Skip to main content

COVID-19 Recovery Packages and Industrial Emission Rebounds: Mind the Gap

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Energy Transition, Climate Change, and COVID-19
  • 424 Accesses


Meeting the net-zero climate target by 2050 has become a priority for the European Commission. The success of such objective largely depends on the design of COVID-19 economic recovery plans. In this paper we identify industrial sectors that, if governments are willing to decouple economic growth and emissions, should not benefit from recovery stimuli. Our results suggest that phasing-out the mining sector, a large provider of inputs to heavy polluting activities, would have large impacts on emissions once activity recovers. We also identify coke and refined petroleum products, chemical products and electricity and gas activities as critical downstream industries. Greening their output would limit GHG rebound effects in the coming months.

First draft: June 2020. Authors would like to thank as well the seminar and conference participants at University of Paris-Dauphine and Climate Economics Chair.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions


  1. 1.

    This objective ensures a temperature rise below 1.5C degree by 2100 (UNEP, 2019).

  2. 2.

    Suggesting we have not decoupled GDP growth and carbon emissions (Helm, 2020).

  3. 3.

    In April 2020, all G20 nations (including most EU member states), had signed such fiscal measures into law (see International Monetary Fund, 2020).

  4. 4.

    Precisely, France rescue plan for Air France reached €7 billion (Les Echos, 2020); Australian government announced AU$715mn of unconditional Australian airline relief (through the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Commonwealth of Australia, 2020), and US$32bn of bailouts for US airlines (see Courtney, 2020 for a review of CARES Act)).

  5. 5.

    Which, for instance, has not been the case for Air France (Le Monde, 2020).

  6. 6.

    Although governments will have flexibility regarding the allocation of such funds, the main priority is to reach the EU’s objectives of climate neutrality and digital transformation, to offer social and employment support as well as to reinforce the EU’s role as a global player (European Parliament, 2020).

  7. 7.

    Several other factors are relevant to the design of economic recovery packages: contributions to the productive asset base and national wealth, speed of implementation, affordability, simplicity, impact on inequality and various political considerations.

  8. 8.

    In detail, economic multiplier measures the impact on activity of each additional currency unit of spending/tax cut funded by borrowing. A multiplier of 1 means $1 extra spending boosts final production and income by $1. A multiplier of 3 implies $1 spending boosts final income and output by $3.

  9. 9.

    Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere (e.g. carbon dioxide, methane), contributing to global warming. See full description in the Sect. 2.

  10. 10.

    In the following, we name “cascading process” such a dynamics of emission contraction.

  11. 11.

    Such sectors drive GHG emissions in the industrial system. Without contributions in terms of climate strategy, the government willing to achieve climate goals should not target them.

  12. 12.

    We define “primary inputs” as the main factors used in production (labour, capital, land and others). IO tables report their factor costs (e.g. compensation of employees, consumption of fixed capital or net operating surplus) (Miller & Blair, 2009).

  13. 13.

    The sector encompasses coal and lignite, crude petroleum and natural gas, metal ores, other mining and quarrying products and mining support services.

  14. 14.

    Includes coke oven products and refined petroleum products.

  15. 15.

    The sector mainly covers electricity, transmission and distribution services, manufactured gas, distribution services of gaseous fuels through mains, steam and air conditioning supply services, natural water, water treatment and supply services.

  16. 16.

    If one assumes no shift towards cleaner production in those industries.

  17. 17.

    The sector covers basic iron and steel and ferro-alloys, tubes, pipes, hollow profiles and related fittings, of steel, other products of the first processing of steel, basic precious and other non-ferrous metals.

  18. 18.

    In some countries such as Germany and Poland, this finding is particularly relevant.

  19. 19.

    Sector covers basic chemicals, fertilisers and nitrogen compounds, plastics and synthetic rubber in primary forms, pesticides and other agrochemical products, paints, varnishes and similar coatings, printing ink and mastics, soap and detergents and other chemical products.

  20. 20.

    The activities include glass and glass products, refractory products, clay building materials, other porcelain and ceramic products, cement, lime and plaster, articles of concrete, cement and plaster, cut, shaped and finished stone.

  21. 21.

    For non-metallic mineral products, the sector is present in the second or third layer, depending on the examined country.

  22. 22.

    The sector includes non-perennial crops, perennial crop, planting material: live plants, bulbs, tubers and roots, cuttings and slips, mushroom spawn, live animals and animal products, agricultural and animal husbandry services (except veterinary services), hunting and trapping and related services, forest trees and nursery services, wood in the rough, wild growing non-wood product, support services to forestry, fish and other fishing products; aquaculture products, support services to fishing.

