Your contact for new licenses
Four weeks before the general election, the political debate in Germany is heating up – especially on the topics of migration and isolation. The climate crisis is fading into the background in the general perception. But that could change next Friday: That’s when the “Climate Neutrality Foundation” presents a package of measures that the next government should use to aim for the climate targets. We report in advance on the 55 ideas that are intended to protect the climate and ward off the economic crisis.
We continue to look at the facts about climate in the election campaign. Today we are doing our tried and tested reality check with the demand “Climate action only via emissions trading”. But we’re not forgetting the rest of the world amidst all the German debates: a new Deutsche Bahn construction project in Brazil is being criticized for endangering human rights and the environment. And we report the latest news about the US government’s attempts to destroy the country’s climate and environmental policy, but also about the climate movement’s resistance – a topic that will certainly stay with us all for the next four years.
So take a deep breath and read on!
Emissions trading is seen by most parties in the German parliamentary election campaign as a key instrument for achieving climate targets. CO2 prices and an economization of climate action as a guiding instrument for climate policy – there is a broad consensus on this. However, opinions differ considerably on the details:
The European Emissions Trading System (ETS) is already the leading instrument of European climate policy. Emissions from industry, the energy sector and, from 2027, from transport and heating (ETS2) are given a price per ton of CO2 equivalent. The gradual reduction of available emission allowances (cap) in the ETS is intended to decarbonize the economy. As a result, CO2 emissions are becoming increasingly expensive.
However, there are already regulatory measures in place, such as the Renewable Energy Directive (RED), which is intended to promote the expansion of renewables, or the CO2 fleet regulation, which is intended to reduce transport emissions. If climate policy were based solely on the ETS, it would be entirely up to the market to decide whether and at what speed renewables are expanded or vehicle fleets become lower-emission.
The regulatory policy sets parameters for the transformation. It may stipulate which technologies are preferred, for example through tax incentives. Less proven technologies and innovations could be neglected. For example, CO2 fleet regulation and RED give regulatory preference to electrification over synthetic or biological fuels.
Without regulatory measures, the market would possibly cause greater price jumps. This is because politicians would no longer specify the speed and design of the transformation, but only a target. Consumers and companies may not be able to prepare sufficiently for rising CO2 prices due to the lack of a framework. They would then suffer from sudden price spikes. Emissions trading is already an enormously volatile market. The CO2 price fluctuates sharply in some cases. What’s more, if all sectors were integrated into the ETS, there would be a considerable amount of bureaucracy involved in reporting emissions and participating in auctions.
If the CO2 price were the only instrument, companies and consumers would have to pay even closer attention to its development than they do now – and base their decisions on it. If they fail to do so, their costs for fossil products with ongoing operating costs, such as combustion vehicles or gas heating systems, could increase many times over the years.
In theory, this could already happen now. But regulatory measures are intended to prevent overly drastic effects: For example, if homeowners are encouraged to install climate-friendly heating systems (independent of fossil fuel prices) – or if car manufacturers are obliged to reduce the emissions of their vehicles.
Despite all these measures, there are already major concerns that the introduction of ETS2 for buildings and transport will cause consumer prices to rise enormously. This is why there is even a debate at EU level about postponing ETS2. Without compensation, for example in the form of “climate money”, rising CO2 prices are difficult to explain in socio-political terms – acceptance of emissions trading is likely to suffer as a result.
In order to integrate all sectors into emissions trading and abolish all other measures, a fundamental reform of the ETS at EU level would be necessary. A review is planned for 2026 anyway. But an end to all accompanying measures is considered completely unlikely by the EU states.
By contrast, the integration of negative emissions into the ETS, as called for by the CDU/CSU, looks promising. Brussels is already working on rules for the certification and qualification of CO2 emissions and their permanence. The ETS could finance them.
The FDP in particular is propagating a climate policy based solely on CO2 pricing and emissions trading. Yet it was the FDP that wanted to suspend the CO2 price in 2022 when fuel prices in Germany became significantly more expensive.
