Sustainable Dev.

Although the discussion on sustainability has started more than 50 years ago, there is arguably a lot left to be discovered in terms of what the concept means and how it could best be integrated into our daily lives, both nationally and globally. So it is in the context of constantly discovering the semantics of sustainability that I find networking conferences to be extremely useful in convincing the research community to find a common language, collaborate and inform themselves on what is available for them in terms of legislation, funding and political will.

 

 

The City Hungary Conference which took place on 29^th October 2013 was a good opportunity to see how the concept of sustainability is integrated in the Hungarian discourse and plans for urban development, especially given that I am mostly involved in EU-funded projects. With the aim to follow the EU’s plans for 2020, but also as a means of keeping track of what is happening in the country, the conference brought together several companies, members of the political environment and, of course, researchers such as myself.

To begin with, I liked the setting of the conference and its overall organisation. The decision to go for a big, old retrofitted industrial building in Buda was extremely appropriate for an event which aimed to include so much. In terms of the event itself, there were some interesting discussions and speeches.

One of the presentations which I personally thought to be of use for those in my position came from  Katalin Szili, member of the Hungarian parliament. As chair of the Committee on Sustainable Development, Ms. Szili gave a good overview of how the Committee sees and acts towards sustainability, as well as how this is represented in the legislation process, for instance. On this occasion I learned that, this year, the Hungarian Parliament accepted the National Sustainable Development Strategy, which will be valid until 2014. This measure will have a visible impact on future legislative procedure at local, regional and national level. My belief is that researchers need to pay good attention to what politicians say because it is them really who decide how and when to implement the EU’s general recommendations with regards to sustainability research.

Another interesting point for me was a presentation from a Hungarian ESCO, a company dealing with financial services for energy-related projects. As a business-minded project developer, it was great to hear that, for the 2014-2020 period, there will be three times more money for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects than it was for 2007-2013. In figures, the Hungarian government will provide 800 billion Forints in the next years. This type of information is vital for researchers. Basically, the main point is that if we know what budget to expect in Hungary for the type of activities which some of us are involved in, then we will be able to manage the projects efficiently and without unpleasant surprises, as we would have an approximate estimate of the time and effort which are to be invested.

From my observations throughout the entire event, the projects which got the most visitors to their stands were those which had a strong visual presence. I envied a stand that brought a machine which saves energy so that participants could test it for themselves. In terms of socialising with the rest of the participants, again, it was interesting to see what other are working on. For instance, it was useful to exchange views with representatives of the industry, particularly big companies which can do large-scale replicas of the projects I am working on. However, this forum was focused to showcase most of the aspect of the sustainable development aspects in urban environment. Thus it was evidently hard to find a common ground, a focused topic, as well as to easily identify among the audience those we could get in touch with for effective talks concerning ICT and urban-building master planning.

What is always important to remember is that scientists need to find a common language when they talk to the rest of the world. First, they need to find the appropriate “audience” and the right way they give their talks. We may be doing something interesting, but that something needs to be explained in easier terms. Secondly, from a technical point of view, there are always more possibilities of doing one thing, so we as researchers can go into so many directions, not knowing what else is happening in some other project’s back yard, nor in the parliament’s for that matter. So, given the need for a transparent flow of information between all parties involved, not to mention a clear direction for state of the art research, conferences like the City Hungary one represent a good opportunity to exchange views and learn from each other.

by Peter Gyuris

On 10th December, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development‘s board of directors will decide on a new energy policy. Samantha Smith of WWF’s Global Climate & Energy Initiative examines why the Bank should stop funding coal power plants, and prevent locking countries into a 50 year dependence on a fuel that is fatal for people and the climate.

In the last few months institutions that specialise in development finance like the World Bank, the European Investment Bank, the French Development Bank as well as the Export – Import bank of the United States have been lining up to announce an end to investments in coal.

The penny has finally dropped.  Nearly all of the largest public financial institutions now realise coal is a poor long-term investment for countries that are trying to follow a path to sustainable development. Sustainable in this context means that socially just solutions are found that are economically stable and within the limits of our planet. We know that coal has a high impact on the environment and on public health. Instead of locking nations into dirty energies for the next 50 years (the usual lifespan of a coal fired plant) – that is more suited to the 19^th century and is directly related to many health problems – they have decided to look at a just transition to green energy technologies.

And yet one institution, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), is so far absent from this list of converts. A quick look at its “Energy Investment Portfolio”, shows that nearly half of its finance between 2006 -2011 has been directed towards fossil fuels and only a paltry 11% of energy investments have gone to supporting sustainable renewables.

In the 34 countries where it operates – from Eastern countries of the European Union to Central Asia, including former Yugoslavia and transition economies of the former Soviet Union – the EBRD has established a legacy that flies in the face of the international consensus of fighting climate change and supporting an energy transition that will bring jobs, better health and long-term wellbeing. In the Balkans, where the EBRD has been traditionally supportive of fossil fuel plants, it seems interested in a significant investment in a coal fired future in Kosovo. If approved, the 600 MW lignite plant will still be there in 2050; this means that Kosovo will therefore have huge trouble attaining any international obligations to keep average temperatures below an increase in 2 degrees.

Money would be better spent in helping the Kosovar authorities reduce the 67% loss of its energy through theft, technical loss, and energy inefficiency. Addressing this loss must be a first priority.  We must also look at renewable solutions that will build capacity and environmental resilience for the long-term.  The EBRD made this decision in Serbia where it recently refused to invest in in a 750 MW coal fired plant. Why won’t it do the same everywhere?

Times are changing and international and national financial institutions are quickly moving away from coal. Banks with a higher capitalisation and with more experience than the EBRD are closing their doors to the worst climate killers. It is high time that the EBRD did so too. The next step will be to phase out support for all fossil fuels and support a fossil-fuel free future.

