1. English texts

Fossil Fuel and Renewable Energy Subsidies on the Rise

Aug 212012

Alexander Ochs, Eric Anderson, and Reese Rogers | Aug 21, 2012

A recent projection places the total value of conventional global fossil fuel subsidies between $775 billion and more than $1 trillion in 2012, depending on which supports are included in the calculation.¹ In contrast, total subsidies for renewable energy stood at $66 billion in 2010, although that was a 10 percent increase from the previous year.² Two thirds of these subsidies went to renewable electricity resources and the remaining third to biofuels.³

Although the total subsidies for renewable energy are significantly lower than those for fossil fuels, they are higher per kilowatt-hour if externalities are not included in the calculations. Estimates based on 2009 energy production numbers placed renewable energy subsidies between 1.7¢ and 15¢ per kilowatt-hour while subsidies for fossil fuels were estimated at around 0.1–0.7¢ per kWh.⁴ Unit subsidy costs for renewables are expected to decrease as technologies become more efficient and the prices of wholesale electricity and transport fuels rise.⁵

Globally negotiated efforts to reduce fossil fuel subsidies have been hindered by competing definitions of subsidies. Calculation methods also vary. The common price gap approach to calculating consumption subsidies uses the difference between the observed domestic prices of energy and the world market prices as an estimate of the impacts of a country’s policies on market prices.⁶ Some oil exporters, however, argue that production cost rather than market price should be used as the baseline.⁷ The difficulties in accurately measuring data are compounded by the lack of transparency among countries with regard to energy subsidies.⁸

[For full access to the complete trend and its associated charts, log in to Vital Signs]

Worldwatch Report on Fossil-Fuel Subsidies: With No Gain, Less Societal Pain

newspaper article Comments Off

Aug 212012

By Cheryl Kaften, August 21, 2012

Total subsidies for renewable energy stood at $66 billion in 2010 – less than one-tenth of the government financing provided globally to the fossil fuel industry, according to new research from the Washington, DC-based Worldwatch Institute.
(…)
“These so-called hidden costs, or externalities, are in fact very real costs to our societies
that are not picked up by the polluter and beneficiary of production but by all taxpayers,” said Alexander Ochs, director of Worldwatch’s Climate and Energy program and report co-author. “Local pollutants from the burning of fossil fuels kill thousands in the United States, alone, each year, and society makes them cheaper to continue down their destructive path.”

Shifting official support from fossil fuels to renewables, Ochs pointed out, is essential
for “decarbonizing” the global energy system.

Such a shift could help create a triple win for national economies by reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, generating long-term economic growth and reducing dependence on energy imports.
(…)
“At the same time, a phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies would level the
playing field for renewables and allow us to reduce support for clean energy sources as well,” said Ochs. “After all, fossil fuels have benefited from massive governmental backing worldwide for hundreds of years.”

Progress toward a complete phase-out, however, has been minimal, according to Ochs. The
2009 pledge by the Group of 20 major economies to reduce “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” has been left “vague and unfulfilled.” The lack of a definition has left countries to make their own determination if their subsidies are inefficient. As of August 2012, G20 countries had not taken any substantial action in response to the pledge: Six members opted out of reporting altogether (an increase from two in 2010), and no country has yet initiated a subsidy reform in response to the pledge.

[You can find the whole article HERE; further reporting HERE | HERE | HERE | HERE]

Report finds ‘incredible’ renewable potential under the Dominican sun

newspaper interview Comments Off

Jul 262012

Thursday, July 26, 2012 – Lisa Friedman, E&E reporter

The Dominican Republic has “extensive” solar and wind resources and will be able to meet the government’s ambitious renewable energy goals, a new study has found. Yet the Caribbean nation’s road map — among the first of its kind — cautions that while the Dominican Republic has made important strides in weaning itself off fossil fuels and reducing its carbon footprint, it still needs stronger domestic policies and international funding to succeed.

“I think the Dominican Republic has to be credited. It’s a developing country, and it has really gone through the paradigm change that I wish so many other countries would have already gone through,” said Alexander Ochs, director of climate and energy at the Worldwatch Institute, which developed the study. “They have come a long way, and they have a long way to go,” Ochs said. But, he added, “I think the Dominican Republic can become a model country.”

