An embargo on oil imports by ship, but not via pipelines – that is the compromise proposal of the EU Commission on the planned oil embargo against Russia. However, this proposal has not yet led to a breakthrough with Hungary’s resistance getting in the way of a consensus on the sixth sanctions package. The EU ambassadors want to try for another push before the heads of state and government arrive in Brussels today for the extraordinary summit. Stephan Israel gives an outlook.
“Predominantly” decarbonized electricity sectors by 2035 – that is the goal that the G7 countries committed to at the end of the climate, energy, and environment ministers’ meeting in Berlin on Friday. The use of the term “predominantly” hints at some constraints. Nevertheless, David Ryfisch of Germanwatch, for example, speaks of progress because they had previously not wanted to commit to a specific year. On the other hand, there is no specific date for the coal phase-out, to which the group of states collectively committed for the first time. When asked about this, German Economic Affairs and Climate Action Minister Robert Habeck remained vague, as Lukas Scheid reports.
How can the energy efficiency of buildings be increased? Hans-Jochen Luhmann wrote his doctorate on this question in 1972. He had already been working on the consequences of environmental degradation in the late 1960s and was thus ahead of his time in Germany. In today’s Profile, you can learn more about Luhmann, who is now 77 years old and works as a senior scientist at the Wuppertal Institute, and his long career.
A meeting of EU ambassadors on the controversial embargo on Russian oil on Sunday evening did not bring the hoped-for breakthrough. The Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) therefore wants to make another attempt today before the start of the EU summit at 4 p.m. in Brussels. A compromise proposal from the EU Commission is on the table: The oil embargo should initially apply only to Russian oil transported by ship. Oil transported by pipeline would be exempt, specifically the huge Druzhba pipeline.
EU diplomats defended the compromise by saying that more than two-thirds of Russian oil is transported to the EU by sea. With the compromise proposal, the EU Commission wants to bring Hungary on board, which obtains Russian oil almost exclusively via the Druzhba pipeline and has blocked the entire sixth sanctions package. In a letter to EU Council President Charles Michel last Wednesday, Hungary’s head of government Viktor Orbán had even urged that the issue of sanctions not be discussed at the summit.
The original Commission proposal was to end imports of Russian crude oil within six months and oil products within eight months. Hungary and Slovakia, as landlocked countries without a sea connection, would have been given 20 months. The futile negotiations of the past weeks, especially with Budapest, revolved around even longer transition periods and demands for billions of euros in subsidies for the conversion in Hungary.
The starting position is different with the compromise proposal of the EU Commission, EU diplomats said on Sunday evening. There is the will of all member states to phase out or ban the import of Russian oil. The only question is how the embargo will be designed. It was important to consider the different geographical positions of the EU member states and to continue working towards an agreement, adding that there was still time before the heads of state and government arrived this afternoon. Whether a last-minute solution is possible remains open, however.
What are the obstacles to an agreement? The compromise proposal raises new questions, such as that of the “level playing field”. Hungary would get cheap oil from Russia, while other EU states would have to buy expensive supplies on the world market. Whether Hungary could resell oil or oil products would also have to be clarified. The dispute over the oil embargo is thus likely to overshadow the summit. In any case, not all capitals were convinced in advance that EU Council President Charles Michel had been well advised when he convened the extraordinary EU summit. Instead of demonstrating unity from Brussels, it could become clear that the EU’s unity vis-à-vis aggressor Russia is crumbling and that it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up the pressure on Vladimir Putin.
This is also reflected in the fact that Italy, Cyprus, and Hungary, for example, are pushing for the search for a ceasefire in Ukraine to be included as a priority in the conclusions. The ban on transporting Russian oil by tanker outside the EU is also to be dropped in response to Greek pressure. Also on the back burner is a ban on Russian citizens buying real estate in the EU. Poland and the Baltic states want to increase pressure and place the emphasis on more determined military support for Ukraine. The Baltic states and Eastern Europeans do not think much of the telephone diplomacy between German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron and Vladimir Putin. There will certainly be long discussions, as this also involves emotional issues, according to an EU diplomat.
