Your contact for new licenses
Yesterday was Earth Overshoot Day – meaning humanity has used up all ecological resources that can be replenished in one year at the most. And yet fossil fuel companies are striving for more: 50 billion dollars will be invested this year in oil and gas exploration, and the UK and Nigeria have new plans to expand fossil fuel extraction. The motto “Drill baby, drill” never seems to go out of style.
The supposed solution to this fossil dilemma? Storing CO2 underground. According to a new study, underwater volcanoes may have great potential to become “fossil landfills.” Ralf Nestler reports on the pitfalls and problems of this CCS approach.
Despite earth overshoot, extreme rainfall and heat waves, there is no support in Germany for a more ambitious climate policy, says sociologist Eduardo Gresse in today’s interview. He demands: The German government must do more for social compensation in climate action and clearly communicate where the path is headed.
We hope to provide some guidance!
Mr. Gresse, in July, we experienced the hottest month since records began, and, for instance, on Rhodes, thousands of people had to be evacuated due to forest fires. Does this change the way Germans view climate action?
Of course, weather extremes move people – especially when they affect them very personally. But there is no scientific evidence that unusually high temperatures, forest fires or other disasters associated with climate change suddenly increase support for ambitious climate policies.
What would the German government have to do to win more support for a strong climate policy?
The federal government would have to communicate much more clearly and implement ambitious goals. It would have to tell people: the climate crisis is serious, but we can do something about it, and these are our plans. It would have to be clear: Climate policy is not just about regulation but also about prosperity and a better quality of life. However, a clear climate policy plan is hardly discernible from the outside at the moment. Of course, it is always difficult to find compromises in a coalition. Especially when two parties in the government are as opposed to each other on climate policy as the Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the Greens. But the people expect the government to tell them clearly where things are headed.
What else is needed besides clarity and ambition?
It is also about fairness. Those who emit the most can easily shoulder the rising energy costs. They will also hardly feel the burden of a climate-friendly restructuring of the economy. But what about the people who are already struggling? If climate policy does not signal that it takes justice seriously, then the conflicts will continue to intensify.
What would such a signal look like?
Climate action and social policy always go together, that’s important. In the coalition agreement, the government announced climate money that would help people with low incomes in particular. It is important that it comes soon. It would be good if, parallel to its payout, subsidies were also paid for agro-ecological production in order to change consumption patterns towards sustainability. Or in transport policy: Investments in the railway infrastructure in connection with the nine-euro or Germany ticket are essential. Currently, however, it seems that not even the climate money itself will be passed in the current legislative period.
Still, why does the rising number of extreme weather events in our region not translate into more support for climate action?
In everyday life, these things are often quickly overshadowed by other concerns, and the climate disappears from the media again. Take the terrible floods in the Ahr Valley two years ago. At that time, there was a lot of discussion about the climate, and many people were really shocked by the extent of the devastation. But then the climate crisis was pushed aside by the pandemic, and today, we have an energy crisis and inflation. At the moment, we see more of a backlash against climate action.
What do you mean by backlash?
In September 2019, climate policy was still on the upswing, millions took to the streets across the world with Fridays for Future, hundreds of thousands demonstrated in Germany, and the Greens were at an all-time high in the polls. But now it’s up to the Greens to put an ambitious climate policy into practice – and that isn’t easy given the government majorities. Many people do not want ambitious climate action. Others are all the more disappointed because their expectations are not being met. This leads to conflicts.
In Germany, the disappointment is currently being reflected in comparatively radical protests.
Several things are currently happening at the same time. We have the actions of the Last Generation – at the same time, other groups are protesting who feel overburdened by climate policy because it is now beginning to interfere with their personal everyday lives, with heating, with driving. In addition, there are very real concerns caused by the war in Europe, the energy crisis, and inflation – and some media and political parties are actively pushing back an ambitious climate policy and deliberately polarizing it. There are political and economic interests behind this, such as those of the fossil fuel industry, power structures and also ideologies. Take the heated debate on the speed limit. A speed limit would not only benefit the climate, but also road safety. From a scientific perspective, it would have only advantages. Nevertheless, a speed limit cannot be enforced on ideological grounds.
How likely do you think humanity will still manage not to exceed the 1.5-degree limit?
Quite unlikely. Our study “Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook” shows that this is mainly due to social driving forces, because, in purely physical terms, the 1.5-degree limit could still be maintained. Two factors, in particular, are currently preventing the world from moving towards deep decarbonization – in other words, towards an economy and society that no longer produces any net greenhouse gases.
What are the two factors?
Global consumption patterns are a factor. We see very clearly that emissions from consumption continue to rise steadily and are associated with significant social inequalities. The other lies in corporate strategies. While many companies have set themselves climate protection targets, all in all, we do not see the corporate sector as a whole supporting decarbonization.
The climate crisis continues to worsen at the same time. Will this eventually bring us to a social tipping point where a committed climate policy is no longer called into question?
I think the term ‘social tipping point’ is misleading. A tipping point would mean that development can no longer be reversed once it has been passed. I am skeptical about that. Research rather shows that societies move dynamically. Sometimes it goes one way, then the other. And right now, the pendulum is swinging back.
Are there also developments that give you hope for the climate?
What gives me hope is the global rise of fundamental norms such as “climate justice” and the mobilization of people – especially young people – to get involved in the climate movement and politics. Climate lawsuits are also important developments, as well as a public debate that increasingly revolves around the climate. Change is not happening as fast as we would like it to. But besides those who are slowing things down, there are also social forces that are moving in the right direction.
Eduardo Gonçalves Gresse is a sociologist and Senior Postdoc at the Cluster of Excellence “Climate, Climatic Change and Society (CLICCS)” at the University of Hamburg. CLICCS researches how climate change and social developments influence each other and derives which “climate futures” are possible and plausible. Another focus of Gresse’s research is sustainability governance, especially in Brazil.
