Today and tomorrow, the eyes of Europe’s climate politicians and NGOs are on Wopke Hoekstra. The new Climate Commissioner will meet COP President Sultan Al Jaber for the first time in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday. On today’s first day of the pre-COP, issues such as climate adaptation and financing are on the agenda. In Abu Dhabi, the critically-eyed Dutchman can show for the first time whether he can make his mark in negotiating circles.
Hoekstra initially had a difficult time at the hearings in the EU Parliament due to his professional past with the Shell oil company. At the pre-COP, he will now discuss the core topics of the climate conference starting in a month’s time in a large round with other ministers. He tried to diplomatically circumvent one of these issues at the European Climate Stocktake in Brussels on Friday.
If the EU implemented the Fit for 55 package it could cut its emissions by 57 percent by 2030, Hoekstra repeated earlier calculations. He was well aware, however, that the EU did not stipulate an increase in its UN climate target beyond 55 percent in its recently adopted negotiating mandate for the COP.
The Commission should monitor non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive EU funds more strictly and provide more transparent information about the payment flows to the organizations. The Commission should also present an NGO law with a clear definition of what an NGO is. It should also disclose contracts the Commission concludes with them to the European Parliament. This is demanded in a report by Markus Pieper (CDU), which he will present to the Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT) on November 7.
The resolution is titled “transparency and accountability of non-governmental organizations funded from the EU budget.” Earlier, the Directorate General for Internal Policies presented a study on NGO funding. According to the study, non-governmental organizations received a total of €17.5 billion from the EU budget between 2020 and 2022 from the Commission or agencies. This is 4.5 percent of the funds accounted for by the Commission’s database, Financial Transparency Systems (FTS), during the period. According to the Pieper report, NGOs received €2.2 billion in 2022. The actual sum is probably much higher, as there is no definition for such organizations, it said.
The Pieper report mentions cases of “fraud and financial irregularities notably in situations with NGOs that are members of different international networks or platforms.” In such constellations, there is a risk of conflicts of interest, it says.
The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is asked to draw up a list of NGOs that have violated laws for Parliament and the European Court of Auditors (ECA). The report contends that transparency rules can be circumvented, such as when funds are passed on to third-party recipients and then the intentions of other donors are followed. The FTS database also does not provide information on how EU funds are passed on to third-party NGOs, for example, in the case of shared or indirect management, it said. The report criticizes that the FTS database only shows the disbursement of EU funds six to 18 months later. In the future, this should take no longer than six months, it said.
The report criticizes organizations that have drawn much of their funding from outside the EU for “delivering research that negatively regularly impact European industry and transport providers.” This is a reference to an NGO that has been significantly involved in legislation to phase out internal combustion engines in passenger cars and commercial vehicles, as well as Euro 7.
The report also cites an example where an NGO paid by the Commission acted in the Commission’s interests in the case of the Nature Restoration Law. Here, the “impression is given that the executive branch lobbies the legislature branch,” which would have been an inappropriate use of EU taxpayer funds. Although the Parliament had insisted, the Commission had not released the contracts with the organization in question, it said.
The resolution sets deadlines for the Commission to improve oversight and transparency:
The report also calls for transparency rules for NGOs to be tightened:
Even before it is presented to the Committee, the Pieper report is mobilizing opposition. Civil Society Europe, an umbrella organization of 22 civil society organizations based in Brussels, is asking Renew’s shadow rapporteur to ensure that the Pieper report is stopped. The letter, available to Table.Media, says Pieper is making proposals “that clearly go beyond the competence of the Committee on Budgetary Control and clearly affect citizens’ rights.”
Among them, it says, is the desire for the Court of Auditors “to issue a special report to investigate the internal democratic structures of NGOs, the direct and indirect inflows and outflows of EU and other funds. As well as to examine the extent to which these are in line with democratic and human rights and EU values.”
