In this issue, we focus on the global politics of climate. In the US, Kamala Harris will most likely be the Democratic presidential candidate – Bernhard Pötter analyzes how she could shape US climate policy. Another climate policy heavyweight and the world’s largest emitter, China, is currently struggling to reach its new climate target, which is likely to be less ambitious than necessary. Nico Beckert explains the background. In addition, Azerbaijan, the presidency of COP29, has finally presented its plans for the upcoming climate conference. We take a look at what the oil state is up to.
We also have an eye on Germany: We explain why there is a dispute over the hydrogen import strategy and how great the untapped potential of floating photovoltaics is in the country.
Stay tuned!
Your Lisa Kuner
Feature
US election: How Kamala Harris can change climate policy
She takes the climate crisis seriously, unlike Donald Trump. Kamala Harris, seen here in December 2023 at the World Climate Conference in Dubai.
Following the withdrawal of US President Joe Biden from the elections in November, a fundamental decision is also emerging for the country’s climate policy: A potential POTUS Donald Trump wants to roll back large parts of his predecessor’s climate and energy policy. However, if Vice President Kamala Harris moves into the White House, she could establish the country’s green development in the long term and possibly accelerate it significantly.
‘She will hold the oil industry to account’
Kamala Harris is considered to be much more committed to the green transformation of the USA than the more conservative Joe Biden, who is strongly anchored in the working class and the steel industry in his home state of Pennsylvania. As Attorney General in California, Harris has not shied away from confrontation with the oil industry: She sued a pipeline company over a leak and investigated ExxonMobil for misinformation on climate change. Her rejection of fracking and offshore oil exploration makes her an “angry oil antagonist” who “holds the oil industry accountable”, according to Bloomberg.
In her election manifesto for her bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, she called for significantly more money for the green transformation of the USA: ten trillion US dollars, climate neutrality as early as 2045, CO2-free electricity within ten years, a ban on combustion engines for new cars from 2035, and a CO2 tax. However, she was eliminated early and without a chance in the pre-election campaign for the nomination.
Aggressive rhetoric against fossil fuels
Her rhetoric, even as Vice-President, is much more aggressive towards the oil industry and the obstructionists in the UN climate process than that of Biden. At COP28 in Dubai, she said in the debate on phasing out fossil fuels: “Progress is not possible without struggle.” All over the world, there are “leaders who deny climate science, delay action, and spread disinformation”. There are “companies that greenwash their inaction and lobby for billions in fossil fuel subsidies”.
When talking about the Biden administration’s climate investments at the beginning of the year, she said that the USA would spend “one trillion dollars” on the green transformation over the next ten years. This is significantly higher than the approximately $370 billion previously stated through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) investment program and, according to the White House, refers to the sum of all clean energy and transformation programs.
Securing Biden’s climate policy successes
Above all, observers expect that Harris would first secure Biden’s climate policy successes in the event of an election victory and implement them in the long term. Among them are:
Climate targets: Halve emissions by 2030, net zero by 2050
Re-entry of the USA into the Paris Climate Agreement
Financing commitments for international climate protection and UN institutions with public and private funds
Active climate diplomacy, including with China, despite political confrontation
IRA investment program and other funding instruments with triple-digit billion euro programs for climate protection and the development of green infrastructure
Stricter rules for emissions from vehicles and power plants
Focus on “climate justice” for Indigenous and poor sections of the population, billion-euro programs for municipal climate protection
Subsidies for nuclear and CCS development
Expansion freeze for LNG infrastructure (just lifted by courts)
The environmental organization 350.org also expects a possible Harris presidency to listen to more than Trump: “Vice President Harris is known for standing up against Big Oil. She has supported the Green Deal and spoken out about the role of corporations in exacerbating human suffering. If we send environmental experts to the White House, she will let them in while Trump leaves them at the door.”
Much less radical as president?
However, it is questionable how radically Harris would act beyond Biden’s plans on climate and energy. As POTUS, she would probably be far less aggressive than in her job as Attorney General in the pioneering eco-state of California. In Washington, she would be caught between a fully or partially Republican Congress and Democratic-governed states that rely on their fossil fuel industries when it comes to climate policy. The Democratic Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, whose term of office is coming to an end, has often put pressure on Biden on climate and energy issues and prevented decisions from being made.
What’s more, the Supreme Court has also taken a clear turn towards deregulation and curtailment of state authorities on environmental issues. In its ruling on the “Chevron case”, it recently weakened the rights of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the interpretation of controversial laws. And in climate and environmental policy, there are many important decisions to be made that the conservative majority in the Supreme Court can decide against the line of a democratically-led federal government.
Trump wants fossil fuels instead of climate action
But even if Harris were not to pursue a particularly “green” course despite the hopes of left-wing environmentalists, she would definitely make a clear difference to a Donald Trump presidency. This is because Trump has made it clear in his first term in office, in his candidacy and with his environment that he understands the climate and energy policy of the USA primarily as:
Withdrawal from international climate commitments, withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and possibly the UN Climate Convention;
Fossil “energy dominance” of the USA, already the world’s largest producer of oil and gas;
At least partial rollback of IRA provisions (even though many Republican states currently benefit from the investments);
Isolationist diplomacy, including on climate issues, toughness towards China, unwillingness to pay climate aid or “loss and damage” reparations;
Denying the science of climate change and financially drying up key agencies like NOAA, and
Weakening of structure, finances and political support for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
If Donald Trump were to take office and completely reverse Biden’s climate policy, this couldseverely damageUS and global climate policy, according to calculations by the website Carbon Brief. The result would be around four billion tons of additional CO2 emissions by 2030 – and US emissions would not fall by 50-52% by 2030 as previously planned, but only by 28%. “A second term for Trump, who successfully dismantles Biden’s climate legacy, would likely be the end of any global hope ofkeepingglobal warming below 1.5 degrees“, the analysis states.
