Hydrogen: Paths to guarantee supply + Henneberger: Activist in the Bundestag + Climate crisis jeopardizes national security

Dear reader,

Providing affordable hydrogen is key to decarbonizing the German economy. However, while European manufacturers of electrolysis systems struggle with massive overcapacity, the expansion of hydrogen import pipelines is far too slow. Experts believe the next German government must expedite pipeline construction and guarantee demand, analyzes Nico Beckert.

Decarbonizing maritime shipping is also challenging, as large tankers can operate for up to 40 years. This means that measures to protect the climate need to be taken early on. A growing list of countries now call for a carbon price on shipping, among them Panama and Liberia, under whose flags a particularly large number of merchant ships sail. The revenue is supposed to be used to fund the transformation. The fact that emissions are becoming more expensive is expected to have an additional steering effect. The International Maritime Organization will negotiate this in mid-February. Fritz Vorholz takes a look at the prospects of an agreement.

Today we also have an interview for you with former activist and current member of the German parliament Kathrin Henneberger. It is “easier to fight for villages and a forest than for laws”, says the Green MP in conversation with Bernhard Pötter. She also talks about her successes in parliament, what she has learned and what disappointments she has experienced.

Your
Lukas Bayer

Hydrogen: These hurdles await the next German government

Wasserstofffinfrastruktur — Germany depends on the import of hydrogen and must accelerate the construction of import pipelines.

By

Nico Beckert

The next German government must speed up the supply of hydrogen to German industry. Several steel manufacturers fear that there will not be enough hydrogen available at competitive prices in the medium term. For this reason, some companies want to renegotiate EU funding decisions for the use of green hydrogen to ensure that they have more time to switch to green steel production, as the German newspaper Handelsblatt reports.

Between 50 and 70 percent of Germany’s hydrogen demand could come from other countries due to lower production costs there. The construction of import pipelines takes four to five years and the planning process is already experiencing delays. “We have no more time to lose when it comes to hydrogen,” warns Mathias Koch, hydrogen expert at the Agora Energiewende think tank. If political efforts are not stepped up, the steel and chemical industries will only be able to switch to hydrogen later, he says, adding that this could jeopardize climate targets.

According to an Agora study, pipelines from Denmark and Norway are supposed to supply hydrogen to Germany as early as 2030. However, the construction of a Danish pipeline is likely to be delayed until 2031 due to an environmental impact assessment. And a planned blue hydrogen pipeline from Norway was recently put on hold because, according to the Norwegian side, there would not be sufficient demand.

It is not unusual for such capital-intensive projects to suffer delays. Experts told Table.Briefings that the pipeline from Denmark will make swift progress despite these delays. There are also talks between the Netherlands and the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia about laying pipelines from the Netherlands to its industrial hubs. The Federation of German Industries (BDI), on the other hand, is more skeptical. According to a BDI publication, the infrastructure expansion required for hydrogen imports “hardly seems realistic before the end of the decade.” And a new study by the Global Energy Monitor (GEM) also warns that, despite support from European governments, the infrastructure development is “still at an early stage.”

Pipeline construction challenges

Building import pipelines involves various challenges:

Funding: Investors initially take an economic risk because the future capacity utilization of these pipelines is still uncertain. The GEM study shows that the EU has recently committed to funding pipelines with a total length of over 22,000 kilometers. However, some planned pipelines also run through countries with low hydrogen demand, such as France. Experts doubt whether these countries will co-fund the pipelines and how quickly the approvals for these sections will be granted. The next German government “can also provide guarantees for the construction of cross-border pipeline infrastructure with European partner states and thus secure the investments financially,” says Koch.
A business model competing with gas exports: According to GEM, around 40 percent of planned pipeline projects will involve the conversion of existing gas pipelines or a mix of new and converted pipelines. However, retrofitting only makes sense if the demand for natural gas decreases and gas exporters lose this business model. Experts say that Norway will not convert its pipelines for the time being, as the country has a stable demand for its natural gas since the Russian war of aggression.
Agreement between many countries: Pipelines from neighboring countries can be built more quickly. “Corridors across several countries,” such as from Spain to Germany or North Africa to Northern Europe, “require more complex solutions,” writes Agora Energiewende.

At least there is some progress on the so-called southern corridor. In mid-January, Germany, Algeria, Austria, Italy and Tunisia signed a declaration of intent to develop the southern hydrogen corridor. The corridor will connect Tunisia and Algeria with European customers via 3,500 to 4,000 kilometers of hydrogen pipelines. The European section will comprise 60 to 70 percent of converted natural gas pipelines. According to the German Ministry of Economic Affairs, the “next step” is to “concretize the hydrogen pipeline to North Africa.” However, there are doubts whether Tunisia and Algeria can ramp up hydrogen production fast enough. The two countries predict an export capacity of around 330,000 tons of hydrogen by 2030, which is just over eight percent of the total pipeline capacity.

No pipelines without guaranteed demand

In order to ensure there is enough hydrogen in the future, politicians must also incentivize and ensure demand, says Agora expert Koch. If investors do not have long-term contracts with customers, they could withdraw or delay their pipeline and electrolysis projects. To guarantee demand, the Climate Neutrality Foundation also calls for politicians to expand green lead markets and introduce standards and quotas for certain products such as green steel or ammonia for fertilizer production, which stipulate a minimum proportion of green hydrogen. Public procurement of green steel could also stimulate demand.

Furthermore, the Federation of German Industries (BDI) calls for promoting hydrogen production in Germany “to be able to make hydrogen available at affordable prices in the early stages.” However, due to cost reasons, green hydrogen production in Germany is limited. The BDI also proposes the “domestic production of blue hydrogen” – hydrogen produced using natural gas and by capturing and storing CO2.

The political party bloc CDU/CSU is open to blue hydrogen. However, the problem of carbon storage would have to be solved first, which would also mean investing in infrastructure such as carbon pipelines. This would also entail methane emissions from gas extraction and transportation. This means that blue hydrogen would also require more political efforts than before.

Maritime transport: Why a global CO2 levy is possible

*The container ship MSC “Soraya” also sails under the flag of Panama – a key country that now supports a CO2 levy.*

By

Fritz Vorholz

Efforts to protect the climate on the high seas are gaining momentum. A growing number of countries are lobbying the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cargo vessels through technical requirements, but also with the help of an “economic element” – in other words, a levy on greenhouse gas emissions. It would be the first climate action tax to be levied worldwide.

Its supporters include several Pacific island states threatened by rising sea levels, all EU member states and, above all, Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands. So far, they are in the minority. But measured by tonnage, over half of all seagoing vessels sail under their flag. This has high symbolic value for the IMO’s decision-making process. The chances of reaching an agreement are probably high.

Negotiations will continue at the working level in mid-February and an agreement is expected to be reached in April, which could be finalized in the fall. It remains unclear how the new US government under Donald Trump will act on the matter – and whether the other IMO members would overrule it if necessary.

Maritime transport is already integrated into European emissions trading

Over 100,000 ships, mainly freighters, sail the world’s oceans. They handle 90 percent of global trade, consume around 300 million tons of fossil fuels every year and generate around three percent of global emissions of climate-damaging carbon dioxide (CO2) – largely unaffected by regulations.

Only ships entering or leaving the European Economic Area must pay a price for every ton of CO2. The reason: Maritime transport was incorporated into the European Emissions Trading System (ETS) in 2024. Local shipping companies see this as an obstacle to global trade and push for uniform global standards – such as those now being discussed at the IMO. The European regulations must then be “quickly harmonized with the international system as soon as it has been decided,” the German Shipowners’ Association (VDR) demands.

National climate targets exclude maritime shipping – IMO steps in

Regarding energy efficiency, ocean-going vessels are better than any other means of motorized transport. However, growing global trade means their carbon emissions are rising. As these can hardly be attributed to individual polluter states, these emissions are excluded when drafting national climate targets. This was agreed as part of the UN negotiations on global climate action. However, at the first UN Climate Change Conference in Berlin in 1995, it was decided that the IMO would look into the matter.

The IMO is the dedicated UN agency for matters concerning international maritime transport. It has 176 member states. To date, its focus has been on defining standards for the safe operation of ships – based on established, i.e. fossil-based, propulsion technologies. However, the London-based agency has contributed very little to the development of innovative, eco-friendly propulsion systems.

This is due to several reasons: not enough R&D staff, a lack of clarity about the authority’s mandate and the pursuit of consensus, according to Marine Policy. Although the law allows for majority decisions, there is actually “a strong culture and tradition of making decisions by consensus,” an analysis by the Aspen Institute states.