Emissions trading is already the leading instrument of European climate policy. However, implementing the more far-reaching demand to abolish all other regulatory instruments would require a comprehensive change to the ETS at EU level, which is unlikely, at least in the medium term. Abandoning all additional climate action measures (regulatory policy and subsidies) for the ETS could also lead to large price jumps for households and companies if they do not plan thoroughly and far into the future. Without social cushioning of such price increases – for example through climate money – this could significantly reduce the acceptance of climate policy and price signals.
Deutsche Bahn (DB) is being criticized for an infrastructure project in the eastern Amazon region of Brazil. A railroad line is planned, which the German company is to help develop and operate. It is being marketed as a project that will promote agricultural exports to Europe in a sustainable, low-emission way. However, critics warn of negative consequences for the climate, the environment and the living conditions of the people living in the region.
Experts say that the new railroad line could drive deforestation on a scale that exceeds the emission savings and thus exacerbate the country’s biggest climate problem. Local civil society is mobilizing against the project. Its representatives fear that the railroad line could trigger land conflicts and violate the rights of the traditional Afro-Brazilian communities established under colonial rule.
The backbone of the billion-euro Grão-Pará Maranhão project is a 520-kilometer railroad line. It will be used to transport agricultural products and ores through the northeastern state of Maranhão and then shipped across the Atlantic from a new deep-sea port.
The DB E.C.O. Group – a subsidiary of DB that develops, builds and operates international rail projects – is involved. In 2023, it reported that it had signed a letter of intent with the Brazilian company Grão-Pará Maranhão “for joint project development and the subsequent role as rail operator”.
Due to its geographical location, the project is “an ideal energy hub for Europe too”. Through efficient freight transportation and the use of larger ships, it will help to reduce costs and CO2 emissions. There are also plans to generate wind, solar and tidal energy to supply the port and railroads and produce green hydrogen – but how this is to be implemented in practice has so far remained unclear.
Experts doubt the logistical necessity of the railroad. They also fear that the project could trigger a rush for land in the neighboring regions in the Amazon region and in the state of Maranhão due to the prospect of agricultural export profits. In Maranhão, there is currently a conflict-prone border between agricultural and forest areas. The soy industry is growing – this is a major cause of the high deforestation rates in the state.
In Brazil, a large proportion of greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation in connection with changes in land use: In 2023, this accounted for 46% of total emissions – in absolute terms, this amounted to 2.3 billion tons of CO2 equivalents. In Maranhão alone, 35 million tons of CO2 were emitted between January 2023 and July 2024 due to the deforestation of 301,000 hectares of native vegetation.
“A railroad has a serious impact on its supply routes, where agricultural land and agricultural production are expanding. The native vegetation in this region will therefore come under pressure,” says researcher William Leles, who models the interactions between transport routes and ecological systems at the Federal University of Minas Gerais.
André Ferreira, Managing Director of the Instituto de Energia e Meio Ambiente (iema, Institute for Energy and Environment) in Brazil, does see “a potential for reducing emissions”. But this is “not very significant compared to the total emissions of the Brazilian transport sector”. There is still no study “to assess the indirect emissions of the project resulting from the possible promotion of deforestation”. All in all, Ferreira estimates that emissions could increase as a result of the project.
Traditional quilombola communities live in the region where the port and railroad are planned. They were founded by people who had escaped enslavement during the Brazilian colonial period and are still strong symbols of the heritage and resilience of the Afro-Brazilian community.
The new rail project could displace the quilombolas, says Mikaell Carvalho, coordinator of the human rights organization Justiça nos Trilhos in Maranhão. Indigenous communities would also be affected. Adriana Oliveira, a woman with Quilombola roots who lives in a rural settlement west of the planned railroad line in Maranhão, says: “With the two existing railroad lines, we are already on the brink of conflict. If a third one comes, our community will disappear.”
The project operators say that Quilombola communities will not be affected by the railroad line. However, a look at the official project documents available to the authorities shows that the line would pass through twelve municipalities: The line would pass through twelve municipalities in which 593 recognized quilombola settlements are located.
The planned port at the other end of the route would take up an estimated 87 percent of Ilha do Cajual. This is an Atlantic island on which 190 Quilombolas live. According to Yuri Costa, Defensor Público – i.e. state-appointed legal counsel for citizens who feel their rights have been violated – in Maranhão, there was no prior collective consultation with all those affected. This violates the quilombolas’ rights to their territory, their property and the freedom to shape their future.