The bank cannot ignore the fact that emissions from coal burning plants in Croatia, Serbia, and Turkey have been responsible for the premature death of 5,042 people and have cost these governments up to €12 billion a year in health-related illnesses such as respiratory and cardiovascular conditions.  Has this been factored into the EBRD’s risk analysis?

On 10th December the Bank’s directors will meet in London and decide if they are going to primarily support energy savings and renewable energy investments. They have a public duty to ensure that none of the projects they fund goes against our wellbeing either on a globally or a regionally level. The time for coal has passed and a public bank like the EBRD that plans for the future needs to fully accept this.

WWF infographics: Why the EBRD must quit coal NOW

 

The 19th climate conference in Warsaw will be remembered for not having brought Humanity any closer to a successful climate accord. Posterity will recall it more for discord than agreement: discord with Australia, Japan and Poland for backtracking on their climate targets and walk-out of the environment associations for lack of progress towards the signature of an effective global climate deal in Paris in November 2015.

Humanity has only 700 days to negotiate and sign the most difficult international treaty ever that will be decisive for the survival of Humanity on our tiny and fragile planet.

After Warsaw it can no longer afford to waste a single day.

UN climate officials need to prepare a draft. In conformity with the invitation the UN Secretary General has addressed to the heads of government for the New York meeting it must be bold.

The treaty should be concise and focused on reducing green house gas emissions.

All countries must sign and ratify it. Humanity cannot afford another failure like the Kyoto Protocol.

Humanity must commit to emit no more green house gases than the planet can absorb without raising the average temperature by more than two centigrade compared to 1990. This has been agreed by the international community, but now it must be translated in effective actions.

The cumulative volume of greenhouse gases that the earth is able to absorb without a climate catastrophe must be specified in the Treaty. There is so little scope left for additional emission that the IPCC as a neutral body will have to attribute “residual emission quotas”to all countries on the basis of their 2015 per capita GDP and their cumulative C02 emissions since 1850.

On their own governments will not come forward with the necessary volumes of reduction necessary for keeping the earth cool enough to preserve Humanity from the worst damages.

But as the Warsaw Conference has invited all countries to announce their “contributions” during the first quarter of 2015, let them do their homework and then compare the outcome with the results calculated in parallel by the IPCC.

The EU should set an example of punctuality and substance,repeating its 2050 target of reducing its C02 emissions by 80 per cent over 1990. In order to underline its seriousness it should also enumerate the actions it commits to take to that end. This will be anything but simple!

In 2014 and 2015 we shall witness endless showdowns between “poor” and “rich”, fossil-rich and fossil-poor countries. Many will try to gain time, though time will work against all. The “poor” countries will remain more interested in maximising the contents of climate funds,while “rich” countries, including the EU, will ask for restraint.

The EU will be rather lonely if it keeps pushing for effective action.

It is in a comfortable situation, as it will be less hurt by climate change than most other parts of earth. Moreover, it is better prepared for putting in place alternative energy systems. Its high standard of living and stable population also enables it to do with present and even lower levels of income, energy consumption and emissions.

This being said, the top priority for the outgoing Commission should be to clarify the options for the EU and the international community in view of being fully prepared for the 2014 Climate Summit, the Lima COP 20 and the decisive Paris COP 20. These issues should override all other short and medium-term questions that the EU will also be confronted with.

Eberhard Rhein, Brussels, 14/11/2013

Typhoon Haiyan did not teach us a lesson on climate change, nor to respect the wrath of God. Rather, it showed us nature at its worst, and humanity at its best.

In conversation with BUILD UP, Rod Janssen, long-term consultant to the European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (eceee) talks about the Recast EPBD, low energy buildings and the need for strong leadership on energy efficiency.

 

What was eceee’s involvement in the EPBD and the Recast EPBD?

Firstly, eceee closely followed the approval process of the EPBD through the European Parliament and Council and its subsequent implementation. It was heavily involved in the Recast EPBD—providing briefings and updates on technical issues to members and the wider energy efficiency community via the eceee website. This increased involvement in the Recast saw eceee helping out in the negotiation and approval process. For example, no formal definition of deep renovation existed so, the eceee commissioned ECOFYS to define deep retrofit. And at the eceee summer study peer-reviewed papers on energy efficiency are presented and discussed in panel sessions. At the 2009 summer study the issue of cost optimality was clarified—one participant commented ‘now I understand, clearly how to apply the principle of cost optimality’.

Within the Recast EPBD there are no binding targets, how does this affect EU Member States?

On DG Energy’s website, energy efficiency targets for 2020 are listed for each member state. If a member state estimates that it will meet this target then there is no pressure on local governments to be more ambitious than building codes or the targets set out by central government.eceee was particularly concerned that no specific targets were set for existing buildings, which represent the bulk of the building stock and the potential energy savings for this sector. However, the Recast EPBD was implemented when Europe was in the middle of an economic crisis. Put simply there were no resources in member states. Deep retrofit—factor 4 or 5—can be complex and very costly. Even if it is cost effective over live cycle analysis, upfront capital is still required to fund the works. Financing retrofit works and nearly zero energy design is major challenge.

Under the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED), a public buildings renovation target of 15 % (3 % per annum) was outlined. The directive further states that member states should start with least energy efficient buildings. However, most member states do not have an inventory of public building stock—so how can they target the worst performing stock?

How can the low energy building market be stimulated?

There is little new construction in Europe as member states are still going through economic upheaval, so it is difficult to say how we can stimulate the market, let alone encourage low energy design. The building inventory in Europe is increasing by approximately 1 % per annum; in London this is approximately 0.5 % per annum.

The introduction of cost optimality and nearly zero energy buildings in the Recast EPBD forms the building blocks for future low energy design. Local governments and actors need to take a more holistic view because boosting the low energy building market will create thousands of jobs—money saved on fuel bills can be spent elsewhere in the economy, creating a resilient local economy. Energy efficient buildings are key to solving the economic crisis.