CO2 levy to boost net zero measures by 2050

This cripples decision-making processes. It was not until 2018 that the IMO members agreed on a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which was not very ambitious to boot. The ambition level was raised in 2023. It now states that greenhouse gas emissions from shipping should be net zero by 2050.

Ocean-going vessels have a lifespan of up to 40 years. So if shipping is to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, swift action is needed. This is where the proposal comes in, which 47 countries put forward at the end of December last year with the support of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), the organization representing the interests of shipowners and operators, and which is now on the IMO agenda: a levy on greenhouse gas emissions from ships. The paper also specifies figures, all of which are in square brackets and therefore disputed: 18.75 US dollars, 100 US dollars or 150 US dollars – each per ton of CO2 equivalent emitted.

If the levy is introduced, operators would be incentivized to reduce their ships’ energy consumption. Optimized ship hull designs could contribute to this, as could sails to support the ship’s diesel engines, improved fleet management or lower speeds. According to the IMO, these and other measures could cut emissions by around one-third in the relatively short term. However, net zero requires entirely new propulsion systems: low-emission or zero-emission fuels, matching engines and the necessary port infrastructure. None of this is available worldwide or on a large scale.

Revenue from CO2 levy crucial

This means that the levy would only have a limited steering effect in the short term; its primary purpose is to generate revenue. A growing list of poorer countries have already submitted claims to it as compensation for expected disadvantages in imports and exports. Others push for the expected billions to be used in the maritime sector: among other things, for developing CO2-free or low-carbon fuels – and for promoting their market ramp-up.

E-methanol and e-ammonia are considered the most promising candidates for new fuels – renewable energy sources produced with CO2-free hydrogen by electrolysis. The CO2 levy could accelerate their use, but it cannot prevent transportation on the world’s oceans from becoming significantly more expensive as a result. According to the IMO impact assessment, however, the effects on global economic growth and price levels are almost negligible as transport costs only account for a small proportion of product prices.

Whether the new US government will attempt to undermine the project can only be speculated. One thing is certain, however: The otherwise powerful country only plays a minor role in maritime shipping – only 0.6 percent of global tonnage is shipped under the US flag.

‘It’s easier to fight for villages and a forest than for laws’

Kathrin Henneberger (Alliance 90/The Greens) in the German Bundestag in Berlin.

By

Bernhard Pötter

Table.Briefings: Ms. Henneberger, what was your goal when you entered the Bundestag three and a half years ago as an activist for the climate movement?

Kathrin Henneberger: In very big terms: I wanted to bring about the end of the fossil age. And for my region, I wanted us to realize and enshrine the coal phase-out in the Rhenish mining area and save as many villages as possible.

What is your verdict? The fossil age is not over yet.

No, not by a long shot. But what we have achieved is astonishing. Yet we read scientific reports that we have now exceeded the 1.5-degree limit for global warming. This is, of course, the opposite of ‘Hey, we’ve achieved something!’

‘Sometimes minor clauses are crucial’

What astonishes you about your term?

There are tangible successes. I used to give guided tours of the five villages that were to be excavated for the Garzweiler open-cast mine and all I ever said was: ‘It’s all going to disappear, the forest here, the cemetery there. It was such a helpless feeling. Today, I say: This is saved, this 300-year-old tree can live on.’ That makes me very happy every time.

Are you also amazed by the government’s climate policy record?

With regard to the energy sector, yes. We are now at 60 percent renewables in the power sector. We have only achieved this because we have pushed one law after another through parliament at breakneck speed. We have enshrined the coal phase-out in the Rhenish lignite mining region. And sometimes minor clauses are crucial, as I have learned: I have ensured that the text now states that the review of the phase-out in the Rhineland in 2026 will not only consider energy security, but also compliance with climate targets.

You came to Berlin to end the fossil age, and you achieved half-sentences?

No, five villages is not a half sentence. I was also thrilled that we managed to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty. People said beforehand: You’ll never manage that! During the budget negotiations, we also managed to shift hundreds of millions of euros towards global climate financing and biodiversity financing. These are critical issues if we want to end the fossil age.

‘Deliberately working past the FDP’

Meanwhile, the government coalition has watered down the Climate Change Act and failed to introduce many climate projects, such as the climate check for laws or the phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. Was the government good for the climate?

The Green government’s participation was very good for the climate. The problem was that the FDP repeatedly blocked everything, including development cooperation. Sometimes, I deliberately worked past the FDP. That’s what you do when an actor blocks you.

You joined the parliament as an activist. Did you gain a different perspective?

My way of working hasn’t changed much, but I have learned a lot. What has changed are the approaches that I have been able to use. Primarily for the battles back where I live, but also internationally. As an MP, I was able to create much more space for issues and people, with parliamentary protection or sponsorships, for example, in the work against the EACOP oil pipeline in Uganda.

‘I can poke around and protect people’

Do you feel more powerful as an MP than as an activist?

As a climate activist in Germany, you can make a big difference, depending on how much effort you put into it. As an MP, I can achieve more on a global level. But it should never be underestimated how much activists can achieve in parliament: I can ask questions, poke around and protect people experiencing repression, especially in a global context.

Are you still an activist pursuing your own goal? Or a parliamentarian who represents all the people?

We represent the population of Germany in all its diversity. I have never met a member of parliament who says that we represent the opinion of the entire population. I base my work on scientific findings and climate activism is not about pursuing selfish interests, as some lobby groups do. On the contrary, I am a climate activist for the same reason that I became a member of parliament: To fight the great injustice of the climate crisis and to help ensure that we have a chance at a future in a better and fairer world. And progress is being made: As recently as 2015, we were aggressively attacked for publicly talking about phasing out coal. Now, the phase-out is the consensus.

‘Be better prepared than the other side’

As an MP, you had a lot of contact with people who think differently, who wanted something different, with lobbyists, with conservatives. What did you learn from them?

(Thinks for a while) I remember a lot of moments when I was in an argument. So I’ve learned that I always have to be better prepared than the other side.

How much has your relationship with your base, with the climate movement, changed? Surely many say: Gee, Kathrin, what are you doing in Berlin?

It’s okay if they tell me that. I always see protest as a wind in my sails rather than a problem. So it’s great that Fridays for Future are calling for the next climate strike. I’m always happy when people from my old environment come up to me and say ‘Hey Kathrin, there’s another political problem here, I’ve stumbled across it, can you explain it to me? Or there’s something here that I disagree with’.

Don’t you ever think ‘we’ve failed’ when looking back at the government’s failures in climate policy?

Achieving the coal phase-out and achieving 60 percent renewables is not a failure. No one has ever told me that.

‘There were complaints that I wouldn’t smile’

Was working in the Bundestag easier or harder than you expected?

Parliament is definitely more patriarchal than I had ever expected. I have been treated differently several times because I am a woman and an activist. I wasn’t taken seriously and received stupid comments, more so than other MPs. That was particularly the case in the committees. When I invite experts to the Committee on Economic Cooperation who are not from Central Europe and don’t have a professorship, I receive comments like: ‘Is she even competent?’ I sometimes got a bit louder in such sessions. If I had been an old white man who had suggested the person, it would undoubtedly have been more readily accepted. At the beginning of the legislative period, my committee chairman once complained that I always looked grim and did not smile. Very absurd things.

Were there any positive surprises?

There are the friendships I have made with other colleagues. And the excellent cooperation I now have with the ministries. In the beginning, they must have thought, Oh my God, who is this now? She’s from activism and is now sitting here in our meetings where we discuss things that aren’t meant for the public. I was treated like a hot potato. But then trust grew, and I realized that I could sometimes contribute knowledge and perspectives that weren’t there before.

‘You have to build a movement’

You said it was good for the climate that the Greens were in government. Was it also good for the Greens to focus on the climate? It’s currently a losing issue.

The issue comes in cycles. We had already built up a strong climate movement in Copenhagen in 2009, and then it imploded. A movement doesn’t happen on its own. You have to build it. And the good thing is that the movement for climate justice has a much stronger base than we’ve ever had, from church associations to bicycle initiatives.

If that’s the case, why do we hear so little about it?

We humans react to things that are urgent in the here and now. For many, the climate crisis is still abstract and in the future. And there is scientific evidence that climate denial has increased in the discourse, giving the impression that the climate crisis is not as bad as we are told.

What do you intend to do about it?

At a time when the far-right is trying to divide our society over the climate issue, we need to talk about the climate crisis in a new way: It is a matter of security and social justice. Climate action only works with social justice. We need to transform our cities and villages to make them not only resistant to heat, but also offer a better quality of life. Climate action also means making life more socially just and distributing prosperity more fairly, because people with lower incomes are affected the most.

How do you intend to achieve this?

