@article{BertramRiahiHilaireetal.2021, author = {Bertram, Christoph and Riahi, Keywan and Hilaire, J{\´e}r{\^o}me and Bosetti, Valentina and Drouet, Laurent and Fricko, Oliver and Malik, Aman and Nogueira, Larissa Pupo and van der Zwaan, Bob and van Ruijven, Bas and van Vuuren, Detlef P. and Weitzel, Matthias and Longa, Francesco Dalla and de Boer, Harmen-Sytze and Emmerling, Johannes and Fosse, Florian and Fragkiadakis, Kostas and Harmsen, Mathijs and Keramidas, Kimon and Kishimoto, Paul Natsuo and Kriegler, Elmar and Krey, Volker and Paroussos, Leonidas and Saygin, Deger and Vrontisi, Zoi and Luderer, Gunnar}, title = {Energy system developments and investments in the decisive decade for the Paris Agreement goals}, series = {Environmental research letters}, volume = {16}, journal = {Environmental research letters}, number = {7}, publisher = {IOP Publishing}, address = {Bristol}, issn = {1748-9326}, doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/ac09ae}, pages = {12}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The Paris Agreement does not only stipulate to limit the global average temperature increase to well below 2 °C, it also calls for 'making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions'. Consequently, there is an urgent need to understand the implications of climate targets for energy systems and quantify the associated investment requirements in the coming decade. A meaningful analysis must however consider the near-term mitigation requirements to avoid the overshoot of a temperature goal. It must also include the recently observed fast technological progress in key mitigation options. Here, we use a new and unique scenario ensemble that limit peak warming by construction and that stems from seven up-to-date integrated assessment models. This allows us to study the near-term implications of different limits to peak temperature increase under a consistent and up-to-date set of assumptions. We find that ambitious immediate action allows for limiting median warming outcomes to well below 2 °C in all models. By contrast, current nationally determined contributions for 2030 would add around 0.2 °C of peak warming, leading to an unavoidable transgression of 1.5 °C in all models, and 2 °C in some. In contrast to the incremental changes as foreseen by current plans, ambitious peak warming targets require decisive emission cuts until 2030, with the most substantial contribution to decarbonization coming from the power sector. Therefore, investments into low-carbon power generation need to increase beyond current levels to meet the Paris goals, especially for solar and wind technologies and related system enhancements for electricity transmission, distribution and storage. Estimates on absolute investment levels, up-scaling of other low-carbon power generation technologies and investment shares in less ambitious scenarios vary considerably across models. In scenarios limiting peak warming to below 2 °C, while coal is phased out quickly, oil and gas are still being used significantly until 2030, albeit at lower than current levels. This requires continued investments into existing oil and gas infrastructure, but investments into new fields in such scenarios might not be needed. The results show that credible and effective policy action is essential for ensuring efficient allocation of investments aligned with medium-term climate targets.}, language = {en} } @article{HarmsenKrieglervanVuurenetal.2021, author = {Harmsen, Mathijs and Kriegler, Elmar and van Vuuren, Detlef P. and van der Wijst, Kaj-Ivar and Luderer, Gunnar and Cui, Ryna and Dessens, Olivier and Drouet, Laurent and Emmerling, Johannes and Morris, Jennifer Faye and Fosse, Florian and Fragkiadakis, Dimitris and Fragkiadakis, Kostas and Fragkos, Panagiotis and Fricko, Oliver and Fujimori, Shinichiro and Gernaat, David and Guivarch, C{\´e}line and Iyer, Gokul and Karkatsoulis, Panagiotis and Keppo, Ilkka and Keramidas, Kimon and K{\"o}berle, Alexandre and Kolp, Peter and Krey, Volker and Kr{\"u}ger, Christoph and Leblanc, Florian and Mittal, Shivika and Paltsev, Sergey and Rochedo, Pedro and van Ruijven, Bas J. and Sands, Ronald D. and Sano, Fuminori and Strefler, Jessica and Arroyo, Eveline Vasquez and Wada, Kenichi and Zakeri, Behnam}, title = {Integrated assessment model diagnostics}, series = {Environmental research letters}, volume = {16}, journal = {Environmental research letters}, number = {5}, publisher = {IOP Publishing}, address = {Bristol}, issn = {1748-9326}, doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/abf964}, pages = {13}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Integrated assessment models (IAMs) form a prime tool in informing about climate mitigation strategies. Diagnostic indicators that allow comparison across these models can help describe and explain differences in model projections. This increases transparency and comparability. Earlier, the IAM community has developed an approach to diagnose models (Kriegler (2015 Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90 45-61)). Here we build on this, by proposing a selected set of well-defined indicators as a community standard, to systematically and routinely assess IAM behaviour, similar to metrics used for other modeling communities such as climate models. These indicators are the relative abatement index, emission reduction type index, inertia timescale, fossil fuel reduction, transformation index and cost per abatement value. We apply the approach to 17 IAMs, assessing both older as well as their latest versions, as applied in the IPCC 6th Assessment Report. The study shows that the approach can be easily applied and used to indentify key differences between models and model versions. Moreover, we demonstrate that this comparison helps to link model behavior to model characteristics and assumptions. We show that together, the set of six indicators can provide useful indication of the main traits of the model and can roughly indicate the general model behavior. The results also show that there is often a considerable spread across the models. Interestingly, the diagnostic values often change for different model versions, but there does not seem to be a distinct trend.