The German government is not sending a positive climate signal to the world with its new national budget. The latest budget plan is one billion euros short of international climate financing, as Bernhard Pötter analyzes. Chancellor Scholz’s six billion pledge is in serious jeopardy – a bad omen for the financial negotiations at COP29. Moreover, the German government has not submitted its climate report on time. And, of course, Environmental Action Germany has filed a lawsuit. But there is also a tiny glimmer of hope: The German Federal Environment Agency has recorded a record 18 percent drop in German emissions in emissions trading.
The US election race is slowly entering the hottest phase. Carsten Hübner has taken a closer look at the Republican election program: Trump’s party is fully committed to fossil fuels and intends to cut back regulations even further. Economists warn against Trump and his program.
There is also a lot happening on the European climate stage: Climate champion Laurence Tubiana is being touted as France’s prime minister, and a new study on fleet limits is fuelling the debate about phasing out combustion engines, as Lukas Scheid and Markus Grabitz report.
With the draft national budget for 2025 approved by the cabinet on Wednesday, Germany fails to meet its self-imposed target for financing global climate action. Instead of the promised six billion euros from public funds from 2025, the current budget only is five billion euros. This is the result of initial analyses of the budget.
According to its own calculations, the government reached and exceeded the six billion euro mark in 2022 with 6.39 billion euros. There is no official data for the subsequent period as this data is only collected retrospectively. However, since the budget has been under extreme austerity pressure following the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court in late 2023, there have been fears that the target for 2025 could not be met. However, Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz assured at the Petersberg Climate Dialogue that “Germany can be relied on.”
Determining the exact amount of “climate financing” is problematic because it does not have a clear budget title. It depends on many factors: Which projects are (also) climate-related? Does it include cash funds only or commitment appropriations (CA) that will take effect in the coming years? With which countries will Germany undertake which development cooperation projects in a given year?
However, with all due caution, it is fair to say that the gap of just under one billion euros is mainly due to cuts to the Development Ministry (BMZ) budget. Its budget has shrunk to 10.3 billion, compared to a peak of 13.4 billion in 2022, when the BMZ provided around 5.5 billion for climate financing. As the BMZ provides around 86 percent of climate financing, the cuts will have a significant impact. If other ministries do not fill this gap (which there are no signs of) and the BMZ budget is not massively reallocated (which is also not planned), the BMZ climate share in the 2025 budget will now be around 4.2 billion.
The item “multilateral aid for climate action” dropped from 850 million euros to 751 million euros. The ministry plans to support recipients in pursuing their own goals through “financial cooperation.” A spokesperson told Table.Briefings: “It is too early to make any forecasts regarding climate financing in 2025. The BMZ contributes to a large extent to climate financing, but not exclusively. Other ministries also play a role, and their contributions can also only be determined in retrospect.”
However, things do not look much better for the other ministries: The International Climate Initiative (IKI), with which the Economic, Environment and Foreign Ministries support climate projects in the Global South, was hit particularly hard. This IKI has been cut from 735 million in the last budget to 635 million. This leaves around 4.8 billion instead of the planned six billion.
Oxfam financial expert Jan Kowalzig comes to a similar conclusion. He estimates that the current budget totals around 4.9 billion for climate financing. His analysis assumes that there will be no significant changes in the budget or between the ministries, that funding for institutions such as IRENA will continue, and that the other ministries apart from the IKI will receive an additional 100 million.
“With the planned cuts, the German government risks breaking its highly recognized international promise. This is likely to cause some damage to international climate diplomacy,” says Kowalzig. “Naturally, I assume that Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his government will continue to stick by the 6 billion pledge. However, the Bundestag must now revise the cuts in the upcoming negotiations on the 2025 federal budget.”
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Economic Affairs emphasized that the IKI “has been stabilized at this level for the coming years” despite the cuts of 100 million. This “stable and continued high level of funding for the IKI shows the high importance the Federal Government attaches to international climate action.” The current funding provides the “necessary planning security.”
Despite its slashed budget, the Foreign Ministry, which leads the international climate negotiations, has left the items on international cooperation, climate action, energy and environmental protection untouched and even significantly increased its contributions to the UN. However, “humanitarian aid and crisis prevention” has been cut from 2.7 billion to 1.4 billion.
Germany’s financial pledge is uncertain in a year in which the UN states at COP29 in Baku have to agree on a new financing target (NCQG) for the period from 2025. Germany has been one of the most important and reliable payers and one of the loudest advocates of more financial commitment from developed countries – but also from emerging economies such as China, South Korea, Singapore and the oil states. At least the developed nations club OECD has now officially certified that the developed nations have reached and exceeded the pledged 100 billion US dollars for climate aid for the first time in 2022 with 116 billion to poor countries.