  23. 23.

    Represents buildings and building construction works, roads and railways, construction works for roads and railways, constructions and construction works for utility projects; constructions and construction works for other civil engineering projects, demolition and site preparation works; electrical, plumbing and other construction installation works, building completion and finishing works, other specialised construction works.

  24. 24.

    See Miller and Blair, 2009; Cahen-Fourot et al., 2020.

  25. 25.

    Note that i is a column vector of the same dimension of Z.

  26. 26.

    Augustinovics, 1970; Beyers, 1976.

  27. 27.

    Note that g i,j includes both direct and indirect effects.

  28. 28.

    Cf. next part for full description of data.

  29. 29.

    OECD Statistics:

  30. 30.

    Total economy, product by product in million $.

  31. 31.

    The statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community, abbreviated as NACE, is the classification of economic activities in the European Union (EU).

  32. 32.

    For further descriptions, refer to the Appendix.

  33. 33.

    Exposed by Cahen-Fourot et al. (2020): The decarbonisation process might not be particularly detrimental for services activities (low dirty capital levels, low demand for fossil fuel).

  34. 34.

    OECD Statistics—“Data refer to total emissions of CO2 (CO2 emissions from energy use and industrial processes, e.g. cement production), CH4 (methane emissions from solid waste, livestock, mining of hard coal and lignite, rice paddies, agriculture and leaks from natural gas pipelines), N2O (nitrous oxide), HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons), PFCs (perfluorocarbons), (SF6 +  NF3) (sulphur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride), SOx (sulphur oxides), NOx (nitrogen oxides), CO (carbon monoxide), NMVOC (non-methane volatile organic compounds), PM2.5 (particulates less than 2.5 μm), PM10 (particulates less than 10 μm) and NH3 (ammonia)”.

  35. 35.

    These data cover the scope of our analysis (e.g. services are not included, imported emissions neither).

  36. 36.

    In primary inputs.

  37. 37.

    Remember that total coefficients are column sums of the S matrix, thus representing the cumulative impact of a drop in a sector’s primary inputs on GHG emissions of other sectors. As to interpret the coefficient of mining: a one-unit decrease (in monetary unit =  million $) in mining primary inputs leads to a drop in GHG of 0.029 Mt (CO2 eq.) across all other sectors in the economy. Looking at the S matrix and the impact of mining on coke and refined petroleum products (C19) we have: a one-unit decrease (in monetary unit =  million $) in mining primary inputs leads to a drop in GHG from the coke and refined petroleum industry of 0.020 Mt (CO2 eq.).

  38. 38.

    Note that for France, D–E is not among top sectors. We expect the latter to be due to the large share of nuclear power generation in the country.

  39. 39.

    Note that mining external coefficients are significantly high, embodying the ability of the sector to generate emissions in other GHG intensive sectors. Moreover, mining products are mainly imported from outside of the EU, thus explaining low amounts of emissions for the sector (although in Poland, the sector displays a high amount of emissions as the country is the biggest EU hard-coal producer Reuters, 2020).

  40. 40.

    The low level of external emissions coefficients of energy intensive sectors is due to the fact that downstream sectors are not huge polluting industries (e.g. machinery and equipment (C27), construction (F)).

  41. 41.

    We exclude respective country top sector itself, to abstract from internal emissions.

  42. 42.

    Although for electricity and gas, this argument depends on considered energy used (gas, coal).

  43. 43.

    Thus suggesting a strong effect of reducing gross domestic output in these sectors on other sectors’ GHG emissions.

  44. 44.

    Although mining is not emitting large amounts of emissions, cf. Table 5 in the Appendix.

  45. 45.

    Although most of them exhibit a weight of 0, the impact on downstream sectors remains higher compared to other industries.

  46. 46.

    Note that it is relevant in every country of our sample.

  47. 47.

    Not only to shift away from mining, but also because mining inputs are expected to be phased-out from the economic system by 2050.

  48. 48.

    Note that in some countries, decarbonising the power sector does not come as a priority compared to, for instance, transport sectors (e.g. France).


  • Allan, J., Donovan, C., Ekins, P., Gambhir, A., Hepburn, C., Robins, N., Reay, D., Shuckburgh E., & Zenghelis, D. (2020). A net-zero emissions economic recovery from COVID-19. Smith School, Working Paper 20-01.