Climate policy
Geopolitics
Inflation Reduction Act
USA
China: Why the new climate target will barely hit the 1.5-degree path despite the boom in renewables
China’s dependence on coal stands in the way of an ambitious new climate plan. Equally obstructive: Xi Jinping’s wealth of power and diminishing financial policy leeway.
China’s new climate plan (NDC) is currently underway, but experts believe it will hardly put the country on the 1.5-degree path. It is true that the government has just named the reduction of CO2 emissions as an important goal for the first time in the final document of the so-called “Third Plenum”. According to analysts, this is an important sign and “takes China’s fight against climate change to a new level”. However, the document does not specify any new political goals or measures. China’s climate policy is being held back by
the concentration of political power on Xi Jinping,
hesitant coal provinces and
diminishing financial policy leeway.
In order for the global community to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, China would have to reduceits emissions by 38% by 2035 compared to 2005 and by 59% compared to 2015. This would require a drastic turnaround in emissions and unprecedented efforts. The boom in renewable energies and a possible peak in CO2 emissions should not obscure the difficulties China is facing. For a 1.5°C-compatible NDC, the People’s Republic would have to accelerate the coal phase-out immensely andimplement major efforts in the industrial sector.
China must submit the new NDC to the UN by Feb. 10, 2025. The government is currently organizing a ministerial meeting with more than 14 ministries to develop the NDC. According to Guoguang Wu from the Asia Society, many political developments in recent years point to a rather weaker climate policy in the coming years:
Under Xi Jinping, power has become even morefocused on the president. “All cadres below Xi, including the top management level, tend to wait for Xi’s instructions before making major decisions”, says Guoguang Wu. The lack of initiatives from other politicians is slowing down climate policy, according to the analyst.
Key leadership bodies that oversee climate policy – such as the Leading Group on Carbon Peaking and Carbon Neutrality and the Central Leading Group on Ecological and Environmental Protection Inspection – have not been convened since Xi’s third term. “This could indicate that climate protection measures are a low priority for the current leadership”, writes Guoguang Wu.
High expenditure on infrastructure projects and overcoming the coronavirus crisis have pushed the provinces to the limits of their financial capacity. Accelerating economic growth is also higher on the political agenda than climate targets.
According to Wu, the central government has given the provinces more leeway in controlling their CO2 emissions and has set itself less ambitious targets for the current year: The CO2 intensity of the economy should indeed decrease by 3.9 percent in 2024. However, this is not nearly enough to reduce CO2 intensity by 65% by 2030 compared to 2005, as analyst Lauri Myllyvirta writes. According to Myllyvirta, a lower CO2 intensity would “limit CO2 emissions most directly”.
Coal phase-out necessary, but provinces put the brakes on
China’s immense growth in solar and wind power should not obscure the challenges. China’s growth rates in renewables far exceed those of other countries. But the People’s Republic also consumes a good 30 percent of the world’s electricity. The electrification of the industrial and transportation sectors will further increase the demand for electricity. Despite progress, coal-fired power is currently being phased out of the electricity mix too slowly.
In order to achieve its share of the 1.5-degree target, China would have to reduce the proportion of coal-fired power in its electricity mix from the current 53percent to two to three percentby 2035. However, “the provincial governments and state-owned companies in China’s coal provinces are putting the brakes on the coal phase-out“, says Martin Voss, China expert at the environment and development organization Germanwatch. “Some of their arguments are based on assumptions that have been outdated in Germany for 20 years: The electricity grid will become unstable if too much renewable energy is added, and coal can provide both base load and flexibility.” In addition, the coal sector provides jobs for millions of low-skilled workers and accounts for a large proportion of economic output in some provinces.
There is currently little to suggest that China will phase out coal any time soon. However, the political leadership adopted an action plan in mid-July to reduce CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants. Biomass and green ammonia are soon to be burned in pilot power plants and CCS is to be used to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants to the level of gas-fired power plants. However, these measures are expensive and partly untested. Experts such as Xinyi Shen from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air also doubt that there is enough high-quality biomass.
Significant reduction in emissions quite possible
China will therefore probably reduce emissions in the coming years, but not enough to keep the 1.5-degree target within reach. According to Martin Voss, “the Chinese government does not yet have the confidence to make the decisive push in the next NDC to reduce emissions quickly. This threatens to slip into the NDC after next”.
Significant reductions could be achieved if “existing political measures are tightened further”, calculates analyst Lauri Myllyvirta from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. That would be possible:
if the rapid expansion of renewables from 2023 is maintained,
production in the steel and cement sector is further reduced and converted to lower-emission processes, and
emissions in the transportation sector can be kept constant.
According to Myllyvirta, China could then reduce its CO2 emissions by 30% by 2035 compared to 2020. Emissions of other greenhouse gases such as methane could also be reduced by 20 percent.
Voß demands that “the EU should urge China to jointly publish an ambitious NDC, if possible at the start of COP29“. Ideally, this would mean “reducing emissions by up to 30 percent in absolute terms by 2035. That would give the COP process new momentum.” And also put pressure on other emerging economies to make concrete commitments.
CCS
Climate crisis
Coal phase-out
NDC
COP29: What the Presidency is planning
Environment Minister of Azerbaijan and COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev.
Three and a half months before the start of COP29, host Azerbaijan has presented its plans for the conference. The meeting should address these key issues according to the basic principles of “expanding ambition, enabling action”:
The new NCQG financial target,
trading in CO2 certificates in accordance with Article 6 of the Paris Agreement,
the implementation of the Loss and Damage Fund and
wrote the designated COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev to the UN states and observers. Azerbaijan also wants to set up a voluntary fund (CFAF) to finance climate protection in developing countries with money from the producing countries.
Babayev’s letter on the plans is also a response to criticism: Many participants and observers had expected such a roadmap from the presidency earlier in the year, for example at SB60 in early June. In the meantime, the team around the COP29 presidency is apparently ready to publish these plans and a timetable for the conference (see below).
