Refine
Year of Publication
Document Type
- Report (183) (remove)
Language
- English (183) (remove)
Division
- Energie-, Verkehrs- und Klimapolitik (183) (remove)
While digital technologies hold significant transformational potential, anecdotal evidence suggests that the digital transformation might not be directed towards sustainable development sufficiently. Drawing on a modified and extended version of the framework proposed by Wanzenböck et al. (2020), we explore the cases of the circular economy and the transition towards a sustainable energy system in the twin transition. Making use of insights from 20 expert interviews and two in-depth interviews, we aim to gain a first careful indication of the convergence/divergence in societal views on key problems and solutions across different dimensions (technological, economic, socio-cultural, regulatory) and derive insights for integrated policy-making. Thereby the study contributes to bridging the existing gap between mission-oriented policies and the twin transition. Overall, our first insights indicate that while showing high similarities in the structure of problems and solutions across cases, the variety in wickedness (contestation, complexity, uncertainty) calls for differentiated policy-making: Significant parts of the relatively young twin transition might be in a state of disorientation where societal views on problems and solutions diverge. This would require policy-makers to follow a "discovery-mode" (basic research, experiments and monitoring) with only selected diffusion-focused strategies. Further, we show that missions in the twin transition require highly flexible policy-making as different approaches need to be applied simultaneously. Finally, there are several options for exploiting synergies in policy-making due to some overlapping characteristics as well as learning opportunities between cases. We believe that particularly our holistic perspective on the twin transition can yield substantial guidance for researchers and policy-makers in the field.
In order to limit global warming and fulfill their contributions to the Paris agreement, both Germany and Japan have set targets for climate neutrality towards the middle of the century. Reaching these goals will imply transformation of all sectors of society to avoid all fossil greenhouse gas emissions, heavy industry not the least. The focus of this study is the transformation of the petrochemical industry. This sector can become climate neutral but cannot be "decarbonized", as carbon is integral to the chemical structures of the products like polymers and solvents. Reaching climate neutrality thus means that the whole lifecycle of the petrochemical products has to be regarded. Another specific challenge is today's synergetic relation of this industry to fossil transport fuel production, which cannot be maintained in a climate neutral world.
The two countries interestingly share a similar industrial structure overall, and the chemical and petrochemical industry is one of the major industries in both countries. The countries' respective chemical industries are the third and fourth largest in the world in terms of sales, but at the same time, these industries represent just over 5% of the respective countries' greenhouse gas emissions. However, these scope 1 emissions of the chemical industry itself are far less relevant than the end-of-life emissions of their products, which belong to scope 3 and are thus not counted under the chemical industry in the country greenhouse gas balances. To mediate these emissions, there is a need to set the direction, draw out paths and investigate possible alternatives for how the petrochemical industry can be become climate neutral. In this report, the existing scenario analyses, energy strategies and roadmaps dealing with this issue in the two countries are compared, as well as the current state of their petrochemical industries. We highlight similarities, differences and identify possible areas of cooperation and exchange in order to find robust paths forward for the transformation of the petrochemical industries.
Established in 2016, the German-Japanese Energy Transition Council (GJETC) strives to promote bilateral cooperation between Germany and Japan on energy transition. Among other studies and topical papers, an output paper in 2020 (Rauschen et al., 2020) already compared the energy efficiency in buildings in both countries with a particular focus on heating and cooling. One important finding of this output paper was that further efforts in the building sector are needed to improve the energy efficiency of buildings in Germany and Japan. Following the more ambitious climate protection targets in both countries, this study seeks to analyze the German and Japanese policies put in place to accelerate the decarbonization of the building sector. The decarbonization of the vast number of buildings that both Japan and Germany are facing will be a major contribution to achieving the GHG reduction targets of both countries and should continue to be discussed among experts and developed into a discussion among policy makers.
This report examines and compares the characteristics of the building stock in both countries, as well as existing policies and new strategies and policies that are planned or discussed to achieve energy conservation and decarbonization of buildings. The current shape of buildings, especially houses, is greatly influenced by the land area of the country corresponding to the available space for buildings, the natural environment surrounding the country, the natural resources available, and the lifestyle and cultural ideas that have been passed down and taken root over time. Therefore, it might be difficult to compare them and the corresponding strategies and policies with the same yardstick, so we also discuss common or deviant situations. Through this joint research, we aim to find each other's advantages and challenges and to develop useful and concrete policy recommendations that will contribute to decarbonization policies in both countries.
As the climate crisis is accelerating and the pressure to act is steadily increasing, many companies are claiming themselves or their products carbon neutral. This is usually achieved by offsetting residual emissions with carbon certificates (carbon offsetting). However, recent revelations about the inadequate quality of carbon credits and legal uncertainties surrounding the use of such offset claims are increasingly raising doubts about this approach.
This Wuppertal Report examines how the EU can promote integrity in corporate climate action. Taking into account the new framework of the Paris Agreement, the paper outlines various options for how the EU could push for more integrity and effectively combat greenwashing through the targeted use of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.
In their recommendations, the authors advocate addressing the most serious consequences of ongoing offset practices through increased regulation of offset claims. If a ban on offset claims cannot be implemented, claims requirements and carbon offset regulations should be further specified, for example, by prohibiting any type of double counting of emissions reductions. In addition to tightening the rules for corporate offset claims within Europe, the EU could help partner countries make informed decisions when approving climate change mitigation measures and respective carbon credits. The report also emphasizes the EU's special role in international climate negotiations, where it should advocate for a strong legal framework for climate action under Article 6.
