At the beginning of July, the first half of 2024 officially concludes. At the EU level, this means that Hungary is now assuming the Presidency of the Council of the EU. We have analyzed what this means for COP29. After all, a “climate-skeptic axis” consisting of Hungary, Russia, and a possible Trump administration in the US could potentially impede climate negotiations. Another text highlights just how challenging the situation in the US is for climate policy: The Supreme Court has weakened the position of the specialized environmental and climate action authorities.
In Germany, on the other hand, the Traffic Light Coalition is quietly and meticulously working on a delicate project: The so-called climate check, which aims to provide a CO2 footprint for all laws. There is also good news on the path to a greener future: Today, we report on the first market-ready e-kerosene from Wendland – and explain why this is unfortunately only a very small step towards climate-friendly air traffic. We also analyze what the UK elections could mean for the environment. Once again, we introduce you to key figures from the climate scene. This time, we are focusing on Foundations.
Stay tuned!
The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Protection (BMWK) is working on a “climate check” to examine the climate impact of all new federal laws. According to the current plans of a working group, laws are to be examined for their climate impact by the responsible ministries and external experts while they are still being drafted. The debate is intended to help meet the German government’s climate targets. This is according to documents obtained by the “Frag den Staat” initiative from the ministry and available to Table.Briefings.
A “climate check” was agreed in the coalition agreement of the traffic light parties. It states: “We will make climate action a cross-sectional task by having the respective lead ministry examine its draft legislation for its climate impact and compatibility with the national climate action targets and provide a corresponding justification (climate check).”
So far, however, the project has made little progress. The check is “currently being developed”, explained a BMWK spokesperson when asked by Table.Briefings. However, this will still take some time. “Initial questions regarding the orientation and design have already been scientifically clarified as part of a research project.” However, it is not yet possible to give an exact date for the concrete implementation of the project.
However, details of the project can be derived from the interim report of a workshop held by the Environment Agency with BMWK employees in September last year. According to the report, such a “climate check” should:
A two-stage assessment would therefore be possible for legislative proposals: a relevance check of no more than 60 minutes could be used to sort out projects with a threshold value for CO2 emissions that have little impact on the climate. Projects that result in higher CO2 emissions, on the other hand, would have to be subjected to a “quantitative main check”. An expert opinion should clarify how many tons of greenhouse gases are to be expected from this project and how these emissions relate to Germany’s remaining CO2 budget and the German government’s climate targets (climate neutrality by 2045).
This would practically give laws a CO2 label. The results would be published – but would not be legally binding. The experts hope: “The media and the public will become aware of the climate check. Decisions will be made in line with national climate targets […]. Politicians cannot ignore the climate check.”
There is still internal controversy as to who could carry out this report: the ministries themselves or an external expert. The coalition agreement names the “lead ministries” as the actors. However, the BMWK’s plans also mention an external assessment in the main review: this could be carried out by the Expert Council for Climate Protection, the Federal Government’s Expert Council for Environmental Issues or the Federal Environment Agency.
In case of doubt, an assessment within the ministries could turn out much less harsh than that of external experts. This is why this issue is also sensitive within the government. The introduction of the climate check, for which the ministries’ rules of procedure are to be changed, was already announced in the “Immediate Climate Protection Program 2023“. Each ministry could then carry out the procedure itself. Green MEP Kathrin Henneberger, for example, is in favor of an external review of the check and firmly anchoring it in government action: “Ideally, we would pass the climate check as a law in the Bundestag”.
Roda Verheyen, lawyer, honorary Hamburg constitutional judge and expert in climate protection law, says that she believes there are no legal doubts about a climate check. “Such a regulation is perfectly possible under constitutional law”, she says, based on a series of decisions by the Federal Constitutional Court as well as Article 20a of the German Basic Law (environmental protection). “A climate check provides politicians, experts, and citizens with valuable information and combats disinformation in the climate policy discourse.”
It could also “make hidden climate impacts and climate consequences of laws visible at an early stage”, says Verheyen. “It is essential that an independent panel of experts, similar to the Expert Council for Climate Issues, scientifically classifies the climate impact of the law.” A similar methodology is already used for the immediate action programs under the current Section 8 of the Climate Protection Act.
However, the lawyer also considers a much stricter version of a “climate check” than the BMWK plans to be feasible. Accordingly:
A similar initiative to the planned climate check had already been proposed by the German government’s German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU) in 2019: According to the ideas from an SRU report on “democratic governance within ecological limits“, the Ministry of the Environment should be given the right to write laws for other departments as well and to freeze all standards with a major ecological impact.
A “Council for Intergenerational Justice” made up of citizens drawn at random was also to be able to hold controversial laws for debate for three months. However, the proposals met with resistance from politicians and even opposition from one member of the SRU.
Ahead of the British general election on July 4, more than 400 scientists have called on the leaders of the political parties to “commit to an ambitious climate policy program”. But in the election campaign, the parties have so far shown little climate ambition. Only the British Greens have made climate change a central theme of their campaign. However, polls put them at just six percent of the vote and a maximum of four seats in the House of Commons.
For the two main parties – the Conservatives, who are still in power, and the current Labour opposition – issues such as immigration, the cost of living and the state of the National Health Service dominate. According to polls, Labour could win over 40 percent of the vote. This share would probably easily be enough for an absolute majority in parliament.