Research shows that by strategically harnessing its wind and solar resources, the country can achieve its goals for a low-carbon energy future

newspaper interview Comments Off

Jul 242012

International Business Times, 24 July 2012, 08:53 BST

According to a new report released by the Worldwatch Institute’s Climate and Energy Program, the Dominican Republic will benefit economically, socially, and environmentally if it relied more heavily on renewable energy sources and less on fossil fuels. The report, Roadmap to a Sustainable Energy System: Harnessing the Dominican Republic’s Wind and Solar Resources, assesses the Caribbean country’s wind and solar energy resources and provides a policy roadmap for how it can cost-effectively harness its renewable potential and reduce its dependence on energy imports.

“Developing a stable energy infrastructure that can withstand both fuel price fluctuations and looming natural disasters is extremely important for a country like the Dominican Republic,” said Alexander Ochs, Director of Worldwatch’s Climate and Energy Program. “Installing a renewable energy system in a country that in some years spends ten percent or more of its GDP on the burning of foreign fossil fuels while having very strong domestic renewable resources is vital for its sustained—-and sustainable—-development.”

Energy Agency Looks to Natural Gas “Golden Age”

newspaper interview Comments Off

May 302012

Wed, 30 May 2012 04:57 GMT, Source: Content Partner // Inter Press Service
By Carey L. Biron

WASHINGTON, May 30 (IPS) – If a series of “golden rules” can be followed, a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) suggests, global natural gas usage could grow by more than 50 percent by 2035.The report, released on Tuesday, came under sharp criticism from environmental groups for charting a route to a “golden age” in the extraction and use of natural gas.
(…)
“We have an opportunity for natural gas to address the intermittency problems of renewable energy sources – it could become an ally of renewables,” Alexander Ochs, the director of the climate and energy programme at the Worldwatch Institute here in Washington, told IPS. Ochs also reviewed a draft of the IEA report.

Ochs says that there are a number of actors within the gas sector that will welcome the new IEA recommendations as a way of cutting down on the potential of a future environmental catastrophe that could lead to industry-damaging policy restrictions.

“The problem isn’t with this report. The problem is that if you don’t have good regulations in place, there go your opportunities,” he says. “And if you don’t have smart technologies in place, you lose this ally.”

Ochs does warn that the report underplays the potential use of renewables in the upcoming decades, however, by suggesting that green technologies other than hydro will only make up five percent of total energy demand in the next quarter century.

“I think the IEA could well be wrong in the numbers it’s using. Technically and economically, more than half of our electricity could come from renewables as early as 2030,” he says.

“But if gas sees a golden age and becomes cheap globally, it could get in the way of renewables. Then, rather than being an enabler, it becomes a deal breaker.”

US Electrical Energy Production Ripping US Water Supply

newspaper interview Comments Off

May 172012

The Emergency Email & Wireless Network, http://www.emergencyemail.org/newsemergency/anmviewer.asp?a=1686&z=34

Scientists, climatologists and energy experts share a growing concern: the need for water in the production of energy, especially in regions that are experiencing serious drought. Generating power – whether it be from fossil fuels or renewable energy sources – requires large amounts of water. How are the nation’s energy producers are facing this challenge?

Water is also used to cool fuel rods at nuclear plants and to generate steam to power turbines. The biofuel industry needs water for irrigation, fermentation and the production of ethanol and biodiesel fuels.

Alexander Ochs, director of climate and energy at the Worldwatch Institute, says that adds up to a lot of water. “Per megawatt hour, coal uses 500 to 1000 gallons of water for the production of just one megawatt hour of electricity,” said Ochs. “If we look at all the plants combined in the U.S., all the thermo-electric plants [powered by steam] in the US in 2008 alone, they drew 60 billion to 170 billion gallons of water, per year.”