Charles Michel must hope that, contrary to expectations, an agreement on the sanctions issue will be reached at the summit because otherwise, no real results can be expected at the meeting. In addition to the attack on Ukraine, the EU Council President also wants to talk about energy, food safety, and defense, as he writes in his invitation letter. And as it is almost a tradition, Volodymyr Zelenskiy will also be joined at the beginning. Some heads of state and government are likely to fear plain language and criticism from Kyiv.
The most important concern is to provide Ukraine with sufficient liquidity, Charles Michel said. “The European Council reaffirms the EU’s continued commitment to support the Ukrainian government regarding its immediate liquidity needs,” the draft conclusions read.
There is talk of macro-financial assistance amounting to €9 billion this year alone. Germany sees itself playing a leading role in the liquidity assistance. Financing until the end of the year has been secured. According to an EU diplomat, however, the exact split between loans and credits is unclear, and discussions on reconstruction are still in their infancy. However, a personal exchange between the heads of state and government is important even at this early stage. In other member states, the discussion is still premature. Reconstruction could only be discussed after the end of the war.
The conclusions speak of a platform as a new solidarity instrument to be funded by contributions from the EU and the member states. One point of contention is already emerging, namely the question of how the EU will raise the additional funds needed. German Finance Minister Christian Lindner has already taken a clear stance against a new edition based on the model of the COVID recovery fund RRF. The EU Commission’s proposal to use confiscated Russian assets for the reconstruction of Ukraine will also be a topic. Dealing with confiscated Russian assets is sensitive because the legal situation is different in each member state, EU diplomats said. However, coordination at the EU level is conceivable.
Once again, the focus is also likely to be on high energy prices. However, the fronts here are largely unchanged. Germany is one of the countries that take a critical view of intervention in electricity market design. The focus on the second day of the summit on Tuesday is likely to be the discussion on global food security. Moussa Faki, chairman of the African Union, is to be connected via video link. With Eric Bonse and Till Hoppe
Last Tuesday, Robert Habeck’s Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action announced its intention to expand the number of coal-fired power plants in reserve to prepare for a possible end to Russian gas supplies. At the meeting of G7 energy, climate, and environment ministers under the German presidency on Friday, it was made clear once again that this was only a precautionary and temporary measure. In the 40-page final communiqué, the responsible heads of department of the largest Western industrialized nations agreed on a “predominantly” decarbonized electricity sector by 2035.
“Predominantly” because not all G7 countries see themselves in a position to completely replace fossil fuels by 2035. Last year, the final communiqué of the climate and energy ministers under the British G7 presidency still stated that they wanted to achieve this goal “in the 2030s”. Therefore, David Ryfisch, head of the International Climate Policy team at Germanwatch, sees this year’s meeting as progress. In perspective, this softening must indeed be dropped, Ryfisch tells Europe.Table, but not much could be done with Japan and Italy this year.
Another restriction relates to the phase-out of coal. For the first time, the group of states has pledged to collectively phase out coal-fired power generation. However, the exact target date is missing. When asked, German Economic Affairs and Climate Action Minister Robert Habeck confirmed on Friday that the coal phase-out would go hand in hand with the 2035 target for decarbonized power generation. However, he again remained vague: Both together would mean that “the coal phase-out must be well advanced in all G7 countries in the 2030s”. So no coal phase-out after all?
This could refer to a formulation in the final communiqué. It only refers to a phase-out of so-called “unabated” coal-fired power generation. Modern coal-fired power plants in which CO2 emissions are captured using carbon capture technologies would not be affected and could therefore continue to operate. That’s not ideal, says Ryfisch of Germanwatch. “But our bet is that CCS is not cost-competitive in any way so far compared to renewables.” Here, the climate policy expert says, the US and Japan have blocked. “Looking at the mid-terms in the US, there wasn’t more in it here either.”
In addition, the G7 countries want to end direct and state financing of fossil fuels by the end of this year. For Japan, this is the first time that the country has committed to such a goal. But from Germany’s point of view, this also represents another U-turn. Just last week, during his trip to Africa, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz promoted close cooperation with Senegal on gas production. In return, Scholz also announced the correction of the policy of no longer investing in fossil deposits. “The announcements of the Chancellor do not fit this and must be taken back,” demands Ryfisch. Especially since such gas projects would do more harm than good for Senegal in terms of energy policy – unlike targeted support for the expansion of renewable energies.
