The Case for Quality-of-Life
In short, quality-of-life considerations can tip the balance
The primary benefits of green transition policies lie in reducing or blocking harmful effects that have resulted in what the UN calls the triple planetary crisis of climate change, sustainability, and pollution.
The costs of green transition policies, as a rule, exceed their primary benefits, especially under conventional cost-benefit analysis and when considered locally. If this were not the case, then the policies would likely already have been implemented.
Many green transition policies, however, are associated with co-benefits whose value may well tip the balance in their favor when less naïve, less myopic cost-benefit analyses are done.
This is particularly the case for quality-of-life (QoL) co-benefits.
We have developed a working list of nine categories of such co-benefits: The current set of QoL benefits includes Q-1: Health, safety, and hygiene. Q-2: Time, attention and convenience. Q-3: Moral considerations (including fairness). Q-4: Aesthetics. Q-5: Community strengthening. Q-6: Access to service points. Q-7: Affordance of capabilities. Q-8: Economy. Q-9: Improving and creating destinations. See Bina, R., Luong, K, Mehta, S., Pang, S., Xie, M., Chou, C., & Kimbrough, S. O. (2025). “On Large Language Models as Data Sources for Policy Deliberation on Climate Change and Sustainability.”
Hard work is needed to characterize the links between green transition policies and QoL benefits. More hard work is needed to inform the public of these benefits. The Earth is in the balance. May the balance be tipped in favor of quality-of-life.
See also: “Co-Benefits: Keys to the Climate?”