Today and tomorrow, the Petersberg Climate Dialogue will once again be held at the Federal Foreign Office in Berlin, bringing together representatives from around 40 countries. There will be much debate, but the most exciting questions will mainly be negotiated informally – and Bernhard Pötter has compiled a list of these. But there is also a lot of tension elsewhere in political Berlin: Thomas Heilmann, climate expert from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), who already stopped the heating law in court, has filed an urgent appeal against the new Climate Change Act with the Federal Constitutional Court, as Malte Kreutzfeldt reports.
Meanwhile, there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding the EU’s Green Deal. Lukas Scheid reviews the last five years and gives an outlook. Nico Beckert looks at which countries should lead the phase-out of oil and natural gas. Meanwhile, before the G7 Ministers’ Meeting in Turin, the developed countries must ask themselves why they are clearly missing their 2030 climate targets. And lastly, the EU’s withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty has taken the last big hurdle in Brussels.
Your Lukas Bayer
Feature
Petersberg unofficial: The ten most important questions
Every year: Petersberg Dialogue 2023 at the Federal Foreign Office in Berlin.
For the two days of the 15th Petersberg Climate Dialogue, the Federal Foreign Office in Berlin is the center of global climate diplomacy. Both in front of and behind closed doors, representatives from the 40 most important countries sound out the chances for progress at the COP29 in Azerbaijan and beyond.
The program includes official speeches and panel discussions: The host, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, and COP29 President-designate Mukhtar Babayev will speak at the opening on Thursday. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, will speak on Friday. The Ministers for Economic Affairs and Climate, Robert Habeck, and for Cooperation, Svenja Schulze, are prominently represented on podiums.
Conversation topics in the hallways
However, many exciting issues are not negotiated in public. In informal circles, in private or in the vast corridors of the Foreign Ministry, many questions emerge that are often not yet answered, but which foreshadow future decisions. These topics include:
What strategy and goals does Azerbaijan have for COP29? Observers are waiting for ideas and proposals on what the next presidency has planned. Azerbaijan has hardly been present on the COP stage so far and has little experience. The previous COP28 President, Sultan Al Jaber, was already traveling around the world this time last year, promoting his vision.
How will Azerbaijan explain its own climate strategy? The gas-exporting country has been criticized for its plans to triple its gas production when the focus should instead have been on phasing out fossil fuels since COP28.
How does the ‘troika’ envisage its ‘Mission 1.5 C’? The triumvirate of COP presidencies from the United Arab Emirates, Azerbaijan and Brazil have called for a unified UN-wide platform to support these activities. However, they have not yet clarified what exactly it will look like. A separate debate at the event will provide more clarity on this.
Will Scholz stand by his financial commitments?
Will Chancellor Olaf Scholz keep his climate finance pledge? In 2023, Scholz used Petersberg to renew his pledge for Germany to raise at least six billion euros for international climate action by 2025 at the latest – as well as a one-off two billion euros for the Green Climate Fund. Germany is now forced to cut costs, particularly in the relevant ministries for economic affairs, development cooperation and the foreign office. Will the downsizing also hit international climate financing?
What does the Dubai compromise on the expansion of renewables and the ‘transition away from fossil fuels‘ actually mean? And above all, how do the countries translate this ‘transition’ into concrete investment plans for all economic sectors in their NDCs, which are due next year? There are also no plans to date on how to triple renewable energy capacity (which was initiated at Petersberg last year) and double efficiency in the countries.
Where will the money come from? And how much should it be? At COP29, a decision is due to be made on the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCGQ). It will probably fall somewhere between the 100 billion US dollars per year developed countries have promised from 2020 and the trillion needed for 2030 – but where exactly?
What instruments will be used to raise the money? Petersberg is expected to continue the debate from the spring meeting of the World Bank and IMF on which taxes (shipping, airline tickets, financial speculation, fossil fuel production, extreme wealth) can be used to collect these amounts. And will Germany join the task force in which these issues are being negotiated under the leadership of Kenya, Barbados and France?
What will happen if Trump becomes US president?
How do the new climate chiefs from China and the USA get along? After the end of the Xie-Kerry era, the new climate envoys of the two carbon superpowers will meet for the first time officially: Liu Zhenmin and John Podesta. Will they find a similar level of trust as their predecessors?
Will Germany press ahead with the new EU climate target? Following the EU elections and with a new Parliament and Commission, the EU will have to present its new climate plan (NDC) next year, just like all other countries. Germany has officially declared that it is well on the way to achieving its ambitious carbon reduction target by 2030 despite the amended Climate Change Act. Will Germany thus take on a pioneering role in the debate about a new NDC?
What is the climate community’s plan B if Donald Trump becomes US president again in November? No one talks openly about what Trump, who withdrew from the Paris Agreement in 2017, could mean for the UN process. But it is no coincidence that the Democratic governor of the US state of California and renowned climate politician Gavin Newsom will join the event via video link at the end. Newsom is considered a possible candidate for the presidency in 2028.
Azerbaijan
COP28
COP29
Green Climate Fund
Klimapolitik
Translation missing.
Where the EU Green Deal has been watered down – and what happens next
EU leaders in Beijing European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen attends a joint press conference with European Council President Charles Michel following their talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing on Dec. 7, 2023.
It was Ursula von der Leyen’s big project in this legislature. The Green Deal was supposed to put Europe on the net zero path by 2050. The Commission President announced her plan in 2019 and launched a range of laws in 2021. How much progress has the EU made?
A stocktaking at the end of the European Parliament’s legislative period shows: The first years of the Green Deal were marked by comprehensive reforms, for example, in emissions trading, the expansion of renewables and higher climate targets. They pave the way for continued progress towards the ambitious climate targets.
