Alexander Ochs
Over the past few years, China has emerged as a global leader in clean energy, topping the world in production of compact fluorescent light bulbs, solar water heaters, solar photovoltaic (PV) cells, and wind turbines. The remarkable rise of China’s clean energy sector reflects a strong and growing commitment by the government to diversify its energy economy, reduce environmental problems, and stave off massive increases in energy imports. Around the world, governments and industries now find themselves struggling to keep pace with the new pacesetter in global clean energy development.
Chinese efforts to develop renewable energy technologies have accelerated in recent years as the government has recognized energy as a strategic sector. China has adopted a host of new policies and regulations aimed at encouraging energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy deployment. Taking lessons from its own experience as well as the experiences of countries around the world, China has built its clean energy sector in synergy with its unique economic system and institutions of governance. At a time when many countries still struggle with the aftermath of a devastating financial crisis, the Chinese government has used its strong financial position to direct tens of billions of dollars into clean energy— increasing the lead that Chinese companies have in many sectors.
Among other initiatives, the Chinese government has taken strong action to promote renewable energy, establish national energy conservation targets, and delegate energysaving responsibilities to regions. Key legislative actions include the national Renewable Energy Law, which entered into force in January 2006, the national Medium and Long-Term Development Plan for Renewable Energy, launched in September 2007, and the Medium and Long-Term Energy Conservation Plan, launched in November 2004.
Although per capita energy use in China remains below the international average, it is growing very rapidly, spurred recently by the infrastructure-intensive government stimulus program launched in late 2008. Even with efficiency advances, demand for energy is expected to continue to rise in the coming decades. Chinese energy consumption is currently dominated by coal, and the major energy-consuming sector is industry. Improving the efficiency of energy use and enhancing energy conservation will be critical to ease energy supply constraints, boost energy security, reduce environmental pollution, “green” the economy, and tackle the climate challenge.
mp3 download
 It all started so nicely. The hope for change that Barack Obama had raised among American voters was felt by citizens worldwide, including those yearning for a change in US environmental policy. After all, Obama had made global warming and energy policy important cornerstones of his campaign. Once in the White House, the newly elected President explained that “few challenges facing America – and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change” and that his “presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change.” Repeatedly he stressed that “the nation that wins this competition [for new energy technologies] will be the nation that leads the global economy.”What’s left, as we approach mid-term elections in Obama’s first administration, is a very mixed bag. There have been important successes, including over $60 billion that were earmarked for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; the first tightening of Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards in three decades; and the federal Environmental Protection Agency ‘s “Endangerment Finding” that recognizes, as a follow-up of the Supreme Court ruling Massachusetts et al. vs. EPA, that the agency has the right to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. To the great disappointment of the environmentalists, however, comprehensive climate and energy legislation, including a market-based system with mandatory economy-wide emission targets as well as strong incentives for the employment of energy efficiency measures and renewable energy technologies, has not been passed. The situation that has unfolded over the last 1 ½ years is almost absurd. A White House and all involved secretaries and agencies support strong climate policy; a majority of the public wants effective climate action; a thorough climate and energy bill finally passed the House; and then there is also majority support for climate legislation in the Senate – albeit this majority is not filibuster-proof. The Senate’s leadership was unable to get 60+ votes. And here the story ends for now. A minority of 40+ Senators puts a hold on domestic legislation and shuts a historic window of opportunity. [This article appered in Bridges vol. 27, October 2010. Read the rest of the article here: http://www.ostina.org/content/view/5229/1390/] |
While the US Senate has backed off on climate legislation, China is considering launching emissions-trading programmes within five years, write Alexander Ochs and Haibing Ma.