    Google Scholar 

  • Augustinovics, M. (1970). Methods of international and intertemporal comparison of structure. In A. P. Carter & A. Brody (Eds.), Contributions to input-output analysis (pp. 249–269). Amsterdam, the Netherlands and London, UK: North-Holland Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battiston, S., Mandel, A., Monasterolo, I., Schütze, F., & Visentin, G. (2017). A climate stress-test of the financial system. Nature Climate Change, 7, 283–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyers, W. B. (1976, April). Empirical identification of key sectors: some further evidence. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 8(2), 231–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloomberg NEF. (2019). New energy outlook 2019 report.

    Google Scholar 

  • BNP Paribas—Economic Analysis (2020). Eurozone: A disinflationary bias in the short and the medium term? EcoFlash, Louis Boisset.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bussing-Burks, M. (2011). Deficit: Why Should I Care? (2nd ed.). Apress.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cahen-Fourot, L., Campiglio, E., Dawkins, E., Godin, A., & Kemp-Benedict, E. (2020). Looking for the Inverted Pyramid: An Application Using Input-Output Networks. Ecological Economics, 169, 106554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CDP. (2017). Putting a price on carbon, Integrating climate risk into business planning. Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Economic Policy Research. (2020). COVID economics vetted and real-time papers. CEPR Press, Issue 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, K. (1973). Input-output economic analysis of environmental impact. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-3(6), 539–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth of Australia. (2020). Coronavirus economic response package omnibus bill 2020 (schedule 7, part 2), house of representatives.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courtney, J. (2020), CARES Act, vol. 116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creti, A., & de Perthuis, C. (2019). Stranded assets and the low-carbon revolution: Myth or Reality? IAEE Energy Forum/Fourth Quarter.

    Google Scholar 

  • DG Tresor. (2020). What are the EU responses to the Covid-19 crisis? Article,

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2017). Competitiveness of the European cement and lime sectors. Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Central Bank. (2015). Fiscal multipliers and beyond. Occasional Paper series.