US President Joe Biden has set himself an ambitious goal. With billions of dollars in incentives, his government aims to establish a clean US hydrogen industry – from scratch, as they say. Currently, hydrogen still meets less than 4 percent of the US’s energy needs, and 95 percent of this is so-called gray hydrogen, produced using natural gas.
Experts are skeptical that a cost-effective and, above all, completely emission-free production can be achieved. In addition to green hydrogen (production from renewable energies), the controversial blue (production from natural gas with CCS) and pink (production from nuclear power) are also being promoted for the time being. And not least, the industry still waits for crucial clarifications from the US government.
The first step will be 7 billion US dollars from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. As the US government recently announced, the funds will initially flow into the development of seven regional hydrogen hubs. According to their projections, the incentives are expected to trigger private investment of more than 40 billion US dollars and create tens of thousands of jobs. Together, these hubs are expected to produce more than 3 million tons of clean hydrogen (green, blue, pink) annually, nearly one-third of the 2030 target.
The hubs are to be developed in the following regions:
1: California Hydrogen Hub – California; renewable energy and biomass.
2: Appalachian Hydrogen Hub – West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania; natural gas with CCS.
3: Midwest Hydrogen Hub – Illinois, Indiana, Michigan; various energy sources.
4: Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub – Texas; natural gas with CCS and renewables.
5: Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub – Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey; renewable energy and nuclear energy.
6: Heartland Hydrogen Hub – Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota; various energy sources.
7: Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub – Washington, Oregon, Montana; renewable energy.
As recently as June, the US government presented its long-awaited hydrogen strategy. The strategy envisages the production of 10 million tons of clean hydrogen annually by 2030. By 2040, the goal is 20 million tons, and a total of 50 million tons by 2050. The US government has committed itself to three goals in particular:
However, the recent 7 billion US dollars for these hubs are only a fraction of the investment needed for the US Department of Energy’s hydrogen plans, Sean O’Leary, senior researcher at the energy think tank “Ohio River Valley Institute” told Table.Media. He estimates that the sum is just 2 percent of the needed investment. Instead, O’Leary assumes that significantly more funding will come from federal tax credits – especially the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The IRA provides at least 370 billion US dollars for developing green technologies. The “45V” subsidy is particularly generous. The lower carbon emissions during production, the higher the tax credit – manufacturers can earn up to 3 US dollars per kilogram over ten years.
However, O’Leary doubts the US government’s plan will work out despite the high subsidies. “The tax credits depend on the industry also willing to make huge investments,” he says. “And there are indications that this will not be the case. At least not to the extent that the Department of Energy hopes.” That is because some of the promoted technologies are either expensive or risky, despite the subsidies, O’Leary says. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), per kilogram production costs of green hydrogen are up to 5 US dollars higher than those of blue hydrogen. The latter, however, is heavily criticized by climate activists.
“It’s extremely disappointing to see the Biden administration providing funding for hydrogen hubs that rely on fossil fuels,” says Robert Howarth, professor of ecology at the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability. He says this is true even if the CCS process captures and stores most of the emissions. “It’s simply impossible to extract, process, transport and store natural gas without some of it going into the atmosphere as methane.”
Too expensive or not clean enough – this could also jeopardize another goal of the US government in the long term: the export of hydrogen. The hydrogen strategy does not contain any concrete specifications in this regard. However, it says: “Additional longer-term opportunities include the potential for exporting clean hydrogen or hydrogen carriers and enabling energy security for our allies.”
Moreover, it is far from clear who will be eligible for the IRA tax credits. Although it has been decided that the billions in funds will be used to promote clean hydrogen, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the highest tax authority, has yet to determine the specific requirements. These could then also include minimum standards for the use of renewable energies. The sector already talks about a make-or-break moment. In other words, the IRS requirements will likely significantly determine the entire industry’s future.