In the transport sector, the G7 ministers agreed to decarbonize road transport “to a large extent” by the end of the decade by “significantly” increasing the number of zero-emission vehicles on the roads. The move away from internal combustion engines is to be accelerated by expanding charging points for zero-emission fuels. This has been a “sensitive issue”, Habeck stressed – “sometimes too sensitive”. However, the climate targets cannot be achieved without a structural change in the transport sector, he said.
For the decarbonization of industry, the Industrial Decarbonization Agenda and a Hydrogen Action Pact (G7-HAP) were set up. The former consists of a criteria grid of values and standard systems designed to make industry’s decarbonization efforts measurable and comparable. It also includes a common definition of “near” zero-emission production of steel and cement and a “policy toolbox” for industrial decarbonization. Accordingly, emissions of 50 to 400 kilograms of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per ton of steel produced are considered “near zero emission material production”. For cement, the figure is 40 to 125 kilograms of CO2e per ton.
The G7 HAP is intended to enable the ramp-up of green hydrogen and its derivatives but also to ensure their availability in sectors that are particularly difficult to decarbonize. The regulatory framework required for this is to be accelerated, and common standards for production, trade, transport, and use are to be created.
Energy and climate ministers also held initial discussions on establishing a climate club. In the process, according to the final communiqué, negotiators discussed how to share “best practices” on decarbonization, how to make efforts to reduce emissions comparable, and how to prevent carbon leakage. Discussions are supposed to continue within the G20 framework and jointly with other emerging economies.
In parallel to the agreements at the G7 level, Germany and the USA have agreed to cooperate more closely on energy and climate protection. German-American expert working groups are to cooperate on a permanent basis in four areas: The focus is on the development of the offshore wind energy sector, the issue of hydrogen, transportation without greenhouse gas emissions, and cooperation with developing and emerging countries.
With their cooperation, both countries wanted to encourage other countries to also take advantage of the opportunities offered by the energy transition, according to the joint declaration of intent on a climate and energy partnership. The agreement builds on a collaboration launched by then-Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) and US President Joe Biden last summer. With dpa
It became clear to Hans-Jochen Luhmann that the basis of human life was under massive threat at an early age. In 1968, during a language stay in London before his studies, he immersed himself in various books on environmental problems. Above all, “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson opened his eyes at that time. The topic of environmental destruction was not yet a major focus in Germany at the time, but it was in English-language literature.
The senior scientist, who is now 77 years old, has dedicated his long career to what is now probably the greatest environmental threat to humankind – climate change. He became involved with energy efficiency at an early stage, thus occupying the topic in the early 1970s. After studying mathematics, economics, and philosophy, he earned his doctorate with a thesis on measures to increase the energy efficiency of buildings.
That was in 1972 – shortly after the Willy Brandt government had adopted its environmental program and declared the “preservation of a healthy and balanced environment” to be one of the “existential issues of mankind”. Hans-Jochen Luhmann’s research was right on the pulse of the times.
After a few years in an engineering office, the Wuppertal Institute became Luhmann’s professional home: “It was only because the Wuppertal Institute existed that I saw it as promising to get involved in this field.” He wants to turn the crucial screws to give politicians the right advice in the fight against climate change. A task that is becoming more and more urgent every year – alone the flood disasters of the past 20 years in Germany show that.
And yet it is also a task that often enough holds setbacks and failures in store. For two decades, for example, he has been trying with all his might to bring the climate issue to the attention of important institutions, says Luhmann. He is also concerned about existing standards, for example for new building construction: “The safety of houses against storms and precipitation is not protected under regulations currently in force.”
