP2.6 pathways generate more jobs given higher renewables deployment.
• Near-term dynamics: By 2030, global SDG index dips slightly under SSP5 scenarios: 54.17 (−0.97%), 54.59 (−0.20%), 54.60 (−0.19%) for SSP5+RCP6.0/4.5/2.6, respectively, as fossil generation persists. By 2050, most targets improve; SDG 7.2 (renewables share) rises 58.95% (SSP5+RCP6.0) to 179.52% (SSP1+RCP2.6). Equality-related indicators (SDG 5.5, SDG 10.4) slightly decline (<4%) due to uneven job and wage dynamics.
• Regional heterogeneity: Short- to medium-term SDG gains are larger in higher-GNI economies; developing economies show smaller improvements, and under SSP5+RCP6.0 average SDG index declines (−0.59 in 2030; −0.02 in 2050). By 2100, developing economies’ SDG improvements surpass developed ones. Estonia sees large SDG index increases by 2050 (2.15 under SSP5+RCP6.0 to 6.91 under SSP1+RCP2.6) via renewables expansion. Under SSP5+RCP6.0, Indonesia (−3.34), Brazil (−3.09), and RoW Africa (−1.81) decline due to fossil growth hampering SDG 9.4 and 13.2.
• Trade effects: Power transition–induced changes in international trade modestly improve the global SDG index by 0.49–0.95% (2015–2100). SDG 10.4 (labor share/equality) improves most (2.28–6.55%) from wage increases embodied in renewables-related trade; SDG 8.5 (employment) improves via labor-intensive renewables. Material-use SDGs (8.4, 12.2) decline slightly (0.04–0.13%) globally, and resource- and emission-related SDGs deteriorate in some resource-rich developing regions due to embodied resource use and emissions in exports.

The study addresses how power sector decarbonization influences multi-SDG progress globally and regionally, revealing overall improvements under all pathways, especially RCP2.6, but with pronounced trade-offs and disparities. Results underscore that global SDG advancement hinges on transitions in developing economies, where electricity demand growth and fossil dependence are high. Policies enabling finance (particularly private and blended finance in Africa), rapid coal phaseout in China and India, and technology transfer from developed economies can accelerate equitable transitions. Trade-mediated spillovers can both aid and hinder SDG progress: while global averages change little, distributional impacts are substantial, potentially exacerbating inequalities. Material demand for renewables can undermine resource efficiency goals (SDGs 8.4, 12.2), calling for circular economy strategies, improved recycling, and supply chain management. Regional just transition planning is needed to mitigate subnational imbalances (e.g., job creation vs. losses across Indian states). Overall, integrating power transition strategies with SDG-aware policies can maximize synergies and minimize conflicts.

Coupling GCAM, MRIO, and a UN SDG-based assessment, the study finds that low-carbon power transitions generally enhance SDG achievement through 2100, with the strongest gains under RCP2.6. Nonetheless, trade-offs emerge, particularly around material use and equality indicators, and regional disparities are significant: developed economies tend to benefit earlier, while developing economies’ transitions are decisive for global progress. Policy implications include mobilizing finance for developing regions, accelerating coal phaseout where dominant, facilitating technology transfer, advancing circularity and recycling to ease material bottlenecks, and managing supply chains to avoid offshoring burdens. Future research should broaden system coverage (e.g., biodiversity and health), explore a wider set of scenarios, and incorporate evolving global trade structures to capture dynamic supply chain effects.

• Model and data scope: EXIOBASE MRIO and GCAM do not cover all systems (e.g., full biodiversity and health impacts), so interlinkages with some SDGs are not fully captured.
• Scenario coverage: The nine SSP–RCP combinations are illustrative archetypes and do not span all possible futures.
• Trade structure: Global trade patterns are held constant at 2015 levels across scenarios and years, potentially omitting confounding effects from evolving supply chains.