Search

Begin New Search Topic Climate Change Political Geography Europe

41. An investment strategy to keep the European Green Deal on track

Author:
Jean Pisani-Ferry and Simone Tagliapietra
Publication Date:
12-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Fostering investment in clean energy and transport systems is essential if the European Union is to achieve the 2030 climate goal of a 55 percent emissions reduction relative to 1990. However, getting to the required levels of investment during 2025-2030 is likely to be exceptionally difficult. Clean electricity generation and electricity transmission systems need to be expanded rapidly, while industrial decarbonisation must be boosted and the green transformation of buildings and transport accelerated sharply. But policymakers face growing constraints on the public sector’s ability to support the necessary investments. At EU level, potential obstacles include the end of the NextGenerationEU post-pandemic recovery instrument, the lack of a green carve-out in the reformed EU fiscal framework, the increasingly difficult trade-offs between decarbonisation, competitiveness and security, and the spreading false narratives on climate policy promoted by populist nationalist parties. The latter two challenges are set to be further exacerbated by the return of President Trump in the United States. The upshot is that Europe is not on track to reach its climate targets. It is at a juncture where political resistance to decarbonisation is mounting and where budgetary means to buy off consent are becoming scarce, at both EU level (because the main source of financing is drying up) and national level (because the fiscal rules leave little room for green investment). In this Policy Brief, we assess the investment needed to achieve the 2030 climate goal and climate neutrality by 2050, and discuss why current estimates might be either over- or underestimated. Second, we discuss the roles of the private and public sectors in making these investments happen. Third, we analyse the obstacles to reaching the desired investment levels during 2025-2030, especially for the public sector. Finally we propose measures to overcome or circumvent these obstacles. The business strand consists of innovations destined to ensuring credibility and the full mobilisation of savings. The public strand aims to maximise the firepower of limited fiscal resources.
Topic:
Climate Change, European Union, Investment, Green Deal, and Energy
Political Geography:
Europe

42. Decarbonising for competitiveness: four ways to reduce European energy prices

Author:
Conall Heussaff
Publication Date:
12-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Energy prices are higher in the European Union than in most other industrialised economies, presenting a fundamental competitiveness challenge. The price disparity stems from the EU’s reliance on imported fossil fuels, contrasting with the United States, which is a net exporter of energy. In 2024, EU gas wholesale prices were on average nearly five times those in the US. Average EU industrial electricity prices were roughly two and a half times higher than in the US. The transition to clean, domestically generated energy is therefore essential to reduce European energy costs. Despite rapid decarbonisation of the power sector, fossil fuels remain vital for electricity generation and continue to significantly influence final consumer costs. Additional factors influencing final prices include the fixed costs of supporting renewables and maintaining and expanding the energy networks, and consumption taxes and levies. However, the ongoing energy transition is reshaping cost dynamics. Renewables, with fixed capital costs and no fuel requirements, are increasingly transforming the electricity sector. The electrification of heating, transport and other energy services further reduces fossil-fuel demand, shifting overall energy costs from variable fuel expenses to fixed capital investments. As the energy transition progresses, EU energy costs can be expected to fall, but how far they fall and how they are shared will depend on policy choices in four main areas. In the short term, policymakers must allocate system costs fairly across energy consumers. Medium-term policies should encourage demand flexibility in electricity to improve system efficiency. In the long-term, coordinated investment at EU level and deeper cross-border interconnection will drive down final costs for all consumers.
Topic:
Climate Change, European Union, Economy, Industrialization, Decarbonization, Energy, and Competition
Political Geography:
Europe

43. Finance for nature: how to improve funding for the protection of biodiversity

Author:
Heather Grabbe and Luca Léry Moffat
Publication Date:
12-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
The economics of biodiversity are still little understood and the loss of nature, which provides pollination, clean water and other ecosystem services, is often considered to have primarily local economic impact. But nature has an intrinsic value and also has extrinsic value to many parts of the economy. Destruction of nature has global costs because nature loss accelerates climate change by releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, causes water stress and crop failures that reduce food exports, and can force people to move. Some of the consequences are systemic. Others are long term, because potential solutions to human problems contained in intact ecosystems, such as medicines and bio-technologies, are lost to future generations. The benefits from nature – and particularly biodiversity – do not result in revenue flows that would protect natural capital assets from degradation. The costs of ecosystem destruction are still largely unaccounted for. Finance for biodiversity is very small relative to what is required for its maintenance. Most of the sources are state or public funds, or from private philanthropy. Because biodiversity is complex and has largely been ignored as an economic issue, market mechanisms are still at an early stage of development. Nature still does not appear on many balance sheets, and nor is it integrated into risk assessments across the public and private sectors. This policy brief summarises the options and outlines the main considerations in finding better ways to value nature. We explain why financial tools are important for biodiversity, give an overview of the range of tools developed to finance ecosystems and assess which would be most suitable to pursue at European Union level. The focus in developing existing and new tools should be on whether they can deliver reliable revenue streams over a long period to maintain the value of natural assets. In the EU, the most impactful immediate means of using financing to protect and restore nature is to defund the damage caused to biodiversity by eliminating nature-harming subsidies, starting with reform of the common agricultural policy.
Topic:
Climate Change, Climate Finance, Biodiversity, and Energy
Political Geography:
Europe