Since the emergence of the supposedly intelligent chatbot ChatGPT at the latest, artificial intelligence (AI) has arrived in the public eye: What jobs will AI destroy? Will it surpass, or even threaten humans? The sky seems to be the limit. Climate science already explores how AI could be used for improved predictions. What other opportunities does AI offer for climate action – and which hopes are possibly exaggerated?
The Boston Consulting Group and the environmental protection program AI for the Planet, sponsored by Microsoft, see great potential for climate action in AI applications. In a joint report, the two organizations list that AI:
In order to achieve the Paris climate goals, emissions must fall by at least 50 percent by 2030. Boston Consulting Group (BCG) optimistically states: “In our experience with clients, using AI can achieve 5 percent to 10 percent of the required reductions.” This means that between 2.6 and 5.3 gigatons of CO2 equivalents could be saved worldwide.
AI could also contribute to climate change adaptation, for example by improving risk and hazard forecasts. According to Hamid Maher, one of the co-authors of the BCG report, AI could for example be used to develop intelligent national adaptation plans to the climate crisis. “Climate change is complex, there are many factors and risks,” he says. “That makes making good decisions difficult. AI can help with that because it can better weigh and prioritize different factors.”
Artificial intelligence can also encourage climate-friendly behavior, says Maher. Whether it’s the next car trip, the holiday destination or the lunch order – more and more human decisions are being influenced by (recommendation) algorithms, often unnoticed by the consumer. This happens through the rather well-known “users who bought this product also buy” or through algorithms that evaluate click behavior in the background and suggest more content such as videos or websites based on this. Ensuring that algorithms also take emissions into account in their calculations would allow for more climate-friendly decisions to be made.
For Microsoft and BCG, AI applications and services are a huge new business environment. This is another reason why they emphasize the benefits of AI.
Lynn Kaack, Assistant Professor of Computer Science and Public Policy at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin, researches the interplay between AI and climate action. Although she does see potential, she also points to some challenges in assessing the climate impact of AI. In her opinion, it is difficult to assess in which area AI has the greatest potential for climate action. On the one hand, this depends on the climate impact of a sector, on the other hand, it also depends on the development progress of AI in this sector. While AI is already relatively frequently used in science and engineering for climate action, she still sees a lot of untapped potential in, for instance, heating and cooling systems, as well as flexible control of energy systems. Kaack also points to a competitive disadvantage of small and medium-sized companies: “Large companies tend to have the capacities and the capital to use AI for the climate,” she says.
“So far, AI is mainly used to save costs in companies,” says Kaack. This could even conflict with climate action. One example: In the oil and gas sector, AI is used to extract more fossil raw materials. In addition, she points out that AI consumes a lot of energy both in its development – in learning from large amounts of data – and in the application itself. Hamid Maher also points out that complex AI is often used for relatively simple problems. This then consumes an unnecessarily high amount of energy.
Kaack sees various conceivable measures that could lead to AI contributing to climate action.
Economic framework conditions are needed to ensure that AI can be used to benefit the climate. In this regard, Kaack welcomes, for example, the fact that the climate dimension has found its way into the legislative process of the European Union’s AI Act. The AI Act is one of the world’s first large-scale legal regulations on artificial intelligence.
According to the current status of the AI Act, AI should not only be considered risky if it potentially poses a threat to health and safety, but also if it has a negative impact on the climate. Kaack considers this to be the right approach. However, she believes that the EU needs to refine its AI transparency standards.
In Nigeria, Africa’s largest and most populated country, energy and climate policy faces significant changes. The world’s eleventh largest oil producer, which ranks 25th on the list of global greenhouse gas emitters, is pursuing a contradictory strategy: The country aims to become climate-neutral by 2060 and promote renewables while simultaneously expanding the extraction of domestic oil and gas deposits. Despite these fossil fuel plans, the Climate Action Tracker sees the country nearly on a Paris-compatible path.
One clear sign of change: When President Bola Tinubu took office at the end of May, he announced that fuel subsidies would be abolished because there was no money. Payments have increased since 2005 from 400 million euros to the equivalent of over four billion euros in 2023. Without subsidies, the price of fuel tripled – resulting in panic buying.
Experts and key stakeholders have since been pushing for more investment in renewable energy. They claim that if 30 percent of Nigeria’s households switched to solar power by 2030, five million tons of carbon dioxide could be saved annually and household emissions cut by 30 percent.
However, much like his predecessor, President Tinubu has different views on energy policy. He has spoken out in favor of increasing oil and gas production. But at the same time, he sees the need to reduce dependence on the oil and gas industry and promote solar energy.
With a population of over 200 million, Nigeria is Africa’s most populous and economically largest economy. After South Africa, it is the second-largest African emitter of greenhouse gases. With 18 pipelines in operation and an average daily production of 1.8 million barrels in 2020, Nigeria is the world’s eleventh-largest oil producer. Its economy is largely dependent on oil and gas.
The oil industry accounts for nearly 90 percent of Nigeria’s exports and nine percent of GDP. As of 2020, Nigeria holds 86.9 million tons and 49.4 billion cubic meters (bcm) of proven reserves of natural gas and crude oil, respectively.
At the same time, Nigeria experiences an energy crisis: 92 million people have no access to electricity, the lowest figure in the world. More than 40 percent of Nigerian households use generators to produce their own electricity when the power grid is unreliable. They spend about 14 billion dollars a year on this.
Renewables have huge potential in Nigeria, especially as “traditional” energy: So far, biomass accounts for almost 82 percent of energy consumption – mainly due to wood for cooking. Gas accounts for eight percent of total consumption, and petroleum about five percent. Hydropower only accounts for 0.4 percent of total energy consumption, but contributes about 27 percent to the country’s electricity generation. The government plans to expand hydropower and develop about three GW of hydropower capacity through the Mambilla project.
Nigeria plans to reduce emissions, eliminate poverty and ensure socially just development. The country has committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2060 through the Climate Change Act 2021. Nigeria’s Energy Transition Plan (ETP) was presented in the run-up to COP27 to drive decarbonization. It aims to transform the energy sector from fossil fuels to carbon-free energy by 2060.