What is needed at a European level to ensure an increase in the low energy building market?

Transparency and strong leadership from the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council is needed. But, things are set to change because a new Commissioner for Energy will come into office in 2014. The energy efficiency community are following the implementation of the Recast EPBD and the EED. It is fundamental that these directives be implemented with commitment and effectiveness. In years gone by this it was left to concerted action—which is a necessary and invaluable resource—but it is not enough. There is too much vested interest—an independent voice is needed. The Coalition for Energy Savings, for example, are a body of industry associations and NGOs who put pressure on the Commission and raise awareness about implementation of directives.

At a local level in domestic and non-domestic retrofit, there is scope for an expert energy advisor—who is knowledgeable on European and national legislation, and energy efficiency—to de-mystify retrofit and ensure that upon refurbishing we do not lock in problems for the future. Retrofit is a big investment for an individual or commercial entity. However, the technical solutions offered are often complex. A building owner needs to know how long a project will take, what disruptions will occur, if it can be done step-by-step and what alternatives are available. Trade organisations and NGOs advocate a one-time deep retrofit but the reality is that building owners often cannot afford this upfront investment.

How can we ensure a more coordinated approach?

National energy agencies have an important role to play—for example, SEAI (Ireland) and ADEME (France)—to raise awareness about retrofit. These agencies have the expertise to ensure collaborative work with the financial community and the building professional community, especially on innovative financial mechanisms. The future is uncertain, we do not know if a nearly zero energy hospital will be more expensive to build than an ordinary hospital in 2019?

At a local level, local government, local authorities and energy agencies need to learn how to bundle money. For example, using resources from energy efficiency obligations together with government funding, loans from financial institutes and private savings.

 

By Eberhard Rhein Delegates take to hunger strikes; demonstrators become more vociferous - Warsaw has shown the beginning of an awakening! However positive this awakening, human beings keep suffering from schizophrenia: with the left half of our brains we continue rejoicing at rising sales of aircrafts or cars, both of which are responsible for polluting mega-cities and the atmosphere, and with the right half of the brain we regret this pollution is happening.

By Jason Anderson of WWF EPO / Say what you like about the government of Poland’s problematic approach to climate policy, but they sure can build a great national stadium. But you could also say that the event takes place almost literally in its own bubble, in the enclosed stadium, isolated from the outside world.

Humanity is lost in a fatal inconsistency.

At the very moment when the COP 19 in Warsaw is supposed to define the path towards a low-emission future that would prevent global temperatures from rising beyond two centigrade, the IEA “2013 World Energy Report” projects global energy demand to increase from 13 billion tons oil equivalent in 2011 to 17.4 billion tons in 2035, 60 per cent of which to be covered by fossil sources.

This implies squaring a circle! From a climate perspective, Humanity will either have to completely cover its supplementary demand by renewable and nuclear sources or avoid it by more energy saving and efficiency. Neither is very realistic until 2035.

The supplementary demand will come exclusively from emerging countries, in particular China, India and the rest of Asia. European and US demand will stagnate, due to saturation and higher energy efficiency. But that is not good enough either; it will have to decrease to set an example to emerging countries.

The EIA rightly underlines the need to step up measures for higher energy efficiency and the abolition of subsidies on fossil energy in both developed and emerging countries. Unfortunately, it has no clout over its member countries, let alone the rest of the world. Not even the EU has completely abolished subsidies on coal!

It should be up to the UN to pass the message to its 200 member countries in Warsaw and monitor its impact. But the COP 19 are largely involved procedural discussions without a bearing on climate realities.

Will the UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon tell the heads of government at the summit meeting in the autumn of 2014 what they ought to do?

What must happen before governments awake to the relentless advance of climate change?

Eberhard Rhein, Brussels, 18/11/2013

L’Agence internationale de l’énergie annonce un monde à court de brut Le rapport annuel de l’AIE souligne que pétrole et gaz de schiste ne suffiront pas à satisfaire la demande mondiale. A l’horizon 2020, les pays de l’OPEP reviendront sur le devant de la scène comme principaux pourvoyeurs de brut mondial. L’information n’a pas été relayée par les médias et la presse internationale aussi puissamment que ce à quoi on aurait pu s’attendre. Une occasion de perdue pour relance la Communauté européenne de l’énergie.

 Malgré la production nord-américaine de carburants fossiles non conventionnels et la fourniture de pétrole offshore du Brésil, le brut d’Arabie saoudite reviendra sur le devant de la scène dans les années 2020, seule énergie majeure en mesure d’étancher la soif de pétrole de la planète. C’est une des principales révélations de l’Agence internationale de l’énergie (AIE), dans le World Energy Outlook 2013, dirigé par Fatih Birol, économiste en chef de l’AIE et présenté à Londres le 12 novembre. D’ici à 2035, la demande globale aura augmenté d’un tiers, selon l’AIE, mais son centre de gravité évolue : elle sera soutenue en premier lieu par l’Inde et les pays d’Asie du Sud-Est, davantage que par la Chine. Le Moyen-Orient devient un consommateur de gaz et de pétrole de premier plan d’ici à 2030. Le Brésil fait l’objet d’un chapitre spécifique, s’illustrant par ses performances en termes d’intensité énergétique, mais aussi en tant que nouveau producteur et consommateur mondial de fossiles. Quant aux vieux pays de l’OCDE, leur consommation va stagner au cours des prochaines décennies.

