Three to four percent of EU-wide emissions are emitted by ships either arriving or departing from European ports. In the future, this share is likely to increase if nothing is done to decarbonize shipping. With the FuelEU Maritime Regulation, the EU Commission now wants to change this, but the proposal is not as ambitious as it needs to be. This fits in with all the global efforts to date for climate-friendly shipping, as Lukas Scheid reports.
Time and again, those responsible had postponed the official presentation of the “Global Gateway” infrastructure initiative, but now the time had come. The head of the Commission was self-confident: the program is “definitely” capable of competing with China’s Belt and Road Initiative, said Ursula von der Leyen – and gave a tip or two in the direction of the New Silk Road. Amelie Richter summarized what Brussels wants to do better than China with “Global Gateway”, in which points the Chinese have an advantage and how politics and industry reacted to the plans.
Foreign Minister-designate Annalena Baerbock also wants to speak clearly to the People’s Republic in the future. In doing so, she said, the new German government will coordinate more closely with its partners in the EU than in the past. Baerbock also announced her intention to use German embassies for climate policy. You can read more about the Green politician’s plans in the news.
What always resonated around “Global Gateway”, but was rarely openly expressed, now found a clear answer at the official presentation of the infrastructure initiative of the EU Commission: “Yes, definitely. We are in a position to do so,” EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen answered the question of whether the program could compete with China’s “Belt and Road” initiative. Various countries have had their experiences with Chinese investments, von der Leyen said. “They need better and different offers.” The EU offer involves the private sector, which does not exist in the People’s Republic. “So it is a real alternative,” the Commission chief stressed.
Brussels had been working on the competing Silk Road for a long time; the publication date was postponed several times. However, the result now reads impressively and has met with much approval from politics and business. As with many EU initiatives, it remains to be seen how the implementation will progress in concrete terms. The envisaged program is ambitious: Up to €300 billion are to be mobilized by 2027. To this end, the EU Commission is bringing on board not only the member states but also the private sector as well as the European Investment Bank and other European financial institutions, including, for example, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
The most important questions about “Global Gateway” at a glance:
Part of the envisaged billion euro investment is to come from the European Fund for Sustainable Development Plus (EFDS+) – around €135 billion. EFDS+ is an existing EU budget fund, which in turn is filled in various ways. Not all the financial instruments for it are ready yet. The largest part of the “Global Gateway” initiative, around €145 billion, is for “planned investments by European financial and development finance institutions“. Another €18 billion are to be raised “under other EU external assistance programs”. In addition, billions more are to come from the private sector.
That remains questionable – this is because, in purely numerical terms, the BRI dwarfs “Global Gateway”. Beijing’s total spending on the New Silk Road could amount to $1.2 to $1.3 trillion by 2027, according to Morgan Stanley. The People’s Republic also has an advantage in that it is already on the ground in many emerging and developing economies now targeted by the EU. Moreover, because the BRI involves China’s state-owned commercial banks, Chinese companies are able to make even politically or commercially risky investments without taking on much risk. This is a security that European companies will not have.
EU infrastructure projects abroad. The focus will be on digitalization and green transformation. As examples of projects worthy of support, von der Leyen mentioned the use of green hydrogen and the expansion of railway lines and internet connections. For example, the Western Balkans should be better connected to each other and to the EU via rail links, stressed Enlargement Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi. Accordingly, €30 billion have been earmarked for this purpose. Within the framework of the Eastern Partnership, of which Ukraine is a member, the laying of a data cable under the Black Sea is planned. The expansion of fiber-optic networks is also to be expanded in Latin America.
In addition, the expansion of the health care system and the support of the education system in the emerging and developing countries are planned within the framework of “Global Gateway”. The EU also wants to become active in China’s neighborhood: Thus, a connectivity partnership with the Southeast Asian confederation Asean is intended. The EU also wants to promote the strengthening of “links with neighboring strategic corridors in sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia”, according to the paper.
Unlike China, the EU will primarily award grants to participating countries, said Jutta Urpilainen, the EU commissioner responsible for international partnerships. This is to avoid credit traps. Von der Leyen stressed that in view of the EU funding, the partner countries need not fear accumulating unsustainable mountains of debt. In addition, there is transparency in EU aid. The projects implemented remain in the hands of the respective countries and should achieve concrete results on the ground, said von der Leyen.
