WASHINGTON, Oct 4, 2011 (IPS) – As a light drizzle fell Saturday, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu pointed to solar houses constructed by students on the National Mall park in Washington as evidence that the U.S can compete internationally in the renewable energy market to create jobs and win “the war against climate change”.

(…)

Alexander Ochs, director of the energy and climate programme at the WorldWatch Institute, said the solar industry was actually one of the fastest-growing industries in the U.S., with 5,000 companies employing more than 100,000 people. He said Solyndra failed because it made poor investment decisions and was buffeted by price fluctuations in the raw materials market – not because solar power industry is in trouble.  “Solyndra is now used as a scandal to set an example that solar is not working in the U.S. or that it cannot compete on the international market. It is basically used as an attempt to kill the industry as a whole,” Ochs told IPS.

In fact, Ochs said the solar industry grew at a rate of 69 percent in the last year alone, more than doubling in size, and at a rate much higher than the fossil fuel industry, which grows only in the low single digits, or nuclear, the only energy sector with a negative growth rate. Notwithstanding those facts, Ochs said criticisms of government support for renewable energy did not take into account the comparatively large cost of fossil fuel subsidies.

(…)

Arguing that the fossil fuel industry receives subsidies that are direct, indirect, infrastructural – even subsidies in the form of externalised health and environmental costs – Ochs questioned how critics could argue that the renewable energy industry could compete without getting subsidies itself.  Ochs told IPS, “Twenty years after we started taking climate change seriously and in light of all the economic problems and health problems that result from our use of fossil fuels, we are still putting 12 times the amount of money into fossil fuels.”

Please find the full article [HERE]

Power/Alternative Energy

Posted:26 Sep 2011

According to the Worldwatch Institute, global energy intensity has been growing faster than the global economy for the past two years. Worldwatch observed that worldwide energy intensity grew 1.35 per cent last year, surpassing global economic growth. Unless economies all over the world shift to sustainable development, global energy intensity will keep on increasing. Energy intensity is total energy consumption divided by gross world product. Between 1981 and 2010, it decreased by about 20.5 per cent or 0.8 per cent annually. “During this period of decline, most developed countries restructured their economies, and energy-intensive heavy industries accounted for a shrinking share of production,” stated Haibing Ma, manager of Worldwatch’s China programme. “New technologies applied to energy production and consumption significantly improved efficiency in almost every aspect of the economy,” particularly during the surge of ‘knowledge-based economy’ from 1991 to 2000. Global economic productivity increased without parallel increases in energy use.

Worldwatch observed that worldwide energy efficiency had been increasing steadily until between 2004 and 2008 where it plummeted with an average annual growth of 1.87 per cent. Starting in 2008 to 2009, however, energy intensity again bumped up, experiencing the first rise in three decades. “Increases in economic energy intensity are especially discouraging, even when temporary,” said Robert Engelman, executive director at Worldwatch. “With both population and consumption growing worldwide, the capacity of the world’s economy to require less energy for each unit of output has been a rare positive trend for the environment. We need to find less energy-intensive ways to put people back to work and improve economic conditions.” In addition to technological advances, price developments play a key role in determining overall energy use. World crude oil prices more than tripled between 2004 and 2008—the fastest rise since the oil crisis of the late 1970s—contributing to the sharp decline in energy intensity during that period. However, after the second half of 2008, when international oil prices dropped 75 per cent, global energy intensity started rising.

Energy intensity is declining in many advanced economies, including the United States, Germany and Japan. China may have made the most progress worldwide with a 65 per cent decline in energy intensity in the past 30 years. Newly industrialized and transitional countries have experienced more turbulent energy intensity trends. South Korea’s energy intensity increased during the country’s rapid growth in the 1980s and 1990s, but declined sharply following the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. Since the early 2000s, the Korean government and industry have sought actively to shift the country’s energy use patterns by focusing more on advanced technology R&D and clean energy initiatives.