This unresolved question has long since become the playground of powerful lobby groups. In large-scale advertising campaigns, they demand either particularly strict or particularly loose eligibility criteria, depending on their interests. The authorities plan to make a decision by the end of the year. Laurin Meyer, New York
The G7 have agreed on a Code of Conduct on AI. This code is expected to be published today, Monday, as Table.Media has learned from government circles. The agreement was reached during a delegation trip by Volker Wissing to the USA. The purpose of the trip of the Federal Minister for Digital Affairs and Transport to Washington and New York was to coordinate the further course of action on AI with the USA. Joint framework conditions for autonomous driving were also discussed.
The Code of Conduct is part of the G7 Hiroshima AI Process initiated by the G7 leaders. Government circles said there were some adjustments to the Code of Conduct. Wissing held talks with Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and Nathaniel Fick, US Ambassador for Cyberspace and Digital Policy, they said. It was a matter of final formulation which is why it was important for the minister to be there in person.
Feedback from NGOs and the business community would also be incorporated into the process. It was important to the German government to view the whole process as a living document so that it could be further developed within the G7. A body should also be sought that goes beyond the G7 to consolidate the process internationally. The German government, for example, is considering incorporating this into the OECD process, the sources said. The EU is also involved in the G7 Hiroshima AI process and most recently held a consultation on the guiding principles for generative Artificial Intelligence.
According to information from the government circles, it was further said that US President Joe Biden would issue an executive order on the topic of AI on Monday. This is expected to deal with how the US administration should deal with AI, for example with regard to tendering rules. That way, the government could also set standards for AI. At the international level, the US has pledged to continue supporting the G7 process on AI, it was said.
This week, Wissing will travel to the AI Safety Summit in Great Britain. The summit will focus on the global risks posed by artificial intelligence. vis
Astrid Irrgang clearly enjoys her role between two worlds. Since last year, the native Hessian has been Managing Director of the Center for International Peace Operations (ZIF) in Berlin. Here, peace experts and military personnel are not only trained but also sent to areas of operation – from Kosovo to Iraq, from Mali to Afghanistan. On behalf of the German Foreign Office.
ZIF prepares German peacekeepers for their work in multilateral missions. This requires a “networked approach,” says Irrgang, because not only should the departments of the German government and the personnel they send to a crisis area act in a coordinated manner – their activities must also be coordinated with international organizations as well as local agencies in the area of operations. Irrgang defines the “networked approach” as a “requirement to reflect jointly about the toolbox for conflict management measures and strategies – from different directions.”
Irrgang, who was born in Wiesbaden in 1974, has the ability to think across disciplinary boundaries. For her Ph.D. in history at the University of Freiburg, she analyzed the field mail of a young Wehrmacht officer: Her dissertation was titled “Vom richtigen Leben im falschen” (“Of the right life in the wrong”). The historian was guided by the question of how a hopeful high school graduate could become a sometimes cynical tank commander.
The interactions between the civilian and the military have now accompanied Irrgang at ZIF for more than a decade. In 2012, she started at West Berlin’s Ludwigkirchplatz as head of human resources before rising to deputy director in 2014 and executive director in 2022. Before that, she worked for the Federal Agency for Civic Education, among others – and, in 2008, spent several months as a visiting officer in the office of the NATO secretary general in Brussels. Working for peace, in times of war, is where Irrgang feels at home: “There are people who can translate between these worlds.”
Since the beginning of this year, she has also been one of the spokespersons on the Advisory Council on Leadership Development and Civic Education, which reports directly to Defense Minister Boris Pistorius. A year and a half after the start of the Ukraine war, it is clear to her: “A new mindset is needed that includes defensibility.” For example, she says, the change of era that Chancellor Olaf Scholz proclaimed after the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has arrived in the “security policy bubble, but not beyond it.”
