At the 79th UN General Assembly in New York City, climate policy is playing an important role, at least in the background. For example, the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights presented an explosive report: The new “Loss and Damage” fund should be geared towards “climate justice”, it says. One of the four pillars in particular is likely to cause controversy, analyzes Bernhard Pötter.
The IEA is also meeting during the traditional Climate Week in New York City. Together with COP29 host Azerbaijan, it wants to inject new momentum into the Global Methane Pledge. Although lucrative, the prevention of methane emissions – especially the closing of leaks – is still faltering. Nico Beckert has researched the reasons.
In today’s news, you can read about the seventh planetary boundary that could soon be crossed. We also provide an overview of the most important climate negotiations during the UN General Assembly, the banks’ nuclear power plans – and why Vietnam is now releasingan activist from prison.
I wish you an exciting read!
Your Lukas Bayer
Feature
Climate justice: UN rapporteur calls for compensation for poor countries
“Super Typhoon” Yagi devastated Vietnam at the beginning of September, killing at least 21 people.
A report from the UN Human Rights Committee to the 79th UN General Assembly intervenes in the debate on the distribution of “Loss and Damage” funds for climate financing with an extensive definition of “climate justice“. The report of the Special Rapporteur on the human right to development in the UN Human Rights Committee proposes four pillars (mitigation, adaptation, remedy and transformation), which are to be supported by twelve human rights principles.
This definition places a strong obligation on industrialized countries and commercial enterprises to make comprehensive reparation payments. It also formulates guidelines for the new “Loss and Damage” fund, which is currently managed by the World Bank.
The ‘Loss and Damage’ fund gets structure
The Loss and Damage Fund (LDF), which was adopted at COP27 in 2022 and filled for the first time at COP28 last year, was officially named theFund for Responding to Loss and Damage by its 26-member Board of Directors in July. The administration of the fund, to which around $800 million has now been pledged, will be based in the Philippines. From Sept. 18 to 20, shortly before the UN General Assembly, the fund’s supervisory board met for the third time in Baku.
According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, the work of the fund should be based on the principle of climate justice. This rapporteur, the Indian constitutional lawyer and human rights expert Surya Deva, conducted interviews in Bangkok, Dubai, Geneva and Suva in Fiji for his report, evaluated more than 90 proposals from states, UN organizations, companies and NGOs, and spoke to representatives of many groups. He proposes four “pillars” on which the concept of climate justice should rest:
Climate justice on four pillars
Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation), which requires a phase-out of fossil fuels and more help with the expansion of renewables in poor countries.
Adaptation, such as raising dikes, resettlement, warning systems or the use of other grain varieties.
Remediation is becoming more important because mitigation and adaptation are not enough. Remediation in the context of climate change should mean “full reparation, restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and a guarantee that the problem will not recur“. People and communities should be able to “seek redress for past, present and future losses and damages from climate change”, the report says.
Transformation to move from a “neoliberal, neocolonial capitalist” to a sustainable and circular economy. Irresponsible business models must end, including the way of life “especially of rich people” – for example in the use of private jets or very large homes.
Controversial: holding polluters accountable
The “remedy” pillar in particular is likely to be criticized by the industrialized countries when the report reaches the UN General Assembly. In the Paris Agreement, they had placed particular emphasis on the passage that the agreement contains “no basis for any liability or compensation“. However, Deva emphasizes in his report that international human rights law should apply as a “first among equals” legal principle and therefore cannot rule out such an obligation of the perpetrators of climate damage towards the victims.
The fact that the report recommends “recognizing ecocide as an international crime” is also likely to cause concern, as this will prevent companies from harming the environment. The European Parliament and the EU Commission, for example, have called for the introduction of “ecocide” as a criminal offense in EU law. However, it is difficult to implement in the UN against the resistance of many states.
The report lists twelve principles for the concrete application of the four pillars, including
“Justice for many species” (multi-species justice), which includes not only humans, but also animals, plants and ecosystems;
Justice between the generations, participation, consideration of particular vulnerabilities;
Prevention, precaution and the rule that the polluter should pay;
Common but differentiated responsibilities between states, just transition.
$300 billion should be available by 2030
According to the report, the reform of the global financial system and unjust trade structures is also derived from the human right to development in the climate crisis. The LDF, which will initially be managed by the World Bank, should primarily be funded by historical CO2 emitters. It mentions “innovative sources of financing” such as taxes on the wealthy, fossil fuel taxes, the reduction of fossil fuel subsidies or donations – the report does not mention a contribution from countries such as China or the oil states, which should be held accountable by the industrialized countries.
And as an appropriate way of filling the LDF, he refers to a proposal by the UN Organization for Trade and Development (UNCTAD): $150 billion to start with, then rising to $300 billion by 2030. As a reminder, around $800 million has currently been pledged to the fund.
Loss and Damage
Methane emissions: Why this profitable climate solution is hardly ever implemented
Closing methane leaks during oil and gas production and transportation is often cost-effective. And yet there are still many hurdles.
Three years after the launch of the Global Methane Pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030, emissions of the dangerous greenhouse gas in the energy sector are still at almost record levels. At a high-level summit on Sept. 24, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the host of the next climate conference, Azerbaijan, want to bring new momentum to the Global Methane Pledge. But that is not so easy.
This is because there is a problem with this issue: A large proportion of methane emissions from the fossil fuel sector could be avoided at no cost. The captured methane could be sold as natural gas on the world market at a profit. But because banks are increasingly withdrawing from the fossil fuel sector and granting fewer loans, and because many oil and gas companies have better investment opportunities, too little is being done to combat methane leaks. Added to this are bureaucratic and legal hurdles.
Reduction is cost-efficient – yet little happens
It sounds like a big paradox at first: 40 percent of global methane emissions from the fossil fuel sector could be avoided cost-effectively – 50 percent in the oil and gas sector, 15 percent from the coal sector. According to the IEA, the cost of plugging leaks in the production infrastructure is lower than the price that the producing countries could achieve on the global market for the captured natural gas – methane is the main component of natural gas.
What’s more, the oil and gas industry has been making billions in profitsfor years. This could be used to finance one of the easiest measures to curb the climate crisis. Over a 20-year period, methane is 80 times more harmful to the climate than CO2 and is responsible for 30 percent of global warming to date. But for many companies, other investments are more lucrative. “There are often other investment opportunities with higher returns, which sometimes means investing more in expanding extraction”, says Brandon Locke, methane expert at the Clean Air Task Force (CATF), to Table.Briefings. In addition, state oil and gas producershave less financial leeway, as a large proportion of their profits flow into the national budgets of their home countries and finance social spending there, for example.
Banks withdraw from oil and gas
Access to external fundingisalsooften difficult:
“Many banks are increasingly withdrawing from financing projects in the fossil energy sector”, says Locke. Without favorable loans, the economic viability of a methane reduction project could fail, says Locke. Private banks and investment funds are investing less in the oil and gas industry and have set themselves climate targets, writes the IEA. This could have a negative impact on investments in methane reduction. The IEA therefore warns: “Investment channels for ‘transition areas’ must be kept open without creating loopholes for investments that are not compatible with the Paris climate targets.”