The original objectives for introducing Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) were 1) to make energy performance transparent in the building market, as a measure of energy costs of using a building that a potential buyer or tenant would be interested in; and 2) to encourage energy efficiency renovation. However, the current implementation of EPC schemes in the Member States still shows significant challenges in achieving these two objectives. The recast of the EU Directive on the Overall Energy Performance of Buildings (EPBD) provides a chance to enhance both the usefulness and quality of EPCs and the EPC schemes overall.
This document aims to inform both the debate on the recast of the EPBD and the enhancement of national EPC schemes in EU Member States. It presents the draft policy recommendations of the Horizon 2020 QualDeEPC project for making the EPBD and the national schemes more effective, particularly for deep renovation, and enhance their quality overall. The policy recommendations particularly target the link between EPCs and deep (energy) renovation1, while increasing the levels of ambition and convergence across the EU in terms of building renovation. Deep (energy) renovation is crucial for mitigating climate change and for energy security. The EPBD and all of its articles, as well as national EPC schemes, should aim to make deep (energy) renovation the default. This objective would be embedded and ensured in EPC schemes, if the policy recommendations provided in this document were adopted and implemented.
The QualDeEPC project is aiming to both improve quality and cross-EU convergence of Energy Performance Certificate schemes, and the link between EPCs and deep renovation: High-quality Energy Performance Assessment and Certification in Europe Accelerating Deep Energy Renovation. The objective of the project is to improve the practical implementation of the assessment, issuance, design, and use of EPCs as well as their renovation recommendations, in the participating countries and beyond.
This report serves as a compilation of the project's proposal for an enhanced and converging EPC assessment and certification scheme. It aims to provide a detailed description on the set of practical concepts, policy proposals, and tools for an enhanced EPC scheme towards deep renovation, developed by the QualDeEPC project. The project's substantial proposals both on EU and national level are presented in a comprehensive and rational way, guiding the relevant stakeholders, in particular the policy makers and competed bodies, on which steps need to be followed so as the proposals to be adapted and how the specific values can be determined in MSs. Furthermore, this report includes the project's proposal for defining "Deep Energy Renovation" based on a modified nZEB-based approach.
The project's priorities A) to G) addressed are presented in the following order in this document, reflecting the importance of the enhanced EPC template form and the training of EPC assessors in such schemes:
A) Improving the recommendations for renovation, which are provided on the EPCs, towards deep energy renovation;
E) High user-friendliness of the EPC, by way of an enhanced EPC template form, including an introduction of the proposed "Energy Rating" indicator;
D) Regular mandatory EPC assessor training or examination on assessment and renovation recommendations, required for certification/accreditation and registry;
B) Online tool for comparing EPC recommendations to deep energy renovation recommendations;
C) Creating Deep Renovation Network Platforms (DRNPs);
F) & G) Voluntary/mandatory advertising guidelines for EPCs and Improving compliance with the mandatory use of EPCs in real estate advertisement.
D2.1 report on local EPC situation and cross-country comparison matrix : QualDeEPC H2020 project
(2020)
Considering that 40% of the European Union's energy consumption can be traced back to its buildings, it is essential to improve their energy efficiency in order to achieve the EU's energy efficiency targets. Both the rate of energy renovation and its depth, i.e. the amount of energy savings during a renovation, need to be improved. Energy Performance Certificates (EPC), regulated by the EU's Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), are an important instrument to enhance the market uptake of energy-efficient new buildings and the energy-efficient renovation of existing buildings.
Against this background, the Horizon2020 funded project QualDeEPC will work on EU-wide convergence of the building assessment and the issuance, design, and use of quality-enhanced EPCs as well as their recommendations for building renovation. The aim is to make these recommendations coherent with deep energy renovation towards a nearly-zero energy building stock by 2050.
The first part of the QualDeEPC project (work package 2) aims to identify the priorities for elements of EPC schemes that show a need to be improved, and for which the project will investigate further and propose how the elements can be improved. The first step in identifying these priorities is taking stock of the existing EPC schemes. Based on the input from all national consortium partners and other sources, the Wuppertal Institute prepared this detailed overview of the country-specific EPC assessment and certification procedures and their links to other policies and programmes, existing initiatives, and projects. The analysis was based on a list of almost 50 potential options for enhancing the existing EPC schemes.
The aim of this deliverable is to present this stock-taking by a detailed analysis on which of the potential enhanced EPC elements are already implemented in which form in which country, covering all 28 countries that were EU member states until 31 January 2020. All partners conducted bilateral interviews with the major actors in the EPC procedures, including executive bodies on EPC at regional and/or national level. For countries not represented in the Consortium, Wuppertal Institut and EAP conducted specific literature research, e.g. from the Concerted Action EPBD, and aimed to obtain contributions from other member states. The information collected allows a detailed presentation on the elements implemented as well as a cross-country comparison matrix (see Annex I) in this report, which outlines the current EPC practices across the EU regarding the elements of a good practice scheme or innovative improvement options, their comparability, compliance with EU legislation, and to which extent they differ or converge.
The results show, once more, the high diversity in EPC schemes across the EU. They also provide useful information in at least two directions: 1) which improvement options are not yet implemented at all or in sufficient quality in most QualDeEPC partner countries as well as other EU member states, and could therefore be interesting candidates for the further work of the QualDeEPC project in development, testing, discussion, and possibly implementation of elements for enhanced and converging EPC schemes; and 2) which countries, within or beyond the QualDeEPC project, offer good practice examples for the implementation of these options that could serve to guide the development and implementation in other countries. This deliverable will thus serve as a basis for the upcoming tasks to develop priorities and actual proposals for improvement of EPC schemes.