Just when leaders in the United States Senate admitted to abandoning their plan of issuing a federal climate bill by the end of
this year, top Chinese officials were discussing how to launch carbon-trading programmes under their country’s next (12th) Five-Year Plan (2011-2015). Serving as China’s overarching social and economic guidance, Five-Year Plans consistently lay out the most crucial development strategies for this giant emerging economy. Once included in the plan, carbon trading will be viewed as part of China’s national goals and will be domestically binding. This occurred most recently with the country’s 2010 energy-intensity target, which called for a 20% reduction from 2005 levels and was disaggregated into provincial and local targets, with local officials held accountable for achieving them.
In short, China seems to be accelerating full-throttle toward a low-carbon economy. Chinese policymakers have been eyeing a domestic emission-trading scheme for a while. In August 2009, National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) deputy director Xie Zhenhua announced that China would launch a pilot carbon-trading programme in selected regions and/or sectors — basically the same message now discussed for the Five-Year Plan. On one hand, this reiteration demonstrates that the Chinese government is seriously considering such a market-based mitigation mechanism; on the other hand, the fact that the programme’s status is still in discussion one year later shows that putting cap-and-trade into action might be not be so easy in China either.
- Yttrium, a rare earth element
[Please find the full version of this draft policy paper here. Comments are highly appreciated]
By Camille Serre and Alexander Ochs
After having shed some light on French climate and energy legislation, let’s proceed with our review of European progress toward clean energy economies. Typically, the Scandinavian countries and Germany have set the example in the European renewables field. Yet lately, a Southern country—Portugal—has attracted media attention after delivering its National Renewable Energy Action Plan to the European Commission this June.
In 2009, Portugal ranked 3rd in Europe in wind power capacity per capita - Flickr Creative Commons / Mafalda Moreira Santos
Portugal has made dramatic changes in its energy policy over the last five years under the government of Prime Minister Jose Socrates. The country’s installed renewable energy capacity more than tripled between 2004 and 2009, from 1,220 megawatts (MW) to 4,307 MW, and renewables now represent roughly 36 percent of electricity consumed. Thanks to this performance, Portugal currently ranks 4th in Europe in energy production from renewables. Socrates seems to know what he is doing, and it looks like his previous experience has paid off. Like Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel, Socrates was Minister of the Environment before becoming head of his country’s government. The environment seems to be a springboard for European politicians’ careers.
Of course, Portugal benefits from favorable conditions for renewables as well: a strong wind resource, great hydropower, good tidal waves potential, and a high sunshine rate. After the country removed several dams in recent years, Socrates’ government has focused instead on wind power development, under most conditions the cheapest renewable energy source after hydropower. With spectacular growth in wind energy production of over 600 percent between 2004 and 2009, Portugal now ranks 6th in Europe in total installed capacity and 3rd in capacity per capita, behind only Denmark and Spain. Some even expect Portugal to overtake its neighbor Spain in per capita wind energy production as early as this year.
by Camille Serre and Alexander Ochs
In Part 1 of this blog, we described the climate and energy measures that France plans to pursue as part of its new environmental law, Grenelle 2. This set of policies suggests that France may in fact be paving the way toward a low-carbon economy. Unfortunately, the picture is tarnished by an ongoing controversy about renewable energy development in the country.
Grenelle 2 certainly contains some positive measures in the renewables sector. For instance, it sets a goal that 23 percent of France’s energy use must come from a mix of renewable energy sources by 2020—most likely from hydropower (the nation’s largest renewables source so far), wind power, and biomass. The law calls for regional climate and energy mapping to assess climate-related risks within the country as well as to determine domestic energy needs, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. Consequently, adaptation strategies and monitoring instruments will be developed. In addition, local and regional authorities that are responsible for 50,000 inhabitants or more, as well as companies with over 500 employees, will be required to conduct emissions assessments.
with Camille Serre
While the United States is unlikely to pass a climate bill in the near future, there may be greater hope from one of the country’s closest allies: France. A few months ago, France passed a major bill that will deeply transform the country’s environmental law, including its approach to climate change. But while the outcomes of the measure are promising, a variety of criticisms remain.