Government regulations for green investments can also have a negative impact on methane avoidance investments. “Green bonds, the largest category of sustainable financial instruments, generally cannot be used by oil and gas companies”, writes the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). This is because government taxonomies for green bonds do not include methane leak detection, according to EDF.
According to EDF, other financial instruments such as sustainability-linked bondsare not yet sufficiently tailored to methane avoidance.
Some development banks are also increasingly withdrawing from fossil investments. However, according to the IEA, it is still unclear whether this withdrawal also includes methane projects. If certain conditions are met, “many of these institutions could continue to finance mitigation projects [to reduce methane emissions]“, according to the IEA.
Little climate financing for methane reduction so far
According to the IEA, between $15 and $20 billion will be needed by 2030 to finance methane reduction in developing and emerging countries. So far, however, this methane reduction has played a subordinate role in international climate financing. According to the US Department of Commerce, only two percent of climate financing goes towards preventing methane emissions from agriculture, the waste sector and the fossil energy sector. And the fossil fuel sector is estimated to receive only a tiny fraction of this funding , at$100 million (between 2019 and 2020). The IEA warns that an “international effort by governments, industry and philanthropy” is needed to close this financial gap.
Bureaucracy hinders progress
In addition to funding, bureaucratic hurdles are also hampering progress in methane reduction. “Getting the captured methane to market is not as easy as it sounds in the calculations, because thereare oftenmany players involved“, says Locke from the Clean Air Task Force. Sometimes the captured gas does not belong to the companies that capture it. And companies that plug methane leaks and capture the gas have to coordinate with pipeline operators to bring the gas to market, says the CATF expert. In day-to-day business, there are “many contractual hurdles to overcome”.
In addition, “many companies” lack awareness “of the extent of their methane emissions”, says Flavia Sollazzo from the Environmental Defense Fund Europe to Table.Briefings. On-site measurements have “often shown that the actual emissions are significantly higher than estimated”, says the Senior Director in the EU Energy Transition division. If companies underestimate their methane emissions, they also misjudge the cost-effectiveness of reduction measures. According to Sollazzo, geopolitical factors also play a role: “In regions with political instability or energy supply concerns, progress in reducing methane emissions can be significantly hampered.”
Technologically, detecting and closing leaks is not a problem, according to Locke. “We have most of the technologies we need to reduce around 60 percent of methane emissions in the oil and gas sector”, he says.
Regulations give hope
Locke is optimistic about the future, as many regions have enacted new regulations. The EU methane regulation and its import regulations “will have a huge impact on global fossil fuel production standards“, says Locke. Other major importers such as the UK, Japan and Korea are considering similar regulations. “We are only just beginning to see the impact of regulations in the EU, the US or Nigeria”, says Locke optimistically.
Treibhausgase
News
UN Assembly: What is being negotiated on the climate
At the highlight of the 79th UN General Assembly (UNGA79), which is taking place this week in New York City, the climate crisis is also an important topic in many negotiations, events and unofficial meetings. Little will be officially decided – but the meeting of heads of state and government will set the course for the upcoming COP29, for example.
Important topics in front of and behind closed doors as well as at the traditional “New York Climate Week”, which primarily involves global companies in “climate solutions”, are the areas of finance, efficiency of UN processes, expansion of renewables and a preview of the upcoming new climate plans (NDC) of the UN states. An overview of the most important of the more than 500 events can be found at Bloomberg News.
Future summit emphasizes results of COP28
The week began with the UN Future Summit and the “Pact for the Future” on UN reform and the faster implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The declaration was adopted by a large majority on Sunday after months of preparation, primarily by Namibia and Germany – however, Russia and six countries such as Iran, North Korea, Syria and Nicaragua objected, while 15 abstained. In the climate chapter, the declaration commits to the Paris Agreement and the 2 and 1.5 degree targets. It also reaffirms the COP28 decision to “move away from fossil fuels“, but also mentions “transition fuels that can play a role in the implementation of the energy transition” – a reference to further gas use.
The declaration on doubling energy efficiency and tripling renewables by 2030 from COP28 and the new “Pact for the Future” will be taken up by the first global renewables summit, which takes place in New York on Monday and Tuesday. High-ranking representatives from politics, business, research and civil society will draw up plans to accelerate the expansion of renewables.
Suggestion: annual to-do list
The “Climate Group”, the organizer of Climate Week, has compiledseven important tasks for the coming year on a “to do list“. The non-profit lobby group for better climate protection has noted the following goals on this list:
Compensation for workers who lose their jobs when coal is phased out
Less bureaucracy and higher targets for the expansion of renewables
Ban on new coal-based steel blast furnaces
“Getting serious” about methane reduction
An end to ignorance about energy efficiency
Commitment by governments and corporations to “clean demand” for climate solutions
Taxes on oil and gas for the energy transition
This year’s Climate Week events, which are taking place all over New York, are focusing on topics such as the decarbonization of industry, transport, food systems and artificial intelligence.
The fourth global “Net Zero Stocktake“, which was published on the occasion of the meeting, shows just how far the road to net zero emissions is worldwide. According to the report, 148 out of 198 UN statesnow havea net zero target, as do around 270 cities and more than 1,100 large companies – however, 40 percent of all “non-state entities”, i.e. regions, companies and cities, lack any form of reduction target. And the implementation of the targets is also unclear for many players.
Ocean acidification: Seventh planetary boundary to be crossed soon
A seventh planetary boundary could soon be crossed because ocean acidification is increasing due to CO2 emissions. Even the current conditions are already dangerous “for many marine species”. This is according to the new “Planetary Health Check” by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), which was presented at the UN Future Summit on Monday to mark Climate Week. According to the report, the Earth system is even at “high risk” in the areas of climate, biodiversity, pollutants/plastics and the nitrogen/phosphorus cycle.
All of these areas are “strongly interconnected”, explains lead author Levke Caesar (PIK). And in almost all areas, “the pressure on the stability, resilience and life-sustaining functions of our ecosystems is increasing”. The only area where the risk is decreasing is aerosol pollution; moreover, ozone depletion is under control.
Annually updated budgets and scenarios
With the annual health check, the next step is to draw up budgets – similar to the CO₂ budget – for all boundaries for the first time. From this, the PBScience research team will develop safe scenarios to advise politicians and companies – later also for the regional and local level. “This report is only a starting point and does not yet contain any information on the budgets to be used by decision-makers”, lead author Boris Sakschewski told Table.Briefings. Politicians and entrepreneurs could then use the scenarios to “set regulatory limits” and “steer investments”, for example.
