and the US). Short case studies trace major trends and policy initiatives in the countries and id... more and the US). Short case studies trace major trends and policy initiatives in the countries and identify both potential conflicts of interest and existing common ground within the G20. Each study offers an assessment of potential impulses originating from the respective case, and how these might help foster international cooperation for advancing a global energy transition. This article aims to show how France and Europe, with their legitimacy on climate issues in general, and climate finance in particular, could play a key role in redefining an overall financial framework accompanying the transition to a carbon neutral world.
Due to considerable overlaps between development and climate finance and the danger that funding ... more Due to considerable overlaps between development and climate finance and the danger that funding is diverted from existing development assistance it would be important to define a baseline against which additionality can be measured. So far, no internationally agreed definition exists. The EU could step forward and come to a common approach even if this might temporarily disadvantage Member States under the current reporting practice. Any such definition should build on the commitment to raise ODA levels to 0.7 % of GNI by 2015. Although incentives are strong to try and count in as much private finance as possible, climate finance should come predominantly from public sources. Especially instruments using public funding to “leverage” private funds should be seen with caution. The funding commitments can be met, but they will likely require a wide range of innovative instruments for new financing to be put in place. Due to the overlaps, climate and development activities should be in...
Lessons learned: reform, not revolution. The good news first: the current architecture of EU clim... more Lessons learned: reform, not revolution. The good news first: the current architecture of EU climate and energy policies is adequate – in principle. It has helped deliver substantial reductions in GHG emissions and it has promoted a significant increase in renewable energies. And according to the 2014 Report on Energy Prices and Costs, “there is no empirical evidence that the current framework has caused carbon leakage or has impacted negatively on the competitiveness of the EU economy. The EU has retained the lead in exports of energy intensive goods” (European Commission 2014d, 13). These are remarkable achievements. Despite these achievements, important elements of current policy framework require reform, some of them urgently. First, the targets. The level of ambition – as reflected in the 2020 targets or the energy roadmap – is insufficient to meet the 2050 GHG reduction targets. Even with the implementation of measures currently in the planning, 2030 emissions are believed to ...
LONG-TERM (2050) DECARBONIZATION STRATEGIES ARE VITAL FOR RAISING AMBITION AND FOR EFFECTIVE CLIM... more LONG-TERM (2050) DECARBONIZATION STRATEGIES ARE VITAL FOR RAISING AMBITION AND FOR EFFECTIVE CLIMATE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION There is increasing recognition that achieving deep cuts to GHG emissions requires a close link between long term strategic planning and short term policy action. Long term decarbonization strategies are important at a technical level, because they can help countries to identify concrete and feasible pathways to decarbonization, based on their national particularities, and then to determine their implications for immediate policies and measures. They can also serve an important social and political function, by facilitating a concrete and analytically based discussion between national stakeholders about what long-term decarbonization implies.
GOVERNMENTS BENEFIT FROM STRONG CLIMATE GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS IN MULTIPLE WAYS Legally enshrined ... more GOVERNMENTS BENEFIT FROM STRONG CLIMATE GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS IN MULTIPLE WAYS Legally enshrined governance frameworks are crucial to establish and maintain political support for the low-carbon transition and facilitate the implementation of policies. They provide a platform for the political debate, define the tools to establish credible long-term goals and strategies, and set out clear transparency and monitoring mechanisms to enhance transparency and compliance.
Þ Transformative financing with EU support? The adoption of the Paris Agreement has started to cr... more Þ Transformative financing with EU support? The adoption of the Paris Agreement has started to create a shift in climate and energy policy thinking, away from incremental change to long-term transformation. Already, reaching the EU’s 2030 targets requires significant additional investment – which will also create economic benefits. Public money has an important role to play in this regard and Member States can and should make use of the support from the EU budget.
Planning for 2050 is a core strand of debate in the European Union at present, focusing on a long... more Planning for 2050 is a core strand of debate in the European Union at present, focusing on a long-term EU objective and a strategy to be submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by 2020. In parallel, all EU Member States are also developing national strategies, resulting in a wealth of experience but also a set of disjointed strategies, which will need alignment and integration, with each other and with the EU level.
Lessons learned: reform, not revolution.
The good news first: the current architecture of EU clim... more Lessons learned: reform, not revolution. The good news first: the current architecture of EU climate and energy policies is adequate – in principle. It has helped deliver substantial reductions in GHG emissions and it has promoted a significant increase in renewable energies. And according to the 2014 Report on Energy Prices and Costs, “there is no empirical evidence that the current framework has caused carbon leakage or has impacted negatively on the competitiveness of the EU economy. The EU has retained the lead in exports of energy intensive goods” (European Commission 2014d, 13). These are remarkable achievements. Despite these achievements, important elements of current policy framework require reform, some of them urgently. First, the targets. The level of ambition – as reflected in the 2020 targets or the energy roadmap – is insufficient to meet the 2050 GHG reduction targets. Even with the implementation of measures currently in the planning, 2030 emissions are believed to decrease to only 28% below 1990 levels (compared to – 24% in 2020) (European Commission 2014c). Such reductions fall short of cost effective decarbonisation pathway towards 2050. Second, the instruments. Marred by large surpluses of allowances, the ETS has failed to set prices that incentivise the required investments and – more problematically – is not expected to do so in the future. Attempts to improve energy efficiency have suffered from a fragmented and insufficiently rigid EU policy framework. They have not and are unlikely to deliver energy savings at the level required. In times of economic crisis, EU climate and energy policies have been criticized as expensive, inefficient and incoherent. Political pressure to weaken the framework has been high, almost questioning the decarbonisation objectives of the EU as such. This has led to significant uncertainties for investors, who no longer see credible political signals that the EU is truly committed to decarbonising its economy. This has undermined one of the key objectives of the 2020 framework: providing business with investment security. In response to the consultation of the 2030 framework, many stakeholders expressed their expectation that the 2030 framework would reduce uncertainty among investors, governments and citizens.