‘Test for the Paris Agreement’
Babayev writes that the conference will be a “litmus test for the Paris Agreement” due to geopolitical tensions, international uncertainty, and pressure on the multilateral system. Azerbaijan is committed to conducting the conference “transparently, impartially, inclusively, and with the support of the parties”. Everyone must “engage in good faith to act quickly”. The countries’ adaptation plans and the transparency framework for climate targets (BTF) should also be discussed. As an example, Azerbaijan wants to submit both an NDC with a 1.5-degree target and its BTF before COP29.
The presidency also announced personnel decisions:
Chief negotiator Yalchin Rafiyev leads the talks with the countries.
Member of Parliament Nigar Arpadarai is the “High-Level Champion” for talks with civil society and the business community.
Leyla Hasanova, Head of the Office of the Youth Organization of Non-Aligned Countries, is the Youth Climate Champion.
The Danish Climate Minister Dan Jörgensen and the Egyptian Environment Minister Yasmine Fouad will lead the NCQG negotiations as a duo.
CFAF: Climate fund from fossil fuel donations
Azerbaijan wants to use a “Climate Finance Action Fund” (CFAF) to collect money from fossil fuel states and the oil, gas and coal industries for climate action in developing countries. The voluntary fund is aiming for an initial target of one billion US dollars and ten member countries and is to be filled annually by “companies and countries that produce fossil fuels”.
Azerbaijan wants to pay money into the CFAF itself and locate the secretariat in Baku. The fund is intended to catalyze public and private capital for “mitigation, adaptation, research and development”, it says. The aim is to facilitate climate investments and reduce financialrisk. 20 percent of the volume is to be awarded as grants and subsidized loans. Half of the money is to go towards climate protection measures and half towards fulfilling the NDCs.
Failed: Levy on oil, gas, coal
The fund is Azerbaijan’s second attempt to involve fossil fuel producers in climate financing. At the end of May, it proposed a “North-South financial mechanism“. This was intended to fill a fund with a levy on the production of oil, gas and coal in order to finance climate projects in developing countries. With a levy of 20 US cents per barrel of oil, the fund would raise around six billion dollars a year – significantly more than the initial sum of one billion is now expected. However, Azerbaijan stopped the initiative just one month later, apparently after criticism from oil countries, including the USA and Gulf states.
14 objectives of the Presidency
The Presidency has identified a total of 14 projects that it intends to pursue at COP29:
Climate Finance Action Fund (CFAF)
Baku Initiative for Climate Finance, “BICFIT Dialogue”
Just Transition Investment Partnership (JTIP)
Self-commitment to green energy – Green Energy Pledge
Self-commitment to storage – Green Energy Storage Pledge
Clean hydrogen (Clean Hydrogen Initiative)
COP call for ceasefire for universal peace, dialog and reconciliation
Green transformation through and for digitalization (Digital Action Path 4 Green World)
Investing in health and jobs for climate resilience
Nov. 21: Nature and biodiversity, indigenous peoples, gender justice, oceans and coasts
Nov. 22: Final negotiations
COP29
News
Climate finance: Green Climate Fund approves projects worth one billion
The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has approved the financing of 17 new projects amounting to one billion US dollars. This brings the GCF’s support for climate action projects to a total of $14.9 billion for 270 projects, as announced by the GCF. In the case of two projects in Malawi and Bhutan, the first grants are to be disbursed in less than 15 days after approval. This is the fund’s response to criticism that disbursements often take a long time.
According to the fund, the 17 projects include:
The GCF’s first country project in Albania.
For the first time, national institutions in Nigeria, Côte d’Ivoire and Tajikistan can access GCF funds.
For the first time, the GCF is financing a project in Mozambique that combines social security with climate adaptation.
The GCF has also adopted a new strategy for partnerships and access to funding in order to improve access for poorer countries. This is also the fund’s response to a frequently voiced criticism. nib
Klimaschutz
Floating solar systems: Why Germany has great potential
Germany has the potential to install photovoltaic systems on bodies of water with a maximum output of at least between 1.8 gigawatts (with south-facing modules) and 2.5 gigawatts (with east-west orientation). This potential is largely untapped: Only 21 megawatts (i.e. 0.021 gigawatts) of floating solar systems – so-called floating PV – are currently installed, with a further 62 megawatts under construction or planned. This is the result of a recent analysis by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE and RWE.
To this end, the potential of artificial bodies of water such as gravel pits or quarry ponds was analyzed. Waters in protection zones were excluded. In addition, “strict ecological, technical, and economic requirements” were taken into account. According to the Renewable Energy Sources Act and the Water Resources Act, only 15 percent of the water surface may be covered with solar modules and a distance of 40 meters must be maintained from the shore. There are more than 6,000 artificial lakes in Germany, which together cover an area of around 90,000 hectares. kul
Photovoltaik
FÖS: Where additional billions for climate action could come from
In a new policy brief, the Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft (FÖS) advocates increasingcertain environmental taxes “regularly or automatically” in line with inflation. If energy taxes and the national CO2 price alone were linked to inflation, this could generate additional revenue of around €9 billion – with a doubly positive effect. More money would be available for climate and other ecological purposes, while the rising prices would provide financial incentives for more climate protection. Removing certain subsidies for fossil fuels, such as the tax concessions for diesel, the commuter allowance or the company car privilege would generate as much as €24 billion a year.