There have often been calls for quantified data, especially from the economy, PIK Director Johan Rockström explained the initiative, in which more than a hundred researchers are involved. For example, a dashboard should display all control variables “almost in real time” – such as the CO2 content in the atmosphere, the pH value of the oceans or the percentage of natural forests, compared to a scenario without land use changes. Prominent advocates such as the Brazilian Nobel Peace Prize winner Juan Manuel Santos support the project; they act as “ambassadors for the Earth“.
Unlike previous analyses on planetary boundaries, the new report is not peer-reviewed, but it is based on peer-reviewed methods. “We can’t wait for peer-reviewed literature every time“, said Caesar – also in relation to the IPCC Assessment Reports, which only appear every six to eight years. lb
Klimaforschung
Municipalities: Where the challenges lie in heat planning
To date, only 14% of German households are supplied with district heating, and only around 20% of this is generated from renewable energies. In order to completely decarbonize the heat supply by 2045 as planned, both figures are set to rise sharply over the next few years. However, municipal heating planning, which the federal government has obliged local authorities to do for this reason, presents them with major challenges. This is shown in a comprehensive study published on Monday by the Competence Center for Public Economy, Infrastructure and Services of General Interest at the University of Leipzig in collaboration with the German Association of Cities, the German Association of Towns and Municipalities and several other associations and companies.
A survey conducted for the study, in which around 600 of the 11,000 German municipalities took part, revealed that the situation is particularly difficult for smaller municipalities that do not have sufficient staff or their own municipal utility. For these, the authors suggest more support in the form of joint planning in special-purpose associations and centralized data collection.
According to the study, there are fewer problems with financing: An extrapolation based on the feedback received has shown that the costs for planning throughout Germany are likely to be €520 million. The €500 million that the federal government intends to make available to local authorities via the federal states should therefore be almost sufficient. The authors estimate the costs of the subsequent implementation of the plans at €10.8 billion. In addition to their own funds, loans and consumer fees, the companies surveyed are also relying on state subsidies; according to the study, this would cover a good third of the costs. mkr
Wärmewende
Von der Leyen wants to subsidize green bonds in developing countries
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has announced her intention to financially support the issue of green government bonds in the Global South. In Europe, green bonds have proven to be an incredibly effective instrument for mobilizing private investment, said von der Leyen in New York at the summit of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. However, when a developing country issues green bonds, it often has to pay investors very high interest rates.
Von der Leyen announced a “Green Coupon Facility” with which Europe intends to subsidize part of the interest for issuers of green bonds. The aim is to enable developing countries to raise money to build up their own economies. Von der Leyen had already launched the Global Green Bond Initiative last year. The fund, endowed with €1 billion by European development banks, the EIB and the UN, is intended to reduce the investment risk for green bonds and mobilize up to €20 billion of private capital for sustainable investments.
‘Anyone who emits greenhouse gases must pay’
Von der Leyen also declared that she would meet with Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the industry in New York on Tuesday to promote global carbon pricing and discuss its possibilities. “The principle is as effective as it is simple: If you emit greenhouse gases, you have to pay for it.”
As a third step in supporting the Global South, the EU Commission President announced an expansion of the EU’s Global Gateway connectivity initiative. “We will make our partners an integrated offer.” When Europe invests in industrial capacities in the Global South, for example, it will also try to promote trade partnerships in order to integratethe industries into European supply chains. According to von der Leyen, the aim is also to support economic reforms. luk
EU-Klimapolitik
Electricity price zone: Stuttgart wants alternatives to division
In the dispute over the possible division of the German electricity bidding zone, a report commissioned by the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of the Environment argues for alternative solutions. For example, different regional remuneration for renewable energies, electrolyzers for hydrogen production and controllable power plants as part of capacity mechanisms are possible. “Before a bidding zone separation in Germany, these alternative instruments should first be examined and weighed up against the option of a bidding zone split”, the report presented in Berlin on Monday states.
The green-black state government thus sees itself in line with the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs. The report confirms Stuttgart’s rejection of a bidding zone division: “In the medium to long term, only the planned grid expansion can effectively reduce the additional costs of suboptimal power plant and storage deployment in the electricity market caused by grid bottlenecks.”
Impact on industry currently ‘relatively moderate’
A report and a recommendation from the European regulatory agency ACER on a possible redistribution of electricity price zones in the EU are expected in December. If the German bidding zone were to be split, the experts expect “that average electricity prices in the northern zone could be around ten euros per megawatt-hour (MWh) lower in 2025 and six euros lower in 2030 than in the southern zone”.
For industry in Baden-Württemberg, “the effects of a bidding zone separation in its current structure are relatively moderate on the whole”. However, the electricity intensity of industry will change significantly with increasing electrification.
The experts see greater advantages in splitting the bidding zones if grid expansion continues to stall. “The negative distribution effects of a separation of the bidding zones could then be mitigated by the introduction of compensation measures, particularly for the south.” However, some experts see positive distribution effects for the industrial centers in the south and west of Germany in the current situation. ber
Electricity market
Electricity price
Industry
Power
Windkraft
Banks announce financing of nuclear programs
According to a newspaper report, major banks want to pledge their support for the expansion of nuclear energy worldwide. According to a report in the Financial Times, 14 global financial groups were to publish their plans on the sidelines of the UN summit in New York to help with the goal of advancing nuclear energy in the climate crisis.
According to the report, representatives from Bank of America, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Citi, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs wanted to announce their plans at an event with US climate envoy John Podesta on Monday. This is intended to support a strategy of around 25 countries that announced on the sidelines of COP28 in Dubai that they plan to triple their nuclear capacity by 2050. The countries, many of which have civilian and military nuclear programs, want to promote low-carbon nuclear power as an alternative for a climate-neutral energy supply. They are aiming for public funding for the development and construction of small modular reactors, for example, which have not been available to date. At a “nuclear summit” in Brussels in March, around 30 countries called for the “full potential of civil nuclear technology to be unleashed”.
At the same time, the operator of the decommissioned Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in the USA has announced its intention to restart operations in one reactor. Unit 2 of the nuclear power plant in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, went out of control in 1979 due to an uncontrolled core meltdown. Unit 1 of the plant is now to be reactivated because Microsoft has announced that it will buy the reactor’s electricity for its data centers for 20 years. The power plant is set to supply electricity from 2028 to 2054, with the investment costing the operator Constellation Energy $1.6 billion. The US government is subsidizing the extension of nuclear power plant lifetimes with billions of dollars as part of its climate plans. bpo
COP28
Klimaschutz
Human rights: Why Vietnam releases an activist from prison
Vietnamese environmental activist Hoàng Thị Minh Hồng was released from prison last Saturday after a year in jail. Hồng was arrested on May 31, 2023, charged with tax evasion on Sept. 28, 2023, and sentenced to three years in prison and a fine. Activist Trần Huỳnh Duy Thức, who had been in prison since 2009, was also released at the weekend. The release took place shortly before the Vietnamese head of state, General Secretary Tô Lâm, traveled to the USA. He will be attending the United Nations General Assembly there.