Global energy intensity is likely to keep rising in the next few years as the world continues to rely on large-scale infrastructure development as a means to create jobs and bring the global economy out of recession. However, South Korea’s switch to a more environment-friendly development pattern may mirror global trends. In the long term, a green transition could boost new industries, including clean technology and renewable energy, and cause global energy intensity to decline.

“The area of saving energy and using it more efficiently is one of the two key components of a sustainable energy transition, the other one being renewable energy production,” said Alexander Ochs, director of Worldwatch’s climate and energy programme. “Our research has shown that 50 per cent or more of global electricity demands can be delivered by renewable energy if—but only if—renewable energy is implemented in tandem with energy efficiency.”

This article was printed from EE Times-Asia located at::
http://www.eetindia.co.in/ART_8800652257_1800008_NT_bf861340.HTM

Media Net, Monday, 05. September. 2011 | company&marketwatch

von li.: denkstatt-Geschäftsführer Christian Plas, Alexander Ochs, Nachhaltigkeits-experte Worldwatch Institute, Josef Mantl, Sprecher Sustainable Future Campaign.

Wien. Alexander Ochs, Leiter des Bereichs Klima und Energie beim ältesten amerikanischen Umweltthinktank, dem World Watch Institute, wurde vergangene Woche der Sustainable Future Award überreicht. Die Auszeichnung würdigt seinen Forschungsbeitrag zu globalen Nachhaltigkeitsthemen und sein Commitment, weltweites Wissen zu Sozial-, Umwelt- und Wirtschaftstrends als Maßstab politischer Handlungen auf allen Ebenen einzubeziehen. „Wir müssen es schaffen, die Menschen davon zu überzeugen, dass eine nachhaltige Welt auch wirklich möglich ist, und wie“, sagt Ochs.

„Alexander Ochs bringt unermüdlich Menschen mit den unterschiedlichsten Hintergründen, Berufen und Nationalitäten zusammen“, beschreibt ihn Josef Mantl, Sprecher der Sustainable Future Campaign, auf deren Initiative die Auszeichnung vergeben wird. Seine Arbeit habe sich dem Ziel verschrieben, „das Verständnis für wirtschaftliche, umweltrelevante und politische Zusammenhänge zu verbessern, klarer zu sehen, was falsch läuft – und unsere Fähigkeit zu verbessern, Themen zu überdenken und im Interesse der Umwelt und Lebenswelt aller zu handeln“.

Kein Individualkonzept

Nachhaltigkeit ist kein Individualkonzept; davon ist man bei der Sustainable Future Campaign, der Nachhaltigkeitsinitiative der Hochschulliga für die Vereinten Nationen, überzeugt, sondern ein Ansatz, der nur aus der Gemeinschaft heraus erfolgreich sein kann. Regierungen und Staaten seien wohl für die Rahmenbedingungen verantwortlich und auch Unternehmen und Wirtschaft seien wichtige Treiber; getragen würden diese Entscheidungen jedoch von der Gesellschaft. „Ich bin davon überzeugt, dass die Veränderung aus der Wirtschaft kommen wird“, meint Christian Plas, Geschäftsführer des Wiener Beratungsunternehmens denkstatt. Die Politik könne die Rahmenbedingungen dafür massiv erleichtern, doch dazu fehle heute noch der politische Mut.  Ochs ist der zweite Ausgezeichnete der Sustainable Future Campaign nach Marc R. Pacheco, demokratischer State Senator von Massachusetts. (red).

Quelle: http://www.medianet.at/primenews/article/nachhaltigkeit-ist-moeglich/, Printartikel [hier].

Die Sustainable Future Campaign und Nachhaltigkeitsberatung denkstatt zeichnen Nachhaltigkeitsexperten des World Watch Institutes aus.