and the US). Short case studies trace major trends and policy initiatives in the countries and id... more and the US). Short case studies trace major trends and policy initiatives in the countries and identify both potential conflicts of interest and existing common ground within the G20. Each study offers an assessment of potential impulses originating from the respective case, and how these might help foster international cooperation for advancing a global energy transition. This article aims to show how France and Europe, with their legitimacy on climate issues in general, and climate finance in particular, could play a key role in redefining an overall financial framework accompanying the transition to a carbon neutral world.
Due to considerable overlaps between development and climate finance and the danger that funding ... more Due to considerable overlaps between development and climate finance and the danger that funding is diverted from existing development assistance it would be important to define a baseline against which additionality can be measured. So far, no internationally agreed definition exists. The EU could step forward and come to a common approach even if this might temporarily disadvantage Member States under the current reporting practice. Any such definition should build on the commitment to raise ODA levels to 0.7 % of GNI by 2015. Although incentives are strong to try and count in as much private finance as possible, climate finance should come predominantly from public sources. Especially instruments using public funding to “leverage” private funds should be seen with caution. The funding commitments can be met, but they will likely require a wide range of innovative instruments for new financing to be put in place. Due to the overlaps, climate and development activities should be in...
Lessons learned: reform, not revolution. The good news first: the current architecture of EU clim... more Lessons learned: reform, not revolution. The good news first: the current architecture of EU climate and energy policies is adequate – in principle. It has helped deliver substantial reductions in GHG emissions and it has promoted a significant increase in renewable energies. And according to the 2014 Report on Energy Prices and Costs, “there is no empirical evidence that the current framework has caused carbon leakage or has impacted negatively on the competitiveness of the EU economy. The EU has retained the lead in exports of energy intensive goods” (European Commission 2014d, 13). These are remarkable achievements. Despite these achievements, important elements of current policy framework require reform, some of them urgently. First, the targets. The level of ambition – as reflected in the 2020 targets or the energy roadmap – is insufficient to meet the 2050 GHG reduction targets. Even with the implementation of measures currently in the planning, 2030 emissions are believed to ...
LONG-TERM (2050) DECARBONIZATION STRATEGIES ARE VITAL FOR RAISING AMBITION AND FOR EFFECTIVE CLIM... more LONG-TERM (2050) DECARBONIZATION STRATEGIES ARE VITAL FOR RAISING AMBITION AND FOR EFFECTIVE CLIMATE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION There is increasing recognition that achieving deep cuts to GHG emissions requires a close link between long term strategic planning and short term policy action. Long term decarbonization strategies are important at a technical level, because they can help countries to identify concrete and feasible pathways to decarbonization, based on their national particularities, and then to determine their implications for immediate policies and measures. They can also serve an important social and political function, by facilitating a concrete and analytically based discussion between national stakeholders about what long-term decarbonization implies.
GOVERNMENTS BENEFIT FROM STRONG CLIMATE GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS IN MULTIPLE WAYS Legally enshrined ... more GOVERNMENTS BENEFIT FROM STRONG CLIMATE GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS IN MULTIPLE WAYS Legally enshrined governance frameworks are crucial to establish and maintain political support for the low-carbon transition and facilitate the implementation of policies. They provide a platform for the political debate, define the tools to establish credible long-term goals and strategies, and set out clear transparency and monitoring mechanisms to enhance transparency and compliance.
Þ Transformative financing with EU support? The adoption of the Paris Agreement has started to cr... more Þ Transformative financing with EU support? The adoption of the Paris Agreement has started to create a shift in climate and energy policy thinking, away from incremental change to long-term transformation. Already, reaching the EU’s 2030 targets requires significant additional investment – which will also create economic benefits. Public money has an important role to play in this regard and Member States can and should make use of the support from the EU budget.
Planning for 2050 is a core strand of debate in the European Union at present, focusing on a long... more Planning for 2050 is a core strand of debate in the European Union at present, focusing on a long-term EU objective and a strategy to be submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by 2020. In parallel, all EU Member States are also developing national strategies, resulting in a wealth of experience but also a set of disjointed strategies, which will need alignment and integration, with each other and with the EU level.
Lessons learned: reform, not revolution.