The public funds earmarked for climate protection in the 2025 budget are not sufficient to achieve the climate protection targets, according to the policy brief. In particular, the financial resources of the Climate and Transformation Fund (KTF) areuncertain due to the fluctuating income from carbon pricing. The financial situation will “hardly ease” in the coming years either. The FÖS puts the future need for additional public funds, for example for investments in the electricity grid, energy storage or the transport transition, at around €51 billion per year. Both proposals – the inflation indexation of environmental taxes and the reduction of fossil fuel subsidies – should “not replace considerations on the reform of debt rules, special assets or wealth taxation, but rather complement them”. ae
Klimafinanzierung
Flight emissions: Think tank criticizes exceptions
The EU Commission is currently planning to exclude long-haul flights from the monitoring regulations for non-CO2 emissions. In a recent analysis, the think tank Transport & Environment (T&E) criticizes that this would ignore 67 percent of the climate impact of air traffic caused by contrails.
From 2025, airlines in Europe will have to recordand report emissions from soot, nitrogen oxides, and water vapor in addition to direct CO2 emissions in emissions trading for the first time. However, there will be an exception for long-haul flights in the first two years. T&E believes that this will delay measures to reduce emissions in aviation. The exemption is a consequence of the “strong lobbying of the old airlines”.
The think tank is calling for the decision to be reversed at the end of the public consultation in late July. In June, low-cost airlinesalso criticized the exemption for long-haul flights, saying it gave a “misleading impression”. kul
Emissionen
Renewables: France with unclear targets
France is facing criticism due to ambiguities regarding its 2030 target for the share of renewable energies in the electricity supply. In its National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP), the country has set a target of consuming around 570 terawatt hours (TWh) of renewable energy by 2030. This has sparked criticism, as Euractiv reports:
France does not provide precise information on individual renewable energies such as solar and wind power or renewable heat.
Furthermore, it is an absolute target and not a percentage of absolute energy consumption, as the EU target for renewable energies stipulates.
The EU envisages a 44% share of renewable energies for France in 2030. However, the 570 TWh would only account for 41.3% of the 1.381 TWh of energy consumption also forecast in the NECP.
Observers criticize that this could lead to double counting and that the country could in reality only achieve 546 TWh of renewables.
According to the media report, Franceisadvocatingthat future EU energy targets should include both renewable energies and nuclear power. nib
Energiewende
Study: Where the forest carbon reservoir is particularly at risk
Global forests are an important reservoir for a large proportion of global emissions. Over three decades, from 1990 to 2020, the amount of new carbon stored in them each year was almost stable – only declining slightly in the 2010s. This is the conclusion of a study recently published in the journal Nature. However, its authors found significant differences between the regional ecosystems:
In the forests of temperate latitudes, for example in Australia, China, Central and Southern Europe, the carbon reservoirs have grown, as have the regrowing tropical forests.
In the boreal forests, for example in Canada, northern Europe and Russia, and in the original tropical forests, the carbon reservoirs have shrunk.
Overall, the land sector is a larger carbon sink than at the beginning of the study period. This is partly due to reforestation and renaturation of forests, but also to the growth of carbon sinks outside the forests, such as in soils, peatlands and other ecosystems. However, two-thirds of the increase was offset by deforestation in the tropics alone.
“Although the global forest sink has persisted unabated for three decades despite regional differences, it could be weakened by aging forests, continued deforestation, and further intensification of disturbance regimes“, the researchers write in the study. They call for “land management measures to limit deforestation, promote reforestation and improve timber harvesting practices”.
In order to stop emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and to protect the large carbon reservoirs, especially in the soils of boreal forests, “effective international cooperation” is needed, as well as “financial, legal and other incentives, especially in tropical countries; deforestation-free supply chains and well-managed selective logging”. ae
CO2-Senken
Christoph Heinrich becomes Director of Ecologic Institute
Camilla Busch and Christoph Heinrich
The Ecologic Institute is getting a new director: Christoph Heinrich will become director of the renowned think tank on Aug. 1. This was announced by the previous director Camilla Bausch, who is leaving the position after ten years.
Heinrich had been working for the Boston Consulting Group since the beginning of the year; before that, he worked for the environmental organization WWF for 19 years, including as a board member, member of the management board, and head of the nature conservation division. The Ecologic Institute has around 100 employees who work on a wide range of environmental and climate issues. It is financed primarily through projects commissioned by the EU and the German government. mkr
Heads
Electricity grids: UBA head Messner criticizes unfair burden sharing
The President of the Federal Environment Agency (UBA), Dirk Messner, is clearly critical of the current tariff structure for the use of electricity grids. “The regions that are modernizing and expanding grids have borne the costs so far“, Messner told Table.Briefings. “And those who – especially in southern Germany – are not tackling this at the necessary pace are getting off lightly.” This is not very convincing in terms of climate policy and from a perspective of fairness.
The minister presidents of the German coastal states, which have invested heavily in wind power and the necessary grids, have been complaining for some time about what they see as excessively high grid fees, which in turn lead to higher electricity prices. Messner also considers the current incentive system to be wrongly constructed: “Those who are moving in the right direction should actually be relieved and those burdened, who are not fast enough.” In fact, the opposite is the case.
Accelerating the expansion of wind power
The UBA President is only partially satisfied with the expansion of renewables. According to the latest figures, the yield from renewable energies increased by nine percent in the first half of 2024 compared to the previous year. The share of renewables in gross electricity consumption is now 57 percent. “We are making considerable progress with photovoltaics“, said Messner, “there is enormous momentum here.” Not least because “people want to be ‘co-creators of change’ with small balcony power plants or roof-mounted systems”. Although the energy sector is the most dynamic in terms of reducing emissions, there are also areas where more speed is necessary. “We are not making as much progress with the expansion of wind power as we had planned”, said Messner.