For 20 years, German policymakers had not chosen any real option to phase out fossil fuels. On the other hand, Germany has very potent research organizations such as the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. “They have the ability to push innovative technologies.” As a result, there has been great progress in renewable energy. With regard to the new climate ministry under Robert Habeck, Luhmann sees a positive development. “This is now obviously a ministry leadership that is determined.” Marvin Richter
An embargo on oil imports by ship, but not via pipelines – that is the compromise proposal of the EU Commission on the planned oil embargo against Russia. However, this proposal has not yet led to a breakthrough with Hungary’s resistance getting in the way of a consensus on the sixth sanctions package. The EU ambassadors want to try for another push before the heads of state and government arrive in Brussels today for the extraordinary summit. Stephan Israel gives an outlook.
“Predominantly” decarbonized electricity sectors by 2035 – that is the goal that the G7 countries committed to at the end of the climate, energy, and environment ministers’ meeting in Berlin on Friday. The use of the term “predominantly” hints at some constraints. Nevertheless, David Ryfisch of Germanwatch, for example, speaks of progress because they had previously not wanted to commit to a specific year. On the other hand, there is no specific date for the coal phase-out, to which the group of states collectively committed for the first time. When asked about this, German Economic Affairs and Climate Action Minister Robert Habeck remained vague, as Lukas Scheid reports.
How can the energy efficiency of buildings be increased? Hans-Jochen Luhmann wrote his doctorate on this question in 1972. He had already been working on the consequences of environmental degradation in the late 1960s and was thus ahead of his time in Germany. In today’s Profile, you can learn more about Luhmann, who is now 77 years old and works as a senior scientist at the Wuppertal Institute, and his long career.
A meeting of EU ambassadors on the controversial embargo on Russian oil on Sunday evening did not bring the hoped-for breakthrough. The Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) therefore wants to make another attempt today before the start of the EU summit at 4 p.m. in Brussels. A compromise proposal from the EU Commission is on the table: The oil embargo should initially apply only to Russian oil transported by ship. Oil transported by pipeline would be exempt, specifically the huge Druzhba pipeline.
EU diplomats defended the compromise by saying that more than two-thirds of Russian oil is transported to the EU by sea. With the compromise proposal, the EU Commission wants to bring Hungary on board, which obtains Russian oil almost exclusively via the Druzhba pipeline and has blocked the entire sixth sanctions package. In a letter to EU Council President Charles Michel last Wednesday, Hungary’s head of government Viktor Orbán had even urged that the issue of sanctions not be discussed at the summit.
The original Commission proposal was to end imports of Russian crude oil within six months and oil products within eight months. Hungary and Slovakia, as landlocked countries without a sea connection, would have been given 20 months. The futile negotiations of the past weeks, especially with Budapest, revolved around even longer transition periods and demands for billions of euros in subsidies for the conversion in Hungary.
The starting position is different with the compromise proposal of the EU Commission, EU diplomats said on Sunday evening. There is the will of all member states to phase out or ban the import of Russian oil. The only question is how the embargo will be designed. It was important to consider the different geographical positions of the EU member states and to continue working towards an agreement, adding that there was still time before the heads of state and government arrived this afternoon. Whether a last-minute solution is possible remains open, however.
What are the obstacles to an agreement? The compromise proposal raises new questions, such as that of the “level playing field”. Hungary would get cheap oil from Russia, while other EU states would have to buy expensive supplies on the world market. Whether Hungary could resell oil or oil products would also have to be clarified. The dispute over the oil embargo is thus likely to overshadow the summit. In any case, not all capitals were convinced in advance that EU Council President Charles Michel had been well advised when he convened the extraordinary EU summit. Instead of demonstrating unity from Brussels, it could become clear that the EU’s unity vis-à-vis aggressor Russia is crumbling and that it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up the pressure on Vladimir Putin.
This is also reflected in the fact that Italy, Cyprus, and Hungary, for example, are pushing for the search for a ceasefire in Ukraine to be included as a priority in the conclusions. The ban on transporting Russian oil by tanker outside the EU is also to be dropped in response to Greek pressure. Also on the back burner is a ban on Russian citizens buying real estate in the EU. Poland and the Baltic states want to increase pressure and place the emphasis on more determined military support for Ukraine. The Baltic states and Eastern Europeans do not think much of the telephone diplomacy between German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron and Vladimir Putin. There will certainly be long discussions, as this also involves emotional issues, according to an EU diplomat.