In Vietnam, activists are repeatedlyarrested on flimsy grounds. Various NGOs emphasize that this is a deliberate intimidation of activists. Since mid-August 2024, at least nine human rights activists have been sentenced in Vietnam under the pretext of “spreading anti-state propaganda”. According to Human Rights Watch, at least 160 activists are currently unlawfully imprisoned.
These human rights violations are also worrying in connection with the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP), which Vietnam signed with international partners – including the EU and the USA – in 2022. More than $15 billion are to flow to Vietnam through the JETP to enable a “just energy transition”. Activist Hồng, who has now been released, has also worked on the implementation of the JETP. kul
JETP
Must Reads
Financial Times: Agriculture must pay for its emissions, says top EU climate scientist. Ottmar Edenhofer, Chairman of the European Climate Change Advisory Council, warns that the EU will not achieve its climate targets due to high emissions in the agricultural sector. It should therefore be forced to pay for its greenhouse gas emissions. While other sectors have reduced their emissions, those in agriculture have “remained fairly stable”. Without a price signal, it is “very unlikely that we will be able to fundamentally reduce emissions”. Agriculture is responsible for 12 percent of emissions in the EU. Read the article
Spiegel: Swiss voted against more biodiversity. On Sunday, the Swiss rejected an initiative for more biodiversity. The biodiversity initiative, which aimed to strengthen the protection of nature, sites and landscapes worthy of protection in Switzerland, was clearly rejected with 63% of votes against. The voter turnout was 45.2 percent. Read the article
CNN: Bleak prospects for the “Doomsday Glacier”. Scientists using icebreaker ships and underwater robots have discovered that the Thwaites Glacier, also known as the “Doomsday Glacier”, in Antarctica is melting faster and faster and may collapse irreversibly. This could be a catastrophe for global sea level rise. Read the article
Reuters: US elections make climate financing more difficult. Countries are reluctant to commit before they know the outcome of the US elections. A new climate finance target is needed to replace the expiring 100 billion dollar commitment. Governments are analyzing different scenarios for a possible victory of Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump, who denies climate change and wants to promote fossil fuels. Read the article
Reuters: Too few climate reduction targets. More than 40 percent of large companies, cities and regions have still not set targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While more governments and companies have made climate neutrality pledges since last year, their attention has been further diverted by wars, elections and economic challenges. Read the article
New York Times: Methane emissions in the USA continue to rise. The booming fossil fuel industry in the US continues to emit more and more climate-damaging methane into the atmosphere. Unlike carbon dioxide, methane emissions are not caused by consumption, but by the production and transportation of natural gas. Read the article
NTV: World Bank takes a stand against climate change. The World Bank provided a record amount of almost 43 billion US dollars (just over 38 billion euros) to finance clean energy projects and other climate protection measures in the completed fiscal year 2024. This represents an increase of ten percent compared to the previous year. Funds for climate projects accounted for 44% of the World Bank’s total lending of USD 97 billion. Read the article
Opinion
Carbon capture – draft law underestimates danger posed by CCU
By Simon Wolf
Simon Wolf, Head of German and European Climate Policy at Germanwatch.
When the Bundestag debates the Carbon Dioxide Storage Act (KSpG) next Friday, the focus will be on the capture and underground storage of CO2, or CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) for short. There is plenty of reason for debate. Enabling CCS for use in gas-fired power plants, as provided for in the law, carries the risk of delaying the move away from the fossil fuel business model for longer than necessary.
Much less in the spotlight is another risk arising from the use of captured CO2, or CCU (Carbon Capture and Usage), which is also addressed in the KSpG. CCU is much more popular than CCS. There are high hopes for the technology, especially in the chemical industry: Couldn’t it not only neutralize some of the CO2 that cannot be avoided according to the current state of technology, but also use it productively, as foam in mattresses or for plastics? And couldn’t CCU be used to make fuels for aircraft, for example, climate-neutral?
The problem is that despite all the hype surrounding CCU, there are still very few concrete ideas on how CO2 can be permanently stored in products or permanently circulated – and how this can be proven. In addition, the relevant processes themselves are very energy-intensive. If CO2 is to be converted back into chemical raw materials, this requires an extremely large amount of energy and additional hydrogen.
The key difference between CCS and CCU
The draft amendment to the KSpG has little to say about CCU overall. However, one small, inconspicuous passage contains a potentially fatal predetermination. Paragraph 4 of the draft law adopted by the German government states with regard to infrastructure construction that, in addition to the permanent geological storage of CO2, a project also serves the public good “if it transports carbon dioxide to cover a proven need for the use of carbon dioxide as a raw material source for carbon compounds in order to permanently reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Germany for the purpose of climate protection”.
This de facto equation of CCS and CCU blurs the crucial difference between the two applications. This is because CCS ensures – provided that the storage site is operated responsibly – that the stored CO2 is not released into the atmosphere in the long term. With CCU, on the other hand, it depends entirely on the use of the captured CO2.
Highly dangerous air booking for the climate
A reduction in CO2, as the draft amendment to the KSpG aims to achieve, is also achieved if captured CO2 is used to produce aviation fuel, for example. This dual use of CO2 is indeed advantageous compared to previous practice, but in the overall balance it is far from a climate-neutral application because the CO2 is ultimately released into the atmosphere. For truly climate-neutral flying, this CO2 would have to be “neutralized”, for example through Direct Air Capture (DAC) – another technology that is not yet really available and will in any case be extremely energy-intensive.
Unspecific recognition of CCU as a climate protection measure, for example within the framework of European emissions trading, as some companies would like to see, would therefore be a highly dangerous air booking that could lead to massive additional emissions.
In a recently published draft of a delegated act, the EU Commission proposes that the CO2 must be sequestered for “at least several centuries” in order for CCU to be recognized as an emission reduction in the context of EU emissions trading. The focus would therefore initially be on construction materials for which such a long binding period is possible. However, the comments from companies and industry associations on this legislation suggest that the pressure will remain high for a shorter commitment period to be recognized as a climate protection measure.
Checking CCU laws from head to toes
This is another reason why legislators in Germany should be precise from the outset and not create a dangerous precedent. The Bundestag should therefore ensure that the relevant wording in the KSpG and other laws is adapted: Equivalence with CCS should only be granted if the CCU application “demonstrably binds carbon dioxide permanently in products“.
However, the draft amendment to the KSpG also provides a good starting point for how CCU can be dealt with sensibly in future legal regulations. If the use of CO2 in products is understood as “meeting a need for the use of carbon dioxide as a source of raw materials“, as envisaged in the draft, then it should not be considered a climate action measure. The decisive factor would then no longer be the capture of the CO2, but the way it is used. Turned on its head in this way, it is clear that those who absorb and use the carbon must also bear responsibility for the CO2 and include the emissions in their balance sheet.
Simon Wolf is Head of German and European Climate Policy at Germanwatch.