The head of the UBA also believes that the German Government and Parliament’s decision to remove the sector targets in the Climate Protection Act is wrong. Creating more flexibility between the sectors is the right thing to do. But the idea that failures in one sector could be compensated for by special efforts in other sectors per se is wrong. “If we continue in the same way in the mobility sector until 2035, for example, the curve towards 2045 must fall so steeply towards zero that it will no longer be physically or economically possible.” Horand Knaup
In this issue, we focus on the global politics of climate. In the US, Kamala Harris will most likely be the Democratic presidential candidate – Bernhard Pötter analyzes how she could shape US climate policy. Another climate policy heavyweight and the world’s largest emitter, China, is currently struggling to reach its new climate target, which is likely to be less ambitious than necessary. Nico Beckert explains the background. In addition, Azerbaijan, the presidency of COP29, has finally presented its plans for the upcoming climate conference. We take a look at what the oil state is up to.
We also have an eye on Germany: We explain why there is a dispute over the hydrogen import strategy and how great the untapped potential of floating photovoltaics is in the country.
Stay tuned!
Your Lisa Kuner
Feature
US election: How Kamala Harris can change climate policy
She takes the climate crisis seriously, unlike Donald Trump. Kamala Harris, seen here in December 2023 at the World Climate Conference in Dubai.
Following the withdrawal of US President Joe Biden from the elections in November, a fundamental decision is also emerging for the country’s climate policy: A potential POTUS Donald Trump wants to roll back large parts of his predecessor’s climate and energy policy. However, if Vice President Kamala Harris moves into the White House, she could establish the country’s green development in the long term and possibly accelerate it significantly.
‘She will hold the oil industry to account’
Kamala Harris is considered to be much more committed to the green transformation of the USA than the more conservative Joe Biden, who is strongly anchored in the working class and the steel industry in his home state of Pennsylvania. As Attorney General in California, Harris has not shied away from confrontation with the oil industry: She sued a pipeline company over a leak and investigated ExxonMobil for misinformation on climate change. Her rejection of fracking and offshore oil exploration makes her an “angry oil antagonist” who “holds the oil industry accountable”, according to Bloomberg.
In her election manifesto for her bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, she called for significantly more money for the green transformation of the USA: ten trillion US dollars, climate neutrality as early as 2045, CO2-free electricity within ten years, a ban on combustion engines for new cars from 2035, and a CO2 tax. However, she was eliminated early and without a chance in the pre-election campaign for the nomination.
Aggressive rhetoric against fossil fuels
Her rhetoric, even as Vice-President, is much more aggressive towards the oil industry and the obstructionists in the UN climate process than that of Biden. At COP28 in Dubai, she said in the debate on phasing out fossil fuels: “Progress is not possible without struggle.” All over the world, there are “leaders who deny climate science, delay action, and spread disinformation”. There are “companies that greenwash their inaction and lobby for billions in fossil fuel subsidies”.
When talking about the Biden administration’s climate investments at the beginning of the year, she said that the USA would spend “one trillion dollars” on the green transformation over the next ten years. This is significantly higher than the approximately $370 billion previously stated through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) investment program and, according to the White House, refers to the sum of all clean energy and transformation programs.
Securing Biden’s climate policy successes
Above all, observers expect that Harris would first secure Biden’s climate policy successes in the event of an election victory and implement them in the long term. Among them are:
Climate targets: Halve emissions by 2030, net zero by 2050
Re-entry of the USA into the Paris Climate Agreement
Financing commitments for international climate protection and UN institutions with public and private funds
Active climate diplomacy, including with China, despite political confrontation
IRA investment program and other funding instruments with triple-digit billion euro programs for climate protection and the development of green infrastructure
Stricter rules for emissions from vehicles and power plants
Focus on “climate justice” for Indigenous and poor sections of the population, billion-euro programs for municipal climate protection
Subsidies for nuclear and CCS development
Expansion freeze for LNG infrastructure (just lifted by courts)
The environmental organization 350.org also expects a possible Harris presidency to listen to more than Trump: “Vice President Harris is known for standing up against Big Oil. She has supported the Green Deal and spoken out about the role of corporations in exacerbating human suffering. If we send environmental experts to the White House, she will let them in while Trump leaves them at the door.”
Much less radical as president?
However, it is questionable how radically Harris would act beyond Biden’s plans on climate and energy. As POTUS, she would probably be far less aggressive than in her job as Attorney General in the pioneering eco-state of California. In Washington, she would be caught between a fully or partially Republican Congress and Democratic-governed states that rely on their fossil fuel industries when it comes to climate policy. The Democratic Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, whose term of office is coming to an end, has often put pressure on Biden on climate and energy issues and prevented decisions from being made.
What’s more, the Supreme Court has also taken a clear turn towards deregulation and curtailment of state authorities on environmental issues. In its ruling on the “Chevron case”, it recently weakened the rights of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the interpretation of controversial laws. And in climate and environmental policy, there are many important decisions to be made that the conservative majority in the Supreme Court can decide against the line of a democratically-led federal government.
Trump wants fossil fuels instead of climate action
But even if Harris were not to pursue a particularly “green” course despite the hopes of left-wing environmentalists, she would definitely make a clear difference to a Donald Trump presidency. This is because Trump has made it clear in his first term in office, in his candidacy and with his environment that he understands the climate and energy policy of the USA primarily as:
Withdrawal from international climate commitments, withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and possibly the UN Climate Convention;
Fossil “energy dominance” of the USA, already the world’s largest producer of oil and gas;
At least partial rollback of IRA provisions (even though many Republican states currently benefit from the investments);
Isolationist diplomacy, including on climate issues, toughness towards China, unwillingness to pay climate aid or “loss and damage” reparations;
Denying the science of climate change and financially drying up key agencies like NOAA, and
Weakening of structure, finances and political support for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
If Donald Trump were to take office and completely reverse Biden’s climate policy, this couldseverely damageUS and global climate policy, according to calculations by the website Carbon Brief. The result would be around four billion tons of additional CO2 emissions by 2030 – and US emissions would not fall by 50-52% by 2030 as previously planned, but only by 28%. “A second term for Trump, who successfully dismantles Biden’s climate legacy, would likely be the end of any global hope ofkeepingglobal warming below 1.5 degrees“, the analysis states.