NGOs in Germany, including Misereor and Save the Rainforest, are also protesting against the rail project. When asked, a DB spokesperson told Table.Briefings that the company would “of course comply with all human rights and environmental regulations”. Apart from the letter of intent, no further decisions have yet been made or contracts concluded.
Originally, German and European politicians also seemed interested in the project: According to DB E.C.O.’s communication from 2023, the project partners also presented the project at the German embassy in Brasilia at the time, in the presence of “several high-ranking officials from the Brazilian government”, ambassadors from the European Union and representatives from multinational companies.
In 2024, the project sponsors sought funding from the European Union’s Global Gateway Initiative. However, when asked by Table.Briefings, a spokesperson for the European Commission said that the Grão-Pará Maranhão was not a Global Gateway project and that the European Union had not committed to funding it.
The German BMWK stated that it would not discuss corporate transactions. The Federal Ministry of Transport left an inquiry unanswered; the Brazilian project partner Grão-Pará Multimodal also did not respond to a request for comment. The current status of the project is therefore difficult to assess. However, local civil society is continuing to mobilize against it.
The importance of energy supply for Tanzania is demonstrated by the fact that Energy Minister Doto Mashaka Biteko is also Deputy Prime Minister in President Samia Suluhu Hassan’s cabinet. At the African Energy Summit in Tanzania’s port city of Dar es Salaam on Monday, Biteko explained the relevance of a secure energy supply for his country, but also for the entire continent. “We are committed to ensuring that at least 300 million people across Africa have access to electricity in the next five years,” said the 46-year-old at the summit, which ends this Tuesday. “This is an achievable goal and Tanzania is proud to contribute to the realization of this goal.”
In fact, the aim of the summit is to supply significantly more African households with electricity by 2030. The summit is also being organized by the African Development Bank, among others. The sources from which the electricity is to come in the future are a matter of debate. The German government, which is represented at the summit by BMZ State Secretary Jochen Flasbarth, among others, wants to promote green energy in particular.
However, Tanzania is one of the African countries that wants to profit from its fossil energy sources. This sets Tanzania apart from its northern neighbor Kenya, which sees itself as a pioneer of the green energy transition. Kenya relies primarily on geothermal energy. Tanzania, on the other hand, has considerable natural gas reserves. The Tanzanian government estimates that there are around 57 trillion cubic feet (1.6 trillion cubic meters) of natural gas off the coast. The government also wants to export this in the form of LNG gas. Last year, Biteko therefore promoted the use of natural gas as a climate-friendly energy resource at a journalists’ forum. Biteko is convinced that the gas can help Tanzania to achieve its national climate targets. Although sustainable sources are also to be further expanded, Tanzania does not want to do without gas in view of its increasing demand for electricity.
Natural gas has been Tanzania’s most important source of energy for around ten years now. According to the International Energy Agency, its share was a good 69 percent. Hydropower accounted for a good 29 percent of the electricity mix. Oil hardly plays a role in electricity production anymore. Nevertheless, Tanzania has given the green light for the construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, which is to run from Uganda via Tanzania. The oil will then be exported from Dar es Salaam.
Biteko has now been active in Tanzania’s ruling party Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) for around 20 years – initially in the party’s youth organization. He has been a member of the Tanzanian parliament since 2015. Biteko previously studied education and worked as a teacher in the northwest of the country. Since becoming a member of parliament, however, Biteko’s political work has primarily focused on the areas of energy and mining. Between 2015 and 2018, he was Chairman of the Energy and Mining Committee in Parliament. In 2017, Biteko initially became Deputy Minister of Mines under the then-President John Magufuli. He then took over as head of the ministry in 2019 and remained in this position even after Magufuli’s death. In September 2023, his successor Hassan Biteko not only transferred the Ministry of Energy to him but also promoted him to Deputy Prime Minister.