Labour’s most important climate-related election campaign focus is the energy transition. The party promises to make the UK a “clean energy superpower”. A new state-owned energy company called “Great British Energy” (GBE) is to be at the heart of this. Funding volume in the next legislative period: 8.3 billion British pounds. GBE will help the UK to double its onshore wind capacity, treble its solar energy capacity, and quadruple its offshore wind capacity, according to Labor.
An additional £6.6 billion will be invested by Labour to improve the energy efficiency of five million homes. A “Warm Home Plan” will offer grants and low-interest loans for insulation and other measures such as solar panels and batteries to address widespread public concerns about the rising cost of living as a result of climate action.
It is still unclear how Labor intends to finance the plans. The party had originally announced that it would spend 28 billion pounds a year on green energy. In February, however, it announced that this sum would be significantly reduced for reasons of budgetary discipline. The Conservative government was to blame for leaving the national budget in a poor state.
The current government had pledged to fully decarbonize the electricity supply by 2035, provided that the security of supply is guaranteed. Nevertheless, renewable energy experts criticized the Conservative government for sticking to a ban on onshore wind turbines and approving licenses for the exploitation of new oil and gas fields in the North Sea.
Labour wants to decarbonize the energy supply five years earlier. Claire Coutinho, now Minister for Energy and Net-Zero Energy, claimed this pledge would cost “almost £100 billion” more than her own Conservative party’s plans. Chris Stark, former chair of the official advisory body the Climate Change Committee, however, said the clean energy target was achievable, but that Labour would have to “go all out” if elected.
The situation is similar when it comes to the deadline for phasing out combustion engines: After Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak postponed this deadline to 2035, Labour now wants to return to the originally envisaged date of 2030. This announcement is in line with the plans of the Liberal Democrats, who would be a possible coalition partner if a Labour majority is not achieved.
In terms of overall climate and nature policy, Greenpeace sees the Green Party in first place, followed by the Liberal Democrats and only then the Labour Party. One of the reasons why Labour scores comparatively poorly (20.5 out of 40 compared to 39 for the Greens and 31.5 for the Liberal Democrats) is the thorny issue of how Keir Starmer’s party intends to fund its promises.
“Your investments in the green transition don’t go far enough”, says Greenpeace. “You can’t bring about real change with small change. Cleaning up our crumbling public services, restoring nature, and supporting vulnerable communities facing the impacts of climate change requires more government investment.”
However, Labour is struggling to find further funding for increased spending. Overall, there is no need to “look for big numbers” in the Labour manifesto, commented Paul Johnson, Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, on the budget and tax policy announcements. The biggest promise in terms of the much-vaunted “green prosperity plan” is no more than five billion pounds a year, to be financed partly by borrowing and partly by an excess profits tax on oil and gas profits.
The Conservative Tories, who according to the predictions are fighting with the Liberal Democrats for the position as the largest opposition party, are calling for a “pragmatic” approach to climate change. Minister Coutinho denies Labour’s planned energy policy such pragmatism. On the “X” platform, she described them as “crazy plans” that would “threaten thousands of jobs and the UK’s energy security”.
More radical than the Tories, however, is the far-right Reform UK party led by Nigel Farage. It would completely scrap plans for Net-Zero. It is unclear how many seats Reform UK could win. The predictions for the share of the vote are around 15 percent.
If they do not change the relevant laws, the election winners will have to take action under the 2008 Climate Change Act. The Act requires the government to meet five-year carbon budgets. In May, the non-profit organizations ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth, and the Good Law Project won a case in the Supreme Court. The court found that the current carbon budget strategy violates the Climate Change Act. The plan’s predecessor was also found to be unlawful by the courts. Philippa Nuttall
In a far-reaching decision, the US Supreme Court has restricted the jurisdiction of authorities to decide on the interpretation of laws and regulations, including in the climate and environmental sectors. With a conservative majority of six votes to three, the Supreme Court ended the 40-year practice of the so-called “Chevron doctrine” last Friday. Experts and environmentalists fear that, following the ruling, many other important disputes on US climate policy will be decided in a way that weakens state regulation in this area. The court could thus facilitate attacks on climate policy in a possible second term of Donald Trump as US President.
The Supreme Court’s “Chevron doctrine” was based on a dispute over the authority of US authorities to deploy their own inspectors on fishing vessels to check compliance with fishing quotas and set the conditions for this. The dispute resulted in a 1984 Supreme Court ruling which established a general practice that the competent authorities are normally permitted to interpret laws if the legislator leaves room for interpretation.
Expert authorities such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been strengthened by this practice because of their expertise. The current case has been brought to the Supreme Court in recent years because of its fundamental importance, supported by politicians from the Republican Party and a coalition of fossil fuel companies.
The Supreme Court has now largely agreed with their arguments: The Supreme Court had “seriously erred” in 1984, wrote Justice John Roberts, who had already put the EPA in its place two years ago when regulating CO2 emissions: The assumptions from the Chevron ruling were “wrong because agencies have no special competence to resolve controversial rules. Courts have that competence.”
The end of the “Chevron” rule, which has been applied in court thousands of times since 1984, may have consequences far beyond individual cases. The new Supreme Court line affects, for example, the rights of the federal authority EPA to regulate air pollutants or CO2 emissions. Alongside the gigantic IRA investment program, these regulations are the second pillar of the energy and climate policy of the Democratic US government under Joe Biden. The Republican Party, some of the states it governs, and large sections of the fossil fuel industry have long been attacking the EPA’s power.