However, towards the end of the period and under the pressure of the Covid pandemic, inflation and the war in Ukraine, momentum was lost: The European climate and environmental action project came under increasing pressure.
Especially since the main climate laws – known as the Fit for 55 package – were finalized, support for further Green Deal measures dropped massively. In particular, von der Leyen’s political base, the Christian Democratic EPP, exerted enormous pressure on the Commission to keep the number of additional Green Deal laws to a minimum.
The Commission often gave in to pressure from the EPP
This jeopardized several projects:
The EPP’s rejection almost completely overturned the Nature Restoration Law (NRL). Although it couldn’t stop it, the proposal was watered down so much compared to the Commission proposal that even the level of ambition of the member states in the Council was higher – a never-before-seen situation with climate action measures.
The EPP also tried to gut the Pesticides Regulation (SUR). In the end, the Greens rejected the law in Parliament because they felt it would not have improved existing regulations. In turn, the EPP rejected renegotiations. Ultimately, as a concession to the farmer protests, the Commission President withdrew the proposal, after it had been declared dead anyway.
A law to restrict microplastics was first postponed and finally presented in a watered-down form.
The chemicals regulation REACHhas been postponed several times and is still in the Commission’s drawer today. This, too, is in the interests of the EPP. It is unclear whether REACH will ever see the light of day.
EPP with ‘prehistoric’ voting behavior
All these laws are part of the Green Deal. A group of environmental organizations called the EPP “prehistoric thinkers” because they often voted against more climate action. Christian Ehler from the EPP refuses to accept this figure alone. He said the important thing was what was voted on – not whether you voted yes or no. The EPP justifies its rejection of further legislation with the aim of protecting the economy and farmers from new regulations.
Ehler is the rapporteur for the large industrial policy project of the Green Deal, the Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA), which will be put to a final vote in the European Parliament on Thursday. The Act is a response to China’s massive industrial subsidies and the US Inflation Reduction Act. It aims to speed up approval procedures for the expansion of green technologies, as well as to make global supply bottlenecks more resilient and more independent of foreign suppliers.
However, the NZIA hardly provides any new funding to support the economy, another reason why the Greens criticize the bill. Michael Bloss, climate policy spokesperson for the Green Party, called it a missed opportunity. During a Table.Briefings debate, Ehler countered that public funds are not enough to finance transformation processes. “It will only work if we deepen the internal energy market in Europe and if there is finally a level playing field on the capital market to make it attractive to international investors.”
And after the European elections?
What’s next for the Green Deal? The party election programs make few concrete statements on this. However, the new EU climate target for 2040 proposed by the Commission is on the agenda: minus 90 percent. The associated legislative package will be the main climate policy task of the next Commission and the next Parliament. According to current plans, it will be presented in the first half of 2025 at the earliest under the Polish Council Presidency.
Michael Bloss campaigns for a Green Industrial Deal in the next legislature, which aims to preserve Europe as a business location and ensure that the climate targets for 2030, 2040 and 2050 remain achievable. Christian Ehler from the EPP hopes that the new Commission will introduce fewer regulatory bills and instead more control via market-based instruments such as European emissions trading.
Giegold: ‘We need a near-zero package’
German State Secretary for Economic Affairs Sven Giegold wants to prevent the Green Deal from being rolled back with a new legislative package. “We need a fit-for-near-zero package,” he said Tuesday evening at an event hosted by the Jacques Delors Center and the German CEO Alliance for Climate in Berlin.
“The Green Deal is not yet complete and it must remain a priority,” the former MEP continued. Anything else would “not only harm the climate, but also our economy.”
On one crucial point, Giegold’s initiative opposes the French government and its allies in the Council: “For Germany, it is clear that the next legislative package must again include targets for renewable energies and energy efficiency. Both will take on a large part of the greenhouse gas reduction,” the State Secretary said.
Paris, on the other hand, is only aiming for a target for “decarbonized energy,” which would also include nuclear energy. At the energy ministers’ meeting last December, France and ten other EU states drafted a corresponding paper to influence the climate legislation for 2040.
EU climate policy
Fit for 55
Green Deal
Net Zero Industry Act
Nuclear power
REACH
Renewable energies
How the fossil fuel phase-out threatens oil and gas countries
One of the most conflict-prone issues will be which countries are allowed to continue extracting oil and gas.
The COP28 decision in Dubai to “transition away from fossil fuels” was not the end, but the beginning of the debate on phasing out coal, oil, and gas. This will also be evident at this year’s Petersberg Climate Dialogue in Berlin. After all, the COP wording was deliberately vague to reconcile conflicting interests.
However, it is also unclear how this “transition away from fossil fuels” can be implemented. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), it is not enough for the demand side to burn fewer fossil fuels – the producing countries would also have to throttle back their production in the coming years and decades.
In response, oil and gas producers already gather ecological and economic arguments to delay the phase-out: For instance, Norway argues that oil and gas must be extracted with particularly low emissions. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, advertises its low-cost production. However, importers also have instruments at their disposal to accelerate the phase-out and cushion the negative effects on producing countries.
But who will be allowed to produce and sell oil and gas, and for how long? The answer to this question depends on the criteria used in this political and economic debate. Three groups are emerging in the discussion:
Countries with low-emission oil and gas production, i.e., which produce relatively cleanly;
countries that can produce fossil fuels very cheaply, and
developing and emerging oil and gas-producing countries whose socio-economic development depends on this revenue.
Gulf states: Inexpensive and relatively carbon-low production
The “cleanest” producers include Norway and many Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Norway has strict rules to prevent methane leaks during production and capture the climate-damaging greenhouse gas. The Gulf states, on the other hand, can produce relatively cleanly because their deposits are close to the surface, meaning that less energy is needed to extract them.