  • European Commission. (2007). Technological studies contribution to the report on guiding principles for product market and sector monitoring. Competitiveness and sustainability.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2019). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions—The European Green Deal.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2020). Europe’s moment: Repair and prepare for the next generation. Press release, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Financial Times. (2020). Coronavirus tracked: the latest figures as countries fight to contain the pandemic. Reporting, data analysis and graphics by Steven Bernard, David Blood, John Burn-Murdoch, Max Harlow, Caroline Nevitt, Alan Smith, Cale Tilford and Aleksandra Wisniewska. Edited by Adrienne Klasa. Retrieved May 7, 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fugiel, A., Burchart, D., Czaplicka-Kolarz, K., & Smolinski, A. (2017). Environmental impact and damage categories caused by air pollution emissions from mining and quarrying sectors of European countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, A. (1958). Input-output approach in an allocation system. Economica, New Series, 25(97), 58–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godsil, C., & Royle, G. F. (2013). Algebraic Graph Theory, Volume 207. Springer Science and Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halleck-Vega, S., Mandel, A., & Millock, K. (2018). Accelerating diffusion of climate-friendly technologies: A network perspective. Ecological Economics, 152, 235–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, S., & Hallegatte, S. (2020). Thinking ahead: For a sustainable recovery from COVID-19 (Coronavirus). World Bank Article.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helm, D. (2020). The environmental impacts of coronavirus. Environmental and Resource Economics, 76, 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hepburn, C., Adlen, E., Beddington, J., Carter, E. A., Fuss, S., Mac Dowell, N., …Williams, C. K. (2019). The technological and economic prospects for CO2 utilization and removal. Nature, 575(7781), 87–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hepburn, C., O’Callaghan, B., Stern, N., Stiglitz, J., & Zenghelis, D. (2020). Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change? Smith School, Working Paper 20-02.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Energy Agency. (2018). Germany—Country Profile. Key energy statistics. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • IFRI. (2020). “Green” or “Brown” Recovery Strategies? A preliminary assessment of policy trends in a selection of countries worldwide. Centre for Energy & Climate Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Monetary Fund. (2020). Policy Responses to COVID-19. Policy Tracker. Retrieved May 2, 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Labour Office. (2020). Monitor: COVID-19 and the world of work. Second edition, Updated estimates and analysis. Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. W. (2015). Perceived barriers and policy solutions in clean energy infrastructure investment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 104, 297–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Quere, C., Jackson, R. B., Jones, M. W., et al. (2020). Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nature Climate Change, 10, 647–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leontief, W. W. (1951). Part IV: Application of input-output technique to the American economic system in 1939. In The structure of the american economy, 1919–1939: An empirical application of equilibrium analysis (2nd ed., pp. 139–218). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Monde. (2020). Coronavirus: «7 milliards d’euros pour Air France, sans contrepartie environnementale ou sociale », voilà qui pose question. Nadine Levratto, Gilles Raveaud. Retrieved June 6, 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Les Echos. (2020). L’Etat français à la rescousse d’Air France-KLM avec 7 milliards d’euros de prêts. Bruno Trevidic. Retrieved May 8, 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinsey & Company. (2020). The recovery from the COVID-19 economic crisis coincides with a pivotal time in the fight against climate change.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzler, L. A. (1951). Taxes and subsidies in Leontief’s input-output model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 65(3), 433–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. E., & Blair, P. D. (2009). Input-output analysis: Foundations and extensions. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2016). New approaches to economic challenges. insights into complexity and policy. Report, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2020). Rising fossil fuel support poses a threat to building a healthier and climate-safe future. Data.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2020). OECD Economic Outlook, 107 database.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2020). Online Air Emission Accounts Database. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2020). Online Input-Output Database. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2020). COVID-19: Joint actions to win the war. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramey, V. A. (2019). Ten years after the financial crisis: What have we learned from the renaissance in fiscal research? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(2), 89–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romano, M. G. (2007). Learning, cascades, and transaction costs. Review of Finance, 11(3), 527–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. (2014). Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollin, R., Garrett-Peltier, H., Heintz, J., & Scharber, H. (2008). Green recovery: A program to create good jobs & start building a low-carbon economy. Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuters. (2020). Germany adds brown coal to energy exit under landmark deal. Michael Nienaber, Holger Hansen. Retrieved May 2, 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuters. (2020). McKinsey predicts near doubling of unemployment in Europe. Marine Strauss. Retrieved May 3, 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuters. (2020). Exclusive: COVID-19 pushes Poland to accelerate exit from ailing coal—sources. Agnieszka Barteczko. Retrieved June 11, 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruz, M., & Pollitt, M. G. (2016). Overcoming barriers to electrical energy storage: comparing California and Europe. Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, 17(2), 123–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., & Ganguly, S. (2017). Opportunities, barriers and issues with renewable energy development—a discussion. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 69, 1170–1181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solorio, I., & Jorgens, H. (2017). A Guide to EU renewable energy policy. Comparing Europeanization and domestic policy change in EU member states. Ed. EE Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statista. (2020). Gross domestic product (GDP) at current market prices of selected European countries in 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Guardian. (2020). UK economy likely to suffer worst Covid-19 damage, says OECD. Phillip Inman, June, 10 2020. Retrieved June 11, 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thunström, L., Newbold, S. C., Finnoff, D., Ashworth, M., & Shogren, J. F. (2020). The benefits and costs of using social distancing to flatten the curve for COVID-19. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis.

  • UNEP (2019). Cut global emissions by 7.6 percent every year for next decade to meet 1.5C Paris target—UN report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velàzquez, E. (2006). An input-output model of water consumption: Analysing intersectoral water relationships in Andalusia. Ecological Economics, 56(2), 226–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2015). Decarbonizing development, three steps to a zero-carbon future. Report. Authors: Marianne Fay, Stephane Hallegatte, Adrien Vogt-Schilb, Julie Rozenberg, Ulf Narloch, Tom Kerr.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. (2020). Managing COVID-19: How the pandemic disrupts global value chains. Artile, written by Seric, Gorg, Mosle and Windisch.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Resource Institute. (2009). A green global recovery? Assessing US Economic Stimulus and the Prospects for International Coordination. Number PB 09-3.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Côme Billard .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations



See Tables 4, 5, and 6

Table 4 NACE sectors
Table 6 GHG emissions (Mt CO2 eq.), year 2015

1.1 Additional Information

Description of Sectors

A—Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing

Non-perennial crops; Perennial crops; planting material: live plants, bulbs, tubers and roots, cuttings and slips; mushroom spawn; live animals and animal products; agricultural and animal husbandry services (except veterinary services); hunting and trapping and related services; forest trees and nursery services; wood in the rough; wild growing non-wood products; support services to forestry; fish and other fishing products; aquaculture products; support services to fishing.

B—Mining and Extraction of Energy Producing Products

Hard coal; lignite; crude petroleum; natural gas, liquefied or in gaseous state; iron ores; non-ferrous metal ores; stone, sand and clay; mining and quarrying products n.e.c.; support services to petroleum and natural gas extraction; support services to other mining and quarrying.