Charles Michel must hope that, contrary to expectations, an agreement on the sanctions issue will be reached at the summit because otherwise, no real results can be expected at the meeting. In addition to the attack on Ukraine, the EU Council President also wants to talk about energy, food safety, and defense, as he writes in his invitation letter. And as it is almost a tradition, Volodymyr Zelenskiy will also be joined at the beginning. Some heads of state and government are likely to fear plain language and criticism from Kyiv.
The most important concern is to provide Ukraine with sufficient liquidity, Charles Michel said. “The European Council reaffirms the EU’s continued commitment to support the Ukrainian government regarding its immediate liquidity needs,” the draft conclusions read.
There is talk of macro-financial assistance amounting to €9 billion this year alone. Germany sees itself playing a leading role in the liquidity assistance. Financing until the end of the year has been secured. According to an EU diplomat, however, the exact split between loans and credits is unclear, and discussions on reconstruction are still in their infancy. However, a personal exchange between the heads of state and government is important even at this early stage. In other member states, the discussion is still premature. Reconstruction could only be discussed after the end of the war.
The conclusions speak of a platform as a new solidarity instrument to be funded by contributions from the EU and the member states. One point of contention is already emerging, namely the question of how the EU will raise the additional funds needed. German Finance Minister Christian Lindner has already taken a clear stance against a new edition based on the model of the COVID recovery fund RRF. The EU Commission’s proposal to use confiscated Russian assets for the reconstruction of Ukraine will also be a topic. Dealing with confiscated Russian assets is sensitive because the legal situation is different in each member state, EU diplomats said. However, coordination at the EU level is conceivable.
Once again, the focus is also likely to be on high energy prices. However, the fronts here are largely unchanged. Germany is one of the countries that take a critical view of intervention in electricity market design. The focus on the second day of the summit on Tuesday is likely to be the discussion on global food security. Moussa Faki, chairman of the African Union, is to be connected via video link. With Eric Bonse and Till Hoppe
Last Tuesday, Robert Habeck’s Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action announced its intention to expand the number of coal-fired power plants in reserve to prepare for a possible end to Russian gas supplies. At the meeting of G7 energy, climate, and environment ministers under the German presidency on Friday, it was made clear once again that this was only a precautionary and temporary measure. In the 40-page final communiqué, the responsible heads of department of the largest Western industrialized nations agreed on a “predominantly” decarbonized electricity sector by 2035.
“Predominantly” because not all G7 countries see themselves in a position to completely replace fossil fuels by 2035. Last year, the final communiqué of the climate and energy ministers under the British G7 presidency still stated that they wanted to achieve this goal “in the 2030s”. Therefore, David Ryfisch, head of the International Climate Policy team at Germanwatch, sees this year’s meeting as progress. In perspective, this softening must indeed be dropped, Ryfisch tells Europe.Table, but not much could be done with Japan and Italy this year.
Another restriction relates to the phase-out of coal. For the first time, the group of states has pledged to collectively phase out coal-fired power generation. However, the exact target date is missing. When asked, German Economic Affairs and Climate Action Minister Robert Habeck confirmed on Friday that the coal phase-out would go hand in hand with the 2035 target for decarbonized power generation. However, he again remained vague: Both together would mean that “the coal phase-out must be well advanced in all G7 countries in the 2030s”. So no coal phase-out after all?
This could refer to a formulation in the final communiqué. It only refers to a phase-out of so-called “unabated” coal-fired power generation. Modern coal-fired power plants in which CO2 emissions are captured using carbon capture technologies would not be affected and could therefore continue to operate. That’s not ideal, says Ryfisch of Germanwatch. “But our bet is that CCS is not cost-competitive in any way so far compared to renewables.” Here, the climate policy expert says, the US and Japan have blocked. “Looking at the mid-terms in the US, there wasn’t more in it here either.”
In addition, the G7 countries want to end direct and state financing of fossil fuels by the end of this year. For Japan, this is the first time that the country has committed to such a goal. But from Germany’s point of view, this also represents another U-turn. Just last week, during his trip to Africa, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz promoted close cooperation with Senegal on gas production. In return, Scholz also announced the correction of the policy of no longer investing in fossil deposits. “The announcements of the Chancellor do not fit this and must be taken back,” demands Ryfisch. Especially since such gas projects would do more harm than good for Senegal in terms of energy policy – unlike targeted support for the expansion of renewable energies.