The Gulf states also belong to the second category: producing states with particularly low costs. Production is comparatively cheap and energy-efficient because their deposits are located near the surface. Furthermore, the extraction sites are generally located in large reservoirs, resulting in much lower exploration costs – unlike fracking, for example. Transportation costs and taxes are also very low in Saudi Arabia.
However, oil and gas-producing emerging and developingcountries are particularly dependent on fossil fuel revenues. These countries stand to lose the most from the loss of state revenues due to a production phase-out. These producers include Nigeria, Venezuela, Angola, the Republic of Congo, Chad, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and East Timor (see chart below).
But the Gulf states, Algeria and Azerbaijan also belong to countries with much to lose. The approaching “peak in demand for oil and gas should prompt the petrostates to question investments in new production,” write the analysts at Carbon Tracker.
Other voices, such as the Civil Society Equity Review, argue that there is a historical responsibility that needs to be reflected not only in climate action, but also in the phase-out of fossil fuels. After all, many countries have benefited from oil and gas revenues for a long time, so the argument goes. According to the authors of the Equity Review, the wealthier a country is and the less dependent it is on fossil fuels, the sooner it should phase out fossil fuels.
“The United States, Norway, Australia, and the UK must end fossil fuel extraction by the very early 2030s,” write the authors of this study. The civil society representatives believe that rich countries and historical pollutersmust provide financial aid to the less affluent dropouts. Because: “Countries that are highly dependent on extraction will need time to disentangle their societies from fossil fuels and build new economies,” they argue.
Losers of the phase-out: developing countries with oil and gas
According to the IEA, not all producers could – naturally – belong to the “last survivors” who can produce oil and gas for as long as possible. If the decision were left to market forces, the cheapest oil and gas would be produced until the very end. If, on the other hand, importers were to prioritize production in developing and emerging countries, this might not be very profitable for these producing countries: The IEA says that declining global demand would cause prices to fall so sharply that the high production costs could no longer be covered.
The oil and gas-producing developing and emerging countries will be the first and biggest losers of the fossil fuel phase-out regardless of the constellation. That is why the Carbon Tracker proposes that the “Just Energy Transition Partnerships could be extended beyond coal to oil and gas as a means of financing the necessary changes” in the economic structures of oil and gas-dependent countries. With foreign aid, these economies could be diversified to cushion the negative impact of the fossil fuel phase-out on national budgets.
According to the IEA, other economic potential in oil and gas-dependent countries could also be activated. Many of these countries also have great potential for producing renewable energies. Given financial support, they could establish themselves in clean energy value chains such as green hydrogen and low-emission industrial production.
Importing countries could use market power
Importing countries also have several instruments to contribute to a “cleaner” oil and gas production. After all, the IEA estimates that oil and gas production, transportation and processing account for almost 15 percent of global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions.
Accordingly, large importers could:
Use their market power by only importing oil and gas from countriesthat comply with certain emission limits. The IEA cites the EU methane regulation as a positive example, even if the regulation has yet to set an import standard.
Promote international oil and gas production standards to make methane emissions more transparent and reduce them through public pressure.
JETP
Events
April 25, 26 ConferencePetersberg Climate Dialogue At the traditional Petersberg Climate Dialogue, 40 countries explore possible outcomes for the coming year of negotiations. The dialog is traditionally used to prepare for this year’s climate negotiations, which will take place in Bonn in June and at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November.Info
27. April, online Action dayClimate Democracy Day An alliance of civil society actors is bringing citizens together with members of the Bundestag on “Climate Democracy Day” to discuss critical issues relating to the climate crisis.Info
April 28-30, Turin Ministers’ Meeting G7 Ministerial Meeting on Climate, Energy and Environment The meeting of the G7 ministers on energy and climate in Turin.Info
News
Climate in Numbers: Electric mobility continues to grow globally
While new registrations of electric cars in Germany have dropped since the beginning of the year compared to the previous year due to the scrapped purchase incentive, the industry still records strong growth globally. This is according to the International Energy Agency’s Global EV Outlook 2024 published on Tuesday. In the first quarter of this year, the sales figures of electric cars (including plug-in hybrids) were 25 percent higher compared to the same period last year.
According to IEA figures, the market share of electric cars among new registrations is likely to rise to 45 percent in China this year; 25 percent in the EU and 11 percent in the USA. Globally, this puts the share at 18 percent. Although the absolute sales figures for electric vehicles remain low in many emerging and developing countries, strong growth rates have recently been recorded in some cases: For example, the number of EVs sold in Thailand increased around tenfold between 2021 and 2023, quintupled in India and tripled in Brazil.
To further increase global figures, the IEA report argues that manufacturers need a different model policy: More affordable vehicles are needed to create a genuine mass market. So far, two-thirds of the available models are large vehicles, SUVs, or sports cars, the IEA criticizes. Furthermore, governments need to focus less on financial incentives for EVs and more on creating the proper conditions, especially a solid charging infrastructure. mkr
Verkehrswende
Urgent appeal against German Climate Change Act filed
It is unclear whether the German parliament will be able to water down the Climate Change Act this Friday as planned: Thomas Heilmann, lawyer, MP for the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Chairman of the Climate Union, filed a motion with the Federal Constitutional Court on Wednesday for a temporary injunction against its adoption. He criticized the fact that there was not enough time to discuss the amendments made by the coalition parties to the government draft. The motion was presented as a draft on Friday and was only officially filed on Wednesday. It concerns central and complex issues of climate action, Heilmann said. “We can’t do this in such a hurry.” The government’s timetable was “simply unreasonable.”