According to experts, other important decisions in US energy and climate policy could also be affected:
The Supreme Court’s “Chevron ruling” may have the effect of weakening the position of federal regulators in some or all of these cases. In a dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan complains that the court has removed “a cornerstone of administrative law” and suffers from “judicial hubris.” It is part of a modern administration that has expertise in scientific or technical matters. Courts do not have this. Furthermore, independent courts are not politically accountable and should not make policy.
The White House press secretary said the ruling is the latest example of how the court is “blocking common-sense rules that keep us, our health, the environment, and our financial system safe and support American customers and workers”.
A weakening of the federal level in the climate and energy sector would fit in with Donald Trump’s plans for a possible second term as POTUS. In his first term in the White House from 2017 to 2021, Trump had already left the Paris Climate Agreement, relaxed domestic rules for the fossil fuel industry, lowered standards for clean air and CO2 emissions, and significantly weakened the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through scandals and reshuffles. In total, the Trump administration has relaxed environmental protection rules in 74 cases, according to the Brooking Institution think tank.
“Make Europe Great Again” – that is the slogan Hungary has chosen for its six-month presidency of the Council of the European Union. It began this week. The formula is of course cribbed from former US President Donald Trump, who has a good chance of winning the next US elections in November. That is, during the Hungarian presidency.
However, Budapest sees no allusion in this. “As far as I know, Donald Trump never wanted to make Europe strong,” explains Hungarian EU ambassador Balint Odor. “Our motto refers to the idea of an active and down-to-earth presidency, to the fact that we are stronger together while preserving our identity.”
The Green Deal has never been at the top of Hungary’s list of priorities in recent years. However, EU agricultural policy is now playing a surprisingly important role during the Council Presidency. Agriculture is one of the seven priorities of the Hungarian EU Council Presidency – alongside competitiveness, defense, enlargement, immigration, cohesion policy and demography. According to its statements, Budapest wants to return sovereignty over food issues to the EU and, in particular, defend food safety. Two parameters that should contribute to strengthening the EU’s strategic autonomy, explains the diplomat.
Farmers must be seen as the solutions to global warming and not the problem, demands Odor. Budapest thus wants to use the transitional phase until the new EU Commission is formed to pre-formulate the rules for EU agricultural policy after 2027 to ensure “competitive, crisis-proof and farmer-friendly agriculture.”
The Hungarian EU Council Presidency is taking place at a critical time: while the EU Commission and Parliament are being re-staffed. “Over the next few months, the EU institutions will focus on the distribution of posts and the appointment of the new Commission, which will reduce legislative activity,” summarizes Linda Kalcher, Director of the Strategic Perspectives think tank.
In this crucial phase, the European toolbox offers a range of options. “The Council Presidency determines what is put on the negotiating table, what priorities it sets, it can delay certain issues and push others forward,” explains Manon Dufour, Head of the Brussels office of the E3G think tank. “Hungary can use these levers at the Environment Council in October.” This is where the positions of the EU member states for COP29 in Baku and the emissions reduction target for 2040 are to be determined.
Hungary can therefore exert massive influence on these crucial issues. They will not be able to help shape the individual pieces of legislation for the EU’s 2040 climate target – the Commission does not want to present these until 2026. However, the basic numerical reduction target is to be set either by the ministers or by the heads of state and government at the summit in December with Hungarian participation. The Commission and some member states are calling for 90 percent; Budapest is considered less ambitious.
At COP29, the European contribution to global climate financing will be the most sensitive issue that Hungary will have to deal with, observes Manon Dufour. Which countries will pay and which countries will receive funds for climate change adaptation and emission reduction in the future – this question and the amount of climate finance are the most crucial issues in Baku. “At the European level, a decision by the finance ministers in the Ecofin Council is required here and this must be coordinated by the Hungarian Presidency.”
According to Dufour, it is completely open how the Hungarian EU Council Presidency will position itself here. Especially if Donald Trump is re-elected in November. The USA is the most hesitant industrialized nation when it comes to financing climate protection. This is unlikely to change under Trump – rather the opposite. “It is clear that the EU does not want to be the only contributor to climate financing,” says the E3G climate expert.
At COP29, Hungary will chair the negotiations for the EU member states as Council President. A lack of coordination by Budapest could weaken Europe’s role, warns Dufour. Other influential EU ministers and the Climate Commissioner could therefore take on more responsibility instead of Hungary, which is weak in terms of climate policy. Linda Kalcher is convinced that Teresa Ribera from Spain, Dan Jørgensen from Denmark, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and her State Secretary Jennifer Morgan could take on this role.
Dufour and Kalcher both warn of a “new dynamic” at COP29 due to a climate-skeptic axis consisting of Hungary, the USA and China. “We will have to wait and see how Budapest reacts if Donald Trump is re-elected,” says Kalcher. As Hungary has planned an informal Council meeting for November 7 and 8, i.e. immediately after the US elections, she believes that the impact of the US elections on the EU will be discussed there.
Laurence Tubiana – CEO, European Climate Foundation
Economist Laurence Tubiana was one of the architects of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 as a French negotiator. Today, she heads the European Climate Foundation, which campaigns for the climate-friendly transformation of Europe, and teaches at the elite Sciences Po University in Paris, where she herself once studied. Tubiana has been active in climate, energy, and development policy for decades. At the beginning of her career, she was involved in her own NGO for global food security; in 2002, she founded the Institute of Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) in Paris, which she headed until 2014. She advised former Prime Minister Lionel Jospin on environmental and climate policy, just as she advises current President Emmanuel Macron.
