Refine
Year of Publication
- 2018 (41) (remove)
Document Type
- Peer-Reviewed Article (16)
- Report (9)
- Working Paper (9)
- Contribution to Periodical (3)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Conference Object (2)
Language
- English (41) (remove)
Division
- Energie-, Verkehrs- und Klimapolitik (41) (remove)
The challenges and also potentials of the energy transition are tremendous in Germany, as well as in Japan. Sometimes, structures of the old energy world need "creative destruction" to clear the way for innovations for a decarbonized, low-risk energy system. In these times of disruptive changes, a constructive and sometimes controversial dialog within leading industrial nation as Japan and Germany over the energy transition is even more important. The German-Japanese Energy Transition Council (GJETC) released a summarizing report for the first project phase 2016-2018. It includes jointly formulated recommendations for politics as well as a controversial dialogue part.
The Council jointly states and recommends that:
Ambitious long-term targets and strategies for a low-carbon energy system must be defined and ambitiously implemented; Germany and Japan as high technology countries need to take the leadership.
Both countries will have to restructure their energy systems substantially until 2050 while maintaining their competitiveness and securing energy supply.
Highest priority is given to the forced implementation of efficiency technologies and renewable energies, despite different views on nuclear energy.
In both countries all relevant stakeholders - but above all the decision-makers on all levels of energy policy - need to increase their efforts for a successful implementation of the energy transition.
Design of the electricity market needs more incentives for flexibility options and for the extensive expansion of variable power generation, alongside with strategies for cost reduction for electricity from photovoltaic and wind energy.
The implementation gap of the energy efficiency needs to be closed by an innovative energy policy package to promote the principle of "Energy Efficiency First".
Synergies and co-benefits of an enhanced energy and resource efficiency policy need to be realized.
Co-existence of central infrastructure and the growing diversity of the activities for decentralization (citizens funding, energy cooperatives, establishment of public utility companies) should be supported.
Scientific cooperation can be intensified by a joint working group for scenarios and by the establishment of an academic exchange program.
The COMBI project aimed at quantifying the multiple non-energy benefits of energy efficiency in the EU-28 area and incorporate those multiple impacts into decision-support frameworks for policy-making. Therefore, all multiple impacts of energy efficiency are analysed from an overall societal view in the project. The COMBI policy recommendations resulting from the evaluation outcomes are presented in this report.
COMBI draws on a reference scenario until the year 2030 including existing policies. By modelling 21 sets of "energy efficiency improvement" (EEI) actions, a second efficiency scenario was modelled amounting to additional energy savings of around 8% p.a. in 2030, and that is comparable to the EUCO+33 to EUCO+35 scenario. All figures quantified by COMBI relate to additional values, i.e. additional impacts resulting from additional EEI actions beyond the reference scenario as a consequence of additional policies. The project quantified in total 31 individual impact indicators with appropriate state-of-the-art models.
Any energy efficiency impact evaluation can be done from different analytical perspectives, e.g. the investor/end-user perspective, program administrator perspective or the societal perspective. COMBI applies the "societal perspective", as this is most relevant for policy-making. COMBI draws on a reference scenario until the year 2030 including existing (partially already ambitious) policies. By modelling 21 sets of "energy efficiency improvement" (EEI) actions, a second efficiency scenario was modelled amounting to additional energy savings of around 8% p.a. in 2030, that is comparable to the EUCO+33 to EUCO+35 scenario. This D2.7 quantification report summarises the quantification approaches applied in the COMBI project and main project findings. It therefore draws on other COMBI reports that contain this information in greater detail in order to summarise quantifications.
The report is structured in three main sections: 1. The COMBI approach and methods, explaining key methodological approaches both for individual impact quantifications and for the aggregation of impacts 2. Quantification results, giving an overview on main figures of quantified indicators and 3. Insights from cross-impact analysis, which gives a comparison between monetised impacts and presents their use for Cost-Benefit calculations in the COMBI online tool.
Comprehensive framework on asset management of transportation networks and resilience planning
(2018)
The calm before the storm : an assessment of the 23rd Climate Change Conference (COP 23) in Bonn
(2018)
From 6 to 17 November, the 23rd Conference of the Parties (COP23) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was held in Bonn under the presidency of Fiji. Researchers of the Wuppertal Institute, who attended the conference, have now published an in-depth analysis of the key results of the conference.
The report starts by discussing developments regarding the implementation of the Paris Agreement, in particular the negotiations on the detailed "rulebook" for implementing the Agreement. Other key issues addressed at the conference were the support for countries of the Global South in dealing with the effects of climate change (adaptation and climate finance) and preparation of the first global review of climate action that will take place in December this year. In addition, the report discusses recent developments in the wider world that have an impact on the UNFCCC, in particular the rise of pioneer alliances at the intergovernmental and civil society level.
Although some progress was achieved regarding the rulebook for implementation of the Paris Agreement, no real breakthrough was made. Therefore, quite some diplomatic work and political leadership will be needed this year to make the adoption of the rulebook at COP24 in Katowice (Poland) possible. This will require quite some tailwind from civil society and the media.