Heilmann already managed to prevent the Building Energy Act from being passed before the summer break with a similar motion last summer. On Wednesday, he expressed optimism that he would be successful again this time. “I think the procedural errors in the Climate Change Act are even more serious than in the Heating Act,” he said. Heilmann had told Table.Briefings on Tuesday that he would file a complaint if the government coalition refused a new expert hearing. In addition to the timetable, the CDU MP also criticized the content of the new law, saying that the current and next government would not have to take any measures to ensure compliance with the climate targets beyond 2030.
Mixed response
Sascha Müller-Kraenner, Managing Director of Environmental Action Germany, welcomed the complaint. “It’s good that Thomas Heilmann is standing up against the hasty amendment of the Climate Action Act and defending both climate action and the rights of parliament,” he said. Representatives of the government factions, however, rejected the criticism. “As only marginal changes have been made to the bill, there is no good reason not to hold the final vote on Friday,” FDP parliamentary group deputy leader Lukas Köhler told Table.Briefings. Irene Mihalic, Parliamentary Secretary of the Green Party, also explained that the bill amendment was a “completely normal procedure.”
Initially, there was concern that Heilmann’s success with the Climate Change Act could also have an impact on another law because the Solar Package 1 is also on the agenda for the Bundestag on Friday: The FDP parliamentary group had internally made its approval of the solar package conditional on the adoption of the Climate Change Act, which the Green Party had previously blocked. However, time is short for the solar package, as a paragraph was included in its draft that declares previously designated wind areas to be priority areas in accordance with the EU REDD III Directive, which is extremely important for the wind industry. The deadline for this is mid-May, which can only be met if the law is passed this week due to the necessary approval of the Bundesrat. mkr
CDU
Ahead of G7 summit: climate policy of the wealthiest countries not enough for 2030 targets
Ahead of the G7 meeting of climate, energy and environment ministers in Turin from April 28 to 30, a new report by the research institute Climate Analytics shows that the wealthiest developed countries will probably achieve just half of the greenhouse gas reduction needed to meet the 1.5-degree limit by 2030. None of the countries in the G7 group, including Germany, France, the US and Italy, would achieve their reduction targets for 2030.
It says existing measures would only be able to reduce emissions by 19 to 33 percent by 2030. However, the G7 set a 40 to 42 percent reduction target. The 1.5-degree target would actually require a reduction of 58 percent compared to the base year 2019. “Such a shortfall in ambition does not provide the leadership signal needed from the world’s richest countries, making up around 38 percent of the global economy, and responsible for 21 percent of total GHG emissions in 2021,” the report criticizes.
In light of this, they call on the G7 countries to review their respective 2030 targets to align them with the 1.5-degree limit. Moreover, looking at the climate targets to be set for 2035, they say it is the ideal time to make changes, including:
Phasing out the domestic production of coal and natural gas by 2030.
Stopping public funding for fossil fuel extraction abroad.
Tripling renewables and doubling energy efficiency by 2030.
Increasing climate finance significantly beyond the promised 100 billion US dollars. lb
Klimaziele
EU withdrawal from Energy Charter clears penultimate hurdle
In its final session week before the European elections, the EU Parliament voted to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty. “International fossil fuel investors no longer have the option of bypassing ordinary courts and attacking climate policy with extrajudicial lawsuits,” said Green MEP Anna Cavazzini.
As a final step, the member states still have to approve the withdrawal by a qualified majority. The vote is expected in May. It will likely be accepted, as the Council had already voted in favor of the exit in March.
Investor protection for 20 years despite withdrawal
The phase-out will come into force one year after notification. However, investor protection will remain in place for another 20 years. According to the NGO PowerShift, the EU is currently negotiating an agreement to restrict this option. However, the EU decision also stipulates that member states can continue to decide whether to remain in the treaty.
The International Energy Charter protects the interests of investors in other countries that are parties to the charter. According to PowerShift, proceedings are still ongoing, for example against the taxation of power plant excess profits and against the German coal phase-out. ber
Urgewald: EU sanctions would hit Russian LNG exports hard
According to the environmental organization Urgewald, the economic pressure on Russia could be significantly increased if the EU were to ban the import and trade of Russian LNG. Such a measure would cause massive logistical problems for Russia’s main export terminal, Sabetta.
“If the nearby EU ports and waters were no longer available as destinations and transshipment points, the transportation routes for Russian gas from the Arctic would become significantly longer and more expensive. Moreover, due to the very limited number of ships available, Russia would no longer be able to export the current volumes,” writes energy campaigner Sebastian Rötters in a new Urgewald briefing.
According to an Urgewald analysis of shipping data, deliveries of Russian LNG to the EU have risen from 23 to 31 million tons since Russia invaded Ukraine two years ago. Without icebreaker tankers of the Arc7 class, neither the Sabetta terminal on the Yamal Peninsula nor the Arctic LNG2 expansion project would be economically viable. In addition, 20 percent of the LNG shipped to the EU is transferred in Europe and mainly exported to China.
US sanctions force Novatek onto the defensive
Urgewald is therefore calling for tougher EU sanctions:
an immediate EU-wide import ban on Russian LNG;
a transshipment ban for Russian LNG in EU ports and waters;
Sanctions on ships calling at Russian LNG export terminals in order to deprive Russia of access to the existing Arc7 tanker fleet;
effective steps to prevent the technologyexports Russia requires to build the Arctic LNG2 export terminal and other Arc7 tankers.