}, language = {en} } @misc{ThonigDelRioKieferetal.2020, author = {Thonig, Richard and Del Rio, Pablo and Kiefer, Christoph and Lazaro Touza, Lara and Escribano, Gonzalo and Lechon, Yolanda and Spaeth, Leonhard and Wolf, Ingo and Lilliestam, Johan}, title = {Does ideology influence the ambition level of climate and renewable energy policy?}, series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {1}, issn = {1867-5808}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-57798}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-577981}, pages = {19}, year = {2020}, abstract = {We investigate whether political ideology has an observable effect on decarbonization ambition, renewable power aims, and preferences for power system balancing technologies in four European countries. Based on the Energy Logics framework, we identify ideologically different transition strategies (state-centered, market-centered, grassroots-centered) contained in government policies and opposition party programs valid in 2019. We compare these policies and programs with citizen poll data. We find that ideology has a small effect: governments and political parties across the spectrum have similar, and relatively ambitious, decarbonization and renewables targets. This mirrors citizens' strong support for ambitious action regardless of their ideological self-description. However, whereas political positions on phasing out fossil fuel power are clear across the policy space, positions on phasing in new flexibility options to balance intermittent renewables are vague or non-existent. As parties and citizens agree on strong climate and renewable power aims, the policy ambition is likely to remain high, even if governments change.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{CamposdeAndrade2023, author = {Campos de Andrade, Andr{\´e} Luiz}, title = {Governing climate change in Brazil}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-58733}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-587336}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {xxvii, 272}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Enacted in 2009, the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC) is a milestone in the institutionalisation of climate action in Brazil. It sets greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets and a set of principles and directives that are intended to lay the foundations for a cross-sectoral and multilevel climate policy in the country. However, after more than a decade since its establishment, the PNMC has experienced several obstacles related to its governance, such as coordination, planning and implementation issues. All of these issues pose threats to the effectiveness of GHG mitigation actions in the country. By looking at the intragovernmental and intergovernmental relationships that have taken place during the lifetime of the PNMC and its sectoral plans on agriculture (the Sectoral Plan for Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change for the Consolidation of a Low-Carbon Economy in Agriculture [ABC Plan]), transport and urban mobility (the Sectoral Plan for Transportation and Urban Mobility for Mitigation and Adaption of Climate Change [PSTM]), this exploratory qualitative research investigates the Brazilian climate change governance guided by the following relevant questions: how are climate policy arrangements organised and coordinated among governmental actors to mitigate GHG emissions in Brazil? What might be the reasons behind how such arrangements are established? What are the predominant governance gaps of the different GHG mitigation actions examined? Why do these governance gaps occur? Theoretically grounded in the literature on multilevel governance and coordination of public policies, this study employs a novel analytical framework that aims to identify and discuss the occurrence of four types of governance gaps (i.e. politics, institutions and processes, resources and information) in the three GHG mitigation actions (cases) examined (i.e. the PNMC, ABC Plan and PSTM). The research results are twofold. First, they reveal that Brazil has struggled to organise and coordinate governmental actors from different policy constituencies and different levels of government in the implementation of the GHG mitigation actions examined. Moreover, climate policymaking has mostly been influenced by the Ministry of Environment (MMA) overlooking the multilevel and cross-sectoral approaches required for a country's climate policy to mitigate and adapt to climate change, especially if it is considered an economy-wide Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), as the Brazilian one is. Second, the study identifies a greater manifestation of gaps in politics (e.g. lack