The ETP lays out a timeline and framework for cutting emissions in five key sectors that account for 65 percent of the total approximately 275 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent emissions:
The plan aims to lift 100 million Nigerians out of poverty, boost economic growth and provide modern energy services to the entire population. It also aims to address expected long-term job losses in the oil sector.
The Climate Action Tracker (CAT) estimates that Nigeria’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 will be 34 to 43 percent above 2010 levels under current conditions and excluding land use. The index nevertheless rates Nigeria’s climate goals and policies as “almost sufficient,” saying that while commitments were not yet in line with the 1.5 °C temperature limit set by the Paris Agreement, it could be achieved with moderate improvements.
According to CAT, the country approved new methane leakage reduction rules in 2023 and announced a concept for a carbon price. However, experts warn that further expansion of oil and gas could lead to increased stranded assets and misdirected investments. The net-zero plan by 2060 would require “significant international support.”
Nigeria aims to be the African leader in a “fair, inclusive and equitable energy transition” that uses gas as a “transition fuel.” The government has declared a “Decade of Gas.” This 2021 initiative aims to harness vast gas reserves for economic growth and development. By 2030, the government hopes to earn 12 billion dollars through royalties and taxes, attract 14 billion dollars in foreign direct investment, and create two million new jobs.
Ayodele Oni, energy consultant and partner at law firm Bloomfield, said the debate over natural gas as an alternative for generators, vehicles and home appliances has been fueled by the recent increase in fuel prices. The new infrastructure needed to transition from oil to gas “will require significant investment. The World Bank estimates this will require 95 billion US dollars annually in Africa. Nigeria has one of the largest infrastructure needs on the continent in this regard.” It also helps that the West sees Africa as a “reliable substitute source for Russian gas,” Oni said. But the goal remains a complete switch to renewable power generation.
According to calculations by former Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, the energy transition will cost a total of 1.9 trillion US dollars by 2060 and require substantial public investment. Before COP27, the government had campaigned internationally for a ten billion dollar aid package, unsuccessfully so far.
Damilola Hamid Balogun, co-founder of the Youth Sustainable Development Network, calls for a green fund that would receive a portion of fossil fuel revenues exclusively for financing renewable energy projects. He says Nigeria should tax carbon, just like South Africa, and use the revenues for the energy transition. By Samuel Ajala, Abuja
In the ever-growing debate about carbon capture and storage, the focus is now shifting to potential new storage sites: Extinct underwater volcanoes may also be suitable for this technology. A study by Ricardo Pereira and Davide Gamboa of the Universidade Nova de Lisboa published in the scientific journal “Geology” suggests this.
The authors analyzed a volcano located in the Atlantic Ocean about 100 kilometers west of Lisbon. During the Cretaceous period, about 70 to 90 million years ago, it produced basalt lava, which cooled rapidly in the ocean. The remains of the crater rim are located at 2000 meters depth. Pereira and his colleagues studied it using geophysical measurements and rock samples collected with dragging and prospecting equipment.
According to their calculations, the volcano could absorb between 1.2 and 8.6 gigatons of CO2. That would correspond to Portugal’s average industrial emissions over 24 and 125 years, respectively, the team writes.
It would be – on paper – a significant option to quickly make the country climate neutral. And it would fit well into the international debate: For example, Sultan Al Jaber, the president-elect of COP28 and CEO of ADNOC, the oil and gas company of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), strongly supports the use of CCS. Countries and companies such as Norway, Denmark, the EU and Wintershall/Dea supported him.
Basalt is generally well suited to absorbing CO2. In nature, this happens on its own over thousands of years. With CCS, the process is accelerated by dissolving the greenhouse gas in water and pumping it through the rock. That is made possible because the rock is permeated with tiny fractures and cavities – and it is precisely there that the CO2 reacts with calcium and magnesium, for example, to form solid carbonate minerals.
This process is already being applied in Iceland with the Carbfix project. Ocean floors are also considered suitable due to their mineralogical composition, especially old underwater volcanoes. “When these have erupted at relatively shallow depths, many small particles have formed that have a large total surface area and are therefore very suitable for CO2 conversion,” says Colin Devey of Geomar – Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, who is not involved in Pereira’s study. The underwater mountain off Portugal seems to belong to this group.
However, uncertainties about the properties of the volcano are still significant. Not least in the crucial question of how much carbon dioxide would actually be bound in mineral form by such an injection – and how much could be released into the sea via rock fissures. Accordingly, estimates on the potential storage volume of 1.2 to 8.6 gigatons of CO2 diverge widely.
While the theoretical CCS potential of such underwater mountains is large, as there are many other volcanoes off the coasts of Europe, Africa, Southeast Asia, or Australia. “In the end, however, you have to examine each one in detail to form a conclusion about its storage capacity,” says Devey. He adds that the rocks in the ordinary ocean floor away from volcanoes are also worth exploring as a CCS option. “Because of the overlying sediments, it’s really dense; nothing gets out.”
He believes that the advantage in both cases is that the carbon dioxide in basalts forms solid minerals within weeks or months and is thus bound. For example, this takes much longer in old natural gas reservoirs, consisting of porous sandstone. “If there is a leak there, CO2 can still escape.”
On the other hand, these CCS horizons in depleted gas fields are well explored and there is experience in storage technology. For speedy and effective climate action, they would probably be cheaper and faster to implement than volcanoes and oceanic crust, which still need more research and development work. It will probably take several years before the greenhouse gas can be deposited there on an industrial scale.
This option could come too late for countries like Germany that aim to become climate-neutral in 2045. So far, CCS is practically prohibited in Germany anyway, even if the chemical sector calls for a new debate on this. At least the German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action is working on a new strategy to permit the export of CO2 from the industry to neighboring countries.
In contrast, Joe Lane and Chris Greig of Princeton University and Andrew Garnett of the University of Queensland in Brisbane warned in the journal Nature Climate Change in 2021 that CCS would only barely meet the great expectations for climate control on a global scale. Attempts to stimulate the industry fell short of expectations.