The United States has already forced the exporter Novatek onto the defensive with sanctions against Arctic LNG2. However, it is unclear whether EU sanctions would really stop exports completely. According to a Reuters report, Novatek operates an alternative export terminal in the Murmansk region, which remains ice-free in winter. ber
Today and tomorrow, the Petersberg Climate Dialogue will once again be held at the Federal Foreign Office in Berlin, bringing together representatives from around 40 countries. There will be much debate, but the most exciting questions will mainly be negotiated informally – and Bernhard Pötter has compiled a list of these. But there is also a lot of tension elsewhere in political Berlin: Thomas Heilmann, climate expert from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), who already stopped the heating law in court, has filed an urgent appeal against the new Climate Change Act with the Federal Constitutional Court, as Malte Kreutzfeldt reports.
Meanwhile, there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding the EU’s Green Deal. Lukas Scheid reviews the last five years and gives an outlook. Nico Beckert looks at which countries should lead the phase-out of oil and natural gas. Meanwhile, before the G7 Ministers’ Meeting in Turin, the developed countries must ask themselves why they are clearly missing their 2030 climate targets. And lastly, the EU’s withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty has taken the last big hurdle in Brussels.
Your Lukas Bayer
Feature
Petersberg unofficial: The ten most important questions
Every year: Petersberg Dialogue 2023 at the Federal Foreign Office in Berlin.
For the two days of the 15th Petersberg Climate Dialogue, the Federal Foreign Office in Berlin is the center of global climate diplomacy. Both in front of and behind closed doors, representatives from the 40 most important countries sound out the chances for progress at the COP29 in Azerbaijan and beyond.
The program includes official speeches and panel discussions: The host, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, and COP29 President-designate Mukhtar Babayev will speak at the opening on Thursday. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, will speak on Friday. The Ministers for Economic Affairs and Climate, Robert Habeck, and for Cooperation, Svenja Schulze, are prominently represented on podiums.
Conversation topics in the hallways
However, many exciting issues are not negotiated in public. In informal circles, in private or in the vast corridors of the Foreign Ministry, many questions emerge that are often not yet answered, but which foreshadow future decisions. These topics include:
What strategy and goals does Azerbaijan have for COP29? Observers are waiting for ideas and proposals on what the next presidency has planned. Azerbaijan has hardly been present on the COP stage so far and has little experience. The previous COP28 President, Sultan Al Jaber, was already traveling around the world this time last year, promoting his vision.
How will Azerbaijan explain its own climate strategy? The gas-exporting country has been criticized for its plans to triple its gas production when the focus should instead have been on phasing out fossil fuels since COP28.
How does the ‘troika’ envisage its ‘Mission 1.5 C’? The triumvirate of COP presidencies from the United Arab Emirates, Azerbaijan and Brazil have called for a unified UN-wide platform to support these activities. However, they have not yet clarified what exactly it will look like. A separate debate at the event will provide more clarity on this.
Will Scholz stand by his financial commitments?
Will Chancellor Olaf Scholz keep his climate finance pledge? In 2023, Scholz used Petersberg to renew his pledge for Germany to raise at least six billion euros for international climate action by 2025 at the latest – as well as a one-off two billion euros for the Green Climate Fund. Germany is now forced to cut costs, particularly in the relevant ministries for economic affairs, development cooperation and the foreign office. Will the downsizing also hit international climate financing?
What does the Dubai compromise on the expansion of renewables and the ‘transition away from fossil fuels‘ actually mean? And above all, how do the countries translate this ‘transition’ into concrete investment plans for all economic sectors in their NDCs, which are due next year? There are also no plans to date on how to triple renewable energy capacity (which was initiated at Petersberg last year) and double efficiency in the countries.
Where will the money come from? And how much should it be? At COP29, a decision is due to be made on the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCGQ). It will probably fall somewhere between the 100 billion US dollars per year developed countries have promised from 2020 and the trillion needed for 2030 – but where exactly?
What instruments will be used to raise the money? Petersberg is expected to continue the debate from the spring meeting of the World Bank and IMF on which taxes (shipping, airline tickets, financial speculation, fossil fuel production, extreme wealth) can be used to collect these amounts. And will Germany join the task force in which these issues are being negotiated under the leadership of Kenya, Barbados and France?
What will happen if Trump becomes US president?
How do the new climate chiefs from China and the USA get along? After the end of the Xie-Kerry era, the new climate envoys of the two carbon superpowers will meet for the first time officially: Liu Zhenmin and John Podesta. Will they find a similar level of trust as their predecessors?
Will Germany press ahead with the new EU climate target? Following the EU elections and with a new Parliament and Commission, the EU will have to present its new climate plan (NDC) next year, just like all other countries. Germany has officially declared that it is well on the way to achieving its ambitious carbon reduction target by 2030 despite the amended Climate Change Act. Will Germany thus take on a pioneering role in the debate about a new NDC?
What is the climate community’s plan B if Donald Trump becomes US president again in November? No one talks openly about what Trump, who withdrew from the Paris Agreement in 2017, could mean for the UN process. But it is no coincidence that the Democratic governor of the US state of California and renowned climate politician Gavin Newsom will join the event via video link at the end. Newsom is considered a possible candidate for the presidency in 2028.
Azerbaijan
COP28
COP29
Green Climate Fund
Klimapolitik
Translation missing.
Where the EU Green Deal has been watered down – and what happens next
EU leaders in Beijing European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen attends a joint press conference with European Council President Charles Michel following their talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing on Dec. 7, 2023.
It was Ursula von der Leyen’s big project in this legislature. The Green Deal was supposed to put Europe on the net zero path by 2050. The Commission President announced her plan in 2019 and launched a range of laws in 2021. How much progress has the EU made?
A stocktaking at the end of the European Parliament’s legislative period shows: The first years of the Green Deal were marked by comprehensive reforms, for example, in emissions trading, the expansion of renewables and higher climate targets. They pave the way for continued progress towards the ambitious climate targets.