The EU’s thrust is also clearly formulated in its official communication, not without a nod towards Beijing: “Without adequate transparency, good governance and high standards, projects can be poorly selected or planned, remain incomplete, or fuel corruption”. The partner countries are thus supposed to have to abide by rules, which could make China’s investments seem less binding by comparison. However, it is in terms of environmental standards that “Global Gateway” could be attractive: In several BRI countries, there is criticism of the pollution associated with some Chinese projects.
The chairman of the EU Parliament’s trade committee, Bernd Lange (SPD), welcomed the initiative as a “contribution to the global fight against climate change and poverty”. “Instead of making states an offer they cannot refuse, we as the EU want to make them one they do not want to refuse,” Lange said. However, he cautioned, “As with all projects of this magnitude, we will see if the large sums of investment can be realized. If ‘Global Gateway’ is not to remain a pipe dream, we will have to pull a lot of levers together.”
Criticism came from CSU MEP Markus Ferber: “A large part of the money comes from existing programs or depends on private funding,” Ferber said. “A big deal looks different. China will not freeze in fear,” Ferber said. Reinhard Bütikofer, chairman of the European Parliament’s China delegation, said that “nails can now be put quickly in place”. Digital connectivity and green technologies, in particular, must now be the focus, Bütikofer said.
“Global Gateway” has the potential to make the EU a more effective geopolitical actor, stressed Michael Clauß, the German EU ambassador and former German ambassador to China. The top diplomat had stepped up his advocacy of the infrastructure initiative in recent weeks. “For many partner countries, the offer of rules- and values-based cooperation at eye level will be an attractive alternative to China’s Belt & Road Initiative,” Clauß said.
EU External Relations Commissioner Josep Borrell said: “A stronger Europe in the world means a determined engagement with our partners based on our core principles.” The Global Gateway reaffirms the vision of a network of connections based on internationally recognized standards and rules.
The coalition agreement between the SPD, the Greens, and the FDP presented last week already endorses the Brussels infrastructure initiative. “We want to actively advocate infrastructure development according to high-quality international standards. The EU’s Global Gateways Initiative is an important instrument in this regard,” the paper states.
The Federation of German Industries (BDI) praised the initiative from Brussels. As Chinese infrastructure offers to other countries often had no competition, it was “high time to offer pragmatic alternative offers according to European standards”, said Wolfgang Niedermark, member of the BDI’s Executive Board. “Global Gateway” is an “alternative to be taken seriously”, Niedermark said. “Especially in the Balkans and North Africa, there is a great need for investment in the areas of digitalization, energy, transport, and health.” Niedermark also called for quick concrete planning for projects. For this, he said, the pledged financial resources must be made available quickly.
The German Association of the Automotive Industry also sees the initiative as an important approach to raw material supply and raw material security for Germany and Europe. “In the interests of conserving resources and reducing dependence on third countries, an efficient circular economy for critical raw materials must be established,” said VDA President Hildegard Müller. “The EU’s new Global Gateway initiative helps on this path.” For companies, the strategy also offers additional investment opportunities, especially in Africa, Müller said.
Relatively eloquent – and clearly angry: The English-language Global Times published a piece shortly after “Global Gateway” was presented that did not leave a good hair on the EU initiative. In order for the strategy “not to be forgotten again”, the EU would have to demonstrate its ability to finance various projects. The budgeted funds go far beyond the bloc’s “financing capacity,” Global Times wrote, citing analysts. “Global Gateway” builds “on the West’s incessant efforts to portray its version of the BRI as morally superior.” This, they said, is hypocrisy.
There was also room for a general swipe at Brussels, saying the EU was “a loosely bound grouping where the distribution of national interests within the 27-member bloc is quite divided.” The EU infrastructure plan is, therefore, more prone to failure, Global Times observers attested.
Maritime transport is considered the most difficult sector to decarbonize in the transport sector. Similar to aviation, electrification is not (yet) a solution due to the lack of battery technologies with sufficient capacity. Alternative lower-emission propulsion options such as hydrogen, synthetic fuels, or ammonia are being tested but are not yet marketable. However, the maritime sector is still lagging well behind aviation in other areas as well.