“Places like the Midwest where water is a very scarce resource already today, a number of power plants have actually been halted, and this is actually true for across the United States,” said Ochs. (…)

[Please find the full article HERE]

The End of the Atomic Dream: One Year After Fukushima, the Shortfalls of Nuclear Energy Are Clearer Than Ever

blog Comments Off

Mar 162012

Alexander Ochs, Re|Volt, 16 March 2012

Last Sunday marked the first anniversary of an unprecedented catastrophe that struck northern Japan. On March 11, 2011, a tsunami—triggered by a major earthquake—swept into the area surrounding the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station, disabling the cooling capabilities of three of the plant’s oldest reactors. In the days and weeks that followed, as workers struggled to cool and dismantle the plant, reactors 1, 2, and 3 went into meltdown. A series of explosions and fires led to the release of radioactive gas, and fears of contamination ultimately prompted the evacuation of approximately 100,000 people from the immediate area; some 30,000 may never be able to return to their homes.

: The Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Power Plant, 25 March 2011 (Source: econews)

The first anniversary of this horrific event—the worst nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl accident in 1986—is a time to commemorate the more than 20,000 people who died in the initial earthquake and tsunami, as well as the courage of those who risked radioactive exposure to regain control of the plant and prevent further calamity. But it is also a time to look forward—to examine what we have learned from Fukushima and what it means for the future of energy in Japan and around the world.

A “moment of opportunity” for Japan

In the aftermath of the meltdown, the Japanese public turned decidedly against nuclear power, marking a pronounced change in a nation that was once one of the world’s most committed proponents and producers of civilian atomic energy. Japan has been using nuclear power since the 1960s, and in 2010 it generated 30 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants. In the past year, however, the vast majority of nuclear facilities in Japan have been shut down for routine maintenance or “stress tests” and have not yet been reopened. Today, all but two of Japan’s commercial reactors have been shut down, with the last one scheduled to go offline as early as April. The country has also abandoned any existing plans to build new reactors.

How has Japan managed to make up the sudden shortfall in electricity production? Mostly by implementing an aggressive campaign to reduce energy consumption and increase production from conventional power plants. But that clearly won’t be enough to sustain the country’s energy needs in the long term. Many of Japan’s nuclear facilities are likely to be reopened at some point. Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda favors restarting some of them as soon as possible to increase electricity production, particularly in the summer months when demand goes up. But Japan also intends to fundamentally reshape its energy strategy for the 21st century by gradually phasing out nuclear power in favor of renewable energy sources and increased conservation.

In an op-ed published this week in the Washington Post, Noda signaled his desire to use the Fukushima disaster as a moment of opportunity. He reminded readers that Japan rebuilt its economy from the ashes of World War II. Noda believes that: “today we face a challenge of similar proportions. Our goal is not simply to reconstruct the Japan that existed before March 11, 2011, but to build a new Japan.” Indeed, the country has already begun doing just that, initiating plans to construct new solar plants and a floating wind farm off the Fukushima coast.

Public opposition to nuclear power existed in Japan before the Fukushima fallout. But it was not as strong and visible as it is now, when demonstrators turn to the streets in the thousands to protest the use of nuclear energy. Worldwide, the horrifying events in Japan rejuvenated the anti-nuclear movement.

Nuclear power has never been safe—or cheap

The nuclear industry’s history is one of disaster: 63 major accidents occurred worldwide between 1947 and 2007. And a number of near-disasters in recent years have shown the validity of safety concerns. On July 25, 2006, a power outage at Sweden’s Forsmark Plant knocked out two of the facility’s four emergency backup generators and caused workers to lose control of the plant for 23 minutes, illustrating the degree to which reactors are vulnerable to variability in electric supply.

If you believe severe accidents cannot happen in highly regulated countries, think again. The U.S. General Accountability Office reported more than 150 incidents from 2001 to 2006 alone of nuclear plants not performing within acceptable safety guidelines. Seventy-one percent of all recorded major nuclear accidents, including meltdowns, explosions, fires, and loss of coolants, occurred in the United States, and they happened during both normal operations as well as emergency situations such as floods, droughts, and earthquakes. The partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, in 1979 lead to the evacuation of 140,000 people and caused $2.4 million in property damages.