44. A European circular single market for economic security and competitiveness

Author:
Heather Grabbe and Luca Léry Moffat
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
If the European Union is to achieve a sustainable net-zero economy, resources need to be used much more efficiently. Extraction from nature and processing of materials are the principal causes of biodiversity loss and are also major sources of pollution, water stress and greenhouse gas emissions. Resources are used inefficiently currently because market and government failures create a nexus of disincentives and barriers to firms and individuals, hindering them in making resource-efficient choices. The most prominent failure is the artificial cheapness of raw materials because the environmental and human costs of extraction are not including in their prices. A powerful way to improve resource efficiency is to increase circularity, so that fewer resources are used to meet the same level of human need. This can be done by extending the duration of use and reuse of materials, and by reducing resource demand from the start by designing products and systems for optimal efficiency. A circular single market would allow faster de-risking from toxic dependencies and economic coercion by authoritarian regimes. It would increase resilience in the context of fragile supply chains while reducing instability from volatile commodity prices. Firm competitiveness would also be enhanced, given that European companies operate on a continent that is poor in energy and natural resources, and are thus very exposed to future scarcity of resources when climate impacts will make water and land scarcer. If firms were to optimise production and consumption systems for efficiency now, they would be ahead of the curve. To develop the circular economy further, the EU will need to spur investment. Public policy that sets common standards and a predictable regulatory framework would accelerate the development of markets for inputs such as recyclates and services such as repair, both in the EU and in trade partners. The EU has established a legislative framework for the circular economy but it needs scaling up in the forthcoming Circular Economy Act.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Markets, European Union, Economic Security, and Resources
Political Geography:
Europe

45. Europe’s 2040 climate target: four critical risks and how to manage them

Author:
Conall Heussaff, Johannes Emmerling, Gunnar Luderer, Robert Pietzcker, Severin Reissl, Renato Rodrigues, and Rupert Way
Publication Date:
10-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
The European Commission has recommended that the European Union should cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent by 2040 compared to 1990. Modelling shows that this target is feasible technically and is in line with social acceptability and global fairness objectives. Achieving it will require massive expansion of renewable electricity generation, drastic reductions in fossil-fuel use, energy efficiency measures and deep electrification of end-use sectors. Technological advances and strong policies have already enabled the EU to start this transformation and make substantial progress on parts of it. Most technologies required to achieve the emissions-reduction targets are market-proven, and in many cases are cost-competitive with or cheaper than fossil alternatives. After decades of successful innovation, clean-technology deployment is accelerating, with costs of key clean technologies continuing to drop rapidly. Nevertheless, economic, social and political risks threaten ambitious climate policies. The four main risk categories are: geoeconomic instability, technological progress, exacerbated inequality and policy credibility. A global economy with more trade disputes and greater risk of conflict endangers the massive capital investment needed for the transition, while the cost of clean technologies is a primary determinant of the economic viability of decarbonisation. Climate policies will affect people’s everyday lives in disruptive ways, meaning that regressive outcomes must be guarded against, balanced with a concrete commitment to the established climate policy pillars. To succeed, the 2040 climate and energy policy framework needs to be designed to be resilient to such risks. The EU should put distributional issues at the heart of its climate policy, develop an emissions-reduction strategy that monitors geoeconomic and technological risk factors, and put in place contingency plans to manage the impact of negative outcomes and to maximise the societal, economic and environmental co-benefits of the energy transition.
Topic:
Climate Change, Carbon Emissions, Green Deal, and European Commission
Political Geography:
Europe

46. What can central banks do to take the Paris Agreement seriously?

Author:
Dirk Schoenmaker and Hesse McKechnie
Publication Date:
10-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Since the Paris Agreement on climate change was signed in 2015, its 195 signatories have seen financial instability resulting from the climate transition increase by approximately one third, in the context of still-increasing global emissions. In the European Union, emissions have fallen but banks have not fully internalised the costs of transitioning to net-zero. Banks continue to finance the expansion of the fossil-fuel industry. At the systemic level, this is trading a pretence of financial stability now for a more disorderly transition scenario with greater financial instability later. Central banks are increasingly using microprudential supervisory tools to address climate-related financial risks. These tools include reviewing banks’ risk-management processes and giving warnings over shortcomings in banks’ risk models. This approach is helpful, but has so far failed to address the build-up of climate-transition-related imbalances in the financial system. This situation echoes the run-up to the 2007-2008 global financial crisis, when supervisors were busy reviewing the implementation of the latest Basel risk models by individual banks, while failing to see increased imbalances in the financial system caused by rising housing prices. This Policy Brief proposes that central banks should take a macro approach to managing system-wide risks stemming from the climate transition. It is necessary to treat climate as an endogenous, and in many jurisdictions legally-mandated, transition, rather than an exogenous risk. The policy aim for central banks, in their macroprudential supervision capacity, should be to minimise financial instability during that transition. This Policy Brief argues that, all other things being equal, the steadiest path towards net-zero offers the greatest amount of financial stability. Current proposals to impose systemic risk buffers for climaterelated concentration risk may fail to provide such a steady reduction. A guided transition is recommended for banks that have been reluctant to hive off profitable loans to high-emitting companies. A requirement for the financial sector to reduce financed emissions by four percentage points annually from 2025 to 2050 would deliver net-zero with the least amount of financial instability.
Topic:
Climate Change, Monetary Policy, European Central Bank, Paris Agreement, Banking, and Green Transition
Political Geography:
Europe