As the climate targets for passenger cars are likely to be massively missed, a group of researchers is calling for an immediate and comprehensive revision of the EU’s CO2 fleet legislation. This is the central message of the white paper “CO2 emission regulations for passenger cars” from the International Association of Sustainable Drivetrain and Vehicle Technology Research (IASTEC). The paper was largely written by Thomas Koch, Head of the Institute for Piston Engines at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT).
The EU’s CO2 fleet regulation stipulates that manufacturers must reduce the average CO2 emissions of new cars to zero grams per kilometer driven by 2035 with intermediate steps. Otherwise, manufacturers face high fines.
The key message from Koch and his team is that EU legislation massively underestimates the real CO2 emissions of new vehicles, especially in 2030. EU legislation stipulates that new vehicles must not emit more than 49 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven on average in 2030. The “lack of a physical basis for the legislation” leads to significantly higher real CO2 emissions compared to the emission limit value.
According to the researchers’ criticism, the legislation does not take into account all real emissions from new cars because it is based purely on a tank-to-wheel analysis. Only the CO2 emissions of vehicles with combustion engines are taken into account, and the CO2 emissions associated with the production and operation of battery electric vehicles are completely ignored. For example, after a mileage of 210,000 kilometers, an EV causes CO2 emissions of 33 tons.
This corresponds to emissions of 157 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven. The value of 157 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven by an EV is contrary to EU legislation, which stipulates a maximum value of 49 grams in 2030. However, the EV is not included in the recording of CO2 emissions according to fleet legislation with the real value, but with the value of zero grams of CO2 per kilometer driven, because only the emissions at the tailpipe are measured. The researchers’ verdict: “The effects of the legislation therefore contradict the goals of the Paris Agreement to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
With a mileage of 210,000 kilometers, the production of the drivetrain of EVs produces the equivalent of 76 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven. For a combustion engine, this value is 38 grams of CO2.
The paper also sets out how the ramp-up of EV technology must develop by 2030 according to EU fleet legislation if the current legislation remains in place. According to the paper, 1.24 EVs must be registered for every newly registered combustion engine across the EU in 2030. In April, purely battery-electric vehicles accounted for 11.9 percent of new registrations in the EU. Pure combustion engines had a share of 48.9 percent.
The paper calls on the EU legislator to swiftly amend the CO2 fleet legislation. The amendment must meet the following objectives:
The background to the debate on the reassessment of emissions from EVs is also the demand by Christian Democrats and right-wing parties to reverse the phase-out of combustion engines from 2035 via a further reform of EU fleet regulation. In the European election campaign, the CDU/CSU also promised to replace combustion engine technology with CO2-neutral e-fuels and thus extend their use.
However, the return of the combustion engine is considered rather unlikely. The Hungarian Council Presidency is also in favor of a more attractive and competitive e-car market instead of calling for the further development of combustion engines or e-fuels.
In a discussion paper by the Council Presidency, which was discussed at the Competitiveness Council last week and is available to Table.Briefings, the authors call for more support for the European EV market. Hungary is seen as a promoter of electromobility, especially as Chinese manufacturers want to invest in battery factories and production facilities in the country.
In it, they demand:
According to information obtained by Table.Briefings, the countries discussed the proposals for several hours at the Competitiveness Council. The automotive countries in particular, including Germany, reportedly spoke out against state subsidy mechanisms.
Donald Trump and the US Republicans are entering the hot phase of the US election campaign with a radical right-wing agenda. A look at the election manifesto reveals that this not only applies to issues such as migration and domestic security, but also to climate action and the economic transformation. Its adoption at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee was a mere formality.
Key points of the paper: Fossil fuel exploitation is to be massively expanded, and industry decarbonization is to be reduced. Far-reaching deregulation in the environmental and energy sector, including stripping the responsible US federal authorities of their power, will pave the way for this. The content and style leave no doubt that the program comes straight out of Trump’s campaign office.
The preamble already shows what the program is about. The idea is to rehabilitate fossil fuels as the linchpin of the American economy. “Drill, baby, drill,” it says in classic Trump style.
This potential should be utilized to ensure that the USA remains the world’s largest oil and natural gas producer. The aim is not only to secure the country’s global leadership role and shape the future from a strong position – for example, when it comes to regaining the status of “industrial superpower.” Cheap energy is also intended to reduce inflation and thus counteract fears of social decline among the population.
To achieve this, however, it is necessary to remove what the program calls “crippling restrictions on American Energy Production.” It wants to repeal the relevant regulations and terminate “the Socialist Green New Deal.” Although not explicitly mentioned, this also refers to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Among other measures introduced by the Biden administration, it is intended to promote the country’s decarbonization and the socio-ecological restructuring of the US industry with around 370 billion US dollars.