However, towards the end of the period and under the pressure of the Covid pandemic, inflation and the war in Ukraine, momentum was lost: The European climate and environmental action project came under increasing pressure.
Especially since the main climate laws – known as the Fit for 55 package – were finalized, support for further Green Deal measures dropped massively. In particular, von der Leyen’s political base, the Christian Democratic EPP, exerted enormous pressure on the Commission to keep the number of additional Green Deal laws to a minimum.
The Commission often gave in to pressure from the EPP
This jeopardized several projects:
The EPP’s rejection almost completely overturned the Nature Restoration Law (NRL). Although it couldn’t stop it, the proposal was watered down so much compared to the Commission proposal that even the level of ambition of the member states in the Council was higher – a never-before-seen situation with climate action measures.
The EPP also tried to gut the Pesticides Regulation (SUR). In the end, the Greens rejected the law in Parliament because they felt it would not have improved existing regulations. In turn, the EPP rejected renegotiations. Ultimately, as a concession to the farmer protests, the Commission President withdrew the proposal, after it had been declared dead anyway.
A law to restrict microplastics was first postponed and finally presented in a watered-down form.
The chemicals regulation REACHhas been postponed several times and is still in the Commission’s drawer today. This, too, is in the interests of the EPP. It is unclear whether REACH will ever see the light of day.
EPP with ‘prehistoric’ voting behavior
All these laws are part of the Green Deal. A group of environmental organizations called the EPP “prehistoric thinkers” because they often voted against more climate action. Christian Ehler from the EPP refuses to accept this figure alone. He said the important thing was what was voted on – not whether you voted yes or no. The EPP justifies its rejection of further legislation with the aim of protecting the economy and farmers from new regulations.
Ehler is the rapporteur for the large industrial policy project of the Green Deal, the Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA), which will be put to a final vote in the European Parliament on Thursday. The Act is a response to China’s massive industrial subsidies and the US Inflation Reduction Act. It aims to speed up approval procedures for the expansion of green technologies, as well as to make global supply bottlenecks more resilient and more independent of foreign suppliers.
However, the NZIA hardly provides any new funding to support the economy, another reason why the Greens criticize the bill. Michael Bloss, climate policy spokesperson for the Green Party, called it a missed opportunity. During a Table.Briefings debate, Ehler countered that public funds are not enough to finance transformation processes. “It will only work if we deepen the internal energy market in Europe and if there is finally a level playing field on the capital market to make it attractive to international investors.”
And after the European elections?
What’s next for the Green Deal? The party election programs make few concrete statements on this. However, the new EU climate target for 2040 proposed by the Commission is on the agenda: minus 90 percent. The associated legislative package will be the main climate policy task of the next Commission and the next Parliament. According to current plans, it will be presented in the first half of 2025 at the earliest under the Polish Council Presidency.
Michael Bloss campaigns for a Green Industrial Deal in the next legislature, which aims to preserve Europe as a business location and ensure that the climate targets for 2030, 2040 and 2050 remain achievable. Christian Ehler from the EPP hopes that the new Commission will introduce fewer regulatory bills and instead more control via market-based instruments such as European emissions trading.
Giegold: ‘We need a near-zero package’
German State Secretary for Economic Affairs Sven Giegold wants to prevent the Green Deal from being rolled back with a new legislative package. “We need a fit-for-near-zero package,” he said Tuesday evening at an event hosted by the Jacques Delors Center and the German CEO Alliance for Climate in Berlin.
“The Green Deal is not yet complete and it must remain a priority,” the former MEP continued. Anything else would “not only harm the climate, but also our economy.”
On one crucial point, Giegold’s initiative opposes the French government and its allies in the Council: “For Germany, it is clear that the next legislative package must again include targets for renewable energies and energy efficiency. Both will take on a large part of the greenhouse gas reduction,” the State Secretary said.
Paris, on the other hand, is only aiming for a target for “decarbonized energy,” which would also include nuclear energy. At the energy ministers’ meeting last December, France and ten other EU states drafted a corresponding paper to influence the climate legislation for 2040.
EU climate policy
Fit for 55
Green Deal
Net Zero Industry Act
Nuclear power
REACH
Renewable energies
How the fossil fuel phase-out threatens oil and gas countries
One of the most conflict-prone issues will be which countries are allowed to continue extracting oil and gas.
The COP28 decision in Dubai to “transition away from fossil fuels” was not the end, but the beginning of the debate on phasing out coal, oil, and gas. This will also be evident at this year’s Petersberg Climate Dialogue in Berlin. After all, the COP wording was deliberately vague to reconcile conflicting interests.
However, it is also unclear how this “transition away from fossil fuels” can be implemented. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), it is not enough for the demand side to burn fewer fossil fuels – the producing countries would also have to throttle back their production in the coming years and decades.
In response, oil and gas producers already gather ecological and economic arguments to delay the phase-out: For instance, Norway argues that oil and gas must be extracted with particularly low emissions. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, advertises its low-cost production. However, importers also have instruments at their disposal to accelerate the phase-out and cushion the negative effects on producing countries.
But who will be allowed to produce and sell oil and gas, and for how long? The answer to this question depends on the criteria used in this political and economic debate. Three groups are emerging in the discussion:
Countries with low-emission oil and gas production, i.e., which produce relatively cleanly;
countries that can produce fossil fuels very cheaply, and
developing and emerging oil and gas-producing countries whose socio-economic development depends on this revenue.
Gulf states: Inexpensive and relatively carbon-low production
The “cleanest” producers include Norway and many Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Norway has strict rules to prevent methane leaks during production and capture the climate-damaging greenhouse gas. The Gulf states, on the other hand, can produce relatively cleanly because their deposits are close to the surface, meaning that less energy is needed to extract them.