Issues of safe radioactive waste disposal also remain unresolved, as is evident in the current debates over a leaking storage facility in Asse, Germany. In the United States, a country with its own history of nuclear accidents, including Three Mile Island, high-level radioactive waste is currently stored on-site at various nuclear facilities around the country.The country is without any long-term storage site, and the cancellation of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository leaves it without any in sight.

Nuclear proliferation is, of course, another major security issue. The current discussion about “bombing Iran” because of its ambitious nuclear program is a case in point. Iran continues to claim that its reactors would be used for peaceful purposes only—yet there is no way to verify whether this country, or any other in the world, is being honest in such claims or not. And after all, on what moral grounds can we prohibit them to develop nuclear weapons if so many other countries, including the United States, hold them? It seems clear that the political and economic costs of programs to monitor and control what exactly is done at nuclear reactors around the world at any given time are and always will be exorbitant.

Ultimately, though, the key argument against nuclear energy is an economic one. The construction of new reactors simply is not commercially feasible. Although existing facilities can be run profitably, the high cost associated with replacing them has become prohibitive for even the world’s richest countries. The simple reason that no new nuclear plants have been built in the United States since the 1970s is that utilities are not willing to carry the high economic costs and face the financial risks involved. Governmental loan-guarantee programs like the February 2010 $8.3 billion award to Southern Company’s Georgia Power to build two nuclear reactors at its Vogtle plant near Waynesboro, Georgia, seem to be the only way to get utilities interested in expanding nuclear.

But why, as many alternative energy solutions including clean, renewable technologies exist, should taxpayer money be used to support a highly risky, potentially devastating technology, which later benefits mainly the purses of private investors? The resistance to supporting such projects is mounting, including in Congress. And experiences with new installations elsewhere fuel these concerns. In Finland, cost overruns and delays during the ongoing construction of two new units at the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant have become “an example of all that can go wrong in economic terms with new reactors.”

Improving energy access for all

Germany, which produced almost a quarter of its electricity from nuclear power in 2010, shut down six nuclear power plants shortly after Fukushima, despite warnings from industry that this might lead to blackouts or massive electricity price hikes. Neither of the two happened. The remaining nine plants will be shut down between now and 2022. At the same time, the country has ambitious plans to reduce its carbon emissions 40 percent by 2020, compared to 1990 levels. But Germany already produces more than 20 percent of its power from renewable sources. Chancellor Angela Merkel, along with a vast majority of her compatriots, believes that, “As the first big industrialized nation, we can achieve such a transformation toward efficient and renewable energies, with all the opportunities that brings for exports, developing new technologies and jobs.”

Nuclear energy does not represent the best way to satisfy our energy needs in the 21st century. Our energy challenges are immense. Worldwide, 1.3 billion people still lack access to electricity, and another 1 billion have unreliable access. Although our economic systems are still fundamentally built on fossil fuels, and estimates project a doubling of energy needs in less than two decades, a peak in greenhouse gas emissions is required before 2015 if we wish to prevent the most serious impacts of climate change.

Even before Fukushima, nuclear energy had become the only mainstream power source with negative growth trends. Meanwhile, renewable energy sources across all technologies are booming—experiencing average growth rates of 25–74 percent annually. (See Chart.) Energy efficiency, grid, and storage solutions all exist. What is needed now is rapid acceleration in the deployment of these technologies and a complete worldwide phaseout of both nuclear and fossil fuel power plants in the next 50 years.

“Sustainable energy roadmaps” at the municipal, provincial, national, and regional levels—such as those currently produced by our Climate and Energy team—can help decision makers design a transition to an energy system that is economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. From whatever perspective you look at it, a carbon- and nuclear-free world is feasible and in the long run superior to any alternative. We cannot let Fukushima—or Deepwater Horizon or Upper Big Branch—happen again.

While the opinions expressed in this blog are mine only, I would like to thank Katie Auth for her help in researching and writing this blog.