Irrgang thus also sees her role in being responsible for accounting more resilient thinking deeper in society and politics: “What we’ve certainly lost sight of to some extent in our country is the importance of the armed forces and being able to defend interests in a robust manner in the event of a conflict.” Markus Bickel
Today and tomorrow, the eyes of Europe’s climate politicians and NGOs are on Wopke Hoekstra. The new Climate Commissioner will meet COP President Sultan Al Jaber for the first time in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday. On today’s first day of the pre-COP, issues such as climate adaptation and financing are on the agenda. In Abu Dhabi, the critically-eyed Dutchman can show for the first time whether he can make his mark in negotiating circles.
Hoekstra initially had a difficult time at the hearings in the EU Parliament due to his professional past with the Shell oil company. At the pre-COP, he will now discuss the core topics of the climate conference starting in a month’s time in a large round with other ministers. He tried to diplomatically circumvent one of these issues at the European Climate Stocktake in Brussels on Friday.
If the EU implemented the Fit for 55 package it could cut its emissions by 57 percent by 2030, Hoekstra repeated earlier calculations. He was well aware, however, that the EU did not stipulate an increase in its UN climate target beyond 55 percent in its recently adopted negotiating mandate for the COP.
The Commission should monitor non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive EU funds more strictly and provide more transparent information about the payment flows to the organizations. The Commission should also present an NGO law with a clear definition of what an NGO is. It should also disclose contracts the Commission concludes with them to the European Parliament. This is demanded in a report by Markus Pieper (CDU), which he will present to the Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT) on November 7.
The resolution is titled “transparency and accountability of non-governmental organizations funded from the EU budget.” Earlier, the Directorate General for Internal Policies presented a study on NGO funding. According to the study, non-governmental organizations received a total of €17.5 billion from the EU budget between 2020 and 2022 from the Commission or agencies. This is 4.5 percent of the funds accounted for by the Commission’s database, Financial Transparency Systems (FTS), during the period. According to the Pieper report, NGOs received €2.2 billion in 2022. The actual sum is probably much higher, as there is no definition for such organizations, it said.
The Pieper report mentions cases of “fraud and financial irregularities notably in situations with NGOs that are members of different international networks or platforms.” In such constellations, there is a risk of conflicts of interest, it says.
The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is asked to draw up a list of NGOs that have violated laws for Parliament and the European Court of Auditors (ECA). The report contends that transparency rules can be circumvented, such as when funds are passed on to third-party recipients and then the intentions of other donors are followed. The FTS database also does not provide information on how EU funds are passed on to third-party NGOs, for example, in the case of shared or indirect management, it said. The report criticizes that the FTS database only shows the disbursement of EU funds six to 18 months later. In the future, this should take no longer than six months, it said.
The report criticizes organizations that have drawn much of their funding from outside the EU for “delivering research that negatively regularly impact European industry and transport providers.” This is a reference to an NGO that has been significantly involved in legislation to phase out internal combustion engines in passenger cars and commercial vehicles, as well as Euro 7.
The report also cites an example where an NGO paid by the Commission acted in the Commission’s interests in the case of the Nature Restoration Law. Here, the “impression is given that the executive branch lobbies the legislature branch,” which would have been an inappropriate use of EU taxpayer funds. Although the Parliament had insisted, the Commission had not released the contracts with the organization in question, it said.
The resolution sets deadlines for the Commission to improve oversight and transparency:
The report also calls for transparency rules for NGOs to be tightened:
Even before it is presented to the Committee, the Pieper report is mobilizing opposition. Civil Society Europe, an umbrella organization of 22 civil society organizations based in Brussels, is asking Renew’s shadow rapporteur to ensure that the Pieper report is stopped. The letter, available to Table.Media, says Pieper is making proposals “that clearly go beyond the competence of the Committee on Budgetary Control and clearly affect citizens’ rights.”
Among them, it says, is the desire for the Court of Auditors “to issue a special report to investigate the internal democratic structures of NGOs, the direct and indirect inflows and outflows of EU and other funds. As well as to examine the extent to which these are in line with democratic and human rights and EU values.”