While emissions from aviation have been limited and priced by the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) since 2012, it is only since this summer that there have been serious ambitions to extend the ETS to ships through the Fit for 55 package. The situation is similar globally: in 2016, the offsetting mechanism for international civil aviation CORSIA was adopted, through which airlines are to compensate for their emissions. The pilot phase, in which the EU member states are participating, has been running since this year. A counterpart for shipping is not yet in sight.
With the Commission’s proposal for a new regulation (Fuel EU Maritime), the Brussels authority has at least outlined the approach of a decarbonization path for shipping. From the middle of the decade, the CO2 limits for commercial cargo ships of 5,000 tons or more are to be tightened: by two percent in 2025 and by 6 percent in 2030. In this way, shipowners and shipbuilders are to be forced to use lower-emission fuels. The long-term goal: to reduce overall emissions by at least 50 percent by 2050 compared to 2008.
By 2050, however, the entire continent should be climate-neutral – including shipping. Europe has committed itself to this in order to comply with the Paris climate targets. Delphine Gozillon, shipping policy officer at the NGO Transport and Environment (T&E), agrees that progress must be made more quickly than has been planned so far. The Commission’s proposal is so unambitious the regulation will only lead to negligible greenhouse gas reductions over the next 20 years.
In the TRAN Committee of the EU Parliament, Europe’s transport policy-makers now have the opportunity to tighten up the Commission‘s proposal. However, it will probably take a while before it becomes clear whether the level of ambition is rising. On Wednesday, there was a first “exchange of views” in the Committee, which, however, was not very productive. EPP rapporteur Jörgen Warborn from Sweden only called on the Commission to discuss the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in more detail and pointed out the danger of carbon leakage through excessive cuts for the industry.
The summit of the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) was similarly sluggish. The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) met in London last week to discuss a tightening of the IMO’s current target of halving emissions by 2050. The outcome of the summit: next year, states and organizations will be able to submit concrete proposals for a revised decarbonization strategy, to be voted on in 2023. A fast process looks different. The Guardian reported that there was also a proposal for a resolution on zero emissions by 2050. However, it did not find a majority.
A missed opportunity, comments Beate Klünder, transport officer at NABU. She also criticizes the fact that the 175 IMO member states were unable to agree on a pricing model for CO2 from shipping. The industry had demanded a price surcharge of $2 per ton of fuel, while the Marshall Islands, which are particularly affected by climate change, had demanded 100 dollars. The EU had advocated a market-based approach, which, however, also failed to find a majority.
However, higher ambitions are urgently needed, also for the EU climate targets. This is because 3 to 4 percent of EU-wide emissions are emitted by ships that either arrive or depart from European ports, writes the Commission. Globally, the figure is about 2 to 3 percent. The IMO estimates that these emissions could more than double by 2050 if nothing is done about it.
And because the IMO itself is apparently not in a position to do anything, Jacob Armstrong from T&E calls, in an interview with Europe.Table, for more countries and organizations outside the IMO to commit to more climate protection in shipping. As an example, he cites the self-commitment of Amazon, Ikea, and Unilever to only ship their materials and products in a CO2-neutral way from 2040. Armstrong also welcomes the so-called “Clydebank Declaration”, which was adopted at COP26 in Glasgow. In this declaration, Germany, France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands, among others, committed to the expansion of emission-free maritime transport routes by 2025.
The rumor has been around for weeks, but since Tuesday, it’s official: Patrick Graichen is moving from the think tank Agora Energiewende to Robert Habeck’s Ministry of Economics and Climate Change. As State Secretary, he will accompany Germany’s transformation to climate neutrality. This is a task that he has been calling on politicians to implement quickly for many years. Now he can help shape it himself.
The inside view of political operations is nothing new for the studied economist and environmental economist, even if he most recently acted more as a watchdog and commentator from the sidelines as Executive Director of Agora Energiewende. From 2001 to 2006, Patrick Graichen was a consultant for international climate protection in the Federal Ministry for the Environment. First under the Green Minister Jürgen Trittin, later under Sigmar Gabriel of the SPD.