However, even if Trump and the Republican camp are campaigning against the IRA, a complete reversal is hardly conceivable. Many Republican states benefit more from new investments under the Inflation Reduction Act than Democratic states. As much of the money has already been allocated, reversing the tax breaks for clean energy, electric vehicles, and efficient appliances would require a decision by the US Congress. Very few states are likely to agree to this.
The US Supreme Court’s decision on the so-called Chevron doctrine in early summer will likely have a major impact on US climate policy. The Court restricted the jurisdiction of agencies such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to interpret laws and rules in the area of climate and environmental policy and to issue regulations on emission limits, for example. This means that the authorities lose an essential part of their regulatory power. Experts and environmentalists fear that, following the ruling, many other important disputes on US climate policy will be decided in a way that weakens state regulation in this area. The Court could thus facilitate attacks on climate policy during Donald Trump’s potential second term as US President.
Although oil and gas production has reached a new high under the Biden administration, fossil fuel corporations increasingly oppose policies that threaten to jeopardize their future profit interests. Without exception, Republican-governed states have taken this up and passed laws and regulations aimed at lowering existing climate action and ESG standards.
It seems logical that Donald Trump met with influential oil and gas representatives at his Mar-a-Lago club in April this year and proposed a deal, according to the Washington Post. In exchange for a contribution of one billion US dollars for his re-election, he would make it easier for them to do business. “You’ve been waiting five years for approval, now you get it on the first day,” one attendee recalled Trump’s offer.
The recent nomination of James David Vance as a candidate for Vice President of the United States also shows the direction in which Trump’s energy and climate policy is going. Although the Ohio Republican warned of the consequences of climate change in 2020, he now doubts man-made climate change, supports the oil and gas industry and is campaigning against renewable energies and electric cars. Although Vance would have little direct power as vice president, he would take over as president if 78-year-old Donald Trump were to pass away during a new presidency. And as vice president, he would be in a good position to run for the next presidency in 2028.
A few weeks ago, 16 Nobel laureates in economics, including Claudia Goldin, Robert B. Wilson and Joseph E. Stiglitz, published a joint letter to the public urging them not to re-elect Trump.
They say that as president, “Joe Biden signed into law major investments in the US economy, including in infrastructure, domestic manufacturing, and climate.” Together, these measures would increase productivity and economic growth, reduce inflationary pressures and facilitate the transition to renewable energy, the letter explains.
In the event of a second Trump term in office, however, they fear “a negative impact on the U.S.’ economic standing in the world and a destabilizing effect on the U.S.’s domestic economy.” They say that if he were to successfully implement his agenda, it would drive up inflation. Collaboration: Nico Beckert
Europe is at a critical juncture. As it grapples with a rapidly changing global order, a far-reaching technological revolution, and the climate crisis, decisive action is needed. Lawmakers from across Europe must be hard at work to make people safer, and better off. There is no successful course of action that doesn’t involve doubling down on climate. This can only be achieved by stepping up efforts to protect the climate and embedding climate policy in the wider context of industrial policy, trade, security and foreign policy.
When European citizens cast their votes a month ago, the cost of living, international conflicts, and immigration were top concerns when deciding who to vote for. Against this backdrop, the newly elected Members of the European Parliament are meeting in Strasbourg for the first time and will decide whether to support Ursula von der Leyen and the political priorities she will pitch to them.
If Europeans’ concerns dictate these priorities, climate action must be front and centre – this is also economically necessary. Let’s look at energy costs: between 2021 and 2023, increased renewables capacity has already saved European consumers €100 billion. Nevertheless, the International Energy Agency has established that the EU economy remains exposed to fossil fuel price volatility, and decarbonised energy will lower energy prices.
To make people feel safe, lawmakers need to take a lucid look at rising climate impacts and improve our societal resilience to it. Extreme climate events are already causing severe impact on infrastructure, agriculture, and human health. The 2022 heatwave caused an estimated €40 billion of economic losses, and more than 60,000 heat-related deaths in Europe, with the highest share in Italy, Spain, Germany, France.
To protect Europe, even the most ambitious defence policy would not be sufficient. Without actively supporting the global fight against climate change, the EU will remain a small yet mighty region in a heating world, competing for resources. Polls conducted by Money Talks show that trust from emerging economies and leading African countries towards European investors is lower than towards those from the US, Canada, UK, Japan and the UAE. To strengthen its influence in a new world order, the EU must integrate climate into its strategy and build cooperation to avoid catastrophic climate change.
To keep Europe united, cooperation in giving a new breath of life to a European industrial policy will be essential. The gap between Northern and Southern Europe’s resilience to climate impacts can shape future EU politics as much as the fiscal gap does now. But equally, coastal and Southern regions have remarkable opportunities to become hubs for hydrogen production or green manufacturing.