During the debate about Lützerath, I realized it is tragically easier to fight for actual villages and a forest than for laws. It is much easier to organize a protest with 50,000 people to preserve a forest than for a national budget that provides significantly more money for global forest conservation but is abstract. That’s why we need new forms of social protest and discourse, for political majorities to push through pro-climate changes in the Bundestag.

Climate in Numbers: Climate risks one of ‘five major external threats’ to Germany

Climate change threatens Germany’s national security, could lead to more migration and make Europe more unstable, according to a joint study by the University of the German Armed Forces, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Adelphi Research and the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND). BND President Bruno Kahl warns that the security risks posed by climate change are ‘”one of the five major external threats to our country” alongside an expansive Russia, China’s geopolitical ambitions, growing cyber threats and international terrorism.

The “National Interdisciplinary Climate Risk Assessment” highlights the security risks in many dimensions:

Humanitarian crises and migration: Climate change will exacerbate food shortages and resource conflicts, which could lead to migration.
Europe: The southern countries will be more affected by climate change, potentially increasing European inequality, which could “weaken cohesion in the EU and its ability to act.”
Economy: High costs for rebuilding after floods or storms and spending on adapting to climate change lower economic growth. Widespread crop failures due to droughts can lead to price shocks on international markets. Due to the energy transition, developing countries lose income from oil and gas, which can lead to destabilization and conflicts.
Internal: Rising costs for decarbonization and a (partly perceived) overburdening of some social groups could provide opportunities for populists to attack and undermine democracy.
Military: The climate crisis will further increase the “conflictual nature of the international system.” Heatwaves and heavy rainfall will put more strain on personnel and equipment during foreign deployments.

To ensure Germany’s security in times of climate crisis, the German government must take action in four areas:

Reducing CO2 emissions at the national and European level to prevent climate change’s worst impacts and lead by example at the international level.
Pushing ahead with an internationally ambitious climate policy.
Improving climate change adaptation in Germany: Converting infrastructure and supporting particularly vulnerable social groups.
Helping internationally vulnerable countries to prevent destabilization and conflicts on Europe’s periphery.

Economic damage continues to rise

According to the Climate Risk Index published yesterday by Germanwatch, extreme weather events have claimed over 765,000 lives worldwide in the last 30 years and caused economic damage of around 4.2 trillion US dollars. According to the Index, more than 18,000 people have died in Germany and damage amounted to over 125 billion. The Caribbean island state of Dominica, China, Honduras, Myanmar, Italy and India were the countries most affected by extreme storms, heatwaves, floods and droughts between 1993 and 2022. Spain and Greece are two other European countries among the ten most affected. nib

German election: How the national railway ticket becomes a controversial issue

Just days before the federal elections in Germany, the national railways ticket is becoming an election campaign issue. Leading CDU/CSU politicians question its financial viability, but are divided on possible solutions. The debate was triggered by a statement made by Bavaria’s Transport Minister Christian Bernreiter (CSU), who is also Chairman of the Conference of Transport Ministers. He demanded that the federal government should bear the full cost of the ticket in the future. Christian Haase, the budget policy spokesperson for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, told Politico: “We have to be honest: The Deutschlandticket can no longer be financed beyond 2025.” For her part, Saxony’s Transport Minister Regina Kraushaar (CDU) calls for the federal government to continue to contribute “at least half” of the ticket’s funding. The municipalities need “a reliable funding commitment from the federal government as quickly as possible.”

The federal and state governments currently fund the national railway ticket with 1.5 billion euros, respectively. However, the funding is only guaranteed until the end of 2025 – and according to the Association of German Transport Companies (VDV), the actual costs of 3.45 billion euros last year were significantly higher than the promised compensation payments.

Criticism from the SPD and Greens

The Deutschlandticket is not mentioned in the CDU/CSU’s election program. In November, election frontrunner Friedrich Merz described the question of the ticket’s future as “very difficult” and referred to the budget plans. Leading politicians from the SPD and the Greens criticized the CDU/CSU’s stance. North Rhine-Westphalia’s Transport Minister Oliver Krischer (Greens) said that the federal government must contribute at least half of the funding in the long term. Lower Saxony’s Transport Minister Olaf Lies (SPD) also stated that the future of the ticket must be secured in the long term and that the federal government must continue to bear half of the costs.

Since the beginning of the year, the monthly ticket costs 58 instead of 49 euros. Last fall, an Ariadne study found that this price increase alone would almost halve the climate benefit of the ticket. However, it had assumed that user numbers would decrease, which has not yet occurred to this extent. ae/dpa

Canada: New climate target widens gap to 1.5-degree pathway

Shortly after the deadline expired, Canada submitted its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) for 2035 to the United Nations. In it, the country declares its “commitment and determination” to contribute to limiting the global temperature increase to well below two degrees and at best to 1.5 degrees – but a less ambitious reduction target casts doubt on this: greenhouse gas emissions are to be reduced by only 45 to 50 percent by 2035 compared to 2005.

“Canada has the wealth and responsibility to lead the transition away from fossil fuels,” Natalie Jones, policy advisor at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), tells Table.Briefings. “But the new national climate plan does not live up to this potential.” For example, the necessary reduction in fossil fuel production is not considered. Sarah Heck, policy analyst at Climate Action Tracker (CAT), also rates the NDC as “insufficient” to achieve the 1.5-degree limit. “In fact, the gap between 1.5 degrees and the 2035 target has widened compared to the 2030 target, both in absolute and relative terms,” Heck tells Table.Briefings.

Canada considers controversial emission reductions

Canada’s NDC includes “performance-based” emissions trading for industries and annually increasing credit prices for fossil fuels of currently around 80 Canadian dollars per ton of CO2 equivalent. The NDC also points out that 80 percent of electricity generation has already been decarbonized and that support programs are in place for the heating and transport transition. The country is also investigating the option of offsetting emissions abroad through ITMOs (Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes).

Canada has not yet signed an ITMO agreement with a partner country. In a public participation process on the NDC, a majority of the population was in favor of Canada reducing emissions first and foremost at home, even if this would require more immediate action from Canadians and companies. Experts and environmental associations criticize the ITMO agreement, as negative effects on partner countries are currently not sufficiently considered and wealthy countries are favored over poorer ones.

Canada could also miss the 2030 climate target

The new target builds on the previous goal of cutting emissions by 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. However, Canada, a leading oil and gas producer, has so far missed every one of its greenhouse gas emissions targets. According to the NDC, the country is currently “on track” to reduce emissions by 34 percent by 2030. However, what the government describes as a “positive result” would be a reduction of six percentage points lower than that envisaged in the NDC.

Some climate groups as well as the official Net Zero Advisory Board had already criticized in December that the announced targets were not ambitious enough. The body had called for a reduction of 50 to 55 percent, while climate groups even demanded 80 percent. The Climate Action Tracker rates Canada’s current NDC as “insufficient.” lb

Renewables: Agora proposes new remuneration system

The next German government must quickly develop a concept for funding wind and solar power plants. The current support in the form of a market premium, which is paid out of the federal budget in accordance with the EEG, has only been approved by the EU until the end of 2026. By then, at the latest, the funding must be changed to ensure that the state not only bears the risk by guaranteeing minimum prices for the electricity fed into the grid but also skims off profits if maximum prices are exceeded. Alternatively, as called for by the FDP and parts of the CDU/CSU, government support could be abolished entirely; renewables would then have to finance themselves on the market alone.

On Wednesday, the Agora Energiewende think tank presented a concept representing a compromise between these proposals. Operators of ground-mounted solar plants and onshore wind farms would be able to market their electricity entirely themselves via PPAs (Power Purchase Agreements) in the first few years, for which important conditions such as electricity prices are easily predictable. During this time, there would be no guaranteed minimum price, but also no profit absorption if prices are high. Contracts for Difference (CfDs), which set minimum and maximum revenues, would then come into effect at a later point, which they can determine themselves during the tendering process.

“The combination of both instruments can protect investors against low electricity prices and thus reduce capital costs,” writes Agora, adding that relying on PPAs alone, on the other hand, is not ideal. Due to the significant uncertainty surrounding future developments, this would significantly increase the financing costs for new plants. “Our proposal ensures that electricity costs for consumers and the state fall thanks to the closer dovetailing of market incentives with state guarantees. At the same time, investments in wind and solar will remain attractive,” says Philipp Godron, Head of the Electricity Program at Agora. Unlike in the past, the remuneration in the Agora concept would no longer be based on the amount of electricity actually produced, but on the theoretical production of a so-called reference plant. According to Agora, such production-independent CfDs would lead to a better adjustment of production to the market value and actual electricity demand.