Subsequently, he even became head of the department for climate protection. This time the Environment Minister was Norbert Röttgen – a CDU member. Graichen was in charge of negotiating the economic instruments of the Kyoto Protocol, was involved in the EU’s climate and energy package in 2008, which also included a tightening of the ETS, and played a decisive role in the legislative process in the area of energy industry law.
The family man, therefore, does not see himself as a party-political player but as a fighter for the cause. Because his position during this time was always clear: A power supply entirely from renewable energies was “possible, safe and affordable,” according to a special report from January 2011, in which Graichen was involved.
With this view, he was far ahead of the political consensus in coal and nuclear Germany at the time. The reactor accident in Fukushima, in the wake of which Germany declared an accelerated nuclear phase-out, happened two months after the report was published. It was to be another nine years before the Coal Commission was set up to work out an end date for coal-fired power generation.
By this time, however, Graichen had long since left the Ministry of the Environment. In 2012, he left the political establishment and set up the think tank Agora Energiewende with former BMU State Secretary and companion Rainer Baake. When Baake was reappointed State Secretary, Graichen took over as Executive Director and Managing Director of the think tank.
In 2015, even before the Paris Agreement was signed, he pointed out the need to reform the energy market design, according to which climate-friendly energy sources must be promoted efficiently and those that are harmful to the climate must be priced accordingly.
For industry, however, Graichen’s appointment should be good news. He has always emphasized that the green transformation of the economy is not possible without massive government support. Even if his demand that the debt brake be relaxed for this purpose, if necessary, was not heard in the coalition negotiations: He has repeatedly tried to get across the message that the coal phase-out is also possible without an increase in electricity prices.
Graichen’s constant words of warning for a faster expansion of renewables and a faster shutdown of coal-fired power read more topical today than ever before. Early on, he recognized the international dimension of the challenge and emphasized that Germany cannot master the energy transition alone but is dependent on its European neighbors. This banal-sounding realization is not self-evident in light of the coalition agreements of 2013 and 2018.
The current coalition agreement of the traffic light should be to Graichen’s taste – at least measured by the level of ambition. His task as the responsible energy state secretary will be to push this very transformation, which he already called for as an advisor at the BMU and later as an NGO director, politically further and, above all, faster. Lukas Scheid
Three to four percent of EU-wide emissions are emitted by ships either arriving or departing from European ports. In the future, this share is likely to increase if nothing is done to decarbonize shipping. With the FuelEU Maritime Regulation, the EU Commission now wants to change this, but the proposal is not as ambitious as it needs to be. This fits in with all the global efforts to date for climate-friendly shipping, as Lukas Scheid reports.
Time and again, those responsible had postponed the official presentation of the “Global Gateway” infrastructure initiative, but now the time had come. The head of the Commission was self-confident: the program is “definitely” capable of competing with China’s Belt and Road Initiative, said Ursula von der Leyen – and gave a tip or two in the direction of the New Silk Road. Amelie Richter summarized what Brussels wants to do better than China with “Global Gateway”, in which points the Chinese have an advantage and how politics and industry reacted to the plans.
Foreign Minister-designate Annalena Baerbock also wants to speak clearly to the People’s Republic in the future. In doing so, she said, the new German government will coordinate more closely with its partners in the EU than in the past. Baerbock also announced her intention to use German embassies for climate policy. You can read more about the Green politician’s plans in the news.
What always resonated around “Global Gateway”, but was rarely openly expressed, now found a clear answer at the official presentation of the infrastructure initiative of the EU Commission: “Yes, definitely. We are in a position to do so,” EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen answered the question of whether the program could compete with China’s “Belt and Road” initiative. Various countries have had their experiences with Chinese investments, von der Leyen said. “They need better and different offers.” The EU offer involves the private sector, which does not exist in the People’s Republic. “So it is a real alternative,” the Commission chief stressed.
Brussels had been working on the competing Silk Road for a long time; the publication date was postponed several times. However, the result now reads impressively and has met with much approval from politics and business. As with many EU initiatives, it remains to be seen how the implementation will progress in concrete terms. The envisaged program is ambitious: Up to €300 billion are to be mobilized by 2027. To this end, the EU Commission is bringing on board not only the member states but also the private sector as well as the European Investment Bank and other European financial institutions, including, for example, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
The most important questions about “Global Gateway” at a glance:
Part of the envisaged billion euro investment is to come from the European Fund for Sustainable Development Plus (EFDS+) – around €135 billion. EFDS+ is an existing EU budget fund, which in turn is filled in various ways. Not all the financial instruments for it are ready yet. The largest part of the “Global Gateway” initiative, around €145 billion, is for “planned investments by European financial and development finance institutions“. Another €18 billion are to be raised “under other EU external assistance programs”. In addition, billions more are to come from the private sector.