 Le WEO 2013 met l’accent sur le fait que les pétroles de schiste (Light Tight Oil) et les pétroles extraits à très grande profondeur vont constituer un apport supplémentaire en raison de l’amélioration des techniques d’extraction. "Mais cela ne signifie pas que le monde s’oriente vers une nouvelle ère d’abondance pétrolière. Un prix du pétrole qui s’oriente tout droit vers 128 dollars le baril en 2035 soutiendra le développement de ces nouvelles ressources, même si aucun pays ne reproduira le succès actuel des pétroles de schiste aux Etats-Unis. La montée en puissance des pétroles de schiste va réduire l’écart entre la demande, qui atteindra 101 millions de barils par jour en 2035, et l’offre de brut, qui régressera à 65 millions de barils par jour", résument les auteurs du WEO.

 Le brut d’Arabie saoudite, ressource refuge. Mais la principale révélation du WEO 2013 est ailleurs. A partir de 2020, le Moyen-Orient redeviendra l’acteur et le pourvoyeur clé de pétrole brut. A l’heure actuelle, le rôle des pays de l’OPEP est provisoirement restreint par quatre principaux faits : la montée en puissance des exportations des Etats-Unis, actuellement premier producteur de pétrole mondial en raison de ses champs de pétrole et gaz de schiste ; les exportations de sables bitumineux du Canada ; la mise en production au Brésil de pétrole offshore extrait à grande profondeur, dont le débit atteindra 6 millions de barils par jour d’ici à 2035 ; et, plus globalement, la production de gaz naturel liquéfié un peu partout sur la planète. Cette combinaison d’apports de carburants en provenance d’autres pays que l’OPEP commencera à se tarir à partir des années 2020, prévoit l’AIE. Les compagnies pétrolières des pays de l’OPEP contrôleront alors quelque 80% des réserves prouvées.

 Confirmation du pic pétrolier. L’AIE confirme la tendance au pic pétrolier à travers l’analyse de plus de 1.600 puits : une fois passé leur pic, ceux-ci s’illustrent par une décrue de 6% de leur production annuelle. "Même si ce chiffre varie selon les puits, la conséquence est que, d’ici à 2035, la production de pétrole brut des champs actuellement en production aura chuté de quelque 40 millions de barils par jour", résume le WEO. Sur les 790 milliards de barils devant être mis en production d’ici à 2035 pour satisfaire la demande mondiale telle que l’AIE la projette, plus de la moitié servira à endiguer le déclin de la production. "Les producteurs de fossiles non conventionnels seront lourdement dépendants de forages en continu pour tenter d’endiguer la baisse de niveau des puits".

 Les aléas des huiles et gaz de schiste. L’incertitude caractérise les projections sur les huiles et gaz de schiste. "Forer des puits de pétrole ou de gaz de schiste demeure une opération d’essai. Quand il se déplace vers un nouveau secteur, un opérateur expérimentera une largeur de puits différente, des stades de fracturation variables, des fluides de fracturation différents et des stratégies de perforation différentes jusqu’à ce qu’une combinaison satisfaisante fournisse de bons retours sur investissement. Trouver les parties favorables du réservoir, celles qui sont faciles à mettre en production, est souvent une opération aléatoire". Le taux de récupération de ces fossiles de schiste est soumis à l’avènement encore hypothétique de nouvelles découvertes technologiques.

 Le WEO se penche également sur un point crucial : le coût des techniques d’extraction. Et souligne que toutes les ressources futures ne pourront pas être mises en production aux mêmes coûts qu’aujourd’hui. L’AIE établit un modèle combinant taux de déplétion des ressources par pays, évolutions technologiques et inflation des coûts industriels, qui tendent à augmenter corrélativement au prix du baril. "La capacité de l’industrie pétrolière à développer rapidement de nouvelles ressources est limitée, en partie en raison de la difficulté de trouver du personnel compétent, et aussi en raison de la durée requise par des projets à long terme. Il y a donc des contraintes pour satisfaire la demande en temps et en heure", avertit l’Agence internationale de l’énergie.

 Rappelons qu le parlement européen veut soumettre les projets à une évaluation environnementale. Les eurodéputés ont révisé la directive sur l’évaluation des incidences environnementale de certains projets pour y soumettre les projets d’hydrocarbures non conventionnels. Un vote suivi de près dans l’attente d’une réglementation européenne. Vingt et un prix Nobel ont envoyé une lettre au président de la Commission européenne José Manuel Barroso pour l’exhorter à soutenir la directive sur la qualité des carburants en cours de négociations avec les Etats membres et le Parlement européen. Les plates-formes pétrolières forent toujours plus profond mais le droit des mers peine à encadrer leurs activités, selon l’IDDRI, qui a lancé en mars 2012 le projet "Pour une réglementation internationale de l’exploitation énergétique offshore". La ressource en eau particulièrement exposée :une étude bibliographique du BRGM et de l’Ineris s’est penchée sur les impacts liés à l’exploitation du gaz de houille. Les risques environnementaux potentiels concerneraient principalement la ressource en eau. Dix ans après sa création, l’ASPO confirme le pic pétrolier . Les faits semblent donner raison à l’Association d’étude du pic pétrolier. La production annuelle de pétrole conventionnel a amorcé une décrue depuis 2006, tandis que le baril est à plus de 100 $ en continu depuis un an, situation sans précédent. Les compagnies pétrolières ont boycotté la dernière conférence de l’ASPO, mais elles reviennent à la charge à travers un rapport qui affirme que les sous-sols recèlent suffisamment de pétrole pour alimenter la planète pendant tout le siècle. les pétroliers jugent qu’il n’y a pas d’alternative . Pas d’alternative à la fracturation hydraulique. C’est le message martelé par les industriels lors d’une audition parlementaire sur les sources alternatives. Un message d’autant plus important que la technique redevient d’actualité.