The authors are also skeptical about the future. They see obstacles in:
The experts believe that all this is slowing down development, with particularly long delays in Asia, and call for the above problems to be urgently addressed to reduce the uncertainties surrounding CCS. They believe the process is essential to avoid overshooting the emissions budget in line with the Paris Agreement.
Yesterday, Wednesday, marked Earth Overshoot Day. According to calculations by the Global Footprint Network, humanity has consumed as many resources from the planet almost five months before the end of the year as all ecosystems are capable of replenishing in an entire year. According to the network, CO2 emissions account for 60 percent of the total human “ecological footprint.”
To push back this day, that is, to consume fewer ecological resources, the organization proposes a number of solutions. Among the most effective are mainly energy-related measures, for example:
According to the Global Footprint Network, Earth Overshoot Day has occurred in early August since 2010. It only shifted slightly to mid-August in the pandemic year of 2020. By comparison, this day was still in late December in 1971. This means that at that time, one Earth would still have been almost sufficient to meet humanity’s resource demand. nib
According to a new analysis by BloombergNEF (BNEF), the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will hardly result in any additional reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030. The think tank calculates that emissions will then be around 3.7 billion metric tons. That is only 50 million tons less than in a baseline scenario without the tax incentives of the green stimulus program. At present, US emissions are more than 5.2 billion metric tons.
“What was surprising was that it was a much smaller impact in some sectors,” said BNEF’s Tara Narayanan. After 2030, the IRA will unleash stronger climate effects. According to BNEF, the financial incentives based US climate policy needs to be supplemented with regulatory interventions such as a carbon price or a phase-out date for internal combustion vehicles in order to achieve more climate benefits.
The Inflation Reduction Act earmarks 369 billion US dollars in tax breaks and grants for green investments. For example, it is intended to encourage the expansion of renewables and the purchase of EVs, as well as promote the development of new technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen production.
Despite IRA incentives for producing green hydrogen, BNEF estimates it will not be competitive with existing energy sources until the 2040s. On the other hand, BNEF rates tax incentives for installing CCS equipment at gas-fired power plants positively. They could make such power plants competitive quite quickly. However, the underlying technology is not yet mature.
Calculations by other research institutions indicate a more significant and effective short-term climate benefit of the IRA. According to a study by Princeton University’s REPEAT project, the IRA will reduce emissions by about one billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent by 2030 – again compared to a baseline scenario without subsidies (see chart). nib
To avoid exceeding the 1.5-degree limit, global greenhouse gas emissions must fall to net zero by the middle of the century. This applies particularly to developed countries, but also to emerging economies and developing countries. Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) represent a new approach to drive transformation – against the backdrop that developed countries have committed to financially support climate mitigation efforts in poorer countries due to their historical responsibility for global warming.
The first JETPs are already in place. Their climate policy objectives are clear. But the agreements neglect social goals. This creates the risk that vulnerable population groups will be on the losing side in the energy system transformation. Such social imbalances would not only be unfair. They would also stir up strong political resistance to decarbonization – a risk to the global transformation.
Under JETPs, the International Partners Group (IPG) provides loans, grants and technical assistance to partner countries. The IPG consists of the G7, the EU and individual EU countries. In addition, international financial institutions and funds are also directly involved in some JETPs.
The first JETP was signed with South Africa at COP26 at the end of 2021. It promises the country 8.5 billion US dollars for investments in climate-friendly energy generation, transmission and use. The focus is on the coal phase-out. In 2022, additional JETPs worth 20 billion US dollars were agreed with Indonesia and 15.5 billion US dollars with Vietnam. These represent two more countries where coal is central to the energy system. On June 22, a fourth JETP worth 2.5 billion euros was signed with Senegal as part of the Paris Climate Finance Summit.
These JETPs are certainly a step in the right direction: They provide targeted funding to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in partner countries. Signing them is easier and faster than, for example, agreements under the umbrella of the United Nations. For this reason, they could also motivate other countries to focus more on renewables.
Nevertheless, there is still a need for improvement. For example, the actual benefits accruing to partner countries from the financial commitments, most of which were made in the form of loans, are unclear compared with loans at market conditions. In addition, some JETPs allow increased use of fossil fuels in the medium term. What is particularly striking, however, is that while social justice is mentioned as a core element in the agreements – hardly anything concrete is mentioned.
Under the JETPs, justice is primarily envisioned from a North-South perspective. This means, above all, that wealthier countries provide funding. The question of for whom the agreements in the partner country are ultimately to be just is not sufficiently considered. For instance, the agreements do not define which justice aspects the JETPs should address. There is also no provision for avoiding negative impacts on certain population groups, such as employees in coal mines or energy-intensive industries,
The JETPs have largely been negotiated without involving civil society. This means that many voices have not been heard. Whether the perspectives of key stakeholders, such as trade unions, are now taken into account in their implementation depends heavily on the political culture of the partner country. But inclusive participation processes are not deeply embedded in any of the four JETP partner countries to date. Yet they must be the aspiration. After all, a lack of participation carries the risk that JETPs will be shaped by the ideas of donor countries and the interests of decision-makers in the partner country, while the overall population benefits little from them.
To ensure that JETPs benefit the general population, it is necessary to clearly define which societal – in addition to climate policy – goals they are intended to achieve and by what means. In order to anticipate the possible negative impacts of a transformation of energy systems and to be able to design the measures accordingly, the participation of citizens is essential. Here, JETPs should enshrine minimum standards. They should specify how the population of the partner countries is to be involved in decision-making and how available funds are to be invested. On the donor side, however, this also requires patience. Participation takes time.
Donor countries can actively support a socially just energy transition. For example, they can focus on promoting economic structural change in partner countries, through training programs for jobs in renewable energy sectors. They can support reasonable social participation by promoting the development of the necessary institutional capacities. So that a “Just Energy Transition” is not just in name, but actually socially just.
Dr. Michael Jakob works as an independent researcher and consultant on the social and political implications of emission reduction measures.
