Das BMUB bereitet eine Novellierung der energieökonomischen Gebäuderichtlinie (EnEV) in Deutschland vor, EnEG/EnEV und EEWärmeG sollen zusammengeführt werden. Hintergrund ist ein Auftrag aus der Europäischen Gebäuderichtlinie. Danach muss ab 2021 das (Fast-)Null-Energie-Gebäude der Standard (bei Neubauten) sein - für Gebäude der Öffentlichen Hand gilt das bereits ab 2019. Also muss definiert werden, was ein "Null-Energie-Gebäude" sein und was dabei "Energie" heißen soll. Gesetzt ist, dass "Energie" als "Primärenergie" verstanden werden soll. Die im Gebäude anfallende Energie muss dazu umgerechnet werden in ihr Äquivalent im System - dies hat der Primärenergiefaktor zu leisten. Es hört sich technisch und unpolitisch an, doch das täuscht. Entschieden wird nämlich über das Gebäudeideal in diesem Lande.
Emissions Trading Systems and Carbon Pricing schemes are spreading worldwide. This article looks at Carbon Pricing from the international perspective of the UN climate regime and describes what the Paris Agreement adopted in December 2015 means for international Carbon trading. In order to illustrate this, the authors first look back onto the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol and review its flexible mechanisms, namely International Emissions Trading, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI). In a second step, the changes that the Paris Agreement (PA) brings about for the Carbon Markets are described. Art. 6 of the PA is analyzed, stressing that Art. 6 introduces a new element into emissions trading: all activities carried out under Art. 6 must lead to a net mitigation effect with respect to GHG reduction, thus abandoning the principle of "offsetting" that was at the heart of the project-based mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol. The different Carbon trading options foreseen by Art. 6 are examined. Finally, the authors discuss ways forward and argue for early piloting schemes for the new "Paris mechanisms".
Will climate change stay below the 2 degree target in the 21st century on the basis of the COP 21 results? Looking into challenges and opportunities, this paper answers: To stay below the global 2dt is neither a real choice for the world society nor for businesses and civil societies in specific countries. It is a global guideline, scientifically developed for global negotiations, which should be broken down to national interests and actors. Key questions concerning the energy sector from the perspective of national interests are how to create and sustain a momentum for the inevitable energy transition, how to encourage disruptive innovations, avoid lock in effects, enable rapid deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energies etc. Or in other words: how to get to a competitive, economically benign, inclusive, low carbon and risk minimising energy system. With this background the paper argues that "burden sharing" is a misleading perception of strong climate mitigation strategies. It is more realistic to talk about "benefit sharing", using the monetary benefits and co-benefits of climate mitigation (e.g. energy cost savings, revenues from CO2-tax or emission trading systems) to help vulnerable national and international actors to adapt to the unavoidable climate risks. It has to be demonstrated on country level that the technologies and policy mix of strong climate mitigation and risk-minimising actions are indeed "benefit sharing" strategies which should be chosen anyhow, even if there was no climate change. For China and Germany this paper includes basic findings supporting this view.