Climate policy
Geopolitics
Inflation Reduction Act
USA
China: Why the new climate target will barely hit the 1.5-degree path despite the boom in renewables
China’s dependence on coal stands in the way of an ambitious new climate plan. Equally obstructive: Xi Jinping’s wealth of power and diminishing financial policy leeway.
China’s new climate plan (NDC) is currently underway, but experts believe it will hardly put the country on the 1.5-degree path. It is true that the government has just named the reduction of CO2 emissions as an important goal for the first time in the final document of the so-called “Third Plenum”. According to analysts, this is an important sign and “takes China’s fight against climate change to a new level”. However, the document does not specify any new political goals or measures. China’s climate policy is being held back by
the concentration of political power on Xi Jinping,
hesitant coal provinces and
diminishing financial policy leeway.
In order for the global community to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, China would have to reduceits emissions by 38% by 2035 compared to 2005 and by 59% compared to 2015. This would require a drastic turnaround in emissions and unprecedented efforts. The boom in renewable energies and a possible peak in CO2 emissions should not obscure the difficulties China is facing. For a 1.5°C-compatible NDC, the People’s Republic would have to accelerate the coal phase-out immensely andimplement major efforts in the industrial sector.
China must submit the new NDC to the UN by Feb. 10, 2025. The government is currently organizing a ministerial meeting with more than 14 ministries to develop the NDC. According to Guoguang Wu from the Asia Society, many political developments in recent years point to a rather weaker climate policy in the coming years:
Under Xi Jinping, power has become even morefocused on the president. “All cadres below Xi, including the top management level, tend to wait for Xi’s instructions before making major decisions”, says Guoguang Wu. The lack of initiatives from other politicians is slowing down climate policy, according to the analyst.
Key leadership bodies that oversee climate policy – such as the Leading Group on Carbon Peaking and Carbon Neutrality and the Central Leading Group on Ecological and Environmental Protection Inspection – have not been convened since Xi’s third term. “This could indicate that climate protection measures are a low priority for the current leadership”, writes Guoguang Wu.
High expenditure on infrastructure projects and overcoming the coronavirus crisis have pushed the provinces to the limits of their financial capacity. Accelerating economic growth is also higher on the political agenda than climate targets.
According to Wu, the central government has given the provinces more leeway in controlling their CO2 emissions and has set itself less ambitious targets for the current year: The CO2 intensity of the economy should indeed decrease by 3.9 percent in 2024. However, this is not nearly enough to reduce CO2 intensity by 65% by 2030 compared to 2005, as analyst Lauri Myllyvirta writes. According to Myllyvirta, a lower CO2 intensity would “limit CO2 emissions most directly”.
Coal phase-out necessary, but provinces put the brakes on
China’s immense growth in solar and wind power should not obscure the challenges. China’s growth rates in renewables far exceed those of other countries. But the People’s Republic also consumes a good 30 percent of the world’s electricity. The electrification of the industrial and transportation sectors will further increase the demand for electricity. Despite progress, coal-fired power is currently being phased out of the electricity mix too slowly.
In order to achieve its share of the 1.5-degree target, China would have to reduce the proportion of coal-fired power in its electricity mix from the current 53percent to two to three percentby 2035. However, “the provincial governments and state-owned companies in China’s coal provinces are putting the brakes on the coal phase-out“, says Martin Voss, China expert at the environment and development organization Germanwatch. “Some of their arguments are based on assumptions that have been outdated in Germany for 20 years: The electricity grid will become unstable if too much renewable energy is added, and coal can provide both base load and flexibility.” In addition, the coal sector provides jobs for millions of low-skilled workers and accounts for a large proportion of economic output in some provinces.
There is currently little to suggest that China will phase out coal any time soon. However, the political leadership adopted an action plan in mid-July to reduce CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants. Biomass and green ammonia are soon to be burned in pilot power plants and CCS is to be used to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants to the level of gas-fired power plants. However, these measures are expensive and partly untested. Experts such as Xinyi Shen from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air also doubt that there is enough high-quality biomass.
Significant reduction in emissions quite possible
China will therefore probably reduce emissions in the coming years, but not enough to keep the 1.5-degree target within reach. According to Martin Voss, “the Chinese government does not yet have the confidence to make the decisive push in the next NDC to reduce emissions quickly. This threatens to slip into the NDC after next”.
Significant reductions could be achieved if “existing political measures are tightened further”, calculates analyst Lauri Myllyvirta from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. That would be possible:
if the rapid expansion of renewables from 2023 is maintained,
production in the steel and cement sector is further reduced and converted to lower-emission processes, and
emissions in the transportation sector can be kept constant.
According to Myllyvirta, China could then reduce its CO2 emissions by 30% by 2035 compared to 2020. Emissions of other greenhouse gases such as methane could also be reduced by 20 percent.
Voß demands that “the EU should urge China to jointly publish an ambitious NDC, if possible at the start of COP29“. Ideally, this would mean “reducing emissions by up to 30 percent in absolute terms by 2035. That would give the COP process new momentum.” And also put pressure on other emerging economies to make concrete commitments.
CCS
Climate crisis
Coal phase-out
NDC
COP29: What the Presidency is planning
Environment Minister of Azerbaijan and COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev.
Three and a half months before the start of COP29, host Azerbaijan has presented its plans for the conference. The meeting should address these key issues according to the basic principles of “expanding ambition, enabling action”:
The new NCQG financial target,
trading in CO2 certificates in accordance with Article 6 of the Paris Agreement,
the implementation of the Loss and Damage Fund and
wrote the designated COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev to the UN states and observers. Azerbaijan also wants to set up a voluntary fund (CFAF) to finance climate protection in developing countries with money from the producing countries.
Babayev’s letter on the plans is also a response to criticism: Many participants and observers had expected such a roadmap from the presidency earlier in the year, for example at SB60 in early June. In the meantime, the team around the COP29 presidency is apparently ready to publish these plans and a timetable for the conference (see below).