BEE fears high repayments

This part of the proposal has been met with criticism from the industry. Based on a comprehensive study, the German Renewable Energy Federation (BEE) fears that this could result in considerable repayments that exceed the proceeds. “The often cited market distortions caused by production-dependent CfDs hardly exist in practice, while the risks of production-independent CfDs for investments are real and severe,” said BEE President Simone in response to a question from Table.Briefings. Agora acknowledges in the study that the model is associated with risks, but considers these solvable. It argues that it must be ensured “that the profitability of the investment is not undermined by a reference value that is only theoretical in nature and cannot be regularly achieved in practice.” mkr

Öko-Institut: Why a pure market solution would cause costs to skyrocket

If politicians left the heating transition exclusively to the market, heating costs for households would in all likelihood rise dramatically. This is the conclusion of a new joint study by the Öko-Institut and the “Paritätischer Gesamtverband.” Their analysis is based on the assumption that the Building Energy Act (GEG) would be overturned and a carbon price alone would be used to make heating climate-friendly. The key result: “It would require a CO2 price of 524 euros for CO2 emissions to fall as much as they are expected to do by 2030 as a result of the Heating Act.”

This would lead to an additional CO2 cost surcharge of 10.52 cents per kWh for gas – which would mean the price of gas would double. “The financial consequences for households would be enormous.” And unlike the GEG, which only burdens those households that need to replace their heating, a high CO2 price would affect all households, “even those that have only recently replaced their heating and therefore have no short-term option to switch.” The Öko-Institut and Paritätischer Gesamtverband call for a “social heating transition” with targeted relief measures. One example they cite is social leasing, which aims to make heat pumps affordable through installment payments. ae

Climate lawsuits: Why Greenpeace sues a US company in Amsterdam

Greenpeace International filed a lawsuit against the US company Energy Transfer at an Amsterdam district court on Tuesday. The NGO, which is headquartered in Amsterdam, is invoking a new European Union directive aimed at curbing so-called SLAPP lawsuits. The term refers to lawsuits strategically aimed at intimidating or silencing critics to prevent critical public participation. The new directive also explicitly applies to SLAPP lawsuits outside EU territory. According to Greenpeace, the lawsuit is the first case of application.

Energy Transfer operates fossil fuel pipelines. The company has sued Greenpeace in North Dakota for 300 million US dollars because the NGO, together with other environmental groups and indigenous organizations, had protested against the Dakota Access Pipeline. With its own lawsuit, Greenpeace is now calling on the Amsterdam District Court to declare the US proceedings a SLAPP suit and order Energy Transfer to pay damages. The company has until July to respond.

Milieudefensie vs. Shell goes into the next round

Meanwhile, another landmark climate lawsuit is entering the next round. The Dutch climate organization Milieudefensie has taken the oil company Shell to the country’s Supreme Court, the Hoge Raad. Milieudefensie continues to demand that Shell be obliged to reduce its emissions and products (Scope 1 to 3) by a specific quota. It argues that there is a “more than sufficient” legal basis for this. In a landmark ruling in 2021, a Dutch court ordered Shell to reduce these emissions by 45 percent below 2019 levels by 2030. However, in November 2024, an appeals court overturned the specific figure, but confirmed Shell’s fundamental commitment to climate action. Shell reacted confidently to Milieudefensie’s appeal to the Hoge Raad. ae

Hydrogen: Massive overcapacity in electrolysis plants

European manufacturers of electrolysis plants for the production of green hydrogen suffer from huge overcapacities. This is the conclusion of a study by the consulting firm PwC Strategy&, which Table.Briefings has obtained in advance. Meanwhile, Chinese competitors are entering the European markets with low prices.

By the end of 2024, European manufacturers have built up sufficient capacity to produce electrolyzers with a total output of eight gigawatts. The MAN Energy Solutions plant in Hamburg alone, which opened in September, can produce systems with an output of one gigawatt per year. Siemens Energy’s factory in Berlin is roughly the same size. However, European manufacturers were only able to sell electrolyzers with a total output of 1.6 gigawatts in 2024. This corresponds to a capacity utilization of just 20 percent of the factories currently operating.

Electrolyzers are needed to break down chemical compounds. They are essential for the production of (green) hydrogen. However, emission-intensive industries such as steel, glass and chemicals are still hesitant to use them due to the high costs. Only refineries, where hydrogen is needed to desulphurize petrol and diesel, have greater demand due to regulatory requirements as increasingly low-carbon processes must be used in the production of fuels.

Because of the weak demand, BP shelved 18 green hydrogen production projects in October. Shell and Uniper also announced in the fall of 2024 that several projects would be discontinued. However, the three companies still want to stick with this low-carbon energy source.

Meanwhile, Chinese manufacturers plan to build several plants in Europe to produce such systems. They prefer countries where green electricity can be generated cheaply and electrolysis has good long-term prospects. These include Norway and Sweden, where cheap hydropower is abundant. Another destination for the Chinese is Spain, one of Europe’s sunniest countries.

According to PwC Strategy&, Chinese electrolysis manufacturers, which receive generous state subsidies in their home country, launched half a dozen projects in these three countries in 2024. They generally enter into partnerships with local companies in order to gain better access to local markets. Günter Heismann

BECCS: Why ‘climate plantations’ are hardly compatible with planetary boundaries

Many climate scenarios consider Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) a key technology for limiting global warming to below 1.5 degrees and even more so for the two-degree limit. Fast-growing plants are cultivated and burned for BECCS. The CO2 released is captured and stored.

According to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), while the theoretical potential of such “climate plantations” would be significantly higher than the average CO2 removal assumed in scenarios, the picture is reversed when looking at the planetary boundaries: “The billions of tons are far from achievable with this technology,” the authors conclude. Instead of 7.5 billion, only 200 million tons of CO2 removal in 2050 would be compatible with the planetary boundaries.

The study’s computer simulations are based on a biosphere model that factors in the nine planetary boundaries that represent the basis of human life. Six of these boundaries have already been exceeded, and four of them are land-related – in other words, they conflict with the plantations that would be necessary for BECCS. If more emphasis were placed on BECCS, agricultural land, for example, would have to make way. This, in turn, would only be feasible if the food system were to focus less on animal products. Even in this case, however, the area available worldwide would probably not be sufficient to remove the 7.5 billion tons of CO2. lb

Climate Change News: Delayed resignation. Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister since 2022 and chair of the UN biodiversity negotiations at COP16, has announced her resignation but asked President Gustavo Petro to remain in office until the end of February to finalize the biodiversity conference. When COP16 resumes, governments must make important decisions on nature financing and a monitoring framework for progress on nature restoration. These issues remained unresolved after last year’s negotiations in Cali, Colombia. Read the article

The Guardian: Sustainability and AI. The opening talks at a global summit in Paris, attended by political leaders, technology executives and experts, centered on the impact of artificial intelligence on the environment and inequality. While critics recognize the potential of AI to limit climate change, they lament the current lack of sustainability. To the article

Euractiv: Hungary wants fracking. Hungary plans an extensive gas fracking project close to its border with Romania and thus violates the EU’s climate policy. Fracking is considered to be extremely harmful to the environment and has severe effects on nature and health. Environmental organizations fear that the project expansion could be realized without a full environmental impact assessment or cross-border investigation, especially as the project is only ten kilometers from the Romanian border. To the article

CLIMATE.TABLE EDITORIAL OFFICE

Bernhard
Pötter

Alexandra
Endres

Christiane
Kühl

Lisa
Kuner

Lukas
Knigge

Malte
Kreutzfeldt

Nico
Beckert

Dear reader,

Providing affordable hydrogen is key to decarbonizing the German economy. However, while European manufacturers of electrolysis systems struggle with massive overcapacity, the expansion of hydrogen import pipelines is far too slow. Experts believe the next German government must expedite pipeline construction and guarantee demand, analyzes Nico Beckert.

Decarbonizing maritime shipping is also challenging, as large tankers can operate for up to 40 years. This means that measures to protect the climate need to be taken early on. A growing list of countries now call for a carbon price on shipping, among them Panama and Liberia, under whose flags a particularly large number of merchant ships sail. The revenue is supposed to be used to fund the transformation. The fact that emissions are becoming more expensive is expected to have an additional steering effect. The International Maritime Organization will negotiate this in mid-February. Fritz Vorholz takes a look at the prospects of an agreement.

Today we also have an interview for you with former activist and current member of the German parliament Kathrin Henneberger. It is “easier to fight for villages and a forest than for laws”, says the Green MP in conversation with Bernhard Pötter. She also talks about her successes in parliament, what she has learned and what disappointments she has experienced.

Your
Lukas Bayer

Hydrogen: These hurdles await the next German government

By

Nico Beckert

The next German government must speed up the supply of hydrogen to German industry. Several steel manufacturers fear that there will not be enough hydrogen available at competitive prices in the medium term. For this reason, some companies want to renegotiate EU funding decisions for the use of green hydrogen to ensure that they have more time to switch to green steel production, as the German newspaper Handelsblatt reports.