US Energy Production Facing Limits of Water Scarcity

online interview Comments Off

Jan 082012

Zulima Palacio, Voice of America, January 08, 2012 7:00 PM

Nearly all forms of energy production use large amounts of water. Coal, which generates nearly 50 percent of the electricity in the U.S., needs water for mining and transport, and to cool and lubricate equipment. Water is also used to cool fuel rods at nuclear plants and to generate steam to power turbines. The biofuel industry needs water for irrigation, fermentation and the production of ethanol and biodiesel fuels.

Alexander Ochs, director of climate and energy at the Worldwatch Institute, says that adds up to a lot of water. “Per megawatt hour, coal uses 500 to 1000 gallons of water for the production of just one megawatt hour of electricity,” said Ochs. “If we look at all the plants combined in the U.S., all the thermo-electric plants [powered by steam] in the U.S. in 2008 alone, they drew 60 billion to 170 billion gallons of water, per year.”

Without water, most types of energy could not be produced. Even renewable energy, like geothermal and solar, use water to cool equipment and to clean the collector panels. Those requirements have led California, Massachusetts and several Midwestern states to halt the operations of some power plants.“Places like the Midwest where water is a very scarce resource already today, a number of power plants have actually been halted, and this is actually true for across the United States,” said Ochs.

[please find the full article HERE]

Dirk Messner in conversation with Alexander Ochs: Climate Change, Energy, Development

tv interview Comments Off

Nov 162011

Worldwatch Climate and Energy Director Alexander Ochs and German Development Institute Director Dirk Messner discuss the potential for and challenges facing a green global economy.

Designing a Sustainable Energy System for Jamaica

presentation Comments Off

Aug 092011

Development Bank of Jamaica Presentation by Alexander Ochs from WorldwatchEn

Renewable Energy Not a “Competing” Priority in Haiti

blog Comments Off

Dec 302010

by Mark Konold and Alexander Ochs

Recently the Brookings Institution hosted a panel that examined Haiti’s political and humanitarian developments since the January 2010 earthquake. A theme that came up regularly was that of competing priorities such as turbulent elections, a cholera outbreak, a lack of dependable energy supply, and gender-based violence. As the Worldwatch Institute prepares to develop a Low-Carbon Energy Roadmap for Haiti, some have questioned whether limited donor resources should be channeled into something more pressing than assessing and improving the country’s energy infrastructure. Is an energy roadmap really needed right now, or are other matters more important?

The cholera outbreak in Haiti is an urgent matter that deserves all the attention it is currently receiving. However, we must keep in mind that a lack of proper sanitation – due to a lack of electricity – helped cause the recent outbreak. Had the country’s energy infrastructure been more robust and sustainable, basic sanitation and electricity in hospitals might not have been lost and the current epidemic might have been avoided.

[Read the rest of this ReVolt blog]

“bridges” Lecture Series 2010: Debate on Global Climate-Change Policy with Roger Pielke, Jr., David Goldston, and Alexander Ochs

online report, presentation Comments Off

Dec 212010

bridges vol. 28, December 2010 / Noteworthy Information

The challenge of addressing climate change inspires fierce, divisive debates, pitting science against politics, environmentalism against commerce, and the most powerful nations in the world against their less-developed neighbors. Roger Pielke, Jr. , professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado , bridges columnist, and a renowned expert on science and public policy, attempts to take on this challenge. In his new book, The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming , he seeks to propose a novel, alternative way of looking for solutions for the climatic changes the earth is experiencing.

ochspielkegoldston

The Office of Science and Technology at the Embassy of Austria chose the occasion of the publication of this book to invite Roger Pielke, Jr., and two more experts on the issue – David Goldston and Alexander Ochs – for a debate with the audience on global climate-change policy. David Goldston is the director of Government Affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council and previously served as chief of staff for the chairman of the US House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on Science and Technology. Alexander Ochs works for Worldwatch Institute, directing its Climate and Energy Program.

[Read the rest of the event report on the bridges website]

Mapping the future: Why bidding farewell to fossil fuels is in our interest – and how it can be done

academic article/report Comments Off

Dec 082010

Developing efficient, sustainable energy systems based on renewable energy and smart grid technology is not only an environmental necessity: it is a social and economic imperative. We rely on fossil fuels for more than 85 per cent of all energy we use and pay a high price for our dependency, on all fronts. An overhaul of the way we produce, transport, store, and consume energy is underway and an improved energy world is emerging, slowly. Intelligent policies based on concise roadmaps will get us there faster.

