TY - CHAP A1 - Quitzow, Rainer A1 - Bersalli, Germán A1 - Lilliestam, Johan A1 - Prontera, Andrea ED - Rayner, Tim ED - Szulecki, Kacper ED - Jordan, Andrew J. ED - Oberthür, Sebastian T1 - Green recovery BT - catalyst for an enhanced EU role in climate and energy policy? T2 - Handbook on European Union Climate Change Policy and Politics N2 - This chapter reviews how the European Union has fared in enabling a green recovery in the aftermath of the Covid-19 crisis, drawing comparisons to developments after the financial crisis. The chapter focuses on the European Commission and its evolving role in promoting decarbonisation efforts in its Member States, paying particular attention to its role in financing investments in low-carbon assets. It considers both the direct effects of green stimulus policies on decarbonisation in the EU and how these actions have shaped the capacities of the Commission as an actor in the field of climate and energy policy. The analysis reveals a significant expansion of the Commission’s role compared to the period following the financial crisis. EU-level measures have provided incentives for Member States to direct large volumes of financing towards investments in climate-friendly assets. Nevertheless, the ultimate impact will largely be shaped by implementation at the national level. KW - European Union KW - green recovery KW - climate finance KW - European Green Deal KW - just transition Y1 - 2023 SN - 978-1-78990-698-1 SN - 978-1-78990-697-4 U6 - https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789906981.00039 SP - 351 EP - 366 PB - Edward Elgar Publishing ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Malik, Aman A1 - Bertram, Christoph A1 - Kriegler, Elmar A1 - Luderer, Gunnar T1 - Climate policy accelerates structural changes in energy employment JF - Energy policy N2 - The employment implications of decarbonizing the energy sector have received far less attention than the technology dimension of the transition, although being of critical importance to policymakers. In this work, we adapt a methodology based on employment factors to project future changes in quantity and composition of direct energy supply jobs for two scenarios - (1) relatively weak emissions reductions as pledged in the nationally determined contributions (NDC) and (2) stringent reductions compatible with the 1.5 °C target. We find that in the near-term the 1.5°C-compatible scenario results in a net increase in jobs through gains in solar and wind jobs in construction, installation, and manufacturing, despite significant losses in coal fuel supply; eventually leading to a peak in total direct energy jobs in 2025. In the long run, improvements in labour productivity lead to a decrease of total direct energy employment compared to today, however, total jobs are still higher in a 1.5 °C than in an NDC scenario. Operation and maintenance jobs dominate future jobs, replacing fuel supply jobs. The results point to the need for active policies aimed at retraining, both inside and outside the renewable energy sector, to complement climate policies within the concept of a “just transition”. KW - energy supply KW - employment KW - just transition KW - political feasibility KW - mitigation pathways KW - integrated assessment models Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112642 SN - 0301-4215 VL - 159 PB - Elsevier Science CY - Amsterdam ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Hänsel, Martin C. A1 - Franks, Max A1 - Kalkuhl, Matthias A1 - Edenhofer, Ottmar T1 - Optimal carbon taxation and horizontal equity BT - A welfare-theoretic approach with application to German household data T2 - CEPA Discussion Papers N2 - We develop a model of optimal carbon taxation and redistribution taking into account horizontal equity concerns by considering heterogeneous energy efficiencies. By deriving first- and second-best rules for policy instruments including carbon taxes, transfers and energy subsidies, we then investigate analytically how horizontal equity is considered in the social welfare maximizing tax structure. We calibrate the model to German household data and a 30 percent emission reduction goal. Our results show that energy-intensive households should receive more redistributive resources than energy-efficient households if and only if social inequality aversion is sufficiently high. We further find that redistribution of carbon tax revenue via household-specific transfers is the first-best policy. Equal per-capita transfers do not suffer from informational problems, but increase mitigation costs by around 15 percent compared to the first- best for unity inequality aversion. Adding renewable energy subsidies or non-linear energy subsidies, reduces mitigation costs further without relying on observability of households’ energy efficiency. T3 - CEPA Discussion Papers - 28 KW - carbon price KW - horizontal equity KW - redistribution KW - renewable energy subsidies KW - climate policy KW - just transition Y1 - 2021 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-498128 SN - 2628-653X IS - 28 ER -