Bref  il y a inflation de points de vue, de controverses (notamment sur le pic pétrolier) et de polémiques, c’est donc le moment le plus opportun pour relancer la Communauté européenne de l’énergie. « La Communauté européenne de l’énergie, c’est maintenant ! » c’est le mot d’ordre donné par « Notre Europe-Institut Jacques Delors réuni autour de Jacques Delors lui-même mais aussi d’Antonio Vitorino et de Jerzy Buzek. D’autres les ont rejoints, mais peu nombreux et pas aussi influents qu’on aurait pu l’espérer en raison de l’importance de l’enjeu. Ils ont fait remarquer qu’en 1951 six Etats européens décidaient de mettre leurs intérêts en commun dans deux secteurs clés de l’économie afin de créer une communauté qui remplacerait le conflit par la coopération.. L’énergie était l’un de ces secteurs. Soixante plus tard, l’énergie demeure une priorité politique importante, mais les règles communes, un tant soit peu contraignantes, permettant de réaliser les objectifs d’une authentique politique de l’énergie ne sont pas toutes au rendez-vous. Il reste encore à nous placer à la hauteur de l’enjeu, bien au-delà des proclamations sans lendemain et des formules vagues.

 Trois années après le lancement de l’idée d’une Communauté européenne de l’énergie, le but reste toujours le même : sécurité de l’approvisionnement, la compétitivité des prix et une protection environnementale efficace. Or jamais ces objectifs ne semblent aussi fortement menacés que maintenant. Trois éléments essentiels se sont éloignés de notre portée :

-. un Marché intérieur de l’énergie intégré qui fournirait l’infrastructure nécessaire (en particulier des infrastructures interconnectées) rendant possible un commerce libre et équitable ;

- . une recherche conjointe sur les nouvelles technologies ;

- . la possibilité de coordonner les achats d’énergie extérieure à l’UE.

Pourtant des décisions importantes ont été prises : conclusions du Conseil européen sur l’énergie du 4 février 2011, répétées au sommet de l’énergie du 22 mai 2013. Toutes les lois utiles semblent être là, par contre c’est leur mise en oeuvre rapide qui là, comme ailleurs, font défaut. Jerzy Buzek a cru devoir le rappeler dans son rapport au Parlement européen de 2013 sur le marché intérieur de l’énergie rapport soutenu massivement par 90% des députés européens.

Le financement est assuré pour la période 2014-2020 dans la mesure où il peut l’être dans une conjoncture de restrictions généralisées des dépenses : ce financement comprend 5,1 milliards d’euros pour une infrastructure transeuropéenne sous l’égide du nouveau « Mécanisme pour l’interconnexion en Europe », à peu près 5,4 milliards pour la recherche sur les nouvelles technologies de l’Horizon 2020 et enfin les fonds structurels affectés à l’efficacité énergétique.

La stratégie étant clairement définie, quelles priorités retenir ? Prévenir les risques d’approvisionnement en renforçant la capacité de négociation des européens. Renforcer la position des consommateurs particuliers mieux informés, plus libres dans leur choix grâce à une compétitivité équitable renforcée. Une mise en oeuvre rationnelle et stable de la politique environnementale et climatique. Des actions de support aux énergies renouvelables. Renégocier les contrats à long terme. Offrir un large soutien aux consommateurs les plus vulnérables. Intégrer les infrastructures existantes. Une mise en oeuvre urgente de la législation existante.

 Une énergie bon marché, sans menace de pénurie est une des conditions préalables à la compétitivité de l’Union européenne et par là, à la croissance, à la création d’emplois nouveaux et à une amélioration du bien être des citoyens européens. A l’évidence autant de conditions pour sortir de la crise.

 

Cf. l’étude de Sami Andoura (Notre Europe-Institut Jacques Delors) sur les fondements de la solidarité énergétique en Europe : de l’indépendance à l’interdépendance http://www.notre-europe.eu/media/solidariteenergie-andoura-ne-ijd-juillet13.pdf?pdf=ok

 World economy Energy 2013 http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2013/

 

 

 

Classé dans:Actualités, BREVES

By Sam Van den Plas, climate policy officer at WWF European Policy Office

Today in Warsaw, the International Coal & Climate Summit organised by the World Coal Association started. While it might be no great surprise that the World Coal Association decided to organise this event to coincide with the UN climate change conference, we were, however, astonished to find that the Polish government is not only presiding over the UN conference, but also hosting the coal summit in the premises of its Ministry of Economy. How can the Polish Government realistically endorse a conference in support of the world’s most polluting fuel while also directing international talks on how to avoid catastrophic climate change?

Two-thirds of presently available fossil fuel reserves need to be kept underground

In order to have a 50% chance of keeping global temperature increases to less than 2°C, the International Energy Agency has calculated that nations can only afford to emit 880 gigatonnes of CO2.  If they are all burnt, currently available fossil fuel reserves would emit 2860 gigatonnes of CO2. This is why the IEA is saying that more than 2/3 of all fossil reserves must be left underground in order to stay on the ‘safe’ side of global warming.  These figures do not take into account the potential for reducing emissions using carbon capture and storage – because this remains an unproven technology.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) – even if used at large scale it is not a game changer

Fossil fuel companies are claiming great things for the potential role CCS can play to reduce emissions, and therefore allow them to burn more coal, oil and gas. The IEA also considers CCS to be a necessary part of decarbonisation efforts.  Their scenarios foresee that ‘large scale’ CCS would reduce global CO2 emissions by about 90 gigatonnes by 2050. That is on average about 2.3 gigatonnes of CO2 removed a year for the next 38 years.  Presently, CCS removes about 0.1 gigatonne of CO2 a year from worldwide emissions. Given the present costs of CCS, it is not at all clear whether this degree of expansion is possible.   But let’s leave aside whether this is doable, or cost-effective. Let’s say – for the argument’s sake – hooray! We love it. Let’s do it. Does that help? By no means!

90 gigatonnes of CO2 is only about 3% of the emissions that would be released if all presently available fossil fuel reserves were burnt. In other words, even with the worldwide rollout of CCS, the simple fact that at least two-thirds of fossil fuels have to stay under ground remains unavoidable. Regardless of whether we could accept CCS or not as a complementary climate measure to decarbonise fossil fuels – it is not a game changer at all.