After an exhausting legislative process, the “Grenelle de l’Environnement” ended with the adoption of the “Grenelle 2” bill this May. Enacted on July 13, three years after the process was launched by then-newly elected president Nicolas Sarkozy, the new legislation covers environmental topics such as climate and energy, biodiversity protection, public health, sustainable agriculture, waste management, and the governance of sustainable development. In addition to being a comprehensive environmental bill, Grenelle 2 implicitly defines the French sustainable development strategy for years to come.
Grenelle de l’environnement was named after the so-called “negotiations of Grenelle” on wages that took place in 1968, when France was paralyzed by a general strike. Back then, the primary negotiators were the government, unions, and employers. The Grenelle de l’environnement, launched in 2007, extended the consultation to five main stakeholder groups—the State, employers, unions, environmental NGOs, and local governments—to bring it more in line with the participatory nature of sustainable development.
On the climate front, France is likely to meet its current emissions reduction goals. [Read the rest of this ReVolt Blog here]
By Haibing Ma and Alexander Ochs
Recently, a China Daily news report caught Uncle Sam’s attention, presumably at an inconvenient time: just when the U.S. Senate finally admitted to abandoning its plan of issuing a federal climate bill by the end of this year, top Chinese officials were discussing how to launch carbon trading programs under their country’s next Five-Year Plan (2011–15). Serving as China’s overarching social and economic guidance, Five-Year Plans consistently lay out the most crucial development strategies for this giant emerging economy. Once included in the plan, carbon trading will be viewed as part of China’s national goals and will be domestically binding. This occurred most recently with the country’s 2010 energy intensity target, which called for a 20 percent reduction from 2005 levels and was disaggregated into provincial and local targets, with local officials held accountable for achieving them. In short, China seems to be accelerating full-throttle toward a low-carbon economy.
Chinese policymakers have been eyeing a domestic emission-trading scheme for a while. Last August, Xie Zhenhua, Deputy Director of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), announced that China will launch a pilot carbon trading program in selected regions and/or sectors—basically the same message conveyed in the recent China Daily story. On one hand, this reiteration demonstrates that the Chinese government is seriously considering such a market-based mitigation mechanism; on the other hand, the fact that the program’s status is still in discussion a year later shows that putting cap-and-trade into action might be not be that easy in China either. [Read more on Worldwatch's ReVolt blog]
On this edition of CrossTalk on RT (Russia Television’s International Broadcast), Peter Lavelle asks his guests about the on-going heat wave: freak weather or evidence of global warming? I was one of them.
Kerry und Reid geben ihre Klimapolitik vorest auf
Erkennbar enttäuscht traten Harry Reid, Mehrheitsführer der Demokraten im US-Senat, und Parteikollege John Kerry, Senator aus Massachusetts und ehemaliger Präsidentschaftskandidat, vor die Kameras. Monatelang hatten sie für eine umfangreiches klima- und energiepolitisches Gesetzespaket gekämpft. Nun gaben sie kleinlaut bei. Man habe die notwendigen Stimmen nicht, um ein Emissionsziel für Treibhausgase festzulegen. 2001 aus dem Kyoto-Protokoll ausgestiegen, seit 20 Jahren der gewichtigste Bremser bei internationalen Klimaverhandlungen, zeichnet sich die nächste Schlappe für amerikanische Klimaschützer ab.