Rainer Baake – Director, Climate Neutrality Foundation
Rainer Baake has been a key figure in German energy policy for more than 30 years. The economics graduate negotiated the nuclear phase-out in 1998 as State Secretary in the Federal Environment Ministry under Jürgen Trittin. He shaped the expansion of renewables via the Renewable Energy Sources Act and helped shape EU emissions trading, successively also as head of the environmental association Deutsche Umwelthilfe, founder of Agora Energiewende, and then again as State Secretary in the SPD Ministry of Economic Affairs from 2014-2017 despite his Green Party credentials. He has been Director of the Climate Neutrality Foundation since 2020. He works on a voluntary basis as the German government’s special representative for energy cooperation and hydrogen issues in Namibia and South Africa.
Eckart von Hirschhausen – TV presenter and founder of Healthy Earth Healthy People
Eckart von Hirschhausen is committed to communicating the climate crisis in a better and more humorous way. The intersection between medicine and health is particularly close to his heart – in 2020, he founded the “Healthy Earth Healthy People” foundation, which aims to raise awareness of the fact that the climate crisis is the greatest threat to health. But he also repeatedly intervenes in political discourse with creative ideas: He caused a stir shortly before the European elections with his “Bring your granny to the ballot box” campaign.
Lars Grotewold – Director Climate Action, Mercator Foundation
Lars Grotewold holds a doctorate in biology and is a stem cell researcher. He has worked in the German science and climate scene from the University of Edinburgh to the Mercator Foundation, where he was spokesman for the Council for Ecology in the Catholic Diocese of Essen and the transport NGO International Council on Clean Transportation. As Director of Climate Action, he has been working there for 15 years to network the climate scene and develop strategies for communicating climate policy. In addition to energy, climate and transport, he is also officially responsible for “strategic philanthropy”.
Andrew Steer – Chairman of the CEO Bezos Earth Fund
Andrew Steer is CEO and President of the Bezos Earth Fund, a fund worth $10 billion,
which is used to combat the climate crisis. With a PhD in economics, Steer has worked as Director General at the UK Department for International Development. He was CEO of the World Resources Institute for over eight years. Before that, Steer was Special Envoy for Climate Change at the World Bank from 2010 to 2012.
Louisa Prause – Senior Expert for Climate Change, Robert Bosch Stiftung
As a senior climate change expert at the Robert Bosch Foundation, Louisa Prause is primarily concerned with the socio-ecological transformation of the agricultural and food system, global justice and Africa-Europe relations. The Foundation seeks to support local communities, indigenous peoples, women and young people in West and East Africa. Before this, she conducted research at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, where she also completed her doctorate and worked for Powershift e. V., among others.
Alexander Bonde – Secretary General, German Federal Environmental Foundation
In an interview, Alexander Bonde once compared the German Federal Environmental Foundation (DBU) to “Bob the Builder”: the DBU is “always about generating something concrete that can be replicated with a new business model, a technology, a communication and education project that solves environmental problems” – for the energy transition, the circular economy, climate protection. Before taking up the post at the DBU, Bonde, a lawyer and public administrator, made a career in party politics: He sat in the Bundestag for Alliance 90/The Greens from 2002 to 2011. From 2011 to 2016, he was Minister for Rural Areas and Consumer Protection in Baden-Württemberg under Winfried Kretschmann. He has been Secretary General of the DBU since 2018.
Michael Otto – entrepreneur, patron of the arts, President of the Climate Economy Foundation
Michael Otto is an entrepreneur and philanthropist with a particular interest in sustainability. He managed the family-owned mail-order company, the Otto Group, which generates billions in sales, and transferred it to a foundation in 2015. This secures the Otto family’s influence on business policy and generates returns that are invested in social, cultural, and ecological projects. Otto is Honorary Chairman of the WWF Foundation, a member of the World Future Council, and President of the Climate Economy Foundation, which campaigns for a climate-neutral economy. His “Michael Otto Environmental Foundation” primarily supports projects related to water and marine conservation and peatland rewetting.
Oliver Geden – Senior Fellow, German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP)
Whether German foreign climate policy, the ramp-up of CCS technologies, or the assessment of European climate targets – Oliver Geden is considered one of the most important scientific voices, both in Germany and internationally. At SWP, he heads the climate policy research cluster; he is Vice-Chair of Working Group 3 (Mitigation) in the IPCC’s 7th reporting cycle and was lead author of the AR3 report in the 6th Assessment Report. His in-depth analyses for SWP shape policy decisions and combat misinformation on climate change.
Rajiv Shah – President, Rockefeller Foundation
As President of the Rockefeller Foundation, Rajiv Shah is also committed to energy supply in poor countries. According to the foundation and its partners, it is investing ten billion US dollars in the Global Energy Alliance for People and Planet (GEAPP) to provide electricity for up to 800 million people. The alliance invests in capacity building and securing financing, but also in battery storage projects and decentralized renewable energies. Prior to joining the Rockefeller Foundation, Shah was head of USAID. He founded Latitude Capital, a private equity firm focused on energy and infrastructure projects in Africa and Asia.
