Cancun

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

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.]

Nur Europa kann Can’tcun verhindern

newspaper article Comments Off

Nov 252010

Und jährlich grüßt das Murmeltier. Der nächste Klimagipfel steht an. Jedes Jahr Ende November trifft sich die Welt, um über das Schicksal ihres Planeten zu entscheiden. Die Chairs der unterschiedlichen Arbeitsgruppen legen ihre Vertragsentwürfe vor, im Plenum versichern sich die Staaten ihres guten Willens, die Umweltorganisationen stellen ihre Forderungen, und am Ende der zwei Wochen fliegen die Umweltminister für den finalen Showdown ein und entscheiden: wenig Konkretes.

Doch ganz so einfach ist es nicht. Es geht ja doch vorwärts, wichtige Einigungen sind erzielt worden, nur eben insgesamt viel zu langsam. Um dem Klimawandel tatsächlich Einhalt zu gebieten, da ist sich die Wissenschaft weitgehend einig, darf die globale Erwärmung zwei Grad Celsius in diesem Jahrhundert nicht übersteigen. Für die Industriestaaten heißt das: Reduzierung um bis zu 90 Prozent. Noch immer ist ein Inder für weniger als ein Sechstel der Emissionen eines Durchschnittseuropäers verantwortlich. Doch der Ausstoß steigt in fast allen Ländern weiter an.

[Weiter zu meinem Gastbeitrag in der Wiener Zeitung]

Was vom Ehrgeiz übrig blieb

newspaper article Comments Off

Nov 032010

Barack Obama versucht, Lösungen für die drängendsten Probleme der USA zu finden. Doch gegen Tea Party, Fox News und die Nein-Fraktion des Volkes hat er keine Chance. Von seinen hehren Zielen ist wenig übrig geblieben.

Es hatte alles so schön begonnen, im Herbst 2008. Die Hoffnung auf Veränderung, die Barack Obama damals bei den amerikanischen Wählern geweckt hatte, sie wurde von vielen Menschen weltweit geteilt, und gerade auch von jenen, die einen Wandel der US-Umweltpolitik herbeisehnten. Immerhin hatte Obama die Erderwärmung und die Energiepolitik zu wichtigen Themen seiner Wahlkampagne gemacht. Stets aufs Neue tat er seine Überzeugung kund, dass diejenige Nation, die im Wettbewerb um neue Energietechnologien vorn sein werde, auch die Weltwirtschaft in diesem Jahrhundert anführen würde. Einmal im Weißen Haus, erklärte der neu gewählte Präsident, dass nur wenige Herausforderungen für Amerika und die Welt dringender seien als der Klimaschutz, und dass seine Präsidentschaft ein neues Kapitel im Klimaschutz einleiten werde. Von diesem Ziel ist nur wenig übrig geblieben.

Freilich, es gab wichtige Erfolge. Dazu zählen die 60 Milliarden Dollar, die das Konjunkturpaket von 2009 für die Förderung von Energieeffizienz und erneuerbaren Energien vorsieht; ebenso die erste Verschärfung der Verbrauchsstandards für US-Autohersteller seit mehr als drei Jahrzehnten; und schließlich ein Entscheid des Obersten Gerichtshofs, der der amerikanischen Umweltbehörde das Recht zuspricht, klimaschädliche Treibhausgase über das Luftreinhaltungsgesetz zu beschränken. Doch genau Letzteres ist nur eine Notlösung, denn zur großen Enttäuschung der Umweltschützer ist die Verabschiedung eines umfassenden Klima-und Energiepakets im Kongress gescheitert. Dieses hätte wesentlich weitreichendere Schritte enthalten sollen: ein nationales Emissionshandelssystem mit verbindlichen Reduktionszielen, sowie klare, ambitionierte Ziele für erneuerbare Energien und Energieeffizienz.

[Gastbeitrag in der Sueddeutschen Zeitung]

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/]

Sharp Decline in EU Emissions as Europeans Debate Reduction Target

blog Comments Off

Jun 082010

Co-author: Shakuntala Makhijani

EU Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard

The European Environment Agency (EEA) yesterday released its greenhouse gas inventory for 2008, showing a two-percent fall from 2007 levels across EU-27 countries and an 11.3-percent reduction from 1990 levels. The new data also show that the EU-15 (the 15 only EU members in 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated) have reduced emissions by 6.9 percent since 1990, putting those countries on track to meet their Kyoto Protocol commitment of reducing 2008-2012 emissions by an average of 8-percent below 1990 levels. The European Commission points out that the EU-15 emission reduction—a 1.9-percent drop from 2007 to 2008—came as the region’s economy grew 0.6 percent, suggesting that economic growth and emissions cuts can be compatible.

Just last month, the European Commission had announced that emissions covered under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) fell even more rapidly: verified emissions from covered installations were 11.6-percent lower last year than in 2008. EU Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard cautioned that these reductions are largely due to the economic crisis, as opposed to ambitious actions by covered industry. The crisis has also weakened price signals in the trading scheme and slowed business investment in emissions-reducing innovations.

Earlier this year, the European Commission began arguing that the Union should commit to deeper cuts than a 20-percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2020, calling instead for a 30-percent decrease. It released figures showing that, largely due to the economic crisis, the annual costs for cutting emissions will be lower than originally estimated by 2020. In 2008, the EU estimated that €70 billion per year would be necessary to meet the 20-percent target, but this cost estimate has now fallen to just €48 billion. For a 30-percent target during the same timeframe, the new projected annual cost is €81 billion—only €11 billion more than what EU countries have already accepted under the 20-percent target.

[Please read the rest of the blog on ReVolt]