Doch nicht nur für die Umwelt ist die Nachricht eine Katastrophe. Dutzende Studien belegen die positiven Effekte, die die geplante Gesetzgebung auf die US-Wirtschaft, den Arbeitsmarkt, die Gesundheitskosten und die Sicherheitspolitik gehabt hätte. Ganz zu schweigen vom internationalen Renommee, das jetzt den nächsten Kratzer erhält. Die USA zeigen sich immer weniger in der Lage, auf die großen globalen Herausforderungen unserer Zeit tragfähige Antworten zu geben. Schuld daran ist nicht, dass „der Amerikaner“ eben nichts vom Umweltschutz hält. Das Problem ist differenzierter: [weiter zum vollstaendigen Artikel]
in Vital Signs, 22 July 2010
The average sea level around the world has risen a total of 222 millimeters (mm) since 1875, which means an annual rate of 1.7 mm.1 (See Figure 1.) Yet at the end of this long period, from 1993 to 2009, the sea level rose 3.0 mm per year—a much faster rate.2 An estimated 30 percent of the sea level increase since 1993 is a result of warmer ocean temperatures that cause the water to expand (thermal expansion).3 Another 55 percent of the increase results from the melting of land-based ice, mainly from glaciers and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.4 (Sea ice that melts does not contribute to sea level rise, as the volume remains constant.)5 The other 15 percent of the rise is due to changes in terrestrial freshwater dynamics, such as wetland drainage and lowered water tables.6
Ocean warming and land-based ice melt have happened in tandem with other climatic changes during the last century. These changes include rising atmospheric temperatures, acidification of ocean waters, and changes in seasonal water cycles—all of which are linked to a dramatic increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases. Prior to the industrial revolution, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide—a major greenhouse gas—was steady at around 280 parts per million (ppm).7 Since then, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and land use changes have boosted this concentration to over 385 ppm, nearly a 38-percent increase.8
The world’s oceans absorb 80–90 percent of the excess solar radiation trapped on Earth by greenhouse gases.9 But because the ocean’s mass is so much greater than the atmosphere’s, the oceans warm at a slower rate. From 1969 to 2009, atmospheric temperatures rose 0.36 degrees Celsius while the temperature in the upper ocean (the area down to 700 meters) rose 0.17 degrees.10 (See Figure 2.)
Zwei Öl-Konzerne wollen Kaliforniens Klimaschutzgesetz kippen – das fortschrittlichste der USA. Sie gefährden das Prestige-Projekt von Gouverneur Schwarzenegger.
Marlies Uken, DIE ZEIT, 23 July 2010
http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2010-07/kalifornien-klimaschutz
[...]Im kommenden Jahr will Kalifornien sogar im Alleingang den Handel mit Verschmutzungsrechten starten. Mehr als 70 weitere gesetzliche Klima-und Umweltschutz-Initiativen hängen von dem Gesetz ab. “Das Klimagesetz ist für die Umweltbranche Kaliforniens, einem zentralen Wachstumsmotor, von enormer Wichtigkeit”, sagt Alexander Ochs, Leiter der Klima- und Energieabteilung des Worldwatch Institutes, einem Forschungsinstitut in Washington. “Es gibt den Herstellern erneuerbarer Energien, grüner Autos und sauberer Industrieanlagen die notwendige Planungssicherheit für Investitionen im Milliardenbereich.”
Dem Umwelttechnologie-Sektor am Pazifik hat AB 32 einen Wachstumsschub verschafft, so stark wie keinem anderen Bundesstaat der USA. Mehrere Studien, unter anderem der kalifornischen Arbeitsmarktagentur, zeigen, dass gerade die Green Tech-Branche überdurchschnittlich stark wächst und Arbeitsplätze schafft. Allein in den Jahren 2007 und 2008 schaffte die Branche nach Angaben der kalifornischen Initiative “Next10″ fünf Prozent mehr Jobs – während der Rest des Arbeitsmarkts im Schnitt nur um ein Prozent wuchs.