Alexander Ochs, Leiter des Bereichs Klima und Energie beim ältesten amerikanischen Umweltthinktank, dem World Watch Institute, bekam gestern den Sustainable Future Award überreicht. Die Auszeichnung würdigt seinen Forschungs-Beitrag zu globalen Nachhaltigkeits-Themen und sein Commitment, weltweites Wissen zu Sozial-, Umwelt- und Wirtschaftstrends als Maßstab politischer Handlungen auf allen Ebenen einzubeziehen.

Empowerment für nachhaltige Gesellschaft: Wissen über Zusammenhänge Zukünftige und nachhaltige Strategien müssen die Meinung und Wünsche der Menschen reflektieren, um erfolgreich zu sein. “Wir müssen es schaffen, die Menschen davon zu überzeugen, dass eine nachhaltige Welt auch wirklich möglich ist, und wie.”, zeigt sich Alexander Ochs engagiert.

“Alexander Ochs bringt unermüdlich Menschen mit den unterschiedlichsten Hintergründen, Berufen und Nationalitäten zusammen.”, so Josef Mantl, Sprecher der Sutstainable Future Campaign, auf deren Initiative die Auszeichnung vergeben wird. “Seine Arbeit hat sich dem Ziel verschrieben, das Verständnis für wirtschaftliche, umweltrelevante und politische Zusammenhänge zu verbessern. Klarer zu sehen ‘was falsch läuft’ und unsere Fähigkeit zu verbessern Themen zu überdenken und im Interesse der Umwelt und Lebenswelt aller zu handeln.”

Paradigmenwechsel unumgänglich

Können wir die Welt nachhaltig bestromen? Ist es realistisch, die globale Klima-Erwärmung stoppen zu wollen, auch wenn die 2020 Ziele in Europa greifbar sind? In der Diskussion mit über 50 Gästen hat sich gezeigt: Nachhaltigkeit ist kein Individualkonzept, sondern ein Ansatz, der nur aus der Gemeinschaft heraus erfolgreich sein kann. Regierungen und Staaten sind für die Rahmenbedingungen verantwortlich, aber um wirkliche Zukunftsfähigkeit zu beweisen, geht es vielmehr um ambitionierte Ziele. Auch Unternehmen und Wirtschaft sind wichtige Treiber, getragen werden diese Entscheidungen jedoch von der Gesellschaft. Die Wirtschaftskrise hat gezeigt, dass stabile Länder, wie beispielsweise die USA, die der Wirtschaft weiterhin einen Persilschein ausgestellt haben, heute besonders gefordert sind. Wer schneller und smarter in Zukunftswege investiert, wird langfristig erfolgreich sein.

“Es wird einen Paradigmenwechsel geben und es wird ihn auch brauchen. Ich bin davon überzeugt, dass die Veränderung aus der Wirtschaft kommen wird. Die Politik könnte die Rahmenbedingungen dafür massiv erleichtern, doch dazu fehlt heute noch der politische Mut. Nachhaltigkeit wird tatsächlich klein geschrieben. Deswegen braucht man die Erlaubnis vorauszudenken, um ein konkretes Bild für Lösungen der Zukunft zu schaffen, an dem wir alle uns – auch die Politiker – orientieren können.”, zeigt sich Christian Plas, Geschäftsführer von denkstatt, überzeugt.

Sustainable Future Campaign

Die Sustainable Future Campaign (www.sustainablefuturecampaign.com) ist die Nachhaltigkeitsinitiative der Hochschulliga für die Vereinten Nationen (Akademisches Forum für Außenpolitik, www.afa.at). Mit dem “Sustainable Future Award” will die Kampagne Persönlichkeiten ehren, die sich besonders um die Nachhaltigkeit verdient gemacht haben. Ochs ist der zweite Ausgezeichnete der Initiative, nach Marc R. Pa-checo, demokratischer State Senator Massachusetts. Er wurde für seine Verdienste als erster Vorsitzende des Senatsausschuss für Globale Erwärmung und Klimawandel in Massachusetts und beratender Klima-Experte für den ehemaligen Vize-Präsident Al Gore, ausgezeichnet.

