Refine
Year of Publication
- 2019 (214) (remove)
Document Type
- Peer-Reviewed Article (48)
- Contribution to Periodical (47)
- Report (39)
- Part of a Book (32)
- Working Paper (18)
- Conference Object (12)
- Doctoral Thesis (10)
- Book (5)
- Master Thesis (3)
Division
Footprint calculators are efficient tools to monitor the environmental impact of private consumption. We present the results of an analysis of data entered into an online Material Footprint calculator undertaken to identify the socioeconomic drivers of the Material Footprint in different areas of consumption, from housing to holidaymaking. We developed regression models to reveal (1) the impact of socioeconomic characteristics on Material Footprints of private households and (2) correlations between the components of Material Footprints for different arrays of consumption. Our results show that an increasing Material Footprint in one array of consumption comes with an increasing Material Footprint in all other arrays, with the exception of housing and holidaymaking. The socioeconomic characteristics of users have a significant impact on their Material Footprints. However, this impact varies by the array of consumption. Households only exhibit generally bigger Material Footprints as a result of higher incomes and larger dwellings. We conclude that indicators which strive to monitor resource efficiency should survey disaggregated data in order to classify the resource use to different population groups and arrays of consumption.
The implementation of energy efficiency improvement actions not only yields energy and greenhouse gas emission savings, but also leads to other multiple impacts such as air pollution reductions and subsequent health and eco-system effects, resource impacts, economic effects on labour markets, aggregate demand and energy prices or on energy security. While many of these impacts have been studied in previous research, this work quantifies them in one consistent framework based on a common underlying bottom-up funded energy efficiency scenario across the EU. These scenario data are used to quantify multiple impacts by energy efficiency improvement action and for all EU28 member states using existing approaches and partially further developing methodologies. Where possible, impacts are integrated into cost-benefit analyses. We find that with a conservative estimate, multiple impacts sum up to a size of at least 50% of energy cost savings, with substantial impacts coming from e.g., air pollution, energy poverty reduction and economic impacts.
The current global momentum for carbon pricing has lately produced innovative hybrids: carbon taxes allowing the use of offsets from emission sources not targeted by the carbon tax for compliance with the tax load. This study aims at filling the knowledge gap in existing literature by exploring the potential impacts of domestic offset components in carbon taxes on mitigation of national emissions, including the country examples Colombia, Mexico and South Africa.
The findings indicate that the use of offsets in carbon taxes may significantly influence mitigation of national emissions both positively and negatively. On the one hand, this model may result in real emission reductions from offset projects and positive spillover effects of efforts to reduce emissions from emission sources covered by the carbon tax to other emission sources. Furthermore, the offsetting component can be used as a bargaining chip in political negotiations facilitating the introduction of mitigation policies and measures and/or strengthening their ambition level. On the other hand, it also entails serious risks: Offsetting could compromise the environmental integrity of the carbon tax through low-quality offsets. Furthermore, offsets reduce incentives to curb emissions in the emission sources covered by the carbon tax, potentially leading to carbon lock-in effects. Moreover, an offsetting component could provoke opposition to further climate policies and measures for emission sources generating offsets, as replacing the offsetting component with mandatory emission reduction policies would eliminate revenues from offset credits. General opposition of stakeholder groups to the introduction of offsets may even hinder the introduction of carbon pricing instruments and offsetting altogether.
The study identifies options that could be employed to increase potential positive effects of introducing an offset component to a carbon tax and mitigate related risks, pointing to the country examples included, where appropriate.
A significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will be necessary in the coming decades to enable the global community to avoid the most dangerous consequences of man-made global warming. This fact is reflected in Germany's 7th Federal Energy Research Program (EFP), which was adopted in 2018. Direct Air Capture (DAC) technologies used to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere comprise one way to achieve these reductions in greenhouse gases. DAC has been identified as a technology (group) for which there are still major technology gaps. The intention of this article is to explore the potential role of DAC for the EFP by using a multi-dimensional analysis showing the technology's possible contributions to the German government's energy and climate policy goals and to German industry's global reputation in the field of modern energy technologies, as well as the possibilities of integrating DAC into the existing energy system. The results show that the future role of DAC is affected by a variety of uncertainty factors. The technology is still in an early stage of development and has yet to prove its large-scale technical feasibility, as well as its economic viability. The results of the multi-dimensional evaluation, as well as the need for further technological development, integrated assessment, and systems-level analyses, justify the inclusion of DAC technology in national energy research programs like the EFP.