As a former mining minister, Biteko also has his eye on another energy source that could be of interest to Tanzania in the future: Nuclear power. “We already have a uranium program, but now we want to look at new technologies from other countries,” said Biteko at the second Africa-Russia summit in St. Petersburg in 2023. According to the World Nuclear Association, Tanzania has around 60,000 tons of mineable uranium. David Renke
Four weeks before the general election, the political debate in Germany is heating up – especially on the topics of migration and isolation. The climate crisis is fading into the background in the general perception. But that could change next Friday: That’s when the “Climate Neutrality Foundation” presents a package of measures that the next government should use to aim for the climate targets. We report in advance on the 55 ideas that are intended to protect the climate and ward off the economic crisis.
We continue to look at the facts about climate in the election campaign. Today we are doing our tried and tested reality check with the demand “Climate action only via emissions trading”. But we’re not forgetting the rest of the world amidst all the German debates: a new Deutsche Bahn construction project in Brazil is being criticized for endangering human rights and the environment. And we report the latest news about the US government’s attempts to destroy the country’s climate and environmental policy, but also about the climate movement’s resistance – a topic that will certainly stay with us all for the next four years.
So take a deep breath and read on!
Emissions trading is seen by most parties in the German parliamentary election campaign as a key instrument for achieving climate targets. CO2 prices and an economization of climate action as a guiding instrument for climate policy – there is a broad consensus on this. However, opinions differ considerably on the details:
The European Emissions Trading System (ETS) is already the leading instrument of European climate policy. Emissions from industry, the energy sector and, from 2027, from transport and heating (ETS2) are given a price per ton of CO2 equivalent. The gradual reduction of available emission allowances (cap) in the ETS is intended to decarbonize the economy. As a result, CO2 emissions are becoming increasingly expensive.
However, there are already regulatory measures in place, such as the Renewable Energy Directive (RED), which is intended to promote the expansion of renewables, or the CO2 fleet regulation, which is intended to reduce transport emissions. If climate policy were based solely on the ETS, it would be entirely up to the market to decide whether and at what speed renewables are expanded or vehicle fleets become lower-emission.
The regulatory policy sets parameters for the transformation. It may stipulate which technologies are preferred, for example through tax incentives. Less proven technologies and innovations could be neglected. For example, CO2 fleet regulation and RED give regulatory preference to electrification over synthetic or biological fuels.
Without regulatory measures, the market would possibly cause greater price jumps. This is because politicians would no longer specify the speed and design of the transformation, but only a target. Consumers and companies may not be able to prepare sufficiently for rising CO2 prices due to the lack of a framework. They would then suffer from sudden price spikes. Emissions trading is already an enormously volatile market. The CO2 price fluctuates sharply in some cases. What’s more, if all sectors were integrated into the ETS, there would be a considerable amount of bureaucracy involved in reporting emissions and participating in auctions.
If the CO2 price were the only instrument, companies and consumers would have to pay even closer attention to its development than they do now – and base their decisions on it. If they fail to do so, their costs for fossil products with ongoing operating costs, such as combustion vehicles or gas heating systems, could increase many times over the years.
In theory, this could already happen now. But regulatory measures are intended to prevent overly drastic effects: For example, if homeowners are encouraged to install climate-friendly heating systems (independent of fossil fuel prices) – or if car manufacturers are obliged to reduce the emissions of their vehicles.
Despite all these measures, there are already major concerns that the introduction of ETS2 for buildings and transport will cause consumer prices to rise enormously. This is why there is even a debate at EU level about postponing ETS2. Without compensation, for example in the form of “climate money”, rising CO2 prices are difficult to explain in socio-political terms – acceptance of emissions trading is likely to suffer as a result.
In order to integrate all sectors into emissions trading and abolish all other measures, a fundamental reform of the ETS at EU level would be necessary. A review is planned for 2026 anyway. But an end to all accompanying measures is considered completely unlikely by the EU states.
By contrast, the integration of negative emissions into the ETS, as called for by the CDU/CSU, looks promising. Brussels is already working on rules for the certification and qualification of CO2 emissions and their permanence. The ETS could finance them.
The FDP in particular is propagating a climate policy based solely on CO2 pricing and emissions trading. Yet it was the FDP that wanted to suspend the CO2 price in 2022 when fuel prices in Germany became significantly more expensive.