Alexander Ochs

Der gebürtige Deutsche Alexander Ochs ist Experte beim ältesten amerikanischen Umweltthinktank, dem “World Watch Institute” in Washington D.C. Ochs hat revolutionäre neue Nachhaltigkeitskonzepte entworfen, das “Forum for Atlantic Climate and Energy Talks” gegründet, leitet den renommierten ReVolt Blog und ist Mitglied mehrerer internationaler Beiräte. Alexander Ochs ist Buchautor und publiziert in Medien und Filmen. Derzeit entwirft er neue ganzheitliche Nachhaltigkeitsstrategien für die Regierungen von Haiti, Jamaica und der Dominikanischen Republik, berät indische und afrikanische Nachhaltigkeitsprojekte und ist Co-Autor für die Worldwatch-Publikation “State of the World 2012″ für den großen Nachhaltigkeitsgipfel 2012 in Rio.

Quelle: DENKSTATT

DER STANDARD | INTERVIEW | 02. September 2011 17:03

Alexander Ochs, Experte beim US-Thinktank Worldwatch Institute, hat sich einen Ehrenpreis für besondere Verdienste um Nachhaltigkeit abgeholt

STANDARD: Wir sind sieben Milliarden Menschen, bald brauchen wir drei Planeten – ist die Klima-Krise in ein paar Jahren überhaupt zu verhindern?

Ochs: Ja. Dazu muss aber auf allen politischen Ebenen gehandelt werden. Die Fragestellung, ob wir mehr Top-down-Global-Governance brauchen oder mehr Bottom-up-Eigenverantwortung der Staaten, Kommunen, der Einzelnen, ist ein Schmarrn. Wir brauchen all das.

STANDARD: Was macht Sie da so hoffnungsfroh? Auch wenig ambitionierte Klimaziele werden dauernd verfehlt, der Klimagipfel in Kopenhagen war eher ein Waterloo …

Ochs: Also erstens bin ich Zweckoptimist, sonst käme ich ja morgens nicht aus dem Bett. Und zweitens: Der Paradigmenwechsel findet mancherorts schon statt. Und zwar nicht auf einem ethischen Gerüst, sondern aus knallharter ökonomischer Notwendigkeit, Firmen werden vom Saulus zum Paulus, weil sie auch unter Druck Green Labelling betreiben, weil Investitionen in Nachhaltigkeit sich rechnen und weil sie als dreckigste Firma keine richtig guten Leute mehr kriegen. Da tut sich sehr viel.

STANDARD: Wo sehen Sie den Paradigmenwechsel auf staatlicher Ebene? Wo ist denn da der Schmerz groß genug?

Ochs: Schauen Sie China an – das ist vom Kohleexporteur zum -importeur geworden. Das begrenzt das Wachstum. In der Regierung dort toben Kämpfe um die Frage, ob man erst reich und dann sauber werden soll oder umgekehrt – es braucht noch ein bisschen Zeit, aber es ist schon da.

STANDARD: Haben wir diese Zeit? Ihren Daten zufolge reden wir von zehn Jahren Spielraum …

Ochs: Europa muss noch wesentlich ambitionierter agieren und darf seine Führungsrolle nicht davon abhängig machen, ob andere immer gleich mitgehen. Mehr Reduktion von Treibhausgasen durch teurere Zertifikate und steuerliche Anreize, mehr Unterstützung von Alternativenergien und Innovationen beim Transport. Ob Sie es glauben oder nicht, das wird sich auch wirtschaftlich auszahlen.

STANDARD: Das Killerargument ist aber immer die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit.

Ochs: Da muss man sich anschauen, wer aus der jüngsten Krise am besten herausgekommen ist – es sind die Länder, die im Umweltschutz führen und am effizientesten arbeiten. Klar gibt es bei Investitionen Kurz- und Langfristigkeit, und kurzfristig fehlen Gelder woanders. Aber langfristig zahlen sie sich eben aus.