Implementation of nationally determined contributions : Rebublic of Marshall Islands country report
(2018)
The study analyses the country background, emissions trends, ongoing activities and barriers relating to the implementation of the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) of the Republic of Marshall Islands under the UNFCCC. A special emphasis is laid on further mitigation potentials in the fields of transport - especially low-carbon domestic shipping - and waste reduction, disposal and processing.
The new mechanism under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement is to be supervised by a body designated by the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA). However, so far there is no clarity what role exactly the supervisory body (Body) is to play. Against this background, this JIKO Policy Paper analyses different governance options for Art. 6.4.
The paper first reflects the objectives of the new mechanism and on what the role of the mechanism as a whole should be. The paper then summarises what has already been agreed on the functioning of the mechanism and elaborates what steps will be needed to generate transferrable emission reductions under the Article 6.4 mechanism. On this basis, the paper develops criteria for how to decide what role the Body should have, and then discusses what role the Body and the other actors that are involved in the mechanism could have in each of the steps of the activity cycle.
The study analyses the country background, emissions trends, ongoing activities and barriers relating to the implementation of the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) of Ethiopia under the UNFCCC. A special emphasis is laid on further mitigation potentials in the fields of agriculture, forestry and low-emission transport.
With the adoption of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, former debates about generating carbon credits on the basis of national policies have resurged. National policies have not been eligible as project activities under the Kyoto Protocol's flexible mechanisms. The Paris Agreement opens the possibility for such policy crediting but also provides an entirely new context: Universal participation, ambitious long-term targets and nationally defined contributions (NDCs) that are to be made more ambitious over time. As this paper shows, these changes in the framework conditions add an additional layer of complexity to policy-based cooperation.
The paper explores the potential for policy-based cooperation by first briefly presenting the regulatory basis provided by the Paris Agreement before outlining a prototype for policy-based cooperation and its key challenges.
Much mitigation-related governance activity is evident in a range of sectoral systems, and regarding particular governance functions. However, there is a tendency for this activity to relate to the easiest functions to address, such as "learning and knowledge building", or to take place in somewhat limited "niches". Across all sectoral systems examined, the gap between identified governance needs and what is currently supplied is most serious in terms of the critical function of setting rules to facilitate collective action. A lack of "guidance and signal" is also evident, particularly in the finance, extractive industries, energy-intensive industries, and buildings sectoral systems.
Of the sectoral systems examined, the power sector appears the most advanced in covering the main international governance functions required of it. Nevertheless, it still falls short in achieving critical governance functions necessary for sufficient decarbonisation. Significantly, while the signal is strong and clear for the phase-in of renewable energy, it is either vague or absent when it comes to the phase-out of fossil fuel-generated electricity. The same lack of signal that certain high-carbon activities need actively to be phased out is also evident in financial, fossil-fuel extractive industry and transport-related sectors.
More effective mitigation action will need greater co-ordination or orchestration effort, sometimes led by the UNFCCC, but also from the bodies such as the G20, as well as existing (or potentially new) sector-level institutions. The EU needs to re-consider what it means to provide climate leadership in an increasingly "polycentric" governance landscape.
Although it is not part of what has been called the "ambition mechanism" or "ratchet mechanism", Article 6 of the Paris Agreement also has an explicit requirement to promote ambition. Article 6 specifically highlights that some Parties choose to pursue voluntary cooperation in the implementation of their nationally determined contributions to allow for higher ambition in their mitigation and adaptation actions. Despite the common purpose, the two elements have to date been discussed mostly in isolation, both in the negotiations as well as in the wider literature. This JIKO Policy Paper sets out to change this by exploring the relationship between Article 6 and the Global Stocktake.
The inclusion of references to human rights in the Paris Agreement was celebrated as a milestone towards greater integration of human rights in environmental and climate governance. Beyond their symbolic value, the significance of these provisions however depends on the extent to which they inform the implementation of the Paris Agreement both at the national and international levels. This article takes stock of the integration of human rights in climate governance and identifies concrete opportunities to ensure that human rights considerations are included in the Paris Implementation Guidelines to be adopted at COP-24, promoting climate action that aligns with Parties' human rights obligations. We first consider the relevance of human rights to climate action and the incremental recognition of these linkages in the international climate regime - both in the lead up to the adoption of the Paris Agreement and since. We then consider in specific terms how human rights could inform five key dimensions of the Paris Agreement's Implementation Guidelines: NDC guidance, adaptation communications, transparency framework, global stocktake, and the article 6 mechanisms. This article will reflect on past experience of how climate policy impacts human rights and on proposals put forward in the context of the negotiations of the implementation guidelines. It concludes with recommendations on a right-based approach to the implementation of the Paris Agreement.