At the 79th UN General Assembly in New York City, climate policy is playing an important role, at least in the background. For example, the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights presented an explosive report: The new “Loss and Damage” fund should be geared towards “climate justice”, it says. One of the four pillars in particular is likely to cause controversy, analyzes Bernhard Pötter.
The IEA is also meeting during the traditional Climate Week in New York City. Together with COP29 host Azerbaijan, it wants to inject new momentum into the Global Methane Pledge. Although lucrative, the prevention of methane emissions – especially the closing of leaks – is still faltering. Nico Beckert has researched the reasons.
In today’s news, you can read about the seventh planetary boundary that could soon be crossed. We also provide an overview of the most important climate negotiations during the UN General Assembly, the banks’ nuclear power plans – and why Vietnam is now releasingan activist from prison.
I wish you an exciting read!
Your Lukas Bayer
Feature
Climate justice: UN rapporteur calls for compensation for poor countries
“Super Typhoon” Yagi devastated Vietnam at the beginning of September, killing at least 21 people.
A report from the UN Human Rights Committee to the 79th UN General Assembly intervenes in the debate on the distribution of “Loss and Damage” funds for climate financing with an extensive definition of “climate justice“. The report of the Special Rapporteur on the human right to development in the UN Human Rights Committee proposes four pillars (mitigation, adaptation, remedy and transformation), which are to be supported by twelve human rights principles.
This definition places a strong obligation on industrialized countries and commercial enterprises to make comprehensive reparation payments. It also formulates guidelines for the new “Loss and Damage” fund, which is currently managed by the World Bank.
The ‘Loss and Damage’ fund gets structure
The Loss and Damage Fund (LDF), which was adopted at COP27 in 2022 and filled for the first time at COP28 last year, was officially named theFund for Responding to Loss and Damage by its 26-member Board of Directors in July. The administration of the fund, to which around $800 million has now been pledged, will be based in the Philippines. From Sept. 18 to 20, shortly before the UN General Assembly, the fund’s supervisory board met for the third time in Baku.
According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, the work of the fund should be based on the principle of climate justice. This rapporteur, the Indian constitutional lawyer and human rights expert Surya Deva, conducted interviews in Bangkok, Dubai, Geneva and Suva in Fiji for his report, evaluated more than 90 proposals from states, UN organizations, companies and NGOs, and spoke to representatives of many groups. He proposes four “pillars” on which the concept of climate justice should rest:
Climate justice on four pillars
Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation), which requires a phase-out of fossil fuels and more help with the expansion of renewables in poor countries.
Adaptation, such as raising dikes, resettlement, warning systems or the use of other grain varieties.
Remediation is becoming more important because mitigation and adaptation are not enough. Remediation in the context of climate change should mean “full reparation, restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and a guarantee that the problem will not recur“. People and communities should be able to “seek redress for past, present and future losses and damages from climate change”, the report says.
Transformation to move from a “neoliberal, neocolonial capitalist” to a sustainable and circular economy. Irresponsible business models must end, including the way of life “especially of rich people” – for example in the use of private jets or very large homes.
Controversial: holding polluters accountable
The “remedy” pillar in particular is likely to be criticized by the industrialized countries when the report reaches the UN General Assembly. In the Paris Agreement, they had placed particular emphasis on the passage that the agreement contains “no basis for any liability or compensation“. However, Deva emphasizes in his report that international human rights law should apply as a “first among equals” legal principle and therefore cannot rule out such an obligation of the perpetrators of climate damage towards the victims.
The fact that the report recommends “recognizing ecocide as an international crime” is also likely to cause concern, as this will prevent companies from harming the environment. The European Parliament and the EU Commission, for example, have called for the introduction of “ecocide” as a criminal offense in EU law. However, it is difficult to implement in the UN against the resistance of many states.
The report lists twelve principles for the concrete application of the four pillars, including
“Justice for many species” (multi-species justice), which includes not only humans, but also animals, plants and ecosystems;
Justice between the generations, participation, consideration of particular vulnerabilities;
Prevention, precaution and the rule that the polluter should pay;
Common but differentiated responsibilities between states, just transition.
$300 billion should be available by 2030
According to the report, the reform of the global financial system and unjust trade structures is also derived from the human right to development in the climate crisis. The LDF, which will initially be managed by the World Bank, should primarily be funded by historical CO2 emitters. It mentions “innovative sources of financing” such as taxes on the wealthy, fossil fuel taxes, the reduction of fossil fuel subsidies or donations – the report does not mention a contribution from countries such as China or the oil states, which should be held accountable by the industrialized countries.
And as an appropriate way of filling the LDF, he refers to a proposal by the UN Organization for Trade and Development (UNCTAD): $150 billion to start with, then rising to $300 billion by 2030. As a reminder, around $800 million has currently been pledged to the fund.
Loss and Damage
Methane emissions: Why this profitable climate solution is hardly ever implemented
Closing methane leaks during oil and gas production and transportation is often cost-effective. And yet there are still many hurdles.
Three years after the launch of the Global Methane Pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030, emissions of the dangerous greenhouse gas in the energy sector are still at almost record levels. At a high-level summit on Sept. 24, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the host of the next climate conference, Azerbaijan, want to bring new momentum to the Global Methane Pledge. But that is not so easy.
This is because there is a problem with this issue: A large proportion of methane emissions from the fossil fuel sector could be avoided at no cost. The captured methane could be sold as natural gas on the world market at a profit. But because banks are increasingly withdrawing from the fossil fuel sector and granting fewer loans, and because many oil and gas companies have better investment opportunities, too little is being done to combat methane leaks. Added to this are bureaucratic and legal hurdles.
Reduction is cost-efficient – yet little happens
It sounds like a big paradox at first: 40 percent of global methane emissions from the fossil fuel sector could be avoided cost-effectively – 50 percent in the oil and gas sector, 15 percent from the coal sector. According to the IEA, the cost of plugging leaks in the production infrastructure is lower than the price that the producing countries could achieve on the global market for the captured natural gas – methane is the main component of natural gas.
What’s more, the oil and gas industry has been making billions in profitsfor years. This could be used to finance one of the easiest measures to curb the climate crisis. Over a 20-year period, methane is 80 times more harmful to the climate than CO2 and is responsible for 30 percent of global warming to date. But for many companies, other investments are more lucrative. “There are often other investment opportunities with higher returns, which sometimes means investing more in expanding extraction”, says Brandon Locke, methane expert at the Clean Air Task Force (CATF), to Table.Briefings. In addition, state oil and gas producershave less financial leeway, as a large proportion of their profits flow into the national budgets of their home countries and finance social spending there, for example.
Banks withdraw from oil and gas
Access to external fundingisalsooften difficult:
“Many banks are increasingly withdrawing from financing projects in the fossil energy sector”, says Locke. Without favorable loans, the economic viability of a methane reduction project could fail, says Locke. Private banks and investment funds are investing less in the oil and gas industry and have set themselves climate targets, writes the IEA. This could have a negative impact on investments in methane reduction. The IEA therefore warns: “Investment channels for ‘transition areas’ must be kept open without creating loopholes for investments that are not compatible with the Paris climate targets.”