US President Joe Biden has set himself an ambitious goal. With billions of dollars in incentives, his government aims to establish a clean US hydrogen industry – from scratch, as they say. Currently, hydrogen still meets less than 4 percent of the US’s energy needs, and 95 percent of this is so-called gray hydrogen, produced using natural gas.
Experts are skeptical that a cost-effective and, above all, completely emission-free production can be achieved. In addition to green hydrogen (production from renewable energies), the controversial blue (production from natural gas with CCS) and pink (production from nuclear power) are also being promoted for the time being. And not least, the industry still waits for crucial clarifications from the US government.
The first step will be 7 billion US dollars from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. As the US government recently announced, the funds will initially flow into the development of seven regional hydrogen hubs. According to their projections, the incentives are expected to trigger private investment of more than 40 billion US dollars and create tens of thousands of jobs. Together, these hubs are expected to produce more than 3 million tons of clean hydrogen (green, blue, pink) annually, nearly one-third of the 2030 target.
The hubs are to be developed in the following regions:
1: California Hydrogen Hub – California; renewable energy and biomass.
2: Appalachian Hydrogen Hub – West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania; natural gas with CCS.
3: Midwest Hydrogen Hub – Illinois, Indiana, Michigan; various energy sources.
4: Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub – Texas; natural gas with CCS and renewables.
5: Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub – Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey; renewable energy and nuclear energy.
6: Heartland Hydrogen Hub – Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota; various energy sources.
7: Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub – Washington, Oregon, Montana; renewable energy.
As recently as June, the US government presented its long-awaited hydrogen strategy. The strategy envisages the production of 10 million tons of clean hydrogen annually by 2030. By 2040, the goal is 20 million tons, and a total of 50 million tons by 2050. The US government has committed itself to three goals in particular:
However, the recent 7 billion US dollars for these hubs are only a fraction of the investment needed for the US Department of Energy’s hydrogen plans, Sean O’Leary, senior researcher at the energy think tank “Ohio River Valley Institute” told Table.Media. He estimates that the sum is just 2 percent of the needed investment. Instead, O’Leary assumes that significantly more funding will come from federal tax credits – especially the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The IRA provides at least 370 billion US dollars for developing green technologies. The “45V” subsidy is particularly generous. The lower carbon emissions during production, the higher the tax credit – manufacturers can earn up to 3 US dollars per kilogram over ten years.
However, O’Leary doubts the US government’s plan will work out despite the high subsidies. “The tax credits depend on the industry also willing to make huge investments,” he says. “And there are indications that this will not be the case. At least not to the extent that the Department of Energy hopes.” That is because some of the promoted technologies are either expensive or risky, despite the subsidies, O’Leary says. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), per kilogram production costs of green hydrogen are up to 5 US dollars higher than those of blue hydrogen. The latter, however, is heavily criticized by climate activists.
“It’s extremely disappointing to see the Biden administration providing funding for hydrogen hubs that rely on fossil fuels,” says Robert Howarth, professor of ecology at the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability. He says this is true even if the CCS process captures and stores most of the emissions. “It’s simply impossible to extract, process, transport and store natural gas without some of it going into the atmosphere as methane.”
Too expensive or not clean enough – this could also jeopardize another goal of the US government in the long term: the export of hydrogen. The hydrogen strategy does not contain any concrete specifications in this regard. However, it says: “Additional longer-term opportunities include the potential for exporting clean hydrogen or hydrogen carriers and enabling energy security for our allies.”
Moreover, it is far from clear who will be eligible for the IRA tax credits. Although it has been decided that the billions in funds will be used to promote clean hydrogen, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the highest tax authority, has yet to determine the specific requirements. These could then also include minimum standards for the use of renewable energies. The sector already talks about a make-or-break moment. In other words, the IRS requirements will likely significantly determine the entire industry’s future.