‘Test for the Paris Agreement’
Babayev writes that the conference will be a “litmus test for the Paris Agreement” due to geopolitical tensions, international uncertainty, and pressure on the multilateral system. Azerbaijan is committed to conducting the conference “transparently, impartially, inclusively, and with the support of the parties”. Everyone must “engage in good faith to act quickly”. The countries’ adaptation plans and the transparency framework for climate targets (BTF) should also be discussed. As an example, Azerbaijan wants to submit both an NDC with a 1.5-degree target and its BTF before COP29.
The presidency also announced personnel decisions:
Chief negotiator Yalchin Rafiyev leads the talks with the countries.
Member of Parliament Nigar Arpadarai is the “High-Level Champion” for talks with civil society and the business community.
Leyla Hasanova, Head of the Office of the Youth Organization of Non-Aligned Countries, is the Youth Climate Champion.
The Danish Climate Minister Dan Jörgensen and the Egyptian Environment Minister Yasmine Fouad will lead the NCQG negotiations as a duo.
CFAF: Climate fund from fossil fuel donations
Azerbaijan wants to use a “Climate Finance Action Fund” (CFAF) to collect money from fossil fuel states and the oil, gas and coal industries for climate action in developing countries. The voluntary fund is aiming for an initial target of one billion US dollars and ten member countries and is to be filled annually by “companies and countries that produce fossil fuels”.
Azerbaijan wants to pay money into the CFAF itself and locate the secretariat in Baku. The fund is intended to catalyze public and private capital for “mitigation, adaptation, research and development”, it says. The aim is to facilitate climate investments and reduce financialrisk. 20 percent of the volume is to be awarded as grants and subsidized loans. Half of the money is to go towards climate protection measures and half towards fulfilling the NDCs.
Failed: Levy on oil, gas, coal
The fund is Azerbaijan’s second attempt to involve fossil fuel producers in climate financing. At the end of May, it proposed a “North-South financial mechanism“. This was intended to fill a fund with a levy on the production of oil, gas and coal in order to finance climate projects in developing countries. With a levy of 20 US cents per barrel of oil, the fund would raise around six billion dollars a year – significantly more than the initial sum of one billion is now expected. However, Azerbaijan stopped the initiative just one month later, apparently after criticism from oil countries, including the USA and Gulf states.
14 objectives of the Presidency
The Presidency has identified a total of 14 projects that it intends to pursue at COP29:
Climate Finance Action Fund (CFAF)
Baku Initiative for Climate Finance, “BICFIT Dialogue”
Just Transition Investment Partnership (JTIP)
Self-commitment to green energy – Green Energy Pledge
Self-commitment to storage – Green Energy Storage Pledge
Clean hydrogen (Clean Hydrogen Initiative)
COP call for ceasefire for universal peace, dialog and reconciliation
Green transformation through and for digitalization (Digital Action Path 4 Green World)
Investing in health and jobs for climate resilience
Nov. 21: Nature and biodiversity, indigenous peoples, gender justice, oceans and coasts
Nov. 22: Final negotiations
COP29
News
Climate finance: Green Climate Fund approves projects worth one billion
The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has approved the financing of 17 new projects amounting to one billion US dollars. This brings the GCF’s support for climate action projects to a total of $14.9 billion for 270 projects, as announced by the GCF. In the case of two projects in Malawi and Bhutan, the first grants are to be disbursed in less than 15 days after approval. This is the fund’s response to criticism that disbursements often take a long time.
According to the fund, the 17 projects include:
The GCF’s first country project in Albania.
For the first time, national institutions in Nigeria, Côte d’Ivoire and Tajikistan can access GCF funds.
For the first time, the GCF is financing a project in Mozambique that combines social security with climate adaptation.
The GCF has also adopted a new strategy for partnerships and access to funding in order to improve access for poorer countries. This is also the fund’s response to a frequently voiced criticism. nib
Klimaschutz
Floating solar systems: Why Germany has great potential
Germany has the potential to install photovoltaic systems on bodies of water with a maximum output of at least between 1.8 gigawatts (with south-facing modules) and 2.5 gigawatts (with east-west orientation). This potential is largely untapped: Only 21 megawatts (i.e. 0.021 gigawatts) of floating solar systems – so-called floating PV – are currently installed, with a further 62 megawatts under construction or planned. This is the result of a recent analysis by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE and RWE.
To this end, the potential of artificial bodies of water such as gravel pits or quarry ponds was analyzed. Waters in protection zones were excluded. In addition, “strict ecological, technical, and economic requirements” were taken into account. According to the Renewable Energy Sources Act and the Water Resources Act, only 15 percent of the water surface may be covered with solar modules and a distance of 40 meters must be maintained from the shore. There are more than 6,000 artificial lakes in Germany, which together cover an area of around 90,000 hectares. kul
Photovoltaik
FÖS: Where additional billions for climate action could come from
In a new policy brief, the Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft (FÖS) advocates increasingcertain environmental taxes “regularly or automatically” in line with inflation. If energy taxes and the national CO2 price alone were linked to inflation, this could generate additional revenue of around €9 billion – with a doubly positive effect. More money would be available for climate and other ecological purposes, while the rising prices would provide financial incentives for more climate protection. Removing certain subsidies for fossil fuels, such as the tax concessions for diesel, the commuter allowance or the company car privilege would generate as much as €24 billion a year.