At the beginning of July, the first half of 2024 officially concludes. At the EU level, this means that Hungary is now assuming the Presidency of the Council of the EU. We have analyzed what this means for COP29. After all, a “climate-skeptic axis” consisting of Hungary, Russia, and a possible Trump administration in the US could potentially impede climate negotiations. Another text highlights just how challenging the situation in the US is for climate policy: The Supreme Court has weakened the position of the specialized environmental and climate action authorities.
In Germany, on the other hand, the Traffic Light Coalition is quietly and meticulously working on a delicate project: The so-called climate check, which aims to provide a CO2 footprint for all laws. There is also good news on the path to a greener future: Today, we report on the first market-ready e-kerosene from Wendland – and explain why this is unfortunately only a very small step towards climate-friendly air traffic. We also analyze what the UK elections could mean for the environment. Once again, we introduce you to key figures from the climate scene. This time, we are focusing on Foundations.
Stay tuned!
The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Protection (BMWK) is working on a “climate check” to examine the climate impact of all new federal laws. According to the current plans of a working group, laws are to be examined for their climate impact by the responsible ministries and external experts while they are still being drafted. The debate is intended to help meet the German government’s climate targets. This is according to documents obtained by the “Frag den Staat” initiative from the ministry and available to Table.Briefings.
A “climate check” was agreed in the coalition agreement of the traffic light parties. It states: “We will make climate action a cross-sectional task by having the respective lead ministry examine its draft legislation for its climate impact and compatibility with the national climate action targets and provide a corresponding justification (climate check).”
So far, however, the project has made little progress. The check is “currently being developed”, explained a BMWK spokesperson when asked by Table.Briefings. However, this will still take some time. “Initial questions regarding the orientation and design have already been scientifically clarified as part of a research project.” However, it is not yet possible to give an exact date for the concrete implementation of the project.
However, details of the project can be derived from the interim report of a workshop held by the Environment Agency with BMWK employees in September last year. According to the report, such a “climate check” should:
A two-stage assessment would therefore be possible for legislative proposals: a relevance check of no more than 60 minutes could be used to sort out projects with a threshold value for CO2 emissions that have little impact on the climate. Projects that result in higher CO2 emissions, on the other hand, would have to be subjected to a “quantitative main check”. An expert opinion should clarify how many tons of greenhouse gases are to be expected from this project and how these emissions relate to Germany’s remaining CO2 budget and the German government’s climate targets (climate neutrality by 2045).
This would practically give laws a CO2 label. The results would be published – but would not be legally binding. The experts hope: “The media and the public will become aware of the climate check. Decisions will be made in line with national climate targets […]. Politicians cannot ignore the climate check.”
There is still internal controversy as to who could carry out this report: the ministries themselves or an external expert. The coalition agreement names the “lead ministries” as the actors. However, the BMWK’s plans also mention an external assessment in the main review: this could be carried out by the Expert Council for Climate Protection, the Federal Government’s Expert Council for Environmental Issues or the Federal Environment Agency.
In case of doubt, an assessment within the ministries could turn out much less harsh than that of external experts. This is why this issue is also sensitive within the government. The introduction of the climate check, for which the ministries’ rules of procedure are to be changed, was already announced in the “Immediate Climate Protection Program 2023“. Each ministry could then carry out the procedure itself. Green MEP Kathrin Henneberger, for example, is in favor of an external review of the check and firmly anchoring it in government action: “Ideally, we would pass the climate check as a law in the Bundestag”.
Roda Verheyen, lawyer, honorary Hamburg constitutional judge and expert in climate protection law, says that she believes there are no legal doubts about a climate check. “Such a regulation is perfectly possible under constitutional law”, she says, based on a series of decisions by the Federal Constitutional Court as well as Article 20a of the German Basic Law (environmental protection). “A climate check provides politicians, experts, and citizens with valuable information and combats disinformation in the climate policy discourse.”
It could also “make hidden climate impacts and climate consequences of laws visible at an early stage”, says Verheyen. “It is essential that an independent panel of experts, similar to the Expert Council for Climate Issues, scientifically classifies the climate impact of the law.” A similar methodology is already used for the immediate action programs under the current Section 8 of the Climate Protection Act.
However, the lawyer also considers a much stricter version of a “climate check” than the BMWK plans to be feasible. Accordingly:
A similar initiative to the planned climate check had already been proposed by the German government’s German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU) in 2019: According to the ideas from an SRU report on “democratic governance within ecological limits“, the Ministry of the Environment should be given the right to write laws for other departments as well and to freeze all standards with a major ecological impact.
A “Council for Intergenerational Justice” made up of citizens drawn at random was also to be able to hold controversial laws for debate for three months. However, the proposals met with resistance from politicians and even opposition from one member of the SRU.
Ahead of the British general election on July 4, more than 400 scientists have called on the leaders of the political parties to “commit to an ambitious climate policy program”. But in the election campaign, the parties have so far shown little climate ambition. Only the British Greens have made climate change a central theme of their campaign. However, polls put them at just six percent of the vote and a maximum of four seats in the House of Commons.
For the two main parties – the Conservatives, who are still in power, and the current Labour opposition – issues such as immigration, the cost of living and the state of the National Health Service dominate. According to polls, Labour could win over 40 percent of the vote. This share would probably easily be enough for an absolute majority in parliament.