The Gulf states also belong to the second category: producing states with particularly low costs. Production is comparatively cheap and energy-efficient because their deposits are located near the surface. Furthermore, the extraction sites are generally located in large reservoirs, resulting in much lower exploration costs – unlike fracking, for example. Transportation costs and taxes are also very low in Saudi Arabia.
However, oil and gas-producing emerging and developingcountries are particularly dependent on fossil fuel revenues. These countries stand to lose the most from the loss of state revenues due to a production phase-out. These producers include Nigeria, Venezuela, Angola, the Republic of Congo, Chad, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and East Timor (see chart below).
But the Gulf states, Algeria and Azerbaijan also belong to countries with much to lose. The approaching “peak in demand for oil and gas should prompt the petrostates to question investments in new production,” write the analysts at Carbon Tracker.
Other voices, such as the Civil Society Equity Review, argue that there is a historical responsibility that needs to be reflected not only in climate action, but also in the phase-out of fossil fuels. After all, many countries have benefited from oil and gas revenues for a long time, so the argument goes. According to the authors of the Equity Review, the wealthier a country is and the less dependent it is on fossil fuels, the sooner it should phase out fossil fuels.
“The United States, Norway, Australia, and the UK must end fossil fuel extraction by the very early 2030s,” write the authors of this study. The civil society representatives believe that rich countries and historical pollutersmust provide financial aid to the less affluent dropouts. Because: “Countries that are highly dependent on extraction will need time to disentangle their societies from fossil fuels and build new economies,” they argue.
Losers of the phase-out: developing countries with oil and gas
According to the IEA, not all producers could – naturally – belong to the “last survivors” who can produce oil and gas for as long as possible. If the decision were left to market forces, the cheapest oil and gas would be produced until the very end. If, on the other hand, importers were to prioritize production in developing and emerging countries, this might not be very profitable for these producing countries: The IEA says that declining global demand would cause prices to fall so sharply that the high production costs could no longer be covered.
The oil and gas-producing developing and emerging countries will be the first and biggest losers of the fossil fuel phase-out regardless of the constellation. That is why the Carbon Tracker proposes that the “Just Energy Transition Partnerships could be extended beyond coal to oil and gas as a means of financing the necessary changes” in the economic structures of oil and gas-dependent countries. With foreign aid, these economies could be diversified to cushion the negative impact of the fossil fuel phase-out on national budgets.
According to the IEA, other economic potential in oil and gas-dependent countries could also be activated. Many of these countries also have great potential for producing renewable energies. Given financial support, they could establish themselves in clean energy value chains such as green hydrogen and low-emission industrial production.
Importing countries could use market power
Importing countries also have several instruments to contribute to a “cleaner” oil and gas production. After all, the IEA estimates that oil and gas production, transportation and processing account for almost 15 percent of global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions.
Accordingly, large importers could:
Use their market power by only importing oil and gas from countriesthat comply with certain emission limits. The IEA cites the EU methane regulation as a positive example, even if the regulation has yet to set an import standard.
Promote international oil and gas production standards to make methane emissions more transparent and reduce them through public pressure.
JETP
Events
April 25, 26 ConferencePetersberg Climate Dialogue At the traditional Petersberg Climate Dialogue, 40 countries explore possible outcomes for the coming year of negotiations. The dialog is traditionally used to prepare for this year’s climate negotiations, which will take place in Bonn in June and at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November.Info
27. April, online Action dayClimate Democracy Day An alliance of civil society actors is bringing citizens together with members of the Bundestag on “Climate Democracy Day” to discuss critical issues relating to the climate crisis.Info
April 28-30, Turin Ministers’ Meeting G7 Ministerial Meeting on Climate, Energy and Environment The meeting of the G7 ministers on energy and climate in Turin.Info
News
Climate in Numbers: Electric mobility continues to grow globally
While new registrations of electric cars in Germany have dropped since the beginning of the year compared to the previous year due to the scrapped purchase incentive, the industry still records strong growth globally. This is according to the International Energy Agency’s Global EV Outlook 2024 published on Tuesday. In the first quarter of this year, the sales figures of electric cars (including plug-in hybrids) were 25 percent higher compared to the same period last year.
According to IEA figures, the market share of electric cars among new registrations is likely to rise to 45 percent in China this year; 25 percent in the EU and 11 percent in the USA. Globally, this puts the share at 18 percent. Although the absolute sales figures for electric vehicles remain low in many emerging and developing countries, strong growth rates have recently been recorded in some cases: For example, the number of EVs sold in Thailand increased around tenfold between 2021 and 2023, quintupled in India and tripled in Brazil.
To further increase global figures, the IEA report argues that manufacturers need a different model policy: More affordable vehicles are needed to create a genuine mass market. So far, two-thirds of the available models are large vehicles, SUVs, or sports cars, the IEA criticizes. Furthermore, governments need to focus less on financial incentives for EVs and more on creating the proper conditions, especially a solid charging infrastructure. mkr
Verkehrswende
Urgent appeal against German Climate Change Act filed
It is unclear whether the German parliament will be able to water down the Climate Change Act this Friday as planned: Thomas Heilmann, lawyer, MP for the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Chairman of the Climate Union, filed a motion with the Federal Constitutional Court on Wednesday for a temporary injunction against its adoption. He criticized the fact that there was not enough time to discuss the amendments made by the coalition parties to the government draft. The motion was presented as a draft on Friday and was only officially filed on Wednesday. It concerns central and complex issues of climate action, Heilmann said. “We can’t do this in such a hurry.” The government’s timetable was “simply unreasonable.”