The public funds earmarked for climate protection in the 2025 budget are not sufficient to achieve the climate protection targets, according to the policy brief. In particular, the financial resources of the Climate and Transformation Fund (KTF) areuncertain due to the fluctuating income from carbon pricing. The financial situation will “hardly ease” in the coming years either. The FÖS puts the future need for additional public funds, for example for investments in the electricity grid, energy storage or the transport transition, at around €51 billion per year. Both proposals – the inflation indexation of environmental taxes and the reduction of fossil fuel subsidies – should “not replace considerations on the reform of debt rules, special assets or wealth taxation, but rather complement them”. ae
Klimafinanzierung
Flight emissions: Think tank criticizes exceptions
The EU Commission is currently planning to exclude long-haul flights from the monitoring regulations for non-CO2 emissions. In a recent analysis, the think tank Transport & Environment (T&E) criticizes that this would ignore 67 percent of the climate impact of air traffic caused by contrails.
From 2025, airlines in Europe will have to recordand report emissions from soot, nitrogen oxides, and water vapor in addition to direct CO2 emissions in emissions trading for the first time. However, there will be an exception for long-haul flights in the first two years. T&E believes that this will delay measures to reduce emissions in aviation. The exemption is a consequence of the “strong lobbying of the old airlines”.
The think tank is calling for the decision to be reversed at the end of the public consultation in late July. In June, low-cost airlinesalso criticized the exemption for long-haul flights, saying it gave a “misleading impression”. kul
Emissionen
Renewables: France with unclear targets
France is facing criticism due to ambiguities regarding its 2030 target for the share of renewable energies in the electricity supply. In its National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP), the country has set a target of consuming around 570 terawatt hours (TWh) of renewable energy by 2030. This has sparked criticism, as Euractiv reports:
France does not provide precise information on individual renewable energies such as solar and wind power or renewable heat.
Furthermore, it is an absolute target and not a percentage of absolute energy consumption, as the EU target for renewable energies stipulates.
The EU envisages a 44% share of renewable energies for France in 2030. However, the 570 TWh would only account for 41.3% of the 1.381 TWh of energy consumption also forecast in the NECP.
Observers criticize that this could lead to double counting and that the country could in reality only achieve 546 TWh of renewables.
According to the media report, Franceisadvocatingthat future EU energy targets should include both renewable energies and nuclear power. nib
Energiewende
Study: Where the forest carbon reservoir is particularly at risk
Global forests are an important reservoir for a large proportion of global emissions. Over three decades, from 1990 to 2020, the amount of new carbon stored in them each year was almost stable – only declining slightly in the 2010s. This is the conclusion of a study recently published in the journal Nature. However, its authors found significant differences between the regional ecosystems:
In the forests of temperate latitudes, for example in Australia, China, Central and Southern Europe, the carbon reservoirs have grown, as have the regrowing tropical forests.
In the boreal forests, for example in Canada, northern Europe and Russia, and in the original tropical forests, the carbon reservoirs have shrunk.
Overall, the land sector is a larger carbon sink than at the beginning of the study period. This is partly due to reforestation and renaturation of forests, but also to the growth of carbon sinks outside the forests, such as in soils, peatlands and other ecosystems. However, two-thirds of the increase was offset by deforestation in the tropics alone.
“Although the global forest sink has persisted unabated for three decades despite regional differences, it could be weakened by aging forests, continued deforestation, and further intensification of disturbance regimes“, the researchers write in the study. They call for “land management measures to limit deforestation, promote reforestation and improve timber harvesting practices”.
In order to stop emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and to protect the large carbon reservoirs, especially in the soils of boreal forests, “effective international cooperation” is needed, as well as “financial, legal and other incentives, especially in tropical countries; deforestation-free supply chains and well-managed selective logging”. ae
CO2-Senken
Christoph Heinrich becomes Director of Ecologic Institute
Camilla Busch and Christoph Heinrich
The Ecologic Institute is getting a new director: Christoph Heinrich will become director of the renowned think tank on Aug. 1. This was announced by the previous director Camilla Bausch, who is leaving the position after ten years.
Heinrich had been working for the Boston Consulting Group since the beginning of the year; before that, he worked for the environmental organization WWF for 19 years, including as a board member, member of the management board, and head of the nature conservation division. The Ecologic Institute has around 100 employees who work on a wide range of environmental and climate issues. It is financed primarily through projects commissioned by the EU and the German government. mkr
Heads
Electricity grids: UBA head Messner criticizes unfair burden sharing
The President of the Federal Environment Agency (UBA), Dirk Messner, is clearly critical of the current tariff structure for the use of electricity grids. “The regions that are modernizing and expanding grids have borne the costs so far“, Messner told Table.Briefings. “And those who – especially in southern Germany – are not tackling this at the necessary pace are getting off lightly.” This is not very convincing in terms of climate policy and from a perspective of fairness.
The minister presidents of the German coastal states, which have invested heavily in wind power and the necessary grids, have been complaining for some time about what they see as excessively high grid fees, which in turn lead to higher electricity prices. Messner also considers the current incentive system to be wrongly constructed: “Those who are moving in the right direction should actually be relieved and those burdened, who are not fast enough.” In fact, the opposite is the case.
Accelerating the expansion of wind power
The UBA President is only partially satisfied with the expansion of renewables. According to the latest figures, the yield from renewable energies increased by nine percent in the first half of 2024 compared to the previous year. The share of renewables in gross electricity consumption is now 57 percent. “We are making considerable progress with photovoltaics“, said Messner, “there is enormous momentum here.” Not least because “people want to be ‘co-creators of change’ with small balcony power plants or roof-mounted systems”. Although the energy sector is the most dynamic in terms of reducing emissions, there are also areas where more speed is necessary. “We are not making as much progress with the expansion of wind power as we had planned”, said Messner.
The head of the UBA also believes that the German Government and Parliament’s decision to remove the sector targets in the Climate Protection Act is wrong. Creating more flexibility between the sectors is the right thing to do. But the idea that failures in one sector could be compensated for by special efforts in other sectors per se is wrong. “If we continue in the same way in the mobility sector until 2035, for example, the curve towards 2045 must fall so steeply towards zero that it will no longer be physically or economically possible.” Horand Knaup