Yesterday was Earth Overshoot Day – meaning humanity has used up all ecological resources that can be replenished in one year at the most. And yet fossil fuel companies are striving for more: 50 billion dollars will be invested this year in oil and gas exploration, and the UK and Nigeria have new plans to expand fossil fuel extraction. The motto “Drill baby, drill” never seems to go out of style.
The supposed solution to this fossil dilemma? Storing CO2 underground. According to a new study, underwater volcanoes may have great potential to become “fossil landfills.” Ralf Nestler reports on the pitfalls and problems of this CCS approach.
Despite earth overshoot, extreme rainfall and heat waves, there is no support in Germany for a more ambitious climate policy, says sociologist Eduardo Gresse in today’s interview. He demands: The German government must do more for social compensation in climate action and clearly communicate where the path is headed.
We hope to provide some guidance!
Mr. Gresse, in July, we experienced the hottest month since records began, and, for instance, on Rhodes, thousands of people had to be evacuated due to forest fires. Does this change the way Germans view climate action?
Of course, weather extremes move people – especially when they affect them very personally. But there is no scientific evidence that unusually high temperatures, forest fires or other disasters associated with climate change suddenly increase support for ambitious climate policies.
What would the German government have to do to win more support for a strong climate policy?
The federal government would have to communicate much more clearly and implement ambitious goals. It would have to tell people: the climate crisis is serious, but we can do something about it, and these are our plans. It would have to be clear: Climate policy is not just about regulation but also about prosperity and a better quality of life. However, a clear climate policy plan is hardly discernible from the outside at the moment. Of course, it is always difficult to find compromises in a coalition. Especially when two parties in the government are as opposed to each other on climate policy as the Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the Greens. But the people expect the government to tell them clearly where things are headed.
What else is needed besides clarity and ambition?
It is also about fairness. Those who emit the most can easily shoulder the rising energy costs. They will also hardly feel the burden of a climate-friendly restructuring of the economy. But what about the people who are already struggling? If climate policy does not signal that it takes justice seriously, then the conflicts will continue to intensify.
What would such a signal look like?
Climate action and social policy always go together, that’s important. In the coalition agreement, the government announced climate money that would help people with low incomes in particular. It is important that it comes soon. It would be good if, parallel to its payout, subsidies were also paid for agro-ecological production in order to change consumption patterns towards sustainability. Or in transport policy: Investments in the railway infrastructure in connection with the nine-euro or Germany ticket are essential. Currently, however, it seems that not even the climate money itself will be passed in the current legislative period.
Still, why does the rising number of extreme weather events in our region not translate into more support for climate action?
In everyday life, these things are often quickly overshadowed by other concerns, and the climate disappears from the media again. Take the terrible floods in the Ahr Valley two years ago. At that time, there was a lot of discussion about the climate, and many people were really shocked by the extent of the devastation. But then the climate crisis was pushed aside by the pandemic, and today, we have an energy crisis and inflation. At the moment, we see more of a backlash against climate action.
What do you mean by backlash?
In September 2019, climate policy was still on the upswing, millions took to the streets across the world with Fridays for Future, hundreds of thousands demonstrated in Germany, and the Greens were at an all-time high in the polls. But now it’s up to the Greens to put an ambitious climate policy into practice – and that isn’t easy given the government majorities. Many people do not want ambitious climate action. Others are all the more disappointed because their expectations are not being met. This leads to conflicts.
In Germany, the disappointment is currently being reflected in comparatively radical protests.
Several things are currently happening at the same time. We have the actions of the Last Generation – at the same time, other groups are protesting who feel overburdened by climate policy because it is now beginning to interfere with their personal everyday lives, with heating, with driving. In addition, there are very real concerns caused by the war in Europe, the energy crisis, and inflation – and some media and political parties are actively pushing back an ambitious climate policy and deliberately polarizing it. There are political and economic interests behind this, such as those of the fossil fuel industry, power structures and also ideologies. Take the heated debate on the speed limit. A speed limit would not only benefit the climate, but also road safety. From a scientific perspective, it would have only advantages. Nevertheless, a speed limit cannot be enforced on ideological grounds.
How likely do you think humanity will still manage not to exceed the 1.5-degree limit?
Quite unlikely. Our study “Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook” shows that this is mainly due to social driving forces, because, in purely physical terms, the 1.5-degree limit could still be maintained. Two factors, in particular, are currently preventing the world from moving towards deep decarbonization – in other words, towards an economy and society that no longer produces any net greenhouse gases.
What are the two factors?
Global consumption patterns are a factor. We see very clearly that emissions from consumption continue to rise steadily and are associated with significant social inequalities. The other lies in corporate strategies. While many companies have set themselves climate protection targets, all in all, we do not see the corporate sector as a whole supporting decarbonization.
The climate crisis continues to worsen at the same time. Will this eventually bring us to a social tipping point where a committed climate policy is no longer called into question?
I think the term ‘social tipping point’ is misleading. A tipping point would mean that development can no longer be reversed once it has been passed. I am skeptical about that. Research rather shows that societies move dynamically. Sometimes it goes one way, then the other. And right now, the pendulum is swinging back.
Are there also developments that give you hope for the climate?
What gives me hope is the global rise of fundamental norms such as “climate justice” and the mobilization of people – especially young people – to get involved in the climate movement and politics. Climate lawsuits are also important developments, as well as a public debate that increasingly revolves around the climate. Change is not happening as fast as we would like it to. But besides those who are slowing things down, there are also social forces that are moving in the right direction.
Eduardo Gonçalves Gresse is a sociologist and Senior Postdoc at the Cluster of Excellence “Climate, Climatic Change and Society (CLICCS)” at the University of Hamburg. CLICCS researches how climate change and social developments influence each other and derives which “climate futures” are possible and plausible. Another focus of Gresse’s research is sustainability governance, especially in Brazil.