The carbon bubble

These numbers also show that the majority of fossil fuel reserves held by coal, oil and gas companies risk becoming stranded assets if the 2°C target is met. Their current value is based on the exploitation of resources that have to stay in the ground for the good of humanity.  The investment and economic implications of using only a small part of the available  reserves have not yet been assessed but it’s clear already that coal, oil and gas companies and their investors are running an extremely risky business.

In particular the coal industry with its very carbon intensive output is an immediate concern for investors. As outlined by Goldman Sachs recently, the window for coal investments is closing rapidly and most thermal coal growth projects will already struggle to earn a positive return for their owners.  This trend would be accelerated by the implementation of a realistic carbon price which takes into account the external costs of burning fossil fuels – such as the serious and expensive health impacts.

Poland has a choice

No one in their right mind would say that Poland should shut down its mines and coal power plants tomorrow. Change needs to come rationally, over time, and through a long-term development perspective. But until the government starts realizing that burning coal is costing the Polish society a hefty 2.9-8.2 billion euros annually, the old arguments about the cheapness of the energy source will prevail. This unfortunate myth has yet to be busted, as the Chancellery of the Prime Minister’s Office recently published  an analysis showing that by 2060 the cheapest (and optimal) energy mix for Poland would be 100% coal. There is, however a ray of light at the end of the tunnel, as the analysis also includes development pathways showing an 80% emissions reduction scenario and a 50% renewable energy scenario.  Although they are portrayed as more expensive, this shows that at least there is interest in looking into these options.

Poland’s renewable energy potential hasn’t yet been tapped. The Poles are still waiting for a comprehensive renewable energy law that would help boost investment and reduce the risks and impacts of their current reliance on coal. The recently published proposal for a tender based feed-in-tariff system is seen not only as biased towards existing large power companies using biomass and onshore wind, but also leaves out completely support for micro-installations. Energy efficiency, coupled with large scale, small scale and micro scale renewable energy could hold the answer for Poles who what to protect their health and the environment. A study recently published by the European Environment Agency study shows that Poland has the second-dirtiest air quality in Europe. In 2011, six out of the top 10 most polluted cities in Europe were in Poland.  Poland also had the highest levels of benzo(a)pyrene, a carcinogenic hydrocarbon that’s found in coal tar and also comes from wood burning and car exhaust. But the Polish Government is hosting industry summits rather than developing the policies they need.

The Polish government justifies its coal drive by citing energy security concerns that can only be alleviated by exploiting domestic resources rather than relying, for example, on Russian gas.  However, Poland is already a net importer of coal and, in an energy irony, about two-thirds of those imports come from… Russia!

Poland does not have to remain dependent on coal. Recent research has shown that by 2030 Poland can halve its coal demand, quadruple its renewable energy use and create 100,000 new jobs in the energy sector, equalling employment in the country’s coal industry. According to the comprehensive np2050.pl report, sustainable development is also seen as the only way not to fall into the middle income trap, which would significantly hinder further growth.

Both studies state that the Polish government has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a modern, efficient, lower carbon energy system as ageing power plants come up for replacement.  If they fail to take this chance, they will be locking the country into a devastating new era of coal-fired power.

Poland’s choice is clear.

 

 

 

From 11 November to 22 November, the 19th international climate conference (COP19) opened in Warsaw – the capital of Poland and the most reticent EU country on climate policies.

Two reasons account for the Polish resistance against a resolute climate policy.

Conservative intellectuals and media deny the existence of climate change.

A conservative periodical – Uwazam Rze- recently called global warming an absurdity. Carbon dioxide is no poison but a mildly warming gas that is indispensable for plant growth. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is therefore wrong in claiming that there is climate change and mainly caused by human activities.

Economic interests go in parallel with these ideological aberrations. Poland is Europe’s biggest coal producer with the most important reserves of coal and lignite. About 90 per cent of its electricity and heat are generated with coal. The sector, mostly in the hands of state-owned companies, is a major employer, which explains the strong support by trade unions for maintaining the coal industry and the coal-fired electricity sector.

It is not surprising either that the conservative Right organised an anti-climate summit in Warsaw on Sunday November 10th inviting the government to veto any EU efforts for a more vigorous EU climate policy.

Poland constitutes a formidable brake on a more resolute EU climate policy, even it has no formal legal power to veto EU decisions or legislation. But Poland has managed to delay important decisions related to climate policy in 2013.

In the spring of 2014 the EU will have to adopt its climate policy targets for 2030. These should provide for a reduction of C02 emissions of about 40 per cent, compared to 1990, to be consistent with the tentative 80-90 per cent reduction target for 2050.

The Polish government will find such a target hard to accept. It will feel it even more difficult to realise that all Polish coal deposits cannot be burnt.

The EU Commission, supported by member countries must therefore launch an awareness debate in the next three months and demonstrate that it is feasible to reduce emissions by investing massively in energy efficiency of buildings, electricity generation and manufacturing, without impairing employment.

It is also overdue for Poland and all other member states to realise that national energy independence will have to belong to the past, as the completion of the single European energy market at the end of 2014 should boost import of electricity and gas from neighbouring member countries.

Eberhard Rhein, Brussels, 17/11/2013

Source: Eco (Climate Action Network)

We all know that if the ambition gap is not closed or significantly narrowed by 2020, the door will close on many options to limit temperature increase to 1.5° C.

An interesting truth is that the EU has already met its 20% target for 2020 eight years ahead of schedule. Including international offset credits, European greenhouse gas emissions were actually down nearly 27% on 1990 levels in 2012!

Therefore, it is a no-regrets option to make these reductions legally binding domestically and internationally, and adopt a 40% reduction target for 2020. And the EU has a concrete opportunity to do so in the context of revising its commitments under the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol before May 2014.