European competitiveness, defence, the single market and the multilateral law order are expected to feature heavily in Ursula von der Leyen’s programme. But what about the European Green Deal? The EU’s whole-of-economy transformation project to climate neutrality survived the COVID pandemic and Russia’s attack on Ukraine but is missing in action following the European elections’ campaign. Well, long live the European Green Deal!
As the largest EU member state and an important industrialized country, Germany is in a strong position to drive forward the debates on a “green industrial revolution” in the EU, supported by an open and fair trade policy. Germany is, often unnoticed, an important green tech producer and exporter: the share of “GreenTech made in Germany” exceeds Germany’s share of global economic output many times over.
The European Green Deal can live on through a renewed focus on a social Europe that protects citizens against climate impacts, a truly green European industrial policy, and an ambitious foreign policy that fosters clean economy partnerships abroad.
According to European election surveys, more than 8 in 10 Europeans expect to see more climate action. Will Europe deliver?
Marc Weissgerber is Managing Director of the think tank E3G in Berlin.
The new French prime minister could be a woman who knows all important people on the international climate scene – and with whom most of the key players have already had contact: Laurence Tubiana, head of the European Climate Foundation (ECF) and one of the architects of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. The Frenchwoman is exceptionally well connected, not only on the climate scene, but also in European and French politics. She combines scientific expertise with political flair and a charming demeanor. And she is regarded as someone with a close connection to the Élysée Palace and Emmanuel Macron.
However, this is precisely what hinders her potential path to becoming prime minister: While the Socialist Party, the Green Party and the Communist Party have agreed on Tubiana as a candidate for prime minister, the radical left of “La France Insoumise” (LFI) has criticized Tubiana for leaning too close to Macron’s camp. LFI chairman Manuel Bompard described the idea of proposing her for the post of prime minister as “not serious,” as this would “bring the Macronists in through the window.” Tubiana has already twice rejected the ministerial post for the ecological transition under Macron. The LFI is the strongest part of the left-wing alliance and parliamentary election winner Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP). The left-wing party’s criticism of Tubiana is now creating major tensions within the NFP.
Tubiana was born in Oran in today’s Algeria and came to Paris as a child. She studied at the elite ScienesPo school, holds a PhD in economics and is a diplomat, known in the climate scene as the architect of the 2015 Paris Agreement. In France, Tubiana’s negotiating skills and expertise go beyond climate matters. Lola Vallejo, special advisor for climate issues at the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) – which Tubiana headed until 2015 – points to Tubiana’s knowledge of economic, industrial, financial, agricultural and social issues. “She can move in very different circles, from diplomats to political representatives and industry bosses to NGOs,” says Vallejo.
As head of the ECF, Tubiana also championed a stronger welfare state and democratic rights ahead of the European elections. She demanded that climate action measures improve people’s actual livelihoods. Tubiana believes that this is the only way to reconcile social issues, climate action, and counter protest movements such as the powerful “yellow vests” in France.
During COP21, Tubiana worked successfully behind the scenes with UNFCCC chief Christiana Figueres as the architect of the Paris Agreement. No COP plenary, no bilateral meeting of the then-French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius without his ambassador for climate negotiations. Due to a severe horse riding accident, she only wore sneakers to the conference – in a different color every day. bpo/cst
This week, a piece of research news from Switzerland gave us food for thought: Climate change is slowing down the Earth’s rotational speed. As a result, the length of the day is increasing by a few milliseconds from currently around 86,400 seconds. For comparison: The blink of an eye takes about 100 milliseconds. In other words, it is a modest time gain. Calculated over the year, however, it adds up to a few moments in which you can, for example, tackle unfinished tasks or simply close your eyes. Doing something for the climate would be even better.
This is because climate change and global warming have a bigger influence on the Earth’s rotational speed than the effect of the moon, which has determined the increase in day length for billions of years. The mechanism described by the ETH Zurich team in PNAS and Nature Geoscience: Climate change is causing the ice masses in Greenland and Antarctica to melt. The water from the polar regions flows into the global oceans and, above all, into the equatorial region. This causes a mass shift, affecting Earth’s rotation.
“It’s like when a figure skater does a pirouette, first holding her arms close to her body and then stretching them out,” explains Benedikt Soja, Professor at the Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering Deputy head of the Institute of Geodesy at ETH Zurich. “The initially fast rotation becomes slower because the masses move away from the axis of rotation, increasing physical inertia.”