STANDARD: Sie haben auch Literatur und Philosophie studiert – rufen Sie auf individueller Ebene zu Verzicht, zu Konsumstopp auf?

Ochs: Nein, aber ich glaube, dass ein konsumärmeres Leben glücklicher macht. Da halte ich es mit Aristoteles – uns eint das Streben nach Glück. Und noch länger im Stau zu stehen und noch mehr shoppen bringt es uns nicht. Das spüren immer mehr Menschen und handeln mit Spaß danach – Radfahren, gesund essen, einen Garten anlegen …

STANDARD: Was sind Ihre Erfolgserlebnisse?

[Hier geht's zum Rest des Interviews mit Oesterreichs groesster Tageszeitung]

Dear Readers,

This second issue of CONNECTED shows that such a divide is not necessarily imminent. According to German Parliamentary State Secretary Katherina Reiche, both countries share similar concerns. “Germany and the United States are facing the same energy policy challenges. Both countries have to modernize their energy systems and make them more efficient,” Reiche stated on the occasion of the 3rd German-American Energy Conference in May in Berlin. In this issue’s “Face to Face” conversation, Philip D. Murphy, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, and Klaus Scharioth, Germany’s ambassador to the United States, agree. They point out that transatlantic climate diplomacy fosters mutual learning and can support innovation in important areas such as electric vehicles and mobility.

[I am co-editor of CONNECTED, together with Dennis Taenzler. Please find the full first issue of CONNECTED here]

1)      Can you explain to our Italian readers what the current status of Climate Change legislation is in the United States?

The situation in the United States is a bit tricky to understand for European observers due to the country’s complicated political system of “divided government” that provides “checks and balances” between the executive and legislative governmental branches. The House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy & Security Act, a far-reaching climate and energy bill in June 2009. This was the first time that a chamber of the U.S. parliament – or “Congress” – passed a bill that sets mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions: 17 percent emission reductions below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. The decision was very tight with a vote of 219-212, with 211 Democrats and only 8 Republicans supporting the bill. Since the House legislation has passed, all focus is on the Senate, the second chamber of the Congress. Here, Democrats Barbara Boxer and John Kerry introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act in September of last year. This bill would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 3 percent below 2005 levels by 2012, 20% by 2020, 42% by 2030, and 83% by 2050. The bill also includes massive public investment in clean energy and carbon capture and storage (CCS) research. While hailed by environmentalist, from the moment of its introduction the 821 pages of the Kerry-Boxer bill have faced fierce opposition from Republican lawmakers and Conservative commentators as too complicated, too wide-ranging, and too costly. It is clear that the bill will not be passed in its original version.

 2)      So what happens next?

There is now an additional bill that has gained some attention: First, the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act, introduced in December 2009 by Senators Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins. With more modest mandatory caps below 2012 levels of 5% by 2020 and 80% below by 2050, this legislation tries to find new middle ground for the climate change and energy debate. Most importantly, it would create a “cap and dividend” system that gives up to 75% of the revenue generated from auctioning of pollution permits to American households to offset the likely rise in energy costs after companies get regulated. The remaining revenues go into a fund intended to continue energy research and transition to a clean energy economy. In order to securely pass the Senate, any climate bill will need 60 votes. Currently, I would estimate the numbers of very probable supporters in the low 40s. About one third of the Senators are passionately opposed. The rest are fence sitters that will decide whether there will be climate legislation in the United States or not.

3)      What do you hope will come out of this?

U.S. lawmakers now have a historic opportunity to prevent the worst effects of climate change. Their decision is critical – not just for America, but for the world as a whole. For two decades, international climate policy was gridlocked by a mutual blockade of the United States and the major developing countries. But the finger pointing at China and India is ridiculous. Not only have these countries hardly any historic responsibility for the problem and their per capita emission today are still a small portion of ours, they are in many areas already acting more determined than the richest and most powerful country in the world. We will need the USA because of its large ecologic footprint but also because it is an economic, technologic and political powerhouse. With likely Democratic losses in the mid-term elections in November of this year, the situation will become even more difficult than it is now. I hope that a majority of Senators realizes the urgency of the issue and the signs of the times. Strong climate legislation is without a doubt in the interest of the American people. If a bill passes the Senate, it will probably been a moderated and simplified compromise between the Kerry-Boxer and Cantwell-Collins acts. It will not trigger enough action in the U.S. and the world to prevent dangerous climate change – but it will be an important new beginning of action for both the country and the globe.