Emissions trading is already the leading instrument of European climate policy. However, implementing the more far-reaching demand to abolish all other regulatory instruments would require a comprehensive change to the ETS at EU level, which is unlikely, at least in the medium term. Abandoning all additional climate action measures (regulatory policy and subsidies) for the ETS could also lead to large price jumps for households and companies if they do not plan thoroughly and far into the future. Without social cushioning of such price increases – for example through climate money – this could significantly reduce the acceptance of climate policy and price signals.
Deutsche Bahn (DB) is being criticized for an infrastructure project in the eastern Amazon region of Brazil. A railroad line is planned, which the German company is to help develop and operate. It is being marketed as a project that will promote agricultural exports to Europe in a sustainable, low-emission way. However, critics warn of negative consequences for the climate, the environment and the living conditions of the people living in the region.
Experts say that the new railroad line could drive deforestation on a scale that exceeds the emission savings and thus exacerbate the country’s biggest climate problem. Local civil society is mobilizing against the project. Its representatives fear that the railroad line could trigger land conflicts and violate the rights of the traditional Afro-Brazilian communities established under colonial rule.
The backbone of the billion-euro Grão-Pará Maranhão project is a 520-kilometer railroad line. It will be used to transport agricultural products and ores through the northeastern state of Maranhão and then shipped across the Atlantic from a new deep-sea port.
The DB E.C.O. Group – a subsidiary of DB that develops, builds and operates international rail projects – is involved. In 2023, it reported that it had signed a letter of intent with the Brazilian company Grão-Pará Maranhão “for joint project development and the subsequent role as rail operator”.
Due to its geographical location, the project is “an ideal energy hub for Europe too”. Through efficient freight transportation and the use of larger ships, it will help to reduce costs and CO2 emissions. There are also plans to generate wind, solar and tidal energy to supply the port and railroads and produce green hydrogen – but how this is to be implemented in practice has so far remained unclear.
Experts doubt the logistical necessity of the railroad. They also fear that the project could trigger a rush for land in the neighboring regions in the Amazon region and in the state of Maranhão due to the prospect of agricultural export profits. In Maranhão, there is currently a conflict-prone border between agricultural and forest areas. The soy industry is growing – this is a major cause of the high deforestation rates in the state.
In Brazil, a large proportion of greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation in connection with changes in land use: In 2023, this accounted for 46% of total emissions – in absolute terms, this amounted to 2.3 billion tons of CO2 equivalents. In Maranhão alone, 35 million tons of CO2 were emitted between January 2023 and July 2024 due to the deforestation of 301,000 hectares of native vegetation.
“A railroad has a serious impact on its supply routes, where agricultural land and agricultural production are expanding. The native vegetation in this region will therefore come under pressure,” says researcher William Leles, who models the interactions between transport routes and ecological systems at the Federal University of Minas Gerais.
André Ferreira, Managing Director of the Instituto de Energia e Meio Ambiente (iema, Institute for Energy and Environment) in Brazil, does see “a potential for reducing emissions”. But this is “not very significant compared to the total emissions of the Brazilian transport sector”. There is still no study “to assess the indirect emissions of the project resulting from the possible promotion of deforestation”. All in all, Ferreira estimates that emissions could increase as a result of the project.
Traditional quilombola communities live in the region where the port and railroad are planned. They were founded by people who had escaped enslavement during the Brazilian colonial period and are still strong symbols of the heritage and resilience of the Afro-Brazilian community.
The new rail project could displace the quilombolas, says Mikaell Carvalho, coordinator of the human rights organization Justiça nos Trilhos in Maranhão. Indigenous communities would also be affected. Adriana Oliveira, a woman with Quilombola roots who lives in a rural settlement west of the planned railroad line in Maranhão, says: “With the two existing railroad lines, we are already on the brink of conflict. If a third one comes, our community will disappear.”
The project operators say that Quilombola communities will not be affected by the railroad line. However, a look at the official project documents available to the authorities shows that the line would pass through twelve municipalities: The line would pass through twelve municipalities in which 593 recognized quilombola settlements are located.
The planned port at the other end of the route would take up an estimated 87 percent of Ilha do Cajual. This is an Atlantic island on which 190 Quilombolas live. According to Yuri Costa, Defensor Público – i.e. state-appointed legal counsel for citizens who feel their rights have been violated – in Maranhão, there was no prior collective consultation with all those affected. This violates the quilombolas’ rights to their territory, their property and the freedom to shape their future.