Gebannt schaut daher der Rest der USA – insbesondere Washington – auf die Entwicklungen in der Landeshauptstadt Sacramento. Denn der Zeitpunkt der Volksabstimmung ist brisant. Er fällt mit den bundesweiten midterm-elections, den Halbzeitwahlen zusammen, die klassischerweise ein Stimmungsbild für die Regierungsarbeit liefern. Präsident Obama hat nicht nur am Golf von Mexiko mit einer gigantischen Ölkatastrophe zu kämpfen, sondern will zudem sein Klimaschutzgesetz endlich durch den Senat bringen – was diesen Sommer wohl nicht mehr klappen wird. “AB 32 hat Vorbildcharakter für Washington”, sagt Ochs vom Worldwatch Institute. Würden die Kalifornier das Gesetz kippen, käme dies den Klimaschutz-Gegnern entgegen. “Die könnten sich die Hände reiben und sagen: Schaut her, selbst dort, wo die ganze grüne Industrie sitzt, wollen sie keinen Klimaschutz.” [...]
Read the full article [here]
Contribution to Euronews CommentVisions
In 2007, renewable energy already provided 18% of the world’s total final energy supply, greatly exceeding earlier predictions. While global GDP increased by 156% between 1990 and 2007, energy demand “only” rose by 39%. A recent Worldwatch study has outlined a new, technologically and economically viable 2030 global low-carbon scenario. It demonstrates that energy demand can be reduced by another one third compared to the business-as-usual scenario produced by the International Energy Agency which is used by many as the “reference scenario”. In our scenario 50% – half! – of the remaining energy demand in 2030 can be provided by renewables decreasing energy-related CO2 emissions by 52%.
Natural gas will play a major role in covering the other 48%. Natural gas is widely available and produces less greenhouse gas emissions and less local air and water pollution than coal and gas. It also does not create the security, economic, and health burdens of nuclear energy. What is more, natural gas can serve as an important ally of renewables. Since gas power plants can be switched on and off relatively easily, we can make sure that the maximum amount of renewables are used despite their fluctuations on a given day. Environmentally such a major transition of the global energy system is a necessity if want to avoid catastrophic climate disruptions. Technologically and economically, our scenario is feasible. What is still lacking, is the political will to make it reality.
Co-author: Shakuntala Makhijani
The European Environment Agency (EEA) yesterday released its greenhouse gas inventory for 2008, showing a two-percent fall from 2007 levels across EU-27 countries and an 11.3-percent reduction from 1990 levels. The new data also show that the EU-15 (the 15 only EU members in 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated) have reduced emissions by 6.9 percent since 1990, putting those countries on track to meet their Kyoto Protocol commitment of reducing 2008-2012 emissions by an average of 8-percent below 1990 levels. The European Commission points out that the EU-15 emission reduction—a 1.9-percent drop from 2007 to 2008—came as the region’s economy grew 0.6 percent, suggesting that economic growth and emissions cuts can be compatible.
Just last month, the European Commission had announced that emissions covered under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) fell even more rapidly: verified emissions from covered installations were 11.6-percent lower last year than in 2008. EU Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard cautioned that these reductions are largely due to the economic crisis, as opposed to ambitious actions by covered industry. The crisis has also weakened price signals in the trading scheme and slowed business investment in emissions-reducing innovations.
Earlier this year, the European Commission began arguing that the Union should commit to deeper cuts than a 20-percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2020, calling instead for a 30-percent decrease. It released figures showing that, largely due to the economic crisis, the annual costs for cutting emissions will be lower than originally estimated by 2020. In 2008, the EU estimated that €70 billion per year would be necessary to meet the 20-percent target, but this cost estimate has now fallen to just €48 billion. For a 30-percent target during the same timeframe, the new projected annual cost is €81 billion—only €11 billion more than what EU countries have already accepted under the 20-percent target.
[Please read the rest of the blog on ReVolt]
A colloquio con Alexander Ochs, direttore del programma
È uno dei massimi esperti americani di politiche energetiche, nazionali e internazionali, e di sicurezza energetica. Il suo nome è Alexander Ochs e La Nuova Ecologia l’ha intervistato per fare con lui un punto sull’impegno, e sui risultati, di Obama sul fronte della lotta ai cambiamenti climatici.
Qual è lo stato della legislazione statunitense sui cambiamenti climatici?