Between 50 and 70 percent of Germany’s hydrogen demand could come from other countries due to lower production costs there. The construction of import pipelines takes four to five years and the planning process is already experiencing delays. “We have no more time to lose when it comes to hydrogen,” warns Mathias Koch, hydrogen expert at the Agora Energiewende think tank. If political efforts are not stepped up, the steel and chemical industries will only be able to switch to hydrogen later, he says, adding that this could jeopardize climate targets.

According to an Agora study, pipelines from Denmark and Norway are supposed to supply hydrogen to Germany as early as 2030. However, the construction of a Danish pipeline is likely to be delayed until 2031 due to an environmental impact assessment. And a planned blue hydrogen pipeline from Norway was recently put on hold because, according to the Norwegian side, there would not be sufficient demand.

It is not unusual for such capital-intensive projects to suffer delays. Experts told Table.Briefings that the pipeline from Denmark will make swift progress despite these delays. There are also talks between the Netherlands and the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia about laying pipelines from the Netherlands to its industrial hubs. The Federation of German Industries (BDI), on the other hand, is more skeptical. According to a BDI publication, the infrastructure expansion required for hydrogen imports “hardly seems realistic before the end of the decade.” And a new study by the Global Energy Monitor (GEM) also warns that, despite support from European governments, the infrastructure development is “still at an early stage.”

Pipeline construction challenges

Building import pipelines involves various challenges:

Funding: Investors initially take an economic risk because the future capacity utilization of these pipelines is still uncertain. The GEM study shows that the EU has recently committed to funding pipelines with a total length of over 22,000 kilometers. However, some planned pipelines also run through countries with low hydrogen demand, such as France. Experts doubt whether these countries will co-fund the pipelines and how quickly the approvals for these sections will be granted. The next German government “can also provide guarantees for the construction of cross-border pipeline infrastructure with European partner states and thus secure the investments financially,” says Koch.
A business model competing with gas exports: According to GEM, around 40 percent of planned pipeline projects will involve the conversion of existing gas pipelines or a mix of new and converted pipelines. However, retrofitting only makes sense if the demand for natural gas decreases and gas exporters lose this business model. Experts say that Norway will not convert its pipelines for the time being, as the country has a stable demand for its natural gas since the Russian war of aggression.
Agreement between many countries: Pipelines from neighboring countries can be built more quickly. “Corridors across several countries,” such as from Spain to Germany or North Africa to Northern Europe, “require more complex solutions,” writes Agora Energiewende.

At least there is some progress on the so-called southern corridor. In mid-January, Germany, Algeria, Austria, Italy and Tunisia signed a declaration of intent to develop the southern hydrogen corridor. The corridor will connect Tunisia and Algeria with European customers via 3,500 to 4,000 kilometers of hydrogen pipelines. The European section will comprise 60 to 70 percent of converted natural gas pipelines. According to the German Ministry of Economic Affairs, the “next step” is to “concretize the hydrogen pipeline to North Africa.” However, there are doubts whether Tunisia and Algeria can ramp up hydrogen production fast enough. The two countries predict an export capacity of around 330,000 tons of hydrogen by 2030, which is just over eight percent of the total pipeline capacity.

No pipelines without guaranteed demand

In order to ensure there is enough hydrogen in the future, politicians must also incentivize and ensure demand, says Agora expert Koch. If investors do not have long-term contracts with customers, they could withdraw or delay their pipeline and electrolysis projects. To guarantee demand, the Climate Neutrality Foundation also calls for politicians to expand green lead markets and introduce standards and quotas for certain products such as green steel or ammonia for fertilizer production, which stipulate a minimum proportion of green hydrogen. Public procurement of green steel could also stimulate demand.

Furthermore, the Federation of German Industries (BDI) calls for promoting hydrogen production in Germany “to be able to make hydrogen available at affordable prices in the early stages.” However, due to cost reasons, green hydrogen production in Germany is limited. The BDI also proposes the “domestic production of blue hydrogen” – hydrogen produced using natural gas and by capturing and storing CO2.

The political party bloc CDU/CSU is open to blue hydrogen. However, the problem of carbon storage would have to be solved first, which would also mean investing in infrastructure such as carbon pipelines. This would also entail methane emissions from gas extraction and transportation. This means that blue hydrogen would also require more political efforts than before.

Maritime transport: Why a global CO2 levy is possible

By

Fritz Vorholz

Efforts to protect the climate on the high seas are gaining momentum. A growing number of countries are lobbying the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cargo vessels through technical requirements, but also with the help of an “economic element” – in other words, a levy on greenhouse gas emissions. It would be the first climate action tax to be levied worldwide.

Its supporters include several Pacific island states threatened by rising sea levels, all EU member states and, above all, Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands. So far, they are in the minority. But measured by tonnage, over half of all seagoing vessels sail under their flag. This has high symbolic value for the IMO’s decision-making process. The chances of reaching an agreement are probably high.

Negotiations will continue at the working level in mid-February and an agreement is expected to be reached in April, which could be finalized in the fall. It remains unclear how the new US government under Donald Trump will act on the matter – and whether the other IMO members would overrule it if necessary.

Maritime transport is already integrated into European emissions trading

Over 100,000 ships, mainly freighters, sail the world’s oceans. They handle 90 percent of global trade, consume around 300 million tons of fossil fuels every year and generate around three percent of global emissions of climate-damaging carbon dioxide (CO2) – largely unaffected by regulations.

Only ships entering or leaving the European Economic Area must pay a price for every ton of CO2. The reason: Maritime transport was incorporated into the European Emissions Trading System (ETS) in 2024. Local shipping companies see this as an obstacle to global trade and push for uniform global standards – such as those now being discussed at the IMO. The European regulations must then be “quickly harmonized with the international system as soon as it has been decided,” the German Shipowners’ Association (VDR) demands.

National climate targets exclude maritime shipping – IMO steps in

Regarding energy efficiency, ocean-going vessels are better than any other means of motorized transport. However, growing global trade means their carbon emissions are rising. As these can hardly be attributed to individual polluter states, these emissions are excluded when drafting national climate targets. This was agreed as part of the UN negotiations on global climate action. However, at the first UN Climate Change Conference in Berlin in 1995, it was decided that the IMO would look into the matter.

The IMO is the dedicated UN agency for matters concerning international maritime transport. It has 176 member states. To date, its focus has been on defining standards for the safe operation of ships – based on established, i.e. fossil-based, propulsion technologies. However, the London-based agency has contributed very little to the development of innovative, eco-friendly propulsion systems.

This is due to several reasons: not enough R&D staff, a lack of clarity about the authority’s mandate and the pursuit of consensus, according to Marine Policy. Although the law allows for majority decisions, there is actually “a strong culture and tradition of making decisions by consensus,” an analysis by the Aspen Institute states.

CO2 levy to boost net zero measures by 2050

This cripples decision-making processes. It was not until 2018 that the IMO members agreed on a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which was not very ambitious to boot. The ambition level was raised in 2023. It now states that greenhouse gas emissions from shipping should be net zero by 2050.

Ocean-going vessels have a lifespan of up to 40 years. So if shipping is to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, swift action is needed. This is where the proposal comes in, which 47 countries put forward at the end of December last year with the support of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), the organization representing the interests of shipowners and operators, and which is now on the IMO agenda: a levy on greenhouse gas emissions from ships. The paper also specifies figures, all of which are in square brackets and therefore disputed: 18.75 US dollars, 100 US dollars or 150 US dollars – each per ton of CO2 equivalent emitted.

If the levy is introduced, operators would be incentivized to reduce their ships’ energy consumption. Optimized ship hull designs could contribute to this, as could sails to support the ship’s diesel engines, improved fleet management or lower speeds. According to the IMO, these and other measures could cut emissions by around one-third in the relatively short term. However, net zero requires entirely new propulsion systems: low-emission or zero-emission fuels, matching engines and the necessary port infrastructure. None of this is available worldwide or on a large scale.

Revenue from CO2 levy crucial

This means that the levy would only have a limited steering effect in the short term; its primary purpose is to generate revenue. A growing list of poorer countries have already submitted claims to it as compensation for expected disadvantages in imports and exports. Others push for the expected billions to be used in the maritime sector: among other things, for developing CO2-free or low-carbon fuels – and for promoting their market ramp-up.

E-methanol and e-ammonia are considered the most promising candidates for new fuels – renewable energy sources produced with CO2-free hydrogen by electrolysis. The CO2 levy could accelerate their use, but it cannot prevent transportation on the world’s oceans from becoming significantly more expensive as a result. According to the IMO impact assessment, however, the effects on global economic growth and price levels are almost negligible as transport costs only account for a small proportion of product prices.