A key policy instrument here is the EU Emissions Trading System, the world’s first international cap-and trade system, covering nearly half of the EU’s carbon emissions. The European carbon market must be reformed quickly as it is increasingly ineffective as a tool to control pollution. It suffers from an oversupply of almost two billion emission allowances, mainly due to a record use of international offset credits, which has caused the carbon price to crash to under less than 5 Euro.

What’s needed is a bold decision to remove surplus allowances permanently from the market and to adopt a steeper emissions reduction trajectory.

Based on its experience with domestic targets, the EU is well-placed to call for a framework that hastens the roll-out of renewables and energy efficiency through enhanced international collaboration.

The EU should ensure its 2020 climate and energy package demonstrates how ambition leads to success. At stake is not only the EU’s credibility but indeed the integrity of its climate policy.

 

By Samantha Smith, Leader of the WWF’s Global Climate and Energy

Early on Wednesday morning, the WWF team currently based in Warsaw for the UN’s annual climate conference huddled around a laptop to hear Rafael Senga, our colleague at WWF Philippines, provide a first-hand account of the profound damage caused by Super Typhoon Haiyan. He was stranded in one of the islands lashed by Haiyan after attending a renewable energy consultation. This is what he told us:

It’s the storm surge that has caused the most damage. This wasn’t expected by people here. We just hadn’t seen a surge like it before. It reached five metres high and battered coastal communities like a tsunami, drowning scores of people. The story that we are now beginning to realise here is just how many males of the household – fathers and older sons – stayed back to look after their family’s properties and belongings after government ordered the evacuation of coastal communities as the monster storm approached.

So many fathers have been lost. This is one of the saddest stories that is emerging. You can imagine the loss these families are suffering, both now and in the years ahead. Many young children died, too, because the storm surge even reached some of the evacuation centres. More than 2,000 people have died and 660,000 have lost their homes – but we don’t yet know the final figures because rescue teams have not yet reached many remote rural areas.

Ten million people – 10% of the population – have been affected. Initial estimates by the Germany-based Cedim Forensic Disaster Analysis put the total damage at US$8 billion to $19billion. It’s the worst natural calamity we have experienced in our history. We’ve had volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and many typhoons, but this is the worst. We have experienced destructive super typhoons more often in the last decade and Filipinos now fear that with the changing climate, things are bound to get worse in the future.

The rarefied halls of an international conference centre are not the ideal location to absorb the emotion and urgent needs of people fighting for their very survival, but the human tragedy currently being played out in the Philippines has provided a timely reminder that negotiators must focus their minds on the ever-important, yet long intractable, issue of “Loss and Damage”.

Put simply, L&D – as it’s called in the negotiators’ lingo – is the principle that some communities and nations around the world will simply not be able to “adapt” to the worst impacts of climate change – sea level rise, more intense storms, floods, ocean acidification, forest degradation, heatwaves, etc – in the decades ahead as the world continues to warm. Instead, they will need to be compensated for their loss of livelihoods, property, territory, ecosystems, biodiversity, and, in the worst cases, human life.

It is a both a matter of hard money and social justice – a potent cocktail that has seen this issue become one of the most emotive and hard-fought agendas in the 20-year history of these annual UN climate talks.

WWF firmly believes that it is time for the deadlock to be broken. What better motivation can the negotiators have than see the loss and damage currently being experienced in the storm-ravaged Philippines?

That is why, along with our NGO partners CARE and ActionAid, we are today in Warsaw launching a new report called “Tackling the Climate Reality”. It calls on the negotiators gathered here at COP19 to do the right thing by breaking the deadlock and establishing an international mechanism to address Loss and Damage. We believe that they need to treat Loss and Damage as a separate matter to that of mitigation (committing to reduce emissions) and adaptation (building infrastructure such as flood defences). Given its importance – which is only exacerbated by the continued delay in reducing emissions – it deserves its own formal structure within the UNFCCC process. As our new report states:

Whilst the UNFCCC has existing mechanisms and instruments on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology and clean development, there is no specific mechanism to address loss and damage. Nor can loss and damage simply be subsumed under existing frameworks and ongoing negotiations. Instead, it must be regarded as a ‘new era’ of climate change alongside, and in addition to, mitigation and adaptation.

A new, dedicated international mechanism on loss and damage is therefore needed under the UNFCCC to assess and address the significant residual impacts of climate change on vulnerable countries. Parties agreed at COP18 that the role of the Convention on loss and damage would include: enhancing knowledge and understanding; strengthening global coordination and coherence; and enhancing action and support to address loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change. This report outlines the specific elements, functions and modalities of such an international mechanism.

As I mentioned, these negotiations can get very technical and hard to follow – and are often conducted behind closed doors – but the details really do matter for millions of people around the world, both now and in the decades ahead. If Loss and Damages continues to be ignored, or kicked once again down the road, by negotiators (largely from the prosperous nations who have already benefited from more than a century of fossil fuel-enabled development) then the injustice of climate change will continue to stain the international community.

If you don’t accept that the world’s changing climate will cause loss and damage to millions of people around the world, then please listen to the parting words of my Filipino colleague Rafael:

We normally get a Super Typhoon once every 3-5 years. But in recent years we seem to have had at least one at the end of each year. According to the Weather Underground, half the storms on an informal list of the strongest ones to hit land in the 20th and 21st centuries ended up striking the Philippines. A 2008 study found that in the north western Pacific where Haiyan formed, the top 1 percent of the strongest tropical cyclones over the past 30 years are getting on average about 1 mph stronger each year — a phenomenon some scientists suspect is a consequence of global warming.