C10–12—Food Products, Beverages and Tobacco

Preserved meat and meat products; processed and preserved fish, crustaceans and molluscs; processed and preserved fruit and vegetables; vegetable and animal oils and fats; dairy products; grain mill products, starches and starch products; bakery and farinaceous products; other food products; prepared animal feeds; beverages; tobacco products.

C13–15—Textiles, Wearing Apparel, Leather and Related Products

Textile yarn and thread; woven textiles; textile finishing services; other textiles; wearing apparel, except fur apparel; articles of fur; knitted and crocheted apparel; tanned and dressed leather; luggage, handbags, saddlery and harness; dressed and dyed fur; footwear.

C16—Wood and of Products of Wood and Cork (Except Furniture)

Wood, sawn and planed; products of wood, cork, straw and plaiting materials

C17–18—Paper Products and Printing

Pulp, paper and paperboard; articles of paper and paperboard; printing services and services related to printing; reproduction services of recorded media.

C19—Coke and Refined Petroleum Products

Coke oven products; refined petroleum products.

C20–21—Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Products

Basic chemicals, fertilisers and nitrogen compounds, plastics and synthetic rubber in primary forms; pesticides and other agrochemical products; paints, varnishes and similar coatings, printing ink and mastics; soap and detergents, cleaning and polishing preparations, perfumes and toilet preparations; other chemical products; man-made fibres; basic pharmaceutical products; pharmaceutical preparations.

C22—Rubber and Plastics Products

Rubber products; Plastic products.

C23—Other Non-metallic Mineral Products

Glass and glass products; refractory products; clay building materials; other porcelain and ceramic products; cement, lime and plaster; articles of concrete, cement and plaster; cut, shaped and finished stone; other non-metallic mineral products.

C24—Manufacture of Basic Metals

Basic iron and steel and ferro-alloys; tubes, pipes, hollow profiles and related fittings, of steel; other products of the first processing of steel; basic precious and other non-ferrous metals; casting services of metals.

C25—Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and Equipment

Structural metal products; tanks, reservoirs and containers of metal; steam generators, except central heating hot water boilers; weapons and ammunition; forging, pressing, stamping and roll-forming services of metal; powder metallurgy; treatment and coating services of metals; machining; cutlery, tools and general hardware; other fabricated metal products.

C26—Computer, Electronic and Optical Products

Electronic components and boards; computers and peripheral equipment; communication equipment; consumer electronics; measuring, testing and navigating equipment; watches and clocks; irradiation, electromedical and electrotherapeutic equipment; optical instruments and photographic equipment; magnetic and optical media.

C27—Electrical Equipment

Electric motors, generators, transformers and electricity distribution and control apparatus; batteries and accumulators; wiring and wiring devices; electric lighting equipment; domestic appliances; other electrical equipment.

C28—Machinery and Equipment n.e.c

General-purpose machinery; other general-purpose machinery; agricultural and forestry machinery; metal forming machinery and machine tools Other special-purpose machinery.

C29—Motor Vehicles, Trailers and Semi-Trailers

Motor vehicles; bodies (coachwork) for motor vehicles; trailers and semi-trailers; parts and accessories for motor vehicles.

C30—Other Transport Equipment

Ships and boats; railway locomotives and rolling stock; air and spacecraft and related machinery; military fighting vehicles; transport equipment n.e.c.

C31–33—Other Manufacturing

Furniture; jewellery, bijouterie and related articles; musical instruments; sports goods; games and toys; medical and dental instruments and supplies; manufactured goods n.e.c.; repair services of fabricated metal products, machinery and equipment; installation services of industrial machinery and equipment.

D–E—Electricity, Gas, Water Supply, Sewerage, Waste and Remediation Services

Electricity, transmission and distribution services; manufactured gas; distribution services of gaseous fuels through mains; steam and air conditioning supply services; natural water; water treatment and supply services; sewerage services; sewage sludge; waste; waste collection services, waste treatment and disposal services; materials recovery services; secondary raw materials; remediation services and other waste management services.


Buildings and building construction works, roads and railways; construction works for roads and railways; constructions and construction works for utility projects; constructions and construction works for other civil engineering projects; demolition and site preparation works; electrical, plumbing and other construction installation works; building completion and finishing works; other specialised construction works.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Billard, C., Creti, A. (2021). COVID-19 Recovery Packages and Industrial Emission Rebounds: Mind the Gap. In: Belaïd, F., Cretì, A. (eds) Energy Transition, Climate Change, and COVID-19. Springer, Cham.

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics