Creating a green future requires more than anything else: money. There is a reason why one of the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement – which has been neglected so far – is to redirect global financial flows to drive forward the green transformation of the global economy.
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund must be on board to make this happen. The two financial institutions currently debate their green reform in Marrakech. At yesterday’s press conference, World Bank chief Ajay Banga spoke about how the effects of climate change negate previous development progress, for example, in Africa. In light of multiple mutually reinforcing crises, the Bank is set to redefine its mission in Marrakech. Banga’s new motto is “Create a world free of poverty – on a livable planet.”
Caspar Dohmen has the details on the bank’s reform plans – and explains which questions remain unanswered so far. Urmi Goswami reports from New Delhi about why there are doubts about the ability of the bank and the IMF to reform: An NGO report shows that in Pakistan, a country that has been working with both financial institutions for decades, past projects have even exacerbated the damage caused by climate change.
The upcoming elections in Poland will also be – at least in passing – about the chance for a more climate-friendly future. Lisa Kuner has traveled the country and written down what could change after the vote. And today’s opinion piece by Bernd Weber and Sabine Nallinger looks at what needs to change after the state elections in the German state of Bavaria to ensure that the local economy can continue to flourish.
The current overall news situation does not give much reason for an optimistic outlook. We hope you will find at least a few small rays of hope in our briefing.
Poland’s electricity generation emits more emissions than that of any other European country. In 2021, it emitted more than 750 kilograms of CO2 per megawatt hour generated. The EU average is less than 300 kilograms. This is shown by data from the Polish think tank Forum Energii. On Sunday, the country will elect a new parliament. Should the balance of power shift, Poland’s position on the energy transition could also change. Not unlikely, as the ruling PiS party is faring much worse in the polls than in the last elections and is only slightly ahead of the opposition Civic Coalition party.
The so-called Law and Justice Party (PiS) has been in power in Poland since 2015. During this time, PiS has not only undermined the rule of law and turned on refugees, but also “hindered the energy transition,” says Michał Hetmański, CEO and founder of the Polish green and digital economy think tank Instrat.
For years, strict regulation made the expansion of wind power almost impossible. One example of this is the so-called 10H regulation introduced in 2016. For years, strict regulation made the expansion of wind power almost impossible. One example of this is the so-called 10H regulation introduced in 2016. According to the regulation, the distance between new wind turbines and houses had to be ten times the height of the wind turbine. In practice, this is around 2 kilometers for modern turbines. The 10H regulation made 98 percent of Poland’s territory off-limits for constructing new onshore wind turbines. The regulation was loosened in early 2023, and now the distance must only be 700 meters.
While renewables have been suppressed for a long time, the PiS continues to stick to coal production. The claim is that it guarantees Poland’s energy sovereignty. The last coal mine is only to be closed in 2049. The country then aims to reach its net-zero target in 2050. So far, about 85 percent of energy consumption originates from fossil fuels, with coal accounting for 45 percent. Most of the limited amount of renewable energy in 2021 came from wood. Wind and solar energy play only a minor role.
Furthermore, Polish local politics is working to accelerate the energy transition in some places. For example, some cities are part of the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which aims to phase out coal by 2030. Warsaw is part of the C40 network, which aims to halve emissions by 2030. In this network, almost 100 mayors from all over the world have joined forces for consistent climate action.
In addition, Polish local politics is working to accelerate the energy transition in some places. For example, some cities are part of the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which aims to phase out coal by 2030. Warsaw is part of the C40 network, which aims to halve emissions by 2030. In this network, almost 100 mayors from all over the world have joined forces for consistent climate action.
“The energy transition is happening,” Aleksandra Gawlikowska-Fyk summarizes in her analysis. She is the Director of the Power Sector Programme at Forum Energii in Warsaw. However, Hetmański from Instrat criticizes that much of the energy transition “is coincidence and not strategic planning.” Price pressure and EU emissions trading probably also play a role: Since the amount of carbon emissions in Poland is higher than the allocated amount of pollution rights, companies and institutions are forced to buy allowances. In 2022, their cost was more than 7 billion euros. This also explains why Poland has opposed the abolition of free emission allowances for energy-intensive industries, albeit without success.
There is more strategic planning for large-scale projects. Poland plans the construction of three nuclear power plants. The government signed the first contracts on 27 September 2023. The companies Westinghouse and Bechtel are to build the first reactor in Lubiatowo-Kopalino in the Pomerania region in the country’s north. It is expected to go online in 2033. “I see nuclear energy as a good and cost-effective source of energy,” said Adam Guibourge-Czetwertyński, Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of Climate and Environment. According to him, nuclear power will ensure enough electricity is available at all times, adding that the decision in favor of the reactors shows that the population’s fear of high energy costs or a blackout is taken seriously.
The country is deeply divided in the run-up to the election. Various opposition parties have joined forces to form an opposition alliance called the Citizens’ Coalition (Koalicja Obywatelska, KO). Current polls put the KO at 30 percent, just behind the PiS (34 percent). However, since both parties will require coalition partners to form a government, the question of who will form the next government does not necessarily depend on who gets the most votes. The war in Ukraine, inflation and the rising cost of living are central issues in the election campaign. Climate action, on the other hand, does not play a significant role.
Still, the elections could change things: If the Civic Coalition wins, it wants to do more to advance Poland’s energy transition. “Renewable energy sources must become the basis of the system,” Grzegorz Onichimowski of KO told Reuters. Their goal is to cover between 65 and 70 percent of Poland’s energy production from renewables by 2030.
Another way the elections could contribute to the energy transition is through the EU’s recovery aid. The EU has frozen around 36 billion euros because Poland’s judicial system is no longer independent after its reform. Changed majorities could help these funds finally flow and thus also benefit the expansion of renewables.
So far, Poland’s policymakers are rather unanimous about the construction of the nuclear power plants, and most of the parties are in favor of it. Last week, however, the Civic Coalition expressed reservations and indicated that it might want to withdraw from the contracts.
Collaboration: Claire Stam. This text was written during a research tour of the Clean Energy Wire network.
At the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund annual meeting currently underway in Marrakesh, the big question is how to ensure that the two major international financial institutions can scale up their efforts to help developing countries respond to the climate crisis.
At a press conference on Wednesday morning, World Bank President Ajay Banga said the Bank aims to redefine its vision. In the future, the goal will be to “create a world free of poverty – on a livable planet.”
However, three civil society organizations from Pakistan and the Netherlands criticize in a new report: Under the current framework, the World Bank and the IMF are not in a position to respond to the climate crisis. They see “a shared structural failing” of the two financial institutions and do not expect the reform agenda to result in any significant changes. Instead, the NGOs warn of a “very real and ironic danger” that the work of the World Bank and IMF could deepen the climate crisis in the countries of the Global South.
The three organizations are the Alliance for Climate Justice and Clean Energy, a Pakistan-based civil society network; the Alternative Law Collective, part of the network; and Recourse, an Amsterdam-based nongovernmental organization focused on finance. Their report, “How are the IMF and the World Bank Shaping Climate Policy? Lessons from Pakistan,” shows: The policy support provided by the World Bank and IMF has consistently undermined Pakistan’s climate goals long before the devastating floods of 2022 floods.
An in-depth analysis of Pakistan, according to the authors, “serves as fitting case study” because:
Initially, the World Bank was focused on supporting large-scale state-led projects like Pakistan’s Indus Basin, the densely populated region around Pakistan’s most important water artery, the Indus River. One focus of the large-scale projects was on irrigation systems for agriculture and water and electricity supply infrastructure.
The report finds that efforts like this have contributed to Pakistan’s current climate woes. Zain Moulvi, Research Director, Alternative Law Collective explained, “Last year’s floods, as we know, resulted in about 40 billion US dollars in damages which is 10 percent of Pakistan’s GDP. Scientific studies have revealed that the causes of that flood were 100 percent anthropogenic, the rains would have been 75 percent less intense without human-induced global warming but what is less known and talked about, and this is important, is the role of exacerbating factors like the developmental infrastructures on the Indus Basin and socio-economic factors.”
Pakistan’s developmental infrastructure when it comes to the Indus Basin is “entirely linked” to the World Bank, explained Moulvi. “They are the ones who effectively propose the large dam infrastructure, the network of dams and barrages and canals.”
In 1968, institutions recommended Pakistan invest heavily in hydropower and in gas as well, Moulvi says. “That didn’t work out too well.” Twenty years after that, he says, the World Bank and IMF then proposed a private sector loan program to develop the energy sector. “Effectively the purpose was privatization, getting private sector involvement into the investments of energy,” Moulvi says. “And that culminated in what are probably two of the most disastrous policies Pakistan has had in the energy sector.”
The report finds the emissions profile of Pakistan’s energy sector has changed significantly thanks to the involvement of financial institutions. In 1994, hydroelectric power accounted for 60 percent of energy generation capacity, while thermal power plants fueled by fossil fuels and nuclear energy accounted for 40 percent. The ratio has since reversed. Today, thermal power plants fueled by imported fossil fuels account for 70 percent of Pakistan’s capacity. More than half of the capacity of these power plants remains unused, but they still have to be paid for. This contributes greatly to the “debt cycle in the energy sector.”
According to Moulvi, “the World Bank and IMF’s interventions analyzed by this report reveal a shared structural failing in the underlying analytic and developmental logic currently driving their climate-related operations.” He describes a kind of tunnel vision that is doing great damage.
“These institutions have generally followed an ahistoric and siloed approach that fails to recognize the interactive and dynamic interlinkages between their fiscal and macroeconomic policies, and the broader everyday realities of economic exploitation, gender inequality, and climate change – in both the short-term and longer-term time frames,”
There is, however, no denying governance choices made by successive governments in Pakistan as it faced serious policy dilemmas associated with macroeconomic and social instability amidst a backdrop of growing climate risks and impacts. The report also points out.
The report points out that “resorting to World Bank Group and IMF loans has become a common practice for Pakistani governments seeking to address short-term crunches, such as external debt servicing, and paying for essential imports, such as fuel and industrial technology. Accessing this financial assistance, however, has required those governments to agree to an increasingly exacting range of policy reforms promoting market-based solutions.”
In their report, the three NGOs call on the World Bank and the IMF to be more accountable and democratic through a review of toolkits, including the need for impact assessments, debt sustainability analysis, proper compensation to affected communities, and immediate amendments to current loans. It recommends issuing SDRs annually to ensure liquidity provisions are not linked to existing quota formulas but are genuinely needs-based.
Other recommendations include advancing international taxation and trade reforms that can scale up countries’ possibilities of leading just energy transitions and making the available World Bank-IMF knowledge and expertise available for communities and local governments to facilitate democratic home-grown macroeconomic policymaking.
Federico Sibaja, IMF Campaign Manager at Recourse, believes past reform efforts to be insufficient. “The limited and weak ‘reform’ agenda of the IFIs coupled with their expanding interventionist power under the guise of climate action, raises serious concerns for Global South nations struggling to chart an effective climate-compatible developmental path.” Adding that “given that there is little change in the old developmental thinking underpinning IFI operations (or in the global financial architecture as a whole), their mainstreaming of climate and ramping up of coordination carries a very real and ironic danger of deepening the climate crises in Global South nations.”
The international community must “collectively set a new course of action to address the emergencies of poverty and the growing number of global challenges,” reads the World Bank’s strategy paper currently being discussed at its meeting in Marrakech. Government participants are referring to this as one of the most important World Bank conferences in a long time.
In addition to the traditional core tasks of the World Bank – fighting poverty and reducing inequality – the protection of global public goods will now be added as a third goal. The World Bank wants to focus on eight challenges:
Regarding the need for financing to manage the transformation in the Global South, the strategy paper states that the resources for development financing must be significantly increased to achieve these goals.
Poorer countries fear that there might be less of an increase than a reallocation of funds within the World Bank. This would mean that fewer funds would be available for classic development tasks. Some experts share this fear. However, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) sees things differently: “The reform will not be at the expense of the poorest countries or the expense of poverty reduction,” a spokesman told Table.Media. Development Minister Svenja Schulze advocates an approach that could be described as “more for more”: Developing countries could receive more or cheaper funds from the World Bank beyond their actual allocation “if they are used for investments that not only benefit the respective country alone, but also benefit all of humanity and the planet.”
In any case, governments of the Global South require considerably more capital for the transformation process. Africa is a clear example of this. So far, it receives only three percent of global climate financing, of which only 14 percent comes from the private sector. Yet the continent is responsible for only 3.8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, while the Global North accounts for 90 percent.
With an annual volume of 100 billion US dollars, the World Bank Group is the world’s largest financier of sustainable development. The USA and Germany together hold just under 20 percent of the shares.
Some countries have already announced new funding for the World Bank in the run-up to the annual meeting. Germany will buy 305 million euros in World Bank bonds. The Bank can use this as so-called hybrid capital. With this class of bonds, the lending volume can be increased by a factor of up to eight times the capital – meaning the 305 million euros could be leveraged to more than 2.5 billion euros in lending for investments over ten years.
This instrument, which is applied for the first time, is also a way of helping the World Bank to increase its lending volume without injecting fresh equity. Although there would be countries like China willing to raise the World Bank’s capital in return for more shares, the United States is unlikely to agree to this at this time.
There are also critical voices in the Global South regarding the growing involvement of private financial actors in the World Bank’s financing projects. They call for more subsidies from the Global North. But the World Bank is already pursuing a cascade approach, according to which every task should first be funded with private resources if possible, and public funds should only be invested as a last resort.
Mark Brown, prime minister of the Cook Islands in the South Pacific, which are threatened by rising sea levels, warns against focusing too much on the private sector for climate financing. He argues that the private sector always expects a return on investment, which particularly overburdenes poorer countries that need the loans. He takes wealthy countries to task here. “Countries like ours shouldn’t be borrowing money to protect ourselves against the effects of greenhouse gases from countries that cause them.”
Many countries in the Global South are already in a veritable debt crisis. “Debt relief, in our view, is essential to ensure that heavily indebted countries, too, can get in the right lane towards sustainability and climate action,” says Reiner Hoffmann, Chair of the German Council for Sustainable Development, an advisory body to the German government.
Unlike sovereign nations, the World Bank cannot currently write off its debts. “There is no mechanism, although this would make sense in order to give highly indebted countries breathing room,” says Bodo Ellmers, Director of the Financing for Sustainable Development Program at the NGO Global Policy Forum. The German development ministry BMZ takes a different view: “Participating in write-downs would also have negative impacts on the poorest countries, because if the bank gives up its current status as a preferred creditor, its creditworthiness (rating) will deteriorate, making conditions more expensive for client countries.” No changes are expected here at the annual meeting, nor is a World Bank exit from financing fossil fuel projects, a demand made by development aid and environmental organizations.
The financial architecture of the IMF and World Bank remains largely unchanged. “No one disputes the need for reform anymore, but there are different ideas about how to go about it,” says Ellmers.
UN Secretary-General Guterres recently described the financial architecture as “hopelessly outdated” – it was cementing underdevelopment instead of helping overcome it. He exemplified this with the Special Drawing Rights, which the International Monetary Fund (IMF) can use to create liquidity for countries in crisis situations, as it did the most recently during the pandemic. But since it can only allocate funds – according to its statutes – based on Members’ quotas, the liquidity of wealthy countries increased significantly, while the poorest countries hardly benefited at all.
Since their founding more than 75 years ago, the sister institutions IMF and World Bank, which followed the ideas of the USA and the United Kingdom, have not undergone any significant structural reform. As a result, the West continues to have a decisive influence in both organizations. The USA even holds a de facto veto right. This is unlikely to change significantly in Marrakech.
“By sticking to this governance structure, the legitimacy of both institutions could be further damaged,” says Ellmers. A World Bank that focuses on the well-being of people and the planet “urgently needs more democratic processes,” says Ute Straub, responsible for development finance at the German aid agency Bread for the World.
In China, people worry about climate change just like anywhere else. However, taking to the streets or spraying paint on landmarks is not an option in this authoritarian state to vent their concerns. Nevertheless, the Chinese people already feel the effects of changing weather patterns in catastrophic ways. In January 2023, the Chinese Meteorological Administration declared that China’s climate in 2022 was clearly anomalous and trending towards extremes. The summer saw record-high temperatures and unexpected cold snaps occurred in the fall.
Surprisingly, there is hardly any public debate on this issue in state or social media. Researchers Chuxuan Liu and Jeremy Lee Wallace noted in their study “China’s missing climate change discourse” (2023) that only 0.12 percent of trending topics on Weibo, China’s leading social media platform, were related to climate change between June 2017 and February 2021. However, an end-of-2019 survey conducted by the European Investment Bank found that 73 percent of Chinese citizens considered climate change a major threat, compared to 47 percent in Europe and 39 percent in the United States. The difficulty of the issue’s prominence in China has several reasons.
Environmental organizations and NGOs face stricter scrutiny. In recent years, authorities have warned and arrested numerous environmental activists and whistleblowers while undermining citizen initiatives. A 2017 law also requires all foreign NGOs to cooperate with local groups, leading to increased self-censorship, according to many involved.
Bloomberg reports that journalists from state media are encouraged not to report on topics such as the threat to affluent coastal cities from rising sea levels. Investigative articles on environmental damage are limited to the wrongdoing of individual local government officials. Phenomena like the Friday for Future demonstrations in the West were portrayed in state media articles as emotional, radical and chaotic. Greta Thunberg is often a subject of ridicule on Chinese social media and is seen by many as a typical embodiment of the western “baizuo 白左,” a derogatory term for the woke Left that imposes its rules on others. Additionally, many conspiracy theories questioning the existence of climate change circulate in China’s online world. Young activist Howey Ou, who was briefly dubbed the “Chinese Greta,” now prefers to protest against climate change abroad.
Education in schools and media coverage primarily focus on how individuals can reduce their ecological footprint, such as through waste separation, recycling and environmentally conscious consumption. China’s role as the largest CO2 emitter in global warming is downplayed. The message is that China is not only striving to contribute to climate mitigation with green technology but also aims to become carbon-neutral by 2060, setting an example for other countries. However, China also insists on the right to develop at its own pace, arguing that humanity’s problems were primarily caused by the major Western industrial nations.
Environmentalists see the weak involvement of civil society as a missed opportunity. Even in the recent past, collective pressure in the People’s Republic has had the power to effect change. About a decade ago, a campaign against air pollution, supported by the population, prompted the Chinese leadership to seriously address the smog issue, especially in major cities. An important factor in this was the self-funded documentary film “Under the Dome” by Chinese journalist Chai Jing, which spread rapidly online, initially outrunning censorship.
Ultimately, the government fears the destabilizing impact of open activism too much. So, what happens to the population’s fears? Some believe that it finds an outlet in outrage over foreign environmental scandals and as a generally diffuse form of eco-anxiety. When Japan discharged wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the sea in the summer, panic-buying occurred in China, especially for salt, even though there was no scientific basis for the panic.
In China’s still-thriving science fiction genre, which has hardly featured climate change until now, a change is emerging as well. Authors like Chen Qiufan and, more recently, Gu Shi are incorporating scenarios of environmental disasters and rising sea levels into their literary works. Both feature artificial intelligence as a countermeasure, aligning with the government’s goals, which view AI with similar optimism to how the US once viewed nuclear energy achievements. Beijing plans to use the technology in almost all areas of public life to save billions of tons of carbon emissions. This offers a vague hope, which keeps the Chinese from having to take to the streets en masse.
On Tuesday, EU institutions failed to reach a compromise on methane regulation. A comprehensive regulation covering methane emissions in extra-European production countries of natural gas, oil and coal could bring significant reductions in methane emissions. According to estimates by the Clean Air Task Force (CATF), an EU import standard for methane emissions could reduce one-third of global methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. CATF considers this a crucial step towards achieving the Global Methane Pledge by 2030, an initiative in which 150 countries have committed to reducing emissions by 30 percent compared to 2020.
A proposal by the EU Parliament for an EU regulation includes such an import standard. This would require oil and gas-producing countries to take measures to reduce methane emissions during the production and transportation of fossil resources. However, a proposal by the EU Commission does not include a strict import regulation. Nonetheless, the EU Council is open to “expanding controls to imports”, according to information from the Parliament. According to CATF, an import standard would “reduce methane emissions 20 times more than a regulation that only covers domestic oil and gas production in the EU”. There is hope that the EU institutions will reach an agreement before COP28. Jutta Paulus, a driving force behind methane regulation, told Table.Media: “It is good that all negotiating partners have reaffirmed their desire to go to the new EU methane regulation at the climate conference in Dubai with an effective agreement.”
EU countries import over 80 percent of their gas and oil needs and are the world’s largest importers. Therefore, regulating importers and exporters would have far-reaching consequences. For instance, the EU Parliament demands:
Affordable energy, solid infrastructure and a sufficient workforce – these three factors have always been key to attracting industry. A glance at Germany’s map clearly shows this: It was no coincidence that the centers of the Industrial Revolution were located in the German Ruhr region and the northwest of England, where large cities, coal deposits and waterways converged. But the days of coal, coke and miners are long gone. The fossil fuel age is ending, and companies willing to invest are looking for the fuel for the next industrial revolution. Particular focus is placed on wind power and hydrogen – bad news for Germany’s south.
A recent survey by the German CEO Alliance for Climate and Economy in cooperation with the think tank EPICO and the German Economic Institute (IW) shows how important green energy is for a location’s appeal. Their findings: Around 75 percent of industrial companies consider energy supply a decisive location factor. At the same time, 80 percent rate the supply of renewables in Germany’s north as “somewhat good” or “very good” in terms of prospects. This is only the case for around 30 percent of companies in southern Germany.
This is a wake-up call for Germany’s south, because without green electricity and hydrogen, energy-intensive industries could relocate. The survey thus confirms the assumption of the renewables pull effect: Money follows green energy.
The reasons for the green pull effect are obvious: companies cannot decarbonize their business models without renewables. Moreover, instruments such as emissions trading significantly increase the costs of fossil energies, while the production costs of wind or solar power are steadily decreasing.
An effect that could be fully felt if the German electricity market were to be divided as proposed by the EU regulator ACER. In this case, shortages in the south would cause prices to skyrocket, while Germany’s coast would experience oversupply and low prices. The effect of the grid charges reform announced by the German government would be similar, albeit weaker.
The survey results reveal where Germany lags behind in renewables – namely in the south. The good news is that the solution to the problem is known. What is needed is a consistent expansion of renewables, power grids, storage technologies and hydrogen infrastructure across the country. The states of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg should focus on wind power since solar parks alone cannot satisfy the energy hunger of local industry. Excessively long distance regulations, lengthy approvals and inconsistent species conservation requirements are hindering wind power.
The same applies to the opposition to infrastructure expansion, which is no longer limited to the missing Suedlink power line. Although construction of the Suedlink transmission line has now begun, only 17 kilometers of the entire route have been approved so far. Hydrogen pipelines must also be expanded quickly and the handling of unavoidable emissions (CCS/ CCU) must be resolved.
The situation is serious, because the United States has long used the pull effect of renewables as an industrial policy tool. You don’t have to look to America to see that other countries are considerably further ahead in the expansion of renewables than we are in Germany. In Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden, investments in renewables have not only led to a more eco-friendly energy supply, but have also strengthened the competitiveness of their industries.
These countries have shown that the expansion of renewable energies can not only yield ecological but also economic benefits. As an export and industrial nation, Germany must catch up quickly. Otherwise, the lack of affordable renewable energies will become a locational disadvantage for the economy.
The debate on the German industrial electricity prices shows that politicians are aware of the problem of excessively high energy prices, and the wind is blowing in favor of a broad-based measures initiative. However, to ensure that the discussion does not stop at short-term solutions, promoting initiatives that can bring about structural improvements is necessary. One suitable method is the newly introduced carbon contracts, which compensate for the additional costs of green production processes compared with conventional processes. According to initial reports, these completely new types of operational expenditure subsidies are met with keen interest from the industry. The only problem is that there is still a considerable gap between funding and demand.
Another approach would be to develop intelligent power grids, including smart meters and flexible electricity tariffs, in order to smooth out load and price peaks in the electricity market. Unfortunately, the existing backlog is homegrown. The situation is different for skilled workers, where Germany is traditionally well positioned. But here, too, industrial change is increasing the pressure on existing structures. Therefore, an expansion offensive must also equal an education and training offensive.
Otherwise, the industrial landscape in Germany will suffer the same fate in the long term as the mining winding towers of the Ruhr region, which today are only used for exhibition purposes. Cultural heritage instead of future technology. However, the energy crisis in the summer of 2022 impressively demonstrated that Germany can master change under pressure. We should learn from this.
Sabine Nallinger is a member of the board of the German CEO Alliance for Climate and Economy. Bernd Weber is the founder and managing director of EPICO KlimaInnovation, a think tank for sustainable, market-based and innovation-oriented climate and energy policy.
Creating a green future requires more than anything else: money. There is a reason why one of the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement – which has been neglected so far – is to redirect global financial flows to drive forward the green transformation of the global economy.
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund must be on board to make this happen. The two financial institutions currently debate their green reform in Marrakech. At yesterday’s press conference, World Bank chief Ajay Banga spoke about how the effects of climate change negate previous development progress, for example, in Africa. In light of multiple mutually reinforcing crises, the Bank is set to redefine its mission in Marrakech. Banga’s new motto is “Create a world free of poverty – on a livable planet.”
Caspar Dohmen has the details on the bank’s reform plans – and explains which questions remain unanswered so far. Urmi Goswami reports from New Delhi about why there are doubts about the ability of the bank and the IMF to reform: An NGO report shows that in Pakistan, a country that has been working with both financial institutions for decades, past projects have even exacerbated the damage caused by climate change.
The upcoming elections in Poland will also be – at least in passing – about the chance for a more climate-friendly future. Lisa Kuner has traveled the country and written down what could change after the vote. And today’s opinion piece by Bernd Weber and Sabine Nallinger looks at what needs to change after the state elections in the German state of Bavaria to ensure that the local economy can continue to flourish.
The current overall news situation does not give much reason for an optimistic outlook. We hope you will find at least a few small rays of hope in our briefing.
Poland’s electricity generation emits more emissions than that of any other European country. In 2021, it emitted more than 750 kilograms of CO2 per megawatt hour generated. The EU average is less than 300 kilograms. This is shown by data from the Polish think tank Forum Energii. On Sunday, the country will elect a new parliament. Should the balance of power shift, Poland’s position on the energy transition could also change. Not unlikely, as the ruling PiS party is faring much worse in the polls than in the last elections and is only slightly ahead of the opposition Civic Coalition party.
The so-called Law and Justice Party (PiS) has been in power in Poland since 2015. During this time, PiS has not only undermined the rule of law and turned on refugees, but also “hindered the energy transition,” says Michał Hetmański, CEO and founder of the Polish green and digital economy think tank Instrat.
For years, strict regulation made the expansion of wind power almost impossible. One example of this is the so-called 10H regulation introduced in 2016. For years, strict regulation made the expansion of wind power almost impossible. One example of this is the so-called 10H regulation introduced in 2016. According to the regulation, the distance between new wind turbines and houses had to be ten times the height of the wind turbine. In practice, this is around 2 kilometers for modern turbines. The 10H regulation made 98 percent of Poland’s territory off-limits for constructing new onshore wind turbines. The regulation was loosened in early 2023, and now the distance must only be 700 meters.
While renewables have been suppressed for a long time, the PiS continues to stick to coal production. The claim is that it guarantees Poland’s energy sovereignty. The last coal mine is only to be closed in 2049. The country then aims to reach its net-zero target in 2050. So far, about 85 percent of energy consumption originates from fossil fuels, with coal accounting for 45 percent. Most of the limited amount of renewable energy in 2021 came from wood. Wind and solar energy play only a minor role.
Furthermore, Polish local politics is working to accelerate the energy transition in some places. For example, some cities are part of the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which aims to phase out coal by 2030. Warsaw is part of the C40 network, which aims to halve emissions by 2030. In this network, almost 100 mayors from all over the world have joined forces for consistent climate action.
In addition, Polish local politics is working to accelerate the energy transition in some places. For example, some cities are part of the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which aims to phase out coal by 2030. Warsaw is part of the C40 network, which aims to halve emissions by 2030. In this network, almost 100 mayors from all over the world have joined forces for consistent climate action.
“The energy transition is happening,” Aleksandra Gawlikowska-Fyk summarizes in her analysis. She is the Director of the Power Sector Programme at Forum Energii in Warsaw. However, Hetmański from Instrat criticizes that much of the energy transition “is coincidence and not strategic planning.” Price pressure and EU emissions trading probably also play a role: Since the amount of carbon emissions in Poland is higher than the allocated amount of pollution rights, companies and institutions are forced to buy allowances. In 2022, their cost was more than 7 billion euros. This also explains why Poland has opposed the abolition of free emission allowances for energy-intensive industries, albeit without success.
There is more strategic planning for large-scale projects. Poland plans the construction of three nuclear power plants. The government signed the first contracts on 27 September 2023. The companies Westinghouse and Bechtel are to build the first reactor in Lubiatowo-Kopalino in the Pomerania region in the country’s north. It is expected to go online in 2033. “I see nuclear energy as a good and cost-effective source of energy,” said Adam Guibourge-Czetwertyński, Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of Climate and Environment. According to him, nuclear power will ensure enough electricity is available at all times, adding that the decision in favor of the reactors shows that the population’s fear of high energy costs or a blackout is taken seriously.
The country is deeply divided in the run-up to the election. Various opposition parties have joined forces to form an opposition alliance called the Citizens’ Coalition (Koalicja Obywatelska, KO). Current polls put the KO at 30 percent, just behind the PiS (34 percent). However, since both parties will require coalition partners to form a government, the question of who will form the next government does not necessarily depend on who gets the most votes. The war in Ukraine, inflation and the rising cost of living are central issues in the election campaign. Climate action, on the other hand, does not play a significant role.
Still, the elections could change things: If the Civic Coalition wins, it wants to do more to advance Poland’s energy transition. “Renewable energy sources must become the basis of the system,” Grzegorz Onichimowski of KO told Reuters. Their goal is to cover between 65 and 70 percent of Poland’s energy production from renewables by 2030.
Another way the elections could contribute to the energy transition is through the EU’s recovery aid. The EU has frozen around 36 billion euros because Poland’s judicial system is no longer independent after its reform. Changed majorities could help these funds finally flow and thus also benefit the expansion of renewables.
So far, Poland’s policymakers are rather unanimous about the construction of the nuclear power plants, and most of the parties are in favor of it. Last week, however, the Civic Coalition expressed reservations and indicated that it might want to withdraw from the contracts.
Collaboration: Claire Stam. This text was written during a research tour of the Clean Energy Wire network.
At the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund annual meeting currently underway in Marrakesh, the big question is how to ensure that the two major international financial institutions can scale up their efforts to help developing countries respond to the climate crisis.
At a press conference on Wednesday morning, World Bank President Ajay Banga said the Bank aims to redefine its vision. In the future, the goal will be to “create a world free of poverty – on a livable planet.”
However, three civil society organizations from Pakistan and the Netherlands criticize in a new report: Under the current framework, the World Bank and the IMF are not in a position to respond to the climate crisis. They see “a shared structural failing” of the two financial institutions and do not expect the reform agenda to result in any significant changes. Instead, the NGOs warn of a “very real and ironic danger” that the work of the World Bank and IMF could deepen the climate crisis in the countries of the Global South.
The three organizations are the Alliance for Climate Justice and Clean Energy, a Pakistan-based civil society network; the Alternative Law Collective, part of the network; and Recourse, an Amsterdam-based nongovernmental organization focused on finance. Their report, “How are the IMF and the World Bank Shaping Climate Policy? Lessons from Pakistan,” shows: The policy support provided by the World Bank and IMF has consistently undermined Pakistan’s climate goals long before the devastating floods of 2022 floods.
An in-depth analysis of Pakistan, according to the authors, “serves as fitting case study” because:
Initially, the World Bank was focused on supporting large-scale state-led projects like Pakistan’s Indus Basin, the densely populated region around Pakistan’s most important water artery, the Indus River. One focus of the large-scale projects was on irrigation systems for agriculture and water and electricity supply infrastructure.
The report finds that efforts like this have contributed to Pakistan’s current climate woes. Zain Moulvi, Research Director, Alternative Law Collective explained, “Last year’s floods, as we know, resulted in about 40 billion US dollars in damages which is 10 percent of Pakistan’s GDP. Scientific studies have revealed that the causes of that flood were 100 percent anthropogenic, the rains would have been 75 percent less intense without human-induced global warming but what is less known and talked about, and this is important, is the role of exacerbating factors like the developmental infrastructures on the Indus Basin and socio-economic factors.”
Pakistan’s developmental infrastructure when it comes to the Indus Basin is “entirely linked” to the World Bank, explained Moulvi. “They are the ones who effectively propose the large dam infrastructure, the network of dams and barrages and canals.”
In 1968, institutions recommended Pakistan invest heavily in hydropower and in gas as well, Moulvi says. “That didn’t work out too well.” Twenty years after that, he says, the World Bank and IMF then proposed a private sector loan program to develop the energy sector. “Effectively the purpose was privatization, getting private sector involvement into the investments of energy,” Moulvi says. “And that culminated in what are probably two of the most disastrous policies Pakistan has had in the energy sector.”
The report finds the emissions profile of Pakistan’s energy sector has changed significantly thanks to the involvement of financial institutions. In 1994, hydroelectric power accounted for 60 percent of energy generation capacity, while thermal power plants fueled by fossil fuels and nuclear energy accounted for 40 percent. The ratio has since reversed. Today, thermal power plants fueled by imported fossil fuels account for 70 percent of Pakistan’s capacity. More than half of the capacity of these power plants remains unused, but they still have to be paid for. This contributes greatly to the “debt cycle in the energy sector.”
According to Moulvi, “the World Bank and IMF’s interventions analyzed by this report reveal a shared structural failing in the underlying analytic and developmental logic currently driving their climate-related operations.” He describes a kind of tunnel vision that is doing great damage.
“These institutions have generally followed an ahistoric and siloed approach that fails to recognize the interactive and dynamic interlinkages between their fiscal and macroeconomic policies, and the broader everyday realities of economic exploitation, gender inequality, and climate change – in both the short-term and longer-term time frames,”
There is, however, no denying governance choices made by successive governments in Pakistan as it faced serious policy dilemmas associated with macroeconomic and social instability amidst a backdrop of growing climate risks and impacts. The report also points out.
The report points out that “resorting to World Bank Group and IMF loans has become a common practice for Pakistani governments seeking to address short-term crunches, such as external debt servicing, and paying for essential imports, such as fuel and industrial technology. Accessing this financial assistance, however, has required those governments to agree to an increasingly exacting range of policy reforms promoting market-based solutions.”
In their report, the three NGOs call on the World Bank and the IMF to be more accountable and democratic through a review of toolkits, including the need for impact assessments, debt sustainability analysis, proper compensation to affected communities, and immediate amendments to current loans. It recommends issuing SDRs annually to ensure liquidity provisions are not linked to existing quota formulas but are genuinely needs-based.
Other recommendations include advancing international taxation and trade reforms that can scale up countries’ possibilities of leading just energy transitions and making the available World Bank-IMF knowledge and expertise available for communities and local governments to facilitate democratic home-grown macroeconomic policymaking.
Federico Sibaja, IMF Campaign Manager at Recourse, believes past reform efforts to be insufficient. “The limited and weak ‘reform’ agenda of the IFIs coupled with their expanding interventionist power under the guise of climate action, raises serious concerns for Global South nations struggling to chart an effective climate-compatible developmental path.” Adding that “given that there is little change in the old developmental thinking underpinning IFI operations (or in the global financial architecture as a whole), their mainstreaming of climate and ramping up of coordination carries a very real and ironic danger of deepening the climate crises in Global South nations.”
The international community must “collectively set a new course of action to address the emergencies of poverty and the growing number of global challenges,” reads the World Bank’s strategy paper currently being discussed at its meeting in Marrakech. Government participants are referring to this as one of the most important World Bank conferences in a long time.
In addition to the traditional core tasks of the World Bank – fighting poverty and reducing inequality – the protection of global public goods will now be added as a third goal. The World Bank wants to focus on eight challenges:
Regarding the need for financing to manage the transformation in the Global South, the strategy paper states that the resources for development financing must be significantly increased to achieve these goals.
Poorer countries fear that there might be less of an increase than a reallocation of funds within the World Bank. This would mean that fewer funds would be available for classic development tasks. Some experts share this fear. However, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) sees things differently: “The reform will not be at the expense of the poorest countries or the expense of poverty reduction,” a spokesman told Table.Media. Development Minister Svenja Schulze advocates an approach that could be described as “more for more”: Developing countries could receive more or cheaper funds from the World Bank beyond their actual allocation “if they are used for investments that not only benefit the respective country alone, but also benefit all of humanity and the planet.”
In any case, governments of the Global South require considerably more capital for the transformation process. Africa is a clear example of this. So far, it receives only three percent of global climate financing, of which only 14 percent comes from the private sector. Yet the continent is responsible for only 3.8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, while the Global North accounts for 90 percent.
With an annual volume of 100 billion US dollars, the World Bank Group is the world’s largest financier of sustainable development. The USA and Germany together hold just under 20 percent of the shares.
Some countries have already announced new funding for the World Bank in the run-up to the annual meeting. Germany will buy 305 million euros in World Bank bonds. The Bank can use this as so-called hybrid capital. With this class of bonds, the lending volume can be increased by a factor of up to eight times the capital – meaning the 305 million euros could be leveraged to more than 2.5 billion euros in lending for investments over ten years.
This instrument, which is applied for the first time, is also a way of helping the World Bank to increase its lending volume without injecting fresh equity. Although there would be countries like China willing to raise the World Bank’s capital in return for more shares, the United States is unlikely to agree to this at this time.
There are also critical voices in the Global South regarding the growing involvement of private financial actors in the World Bank’s financing projects. They call for more subsidies from the Global North. But the World Bank is already pursuing a cascade approach, according to which every task should first be funded with private resources if possible, and public funds should only be invested as a last resort.
Mark Brown, prime minister of the Cook Islands in the South Pacific, which are threatened by rising sea levels, warns against focusing too much on the private sector for climate financing. He argues that the private sector always expects a return on investment, which particularly overburdenes poorer countries that need the loans. He takes wealthy countries to task here. “Countries like ours shouldn’t be borrowing money to protect ourselves against the effects of greenhouse gases from countries that cause them.”
Many countries in the Global South are already in a veritable debt crisis. “Debt relief, in our view, is essential to ensure that heavily indebted countries, too, can get in the right lane towards sustainability and climate action,” says Reiner Hoffmann, Chair of the German Council for Sustainable Development, an advisory body to the German government.
Unlike sovereign nations, the World Bank cannot currently write off its debts. “There is no mechanism, although this would make sense in order to give highly indebted countries breathing room,” says Bodo Ellmers, Director of the Financing for Sustainable Development Program at the NGO Global Policy Forum. The German development ministry BMZ takes a different view: “Participating in write-downs would also have negative impacts on the poorest countries, because if the bank gives up its current status as a preferred creditor, its creditworthiness (rating) will deteriorate, making conditions more expensive for client countries.” No changes are expected here at the annual meeting, nor is a World Bank exit from financing fossil fuel projects, a demand made by development aid and environmental organizations.
The financial architecture of the IMF and World Bank remains largely unchanged. “No one disputes the need for reform anymore, but there are different ideas about how to go about it,” says Ellmers.
UN Secretary-General Guterres recently described the financial architecture as “hopelessly outdated” – it was cementing underdevelopment instead of helping overcome it. He exemplified this with the Special Drawing Rights, which the International Monetary Fund (IMF) can use to create liquidity for countries in crisis situations, as it did the most recently during the pandemic. But since it can only allocate funds – according to its statutes – based on Members’ quotas, the liquidity of wealthy countries increased significantly, while the poorest countries hardly benefited at all.
Since their founding more than 75 years ago, the sister institutions IMF and World Bank, which followed the ideas of the USA and the United Kingdom, have not undergone any significant structural reform. As a result, the West continues to have a decisive influence in both organizations. The USA even holds a de facto veto right. This is unlikely to change significantly in Marrakech.
“By sticking to this governance structure, the legitimacy of both institutions could be further damaged,” says Ellmers. A World Bank that focuses on the well-being of people and the planet “urgently needs more democratic processes,” says Ute Straub, responsible for development finance at the German aid agency Bread for the World.
In China, people worry about climate change just like anywhere else. However, taking to the streets or spraying paint on landmarks is not an option in this authoritarian state to vent their concerns. Nevertheless, the Chinese people already feel the effects of changing weather patterns in catastrophic ways. In January 2023, the Chinese Meteorological Administration declared that China’s climate in 2022 was clearly anomalous and trending towards extremes. The summer saw record-high temperatures and unexpected cold snaps occurred in the fall.
Surprisingly, there is hardly any public debate on this issue in state or social media. Researchers Chuxuan Liu and Jeremy Lee Wallace noted in their study “China’s missing climate change discourse” (2023) that only 0.12 percent of trending topics on Weibo, China’s leading social media platform, were related to climate change between June 2017 and February 2021. However, an end-of-2019 survey conducted by the European Investment Bank found that 73 percent of Chinese citizens considered climate change a major threat, compared to 47 percent in Europe and 39 percent in the United States. The difficulty of the issue’s prominence in China has several reasons.
Environmental organizations and NGOs face stricter scrutiny. In recent years, authorities have warned and arrested numerous environmental activists and whistleblowers while undermining citizen initiatives. A 2017 law also requires all foreign NGOs to cooperate with local groups, leading to increased self-censorship, according to many involved.
Bloomberg reports that journalists from state media are encouraged not to report on topics such as the threat to affluent coastal cities from rising sea levels. Investigative articles on environmental damage are limited to the wrongdoing of individual local government officials. Phenomena like the Friday for Future demonstrations in the West were portrayed in state media articles as emotional, radical and chaotic. Greta Thunberg is often a subject of ridicule on Chinese social media and is seen by many as a typical embodiment of the western “baizuo 白左,” a derogatory term for the woke Left that imposes its rules on others. Additionally, many conspiracy theories questioning the existence of climate change circulate in China’s online world. Young activist Howey Ou, who was briefly dubbed the “Chinese Greta,” now prefers to protest against climate change abroad.
Education in schools and media coverage primarily focus on how individuals can reduce their ecological footprint, such as through waste separation, recycling and environmentally conscious consumption. China’s role as the largest CO2 emitter in global warming is downplayed. The message is that China is not only striving to contribute to climate mitigation with green technology but also aims to become carbon-neutral by 2060, setting an example for other countries. However, China also insists on the right to develop at its own pace, arguing that humanity’s problems were primarily caused by the major Western industrial nations.
Environmentalists see the weak involvement of civil society as a missed opportunity. Even in the recent past, collective pressure in the People’s Republic has had the power to effect change. About a decade ago, a campaign against air pollution, supported by the population, prompted the Chinese leadership to seriously address the smog issue, especially in major cities. An important factor in this was the self-funded documentary film “Under the Dome” by Chinese journalist Chai Jing, which spread rapidly online, initially outrunning censorship.
Ultimately, the government fears the destabilizing impact of open activism too much. So, what happens to the population’s fears? Some believe that it finds an outlet in outrage over foreign environmental scandals and as a generally diffuse form of eco-anxiety. When Japan discharged wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the sea in the summer, panic-buying occurred in China, especially for salt, even though there was no scientific basis for the panic.
In China’s still-thriving science fiction genre, which has hardly featured climate change until now, a change is emerging as well. Authors like Chen Qiufan and, more recently, Gu Shi are incorporating scenarios of environmental disasters and rising sea levels into their literary works. Both feature artificial intelligence as a countermeasure, aligning with the government’s goals, which view AI with similar optimism to how the US once viewed nuclear energy achievements. Beijing plans to use the technology in almost all areas of public life to save billions of tons of carbon emissions. This offers a vague hope, which keeps the Chinese from having to take to the streets en masse.
On Tuesday, EU institutions failed to reach a compromise on methane regulation. A comprehensive regulation covering methane emissions in extra-European production countries of natural gas, oil and coal could bring significant reductions in methane emissions. According to estimates by the Clean Air Task Force (CATF), an EU import standard for methane emissions could reduce one-third of global methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. CATF considers this a crucial step towards achieving the Global Methane Pledge by 2030, an initiative in which 150 countries have committed to reducing emissions by 30 percent compared to 2020.
A proposal by the EU Parliament for an EU regulation includes such an import standard. This would require oil and gas-producing countries to take measures to reduce methane emissions during the production and transportation of fossil resources. However, a proposal by the EU Commission does not include a strict import regulation. Nonetheless, the EU Council is open to “expanding controls to imports”, according to information from the Parliament. According to CATF, an import standard would “reduce methane emissions 20 times more than a regulation that only covers domestic oil and gas production in the EU”. There is hope that the EU institutions will reach an agreement before COP28. Jutta Paulus, a driving force behind methane regulation, told Table.Media: “It is good that all negotiating partners have reaffirmed their desire to go to the new EU methane regulation at the climate conference in Dubai with an effective agreement.”
EU countries import over 80 percent of their gas and oil needs and are the world’s largest importers. Therefore, regulating importers and exporters would have far-reaching consequences. For instance, the EU Parliament demands:
Affordable energy, solid infrastructure and a sufficient workforce – these three factors have always been key to attracting industry. A glance at Germany’s map clearly shows this: It was no coincidence that the centers of the Industrial Revolution were located in the German Ruhr region and the northwest of England, where large cities, coal deposits and waterways converged. But the days of coal, coke and miners are long gone. The fossil fuel age is ending, and companies willing to invest are looking for the fuel for the next industrial revolution. Particular focus is placed on wind power and hydrogen – bad news for Germany’s south.
A recent survey by the German CEO Alliance for Climate and Economy in cooperation with the think tank EPICO and the German Economic Institute (IW) shows how important green energy is for a location’s appeal. Their findings: Around 75 percent of industrial companies consider energy supply a decisive location factor. At the same time, 80 percent rate the supply of renewables in Germany’s north as “somewhat good” or “very good” in terms of prospects. This is only the case for around 30 percent of companies in southern Germany.
This is a wake-up call for Germany’s south, because without green electricity and hydrogen, energy-intensive industries could relocate. The survey thus confirms the assumption of the renewables pull effect: Money follows green energy.
The reasons for the green pull effect are obvious: companies cannot decarbonize their business models without renewables. Moreover, instruments such as emissions trading significantly increase the costs of fossil energies, while the production costs of wind or solar power are steadily decreasing.
An effect that could be fully felt if the German electricity market were to be divided as proposed by the EU regulator ACER. In this case, shortages in the south would cause prices to skyrocket, while Germany’s coast would experience oversupply and low prices. The effect of the grid charges reform announced by the German government would be similar, albeit weaker.
The survey results reveal where Germany lags behind in renewables – namely in the south. The good news is that the solution to the problem is known. What is needed is a consistent expansion of renewables, power grids, storage technologies and hydrogen infrastructure across the country. The states of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg should focus on wind power since solar parks alone cannot satisfy the energy hunger of local industry. Excessively long distance regulations, lengthy approvals and inconsistent species conservation requirements are hindering wind power.
The same applies to the opposition to infrastructure expansion, which is no longer limited to the missing Suedlink power line. Although construction of the Suedlink transmission line has now begun, only 17 kilometers of the entire route have been approved so far. Hydrogen pipelines must also be expanded quickly and the handling of unavoidable emissions (CCS/ CCU) must be resolved.
The situation is serious, because the United States has long used the pull effect of renewables as an industrial policy tool. You don’t have to look to America to see that other countries are considerably further ahead in the expansion of renewables than we are in Germany. In Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden, investments in renewables have not only led to a more eco-friendly energy supply, but have also strengthened the competitiveness of their industries.
These countries have shown that the expansion of renewable energies can not only yield ecological but also economic benefits. As an export and industrial nation, Germany must catch up quickly. Otherwise, the lack of affordable renewable energies will become a locational disadvantage for the economy.
The debate on the German industrial electricity prices shows that politicians are aware of the problem of excessively high energy prices, and the wind is blowing in favor of a broad-based measures initiative. However, to ensure that the discussion does not stop at short-term solutions, promoting initiatives that can bring about structural improvements is necessary. One suitable method is the newly introduced carbon contracts, which compensate for the additional costs of green production processes compared with conventional processes. According to initial reports, these completely new types of operational expenditure subsidies are met with keen interest from the industry. The only problem is that there is still a considerable gap between funding and demand.
Another approach would be to develop intelligent power grids, including smart meters and flexible electricity tariffs, in order to smooth out load and price peaks in the electricity market. Unfortunately, the existing backlog is homegrown. The situation is different for skilled workers, where Germany is traditionally well positioned. But here, too, industrial change is increasing the pressure on existing structures. Therefore, an expansion offensive must also equal an education and training offensive.
Otherwise, the industrial landscape in Germany will suffer the same fate in the long term as the mining winding towers of the Ruhr region, which today are only used for exhibition purposes. Cultural heritage instead of future technology. However, the energy crisis in the summer of 2022 impressively demonstrated that Germany can master change under pressure. We should learn from this.
Sabine Nallinger is a member of the board of the German CEO Alliance for Climate and Economy. Bernd Weber is the founder and managing director of EPICO KlimaInnovation, a think tank for sustainable, market-based and innovation-oriented climate and energy policy.