Government regulations for green investments can also have a negative impact on methane avoidance investments. “Green bonds, the largest category of sustainable financial instruments, generally cannot be used by oil and gas companies”, writes the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). This is because government taxonomies for green bonds do not include methane leak detection, according to EDF.
According to EDF, other financial instruments such as sustainability-linked bondsare not yet sufficiently tailored to methane avoidance.
Some development banks are also increasingly withdrawing from fossil investments. However, according to the IEA, it is still unclear whether this withdrawal also includes methane projects. If certain conditions are met, “many of these institutions could continue to finance mitigation projects [to reduce methane emissions]“, according to the IEA.
Little climate financing for methane reduction so far
According to the IEA, between $15 and $20 billion will be needed by 2030 to finance methane reduction in developing and emerging countries. So far, however, this methane reduction has played a subordinate role in international climate financing. According to the US Department of Commerce, only two percent of climate financing goes towards preventing methane emissions from agriculture, the waste sector and the fossil energy sector. And the fossil fuel sector is estimated to receive only a tiny fraction of this funding , at$100 million (between 2019 and 2020). The IEA warns that an “international effort by governments, industry and philanthropy” is needed to close this financial gap.
Bureaucracy hinders progress
In addition to funding, bureaucratic hurdles are also hampering progress in methane reduction. “Getting the captured methane to market is not as easy as it sounds in the calculations, because thereare oftenmany players involved“, says Locke from the Clean Air Task Force. Sometimes the captured gas does not belong to the companies that capture it. And companies that plug methane leaks and capture the gas have to coordinate with pipeline operators to bring the gas to market, says the CATF expert. In day-to-day business, there are “many contractual hurdles to overcome”.
In addition, “many companies” lack awareness “of the extent of their methane emissions”, says Flavia Sollazzo from the Environmental Defense Fund Europe to Table.Briefings. On-site measurements have “often shown that the actual emissions are significantly higher than estimated”, says the Senior Director in the EU Energy Transition division. If companies underestimate their methane emissions, they also misjudge the cost-effectiveness of reduction measures. According to Sollazzo, geopolitical factors also play a role: “In regions with political instability or energy supply concerns, progress in reducing methane emissions can be significantly hampered.”
Technologically, detecting and closing leaks is not a problem, according to Locke. “We have most of the technologies we need to reduce around 60 percent of methane emissions in the oil and gas sector”, he says.
Regulations give hope
Locke is optimistic about the future, as many regions have enacted new regulations. The EU methane regulation and its import regulations “will have a huge impact on global fossil fuel production standards“, says Locke. Other major importers such as the UK, Japan and Korea are considering similar regulations. “We are only just beginning to see the impact of regulations in the EU, the US or Nigeria”, says Locke optimistically.
Treibhausgase
News
UN Assembly: What is being negotiated on the climate
At the highlight of the 79th UN General Assembly (UNGA79), which is taking place this week in New York City, the climate crisis is also an important topic in many negotiations, events and unofficial meetings. Little will be officially decided – but the meeting of heads of state and government will set the course for the upcoming COP29, for example.
Important topics in front of and behind closed doors as well as at the traditional “New York Climate Week”, which primarily involves global companies in “climate solutions”, are the areas of finance, efficiency of UN processes, expansion of renewables and a preview of the upcoming new climate plans (NDC) of the UN states. An overview of the most important of the more than 500 events can be found at Bloomberg News.
Future summit emphasizes results of COP28
The week began with the UN Future Summit and the “Pact for the Future” on UN reform and the faster implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The declaration was adopted by a large majority on Sunday after months of preparation, primarily by Namibia and Germany – however, Russia and six countries such as Iran, North Korea, Syria and Nicaragua objected, while 15 abstained. In the climate chapter, the declaration commits to the Paris Agreement and the 2 and 1.5 degree targets. It also reaffirms the COP28 decision to “move away from fossil fuels“, but also mentions “transition fuels that can play a role in the implementation of the energy transition” – a reference to further gas use.
The declaration on doubling energy efficiency and tripling renewables by 2030 from COP28 and the new “Pact for the Future” will be taken up by the first global renewables summit, which takes place in New York on Monday and Tuesday. High-ranking representatives from politics, business, research and civil society will draw up plans to accelerate the expansion of renewables.
Suggestion: annual to-do list
The “Climate Group”, the organizer of Climate Week, has compiledseven important tasks for the coming year on a “to do list“. The non-profit lobby group for better climate protection has noted the following goals on this list:
Compensation for workers who lose their jobs when coal is phased out
Less bureaucracy and higher targets for the expansion of renewables
Ban on new coal-based steel blast furnaces
“Getting serious” about methane reduction
An end to ignorance about energy efficiency
Commitment by governments and corporations to “clean demand” for climate solutions
Taxes on oil and gas for the energy transition
This year’s Climate Week events, which are taking place all over New York, are focusing on topics such as the decarbonization of industry, transport, food systems and artificial intelligence.
The fourth global “Net Zero Stocktake“, which was published on the occasion of the meeting, shows just how far the road to net zero emissions is worldwide. According to the report, 148 out of 198 UN statesnow havea net zero target, as do around 270 cities and more than 1,100 large companies – however, 40 percent of all “non-state entities”, i.e. regions, companies and cities, lack any form of reduction target. And the implementation of the targets is also unclear for many players.
Ocean acidification: Seventh planetary boundary to be crossed soon
A seventh planetary boundary could soon be crossed because ocean acidification is increasing due to CO2 emissions. Even the current conditions are already dangerous “for many marine species”. This is according to the new “Planetary Health Check” by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), which was presented at the UN Future Summit on Monday to mark Climate Week. According to the report, the Earth system is even at “high risk” in the areas of climate, biodiversity, pollutants/plastics and the nitrogen/phosphorus cycle.
All of these areas are “strongly interconnected”, explains lead author Levke Caesar (PIK). And in almost all areas, “the pressure on the stability, resilience and life-sustaining functions of our ecosystems is increasing”. The only area where the risk is decreasing is aerosol pollution; moreover, ozone depletion is under control.
Annually updated budgets and scenarios
With the annual health check, the next step is to draw up budgets – similar to the CO₂ budget – for all boundaries for the first time. From this, the PBScience research team will develop safe scenarios to advise politicians and companies – later also for the regional and local level. “This report is only a starting point and does not yet contain any information on the budgets to be used by decision-makers”, lead author Boris Sakschewski told Table.Briefings. Politicians and entrepreneurs could then use the scenarios to “set regulatory limits” and “steer investments”, for example.