That remains questionable – this is because, in purely numerical terms, the BRI dwarfs “Global Gateway”. Beijing’s total spending on the New Silk Road could amount to $1.2 to $1.3 trillion by 2027, according to Morgan Stanley. The People’s Republic also has an advantage in that it is already on the ground in many emerging and developing economies now targeted by the EU. Moreover, because the BRI involves China’s state-owned commercial banks, Chinese companies are able to make even politically or commercially risky investments without taking on much risk. This is a security that European companies will not have.
EU infrastructure projects abroad. The focus will be on digitalization and green transformation. As examples of projects worthy of support, von der Leyen mentioned the use of green hydrogen and the expansion of railway lines and internet connections. For example, the Western Balkans should be better connected to each other and to the EU via rail links, stressed Enlargement Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi. Accordingly, €30 billion have been earmarked for this purpose. Within the framework of the Eastern Partnership, of which Ukraine is a member, the laying of a data cable under the Black Sea is planned. The expansion of fiber-optic networks is also to be expanded in Latin America.
In addition, the expansion of the health care system and the support of the education system in the emerging and developing countries are planned within the framework of “Global Gateway”. The EU also wants to become active in China’s neighborhood: Thus, a connectivity partnership with the Southeast Asian confederation Asean is intended. The EU also wants to promote the strengthening of “links with neighboring strategic corridors in sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia”, according to the paper.
Unlike China, the EU will primarily award grants to participating countries, said Jutta Urpilainen, the EU commissioner responsible for international partnerships. This is to avoid credit traps. Von der Leyen stressed that in view of the EU funding, the partner countries need not fear accumulating unsustainable mountains of debt. In addition, there is transparency in EU aid. The projects implemented remain in the hands of the respective countries and should achieve concrete results on the ground, said von der Leyen.
The EU’s thrust is also clearly formulated in its official communication, not without a nod towards Beijing: “Without adequate transparency, good governance and high standards, projects can be poorly selected or planned, remain incomplete, or fuel corruption”. The partner countries are thus supposed to have to abide by rules, which could make China’s investments seem less binding by comparison. However, it is in terms of environmental standards that “Global Gateway” could be attractive: In several BRI countries, there is criticism of the pollution associated with some Chinese projects.
The chairman of the EU Parliament’s trade committee, Bernd Lange (SPD), welcomed the initiative as a “contribution to the global fight against climate change and poverty”. “Instead of making states an offer they cannot refuse, we as the EU want to make them one they do not want to refuse,” Lange said. However, he cautioned, “As with all projects of this magnitude, we will see if the large sums of investment can be realized. If ‘Global Gateway’ is not to remain a pipe dream, we will have to pull a lot of levers together.”
Criticism came from CSU MEP Markus Ferber: “A large part of the money comes from existing programs or depends on private funding,” Ferber said. “A big deal looks different. China will not freeze in fear,” Ferber said. Reinhard Bütikofer, chairman of the European Parliament’s China delegation, said that “nails can now be put quickly in place”. Digital connectivity and green technologies, in particular, must now be the focus, Bütikofer said.
“Global Gateway” has the potential to make the EU a more effective geopolitical actor, stressed Michael Clauß, the German EU ambassador and former German ambassador to China. The top diplomat had stepped up his advocacy of the infrastructure initiative in recent weeks. “For many partner countries, the offer of rules- and values-based cooperation at eye level will be an attractive alternative to China’s Belt & Road Initiative,” Clauß said.
EU External Relations Commissioner Josep Borrell said: “A stronger Europe in the world means a determined engagement with our partners based on our core principles.” The Global Gateway reaffirms the vision of a network of connections based on internationally recognized standards and rules.
The coalition agreement between the SPD, the Greens, and the FDP presented last week already endorses the Brussels infrastructure initiative. “We want to actively advocate infrastructure development according to high-quality international standards. The EU’s Global Gateways Initiative is an important instrument in this regard,” the paper states.