Whether the new US government will attempt to undermine the project can only be speculated. One thing is certain, however: The otherwise powerful country only plays a minor role in maritime shipping – only 0.6 percent of global tonnage is shipped under the US flag.

‘It’s easier to fight for villages and a forest than for laws’

By

Bernhard Pötter

Table.Briefings: Ms. Henneberger, what was your goal when you entered the Bundestag three and a half years ago as an activist for the climate movement?

Kathrin Henneberger: In very big terms: I wanted to bring about the end of the fossil age. And for my region, I wanted us to realize and enshrine the coal phase-out in the Rhenish mining area and save as many villages as possible.

What is your verdict? The fossil age is not over yet.

No, not by a long shot. But what we have achieved is astonishing. Yet we read scientific reports that we have now exceeded the 1.5-degree limit for global warming. This is, of course, the opposite of ‘Hey, we’ve achieved something!’

‘Sometimes minor clauses are crucial’

What astonishes you about your term?

There are tangible successes. I used to give guided tours of the five villages that were to be excavated for the Garzweiler open-cast mine and all I ever said was: ‘It’s all going to disappear, the forest here, the cemetery there. It was such a helpless feeling. Today, I say: This is saved, this 300-year-old tree can live on.’ That makes me very happy every time.

Are you also amazed by the government’s climate policy record?

With regard to the energy sector, yes. We are now at 60 percent renewables in the power sector. We have only achieved this because we have pushed one law after another through parliament at breakneck speed. We have enshrined the coal phase-out in the Rhenish lignite mining region. And sometimes minor clauses are crucial, as I have learned: I have ensured that the text now states that the review of the phase-out in the Rhineland in 2026 will not only consider energy security, but also compliance with climate targets.

You came to Berlin to end the fossil age, and you achieved half-sentences?

No, five villages is not a half sentence. I was also thrilled that we managed to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty. People said beforehand: You’ll never manage that! During the budget negotiations, we also managed to shift hundreds of millions of euros towards global climate financing and biodiversity financing. These are critical issues if we want to end the fossil age.

‘Deliberately working past the FDP’

Meanwhile, the government coalition has watered down the Climate Change Act and failed to introduce many climate projects, such as the climate check for laws or the phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. Was the government good for the climate?

The Green government’s participation was very good for the climate. The problem was that the FDP repeatedly blocked everything, including development cooperation. Sometimes, I deliberately worked past the FDP. That’s what you do when an actor blocks you.

You joined the parliament as an activist. Did you gain a different perspective?

My way of working hasn’t changed much, but I have learned a lot. What has changed are the approaches that I have been able to use. Primarily for the battles back where I live, but also internationally. As an MP, I was able to create much more space for issues and people, with parliamentary protection or sponsorships, for example, in the work against the EACOP oil pipeline in Uganda.

‘I can poke around and protect people’

Do you feel more powerful as an MP than as an activist?

As a climate activist in Germany, you can make a big difference, depending on how much effort you put into it. As an MP, I can achieve more on a global level. But it should never be underestimated how much activists can achieve in parliament: I can ask questions, poke around and protect people experiencing repression, especially in a global context.

Are you still an activist pursuing your own goal? Or a parliamentarian who represents all the people?

We represent the population of Germany in all its diversity. I have never met a member of parliament who says that we represent the opinion of the entire population. I base my work on scientific findings and climate activism is not about pursuing selfish interests, as some lobby groups do. On the contrary, I am a climate activist for the same reason that I became a member of parliament: To fight the great injustice of the climate crisis and to help ensure that we have a chance at a future in a better and fairer world. And progress is being made: As recently as 2015, we were aggressively attacked for publicly talking about phasing out coal. Now, the phase-out is the consensus.

‘Be better prepared than the other side’

As an MP, you had a lot of contact with people who think differently, who wanted something different, with lobbyists, with conservatives. What did you learn from them?

(Thinks for a while) I remember a lot of moments when I was in an argument. So I’ve learned that I always have to be better prepared than the other side.

How much has your relationship with your base, with the climate movement, changed? Surely many say: Gee, Kathrin, what are you doing in Berlin?

It’s okay if they tell me that. I always see protest as a wind in my sails rather than a problem. So it’s great that Fridays for Future are calling for the next climate strike. I’m always happy when people from my old environment come up to me and say ‘Hey Kathrin, there’s another political problem here, I’ve stumbled across it, can you explain it to me? Or there’s something here that I disagree with’.

Don’t you ever think ‘we’ve failed’ when looking back at the government’s failures in climate policy?

Achieving the coal phase-out and achieving 60 percent renewables is not a failure. No one has ever told me that.

‘There were complaints that I wouldn’t smile’

Was working in the Bundestag easier or harder than you expected?

Parliament is definitely more patriarchal than I had ever expected. I have been treated differently several times because I am a woman and an activist. I wasn’t taken seriously and received stupid comments, more so than other MPs. That was particularly the case in the committees. When I invite experts to the Committee on Economic Cooperation who are not from Central Europe and don’t have a professorship, I receive comments like: ‘Is she even competent?’ I sometimes got a bit louder in such sessions. If I had been an old white man who had suggested the person, it would undoubtedly have been more readily accepted. At the beginning of the legislative period, my committee chairman once complained that I always looked grim and did not smile. Very absurd things.

Were there any positive surprises?

There are the friendships I have made with other colleagues. And the excellent cooperation I now have with the ministries. In the beginning, they must have thought, Oh my God, who is this now? She’s from activism and is now sitting here in our meetings where we discuss things that aren’t meant for the public. I was treated like a hot potato. But then trust grew, and I realized that I could sometimes contribute knowledge and perspectives that weren’t there before.

‘You have to build a movement’

You said it was good for the climate that the Greens were in government. Was it also good for the Greens to focus on the climate? It’s currently a losing issue.

The issue comes in cycles. We had already built up a strong climate movement in Copenhagen in 2009, and then it imploded. A movement doesn’t happen on its own. You have to build it. And the good thing is that the movement for climate justice has a much stronger base than we’ve ever had, from church associations to bicycle initiatives.

If that’s the case, why do we hear so little about it?

We humans react to things that are urgent in the here and now. For many, the climate crisis is still abstract and in the future. And there is scientific evidence that climate denial has increased in the discourse, giving the impression that the climate crisis is not as bad as we are told.

What do you intend to do about it?

At a time when the far-right is trying to divide our society over the climate issue, we need to talk about the climate crisis in a new way: It is a matter of security and social justice. Climate action only works with social justice. We need to transform our cities and villages to make them not only resistant to heat, but also offer a better quality of life. Climate action also means making life more socially just and distributing prosperity more fairly, because people with lower incomes are affected the most.

How do you intend to achieve this?

During the debate about Lützerath, I realized it is tragically easier to fight for actual villages and a forest than for laws. It is much easier to organize a protest with 50,000 people to preserve a forest than for a national budget that provides significantly more money for global forest conservation but is abstract. That’s why we need new forms of social protest and discourse, for political majorities to push through pro-climate changes in the Bundestag.

Climate in Numbers: Climate risks one of ‘five major external threats’ to Germany

Climate change threatens Germany’s national security, could lead to more migration and make Europe more unstable, according to a joint study by the University of the German Armed Forces, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Adelphi Research and the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND). BND President Bruno Kahl warns that the security risks posed by climate change are ‘”one of the five major external threats to our country” alongside an expansive Russia, China’s geopolitical ambitions, growing cyber threats and international terrorism.

The “National Interdisciplinary Climate Risk Assessment” highlights the security risks in many dimensions:

Humanitarian crises and migration: Climate change will exacerbate food shortages and resource conflicts, which could lead to migration.
Europe: The southern countries will be more affected by climate change, potentially increasing European inequality, which could “weaken cohesion in the EU and its ability to act.”
Economy: High costs for rebuilding after floods or storms and spending on adapting to climate change lower economic growth. Widespread crop failures due to droughts can lead to price shocks on international markets. Due to the energy transition, developing countries lose income from oil and gas, which can lead to destabilization and conflicts.
Internal: Rising costs for decarbonization and a (partly perceived) overburdening of some social groups could provide opportunities for populists to attack and undermine democracy.
Military: The climate crisis will further increase the “conflictual nature of the international system.” Heatwaves and heavy rainfall will put more strain on personnel and equipment during foreign deployments.