Soja explains possible applications of the findings in a similarly illustrative way, for example in space navigation. The Earth’s changing rotation must be taken into account if, for example, a space probe wants to land on another planet, says Soja. This is because a deviation of just one centimeter on Earth can increase to a deviation of hundreds of meters over the huge distances involved. “Otherwise, it won’t be possible to land in a specific crater on Mars.” abg
The German government is not sending a positive climate signal to the world with its new national budget. The latest budget plan is one billion euros short of international climate financing, as Bernhard Pötter analyzes. Chancellor Scholz’s six billion pledge is in serious jeopardy – a bad omen for the financial negotiations at COP29. Moreover, the German government has not submitted its climate report on time. And, of course, Environmental Action Germany has filed a lawsuit. But there is also a tiny glimmer of hope: The German Federal Environment Agency has recorded a record 18 percent drop in German emissions in emissions trading.
The US election race is slowly entering the hottest phase. Carsten Hübner has taken a closer look at the Republican election program: Trump’s party is fully committed to fossil fuels and intends to cut back regulations even further. Economists warn against Trump and his program.
There is also a lot happening on the European climate stage: Climate champion Laurence Tubiana is being touted as France’s prime minister, and a new study on fleet limits is fuelling the debate about phasing out combustion engines, as Lukas Scheid and Markus Grabitz report.
With the draft national budget for 2025 approved by the cabinet on Wednesday, Germany fails to meet its self-imposed target for financing global climate action. Instead of the promised six billion euros from public funds from 2025, the current budget only is five billion euros. This is the result of initial analyses of the budget.
According to its own calculations, the government reached and exceeded the six billion euro mark in 2022 with 6.39 billion euros. There is no official data for the subsequent period as this data is only collected retrospectively. However, since the budget has been under extreme austerity pressure following the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court in late 2023, there have been fears that the target for 2025 could not be met. However, Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz assured at the Petersberg Climate Dialogue that “Germany can be relied on.”
Determining the exact amount of “climate financing” is problematic because it does not have a clear budget title. It depends on many factors: Which projects are (also) climate-related? Does it include cash funds only or commitment appropriations (CA) that will take effect in the coming years? With which countries will Germany undertake which development cooperation projects in a given year?
However, with all due caution, it is fair to say that the gap of just under one billion euros is mainly due to cuts to the Development Ministry (BMZ) budget. Its budget has shrunk to 10.3 billion, compared to a peak of 13.4 billion in 2022, when the BMZ provided around 5.5 billion for climate financing. As the BMZ provides around 86 percent of climate financing, the cuts will have a significant impact. If other ministries do not fill this gap (which there are no signs of) and the BMZ budget is not massively reallocated (which is also not planned), the BMZ climate share in the 2025 budget will now be around 4.2 billion.
The item “multilateral aid for climate action” dropped from 850 million euros to 751 million euros. The ministry plans to support recipients in pursuing their own goals through “financial cooperation.” A spokesperson told Table.Briefings: “It is too early to make any forecasts regarding climate financing in 2025. The BMZ contributes to a large extent to climate financing, but not exclusively. Other ministries also play a role, and their contributions can also only be determined in retrospect.”
However, things do not look much better for the other ministries: The International Climate Initiative (IKI), with which the Economic, Environment and Foreign Ministries support climate projects in the Global South, was hit particularly hard. This IKI has been cut from 735 million in the last budget to 635 million. This leaves around 4.8 billion instead of the planned six billion.
Oxfam financial expert Jan Kowalzig comes to a similar conclusion. He estimates that the current budget totals around 4.9 billion for climate financing. His analysis assumes that there will be no significant changes in the budget or between the ministries, that funding for institutions such as IRENA will continue, and that the other ministries apart from the IKI will receive an additional 100 million.
“With the planned cuts, the German government risks breaking its highly recognized international promise. This is likely to cause some damage to international climate diplomacy,” says Kowalzig. “Naturally, I assume that Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his government will continue to stick by the 6 billion pledge. However, the Bundestag must now revise the cuts in the upcoming negotiations on the 2025 federal budget.”
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Economic Affairs emphasized that the IKI “has been stabilized at this level for the coming years” despite the cuts of 100 million. This “stable and continued high level of funding for the IKI shows the high importance the Federal Government attaches to international climate action.” The current funding provides the “necessary planning security.”
Despite its slashed budget, the Foreign Ministry, which leads the international climate negotiations, has left the items on international cooperation, climate action, energy and environmental protection untouched and even significantly increased its contributions to the UN. However, “humanitarian aid and crisis prevention” has been cut from 2.7 billion to 1.4 billion.
Germany’s financial pledge is uncertain in a year in which the UN states at COP29 in Baku have to agree on a new financing target (NCQG) for the period from 2025. Germany has been one of the most important and reliable payers and one of the loudest advocates of more financial commitment from developed countries – but also from emerging economies such as China, South Korea, Singapore and the oil states. At least the developed nations club OECD has now officially certified that the developed nations have reached and exceeded the pledged 100 billion US dollars for climate aid for the first time in 2022 with 116 billion to poor countries.