4)      Is it true that the US green movement is disappointed with President Obama? Can you explain the reasons?

Disappointed with the President are only those who do not understand how the U.S. political system works. Obama made climate and energy a key issue in his election campaign, despite potential risks of such a strategy. After his election, he said his government was “deeply committed to passing a bill that creates new American jobs and the clean energy incentives that foster innovation.” In both his 2009 inauguration and the 2010 State of the Union addresses he called on Congress to work with the White House on strong climate and energy action. He is convinced that ““the nation that leads the world in creating new sources of clean energy will be the nation that leads the 21st century global economy.” In May 2009, President Obama announced the creation of a new federal policy to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and improve fuel economy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included more than $80 billion in clean energy investments. He has strongly supported the climate bill that passed the House, as well as the ones currently pending in the Senate. He has announced that if Congress is unable to act, he will strongly support regulation of greenhouse gases through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act. Yes, Obama has also supported more off-shore and on-shore drilling for oil in the US, and supports new nuclear power plants, but this is a small portion of his energy policy compared to renewables, natural gas, efficiency measures, cleaner cars, a renovation of rail, etc., and at least in parts  a concession directed at those law-makers at the fences that are still hesitant to support comprehensive climate legislation at all. Obama’s tactical behavior on climate and energy is insofar not too different from how he moved on health care. Altogether, Obama is not the problem.

5)      What is the problem then?

One, that the health care debate has overshadowed most of the political debate in the 16 months since Obama’s election. There was simply not enough political space for a second, very controversial and for many Americans still highly ideological debate. The first successful overhaul of the delinquent U.S. health care system in six decades will put new wind in the sails of climate campaigners, and Obama has left little doubt that energy and climate legislation – rather in this order – is the new prioritization. Second, the many veto players in the U.S. political system which make a supermajority necessary for the passage of any major legislative act. Third, the strong influence of private money in U.S. policy-making. Strong climate action and a transition of the U.S. energy system is in the interest of all American people – apart from those that have an economic interest in the status quo. The fossil fuel industry might still be the strongest business branch in the country, and it profits from every single day on which everything remains as it has been. And fourth, a powerful minority whose convictions are rooted in 1980s Reaganomics and Newt Gingrichs 1990s Contract with America. Many observers often overlook that the United States has seen a swing of the pendulum to the political right over the course of the last 30 years. It is more likely than not that with the 2008 elections the pendulum has started to swing back but there is still a substantial number of committed political heavyweights in government, media, academia, and industry who think that emission reductions will result in the fall of the American empire and who would rather see the world go down than the power of the government go up.

6)      Italy’s governement is pushing to re-start the study for the nuclear power in the country that was rejected by a referendum 30 years ago. What is happening in the Us with the nuclear energy?

The Obama administration as well as many key players in Congress support provisions to generate more electricity from nuclear power in the United States than is currently the case. In February, three decades after the Three Mile Island nuclear accident halted all new reactor orders, President Obama announced the first loan guarantees – more than $8 billion – to build two nuclear reactors in Georgia. Obama called nuclear a key component of thorough energy legislation, giving utility companies more incentive to turn from carbon-polluting fossil fuels to almost zero-carbon nuclear fuel. “This is only the beginning,” Obama said. His 2011 budget would triple – to $54.5 billion – loan guarantees available for new nuclear construction. With the climate and energy bills in Congress also including support for atomic energy, many think we might be at the brink of a nuclear renaissance in the United States.