The Federation of German Industries (BDI) praised the initiative from Brussels. As Chinese infrastructure offers to other countries often had no competition, it was “high time to offer pragmatic alternative offers according to European standards”, said Wolfgang Niedermark, member of the BDI’s Executive Board. “Global Gateway” is an “alternative to be taken seriously”, Niedermark said. “Especially in the Balkans and North Africa, there is a great need for investment in the areas of digitalization, energy, transport, and health.” Niedermark also called for quick concrete planning for projects. For this, he said, the pledged financial resources must be made available quickly.
The German Association of the Automotive Industry also sees the initiative as an important approach to raw material supply and raw material security for Germany and Europe. “In the interests of conserving resources and reducing dependence on third countries, an efficient circular economy for critical raw materials must be established,” said VDA President Hildegard Müller. “The EU’s new Global Gateway initiative helps on this path.” For companies, the strategy also offers additional investment opportunities, especially in Africa, Müller said.
Relatively eloquent – and clearly angry: The English-language Global Times published a piece shortly after “Global Gateway” was presented that did not leave a good hair on the EU initiative. In order for the strategy “not to be forgotten again”, the EU would have to demonstrate its ability to finance various projects. The budgeted funds go far beyond the bloc’s “financing capacity,” Global Times wrote, citing analysts. “Global Gateway” builds “on the West’s incessant efforts to portray its version of the BRI as morally superior.” This, they said, is hypocrisy.
There was also room for a general swipe at Brussels, saying the EU was “a loosely bound grouping where the distribution of national interests within the 27-member bloc is quite divided.” The EU infrastructure plan is, therefore, more prone to failure, Global Times observers attested.
Maritime transport is considered the most difficult sector to decarbonize in the transport sector. Similar to aviation, electrification is not (yet) a solution due to the lack of battery technologies with sufficient capacity. Alternative lower-emission propulsion options such as hydrogen, synthetic fuels, or ammonia are being tested but are not yet marketable. However, the maritime sector is still lagging well behind aviation in other areas as well.
While emissions from aviation have been limited and priced by the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) since 2012, it is only since this summer that there have been serious ambitions to extend the ETS to ships through the Fit for 55 package. The situation is similar globally: in 2016, the offsetting mechanism for international civil aviation CORSIA was adopted, through which airlines are to compensate for their emissions. The pilot phase, in which the EU member states are participating, has been running since this year. A counterpart for shipping is not yet in sight.
With the Commission’s proposal for a new regulation (Fuel EU Maritime), the Brussels authority has at least outlined the approach of a decarbonization path for shipping. From the middle of the decade, the CO2 limits for commercial cargo ships of 5,000 tons or more are to be tightened: by two percent in 2025 and by 6 percent in 2030. In this way, shipowners and shipbuilders are to be forced to use lower-emission fuels. The long-term goal: to reduce overall emissions by at least 50 percent by 2050 compared to 2008.
By 2050, however, the entire continent should be climate-neutral – including shipping. Europe has committed itself to this in order to comply with the Paris climate targets. Delphine Gozillon, shipping policy officer at the NGO Transport and Environment (T&E), agrees that progress must be made more quickly than has been planned so far. The Commission’s proposal is so unambitious the regulation will only lead to negligible greenhouse gas reductions over the next 20 years.
In the TRAN Committee of the EU Parliament, Europe’s transport policy-makers now have the opportunity to tighten up the Commission‘s proposal. However, it will probably take a while before it becomes clear whether the level of ambition is rising. On Wednesday, there was a first “exchange of views” in the Committee, which, however, was not very productive. EPP rapporteur Jörgen Warborn from Sweden only called on the Commission to discuss the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in more detail and pointed out the danger of carbon leakage through excessive cuts for the industry.
The summit of the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) was similarly sluggish. The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) met in London last week to discuss a tightening of the IMO’s current target of halving emissions by 2050. The outcome of the summit: next year, states and organizations will be able to submit concrete proposals for a revised decarbonization strategy, to be voted on in 2023. A fast process looks different. The Guardian reported that there was also a proposal for a resolution on zero emissions by 2050. However, it did not find a majority.