In the transport sector, the G7 ministers agreed to decarbonize road transport “to a large extent” by the end of the decade by “significantly” increasing the number of zero-emission vehicles on the roads. The move away from internal combustion engines is to be accelerated by expanding charging points for zero-emission fuels. This has been a “sensitive issue”, Habeck stressed – “sometimes too sensitive”. However, the climate targets cannot be achieved without a structural change in the transport sector, he said.
For the decarbonization of industry, the Industrial Decarbonization Agenda and a Hydrogen Action Pact (G7-HAP) were set up. The former consists of a criteria grid of values and standard systems designed to make industry’s decarbonization efforts measurable and comparable. It also includes a common definition of “near” zero-emission production of steel and cement and a “policy toolbox” for industrial decarbonization. Accordingly, emissions of 50 to 400 kilograms of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per ton of steel produced are considered “near zero emission material production”. For cement, the figure is 40 to 125 kilograms of CO2e per ton.
The G7 HAP is intended to enable the ramp-up of green hydrogen and its derivatives but also to ensure their availability in sectors that are particularly difficult to decarbonize. The regulatory framework required for this is to be accelerated, and common standards for production, trade, transport, and use are to be created.
Energy and climate ministers also held initial discussions on establishing a climate club. In the process, according to the final communiqué, negotiators discussed how to share “best practices” on decarbonization, how to make efforts to reduce emissions comparable, and how to prevent carbon leakage. Discussions are supposed to continue within the G20 framework and jointly with other emerging economies.
In parallel to the agreements at the G7 level, Germany and the USA have agreed to cooperate more closely on energy and climate protection. German-American expert working groups are to cooperate on a permanent basis in four areas: The focus is on the development of the offshore wind energy sector, the issue of hydrogen, transportation without greenhouse gas emissions, and cooperation with developing and emerging countries.
With their cooperation, both countries wanted to encourage other countries to also take advantage of the opportunities offered by the energy transition, according to the joint declaration of intent on a climate and energy partnership. The agreement builds on a collaboration launched by then-Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) and US President Joe Biden last summer. With dpa
It became clear to Hans-Jochen Luhmann that the basis of human life was under massive threat at an early age. In 1968, during a language stay in London before his studies, he immersed himself in various books on environmental problems. Above all, “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson opened his eyes at that time. The topic of environmental destruction was not yet a major focus in Germany at the time, but it was in English-language literature.
The senior scientist, who is now 77 years old, has dedicated his long career to what is now probably the greatest environmental threat to humankind – climate change. He became involved with energy efficiency at an early stage, thus occupying the topic in the early 1970s. After studying mathematics, economics, and philosophy, he earned his doctorate with a thesis on measures to increase the energy efficiency of buildings.
That was in 1972 – shortly after the Willy Brandt government had adopted its environmental program and declared the “preservation of a healthy and balanced environment” to be one of the “existential issues of mankind”. Hans-Jochen Luhmann’s research was right on the pulse of the times.
After a few years in an engineering office, the Wuppertal Institute became Luhmann’s professional home: “It was only because the Wuppertal Institute existed that I saw it as promising to get involved in this field.” He wants to turn the crucial screws to give politicians the right advice in the fight against climate change. A task that is becoming more and more urgent every year – alone the flood disasters of the past 20 years in Germany show that.
And yet it is also a task that often enough holds setbacks and failures in store. For two decades, for example, he has been trying with all his might to bring the climate issue to the attention of important institutions, says Luhmann. He is also concerned about existing standards, for example for new building construction: “The safety of houses against storms and precipitation is not protected under regulations currently in force.”
For 20 years, German policymakers had not chosen any real option to phase out fossil fuels. On the other hand, Germany has very potent research organizations such as the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. “They have the ability to push innovative technologies.” As a result, there has been great progress in renewable energy. With regard to the new climate ministry under Robert Habeck, Luhmann sees a positive development. “This is now obviously a ministry leadership that is determined.” Marvin Richter