The Ernst Strüngmann Forum seeks to link justice, sustainability, and diversity agendas. In support, this chapter discusses how linkages between these three concepts have formed and changed in the climate change discourse, particularly in light of the recent Paris Agreement. As the latest addition to the portfolio of international climate change agreements, the Paris Agreement establishes a landscape in which nation-states, subnational actors, and transnational networks will be able to reconfigure existing linkages between sustainability, diversity, and justice, and perhaps improve upon them.
Here, three possible developments are identified which may substantially influence the reconfiguration process. Recognition is given to the sustainability and justice deficits that have plagued the "top-down" character of the international climate change discourse, and it is hypothesized that the Paris Agreement opens the door for "bottom-up" movements to claim a larger segment of climate change policy decision making and design. In turn, the "polycentric" landscape created by such "movement from below" appears to emphasize concepts such as inclusivity and transparency perhaps allowing for explicit climate justice commitments. Finally, to advance societal transformation and embrace diversity, it is hypothesized that the scientific endeavor needs to be transformed from a purely analytical pursuit to an effort that makes use of the wide range of scientific competences and provides support for transformative innovations to change unsustainable sociotechnical systems.
European coal mining regions face massive transformational challenges. The necessity of climate protection only intensifies a trend, prevalent in all of Europe: coal mining has been losing its economic importance over the last decades. Fewer and fewer people are employed in the sector. Coal regions face the challenge of how to facilitate a just transition, and which perspectives to develop for a future beyond coal.
Against this background this study analyses the current situation in four key European coal mining regions, namely: Aragon in Spain, Lusatia in Germany, Silesia in Poland and Western Macedonia in Greece. The study provides a brief summary of the regions' socio-economic structure, including the respective role of coal mining. An assessment of how existing European structural instruments, specifically the European Structural and Investment Funds (the ESI Funds) are utilised in the region, forms the core of the study.
Poor households in Germany and those that are close to the poverty line are more likely to suffer from increases in electricity costs. One consequence of this is the increasing number of cases in which the supplier disconnects a household's power. According to the Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur), a total of almost 359,000 interruptions of the electricity supply were caused in 2015 due to outstanding payments. In order to avoid disconnection from the electricity grid, more and more utility companies have begun to offer prepayment meters (PPMs) to their customers as a response to outstanding payments and a growing number of customers owing debts to their energy supplier. The phenomenon of an increasing number of households affected by energy poverty in Germany is new, and thus the number of PPMs is still low. As a result, experiences in this context are - compared to other countries (e.g. Great Britain) - far from extensive, and political awareness of the problem is low. This paper presents the findings of Germany's first scientific survey on experiences with the use of PPMs.
This paper investigates the multimodal nature of urban congestion and network performance, with the aim of developing practice ready policy tools to alleviate the adverse effects of excess demand, no matter in which mode it realizes. As part of the efforts to get an overall understanding of how congestion is defined in various disciplines, we conduct a literature review of relevant engineering and microeconomics studies. The investigation reveals the main areas where contradiction can be identified between engineering and economics approaches. In a second step, we investigate the results of an expert survey about the principles of congestion analysis from a multimodal perspective. The main contribution of the paper is twofold. First, we draw attention to the pitfalls of oversimplified and narrow viewpoints on congestion. Second, we operationalize these principles in order to enable decision makers to assess the impact of urban transport measures on congestion.
Many hope that the Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement can become a catalyst for increased mitigation ambition over time. Based on different theories of change, this paper outlines four governance functions for the Global Stocktake. It can contribute to the Paris Agreement as a pacemaker (stimulating and synchronizing policy processes across governance levels), by ensuring accountability of Parties, by enhancing ambition through benchmarks for action and transformative learning, and by reiterating and refining the guidance and signal provided from the Paris Agreement. The paper further outlines process- and information-related preconditions that would enable an ideal Global Stocktake.
This policy paper reviews the concept of additionality in the context of the Paris Agreement. Additionality is a key criterion that helps to maintain the environmental integrity of the Paris Agreement, especially when units created under Article 6.2 or 6.4 are used for offsetting purposes whether that is by Parties in order to meet their NDCs or whether by other entities with legal mitigation obligations.
It does so by first reviewing key concepts such as offsetting, environmental integrity, and baseline. Subsequently, it explores the context of additionality under the Paris Agreement. More specifically it discusses what should be counted as the baseline for additionality demonstration. The subsequent chapter then highlights the challenges with establishing additionality, that is establishing a causal relationship between a policy intervention and a proposed activity. Finally, the Policy Paper discusses aspects of international governance with respect to additionality.
The objective of this paper is to analyse and make recommendations on a safeguard system for Article 6 that aims at preventing potential harm that mitigation activities may cause on the ground to local stakeholders and the environment. Following some definitory aspects of what and how to safeguard, the paper analyses a number of safeguard systems and do no harm principles as well as tools to implement them. It then gives an overview on Parties' views on the matter, as uttered in their latest submissions on Art. 6 options, as well as an overview of the references in the UNFCCC's SBSTA Chair's text with respect to sustainable development, safeguards, and human rights issues. The paper closes with recommendations on a possible safeguard system for Article 6.