7)      Do you support the building of new power plants in order to save the climate?

I think a nuclear renaissance would be very unfortunate. It is not a renewable energy because it needs material input, most importantly of uranium, that is a rather scarce resource if we want to use nuclear power globally to fight climate change. But then, who wants to increase nuclear energy worldwide, including in Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, or Bolivia? How do we contain nuclear proliferation if we make nuclear energy an important component of our energy strategy? We have seen in the past how difficult it is to permit the use of nuclear energy but control the production of weapons-grade plutonium. Add the high risk nuclear plants pose as targets for terrorist attacks. Most importantly, however, nuclear does not make sense economically. It is not the case that no reactor has been built in the US because it was forbidden. It was allowed to build reactors but industry did not want to run the risk of exorbitant costs, civil resistance, and not knowing where to ship the nuclear waste. To spend public money on overcoming these problems makes no sense. It would be much better spent on energy efficiency and renewable energies, and maybe natural gas which can work as a natural ally for renewables and a bridge technology to the not-too-distant future where highly efficient economies are entirely powered by renewables. Nuclear energy is the wrong way to go

8)      What should Europe do?

The influence of Europe on the United States is limited, but existing. If, for example, European industry representatives come to the US and explain that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme is not the end of the world, if they even support it because it spurs innovation and reduces inefficiencies – then this can be very powerful indeed. Most importantly, however, Europe must return to the leadership role that it once had. Leading means implementing strong mitigation policies at home and committing to ambitious targets and international aid for poorer countries internationally. Leading does not mean going forward on the condition that others do the same.

Gobal fossil fuel consumption subsidies fell to $312 billion in 2009 from $558 billion in 2008, a decline of 44.1 percent.[i] The reduction is due primarily to changes in international energy prices as well as in domestic pricing policies and demand, rather than because the subsidies themselves were curtailed. The number also does not include fossil fuel production subsidies that aim at fostering domestic supply, which are estimated at an additional $100 billion globally per year.^[ii]

Fossil fuel consumption subsidies include public aid that directly or indirectly lowers the price for consumers below market price. The International Energy Agency (IEA) defines energy subsidies as “any government action directed primarily at the energy sector that lowers the cost of energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers.”[i] Common means of subsidizing energy include trade instruments, regulations, tax breaks, credits, direct financial transfers like grants to producers or consumers, and energy-related services provided by the government, such as investments in energy infrastructure or public research.[ii] Many observers believe that fossil fuel subsidies should be phased out because they reduce the competitiveness and use of cleaner, alternative energy sources .

Please find the full article [here].

Dear Readers,

In his 2011 State of the Union Address, President Obama set the national goal to generate 80 percent of electricity from clean energy sources by 2035; the German government recently outlined its long-term energy concept which envisions full energy import independence and a 60 percent renewable energies share by 2050; the City of San Francisco launched an initiative aiming at a 100 percent renewables supply within just a decade; and under the motto “growth with foresight,“ Hamburg, this year Europe’s green capital, shows how urban development can be both economically beneficial and environmentally sustain-able. These are only a few examples illustrating that true leadership willing to tackle the twin challenges of climate change and energy security can be found on both sides of the Atlantic.

Welcome to the first edition of CONNECTED – a newsletter discussing climate and energy from a transatlantic perspective. With CONNECTED, partners adelphi and Worldwatch, headquartered in Berlin and Washington DC, will support the Transatlantic Climate Bridge, an initiative that since its inception in 2008 has promoted numerous activities by public authorities, the private sector, civil society, and academia in order to strengthen climate protection and energy security. CONNECTED aims to showcase and review policy and research initiatives that are aimed at low-emissions development. Opinion pieces, interviews, as well as reports on studies, dialogues and conferences will provide a regular update on the progress made toward building climate-compatible economies in Europe, the United States and beyond.

[I am co-editor of CONNECTED, together with Dennis Taenzler. Please find the full first issue of CONNECTED here]