NGOs in Germany, including Misereor and Save the Rainforest, are also protesting against the rail project. When asked, a DB spokesperson told Table.Briefings that the company would “of course comply with all human rights and environmental regulations”. Apart from the letter of intent, no further decisions have yet been made or contracts concluded.
Originally, German and European politicians also seemed interested in the project: According to DB E.C.O.’s communication from 2023, the project partners also presented the project at the German embassy in Brasilia at the time, in the presence of “several high-ranking officials from the Brazilian government”, ambassadors from the European Union and representatives from multinational companies.
In 2024, the project sponsors sought funding from the European Union’s Global Gateway Initiative. However, when asked by Table.Briefings, a spokesperson for the European Commission said that the Grão-Pará Maranhão was not a Global Gateway project and that the European Union had not committed to funding it.
The German BMWK stated that it would not discuss corporate transactions. The Federal Ministry of Transport left an inquiry unanswered; the Brazilian project partner Grão-Pará Multimodal also did not respond to a request for comment. The current status of the project is therefore difficult to assess. However, local civil society is continuing to mobilize against it.
The importance of energy supply for Tanzania is demonstrated by the fact that Energy Minister Doto Mashaka Biteko is also Deputy Prime Minister in President Samia Suluhu Hassan’s cabinet. At the African Energy Summit in Tanzania’s port city of Dar es Salaam on Monday, Biteko explained the relevance of a secure energy supply for his country, but also for the entire continent. “We are committed to ensuring that at least 300 million people across Africa have access to electricity in the next five years,” said the 46-year-old at the summit, which ends this Tuesday. “This is an achievable goal and Tanzania is proud to contribute to the realization of this goal.”
In fact, the aim of the summit is to supply significantly more African households with electricity by 2030. The summit is also being organized by the African Development Bank, among others. The sources from which the electricity is to come in the future are a matter of debate. The German government, which is represented at the summit by BMZ State Secretary Jochen Flasbarth, among others, wants to promote green energy in particular.
However, Tanzania is one of the African countries that wants to profit from its fossil energy sources. This sets Tanzania apart from its northern neighbor Kenya, which sees itself as a pioneer of the green energy transition. Kenya relies primarily on geothermal energy. Tanzania, on the other hand, has considerable natural gas reserves. The Tanzanian government estimates that there are around 57 trillion cubic feet (1.6 trillion cubic meters) of natural gas off the coast. The government also wants to export this in the form of LNG gas. Last year, Biteko therefore promoted the use of natural gas as a climate-friendly energy resource at a journalists’ forum. Biteko is convinced that the gas can help Tanzania to achieve its national climate targets. Although sustainable sources are also to be further expanded, Tanzania does not want to do without gas in view of its increasing demand for electricity.
Natural gas has been Tanzania’s most important source of energy for around ten years now. According to the International Energy Agency, its share was a good 69 percent. Hydropower accounted for a good 29 percent of the electricity mix. Oil hardly plays a role in electricity production anymore. Nevertheless, Tanzania has given the green light for the construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, which is to run from Uganda via Tanzania. The oil will then be exported from Dar es Salaam.
Biteko has now been active in Tanzania’s ruling party Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) for around 20 years – initially in the party’s youth organization. He has been a member of the Tanzanian parliament since 2015. Biteko previously studied education and worked as a teacher in the northwest of the country. Since becoming a member of parliament, however, Biteko’s political work has primarily focused on the areas of energy and mining. Between 2015 and 2018, he was Chairman of the Energy and Mining Committee in Parliament. In 2017, Biteko initially became Deputy Minister of Mines under the then-President John Magufuli. He then took over as head of the ministry in 2019 and remained in this position even after Magufuli’s death. In September 2023, his successor Hassan Biteko not only transferred the Ministry of Energy to him but also promoted him to Deputy Prime Minister.
As a former mining minister, Biteko also has his eye on another energy source that could be of interest to Tanzania in the future: Nuclear power. “We already have a uranium program, but now we want to look at new technologies from other countries,” said Biteko at the second Africa-Russia summit in St. Petersburg in 2023. According to the World Nuclear Association, Tanzania has around 60,000 tons of mineable uranium. David Renke