To ensure Germany’s security in times of climate crisis, the German government must take action in four areas:

Reducing CO2 emissions at the national and European level to prevent climate change’s worst impacts and lead by example at the international level.
Pushing ahead with an internationally ambitious climate policy.
Improving climate change adaptation in Germany: Converting infrastructure and supporting particularly vulnerable social groups.
Helping internationally vulnerable countries to prevent destabilization and conflicts on Europe’s periphery.

Economic damage continues to rise

According to the Climate Risk Index published yesterday by Germanwatch, extreme weather events have claimed over 765,000 lives worldwide in the last 30 years and caused economic damage of around 4.2 trillion US dollars. According to the Index, more than 18,000 people have died in Germany and damage amounted to over 125 billion. The Caribbean island state of Dominica, China, Honduras, Myanmar, Italy and India were the countries most affected by extreme storms, heatwaves, floods and droughts between 1993 and 2022. Spain and Greece are two other European countries among the ten most affected. nib

German election: How the national railway ticket becomes a controversial issue

Just days before the federal elections in Germany, the national railways ticket is becoming an election campaign issue. Leading CDU/CSU politicians question its financial viability, but are divided on possible solutions. The debate was triggered by a statement made by Bavaria’s Transport Minister Christian Bernreiter (CSU), who is also Chairman of the Conference of Transport Ministers. He demanded that the federal government should bear the full cost of the ticket in the future. Christian Haase, the budget policy spokesperson for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, told Politico: “We have to be honest: The Deutschlandticket can no longer be financed beyond 2025.” For her part, Saxony’s Transport Minister Regina Kraushaar (CDU) calls for the federal government to continue to contribute “at least half” of the ticket’s funding. The municipalities need “a reliable funding commitment from the federal government as quickly as possible.”

The federal and state governments currently fund the national railway ticket with 1.5 billion euros, respectively. However, the funding is only guaranteed until the end of 2025 – and according to the Association of German Transport Companies (VDV), the actual costs of 3.45 billion euros last year were significantly higher than the promised compensation payments.

Criticism from the SPD and Greens

The Deutschlandticket is not mentioned in the CDU/CSU’s election program. In November, election frontrunner Friedrich Merz described the question of the ticket’s future as “very difficult” and referred to the budget plans. Leading politicians from the SPD and the Greens criticized the CDU/CSU’s stance. North Rhine-Westphalia’s Transport Minister Oliver Krischer (Greens) said that the federal government must contribute at least half of the funding in the long term. Lower Saxony’s Transport Minister Olaf Lies (SPD) also stated that the future of the ticket must be secured in the long term and that the federal government must continue to bear half of the costs.

Since the beginning of the year, the monthly ticket costs 58 instead of 49 euros. Last fall, an Ariadne study found that this price increase alone would almost halve the climate benefit of the ticket. However, it had assumed that user numbers would decrease, which has not yet occurred to this extent. ae/dpa

Canada: New climate target widens gap to 1.5-degree pathway

Shortly after the deadline expired, Canada submitted its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) for 2035 to the United Nations. In it, the country declares its “commitment and determination” to contribute to limiting the global temperature increase to well below two degrees and at best to 1.5 degrees – but a less ambitious reduction target casts doubt on this: greenhouse gas emissions are to be reduced by only 45 to 50 percent by 2035 compared to 2005.

“Canada has the wealth and responsibility to lead the transition away from fossil fuels,” Natalie Jones, policy advisor at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), tells Table.Briefings. “But the new national climate plan does not live up to this potential.” For example, the necessary reduction in fossil fuel production is not considered. Sarah Heck, policy analyst at Climate Action Tracker (CAT), also rates the NDC as “insufficient” to achieve the 1.5-degree limit. “In fact, the gap between 1.5 degrees and the 2035 target has widened compared to the 2030 target, both in absolute and relative terms,” Heck tells Table.Briefings.

Canada considers controversial emission reductions

Canada’s NDC includes “performance-based” emissions trading for industries and annually increasing credit prices for fossil fuels of currently around 80 Canadian dollars per ton of CO2 equivalent. The NDC also points out that 80 percent of electricity generation has already been decarbonized and that support programs are in place for the heating and transport transition. The country is also investigating the option of offsetting emissions abroad through ITMOs (Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes).

Canada has not yet signed an ITMO agreement with a partner country. In a public participation process on the NDC, a majority of the population was in favor of Canada reducing emissions first and foremost at home, even if this would require more immediate action from Canadians and companies. Experts and environmental associations criticize the ITMO agreement, as negative effects on partner countries are currently not sufficiently considered and wealthy countries are favored over poorer ones.

Canada could also miss the 2030 climate target

The new target builds on the previous goal of cutting emissions by 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. However, Canada, a leading oil and gas producer, has so far missed every one of its greenhouse gas emissions targets. According to the NDC, the country is currently “on track” to reduce emissions by 34 percent by 2030. However, what the government describes as a “positive result” would be a reduction of six percentage points lower than that envisaged in the NDC.

Some climate groups as well as the official Net Zero Advisory Board had already criticized in December that the announced targets were not ambitious enough. The body had called for a reduction of 50 to 55 percent, while climate groups even demanded 80 percent. The Climate Action Tracker rates Canada’s current NDC as “insufficient.” lb

Renewables: Agora proposes new remuneration system

The next German government must quickly develop a concept for funding wind and solar power plants. The current support in the form of a market premium, which is paid out of the federal budget in accordance with the EEG, has only been approved by the EU until the end of 2026. By then, at the latest, the funding must be changed to ensure that the state not only bears the risk by guaranteeing minimum prices for the electricity fed into the grid but also skims off profits if maximum prices are exceeded. Alternatively, as called for by the FDP and parts of the CDU/CSU, government support could be abolished entirely; renewables would then have to finance themselves on the market alone.

On Wednesday, the Agora Energiewende think tank presented a concept representing a compromise between these proposals. Operators of ground-mounted solar plants and onshore wind farms would be able to market their electricity entirely themselves via PPAs (Power Purchase Agreements) in the first few years, for which important conditions such as electricity prices are easily predictable. During this time, there would be no guaranteed minimum price, but also no profit absorption if prices are high. Contracts for Difference (CfDs), which set minimum and maximum revenues, would then come into effect at a later point, which they can determine themselves during the tendering process.

“The combination of both instruments can protect investors against low electricity prices and thus reduce capital costs,” writes Agora, adding that relying on PPAs alone, on the other hand, is not ideal. Due to the significant uncertainty surrounding future developments, this would significantly increase the financing costs for new plants. “Our proposal ensures that electricity costs for consumers and the state fall thanks to the closer dovetailing of market incentives with state guarantees. At the same time, investments in wind and solar will remain attractive,” says Philipp Godron, Head of the Electricity Program at Agora. Unlike in the past, the remuneration in the Agora concept would no longer be based on the amount of electricity actually produced, but on the theoretical production of a so-called reference plant. According to Agora, such production-independent CfDs would lead to a better adjustment of production to the market value and actual electricity demand.

BEE fears high repayments

This part of the proposal has been met with criticism from the industry. Based on a comprehensive study, the German Renewable Energy Federation (BEE) fears that this could result in considerable repayments that exceed the proceeds. “The often cited market distortions caused by production-dependent CfDs hardly exist in practice, while the risks of production-independent CfDs for investments are real and severe,” said BEE President Simone in response to a question from Table.Briefings. Agora acknowledges in the study that the model is associated with risks, but considers these solvable. It argues that it must be ensured “that the profitability of the investment is not undermined by a reference value that is only theoretical in nature and cannot be regularly achieved in practice.” mkr

Öko-Institut: Why a pure market solution would cause costs to skyrocket

If politicians left the heating transition exclusively to the market, heating costs for households would in all likelihood rise dramatically. This is the conclusion of a new joint study by the Öko-Institut and the “Paritätischer Gesamtverband.” Their analysis is based on the assumption that the Building Energy Act (GEG) would be overturned and a carbon price alone would be used to make heating climate-friendly. The key result: “It would require a CO2 price of 524 euros for CO2 emissions to fall as much as they are expected to do by 2030 as a result of the Heating Act.”

This would lead to an additional CO2 cost surcharge of 10.52 cents per kWh for gas – which would mean the price of gas would double. “The financial consequences for households would be enormous.” And unlike the GEG, which only burdens those households that need to replace their heating, a high CO2 price would affect all households, “even those that have only recently replaced their heating and therefore have no short-term option to switch.” The Öko-Institut and Paritätischer Gesamtverband call for a “social heating transition” with targeted relief measures. One example they cite is social leasing, which aims to make heat pumps affordable through installment payments. ae

Climate lawsuits: Why Greenpeace sues a US company in Amsterdam

Greenpeace International filed a lawsuit against the US company Energy Transfer at an Amsterdam district court on Tuesday. The NGO, which is headquartered in Amsterdam, is invoking a new European Union directive aimed at curbing so-called SLAPP lawsuits. The term refers to lawsuits strategically aimed at intimidating or silencing critics to prevent critical public participation. The new directive also explicitly applies to SLAPP lawsuits outside EU territory. According to Greenpeace, the lawsuit is the first case of application.