As the climate targets for passenger cars are likely to be massively missed, a group of researchers is calling for an immediate and comprehensive revision of the EU’s CO2 fleet legislation. This is the central message of the white paper “CO2 emission regulations for passenger cars” from the International Association of Sustainable Drivetrain and Vehicle Technology Research (IASTEC). The paper was largely written by Thomas Koch, Head of the Institute for Piston Engines at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT).
The EU’s CO2 fleet regulation stipulates that manufacturers must reduce the average CO2 emissions of new cars to zero grams per kilometer driven by 2035 with intermediate steps. Otherwise, manufacturers face high fines.
The key message from Koch and his team is that EU legislation massively underestimates the real CO2 emissions of new vehicles, especially in 2030. EU legislation stipulates that new vehicles must not emit more than 49 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven on average in 2030. The “lack of a physical basis for the legislation” leads to significantly higher real CO2 emissions compared to the emission limit value.
According to the researchers’ criticism, the legislation does not take into account all real emissions from new cars because it is based purely on a tank-to-wheel analysis. Only the CO2 emissions of vehicles with combustion engines are taken into account, and the CO2 emissions associated with the production and operation of battery electric vehicles are completely ignored. For example, after a mileage of 210,000 kilometers, an EV causes CO2 emissions of 33 tons.
This corresponds to emissions of 157 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven. The value of 157 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven by an EV is contrary to EU legislation, which stipulates a maximum value of 49 grams in 2030. However, the EV is not included in the recording of CO2 emissions according to fleet legislation with the real value, but with the value of zero grams of CO2 per kilometer driven, because only the emissions at the tailpipe are measured. The researchers’ verdict: “The effects of the legislation therefore contradict the goals of the Paris Agreement to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
With a mileage of 210,000 kilometers, the production of the drivetrain of EVs produces the equivalent of 76 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven. For a combustion engine, this value is 38 grams of CO2.
The paper also sets out how the ramp-up of EV technology must develop by 2030 according to EU fleet legislation if the current legislation remains in place. According to the paper, 1.24 EVs must be registered for every newly registered combustion engine across the EU in 2030. In April, purely battery-electric vehicles accounted for 11.9 percent of new registrations in the EU. Pure combustion engines had a share of 48.9 percent.
The paper calls on the EU legislator to swiftly amend the CO2 fleet legislation. The amendment must meet the following objectives:
The background to the debate on the reassessment of emissions from EVs is also the demand by Christian Democrats and right-wing parties to reverse the phase-out of combustion engines from 2035 via a further reform of EU fleet regulation. In the European election campaign, the CDU/CSU also promised to replace combustion engine technology with CO2-neutral e-fuels and thus extend their use.
However, the return of the combustion engine is considered rather unlikely. The Hungarian Council Presidency is also in favor of a more attractive and competitive e-car market instead of calling for the further development of combustion engines or e-fuels.
In a discussion paper by the Council Presidency, which was discussed at the Competitiveness Council last week and is available to Table.Briefings, the authors call for more support for the European EV market. Hungary is seen as a promoter of electromobility, especially as Chinese manufacturers want to invest in battery factories and production facilities in the country.
In it, they demand:
According to information obtained by Table.Briefings, the countries discussed the proposals for several hours at the Competitiveness Council. The automotive countries in particular, including Germany, reportedly spoke out against state subsidy mechanisms.
Donald Trump and the US Republicans are entering the hot phase of the US election campaign with a radical right-wing agenda. A look at the election manifesto reveals that this not only applies to issues such as migration and domestic security, but also to climate action and the economic transformation. Its adoption at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee was a mere formality.
Key points of the paper: Fossil fuel exploitation is to be massively expanded, and industry decarbonization is to be reduced. Far-reaching deregulation in the environmental and energy sector, including stripping the responsible US federal authorities of their power, will pave the way for this. The content and style leave no doubt that the program comes straight out of Trump’s campaign office.
The preamble already shows what the program is about. The idea is to rehabilitate fossil fuels as the linchpin of the American economy. “Drill, baby, drill,” it says in classic Trump style.
This potential should be utilized to ensure that the USA remains the world’s largest oil and natural gas producer. The aim is not only to secure the country’s global leadership role and shape the future from a strong position – for example, when it comes to regaining the status of “industrial superpower.” Cheap energy is also intended to reduce inflation and thus counteract fears of social decline among the population.
To achieve this, however, it is necessary to remove what the program calls “crippling restrictions on American Energy Production.” It wants to repeal the relevant regulations and terminate “the Socialist Green New Deal.” Although not explicitly mentioned, this also refers to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Among other measures introduced by the Biden administration, it is intended to promote the country’s decarbonization and the socio-ecological restructuring of the US industry with around 370 billion US dollars.