There have often been calls for quantified data, especially from the economy, PIK Director Johan Rockström explained the initiative, in which more than a hundred researchers are involved. For example, a dashboard should display all control variables “almost in real time” – such as the CO2 content in the atmosphere, the pH value of the oceans or the percentage of natural forests, compared to a scenario without land use changes. Prominent advocates such as the Brazilian Nobel Peace Prize winner Juan Manuel Santos support the project; they act as “ambassadors for the Earth“.
Unlike previous analyses on planetary boundaries, the new report is not peer-reviewed, but it is based on peer-reviewed methods. “We can’t wait for peer-reviewed literature every time“, said Caesar – also in relation to the IPCC Assessment Reports, which only appear every six to eight years. lb
Klimaforschung
Municipalities: Where the challenges lie in heat planning
To date, only 14% of German households are supplied with district heating, and only around 20% of this is generated from renewable energies. In order to completely decarbonize the heat supply by 2045 as planned, both figures are set to rise sharply over the next few years. However, municipal heating planning, which the federal government has obliged local authorities to do for this reason, presents them with major challenges. This is shown in a comprehensive study published on Monday by the Competence Center for Public Economy, Infrastructure and Services of General Interest at the University of Leipzig in collaboration with the German Association of Cities, the German Association of Towns and Municipalities and several other associations and companies.
A survey conducted for the study, in which around 600 of the 11,000 German municipalities took part, revealed that the situation is particularly difficult for smaller municipalities that do not have sufficient staff or their own municipal utility. For these, the authors suggest more support in the form of joint planning in special-purpose associations and centralized data collection.
According to the study, there are fewer problems with financing: An extrapolation based on the feedback received has shown that the costs for planning throughout Germany are likely to be €520 million. The €500 million that the federal government intends to make available to local authorities via the federal states should therefore be almost sufficient. The authors estimate the costs of the subsequent implementation of the plans at €10.8 billion. In addition to their own funds, loans and consumer fees, the companies surveyed are also relying on state subsidies; according to the study, this would cover a good third of the costs. mkr
Wärmewende
Von der Leyen wants to subsidize green bonds in developing countries
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has announced her intention to financially support the issue of green government bonds in the Global South. In Europe, green bonds have proven to be an incredibly effective instrument for mobilizing private investment, said von der Leyen in New York at the summit of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. However, when a developing country issues green bonds, it often has to pay investors very high interest rates.
Von der Leyen announced a “Green Coupon Facility” with which Europe intends to subsidize part of the interest for issuers of green bonds. The aim is to enable developing countries to raise money to build up their own economies. Von der Leyen had already launched the Global Green Bond Initiative last year. The fund, endowed with €1 billion by European development banks, the EIB and the UN, is intended to reduce the investment risk for green bonds and mobilize up to €20 billion of private capital for sustainable investments.
‘Anyone who emits greenhouse gases must pay’
Von der Leyen also declared that she would meet with Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the industry in New York on Tuesday to promote global carbon pricing and discuss its possibilities. “The principle is as effective as it is simple: If you emit greenhouse gases, you have to pay for it.”
As a third step in supporting the Global South, the EU Commission President announced an expansion of the EU’s Global Gateway connectivity initiative. “We will make our partners an integrated offer.” When Europe invests in industrial capacities in the Global South, for example, it will also try to promote trade partnerships in order to integratethe industries into European supply chains. According to von der Leyen, the aim is also to support economic reforms. luk
EU-Klimapolitik
Electricity price zone: Stuttgart wants alternatives to division
In the dispute over the possible division of the German electricity bidding zone, a report commissioned by the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of the Environment argues for alternative solutions. For example, different regional remuneration for renewable energies, electrolyzers for hydrogen production and controllable power plants as part of capacity mechanisms are possible. “Before a bidding zone separation in Germany, these alternative instruments should first be examined and weighed up against the option of a bidding zone split”, the report presented in Berlin on Monday states.
The green-black state government thus sees itself in line with the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs. The report confirms Stuttgart’s rejection of a bidding zone division: “In the medium to long term, only the planned grid expansion can effectively reduce the additional costs of suboptimal power plant and storage deployment in the electricity market caused by grid bottlenecks.”
Impact on industry currently ‘relatively moderate’
A report and a recommendation from the European regulatory agency ACER on a possible redistribution of electricity price zones in the EU are expected in December. If the German bidding zone were to be split, the experts expect “that average electricity prices in the northern zone could be around ten euros per megawatt-hour (MWh) lower in 2025 and six euros lower in 2030 than in the southern zone”.
For industry in Baden-Württemberg, “the effects of a bidding zone separation in its current structure are relatively moderate on the whole”. However, the electricity intensity of industry will change significantly with increasing electrification.
The experts see greater advantages in splitting the bidding zones if grid expansion continues to stall. “The negative distribution effects of a separation of the bidding zones could then be mitigated by the introduction of compensation measures, particularly for the south.” However, some experts see positive distribution effects for the industrial centers in the south and west of Germany in the current situation. ber
Electricity market
Electricity price
Industry
Power
Windkraft
Banks announce financing of nuclear programs
According to a newspaper report, major banks want to pledge their support for the expansion of nuclear energy worldwide. According to a report in the Financial Times, 14 global financial groups were to publish their plans on the sidelines of the UN summit in New York to help with the goal of advancing nuclear energy in the climate crisis.
According to the report, representatives from Bank of America, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Citi, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs wanted to announce their plans at an event with US climate envoy John Podesta on Monday. This is intended to support a strategy of around 25 countries that announced on the sidelines of COP28 in Dubai that they plan to triple their nuclear capacity by 2050. The countries, many of which have civilian and military nuclear programs, want to promote low-carbon nuclear power as an alternative for a climate-neutral energy supply. They are aiming for public funding for the development and construction of small modular reactors, for example, which have not been available to date. At a “nuclear summit” in Brussels in March, around 30 countries called for the “full potential of civil nuclear technology to be unleashed”.
At the same time, the operator of the decommissioned Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in the USA has announced its intention to restart operations in one reactor. Unit 2 of the nuclear power plant in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, went out of control in 1979 due to an uncontrolled core meltdown. Unit 1 of the plant is now to be reactivated because Microsoft has announced that it will buy the reactor’s electricity for its data centers for 20 years. The power plant is set to supply electricity from 2028 to 2054, with the investment costing the operator Constellation Energy $1.6 billion. The US government is subsidizing the extension of nuclear power plant lifetimes with billions of dollars as part of its climate plans. bpo
COP28
Klimaschutz
Human rights: Why Vietnam releases an activist from prison
Vietnamese environmental activist Hoàng Thị Minh Hồng was released from prison last Saturday after a year in jail. Hồng was arrested on May 31, 2023, charged with tax evasion on Sept. 28, 2023, and sentenced to three years in prison and a fine. Activist Trần Huỳnh Duy Thức, who had been in prison since 2009, was also released at the weekend. The release took place shortly before the Vietnamese head of state, General Secretary Tô Lâm, traveled to the USA. He will be attending the United Nations General Assembly there.