Improvements in energy efficiency have numerous impacts additional to energy and greenhouse gas savings. This paper presents key findings and policy recommendations of the COMBI project ("Calculating and Operationalising the Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency in Europe").
This project aimed at quantifying the energy and non-energy impacts that a realisation of the EU energy efficiency potential would have in 2030. It covered the most relevant technical energy efficiency improvement actions in buildings, transport and industry.
Quantified impacts include reduced air pollution (and its effects on human health, eco-systems), improved social welfare (health, productivity), saved biotic and abiotic resources, effects on the energy system and energy security, and the economy (employment, GDP, public budgets and energy/EU-ETS prices). The paper shows that a more ambitious energy efficiency policy in Europe would lead to substantial impacts: overall, in 2030 alone, monetized multiple impacts (MI) would amount to 61 bn Euros per year in 2030, i.e. corresponding to approx. 50% of energy cost savings (131 bn Euros).
Consequently, the conservative CBA approach of COMBI yields that including MI quantifications to energy efficiency impact assessments would increase the benefit side by at least 50-70%. As this analysis excludes numerous impacts that could either not be quantified or monetized or where any double-counting potential exists, actual benefits may be much larger.
Based on these findings, the paper formulates several recommendations for EU policy making:
(1) the inclusion of MI into the assessment of policy instruments and scenarios,
(2) the need of reliable MI quantifications for policy design and target setting,
(3) the use of MI for encouraging inter-departmental and cross-sectoral cooperation in policy making to pursue common goals, and
(4) the importance of MI evaluations for their communication and promotion to decision-makers, stakeholders, investors and the general public.
Germany and Japan have both gained substantial experience with hydrogen production and applications, albeit with focus on different sectors. They also share similar drivers for hydrogen development and, of course, similar technical and economic opportunities and challenges. However, there also are relevant differences in the policy priorities and approaches.
Notwithstanding differing emphases and patterns, the two countries share three main drivers for hydrogen development and deployment: climate mitigation and other environmental goals, energy supply diversification, and technological leadership. In this context, hydrogen has been identified by the German and the Japanese governments during the Energy Policy Dialogue as having potential for closer cooperation.
The authors of this study provide an overview of demand-side deployment by sector (residential, transport, industry, power generation and power-to-x) for both countries, as well as of their hydrogen policy debates, key institutions, R&D programs and demonstration projects. They also present a short survey on relevant international platforms and initiatives in which Japan and Germany participate.
On the basis of a meta-analysis of the role of hydrogen in 18 long-term energy system scenarios for Germany and 12 scenarios for Japan, this study draws conclusions on the possible role of hydrogen in the long term energy policy debates of both countries. Subsequently, the authors discuss sustainability criteria and certification schemes for clean hydrogen, compare the greenhouse gas intensity of different hydrogen supply chains and provide a data-based analysis to identify countries which could become important suppliers of clean hydrogen.
The "fuzzy front end" of innovation is argued to be crucial for the success and sustainability impact of a final product. Indeed, it is a promising area of focus in efforts to achieve the United Nations' 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which provide a globally accepted framework for sustainability. However, the usability of the 17 goals and the large number of sub-goals represent barriers to innovation practitioners. Moreover, this early innovation stage proves to be a challenge for corporate practitioners and innovators, largely due to the concept's intangible, qualitative nature and the lack of data. To help overcome these barriers, this article proposes a four-stage approach for structuring the innovation process using an online tool called the "SDG-Check", which help assess an innovator's sustainability orientation in the early phases of product and service development. It is a semi-quantitative tool to gather and combine assessments by experts involved in innovation processes with implications for the United Nations' SDGs. Furthermore, this article presents our first experiences in applying the SDG-Check based on three living lab innovation cases. The results indicate that the tools can support and inspire a dialogue with internal and external stakeholders with regards to sustainability considerations in the early design stages of product and service development.