Labour’s most important climate-related election campaign focus is the energy transition. The party promises to make the UK a “clean energy superpower”. A new state-owned energy company called “Great British Energy” (GBE) is to be at the heart of this. Funding volume in the next legislative period: 8.3 billion British pounds. GBE will help the UK to double its onshore wind capacity, treble its solar energy capacity, and quadruple its offshore wind capacity, according to Labor.
An additional £6.6 billion will be invested by Labour to improve the energy efficiency of five million homes. A “Warm Home Plan” will offer grants and low-interest loans for insulation and other measures such as solar panels and batteries to address widespread public concerns about the rising cost of living as a result of climate action.
It is still unclear how Labor intends to finance the plans. The party had originally announced that it would spend 28 billion pounds a year on green energy. In February, however, it announced that this sum would be significantly reduced for reasons of budgetary discipline. The Conservative government was to blame for leaving the national budget in a poor state.
The current government had pledged to fully decarbonize the electricity supply by 2035, provided that the security of supply is guaranteed. Nevertheless, renewable energy experts criticized the Conservative government for sticking to a ban on onshore wind turbines and approving licenses for the exploitation of new oil and gas fields in the North Sea.
Labour wants to decarbonize the energy supply five years earlier. Claire Coutinho, now Minister for Energy and Net-Zero Energy, claimed this pledge would cost “almost £100 billion” more than her own Conservative party’s plans. Chris Stark, former chair of the official advisory body the Climate Change Committee, however, said the clean energy target was achievable, but that Labour would have to “go all out” if elected.
The situation is similar when it comes to the deadline for phasing out combustion engines: After Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak postponed this deadline to 2035, Labour now wants to return to the originally envisaged date of 2030. This announcement is in line with the plans of the Liberal Democrats, who would be a possible coalition partner if a Labour majority is not achieved.
In terms of overall climate and nature policy, Greenpeace sees the Green Party in first place, followed by the Liberal Democrats and only then the Labour Party. One of the reasons why Labour scores comparatively poorly (20.5 out of 40 compared to 39 for the Greens and 31.5 for the Liberal Democrats) is the thorny issue of how Keir Starmer’s party intends to fund its promises.
“Your investments in the green transition don’t go far enough”, says Greenpeace. “You can’t bring about real change with small change. Cleaning up our crumbling public services, restoring nature, and supporting vulnerable communities facing the impacts of climate change requires more government investment.”
However, Labour is struggling to find further funding for increased spending. Overall, there is no need to “look for big numbers” in the Labour manifesto, commented Paul Johnson, Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, on the budget and tax policy announcements. The biggest promise in terms of the much-vaunted “green prosperity plan” is no more than five billion pounds a year, to be financed partly by borrowing and partly by an excess profits tax on oil and gas profits.
The Conservative Tories, who according to the predictions are fighting with the Liberal Democrats for the position as the largest opposition party, are calling for a “pragmatic” approach to climate change. Minister Coutinho denies Labour’s planned energy policy such pragmatism. On the “X” platform, she described them as “crazy plans” that would “threaten thousands of jobs and the UK’s energy security”.
More radical than the Tories, however, is the far-right Reform UK party led by Nigel Farage. It would completely scrap plans for Net-Zero. It is unclear how many seats Reform UK could win. The predictions for the share of the vote are around 15 percent.
If they do not change the relevant laws, the election winners will have to take action under the 2008 Climate Change Act. The Act requires the government to meet five-year carbon budgets. In May, the non-profit organizations ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth, and the Good Law Project won a case in the Supreme Court. The court found that the current carbon budget strategy violates the Climate Change Act. The plan’s predecessor was also found to be unlawful by the courts. Philippa Nuttall
In a far-reaching decision, the US Supreme Court has restricted the jurisdiction of authorities to decide on the interpretation of laws and regulations, including in the climate and environmental sectors. With a conservative majority of six votes to three, the Supreme Court ended the 40-year practice of the so-called “Chevron doctrine” last Friday. Experts and environmentalists fear that, following the ruling, many other important disputes on US climate policy will be decided in a way that weakens state regulation in this area. The court could thus facilitate attacks on climate policy in a possible second term of Donald Trump as US President.
The Supreme Court’s “Chevron doctrine” was based on a dispute over the authority of US authorities to deploy their own inspectors on fishing vessels to check compliance with fishing quotas and set the conditions for this. The dispute resulted in a 1984 Supreme Court ruling which established a general practice that the competent authorities are normally permitted to interpret laws if the legislator leaves room for interpretation.
Expert authorities such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been strengthened by this practice because of their expertise. The current case has been brought to the Supreme Court in recent years because of its fundamental importance, supported by politicians from the Republican Party and a coalition of fossil fuel companies.
The Supreme Court has now largely agreed with their arguments: The Supreme Court had “seriously erred” in 1984, wrote Justice John Roberts, who had already put the EPA in its place two years ago when regulating CO2 emissions: The assumptions from the Chevron ruling were “wrong because agencies have no special competence to resolve controversial rules. Courts have that competence.”
The end of the “Chevron” rule, which has been applied in court thousands of times since 1984, may have consequences far beyond individual cases. The new Supreme Court line affects, for example, the rights of the federal authority EPA to regulate air pollutants or CO2 emissions. Alongside the gigantic IRA investment program, these regulations are the second pillar of the energy and climate policy of the Democratic US government under Joe Biden. The Republican Party, some of the states it governs, and large sections of the fossil fuel industry have long been attacking the EPA’s power.