Per chi non conosce il nostro sistema politico – la divisione del governo, i controlli e i bilanciamenti dei poteri esecutivo e legislativo – è difficile capire. La Camera dei rappresentanti ha approvato a giugno l’American clean energy & security act,
un documento con obiettivi modesti e a lunga scadenza su clima ed energia. È stata però la prima volta che una Camera ha approvato una legge per limitare le emissioni dei gas serra. Una legge, va sottolineato, passata per pochi voti: 219 contro 212, solo 8 quelli republicani. Ora tutta l’attenzione è al Senato, dove i democratici Barbara Boxer e John Kerry hanno portato a settembre il Clean energy jobs and american power act, una nuova legge sulle emissioni che implica massicci investimenti nelle energie pulite e nella ricerca e cattura dell’anidride carbonica. Vista con favore dagli ambientalisti, ha incontrato l’opposizione dei conservatori, che la ritengono troppo complicata, costosa e d’ampio raggio. Se passerà non sarà nella versione originale.
Ora che cosa accadrà?
Sono in discussione altre leggi. Innanzitutto il Carbon limits and energy for America’s renewal act, introdotto a dicembre dalle senatrici Maria Cantwell e Susan Collins. Con limiti più modesti sulle emissioni, questa legge cerca nuove strade nel dibattito sul cambiamento climatico e sull’energia. Prevede un sistema di tetti e dividendi che fornirebbe fino al 75% degli introiti della vendita all’asta dei permessi d’inquinare alle famiglie per compensare l’aumento dei costi energetici, che si presume saliranno dopo la regolamentazione delle aziende. Il rimanente andrebbe a un fondo di ricerca e transizione verso un’economia pulita.
[Si prega di leggere l'intera intervista qui]
■ Chance für Klima-Paket besteht nur vor US-Wahlen im November.
■ „Obama hat Tiefpunkt hinter sich.“
Wiener Zeitung: US-Präsident Barack Obama ist entschlossen, nach der Gesundheitsreform nun sein zweites großes Wahlversprechen, ein Gesetzespaket zum Klimaschutz,anzugehen. Wie stehen die Chancen dafür?
Alexander Ochs: Die Chancen stehen nach dem Beschluss der Gesundheitsreform besser als zuvor. Für zwei solcher Mega-Themen gleichzeitig ist in der Öffentlichkeit kein Platz, zumal es ja auch noch die Finanz- und Wirtschaftskrise zu bewältigen gibt. Ob Obama allerdings beim Klimaschutz auch erfolgreich sein wird, ist schwer zu beurteilen, ich halte den Ausgang für völlig offen. Die Abstimmungen im Kongress warden erst in einigen Monaten, allenfalls im Frühsommer, stattfinden.
WZ: Also auf jeden Fall vor den Mid-Term-Wahlen im November, bei denen Obamas Demokraten herbe Verluste prophezeit werden?
AO: Ja, sicher, das ist Obamas einzige Chance für einen politischen Erfolg in diesem Bereich. Für eine progressive Klimaschutzpolitik gibt es nur vor diesen Wahlen noch eine Chance, weil die Demokraten Verluste hinnehmen werden müssen.
WZ: Wie passt dazu Obamas jüngste Entscheidung, mithilfe milliardenschwerer Kreditgarantien erstmals seit drei Jahrzehnten wieder neue Atomkraftwerke zu bauen?
AO: Das muss als Kompromissangebot an die Republikaner interpretiert werden. Obama versucht sich als Brückenbauer zwischen den beiden Parteien zu positionieren, indem er etwa 80 Milliarden Dollar in alternative Energieträger investiert und… [Read the rest of the interview here]
The Copenhagen UN climate conference ended last Saturday with a weak agreement, not the groundbreaking treaty many had hoped for. With more than 100 heads of governments and many more parliamentarians and dignitaries, COP-15 became the largest assembly of world leaders in diplomatic history. The Copenhagen conference had been planned out for two years in many small informal and large official meetings, following the 2007 Bali Action Plan in which nations had agreed to finalize a binding agreement this December. The outcome falls far short of this original goal. Delegates only “noted” an accord (“the Copenhagen Accord”) struck by the United States, Brazil, China, India, and South Africa that has two key components: first, it sets a target of limiting global warming to a maximum of 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times; second, it proposes $100 billion in annual aid for developing nations starting in 2020 to help them reduce emissions and adapt to climate change.