Since the emergence of the supposedly intelligent chatbot ChatGPT at the latest, artificial intelligence (AI) has arrived in the public eye: What jobs will AI destroy? Will it surpass, or even threaten humans? The sky seems to be the limit. Climate science already explores how AI could be used for improved predictions. What other opportunities does AI offer for climate action – and which hopes are possibly exaggerated?
The Boston Consulting Group and the environmental protection program AI for the Planet, sponsored by Microsoft, see great potential for climate action in AI applications. In a joint report, the two organizations list that AI:
In order to achieve the Paris climate goals, emissions must fall by at least 50 percent by 2030. Boston Consulting Group (BCG) optimistically states: “In our experience with clients, using AI can achieve 5 percent to 10 percent of the required reductions.” This means that between 2.6 and 5.3 gigatons of CO2 equivalents could be saved worldwide.
AI could also contribute to climate change adaptation, for example by improving risk and hazard forecasts. According to Hamid Maher, one of the co-authors of the BCG report, AI could for example be used to develop intelligent national adaptation plans to the climate crisis. “Climate change is complex, there are many factors and risks,” he says. “That makes making good decisions difficult. AI can help with that because it can better weigh and prioritize different factors.”
Artificial intelligence can also encourage climate-friendly behavior, says Maher. Whether it’s the next car trip, the holiday destination or the lunch order – more and more human decisions are being influenced by (recommendation) algorithms, often unnoticed by the consumer. This happens through the rather well-known “users who bought this product also buy” or through algorithms that evaluate click behavior in the background and suggest more content such as videos or websites based on this. Ensuring that algorithms also take emissions into account in their calculations would allow for more climate-friendly decisions to be made.
For Microsoft and BCG, AI applications and services are a huge new business environment. This is another reason why they emphasize the benefits of AI.
Lynn Kaack, Assistant Professor of Computer Science and Public Policy at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin, researches the interplay between AI and climate action. Although she does see potential, she also points to some challenges in assessing the climate impact of AI. In her opinion, it is difficult to assess in which area AI has the greatest potential for climate action. On the one hand, this depends on the climate impact of a sector, on the other hand, it also depends on the development progress of AI in this sector. While AI is already relatively frequently used in science and engineering for climate action, she still sees a lot of untapped potential in, for instance, heating and cooling systems, as well as flexible control of energy systems. Kaack also points to a competitive disadvantage of small and medium-sized companies: “Large companies tend to have the capacities and the capital to use AI for the climate,” she says.
“So far, AI is mainly used to save costs in companies,” says Kaack. This could even conflict with climate action. One example: In the oil and gas sector, AI is used to extract more fossil raw materials. In addition, she points out that AI consumes a lot of energy both in its development – in learning from large amounts of data – and in the application itself. Hamid Maher also points out that complex AI is often used for relatively simple problems. This then consumes an unnecessarily high amount of energy.
Kaack sees various conceivable measures that could lead to AI contributing to climate action.
Economic framework conditions are needed to ensure that AI can be used to benefit the climate. In this regard, Kaack welcomes, for example, the fact that the climate dimension has found its way into the legislative process of the European Union’s AI Act. The AI Act is one of the world’s first large-scale legal regulations on artificial intelligence.
According to the current status of the AI Act, AI should not only be considered risky if it potentially poses a threat to health and safety, but also if it has a negative impact on the climate. Kaack considers this to be the right approach. However, she believes that the EU needs to refine its AI transparency standards.
In Nigeria, Africa’s largest and most populated country, energy and climate policy faces significant changes. The world’s eleventh largest oil producer, which ranks 25th on the list of global greenhouse gas emitters, is pursuing a contradictory strategy: The country aims to become climate-neutral by 2060 and promote renewables while simultaneously expanding the extraction of domestic oil and gas deposits. Despite these fossil fuel plans, the Climate Action Tracker sees the country nearly on a Paris-compatible path.
One clear sign of change: When President Bola Tinubu took office at the end of May, he announced that fuel subsidies would be abolished because there was no money. Payments have increased since 2005 from 400 million euros to the equivalent of over four billion euros in 2023. Without subsidies, the price of fuel tripled – resulting in panic buying.
Experts and key stakeholders have since been pushing for more investment in renewable energy. They claim that if 30 percent of Nigeria’s households switched to solar power by 2030, five million tons of carbon dioxide could be saved annually and household emissions cut by 30 percent.
However, much like his predecessor, President Tinubu has different views on energy policy. He has spoken out in favor of increasing oil and gas production. But at the same time, he sees the need to reduce dependence on the oil and gas industry and promote solar energy.
With a population of over 200 million, Nigeria is Africa’s most populous and economically largest economy. After South Africa, it is the second-largest African emitter of greenhouse gases. With 18 pipelines in operation and an average daily production of 1.8 million barrels in 2020, Nigeria is the world’s eleventh-largest oil producer. Its economy is largely dependent on oil and gas.
The oil industry accounts for nearly 90 percent of Nigeria’s exports and nine percent of GDP. As of 2020, Nigeria holds 86.9 million tons and 49.4 billion cubic meters (bcm) of proven reserves of natural gas and crude oil, respectively.
At the same time, Nigeria experiences an energy crisis: 92 million people have no access to electricity, the lowest figure in the world. More than 40 percent of Nigerian households use generators to produce their own electricity when the power grid is unreliable. They spend about 14 billion dollars a year on this.
Renewables have huge potential in Nigeria, especially as “traditional” energy: So far, biomass accounts for almost 82 percent of energy consumption – mainly due to wood for cooking. Gas accounts for eight percent of total consumption, and petroleum about five percent. Hydropower only accounts for 0.4 percent of total energy consumption, but contributes about 27 percent to the country’s electricity generation. The government plans to expand hydropower and develop about three GW of hydropower capacity through the Mambilla project.
Nigeria plans to reduce emissions, eliminate poverty and ensure socially just development. The country has committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2060 through the Climate Change Act 2021. Nigeria’s Energy Transition Plan (ETP) was presented in the run-up to COP27 to drive decarbonization. It aims to transform the energy sector from fossil fuels to carbon-free energy by 2060.