The good news first: the current architecture of EU clim... more Lessons learned: reform, not revolution. The good news first: the current architecture of EU climate and energy policies is adequate – in principle. It has helped deliver substantial reductions in GHG emissions and it has promoted a significant increase in renewable energies. And according to the 2014 Report on Energy Prices and Costs, “there is no empirical evidence that the current framework has caused carbon leakage or has impacted negatively on the competitiveness of the EU economy. The EU has retained the lead in exports of energy intensive goods” (European Commission 2014d, 13). These are remarkable achievements. Despite these achievements, important elements of current policy framework require reform, some of them urgently. First, the targets. The level of ambition – as reflected in the 2020 targets or the energy roadmap – is insufficient to meet the 2050 GHG reduction targets. Even with the implementation of measures currently in the planning, 2030 emissions are believed to decrease to only 28% below 1990 levels (compared to – 24% in 2020) (European Commission 2014c). Such reductions fall short of cost effective decarbonisation pathway towards 2050. Second, the instruments. Marred by large surpluses of allowances, the ETS has failed to set prices that incentivise the required investments and – more problematically – is not expected to do so in the future. Attempts to improve energy efficiency have suffered from a fragmented and insufficiently rigid EU policy framework. They have not and are unlikely to deliver energy savings at the level required. In times of economic crisis, EU climate and energy policies have been criticized as expensive, inefficient and incoherent. Political pressure to weaken the framework has been high, almost questioning the decarbonisation objectives of the EU as such. This has led to significant uncertainties for investors, who no longer see credible political signals that the EU is truly committed to decarbonising its economy. This has undermined one of the key objectives of the 2020 framework: providing business with investment security. In response to the consultation of the 2030 framework, many stakeholders expressed their expectation that the 2030 framework would reduce uncertainty among investors, governments and citizens.
Uploads
The good news first: the current architecture of EU climate and energy policies is adequate – in principle. It has helped deliver substantial reductions in GHG emissions and it has promoted a significant increase in renewable energies. And according to the 2014 Report on Energy Prices and Costs, “there is no empirical evidence that the current framework has caused carbon leakage or has impacted negatively on the competitiveness of the EU economy. The EU has retained the lead in exports of energy intensive goods” (European Commission 2014d, 13). These are remarkable achievements.
Despite these achievements, important elements of current policy framework require reform, some of them urgently. First, the targets. The level of ambition – as reflected in the 2020 targets or the energy roadmap – is insufficient to meet the 2050 GHG reduction targets. Even with the implementation of measures currently in the planning, 2030 emissions are believed to decrease to only 28% below 1990 levels (compared to – 24% in 2020) (European Commission 2014c). Such reductions fall short of cost effective decarbonisation pathway towards 2050.
Second, the instruments. Marred by large surpluses of allowances, the ETS has failed to set prices that incentivise the required investments and – more problematically – is not expected to do so in the future. Attempts to improve energy efficiency have suffered from a fragmented and insufficiently rigid EU policy framework. They have not and are unlikely to deliver energy savings at the level required.
In times of economic crisis, EU climate and energy policies have been criticized as expensive, inefficient and incoherent. Political pressure to weaken the framework has been high, almost questioning the decarbonisation objectives of the EU as such. This has led to significant uncertainties for investors, who no longer see credible political signals that the EU is truly committed to decarbonising its economy. This has undermined one of the key objectives of the 2020 framework: providing business with investment security. In response to the consultation of the 2030 framework, many stakeholders expressed their expectation that the 2030 framework would reduce uncertainty among investors, governments and citizens.
The good news first: the current architecture of EU climate and energy policies is adequate – in principle. It has helped deliver substantial reductions in GHG emissions and it has promoted a significant increase in renewable energies. And according to the 2014 Report on Energy Prices and Costs, “there is no empirical evidence that the current framework has caused carbon leakage or has impacted negatively on the competitiveness of the EU economy. The EU has retained the lead in exports of energy intensive goods” (European Commission 2014d, 13). These are remarkable achievements.
Despite these achievements, important elements of current policy framework require reform, some of them urgently. First, the targets. The level of ambition – as reflected in the 2020 targets or the energy roadmap – is insufficient to meet the 2050 GHG reduction targets. Even with the implementation of measures currently in the planning, 2030 emissions are believed to decrease to only 28% below 1990 levels (compared to – 24% in 2020) (European Commission 2014c). Such reductions fall short of cost effective decarbonisation pathway towards 2050.
Second, the instruments. Marred by large surpluses of allowances, the ETS has failed to set prices that incentivise the required investments and – more problematically – is not expected to do so in the future. Attempts to improve energy efficiency have suffered from a fragmented and insufficiently rigid EU policy framework. They have not and are unlikely to deliver energy savings at the level required.
In times of economic crisis, EU climate and energy policies have been criticized as expensive, inefficient and incoherent. Political pressure to weaken the framework has been high, almost questioning the decarbonisation objectives of the EU as such. This has led to significant uncertainties for investors, who no longer see credible political signals that the EU is truly committed to decarbonising its economy. This has undermined one of the key objectives of the 2020 framework: providing business with investment security. In response to the consultation of the 2030 framework, many stakeholders expressed their expectation that the 2030 framework would reduce uncertainty among investors, governments and citizens.