Posts by: Anton Jaekel
This month, Adopt-A-Negotiator invited guest blooggers to report on the place of climate change in upcoming national elections in their country. Do political parties talk about climate during the campaign? Are there major differences on renewable energy and carbon pollution between the various political programs? Should we expect these differences to have an impact on the result of the elections?
Anyone following a Climate Change-related webpage has probably seen the picture, emphasizing that Germany recently produced all the electricity it needs by solar power on one day or another. And these pages often highlight the “Energiewende” as a best-practice. This expression means a national shift from nuclear and fossil energy to renewables and a decentralization of electricity production. Economy-wide transitions often build on the adoption of a dedicated law: this is the “Renewable Energies Act” (REA) in Germany. The REA was introduced in 2002 by a coalition of Social Democrats and the Greens. This coalition was followed in 2005 by the so-called “big coalition” of Social democrats and Christian Democrats. Until then, the “Energiewende” seemed to be a whole success. But then, in 2009, the government changed again and the “black-yellow” coalition of Christian Democrats and Liberals came to power. Black and yellow in the nature are often colors of warning; this coalition should have been a warning for what was to come in the following years to the “Energiewende” due to changes in the REA and its directives.
Both, Christian Democrats and Liberals, were (and are until now) in favor of nuclear and fossil energy because of low electricity prices and additional working places. Before the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, they had decided to shift back to nuclear power, but changed this position after the accident and agreed on phasing out nuclear power in 2022. The main arguments in favor of nuclear were the low production prices, which were so low because of the lack of liability of the power plants, subsidies provided to this industry and the responsibility of the states to care for nuclear wastes.
Furthermore the coalition weakened some of the most important points of the REA.
- Statutory feed-in compensation with a fixed price:
In order to given preference for renewables on the energy market, producers (often households, which installed solar panels) are provided with a minimum price for KwH independent of the price on the electricity market. This guaranteed price was shortened. - Exemption from the cost-splitting:
The original idea was that everyone, no matter if a private person or a company, will have to pay for the transition. Only plants and installations needing more than 1 MW (prior to 2012, the limit was 10 MW) and face in international competition receive an exemption. Under the current government, the number of such exception has risen from 250 in 2005 to 1700-2000 until the end of 2013 (even gulf places are facing “challenging international competition” according to the Christian Democrats and Liberals). In practice, this means that for the same amount of money needing to be invested, fewer persons are contributing. - Shortening of subsidies for REs:
The government paid subsidies to people and companies for installing additional renewables. This led to a boom of solar panels which resulted in some considering that there are too much solar panels already build, so they were shortened.
These three points led to an increase the prices for electricity (especially for the individual consumers who normally buy electricity from companies), from 3.9ct to 5.277ct per Kwh. Actually, the electricity exchange prices fall down because REs are cheaper than the conventional energy production, but the most expensive sort of production always dictates the prices at the electricity exchange, where the distributors buy electricity to sell it to consumers. Despite this, the prices went down as the most expensive plants are becoming cheaper and the really expensive plants are squeezed out of the market. These are often coal fired power plans. Due to the failure of the European Emission Trading Scheme to put a price tag on carbon pollution, it remains cost effective to keep on generating energy from coal, which is mostly sold to other countries. Furthermore, the “Energiewende” is slowing down as far fewer capacities are installed. Sadly, there is also is “renaissance” of coal, because of already down shut nuclear plants; more electricity needs to be produced by fossils as there is still a lack of newly build RE.
But in the end the prices fell down and the consumers did not see anything of this. A reason is the domination of the energy market by the “big four” companies: EnBw, RWE, E.ON and Vattenfall; all four together are seen by activists as a cartel, which means they are dictating relatively high prices, arguing a need of money to invest in REs, what they are not really doing.
As you see, Climate Change itself is not a big topic in the elections, but there are topics which are heavily connected to Climate Change. These are not really about mitigation, adaptation or climate protection. The impact on the personal needs of people and in particular economic cost (eg. the risen electricity prices) are the main reasons for the ongoing debate about the “Energiewende”.
Among civil society, there are two big focuses for campaigning. Firstly, citizens call for the re-municipalisation of energy (publicly owned entities buy big electricity producers back from private investors). In Berlin, citizens launched a successful petition, which concluded in a federal-state wide decision about the acquisition of the regional electricity producer. Secondly campaigners are promoting the shift to renewables. The “Reclaim Power Tour” is a good example for this. The aim of this bicycle tour through whole Germany is to demonstrate against the “big four” and the coal production in Germany. Let’s hope both are successful, not only with their specific targets, but also in bringing the topic of Climate Change back on the agenda!
Read about the role of climate change in the narratives of other upcoming elections:
Photo credits: KCIvey, UweHiksch, Wolfgang Staudt and World Economic Forum
While climate change itself is unlikely to be a key factor in the German national elections of the 22nd September, the issue of the energiewende - the phasing out by 2022 of nuclear in the energy mix of the country - is a key concern for many Germans who see the price of electricity increase while the installation of new renewables capacities seem to have stalled.
Read post →