The ETP lays out a timeline and framework for cutting emissions in five key sectors that account for 65 percent of the total approximately 275 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent emissions:
The plan aims to lift 100 million Nigerians out of poverty, boost economic growth and provide modern energy services to the entire population. It also aims to address expected long-term job losses in the oil sector.
The Climate Action Tracker (CAT) estimates that Nigeria’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 will be 34 to 43 percent above 2010 levels under current conditions and excluding land use. The index nevertheless rates Nigeria’s climate goals and policies as “almost sufficient,” saying that while commitments were not yet in line with the 1.5 °C temperature limit set by the Paris Agreement, it could be achieved with moderate improvements.
According to CAT, the country approved new methane leakage reduction rules in 2023 and announced a concept for a carbon price. However, experts warn that further expansion of oil and gas could lead to increased stranded assets and misdirected investments. The net-zero plan by 2060 would require “significant international support.”
Nigeria aims to be the African leader in a “fair, inclusive and equitable energy transition” that uses gas as a “transition fuel.” The government has declared a “Decade of Gas.” This 2021 initiative aims to harness vast gas reserves for economic growth and development. By 2030, the government hopes to earn 12 billion dollars through royalties and taxes, attract 14 billion dollars in foreign direct investment, and create two million new jobs.
Ayodele Oni, energy consultant and partner at law firm Bloomfield, said the debate over natural gas as an alternative for generators, vehicles and home appliances has been fueled by the recent increase in fuel prices. The new infrastructure needed to transition from oil to gas “will require significant investment. The World Bank estimates this will require 95 billion US dollars annually in Africa. Nigeria has one of the largest infrastructure needs on the continent in this regard.” It also helps that the West sees Africa as a “reliable substitute source for Russian gas,” Oni said. But the goal remains a complete switch to renewable power generation.
According to calculations by former Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, the energy transition will cost a total of 1.9 trillion US dollars by 2060 and require substantial public investment. Before COP27, the government had campaigned internationally for a ten billion dollar aid package, unsuccessfully so far.
Damilola Hamid Balogun, co-founder of the Youth Sustainable Development Network, calls for a green fund that would receive a portion of fossil fuel revenues exclusively for financing renewable energy projects. He says Nigeria should tax carbon, just like South Africa, and use the revenues for the energy transition. By Samuel Ajala, Abuja
In the ever-growing debate about carbon capture and storage, the focus is now shifting to potential new storage sites: Extinct underwater volcanoes may also be suitable for this technology. A study by Ricardo Pereira and Davide Gamboa of the Universidade Nova de Lisboa published in the scientific journal “Geology” suggests this.
The authors analyzed a volcano located in the Atlantic Ocean about 100 kilometers west of Lisbon. During the Cretaceous period, about 70 to 90 million years ago, it produced basalt lava, which cooled rapidly in the ocean. The remains of the crater rim are located at 2000 meters depth. Pereira and his colleagues studied it using geophysical measurements and rock samples collected with dragging and prospecting equipment.
According to their calculations, the volcano could absorb between 1.2 and 8.6 gigatons of CO2. That would correspond to Portugal’s average industrial emissions over 24 and 125 years, respectively, the team writes.
It would be – on paper – a significant option to quickly make the country climate neutral. And it would fit well into the international debate: For example, Sultan Al Jaber, the president-elect of COP28 and CEO of ADNOC, the oil and gas company of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), strongly supports the use of CCS. Countries and companies such as Norway, Denmark, the EU and Wintershall/Dea supported him.
Basalt is generally well suited to absorbing CO2. In nature, this happens on its own over thousands of years. With CCS, the process is accelerated by dissolving the greenhouse gas in water and pumping it through the rock. That is made possible because the rock is permeated with tiny fractures and cavities – and it is precisely there that the CO2 reacts with calcium and magnesium, for example, to form solid carbonate minerals.
This process is already being applied in Iceland with the Carbfix project. Ocean floors are also considered suitable due to their mineralogical composition, especially old underwater volcanoes. “When these have erupted at relatively shallow depths, many small particles have formed that have a large total surface area and are therefore very suitable for CO2 conversion,” says Colin Devey of Geomar – Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, who is not involved in Pereira’s study. The underwater mountain off Portugal seems to belong to this group.
However, uncertainties about the properties of the volcano are still significant. Not least in the crucial question of how much carbon dioxide would actually be bound in mineral form by such an injection – and how much could be released into the sea via rock fissures. Accordingly, estimates on the potential storage volume of 1.2 to 8.6 gigatons of CO2 diverge widely.
While the theoretical CCS potential of such underwater mountains is large, as there are many other volcanoes off the coasts of Europe, Africa, Southeast Asia, or Australia. “In the end, however, you have to examine each one in detail to form a conclusion about its storage capacity,” says Devey. He adds that the rocks in the ordinary ocean floor away from volcanoes are also worth exploring as a CCS option. “Because of the overlying sediments, it’s really dense; nothing gets out.”
He believes that the advantage in both cases is that the carbon dioxide in basalts forms solid minerals within weeks or months and is thus bound. For example, this takes much longer in old natural gas reservoirs, consisting of porous sandstone. “If there is a leak there, CO2 can still escape.”
On the other hand, these CCS horizons in depleted gas fields are well explored and there is experience in storage technology. For speedy and effective climate action, they would probably be cheaper and faster to implement than volcanoes and oceanic crust, which still need more research and development work. It will probably take several years before the greenhouse gas can be deposited there on an industrial scale.
This option could come too late for countries like Germany that aim to become climate-neutral in 2045. So far, CCS is practically prohibited in Germany anyway, even if the chemical sector calls for a new debate on this. At least the German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action is working on a new strategy to permit the export of CO2 from the industry to neighboring countries.
In contrast, Joe Lane and Chris Greig of Princeton University and Andrew Garnett of the University of Queensland in Brisbane warned in the journal Nature Climate Change in 2021 that CCS would only barely meet the great expectations for climate control on a global scale. Attempts to stimulate the industry fell short of expectations.