47. UK-EU climate and energy relations

Author:
Camilla Born and Joël Reland
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
UK in a Changing Europe, King's College London
Abstract:
As the new UK government sets out its plans for a ‘reset’ of EU relations, plenty of attention has been paid to the security and trade aspects of the bilateral relationship. Much less discussed has been the issue of climate and energy cooperation. But, as this report sets out, these policies are inextricably linked to issues of security and trade. What’s more, there is an unusually high degree of potential to deepen UK-EU cooperation on climate and energy. The European Commission actively wants a closer partnership, and there is plenty of low hanging fruit to picked under the current trade agreement. The report covers energy and climate cooperation under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, highlighting the significant untapped potential for closer relations in terms of pre-existing commitments which have lain dormant. The report also looks at areas where cooperation could be deepened beyond the TCA, such as around trade and supply chains, regulatory divergence, and climate diplomacy. It also considers the politics on both the UK and EU side.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, Energy Policy, Bilateral Relations, European Union, and Trade
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

48. With Charisma, Stick, and Carrot: Reviewing the Effectiveness of EU Climate Diplomacy

Author:
Zuzanna Nowak and Stefania Kolarz
Publication Date:
02-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
Last year’s COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, was a major challenge for EU climate diplomacy, which, despite the unfavourable external circumstances (e.g., the war in Ukraine and economic turbulence), contributed to the conference’s positive outcome. The EU, as a global leader in the fight against climate change, seeks to increase its influence with external partners. Many of them would not have joined the climate action without its support. In addition to participation in policy dialogue, among the EU’s main tools of influence are various types of incentives and forms of support, as well as leverage measures such as political conditionality. However, the effectiveness of these tools is still being refined.
Topic:
Climate Change, Diplomacy, European Union, and Influence
Political Geography:
Europe

49. Climate Protection Litigation on the Rise

Author:
Szymon Zaręba
Publication Date:
02-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
In the last several years, national courts and international institutions have increasingly begun to treat conservative or climate-adverse actions by states as violations of their obligations under international law and human rights. This has been followed by some countries more affected by climate change and engaged in international bodies to put more pressure on Global North states to protect the climate. The sympathetic attitude of international courts towards such complaints may, in the long term, force the need for increased climate ambition or even compensation payments by, among others, Poland.
Topic:
Climate Change, Human Rights, International Law, Courts, and Litigation
Political Geography:
Europe, Poland, and Global Focus

50. Rebooting the European Union’s Net Zero Industry Act

Author:
Simone Tagliapietra, Reinhilde Veugelers, and Jeromin Zettelmeyer
Publication Date:
06-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
In March 2023, the European Commission published a legislative proposal for an EU response to the US Inflation Reduction Act: the Net Zero Industry Act (NZIA). It is an unconvincing policy proposal, both for what is in it and for what is not in it. The proposal has five problematic aspects. First, it takes a top-down approach, in which specific technologies are selected for preferential treatment. Preferable would be a technology-neutral approach open to all current and future technologies that help tackle the net-zero challenge. Second, its blanket 40 percent self-sufficiency benchmark for EU domestic cleantech manufacturing by 2030 sends a protectionist signal, is poorly defined and does not reflect the differences in EU capacity in the cleantech sector. Third, it relies on the acceleration of permitting procedures as the main policy instrument, although this is not the main obstacle to cleantech investment in the EU. Fourth, it proposes more strategic use of public procurement. While this is an objective to be supported, the specific proposals are likely to be ineffective because of the way they are designed. Fifth and not least, the NZIA would lack a governance structure that would ensure effective implementation. In addition, the NZIA does not tackle three critical issues. It does not address investment obstacles related to failures of the single market. It does not tackle the coordination problem at the core of developing an EU green industrial policy. Finally, it does not develop an EU-level funding strategy, but rather relies on state aid, with the related risk of fragmentation. The European Parliament and EU countries in the Council of the EU should reboot the proposal and refocus its objectives, sharpening its limited instruments, improving its governance, and adding financial incentives to ensure implementation. In parallel, the EU should develop a broader green industrial policy strategy that leverages the single market in a credible manner, building a solid new governance framework and a new EU-level funding approach.
Topic:
Climate Change, Industrial Policy, Governance, European Union, Trade Policy, and Industry
Political Geography:
Europe