However, even if Trump and the Republican camp are campaigning against the IRA, a complete reversal is hardly conceivable. Many Republican states benefit more from new investments under the Inflation Reduction Act than Democratic states. As much of the money has already been allocated, reversing the tax breaks for clean energy, electric vehicles, and efficient appliances would require a decision by the US Congress. Very few states are likely to agree to this.
The US Supreme Court’s decision on the so-called Chevron doctrine in early summer will likely have a major impact on US climate policy. The Court restricted the jurisdiction of agencies such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to interpret laws and rules in the area of climate and environmental policy and to issue regulations on emission limits, for example. This means that the authorities lose an essential part of their regulatory power. Experts and environmentalists fear that, following the ruling, many other important disputes on US climate policy will be decided in a way that weakens state regulation in this area. The Court could thus facilitate attacks on climate policy during Donald Trump’s potential second term as US President.
Although oil and gas production has reached a new high under the Biden administration, fossil fuel corporations increasingly oppose policies that threaten to jeopardize their future profit interests. Without exception, Republican-governed states have taken this up and passed laws and regulations aimed at lowering existing climate action and ESG standards.
It seems logical that Donald Trump met with influential oil and gas representatives at his Mar-a-Lago club in April this year and proposed a deal, according to the Washington Post. In exchange for a contribution of one billion US dollars for his re-election, he would make it easier for them to do business. “You’ve been waiting five years for approval, now you get it on the first day,” one attendee recalled Trump’s offer.
The recent nomination of James David Vance as a candidate for Vice President of the United States also shows the direction in which Trump’s energy and climate policy is going. Although the Ohio Republican warned of the consequences of climate change in 2020, he now doubts man-made climate change, supports the oil and gas industry and is campaigning against renewable energies and electric cars. Although Vance would have little direct power as vice president, he would take over as president if 78-year-old Donald Trump were to pass away during a new presidency. And as vice president, he would be in a good position to run for the next presidency in 2028.
A few weeks ago, 16 Nobel laureates in economics, including Claudia Goldin, Robert B. Wilson and Joseph E. Stiglitz, published a joint letter to the public urging them not to re-elect Trump.
They say that as president, “Joe Biden signed into law major investments in the US economy, including in infrastructure, domestic manufacturing, and climate.” Together, these measures would increase productivity and economic growth, reduce inflationary pressures and facilitate the transition to renewable energy, the letter explains.
In the event of a second Trump term in office, however, they fear “a negative impact on the U.S.’ economic standing in the world and a destabilizing effect on the U.S.’s domestic economy.” They say that if he were to successfully implement his agenda, it would drive up inflation. Collaboration: Nico Beckert
Europe is at a critical juncture. As it grapples with a rapidly changing global order, a far-reaching technological revolution, and the climate crisis, decisive action is needed. Lawmakers from across Europe must be hard at work to make people safer, and better off. There is no successful course of action that doesn’t involve doubling down on climate. This can only be achieved by stepping up efforts to protect the climate and embedding climate policy in the wider context of industrial policy, trade, security and foreign policy.
When European citizens cast their votes a month ago, the cost of living, international conflicts, and immigration were top concerns when deciding who to vote for. Against this backdrop, the newly elected Members of the European Parliament are meeting in Strasbourg for the first time and will decide whether to support Ursula von der Leyen and the political priorities she will pitch to them.
If Europeans’ concerns dictate these priorities, climate action must be front and centre – this is also economically necessary. Let’s look at energy costs: between 2021 and 2023, increased renewables capacity has already saved European consumers €100 billion. Nevertheless, the International Energy Agency has established that the EU economy remains exposed to fossil fuel price volatility, and decarbonised energy will lower energy prices.
To make people feel safe, lawmakers need to take a lucid look at rising climate impacts and improve our societal resilience to it. Extreme climate events are already causing severe impact on infrastructure, agriculture, and human health. The 2022 heatwave caused an estimated €40 billion of economic losses, and more than 60,000 heat-related deaths in Europe, with the highest share in Italy, Spain, Germany, France.
To protect Europe, even the most ambitious defence policy would not be sufficient. Without actively supporting the global fight against climate change, the EU will remain a small yet mighty region in a heating world, competing for resources. Polls conducted by Money Talks show that trust from emerging economies and leading African countries towards European investors is lower than towards those from the US, Canada, UK, Japan and the UAE. To strengthen its influence in a new world order, the EU must integrate climate into its strategy and build cooperation to avoid catastrophic climate change.
To keep Europe united, cooperation in giving a new breath of life to a European industrial policy will be essential. The gap between Northern and Southern Europe’s resilience to climate impacts can shape future EU politics as much as the fiscal gap does now. But equally, coastal and Southern regions have remarkable opportunities to become hubs for hydrogen production or green manufacturing.
