Climate policy is also and especially about money: Who gets how much? And who has to pay? This is the subject of our Briefing today: Under pressure to save money, the coalition government is trimming the “Climate and Transformation Fund” (KTF), which was actually supposed to shape the green transformation – and we’ll explain which details are important.
Although the state is desperate for money and promises more climate protection, billions of eurosare spentevery yearon state aid that damages the climate. The government now has the details in black and white in a report, which we reported on exclusively yesterday. Today we are asking whether there could be a round of cuts to these climate-damaging subsidies given the tight federal budget. Doubts are justified.
The international debate this year is about how much money should be raised for global climate action – and by whom. This question is to be decided at COP29. The serious debate on this controversial topic has now begun. We will inform you about who is making which proposals and what is behind them. And we guarantee a little surprise for Germany. It also comes from our neighbors: because in Austria, the climate money – known there as theclimate bonus – works.
We also now have a new press review: OurMust Reads offer you an extended international view of exciting debates and information on climate issues.
We hope you have a wonderful day!
Your Bernhard Pötter
Feature
Climate finance: Which countries should pay how much
The consensus of many studies: The US must do more for global climate action. Shown here is the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline.
Three months before the start of the crucial COP29 in Baku, the serious debate on the structure of future global climate financing has now begun with concrete proposals. Last week, the ideas of various countries and groups on how the new financial target (NCQG) to be adopted in Baku should be financed became known.
The positions of the COP29 delegations
While the Western industrialized countries are pushing for more countries to contribute, the Arab states, for example, are demanding $441 billion a year from the industrialized countries. The “like-minded developing countries” around China and India, on the other hand, are demanding that Western countries contribute at least one trillion US dollars every year from 2025 to 2030 and reject an expansion of the group of donors. The USA supports the figure of one trillion US dollars per year, but wants to include all private and public investments.
Switzerland, on the other hand, proposes a mechanism to make contributions dependent on emissions and economic strength: Contributions should therefore be made by
the ten largest current CO2 emitters among the UN countries whose average income according to purchasing power parity exceeds USD 22,000 per capita – this would include not only the classic industrialized countries, but also Russia, Saudi Arabia and possibly China, or
Over the past few years, many models have been developed in science, politics, think tanks and NGOs on the question of “Who should pay how much?“. Here is an overview of the initial trends:
Only very few countries have paid their “fair share” so far – including Germany, Sweden and Norway.
Many industrialized countries have so far fallen far short of what would be appropriate for them.
The USA in particular would have to roughly triple its share.
20 to 30 percent of the new target could come from “non-traditional” sources, i.e. not from industrialized countries.
The fair share of emerging and developing countries in international payments for climate aid and the energy transition remains rather low, depending based on calculation.
Ideas for climate taxes: Fossil, military, fashion, shipping
In order to broaden the base of potential donors – countries and sectors alike – several proposals have been on the table for years:
Host Azerbaijan proposed a “North-South financial mechanism” at the end of May. This would use a levy on the production of oil, gas and coal to fill a fund to finance climate projects in developing countries. With a levy of 20 US cents per barrel of oil, the fund could raise around six billion US dollars a year, according to the plan. However, Azerbaijan stopped the initiative just one month later, apparently after criticism from oil countries, including the USA and the Gulf states. Now there is only talk of a voluntary green fund for fossil fuel producers, which is likely to be significantly smaller if it comes into being.
The G77 surprised everyone at SB60 in Bonn with the informal proposal that industrialized countries should levy taxes on financial transactions, arms and fashion companies and monopolies in the internet industry to finance climate change. This would raise 440 billion US dollars, which could trigger 1.1 trillion in investments – a sum roughly equivalent to the Arab proposal for COP29.
In the past, several think tanks and NGOs have developed ideas for a fair minimum level for the Green Climate Fund or a financing system based on economic performance and emissions. One proposal from ETH Zurich included shipping and companies and aimed to reward countries with ambitious climate targets with lower financial contributions.
ODI: ‘Fair share’ – only three countries pay enough
Every year, the British think tank Overseas Development Institute (ODI) produces a report on the “fair share” of climate financing. In 2021, it established extensive criteria for the payment of the $100 billion from industrialized countries: National income, cumulative CO2 emissions and population size should serve as a benchmark for how much each country should pay fairly. As a result, “of the 23 developed countries that are committed to climate financing, only Germany, Norway and Sweden are paying their fair share of the 100 billion target. All other countries are failing to do so”, it said.
According to this data, Australia, Canada, Greece, New Zealand, Portugal and the USA also contributed “less than 20 percent of their fair share of international climate finance”. The “largest shortfall in absolute terms” comes from the US, which provides less money than France, Germany, Japan or the UK, “even though the US economy is larger than those countries combined”.
CGD: ’40 percent from the USA’
A study from November 2023 by the British think tank Center for Global Development (CGD) calculates the question “Who should pay?” using similar models. These combine the elements of historical emissions, calculation periods and income in the countries in different ways. The basic result:
Industrialized countries should continue to assume the main responsibility for the payments. Practically all variants required “that the USA shoulder at least 40 percent of the effort”.
Countries such as China, Russia, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Poland, the United Arab Emirates and Mexico “are consistently in the top 20” of countries that should contribute.
A contribution of 20 to 30 percent of the payments could be made by “non-traditional donors”, i.e. sources that are not traditional industrialized countries.
CAP: USA needs five-year plan
The Washington think tank “Center for American Progress” (CAP), which is close to the Democratic Party, urges more US involvement in the financial issuein a current report from June 2024 due to the role and responsibility of the USA. This is how the USA should:
use their political weight for an ambitious NCQG at COP29;
develop a plan for strategic climate aid over five years to ensure that the individual authorities in the USA act in a coordinated manner;
use the upcoming capital replenishments at the US public credit institutions DFC and EXIM to implementthe end of financing for fossil fuel projects abroad. These US taxpayer funds for fossil fuels amounted to at least $2.3 billion in total in 2023 and 2024.
According to CAP, the USA paid a total of $9.5 billion for international climate programs in 2023, an increase of 64% compared to 2022. For 2024, President Joe Biden has promised to increase the sum to $11.4 billion. This sum will probably be reached, even though international payments are highly controversial politically in the US Congress and therefore around four billion US dollars are still outstanding for the Green Climate Fund.
However, the study also warns that a victory for Donald Trump in the presidential election could further reduce payments or stop them altogether. At least that is what the conservative Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” suggests. It argues that the USA should withdraw from the World Bank and the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
COP29
NCQG
EU Deforestation Regulation: NGOs criticize these misconceptions
Soy, beef, palm oil, wood, cocoa, coffee and rubber, as well as some products made from them, will fall under the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) from Dec. 30, 2024.
Soy, beef, palm oil, timber, cocoa, coffee and rubber, as well as some products made from them, will fall under the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) from Dec. 30, 2024. It sets out binding due diligence obligations for market participants when importing and exporting these products. Initially, it only applies to large and medium-sized companies, but from mid-2025 it will also apply to small and micro enterprises.
Recently, the voices of those who criticize the law as too bureaucratic and fear that smaller forestry and agricultural businesses in particular will be overburdened have become louder. Parts of the industry as well as the Christian Democratic European People’s Party (EPP) spoke out in favor of postponing the regulation.
However, a group of human rights and environmental protection organizations, including WWF, Germanwatch and DUH, speak of misunderstandings regarding theregulation’s mode of action and time required and demand that the law comes into effect on time at the end of this year. The criticism of the deforestation ordinance is “exaggerated, unobjective and characterized by misunderstandings”, says Kathrin Samson,Head of Nature Conservation at WWF Germany. The scaremongering spread by “some politicians and lobbyists” has little to do with reality.
Fact check by WWF, Germanwatch and Co.
In a joint position paper, which was exclusively available to Table.Briefings before publication, the human rights and environmental protection organizations subject ten “misconceptions” to a fact check. Among other things, they examine the accusations made against the EUDR:
Bureaucratic overload
Product price increases
Additional expenses for agriculture and forestry
Data protection
Ineffectiveness
In particular, the EUDR’s requirement to submit GPS data on agricultural and forest areas has been met with criticism in the past, as obtaining the data is not feasible for agricultural and forestry businesses or is bureaucratically overburdening. The NGOs come to the conclusion that the required data would be available anyway, as it would also be needed to apply for EU agricultural subsidies or national funding. If the GPS data for the production areas is still missing, it could be obtained “with manageable effort at short notice” – for example using Google Maps, the paper states. Furthermore, the EUDR does not require GPS data on individual trees, but only on the plots of land affected by logging.
Manageable bureaucracy within and outside Europe
The due diligence declaration required by the EUDR, which affected companies must submit, also only contains information that is already available to EU agricultural or forestry companies. The soy, cattle and forestry companies at the beginning of a supply chain would have less bureaucratic work anyway, as they would not have to obtain information from third parties.
In the case of non-EU companies, obstacles in obtaining the necessary information for due diligence must be expected in individual cases, but it is a matter of checking the legality of the products. Cooperatives in production countries assume that the EUDR will help to combat corruption within supply chains, according to the fact check. Traceability is seen as an important factor in improving living conditions in the producing countries.
In addition, there have already been significant improvements in the fight against illegal deforestation outside the EU, partly due to pressure from the EUDR. The fact check mentions progress in the traceability of the affected products in Indonesia, Ecuador, Argentina and Côte d’Ivoire. Even China is looking for ways to prevent illegal deforestation in its supply chains.
Rising prices: Consequence of climate change instead of EUDR
The environmental and human rights organizations counter criticism that the EUDR will cause higher prices due to more bureaucracy by saying that the expected price increase is a consequence of climate change. “The EUDR is an instrument designed to help slow down climate change.” Traceable supply chains in the cocoa sector have also shown that expensive middlemen are being eliminated from the market.
The NGOs also reject the criticism – including from German Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir – that Germany is at risk of being treated as a high-risk country if the EU Commission does not classify it in time. Whether a country or region is classified as low or medium risk for deforestation makes no difference to market participants. If it can be proven that a product is deforestation-free and legal, which is required for classification as a low-risk country, this hardly means any “significant additional effort” for EU countries.
Agricultural Policy
KMU
Wald
News
Austria: This is how much money the climate bonus will bring the population in 2024
In Austria, this year’s climate bonus will be paid out from Sept. 2 – “once again without cause and automatically”. This was reported by severalAustrianmedia outlets. Everyone who has had their main residence in the country for more than six months in the current year is entitled to the payment, regardless of their citizenship.
The climate bonus is financed by the revenue from the CO2 price introduced in 2022. As this is increasing, the 2024 bonus will also be higher than in the previous year: as the Austrian Ministry of the Environment announced back in May, the climate bonus will amount to at least €145 in the current year. Payment levels of 195, 245 and 290 euros are also possible. Children receive half the rate, people with reduced mobility always receive the highest rate. How high the per capita payment is for everyone else in a specific case depends on where they live. According to the ministry, the regional equalization is intended to take into account “regional differences in public transport connections and available infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc.)”.
From an annual income of more than €66,612, the climate bonus must be taxed. If current account information is available, it will be transferred. Otherwise, the money is sent by post as a voucher. According to the latest reports, more than 90 percent of payments are already being made directly and the number of vouchers is falling. This year, around 2.1 million transfers are planned every day. This means that all transfers could be processed within a week. Delivering the approximately 847,000 letters personally will take around eight weeks. ae
Klimafinanzierung
Climate-damaging subsidies: Study should have consequences
After the study commissioned by the German government on the climate impact of all state subsidies and benefits was published on Monday, environmental associations have called for the consequences to be drawn. “Minister Christian Lindner and Minister Volker Wissing must now finally act and reduce climate-damaging subsidies, as stipulated in the coalition agreement”, demanded Christiane Averbeck, Managing Director of the Climate Alliance. As Table.Briefings had reported in advance, the study by six renowned research institutes revealed that the subsidies cost the state almost €36 billion in 2020 and will cause greenhouse gas emissions of 156 million tons in total by 2030. The transport sector accounts for the largest share of both costs and emissions. Environmental Action Germany has also called for subsidies in the transport sector to be scrapped.
The Climate Alliance also criticized the fact that the study had been withheld since November last year. “The government has already had the report for months“, explains the alliance of environmental and social organizations. “But instead of adopting measures to reduce climate-damaging subsidies, it preferred to gut the Federal Climate Protection Act.” The Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, which commissioned the study in January 2023 for €217,000, rejected criticism of the late publication. A spokesperson for Robert Habeck explained on Monday that it is “normal and also appropriate” for there to be a “technical exchange” after the completion of an initial draft before a study is published. In fact, this exchange, which reportedly only led to minor adjustments, in this case took nine months, about as long as the preparation of the 155-page study itself.
BMF does not plan any changes to the draft budget
Whether the study will have any practical consequences despite its late publication remains to be seen. The BMWK explained that the study was merely a “basis for discussion” and pointed out that many of the specific benefits did not fall within the ministry’s remit. Although many subsidies are part of the transport sector, such as the diesel allowance, company car privilege and distance allowance, the Ministry of Transport also declared that it was not responsible. These are “tax matters that are the responsibility of the BMF”, said a spokesperson. However, no consequences are to be expected from there either. The draft budget was submitted to the Bundestag on Friday, said a spokesperson for Christian Lindner. “There are no plans to make any changes in the coming financial year based on this report.”
However, the study could still play a role in the parliamentary debate on the 2025 budget. “We will take a close look at the results,”Sven-Christian Kindler, budget policy spokesperson for the Green parliamentary group, told Table.Briefings. Climate politician Lisa Badum was even clearer: The diesel privilege alone cost around €9.5 billion in 2020 and will cause additional emissions of 25.7 million tons of CO2 by 2020, she wrote on Bluesky – and demanded: “This tax giveaway must stop.”mkr
Climate protection
Haushalt
Household
Robert Habeck
Subsidies
Two years of IRA: This is how much the USA is reducing its emissions under the Biden administration
Currently, 500 to 600 million tons of CO2 equivalents are being saved annually in the USA through laws and regulations passed since 2021. From 2030, this figure is expected to rise to one billion tons. This is the conclusion of an analysis by the Thintanks Repeat Project, which was published to mark the second anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
According to the study, climate-friendly legislation and regulation will avoid a total of 5.4 to 6.8 billion tons of emissions between 2022 and 2035. The requirements of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) alone, including those relating to power plants and methane emissions, will lead to emission reductions of around one percent by 2030 compared to 2005.
Nevertheless, there is still a large gap between current policy and a net-zero pathway, the report states. There is particularly great potential for further reductions in agriculture, industrial efficiency and electrification. kul
Inflation Reduction Act
EU renaturation law comes into force
The controversial EU regulation on nature restoration came into force at the weekend. Among other things, the law stipulates that conservation measures are to be implemented on 20 percent of land areas and 20 percent of marine areas in the EU by 2030.
This includes, for example, rewetting moors, planting more trees in cities or restoring rivers to their natural state. “The member states themselves decide which specific measures are to be implemented on their territory”, says the Commission.
Lemke praises
“I am delighted”, said Germany’s Environment Minister Steffi Lemke (Greens) when the law came into force. The project is a major step forward. “Intact nature is particularly important in the climate crisis”, said the Green politician. It can store climate-damaging CO2. Healthy nature is also more resistant to the effects of the climate crisis.
The EU member states now have two years to submit a plan to the EU Commission on what they want to do. Environmental organizations such as the WWF and Naturschutzbund Deutschland welcome the new law. “In Germany, it is now up to the current and future federal government to turn this opportunity into a success story”, said Kathrin Samson from WWF.
Fierce dispute over the project
The law had previously been the subject of long and heated debate. Climate activist Greta Thunberg also traveled to Strasbourg during the negotiations to campaign for the project in front of and in the EU Parliament. In the end, there was a narrow majority in favor of a weakened version of the legal text. The law could only be passed in the EU Council because the Austrian Green Environment Minister Leonore Gewesslervoted in favor of it – against the wishes of her conservative coalition partner.
Conservatives and farmers in particular had spoken out against the law. Among other things, they feared too many restrictions on agriculture. In the wake of this headwind, for example, the requirement for farmers to implement environmentally friendly measures on a certain percentage of their arable land was removed. dpa
Climate policy is also and especially about money: Who gets how much? And who has to pay? This is the subject of our Briefing today: Under pressure to save money, the coalition government is trimming the “Climate and Transformation Fund” (KTF), which was actually supposed to shape the green transformation – and we’ll explain which details are important.
Although the state is desperate for money and promises more climate protection, billions of eurosare spentevery yearon state aid that damages the climate. The government now has the details in black and white in a report, which we reported on exclusively yesterday. Today we are asking whether there could be a round of cuts to these climate-damaging subsidies given the tight federal budget. Doubts are justified.
The international debate this year is about how much money should be raised for global climate action – and by whom. This question is to be decided at COP29. The serious debate on this controversial topic has now begun. We will inform you about who is making which proposals and what is behind them. And we guarantee a little surprise for Germany. It also comes from our neighbors: because in Austria, the climate money – known there as theclimate bonus – works.
We also now have a new press review: OurMust Reads offer you an extended international view of exciting debates and information on climate issues.
We hope you have a wonderful day!
Your Bernhard Pötter
Feature
Climate finance: Which countries should pay how much
The consensus of many studies: The US must do more for global climate action. Shown here is the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline.
Three months before the start of the crucial COP29 in Baku, the serious debate on the structure of future global climate financing has now begun with concrete proposals. Last week, the ideas of various countries and groups on how the new financial target (NCQG) to be adopted in Baku should be financed became known.
The positions of the COP29 delegations
While the Western industrialized countries are pushing for more countries to contribute, the Arab states, for example, are demanding $441 billion a year from the industrialized countries. The “like-minded developing countries” around China and India, on the other hand, are demanding that Western countries contribute at least one trillion US dollars every year from 2025 to 2030 and reject an expansion of the group of donors. The USA supports the figure of one trillion US dollars per year, but wants to include all private and public investments.
Switzerland, on the other hand, proposes a mechanism to make contributions dependent on emissions and economic strength: Contributions should therefore be made by
the ten largest current CO2 emitters among the UN countries whose average income according to purchasing power parity exceeds USD 22,000 per capita – this would include not only the classic industrialized countries, but also Russia, Saudi Arabia and possibly China, or
Over the past few years, many models have been developed in science, politics, think tanks and NGOs on the question of “Who should pay how much?“. Here is an overview of the initial trends:
Only very few countries have paid their “fair share” so far – including Germany, Sweden and Norway.
Many industrialized countries have so far fallen far short of what would be appropriate for them.
The USA in particular would have to roughly triple its share.
20 to 30 percent of the new target could come from “non-traditional” sources, i.e. not from industrialized countries.
The fair share of emerging and developing countries in international payments for climate aid and the energy transition remains rather low, depending based on calculation.
Ideas for climate taxes: Fossil, military, fashion, shipping
In order to broaden the base of potential donors – countries and sectors alike – several proposals have been on the table for years:
Host Azerbaijan proposed a “North-South financial mechanism” at the end of May. This would use a levy on the production of oil, gas and coal to fill a fund to finance climate projects in developing countries. With a levy of 20 US cents per barrel of oil, the fund could raise around six billion US dollars a year, according to the plan. However, Azerbaijan stopped the initiative just one month later, apparently after criticism from oil countries, including the USA and the Gulf states. Now there is only talk of a voluntary green fund for fossil fuel producers, which is likely to be significantly smaller if it comes into being.
The G77 surprised everyone at SB60 in Bonn with the informal proposal that industrialized countries should levy taxes on financial transactions, arms and fashion companies and monopolies in the internet industry to finance climate change. This would raise 440 billion US dollars, which could trigger 1.1 trillion in investments – a sum roughly equivalent to the Arab proposal for COP29.
In the past, several think tanks and NGOs have developed ideas for a fair minimum level for the Green Climate Fund or a financing system based on economic performance and emissions. One proposal from ETH Zurich included shipping and companies and aimed to reward countries with ambitious climate targets with lower financial contributions.
ODI: ‘Fair share’ – only three countries pay enough
Every year, the British think tank Overseas Development Institute (ODI) produces a report on the “fair share” of climate financing. In 2021, it established extensive criteria for the payment of the $100 billion from industrialized countries: National income, cumulative CO2 emissions and population size should serve as a benchmark for how much each country should pay fairly. As a result, “of the 23 developed countries that are committed to climate financing, only Germany, Norway and Sweden are paying their fair share of the 100 billion target. All other countries are failing to do so”, it said.
According to this data, Australia, Canada, Greece, New Zealand, Portugal and the USA also contributed “less than 20 percent of their fair share of international climate finance”. The “largest shortfall in absolute terms” comes from the US, which provides less money than France, Germany, Japan or the UK, “even though the US economy is larger than those countries combined”.
CGD: ’40 percent from the USA’
A study from November 2023 by the British think tank Center for Global Development (CGD) calculates the question “Who should pay?” using similar models. These combine the elements of historical emissions, calculation periods and income in the countries in different ways. The basic result:
Industrialized countries should continue to assume the main responsibility for the payments. Practically all variants required “that the USA shoulder at least 40 percent of the effort”.
Countries such as China, Russia, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Poland, the United Arab Emirates and Mexico “are consistently in the top 20” of countries that should contribute.
A contribution of 20 to 30 percent of the payments could be made by “non-traditional donors”, i.e. sources that are not traditional industrialized countries.
CAP: USA needs five-year plan
The Washington think tank “Center for American Progress” (CAP), which is close to the Democratic Party, urges more US involvement in the financial issuein a current report from June 2024 due to the role and responsibility of the USA. This is how the USA should:
use their political weight for an ambitious NCQG at COP29;
develop a plan for strategic climate aid over five years to ensure that the individual authorities in the USA act in a coordinated manner;
use the upcoming capital replenishments at the US public credit institutions DFC and EXIM to implementthe end of financing for fossil fuel projects abroad. These US taxpayer funds for fossil fuels amounted to at least $2.3 billion in total in 2023 and 2024.
According to CAP, the USA paid a total of $9.5 billion for international climate programs in 2023, an increase of 64% compared to 2022. For 2024, President Joe Biden has promised to increase the sum to $11.4 billion. This sum will probably be reached, even though international payments are highly controversial politically in the US Congress and therefore around four billion US dollars are still outstanding for the Green Climate Fund.
However, the study also warns that a victory for Donald Trump in the presidential election could further reduce payments or stop them altogether. At least that is what the conservative Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” suggests. It argues that the USA should withdraw from the World Bank and the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
COP29
NCQG
EU Deforestation Regulation: NGOs criticize these misconceptions
Soy, beef, palm oil, wood, cocoa, coffee and rubber, as well as some products made from them, will fall under the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) from Dec. 30, 2024.
Soy, beef, palm oil, timber, cocoa, coffee and rubber, as well as some products made from them, will fall under the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) from Dec. 30, 2024. It sets out binding due diligence obligations for market participants when importing and exporting these products. Initially, it only applies to large and medium-sized companies, but from mid-2025 it will also apply to small and micro enterprises.
Recently, the voices of those who criticize the law as too bureaucratic and fear that smaller forestry and agricultural businesses in particular will be overburdened have become louder. Parts of the industry as well as the Christian Democratic European People’s Party (EPP) spoke out in favor of postponing the regulation.
However, a group of human rights and environmental protection organizations, including WWF, Germanwatch and DUH, speak of misunderstandings regarding theregulation’s mode of action and time required and demand that the law comes into effect on time at the end of this year. The criticism of the deforestation ordinance is “exaggerated, unobjective and characterized by misunderstandings”, says Kathrin Samson,Head of Nature Conservation at WWF Germany. The scaremongering spread by “some politicians and lobbyists” has little to do with reality.
Fact check by WWF, Germanwatch and Co.
In a joint position paper, which was exclusively available to Table.Briefings before publication, the human rights and environmental protection organizations subject ten “misconceptions” to a fact check. Among other things, they examine the accusations made against the EUDR:
Bureaucratic overload
Product price increases
Additional expenses for agriculture and forestry
Data protection
Ineffectiveness
In particular, the EUDR’s requirement to submit GPS data on agricultural and forest areas has been met with criticism in the past, as obtaining the data is not feasible for agricultural and forestry businesses or is bureaucratically overburdening. The NGOs come to the conclusion that the required data would be available anyway, as it would also be needed to apply for EU agricultural subsidies or national funding. If the GPS data for the production areas is still missing, it could be obtained “with manageable effort at short notice” – for example using Google Maps, the paper states. Furthermore, the EUDR does not require GPS data on individual trees, but only on the plots of land affected by logging.
Manageable bureaucracy within and outside Europe
The due diligence declaration required by the EUDR, which affected companies must submit, also only contains information that is already available to EU agricultural or forestry companies. The soy, cattle and forestry companies at the beginning of a supply chain would have less bureaucratic work anyway, as they would not have to obtain information from third parties.
In the case of non-EU companies, obstacles in obtaining the necessary information for due diligence must be expected in individual cases, but it is a matter of checking the legality of the products. Cooperatives in production countries assume that the EUDR will help to combat corruption within supply chains, according to the fact check. Traceability is seen as an important factor in improving living conditions in the producing countries.
In addition, there have already been significant improvements in the fight against illegal deforestation outside the EU, partly due to pressure from the EUDR. The fact check mentions progress in the traceability of the affected products in Indonesia, Ecuador, Argentina and Côte d’Ivoire. Even China is looking for ways to prevent illegal deforestation in its supply chains.
Rising prices: Consequence of climate change instead of EUDR
The environmental and human rights organizations counter criticism that the EUDR will cause higher prices due to more bureaucracy by saying that the expected price increase is a consequence of climate change. “The EUDR is an instrument designed to help slow down climate change.” Traceable supply chains in the cocoa sector have also shown that expensive middlemen are being eliminated from the market.
The NGOs also reject the criticism – including from German Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir – that Germany is at risk of being treated as a high-risk country if the EU Commission does not classify it in time. Whether a country or region is classified as low or medium risk for deforestation makes no difference to market participants. If it can be proven that a product is deforestation-free and legal, which is required for classification as a low-risk country, this hardly means any “significant additional effort” for EU countries.
Agricultural Policy
KMU
Wald
News
Austria: This is how much money the climate bonus will bring the population in 2024
In Austria, this year’s climate bonus will be paid out from Sept. 2 – “once again without cause and automatically”. This was reported by severalAustrianmedia outlets. Everyone who has had their main residence in the country for more than six months in the current year is entitled to the payment, regardless of their citizenship.
The climate bonus is financed by the revenue from the CO2 price introduced in 2022. As this is increasing, the 2024 bonus will also be higher than in the previous year: as the Austrian Ministry of the Environment announced back in May, the climate bonus will amount to at least €145 in the current year. Payment levels of 195, 245 and 290 euros are also possible. Children receive half the rate, people with reduced mobility always receive the highest rate. How high the per capita payment is for everyone else in a specific case depends on where they live. According to the ministry, the regional equalization is intended to take into account “regional differences in public transport connections and available infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc.)”.
From an annual income of more than €66,612, the climate bonus must be taxed. If current account information is available, it will be transferred. Otherwise, the money is sent by post as a voucher. According to the latest reports, more than 90 percent of payments are already being made directly and the number of vouchers is falling. This year, around 2.1 million transfers are planned every day. This means that all transfers could be processed within a week. Delivering the approximately 847,000 letters personally will take around eight weeks. ae
Klimafinanzierung
Climate-damaging subsidies: Study should have consequences
After the study commissioned by the German government on the climate impact of all state subsidies and benefits was published on Monday, environmental associations have called for the consequences to be drawn. “Minister Christian Lindner and Minister Volker Wissing must now finally act and reduce climate-damaging subsidies, as stipulated in the coalition agreement”, demanded Christiane Averbeck, Managing Director of the Climate Alliance. As Table.Briefings had reported in advance, the study by six renowned research institutes revealed that the subsidies cost the state almost €36 billion in 2020 and will cause greenhouse gas emissions of 156 million tons in total by 2030. The transport sector accounts for the largest share of both costs and emissions. Environmental Action Germany has also called for subsidies in the transport sector to be scrapped.
The Climate Alliance also criticized the fact that the study had been withheld since November last year. “The government has already had the report for months“, explains the alliance of environmental and social organizations. “But instead of adopting measures to reduce climate-damaging subsidies, it preferred to gut the Federal Climate Protection Act.” The Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, which commissioned the study in January 2023 for €217,000, rejected criticism of the late publication. A spokesperson for Robert Habeck explained on Monday that it is “normal and also appropriate” for there to be a “technical exchange” after the completion of an initial draft before a study is published. In fact, this exchange, which reportedly only led to minor adjustments, in this case took nine months, about as long as the preparation of the 155-page study itself.
BMF does not plan any changes to the draft budget
Whether the study will have any practical consequences despite its late publication remains to be seen. The BMWK explained that the study was merely a “basis for discussion” and pointed out that many of the specific benefits did not fall within the ministry’s remit. Although many subsidies are part of the transport sector, such as the diesel allowance, company car privilege and distance allowance, the Ministry of Transport also declared that it was not responsible. These are “tax matters that are the responsibility of the BMF”, said a spokesperson. However, no consequences are to be expected from there either. The draft budget was submitted to the Bundestag on Friday, said a spokesperson for Christian Lindner. “There are no plans to make any changes in the coming financial year based on this report.”
However, the study could still play a role in the parliamentary debate on the 2025 budget. “We will take a close look at the results,”Sven-Christian Kindler, budget policy spokesperson for the Green parliamentary group, told Table.Briefings. Climate politician Lisa Badum was even clearer: The diesel privilege alone cost around €9.5 billion in 2020 and will cause additional emissions of 25.7 million tons of CO2 by 2020, she wrote on Bluesky – and demanded: “This tax giveaway must stop.”mkr
Climate protection
Haushalt
Household
Robert Habeck
Subsidies
Two years of IRA: This is how much the USA is reducing its emissions under the Biden administration
Currently, 500 to 600 million tons of CO2 equivalents are being saved annually in the USA through laws and regulations passed since 2021. From 2030, this figure is expected to rise to one billion tons. This is the conclusion of an analysis by the Thintanks Repeat Project, which was published to mark the second anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
According to the study, climate-friendly legislation and regulation will avoid a total of 5.4 to 6.8 billion tons of emissions between 2022 and 2035. The requirements of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) alone, including those relating to power plants and methane emissions, will lead to emission reductions of around one percent by 2030 compared to 2005.
Nevertheless, there is still a large gap between current policy and a net-zero pathway, the report states. There is particularly great potential for further reductions in agriculture, industrial efficiency and electrification. kul
Inflation Reduction Act
EU renaturation law comes into force
The controversial EU regulation on nature restoration came into force at the weekend. Among other things, the law stipulates that conservation measures are to be implemented on 20 percent of land areas and 20 percent of marine areas in the EU by 2030.
This includes, for example, rewetting moors, planting more trees in cities or restoring rivers to their natural state. “The member states themselves decide which specific measures are to be implemented on their territory”, says the Commission.
Lemke praises
“I am delighted”, said Germany’s Environment Minister Steffi Lemke (Greens) when the law came into force. The project is a major step forward. “Intact nature is particularly important in the climate crisis”, said the Green politician. It can store climate-damaging CO2. Healthy nature is also more resistant to the effects of the climate crisis.
The EU member states now have two years to submit a plan to the EU Commission on what they want to do. Environmental organizations such as the WWF and Naturschutzbund Deutschland welcome the new law. “In Germany, it is now up to the current and future federal government to turn this opportunity into a success story”, said Kathrin Samson from WWF.
Fierce dispute over the project
The law had previously been the subject of long and heated debate. Climate activist Greta Thunberg also traveled to Strasbourg during the negotiations to campaign for the project in front of and in the EU Parliament. In the end, there was a narrow majority in favor of a weakened version of the legal text. The law could only be passed in the EU Council because the Austrian Green Environment Minister Leonore Gewesslervoted in favor of it – against the wishes of her conservative coalition partner.
Conservatives and farmers in particular had spoken out against the law. Among other things, they feared too many restrictions on agriculture. In the wake of this headwind, for example, the requirement for farmers to implement environmentally friendly measures on a certain percentage of their arable land was removed. dpa