People around the world are already suffering from the impacts of climate change. Rising sea levels, melting glaciers, storms, droughts, and floods – these natural processes, artificially intensified by global warming, will affect agriculture, fishing, transportation, and tourism to an ever greater degree. Changing ecosystems and landscapes, biodiversity losses, the surge of tropical diseases, and food and water shortages will lead to economic and welfare losses on an unprecedented scale should climate change remain largely unabated as it is today.

The cost of fossil fuels is unjustifiable

Even if we take climate change, which has been called this century’s greatest challenge, off the table for a moment, transitioning our energy systems is a socioeconomic imperative. For a host of reasons, our reliance on fossil fuels comes at an unjustifiably high cost to our economies. First, the burning of coal and petroleum pollutes our air and water. China, for example, estimates that addressing its pollution and pollution-related health problems swallows up to 10 per cent of its total annual GDP. Imagine if the country could put these huge resources into addressing pressing social needs!

[Please find the full article here. It has been published in UNEP’s Climate Action 2010 book; please find the whole book here.]

Low-Carbon Energy Roadmaps

presentation Comments Off

Dec 022010

Presentation at Side Event of the European Climate Foundation at COP 16
EU Pavilion, Cancun, 2 December 2010

OVERVIEW

Global Primary Energy Supply by Source, 2007
Average Global Growth Rates by Energy Source, 2004-2009
World Wind Capacity, 1996-2008
World Solar PV Capacity, 1990-2009
Concentrating Solar Power (CSP), 2009
World Solar Water Heating Capacity, 1995-2007
Renewables as a Share of Electricity Generation, 1990-2008
Global Electricity from Renewables, 2002-2008
Cost of New U.S. Power Generation, 2008
CO2 Emissions per capita, select countries
Renewable Electricity in Germany, 1990 – 2007
CO2 Emissions Avoided with Renewable Energy in Germany
Wind Capacity, Top 10 Countries, 2009
Landmass vs. Wind Capacity (MW), Germany and Continental U.S. (2007)
Solar PV Production by Country/Region, 2000-2008
Solar PV Capacity, Top Six Countries, 2009
Photovoltaic Solar Resource: United States and Germany
Global Potential of Renewable Resources
Solar Potential
U.S. Electricity Generation by Source: Worldwatch Scenario 2030
Energy Transitions: 2000 – 2100
Worldwatch 5-Phase Design of Low-Carbon Growth Strategies
Worldwatch’s Energy Roadmaps
Worldwatch’s Energy Roadmaps, Example: Dominican Republic

[You can find the full presentation here]

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in China: Current Status and Prospects for 2020

academic article/report Comments Off

Oct 202010

Over the past few years, China has emerged as a global leader in clean energy, topping the world in production of compact fluorescent light bulbs, solar water heaters, solar photovoltaic (PV) cells, and wind turbines. The remarkable rise of China’s clean energy sector reflects a strong and growing commitment by the government to diversify its energy economy, reduce environmental problems, and stave off massive increases in energy imports. Around the world, governments and industries now find themselves struggling to keep pace with the new pacesetter in global clean energy development.

Chinese efforts to develop renewable energy technologies have accelerated in recent years as the government has recognized energy as a strategic sector. China has adopted a host of new policies and regulations aimed at encouraging energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy deployment. Taking lessons from its own experience as well as the experiences of countries around the world, China has built its clean energy sector in synergy with its unique economic system and institutions of governance. At a time when many countries still struggle with the aftermath of a devastating financial crisis, the Chinese government has used its strong financial position to direct tens of billions of dollars into clean energy— increasing the lead that Chinese companies have in many sectors.

Among other initiatives, the Chinese government has taken strong action to promote renewable energy, establish national energy conservation targets, and delegate energysaving responsibilities to regions. Key legislative actions include the national Renewable Energy Law, which entered into force in January 2006, the national Medium and Long-Term Development Plan for Renewable Energy, launched in September 2007, and the Medium and Long-Term Energy Conservation Plan, launched in November 2004.