In Vietnam, activists are repeatedlyarrested on flimsy grounds. Various NGOs emphasize that this is a deliberate intimidation of activists. Since mid-August 2024, at least nine human rights activists have been sentenced in Vietnam under the pretext of “spreading anti-state propaganda”. According to Human Rights Watch, at least 160 activists are currently unlawfully imprisoned.
These human rights violations are also worrying in connection with the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP), which Vietnam signed with international partners – including the EU and the USA – in 2022. More than $15 billion are to flow to Vietnam through the JETP to enable a “just energy transition”. Activist Hồng, who has now been released, has also worked on the implementation of the JETP. kul
JETP
Must Reads
Financial Times: Agriculture must pay for its emissions, says top EU climate scientist. Ottmar Edenhofer, Chairman of the European Climate Change Advisory Council, warns that the EU will not achieve its climate targets due to high emissions in the agricultural sector. It should therefore be forced to pay for its greenhouse gas emissions. While other sectors have reduced their emissions, those in agriculture have “remained fairly stable”. Without a price signal, it is “very unlikely that we will be able to fundamentally reduce emissions”. Agriculture is responsible for 12 percent of emissions in the EU. Read the article
Spiegel: Swiss voted against more biodiversity. On Sunday, the Swiss rejected an initiative for more biodiversity. The biodiversity initiative, which aimed to strengthen the protection of nature, sites and landscapes worthy of protection in Switzerland, was clearly rejected with 63% of votes against. The voter turnout was 45.2 percent. Read the article
CNN: Bleak prospects for the “Doomsday Glacier”. Scientists using icebreaker ships and underwater robots have discovered that the Thwaites Glacier, also known as the “Doomsday Glacier”, in Antarctica is melting faster and faster and may collapse irreversibly. This could be a catastrophe for global sea level rise. Read the article
Reuters: US elections make climate financing more difficult. Countries are reluctant to commit before they know the outcome of the US elections. A new climate finance target is needed to replace the expiring 100 billion dollar commitment. Governments are analyzing different scenarios for a possible victory of Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump, who denies climate change and wants to promote fossil fuels. Read the article
Reuters: Too few climate reduction targets. More than 40 percent of large companies, cities and regions have still not set targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While more governments and companies have made climate neutrality pledges since last year, their attention has been further diverted by wars, elections and economic challenges. Read the article
New York Times: Methane emissions in the USA continue to rise. The booming fossil fuel industry in the US continues to emit more and more climate-damaging methane into the atmosphere. Unlike carbon dioxide, methane emissions are not caused by consumption, but by the production and transportation of natural gas. Read the article
NTV: World Bank takes a stand against climate change. The World Bank provided a record amount of almost 43 billion US dollars (just over 38 billion euros) to finance clean energy projects and other climate protection measures in the completed fiscal year 2024. This represents an increase of ten percent compared to the previous year. Funds for climate projects accounted for 44% of the World Bank’s total lending of USD 97 billion. Read the article
Opinion
Carbon capture – draft law underestimates danger posed by CCU
By Simon Wolf
Simon Wolf, Head of German and European Climate Policy at Germanwatch.
When the Bundestag debates the Carbon Dioxide Storage Act (KSpG) next Friday, the focus will be on the capture and underground storage of CO2, or CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) for short. There is plenty of reason for debate. Enabling CCS for use in gas-fired power plants, as provided for in the law, carries the risk of delaying the move away from the fossil fuel business model for longer than necessary.
Much less in the spotlight is another risk arising from the use of captured CO2, or CCU (Carbon Capture and Usage), which is also addressed in the KSpG. CCU is much more popular than CCS. There are high hopes for the technology, especially in the chemical industry: Couldn’t it not only neutralize some of the CO2 that cannot be avoided according to the current state of technology, but also use it productively, as foam in mattresses or for plastics? And couldn’t CCU be used to make fuels for aircraft, for example, climate-neutral?
The problem is that despite all the hype surrounding CCU, there are still very few concrete ideas on how CO2 can be permanently stored in products or permanently circulated – and how this can be proven. In addition, the relevant processes themselves are very energy-intensive. If CO2 is to be converted back into chemical raw materials, this requires an extremely large amount of energy and additional hydrogen.
The key difference between CCS and CCU
The draft amendment to the KSpG has little to say about CCU overall. However, one small, inconspicuous passage contains a potentially fatal predetermination. Paragraph 4 of the draft law adopted by the German government states with regard to infrastructure construction that, in addition to the permanent geological storage of CO2, a project also serves the public good “if it transports carbon dioxide to cover a proven need for the use of carbon dioxide as a raw material source for carbon compounds in order to permanently reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Germany for the purpose of climate protection”.
This de facto equation of CCS and CCU blurs the crucial difference between the two applications. This is because CCS ensures – provided that the storage site is operated responsibly – that the stored CO2 is not released into the atmosphere in the long term. With CCU, on the other hand, it depends entirely on the use of the captured CO2.
Highly dangerous air booking for the climate
A reduction in CO2, as the draft amendment to the KSpG aims to achieve, is also achieved if captured CO2 is used to produce aviation fuel, for example. This dual use of CO2 is indeed advantageous compared to previous practice, but in the overall balance it is far from a climate-neutral application because the CO2 is ultimately released into the atmosphere. For truly climate-neutral flying, this CO2 would have to be “neutralized”, for example through Direct Air Capture (DAC) – another technology that is not yet really available and will in any case be extremely energy-intensive.
Unspecific recognition of CCU as a climate protection measure, for example within the framework of European emissions trading, as some companies would like to see, would therefore be a highly dangerous air booking that could lead to massive additional emissions.
In a recently published draft of a delegated act, the EU Commission proposes that the CO2 must be sequestered for “at least several centuries” in order for CCU to be recognized as an emission reduction in the context of EU emissions trading. The focus would therefore initially be on construction materials for which such a long binding period is possible. However, the comments from companies and industry associations on this legislation suggest that the pressure will remain high for a shorter commitment period to be recognized as a climate protection measure.
Checking CCU laws from head to toes
This is another reason why legislators in Germany should be precise from the outset and not create a dangerous precedent. The Bundestag should therefore ensure that the relevant wording in the KSpG and other laws is adapted: Equivalence with CCS should only be granted if the CCU application “demonstrably binds carbon dioxide permanently in products“.
However, the draft amendment to the KSpG also provides a good starting point for how CCU can be dealt with sensibly in future legal regulations. If the use of CO2 in products is understood as “meeting a need for the use of carbon dioxide as a source of raw materials“, as envisaged in the draft, then it should not be considered a climate action measure. The decisive factor would then no longer be the capture of the CO2, but the way it is used. Turned on its head in this way, it is clear that those who absorb and use the carbon must also bear responsibility for the CO2 and include the emissions in their balance sheet.
Simon Wolf is Head of German and European Climate Policy at Germanwatch.