This unresolved question has long since become the playground of powerful lobby groups. In large-scale advertising campaigns, they demand either particularly strict or particularly loose eligibility criteria, depending on their interests. The authorities plan to make a decision by the end of the year. Laurin Meyer, New York
The G7 have agreed on a Code of Conduct on AI. This code is expected to be published today, Monday, as Table.Media has learned from government circles. The agreement was reached during a delegation trip by Volker Wissing to the USA. The purpose of the trip of the Federal Minister for Digital Affairs and Transport to Washington and New York was to coordinate the further course of action on AI with the USA. Joint framework conditions for autonomous driving were also discussed.
The Code of Conduct is part of the G7 Hiroshima AI Process initiated by the G7 leaders. Government circles said there were some adjustments to the Code of Conduct. Wissing held talks with Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and Nathaniel Fick, US Ambassador for Cyberspace and Digital Policy, they said. It was a matter of final formulation which is why it was important for the minister to be there in person.
Feedback from NGOs and the business community would also be incorporated into the process. It was important to the German government to view the whole process as a living document so that it could be further developed within the G7. A body should also be sought that goes beyond the G7 to consolidate the process internationally. The German government, for example, is considering incorporating this into the OECD process, the sources said. The EU is also involved in the G7 Hiroshima AI process and most recently held a consultation on the guiding principles for generative Artificial Intelligence.
According to information from the government circles, it was further said that US President Joe Biden would issue an executive order on the topic of AI on Monday. This is expected to deal with how the US administration should deal with AI, for example with regard to tendering rules. That way, the government could also set standards for AI. At the international level, the US has pledged to continue supporting the G7 process on AI, it was said.
This week, Wissing will travel to the AI Safety Summit in Great Britain. The summit will focus on the global risks posed by artificial intelligence. vis
Astrid Irrgang clearly enjoys her role between two worlds. Since last year, the native Hessian has been Managing Director of the Center for International Peace Operations (ZIF) in Berlin. Here, peace experts and military personnel are not only trained but also sent to areas of operation – from Kosovo to Iraq, from Mali to Afghanistan. On behalf of the German Foreign Office.
ZIF prepares German peacekeepers for their work in multilateral missions. This requires a “networked approach,” says Irrgang, because not only should the departments of the German government and the personnel they send to a crisis area act in a coordinated manner – their activities must also be coordinated with international organizations as well as local agencies in the area of operations. Irrgang defines the “networked approach” as a “requirement to reflect jointly about the toolbox for conflict management measures and strategies – from different directions.”
Irrgang, who was born in Wiesbaden in 1974, has the ability to think across disciplinary boundaries. For her Ph.D. in history at the University of Freiburg, she analyzed the field mail of a young Wehrmacht officer: Her dissertation was titled “Vom richtigen Leben im falschen” (“Of the right life in the wrong”). The historian was guided by the question of how a hopeful high school graduate could become a sometimes cynical tank commander.
The interactions between the civilian and the military have now accompanied Irrgang at ZIF for more than a decade. In 2012, she started at West Berlin’s Ludwigkirchplatz as head of human resources before rising to deputy director in 2014 and executive director in 2022. Before that, she worked for the Federal Agency for Civic Education, among others – and, in 2008, spent several months as a visiting officer in the office of the NATO secretary general in Brussels. Working for peace, in times of war, is where Irrgang feels at home: “There are people who can translate between these worlds.”
Since the beginning of this year, she has also been one of the spokespersons on the Advisory Council on Leadership Development and Civic Education, which reports directly to Defense Minister Boris Pistorius. A year and a half after the start of the Ukraine war, it is clear to her: “A new mindset is needed that includes defensibility.” For example, she says, the change of era that Chancellor Olaf Scholz proclaimed after the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has arrived in the “security policy bubble, but not beyond it.”
Irrgang thus also sees her role in being responsible for accounting more resilient thinking deeper in society and politics: “What we’ve certainly lost sight of to some extent in our country is the importance of the armed forces and being able to defend interests in a robust manner in the event of a conflict.” Markus Bickel