Although per capita energy use in China remains below the international average, it is growing very rapidly, spurred recently by the infrastructure-intensive government stimulus program launched in late 2008. Even with efficiency advances, demand for energy is expected to continue to rise in the coming decades. Chinese energy consumption is currently dominated by coal, and the major energy-consuming sector is industry. Improving the efficiency of energy use and enhancing energy conservation will be critical to ease energy supply constraints, boost energy security, reduce environmental pollution, “green” the economy, and tackle the climate challenge.

[Please find more on this Worldwatch report 181 which I co-authored with a group of Chinese and US experts, here]

From Flop’enhagen to Can’tcun? US climate policy before the mid-term elections and the UN summit

magazine article Comments Off

Oct 202010

mp3 download

It all started so nicely. The hope for change that Barack Obama had raised among American voters was felt by citizens worldwide, including those yearning for a change in US environmental policy. After all, Obama had made global warming and energy policy important cornerstones of his campaign. Once in the White House, the newly elected President explained that “few challenges facing America – and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change” and that his “presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change.” Repeatedly he stressed that “the nation that wins this competition [for new energy technologies] will be the nation that leads the global economy.”

What’s left, as we approach mid-term elections in Obama’s first administration, is a very mixed bag. There have been important successes, including over $60 billion that were earmarked for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; the first tightening of Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards in three decades; and the federal Environmental Protection Agency ‘s “Endangerment Finding” that recognizes, as a follow-up of the Supreme Court ruling Massachusetts et al. vs. EPA, that the agency has the right to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. To the great disappointment of the environmentalists, however, comprehensive climate and energy legislation, including a market-based system with mandatory economy-wide emission targets as well as strong incentives for the employment of energy efficiency measures and renewable energy technologies, has not been passed.

The situation that has unfolded over the last 1 ½ years is almost absurd. A White House and all involved secretaries and agencies support strong climate policy; a majority of the public wants effective climate action; a thorough climate and energy bill finally passed the House; and then there is also majority support for climate legislation in the Senate – albeit this majority is not filibuster-proof. The Senate’s leadership was unable to get 60+ votes. And here the story ends for now. A minority of 40+ Senators puts a hold on domestic legislation and shuts a historic window of opportunity.

[This article appered in Bridges vol. 27, October 2010. Read the rest of the article here: http://www.ostina.org/content/view/5229/1390/]

China may cap-and-trade before US

blog, online report Comments Off

Sep 062010

While the US Senate has backed off on climate legislation, China is considering launching emissions-trading programmes within five years, write Alexander Ochs and Haibing Ma.

Just when leaders in the United States Senate admitted to abandoning their plan of issuing a federal climate bill by the end of Tianjin_port_cap-and-trade_thumb this year, top Chinese officials were discussing how to launch carbon-trading programmes under their country’s next (12^th) Five-Year Plan (2011-2015). Serving as China’s overarching social and economic guidance, Five-Year Plans consistently lay out the most crucial development strategies for this giant emerging economy. Once included in the plan, carbon trading will be viewed as part of China’s national goals and will be domestically binding. This occurred most recently with the country’s 2010 energy-intensity target, which called for a 20% reduction from 2005 levels and was disaggregated into provincial and local targets, with local officials held accountable for achieving them.

In short, China seems to be accelerating full-throttle toward a low-carbon economy. Chinese policymakers have been eyeing a domestic emission-trading scheme for a while. In August 2009, National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) deputy director Xie Zhenhua announced that China would launch a pilot carbon-trading programme in selected regions and/or sectors — basically the same message now discussed for the Five-Year Plan. On one hand, this reiteration demonstrates that the Chinese government is seriously considering such a market-based mitigation mechanism; on the other hand, the fact that the programme’s status is still in discussion one year later shows that putting cap-and-trade into action might be not be so easy in China either.