According to experts, other important decisions in US energy and climate policy could also be affected:
The Supreme Court’s “Chevron ruling” may have the effect of weakening the position of federal regulators in some or all of these cases. In a dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan complains that the court has removed “a cornerstone of administrative law” and suffers from “judicial hubris.” It is part of a modern administration that has expertise in scientific or technical matters. Courts do not have this. Furthermore, independent courts are not politically accountable and should not make policy.
The White House press secretary said the ruling is the latest example of how the court is “blocking common-sense rules that keep us, our health, the environment, and our financial system safe and support American customers and workers”.
A weakening of the federal level in the climate and energy sector would fit in with Donald Trump’s plans for a possible second term as POTUS. In his first term in the White House from 2017 to 2021, Trump had already left the Paris Climate Agreement, relaxed domestic rules for the fossil fuel industry, lowered standards for clean air and CO2 emissions, and significantly weakened the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through scandals and reshuffles. In total, the Trump administration has relaxed environmental protection rules in 74 cases, according to the Brooking Institution think tank.
“Make Europe Great Again” – that is the slogan Hungary has chosen for its six-month presidency of the Council of the European Union. It began this week. The formula is of course cribbed from former US President Donald Trump, who has a good chance of winning the next US elections in November. That is, during the Hungarian presidency.
However, Budapest sees no allusion in this. “As far as I know, Donald Trump never wanted to make Europe strong,” explains Hungarian EU ambassador Balint Odor. “Our motto refers to the idea of an active and down-to-earth presidency, to the fact that we are stronger together while preserving our identity.”
The Green Deal has never been at the top of Hungary’s list of priorities in recent years. However, EU agricultural policy is now playing a surprisingly important role during the Council Presidency. Agriculture is one of the seven priorities of the Hungarian EU Council Presidency – alongside competitiveness, defense, enlargement, immigration, cohesion policy and demography. According to its statements, Budapest wants to return sovereignty over food issues to the EU and, in particular, defend food safety. Two parameters that should contribute to strengthening the EU’s strategic autonomy, explains the diplomat.
Farmers must be seen as the solutions to global warming and not the problem, demands Odor. Budapest thus wants to use the transitional phase until the new EU Commission is formed to pre-formulate the rules for EU agricultural policy after 2027 to ensure “competitive, crisis-proof and farmer-friendly agriculture.”
The Hungarian EU Council Presidency is taking place at a critical time: while the EU Commission and Parliament are being re-staffed. “Over the next few months, the EU institutions will focus on the distribution of posts and the appointment of the new Commission, which will reduce legislative activity,” summarizes Linda Kalcher, Director of the Strategic Perspectives think tank.
In this crucial phase, the European toolbox offers a range of options. “The Council Presidency determines what is put on the negotiating table, what priorities it sets, it can delay certain issues and push others forward,” explains Manon Dufour, Head of the Brussels office of the E3G think tank. “Hungary can use these levers at the Environment Council in October.” This is where the positions of the EU member states for COP29 in Baku and the emissions reduction target for 2040 are to be determined.
Hungary can therefore exert massive influence on these crucial issues. They will not be able to help shape the individual pieces of legislation for the EU’s 2040 climate target – the Commission does not want to present these until 2026. However, the basic numerical reduction target is to be set either by the ministers or by the heads of state and government at the summit in December with Hungarian participation. The Commission and some member states are calling for 90 percent; Budapest is considered less ambitious.
At COP29, the European contribution to global climate financing will be the most sensitive issue that Hungary will have to deal with, observes Manon Dufour. Which countries will pay and which countries will receive funds for climate change adaptation and emission reduction in the future – this question and the amount of climate finance are the most crucial issues in Baku. “At the European level, a decision by the finance ministers in the Ecofin Council is required here and this must be coordinated by the Hungarian Presidency.”
According to Dufour, it is completely open how the Hungarian EU Council Presidency will position itself here. Especially if Donald Trump is re-elected in November. The USA is the most hesitant industrialized nation when it comes to financing climate protection. This is unlikely to change under Trump – rather the opposite. “It is clear that the EU does not want to be the only contributor to climate financing,” says the E3G climate expert.
At COP29, Hungary will chair the negotiations for the EU member states as Council President. A lack of coordination by Budapest could weaken Europe’s role, warns Dufour. Other influential EU ministers and the Climate Commissioner could therefore take on more responsibility instead of Hungary, which is weak in terms of climate policy. Linda Kalcher is convinced that Teresa Ribera from Spain, Dan Jørgensen from Denmark, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and her State Secretary Jennifer Morgan could take on this role.
Dufour and Kalcher both warn of a “new dynamic” at COP29 due to a climate-skeptic axis consisting of Hungary, the USA and China. “We will have to wait and see how Budapest reacts if Donald Trump is re-elected,” says Kalcher. As Hungary has planned an informal Council meeting for November 7 and 8, i.e. immediately after the US elections, she believes that the impact of the US elections on the EU will be discussed there.
Laurence Tubiana – CEO, European Climate Foundation
Economist Laurence Tubiana was one of the architects of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 as a French negotiator. Today, she heads the European Climate Foundation, which campaigns for the climate-friendly transformation of Europe, and teaches at the elite Sciences Po University in Paris, where she herself once studied. Tubiana has been active in climate, energy, and development policy for decades. At the beginning of her career, she was involved in her own NGO for global food security; in 2002, she founded the Institute of Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) in Paris, which she headed until 2014. She advised former Prime Minister Lionel Jospin on environmental and climate policy, just as she advises current President Emmanuel Macron.