“The strongest storms are getting stronger” said study co-author James Kossin of the National Climatic Data Center. Haiyan “is what potentially could be a good example of the kind of the things we’re finding. “Similarly, the Philippines has seen its sea rise nearly half an inch in the past 20 years — about triple the global increase”, according to R. Steven Nerem of the University of Colorado. Higher sea levels can add to storm surges, creating slightly greater flooding. And the typhoon season seems to be getting longer. It normally runs from June to September, but now it seems to be extending into our so-called dry season and as late as January.

The IPCC recently concluded that it has low confidence in its predictions about storms, but it did say it is likely that storms will intensify in a warmer climate, if not become more frequent. Urgent continued research is required. But the fear here in the Philippines is that storms will get worse as the ocean continues to heat up. According to NOAA, the sea temperature in the western Pacific this time of the year should be 28C, but the temperature when Haiyan formed was still at 32C. That’s a lot of extra energy.

Some are already predicting that Super Typhoon Haiyan will reduce GDP by 1% this year. We were once the largest exporter of rice in the world, but, due to the damage caused in recent years by these storms, we are now a major net importer. The farmers that once grew rice, coconuts, sugar cane and bananas are now abandoning their fields and migrating to the cities. These storms are really causing significant loss and damage to our economy.

 

By Samantha Smith, Leader of the WWF’s Global Climate and Energy Initiative

With raw emotion cracking his voice and tears welling in his eyes, Naderev Saño, the Philippines’ lead negotiator at the UN climate summit, took the microphone and urged the world to help his country protect itself from the devastation wrought by the latest super typhoon.

That was last year.

On Monday morning, as the latest annual climate summit, known as COP 19, opened in Warsaw, he was invited to take the microphone once more. With at least 10,000 of his country’s citizens feared to have been killed last Friday by Typhoon Haiyan, his urgent testimony was the most powerful reminder possible as to why we are gathered in the Polish capital.

“Less than a year hence, we cannot imagine that a disaster much bigger would come,” he said. “It was so strong that if there was a Category 6, it would have fallen squarely in that box. We cannot sit and stay helpless staring at this international climate stalemate. It is now time to take action. We need an emergency climate pathway.”

Then, in a moment of high drama, Saño stunned the hall by vowing to go on hunger strike until significant progress was achieved at the summit.

The global community simply cannot keep ignoring the desperate, passionate cries of people such as Naderev Saño. Millions around the world are already suffering greatly from the impacts of our fast changing climate and scientists keep telling us that such damage and disruption will only intensify in the years and decades ahead.

As recently as September, the hundreds of international scientists that form the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) collectively warned us in their latest report that we face a stark choice: urgently reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and have a decent shot at preventing the world from warming above “safe” levels; or continue on a Business As Usual emissions pathway and face a future which is likely to see the planet warm by at least 4C by the end of this century.

In other words, our collective future is still in our hands. But time is FAST running out. Major organisations ranging from the IPCC and World Bank, though to the International Energy Agency and UNEP, are ALL telling us the same thing. Global emissions must peak within this decade – and then be radically reduced by mid-century – or else we will commit the planet, and the people and species it supports, to ever more intense typhoons, sea level rise, ocean acidification, heatwaves, diminishing glaciers and ice caps, and floods.

WWF is therefore here in Warsaw at the COP19 climate summit to call on the world’s governments to stop prevaricating, delaying and obstructing. We have just two years before a global climate deal is due to be signed at COP21 in Paris. If a meaningful deal is not struck in 2015 then our narrow window of opportunity will have passed. Warsaw is a vital staging post on the road to Paris. The hundreds of government negotiators that are here must stop allowing their heads to be turned by the vested interests of the fossil fuel lobbyists. Instead, they must deliver the following:

• Agree to concrete steps to close the pre-2020 emissions gap.
• Set up an independent expert process on equity tasked with proposing an equity reference framework.
• Devote high-level political energy to mobilizing climate finance, and ensure that a clear trajectory is agreed at COP 19 for scaling up public finance towards US$ 100 billion per annum by 2020.
• Agree on a roadmap for a new climate agreement to be agreed in Paris by 2015.

Unfortunately, the Polish government, which is hosting this year’s climate summit, has so far shown us how NOT to handle these vitally important negotiations by having embarrassingly low ambitions and by allowing its pro-coal agenda to cast a long, dark shadow over proceedings.

WWF urges the Polish government to listen to the testimony of people such as Naderev Saño. We urge it to listen to the world’s scientific institutions which are quite clear about the crucial need to rapidly reduce global emissions. We urge it to listen to the fast-growing evidence that a clean, green energy portfolio can deliver both economic prosperity and energy security. The Polish government can secure its place in history by ensuring that its COP19 in Warsaw is remembered for all the right reasons.

As Saño told the summit: “We can stop this madness. Right here in Warsaw.”

Let’s heed his call.

Follow Samantha J Smith on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pandaclimate

 

By Jason Anderson, Head of European Climate and Energy Policy at WWF European Policy Office

Philippine climate negotiator Yeb Sano has inspired the Warsaw COP with his moving speech about Typhoon Haiyan and his commitment to fast until a meaningful response to climate change is in sight in the negotiations. Many people are fasting out of solidarity, and like yesterday, I’m not eating between breakfast and dinner.

Skipping lunch is small beer compared to Yeb’s commitment, and pales to entire insignificance compared to the people suffering the aftermath of the Typhoon. But it’s more than empty symbolism.

There are many of us who primarily fight climate change and inequality 9-5 from the comfort of an office, leading professional lives and enjoying the benefits of a prosperous society. But there is nothing more primal than a rumbling tummy to put you in touch with the reality so many people face all around the world, and not just in the South. And fasting, whether as a symbol of religious conviction or of resistance, has a long and rich history.

So you don’t have to be a hero to make a point, to yourself and to others. I’m going to save a few euros today, and add it to a donation our office is organising. I hope you’ll consider doing the same, and let others know if you do.