European competitiveness, defence, the single market and the multilateral law order are expected to feature heavily in Ursula von der Leyen’s programme. But what about the European Green Deal? The EU’s whole-of-economy transformation project to climate neutrality survived the COVID pandemic and Russia’s attack on Ukraine but is missing in action following the European elections’ campaign. Well, long live the European Green Deal!
As the largest EU member state and an important industrialized country, Germany is in a strong position to drive forward the debates on a “green industrial revolution” in the EU, supported by an open and fair trade policy. Germany is, often unnoticed, an important green tech producer and exporter: the share of “GreenTech made in Germany” exceeds Germany’s share of global economic output many times over.
The European Green Deal can live on through a renewed focus on a social Europe that protects citizens against climate impacts, a truly green European industrial policy, and an ambitious foreign policy that fosters clean economy partnerships abroad.
According to European election surveys, more than 8 in 10 Europeans expect to see more climate action. Will Europe deliver?
Marc Weissgerber is Managing Director of the think tank E3G in Berlin.
The new French prime minister could be a woman who knows all important people on the international climate scene – and with whom most of the key players have already had contact: Laurence Tubiana, head of the European Climate Foundation (ECF) and one of the architects of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. The Frenchwoman is exceptionally well connected, not only on the climate scene, but also in European and French politics. She combines scientific expertise with political flair and a charming demeanor. And she is regarded as someone with a close connection to the Élysée Palace and Emmanuel Macron.
However, this is precisely what hinders her potential path to becoming prime minister: While the Socialist Party, the Green Party and the Communist Party have agreed on Tubiana as a candidate for prime minister, the radical left of “La France Insoumise” (LFI) has criticized Tubiana for leaning too close to Macron’s camp. LFI chairman Manuel Bompard described the idea of proposing her for the post of prime minister as “not serious,” as this would “bring the Macronists in through the window.” Tubiana has already twice rejected the ministerial post for the ecological transition under Macron. The LFI is the strongest part of the left-wing alliance and parliamentary election winner Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP). The left-wing party’s criticism of Tubiana is now creating major tensions within the NFP.
Tubiana was born in Oran in today’s Algeria and came to Paris as a child. She studied at the elite ScienesPo school, holds a PhD in economics and is a diplomat, known in the climate scene as the architect of the 2015 Paris Agreement. In France, Tubiana’s negotiating skills and expertise go beyond climate matters. Lola Vallejo, special advisor for climate issues at the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) – which Tubiana headed until 2015 – points to Tubiana’s knowledge of economic, industrial, financial, agricultural and social issues. “She can move in very different circles, from diplomats to political representatives and industry bosses to NGOs,” says Vallejo.
As head of the ECF, Tubiana also championed a stronger welfare state and democratic rights ahead of the European elections. She demanded that climate action measures improve people’s actual livelihoods. Tubiana believes that this is the only way to reconcile social issues, climate action, and counter protest movements such as the powerful “yellow vests” in France.
During COP21, Tubiana worked successfully behind the scenes with UNFCCC chief Christiana Figueres as the architect of the Paris Agreement. No COP plenary, no bilateral meeting of the then-French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius without his ambassador for climate negotiations. Due to a severe horse riding accident, she only wore sneakers to the conference – in a different color every day. bpo/cst
This week, a piece of research news from Switzerland gave us food for thought: Climate change is slowing down the Earth’s rotational speed. As a result, the length of the day is increasing by a few milliseconds from currently around 86,400 seconds. For comparison: The blink of an eye takes about 100 milliseconds. In other words, it is a modest time gain. Calculated over the year, however, it adds up to a few moments in which you can, for example, tackle unfinished tasks or simply close your eyes. Doing something for the climate would be even better.
This is because climate change and global warming have a bigger influence on the Earth’s rotational speed than the effect of the moon, which has determined the increase in day length for billions of years. The mechanism described by the ETH Zurich team in PNAS and Nature Geoscience: Climate change is causing the ice masses in Greenland and Antarctica to melt. The water from the polar regions flows into the global oceans and, above all, into the equatorial region. This causes a mass shift, affecting Earth’s rotation.
“It’s like when a figure skater does a pirouette, first holding her arms close to her body and then stretching them out,” explains Benedikt Soja, Professor at the Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering Deputy head of the Institute of Geodesy at ETH Zurich. “The initially fast rotation becomes slower because the masses move away from the axis of rotation, increasing physical inertia.”
Soja explains possible applications of the findings in a similarly illustrative way, for example in space navigation. The Earth’s changing rotation must be taken into account if, for example, a space probe wants to land on another planet, says Soja. This is because a deviation of just one centimeter on Earth can increase to a deviation of hundreds of meters over the huge distances involved. “Otherwise, it won’t be possible to land in a specific crater on Mars.” abg