A missed opportunity, comments Beate Klünder, transport officer at NABU. She also criticizes the fact that the 175 IMO member states were unable to agree on a pricing model for CO2 from shipping. The industry had demanded a price surcharge of $2 per ton of fuel, while the Marshall Islands, which are particularly affected by climate change, had demanded 100 dollars. The EU had advocated a market-based approach, which, however, also failed to find a majority.
However, higher ambitions are urgently needed, also for the EU climate targets. This is because 3 to 4 percent of EU-wide emissions are emitted by ships that either arrive or depart from European ports, writes the Commission. Globally, the figure is about 2 to 3 percent. The IMO estimates that these emissions could more than double by 2050 if nothing is done about it.
And because the IMO itself is apparently not in a position to do anything, Jacob Armstrong from T&E calls, in an interview with Europe.Table, for more countries and organizations outside the IMO to commit to more climate protection in shipping. As an example, he cites the self-commitment of Amazon, Ikea, and Unilever to only ship their materials and products in a CO2-neutral way from 2040. Armstrong also welcomes the so-called “Clydebank Declaration”, which was adopted at COP26 in Glasgow. In this declaration, Germany, France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands, among others, committed to the expansion of emission-free maritime transport routes by 2025.
The rumor has been around for weeks, but since Tuesday, it’s official: Patrick Graichen is moving from the think tank Agora Energiewende to Robert Habeck’s Ministry of Economics and Climate Change. As State Secretary, he will accompany Germany’s transformation to climate neutrality. This is a task that he has been calling on politicians to implement quickly for many years. Now he can help shape it himself.
The inside view of political operations is nothing new for the studied economist and environmental economist, even if he most recently acted more as a watchdog and commentator from the sidelines as Executive Director of Agora Energiewende. From 2001 to 2006, Patrick Graichen was a consultant for international climate protection in the Federal Ministry for the Environment. First under the Green Minister Jürgen Trittin, later under Sigmar Gabriel of the SPD.
Subsequently, he even became head of the department for climate protection. This time the Environment Minister was Norbert Röttgen – a CDU member. Graichen was in charge of negotiating the economic instruments of the Kyoto Protocol, was involved in the EU’s climate and energy package in 2008, which also included a tightening of the ETS, and played a decisive role in the legislative process in the area of energy industry law.
The family man, therefore, does not see himself as a party-political player but as a fighter for the cause. Because his position during this time was always clear: A power supply entirely from renewable energies was “possible, safe and affordable,” according to a special report from January 2011, in which Graichen was involved.
With this view, he was far ahead of the political consensus in coal and nuclear Germany at the time. The reactor accident in Fukushima, in the wake of which Germany declared an accelerated nuclear phase-out, happened two months after the report was published. It was to be another nine years before the Coal Commission was set up to work out an end date for coal-fired power generation.
By this time, however, Graichen had long since left the Ministry of the Environment. In 2012, he left the political establishment and set up the think tank Agora Energiewende with former BMU State Secretary and companion Rainer Baake. When Baake was reappointed State Secretary, Graichen took over as Executive Director and Managing Director of the think tank.
In 2015, even before the Paris Agreement was signed, he pointed out the need to reform the energy market design, according to which climate-friendly energy sources must be promoted efficiently and those that are harmful to the climate must be priced accordingly.
For industry, however, Graichen’s appointment should be good news. He has always emphasized that the green transformation of the economy is not possible without massive government support. Even if his demand that the debt brake be relaxed for this purpose, if necessary, was not heard in the coalition negotiations: He has repeatedly tried to get across the message that the coal phase-out is also possible without an increase in electricity prices.
Graichen’s constant words of warning for a faster expansion of renewables and a faster shutdown of coal-fired power read more topical today than ever before. Early on, he recognized the international dimension of the challenge and emphasized that Germany cannot master the energy transition alone but is dependent on its European neighbors. This banal-sounding realization is not self-evident in light of the coalition agreements of 2013 and 2018.
The current coalition agreement of the traffic light should be to Graichen’s taste – at least measured by the level of ambition. His task as the responsible energy state secretary will be to push this very transformation, which he already called for as an advisor at the BMU and later as an NGO director, politically further and, above all, faster. Lukas Scheid