Rainer Baake – Director, Climate Neutrality Foundation
Rainer Baake has been a key figure in German energy policy for more than 30 years. The economics graduate negotiated the nuclear phase-out in 1998 as State Secretary in the Federal Environment Ministry under Jürgen Trittin. He shaped the expansion of renewables via the Renewable Energy Sources Act and helped shape EU emissions trading, successively also as head of the environmental association Deutsche Umwelthilfe, founder of Agora Energiewende, and then again as State Secretary in the SPD Ministry of Economic Affairs from 2014-2017 despite his Green Party credentials. He has been Director of the Climate Neutrality Foundation since 2020. He works on a voluntary basis as the German government’s special representative for energy cooperation and hydrogen issues in Namibia and South Africa.
Eckart von Hirschhausen – TV presenter and founder of Healthy Earth Healthy People
Eckart von Hirschhausen is committed to communicating the climate crisis in a better and more humorous way. The intersection between medicine and health is particularly close to his heart – in 2020, he founded the “Healthy Earth Healthy People” foundation, which aims to raise awareness of the fact that the climate crisis is the greatest threat to health. But he also repeatedly intervenes in political discourse with creative ideas: He caused a stir shortly before the European elections with his “Bring your granny to the ballot box” campaign.
Lars Grotewold – Director Climate Action, Mercator Foundation
Lars Grotewold holds a doctorate in biology and is a stem cell researcher. He has worked in the German science and climate scene from the University of Edinburgh to the Mercator Foundation, where he was spokesman for the Council for Ecology in the Catholic Diocese of Essen and the transport NGO International Council on Clean Transportation. As Director of Climate Action, he has been working there for 15 years to network the climate scene and develop strategies for communicating climate policy. In addition to energy, climate and transport, he is also officially responsible for “strategic philanthropy”.
Andrew Steer – Chairman of the CEO Bezos Earth Fund
Andrew Steer is CEO and President of the Bezos Earth Fund, a fund worth $10 billion,
which is used to combat the climate crisis. With a PhD in economics, Steer has worked as Director General at the UK Department for International Development. He was CEO of the World Resources Institute for over eight years. Before that, Steer was Special Envoy for Climate Change at the World Bank from 2010 to 2012.
Louisa Prause – Senior Expert for Climate Change, Robert Bosch Stiftung
As a senior climate change expert at the Robert Bosch Foundation, Louisa Prause is primarily concerned with the socio-ecological transformation of the agricultural and food system, global justice and Africa-Europe relations. The Foundation seeks to support local communities, indigenous peoples, women and young people in West and East Africa. Before this, she conducted research at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, where she also completed her doctorate and worked for Powershift e. V., among others.
Alexander Bonde – Secretary General, German Federal Environmental Foundation
In an interview, Alexander Bonde once compared the German Federal Environmental Foundation (DBU) to “Bob the Builder”: the DBU is “always about generating something concrete that can be replicated with a new business model, a technology, a communication and education project that solves environmental problems” – for the energy transition, the circular economy, climate protection. Before taking up the post at the DBU, Bonde, a lawyer and public administrator, made a career in party politics: He sat in the Bundestag for Alliance 90/The Greens from 2002 to 2011. From 2011 to 2016, he was Minister for Rural Areas and Consumer Protection in Baden-Württemberg under Winfried Kretschmann. He has been Secretary General of the DBU since 2018.
Michael Otto – entrepreneur, patron of the arts, President of the Climate Economy Foundation
Michael Otto is an entrepreneur and philanthropist with a particular interest in sustainability. He managed the family-owned mail-order company, the Otto Group, which generates billions in sales, and transferred it to a foundation in 2015. This secures the Otto family’s influence on business policy and generates returns that are invested in social, cultural, and ecological projects. Otto is Honorary Chairman of the WWF Foundation, a member of the World Future Council, and President of the Climate Economy Foundation, which campaigns for a climate-neutral economy. His “Michael Otto Environmental Foundation” primarily supports projects related to water and marine conservation and peatland rewetting.
Oliver Geden – Senior Fellow, German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP)
Whether German foreign climate policy, the ramp-up of CCS technologies, or the assessment of European climate targets – Oliver Geden is considered one of the most important scientific voices, both in Germany and internationally. At SWP, he heads the climate policy research cluster; he is Vice-Chair of Working Group 3 (Mitigation) in the IPCC’s 7th reporting cycle and was lead author of the AR3 report in the 6th Assessment Report. His in-depth analyses for SWP shape policy decisions and combat misinformation on climate change.
Rajiv Shah – President, Rockefeller Foundation
As President of the Rockefeller Foundation, Rajiv Shah is also committed to energy supply in poor countries. According to the foundation and its partners, it is investing ten billion US dollars in the Global Energy Alliance for People and Planet (GEAPP) to provide electricity for up to 800 million people. The alliance invests in capacity building and securing financing, but also in battery storage projects and decentralized renewable energies. Prior to joining the Rockefeller Foundation, Shah was head of USAID. He founded Latitude Capital, a private equity firm focused on energy and infrastructure projects in Africa and Asia.