[Read our full article on Chinadialogue]

Implications of a Low-Carbon Energy Transition for U.S. National Security

academic article/report Comments Off

Aug 302010

: Yttrium, a rare earth element

Climate change and the secure supply of energy are among the biggest challenges of the twenty-first century. The problem is immense: While global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are still on the rise, they will have to be halved by the middle of this century in order to prevent the most dangerous effects of global warming. And while energy-related emissions are already responsible for the largest share of GHG emissions, global energy demand is estimated to rise by 50 percent or more between now and 2030.

Climate change and energy security can be seen as Siamese twins insofar as they can only be sustained with concern for one another: 80 percent of global energy supply is produced from fossil fuels which, in the United States, Europe, Japan and other important U.S. ally countries, are increasingly imported and therefore are at the core of their increasing energy dependence. The burning of fossil fuels also emits CO2, and energy-related CO2 emissions are responsible for about 60 percent of man-made climate change.

The security impacts of climate change and our dependence of fossil fuels have been much debated. It is in the national interest of the United States to address both issues vigorously. There has been little academic and political discussion, however, about the security impacts of a transition of our economy to one that is built on a low-carbon energy foundation. What are the foreseeable material input demands and what human capacities are needed for such a transition? This paper addresses these questions under a particular scenario in which the United States commits to GHG reductions as party to an international climate change agreement.

[Please find the full version of this draft policy paper here. Comments are highly appreciated]

Small Portugal Thinks Big – and Very Green!

blog Comments Off

Aug 262010

By Camille Serre and Alexander Ochs

After having shed some light on French climate and energy legislation, let’s proceed with our review of European progress toward clean energy economies. Typically, the Scandinavian countries and Germany have set the example in the European renewables field. Yet lately, a Southern country—Portugal—has attracted media attention after delivering its National Renewable Energy Action Plan to the European Commission this June.

In 2009, Portugal ranked 3rd in Europe in wind power capacity per capita - Flickr Creative Commons / Mafalda Moreira Santos

Portugal has made dramatic changes in its energy policy over the last five years under the government of Prime Minister Jose Socrates. The country’s installed renewable energy capacity more than tripled between 2004 and 2009, from 1,220 megawatts (MW) to 4,307 MW, and renewables now represent roughly 36 percent of electricity consumed. Thanks to this performance, Portugal currently ranks 4thin Europe in energy production from renewables. Socrates seems to know what he is doing, and it looks like his previous experience has paid off. Like Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel, Socrates was Minister of the Environment before becoming head of his country’s government. The environment seems to be a springboard for European politicians’ careers.

Of course, Portugal benefits from favorable conditions for renewables as well: a strong wind resource, great hydropower, good tidal waves potential, and a high sunshine rate. After the country removed several dams in recent years, Socrates’ government has focused instead on wind power development, under most conditions the cheapest renewable energy source after hydropower. With spectacular growth in wind energy production of over 600 percent between 2004 and 2009, Portugal now ranks 6th in Europe in total installed capacity and 3rd in capacity per capita, behind only Denmark and Spain. Some even expect Portugal to overtake its neighbor Spain in per capita wind energy production as early as this year.

[Read both parts of this blog on the ReVolt website]

Green Deal or Great Disillusion? France Passes Climate-Friendly Legislation (Part 2 of 2)

blog Comments Off

Aug 182010

by Camille Serre and Alexander Ochs

In Part 1 of this blog, we described the climate and energy measures that France plans to pursue as part of its new environmental law, Grenelle 2. This set of policies suggests that France may in fact be paving the way toward a low-carbon economy. Unfortunately, the picture is tarnished by an ongoing controversy about renewable energy development in the country.

Grenelle 2 certainly contains some positive measures in the renewables sector. For instance, it sets a goal that 23 percent of France’s energy use must come from a mix of renewable energy sources by 2020—most likely from hydropower (the nation’s largest renewables source so far), wind power, and biomass. The law calls for regional climate and energy mapping to assess climate-related risks within the country as well as to determine domestic energy needs, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. Consequently, adaptation strategies and monitoring instruments will be developed. In addition, local and regional authorities that are responsible for 50,000 inhabitants or more, as well as companies with over 500 employees, will be required to conduct emissions assessments.

[Read the rest of this ReVolt blog here]

Older Entries Newer Entries