The authors are also skeptical about the future. They see obstacles in:
The experts believe that all this is slowing down development, with particularly long delays in Asia, and call for the above problems to be urgently addressed to reduce the uncertainties surrounding CCS. They believe the process is essential to avoid overshooting the emissions budget in line with the Paris Agreement.
Yesterday, Wednesday, marked Earth Overshoot Day. According to calculations by the Global Footprint Network, humanity has consumed as many resources from the planet almost five months before the end of the year as all ecosystems are capable of replenishing in an entire year. According to the network, CO2 emissions account for 60 percent of the total human “ecological footprint.”
To push back this day, that is, to consume fewer ecological resources, the organization proposes a number of solutions. Among the most effective are mainly energy-related measures, for example:
According to the Global Footprint Network, Earth Overshoot Day has occurred in early August since 2010. It only shifted slightly to mid-August in the pandemic year of 2020. By comparison, this day was still in late December in 1971. This means that at that time, one Earth would still have been almost sufficient to meet humanity’s resource demand. nib
According to a new analysis by BloombergNEF (BNEF), the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will hardly result in any additional reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030. The think tank calculates that emissions will then be around 3.7 billion metric tons. That is only 50 million tons less than in a baseline scenario without the tax incentives of the green stimulus program. At present, US emissions are more than 5.2 billion metric tons.
“What was surprising was that it was a much smaller impact in some sectors,” said BNEF’s Tara Narayanan. After 2030, the IRA will unleash stronger climate effects. According to BNEF, the financial incentives based US climate policy needs to be supplemented with regulatory interventions such as a carbon price or a phase-out date for internal combustion vehicles in order to achieve more climate benefits.
The Inflation Reduction Act earmarks 369 billion US dollars in tax breaks and grants for green investments. For example, it is intended to encourage the expansion of renewables and the purchase of EVs, as well as promote the development of new technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen production.
Despite IRA incentives for producing green hydrogen, BNEF estimates it will not be competitive with existing energy sources until the 2040s. On the other hand, BNEF rates tax incentives for installing CCS equipment at gas-fired power plants positively. They could make such power plants competitive quite quickly. However, the underlying technology is not yet mature.
Calculations by other research institutions indicate a more significant and effective short-term climate benefit of the IRA. According to a study by Princeton University’s REPEAT project, the IRA will reduce emissions by about one billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent by 2030 – again compared to a baseline scenario without subsidies (see chart). nib
To avoid exceeding the 1.5-degree limit, global greenhouse gas emissions must fall to net zero by the middle of the century. This applies particularly to developed countries, but also to emerging economies and developing countries. Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) represent a new approach to drive transformation – against the backdrop that developed countries have committed to financially support climate mitigation efforts in poorer countries due to their historical responsibility for global warming.
The first JETPs are already in place. Their climate policy objectives are clear. But the agreements neglect social goals. This creates the risk that vulnerable population groups will be on the losing side in the energy system transformation. Such social imbalances would not only be unfair. They would also stir up strong political resistance to decarbonization – a risk to the global transformation.
Under JETPs, the International Partners Group (IPG) provides loans, grants and technical assistance to partner countries. The IPG consists of the G7, the EU and individual EU countries. In addition, international financial institutions and funds are also directly involved in some JETPs.
The first JETP was signed with South Africa at COP26 at the end of 2021. It promises the country 8.5 billion US dollars for investments in climate-friendly energy generation, transmission and use. The focus is on the coal phase-out. In 2022, additional JETPs worth 20 billion US dollars were agreed with Indonesia and 15.5 billion US dollars with Vietnam. These represent two more countries where coal is central to the energy system. On June 22, a fourth JETP worth 2.5 billion euros was signed with Senegal as part of the Paris Climate Finance Summit.
These JETPs are certainly a step in the right direction: They provide targeted funding to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in partner countries. Signing them is easier and faster than, for example, agreements under the umbrella of the United Nations. For this reason, they could also motivate other countries to focus more on renewables.
Nevertheless, there is still a need for improvement. For example, the actual benefits accruing to partner countries from the financial commitments, most of which were made in the form of loans, are unclear compared with loans at market conditions. In addition, some JETPs allow increased use of fossil fuels in the medium term. What is particularly striking, however, is that while social justice is mentioned as a core element in the agreements – hardly anything concrete is mentioned.
Under the JETPs, justice is primarily envisioned from a North-South perspective. This means, above all, that wealthier countries provide funding. The question of for whom the agreements in the partner country are ultimately to be just is not sufficiently considered. For instance, the agreements do not define which justice aspects the JETPs should address. There is also no provision for avoiding negative impacts on certain population groups, such as employees in coal mines or energy-intensive industries,
The JETPs have largely been negotiated without involving civil society. This means that many voices have not been heard. Whether the perspectives of key stakeholders, such as trade unions, are now taken into account in their implementation depends heavily on the political culture of the partner country. But inclusive participation processes are not deeply embedded in any of the four JETP partner countries to date. Yet they must be the aspiration. After all, a lack of participation carries the risk that JETPs will be shaped by the ideas of donor countries and the interests of decision-makers in the partner country, while the overall population benefits little from them.
To ensure that JETPs benefit the general population, it is necessary to clearly define which societal – in addition to climate policy – goals they are intended to achieve and by what means. In order to anticipate the possible negative impacts of a transformation of energy systems and to be able to design the measures accordingly, the participation of citizens is essential. Here, JETPs should enshrine minimum standards. They should specify how the population of the partner countries is to be involved in decision-making and how available funds are to be invested. On the donor side, however, this also requires patience. Participation takes time.
Donor countries can actively support a socially just energy transition. For example, they can focus on promoting economic structural change in partner countries, through training programs for jobs in renewable energy sectors. They can support reasonable social participation by promoting the development of the necessary institutional capacities. So that a “Just Energy Transition” is not just in name, but actually socially just.
Dr. Michael Jakob works as an independent researcher and consultant on the social and political implications of emission reduction measures.