Energy Transfer operates fossil fuel pipelines. The company has sued Greenpeace in North Dakota for 300 million US dollars because the NGO, together with other environmental groups and indigenous organizations, had protested against the Dakota Access Pipeline. With its own lawsuit, Greenpeace is now calling on the Amsterdam District Court to declare the US proceedings a SLAPP suit and order Energy Transfer to pay damages. The company has until July to respond.

Milieudefensie vs. Shell goes into the next round

Meanwhile, another landmark climate lawsuit is entering the next round. The Dutch climate organization Milieudefensie has taken the oil company Shell to the country’s Supreme Court, the Hoge Raad. Milieudefensie continues to demand that Shell be obliged to reduce its emissions and products (Scope 1 to 3) by a specific quota. It argues that there is a “more than sufficient” legal basis for this. In a landmark ruling in 2021, a Dutch court ordered Shell to reduce these emissions by 45 percent below 2019 levels by 2030. However, in November 2024, an appeals court overturned the specific figure, but confirmed Shell’s fundamental commitment to climate action. Shell reacted confidently to Milieudefensie’s appeal to the Hoge Raad. ae

Hydrogen: Massive overcapacity in electrolysis plants

European manufacturers of electrolysis plants for the production of green hydrogen suffer from huge overcapacities. This is the conclusion of a study by the consulting firm PwC Strategy&, which Table.Briefings has obtained in advance. Meanwhile, Chinese competitors are entering the European markets with low prices.

By the end of 2024, European manufacturers have built up sufficient capacity to produce electrolyzers with a total output of eight gigawatts. The MAN Energy Solutions plant in Hamburg alone, which opened in September, can produce systems with an output of one gigawatt per year. Siemens Energy’s factory in Berlin is roughly the same size. However, European manufacturers were only able to sell electrolyzers with a total output of 1.6 gigawatts in 2024. This corresponds to a capacity utilization of just 20 percent of the factories currently operating.

Electrolyzers are needed to break down chemical compounds. They are essential for the production of (green) hydrogen. However, emission-intensive industries such as steel, glass and chemicals are still hesitant to use them due to the high costs. Only refineries, where hydrogen is needed to desulphurize petrol and diesel, have greater demand due to regulatory requirements as increasingly low-carbon processes must be used in the production of fuels.

Because of the weak demand, BP shelved 18 green hydrogen production projects in October. Shell and Uniper also announced in the fall of 2024 that several projects would be discontinued. However, the three companies still want to stick with this low-carbon energy source.

Meanwhile, Chinese manufacturers plan to build several plants in Europe to produce such systems. They prefer countries where green electricity can be generated cheaply and electrolysis has good long-term prospects. These include Norway and Sweden, where cheap hydropower is abundant. Another destination for the Chinese is Spain, one of Europe’s sunniest countries.

According to PwC Strategy&, Chinese electrolysis manufacturers, which receive generous state subsidies in their home country, launched half a dozen projects in these three countries in 2024. They generally enter into partnerships with local companies in order to gain better access to local markets. Günter Heismann

BECCS: Why ‘climate plantations’ are hardly compatible with planetary boundaries

Many climate scenarios consider Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) a key technology for limiting global warming to below 1.5 degrees and even more so for the two-degree limit. Fast-growing plants are cultivated and burned for BECCS. The CO2 released is captured and stored.

According to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), while the theoretical potential of such “climate plantations” would be significantly higher than the average CO2 removal assumed in scenarios, the picture is reversed when looking at the planetary boundaries: “The billions of tons are far from achievable with this technology,” the authors conclude. Instead of 7.5 billion, only 200 million tons of CO2 removal in 2050 would be compatible with the planetary boundaries.

The study’s computer simulations are based on a biosphere model that factors in the nine planetary boundaries that represent the basis of human life. Six of these boundaries have already been exceeded, and four of them are land-related – in other words, they conflict with the plantations that would be necessary for BECCS. If more emphasis were placed on BECCS, agricultural land, for example, would have to make way. This, in turn, would only be feasible if the food system were to focus less on animal products. Even in this case, however, the area available worldwide would probably not be sufficient to remove the 7.5 billion tons of CO2. lb

Climate Change News: Delayed resignation. Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister since 2022 and chair of the UN biodiversity negotiations at COP16, has announced her resignation but asked President Gustavo Petro to remain in office until the end of February to finalize the biodiversity conference. When COP16 resumes, governments must make important decisions on nature financing and a monitoring framework for progress on nature restoration. These issues remained unresolved after last year’s negotiations in Cali, Colombia. Read the article

The Guardian: Sustainability and AI. The opening talks at a global summit in Paris, attended by political leaders, technology executives and experts, centered on the impact of artificial intelligence on the environment and inequality. While critics recognize the potential of AI to limit climate change, they lament the current lack of sustainability. To the article

Euractiv: Hungary wants fracking. Hungary plans an extensive gas fracking project close to its border with Romania and thus violates the EU’s climate policy. Fracking is considered to be extremely harmful to the environment and has severe effects on nature and health. Environmental organizations fear that the project expansion could be realized without a full environmental impact assessment or cross-border investigation, especially as the project is only ten kilometers from the Romanian border. To the article

CLIMATE.TABLE EDITORIAL OFFICE

Bernhard
Pötter

Alexandra
Endres

Christiane
Kühl

Lisa
Kuner

Lukas
Knigge

Malte
Kreutzfeldt

Nico
Beckert

Feature

Hydrogen: These hurdles await the next German government

Pipeline construction challenges

No pipelines without guaranteed demand

Maritime transport: Why a global CO2 levy is possible

Maritime transport is already integrated into European emissions trading

National climate targets exclude maritime shipping – IMO steps in

CO2 levy to boost net zero measures by 2050

Revenue from CO2 levy crucial

Interview

‘It’s easier to fight for villages and a forest than for laws’

‘Sometimes minor clauses are crucial’

‘Deliberately working past the FDP’

‘I can poke around and protect people’

‘Be better prepared than the other side’

‘There were complaints that I wouldn’t smile’

‘You have to build a movement’

Events

News

Climate in Numbers: Climate risks one of ‘five major external threats’ to Germany

Economic damage continues to rise

German election: How the national railway ticket becomes a controversial issue

Criticism from the SPD and Greens

Canada: New climate target widens gap to 1.5-degree pathway

Canada considers controversial emission reductions

Canada could also miss the 2030 climate target

Renewables: Agora proposes new remuneration system

BEE fears high repayments

Öko-Institut: Why a pure market solution would cause costs to skyrocket

Climate lawsuits: Why Greenpeace sues a US company in Amsterdam

Milieudefensie vs. Shell goes into the next round

Hydrogen: Massive overcapacity in electrolysis plants

BECCS: Why ‘climate plantations’ are hardly compatible with planetary boundaries

Must-Reads

Climate.Table editorial team

CLIMATE.TABLE EDITORIAL OFFICE

Feature

Hydrogen: These hurdles await the next German government

Pipeline construction challenges

No pipelines without guaranteed demand

Maritime transport: Why a global CO2 levy is possible

Maritime transport is already integrated into European emissions trading

National climate targets exclude maritime shipping – IMO steps in

CO2 levy to boost net zero measures by 2050

Revenue from CO2 levy crucial

Interview

‘It’s easier to fight for villages and a forest than for laws’

‘Sometimes minor clauses are crucial’

‘Deliberately working past the FDP’

‘I can poke around and protect people’

‘Be better prepared than the other side’

‘There were complaints that I wouldn’t smile’

‘You have to build a movement’

Events

News

Climate in Numbers: Climate risks one of ‘five major external threats’ to Germany

Economic damage continues to rise

German election: How the national railway ticket becomes a controversial issue

Criticism from the SPD and Greens

Canada: New climate target widens gap to 1.5-degree pathway

Canada considers controversial emission reductions

Canada could also miss the 2030 climate target

Renewables: Agora proposes new remuneration system

BEE fears high repayments

Öko-Institut: Why a pure market solution would cause costs to skyrocket

Climate lawsuits: Why Greenpeace sues a US company in Amsterdam

Milieudefensie vs. Shell goes into the next round

Hydrogen: Massive overcapacity in electrolysis plants

BECCS: Why ‘climate plantations’ are hardly compatible with planetary boundaries

Must-Reads

Climate.Table editorial team

CLIMATE.TABLE EDITORIAL OFFICE

Sign up now and continue reading immediately