2 degrees Celsius is seen by mainstream science as a threshold for dangerous climatic changes including sea-level rise and accelerated glacier melt, as well as more intense floods, droughts, and storms. Many scientists also believe that a majority of worldwide ecosystems will struggle to adapt to a warming above that mark, and more recently have set the threshold even lower, at 1.5 degrees Celsius. The accord, however, lacks any information on how this goal of preventing “dangerous” climate change, which had already been set by the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention, would be achieved. It is generally assumed that in order to keep global warming below 2 degrees, worldwide emissions have to
Lange Zeit sah es so aus, als ob die Klima-Karawane aus Regierungsdelegationen, Interessenvertretern und Umweltschützern nur auf der Stelle tritt. Beim letzten großen Zusammenkommen auf höchster Ebene im vergangenen Dezember wie auch bei den unzähligen Vorbereitungstreffen ging es so zaghaft voran, dass viele den UN-Klimagipfel schon abgeschrieben hatten.
Doch dann überschlugen sich in den vergangenen Wochen die Ereignisse: Die USA, China, Brasilien, Indonesien und Südafrika legten nationale Ziele vor, die teilweise deutlich über dem lagen, was man noch vor kurzem für möglich hielt. Am vergangenen Wochenende dann der nächste Hoffnungsschimmer, der Kopenhagen doch noch zum “Hope’nhagen” machen könnte: US-Präsident Barack Obama kündigte an, dass er am letzten Verhandlungstag, dem 18. Dezember, in die dänische Hauptstadt kommen will, um dem Treffen womöglich zum Durchbruch zu verhelfen. Obama zeigt damit klar, wie hoch die Klimapolitik inzwischen auch auf der amerikanischen politischen Agenda steht.
Hier geht’s weiter zu meinem Op-Ed in der Wiener Zeitung.
From November 9 to 11, around 25 German and U.S. journalists and climate policy experts met at the Aspen Wye Conference Center on the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland to discuss the climate policy in Europe and the U.S. in view of the upcoming Copenhagen climate summit. The event was part of the Transatlantic Climate Bridge, and it not only aimed at providing journalists with the latest facts and figures on the summit but gave the participants the opportunity to exchange their views on the public debate in their respective countries, the status quo of the legislative process in Germany and the U.S., and the impact of climate change and respective policies on the economy and the international security, among others.
Read more on Germany.info
- Photo courtesy of Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
As a former Minister of the Environment turned Chancellor, Angela Merkel had already proven those wrong who surmised that environment positions are a dead end to high-rising political aspirations; now she became only the second German politician (after Konrad Adenauer, the first head of a German government after the Second World War, in 1957) who received the honor to address the U.S. Congress; and as a widely respected leader on environmental issues who is, at the same time, the leader of a conservative party, she would be well positioned to appeal to cautious Republicans when talking about climate change and energy reformation—at least I had hoped so in a recent interview with Reuters.
Angela Merkel in her speech on Capitol Hill yesterday, just weeks after her reelection for a second term (this time as a leader of a center-right coalition) was moved by the honor and the standing ovations she received from U.S. lawmakers even before she had started her speech. Following up on her promises, she spent a good portion of her talk on climate change, urging Congress and the Obama administration to take bold steps to address the issue, in her view one of the “great tests” of the 21st century. “We all know we have no time to lose,” she said.
Read the rest of the story on Dateline: Copenhagen.
OchsiGen on Twitter