Heilmann already managed to prevent the Building Energy Act from being passed before the summer break with a similar motion last summer. On Wednesday, he expressed optimism that he would be successful again this time. “I think the procedural errors in the Climate Change Act are even more serious than in the Heating Act,” he said. Heilmann had told Table.Briefings on Tuesday that he would file a complaint if the government coalition refused a new expert hearing. In addition to the timetable, the CDU MP also criticized the content of the new law, saying that the current and next government would not have to take any measures to ensure compliance with the climate targets beyond 2030.
Mixed response
Sascha Müller-Kraenner, Managing Director of Environmental Action Germany, welcomed the complaint. “It’s good that Thomas Heilmann is standing up against the hasty amendment of the Climate Action Act and defending both climate action and the rights of parliament,” he said. Representatives of the government factions, however, rejected the criticism. “As only marginal changes have been made to the bill, there is no good reason not to hold the final vote on Friday,” FDP parliamentary group deputy leader Lukas Köhler told Table.Briefings. Irene Mihalic, Parliamentary Secretary of the Green Party, also explained that the bill amendment was a “completely normal procedure.”
Initially, there was concern that Heilmann’s success with the Climate Change Act could also have an impact on another law because the Solar Package 1 is also on the agenda for the Bundestag on Friday: The FDP parliamentary group had internally made its approval of the solar package conditional on the adoption of the Climate Change Act, which the Green Party had previously blocked. However, time is short for the solar package, as a paragraph was included in its draft that declares previously designated wind areas to be priority areas in accordance with the EU REDD III Directive, which is extremely important for the wind industry. The deadline for this is mid-May, which can only be met if the law is passed this week due to the necessary approval of the Bundesrat. mkr
CDU
Ahead of G7 summit: climate policy of the wealthiest countries not enough for 2030 targets
Ahead of the G7 meeting of climate, energy and environment ministers in Turin from April 28 to 30, a new report by the research institute Climate Analytics shows that the wealthiest developed countries will probably achieve just half of the greenhouse gas reduction needed to meet the 1.5-degree limit by 2030. None of the countries in the G7 group, including Germany, France, the US and Italy, would achieve their reduction targets for 2030.
It says existing measures would only be able to reduce emissions by 19 to 33 percent by 2030. However, the G7 set a 40 to 42 percent reduction target. The 1.5-degree target would actually require a reduction of 58 percent compared to the base year 2019. “Such a shortfall in ambition does not provide the leadership signal needed from the world’s richest countries, making up around 38 percent of the global economy, and responsible for 21 percent of total GHG emissions in 2021,” the report criticizes.
In light of this, they call on the G7 countries to review their respective 2030 targets to align them with the 1.5-degree limit. Moreover, looking at the climate targets to be set for 2035, they say it is the ideal time to make changes, including:
Phasing out the domestic production of coal and natural gas by 2030.
Stopping public funding for fossil fuel extraction abroad.
Tripling renewables and doubling energy efficiency by 2030.
Increasing climate finance significantly beyond the promised 100 billion US dollars. lb
Klimaziele
EU withdrawal from Energy Charter clears penultimate hurdle
In its final session week before the European elections, the EU Parliament voted to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty. “International fossil fuel investors no longer have the option of bypassing ordinary courts and attacking climate policy with extrajudicial lawsuits,” said Green MEP Anna Cavazzini.
As a final step, the member states still have to approve the withdrawal by a qualified majority. The vote is expected in May. It will likely be accepted, as the Council had already voted in favor of the exit in March.
Investor protection for 20 years despite withdrawal
The phase-out will come into force one year after notification. However, investor protection will remain in place for another 20 years. According to the NGO PowerShift, the EU is currently negotiating an agreement to restrict this option. However, the EU decision also stipulates that member states can continue to decide whether to remain in the treaty.
The International Energy Charter protects the interests of investors in other countries that are parties to the charter. According to PowerShift, proceedings are still ongoing, for example against the taxation of power plant excess profits and against the German coal phase-out. ber
Urgewald: EU sanctions would hit Russian LNG exports hard
According to the environmental organization Urgewald, the economic pressure on Russia could be significantly increased if the EU were to ban the import and trade of Russian LNG. Such a measure would cause massive logistical problems for Russia’s main export terminal, Sabetta.
“If the nearby EU ports and waters were no longer available as destinations and transshipment points, the transportation routes for Russian gas from the Arctic would become significantly longer and more expensive. Moreover, due to the very limited number of ships available, Russia would no longer be able to export the current volumes,” writes energy campaigner Sebastian Rötters in a new Urgewald briefing.
According to an Urgewald analysis of shipping data, deliveries of Russian LNG to the EU have risen from 23 to 31 million tons since Russia invaded Ukraine two years ago. Without icebreaker tankers of the Arc7 class, neither the Sabetta terminal on the Yamal Peninsula nor the Arctic LNG2 expansion project would be economically viable. In addition, 20 percent of the LNG shipped to the EU is transferred in Europe and mainly exported to China.
US sanctions force Novatek onto the defensive
Urgewald is therefore calling for tougher EU sanctions:
an immediate EU-wide import ban on Russian LNG;
a transshipment ban for Russian LNG in EU ports and waters;
Sanctions on ships calling at Russian LNG export terminals in order to deprive Russia of access to the existing Arc7 tanker fleet;
effective steps to prevent the technologyexports Russia requires to build the Arctic LNG2 export terminal and other Arc7 tankers.
The United States has already forced the exporter Novatek onto the defensive with sanctions against Arctic LNG2. However, it is unclear whether EU sanctions would really stop exports completely. According to a Reuters report, Novatek operates an alternative export terminal in the Murmansk region, which remains ice-free in winter. ber