of political will in supporting climate action), institutions and processes (e.g. failures in the design of institutions and policy instruments, coordination and monitoring flaws, and difficulties in building climate federalism) in all cases studied. It also identifies that there have been important advances in the production of data and information for decision-making and, to a lesser extent, in the allocation of technical and financial resources in the cases studied; however, it is necessary to highlight the limitation of these improvements due to turf wars, a low willingness to share information among federal government players, a reduced volume of financial resources and an unequal distribution of capacities among the federal ministries and among the three levels of government. A relevant finding is that these gaps tend to be explained by a combination of general and sectoral set aspects. Regarding the general aspects, which are common to all cases examined, the following can be mentioned: i) unbalanced policy capabilities existing among the different levels of government, ii) a limited (bureaucratic) practice to produce a positive coordination mode within cross-sectoral policies, iii) the socioeconomic inequalities that affect the way different governments and economic sectors perceive the climate issue (selective perception) and iv) the reduced dialogue between national and subnational governments on the climate agenda (poor climate federalism). The following sectoral aspects can be mentioned: i) the presence of path dependencies that make the adoption of transformative actions harder and ii) the absence of perceived co-benefits that the climate agenda can bring to each economic sector (e.g. reputational gains, climate protection and access to climate financial markets). By addressing the theoretical and practical implications of the results, this research provides key insights to tackle the governance gaps identified and to help Brazil pave the way to achieving its NDCs and net-zero targets. At the theoretical level, this research and the current country's GHG emissions profile suggest that the Brazilian climate policy is embedded in a cross-sectoral and multilevel arena, which requires the effective involvement of different levels of political and bureaucratic powers and the consideration of the country's socioeconomic differences. Thus, the research argues that future improvements of the Brazilian climate policy and its governance setting must frame climate policy as an economic development agenda, the ramifications of which go beyond the environmental sector. An initial consequence of this new perspective may be a shift in the political and technical leadership from the MMA to the institutions of the centre of government (Executive Office of the President of Brazil) and those in charge of the country's economic policy (Ministry of Economy). This change could provide greater capacity for coordination, integration and enforcement as well as for addressing certain expected gaps (e.g. financial and technical resources). It could also lead to greater political prioritisation of the agenda at the highest levels of government. Moreover, this shift of the institutional locus could contribute to greater harmonisation between domestic development priorities and international climate politics. Finally, the research also suggests that this approach would reduce bureaucratic elitism currently in place due to climate policy being managed by Brazilian governmental institutions, which is still a theme of a few ministries and a reason for the occurrence of turf wars.}, language = {en} } @article{LilliestamPattBersalli2020, author = {Lilliestam, Johan and Patt, Anthony and Bersalli, German}, title = {The effect of carbon pricing on technological change for full energy decarbonization}, series = {Wiley interdisciplinary reviews : Climate change}, volume = {12}, journal = {Wiley interdisciplinary reviews : Climate change}, number = {1}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {1757-7780}, doi = {10.1002/wcc.681}, pages = {21}, year = {2020}, abstract = {In order to achieve the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement, the world must reach net-zero carbon emissions around mid-century, which calls for an entirely new energy system. Carbon pricing, in the shape of taxes or emissions trading schemes, is often seen as the main, or only, necessary climate policy instrument, based on theoretical expectations that this would promote innovation and diffusion of the new technologies necessary for full decarbonization. Here, we review the empirical knowledge available in academic ex-post analyses of the effectiveness of existing, comparatively high-price carbon pricing schemes in the European Union, New Zealand, British Columbia, and the Nordic countries. Some articles find short-term operational effects, especially fuel switching in existing assets, but no article finds mentionable effects on technological change. Critically, all articles examining the effects on zero-carbon investment found that existing carbon pricing scheme have had no effect at all. We conclude that the effectiveness of carbon pricing in stimulating innovation and zero-carbon investment remains a theoretical argument. So far, there is no empirical evidence of its effectiveness in promoting the technological change necessary for full decarbonization. This article is categorized under: Climate Economics > Economics of Mitigation}, language = {en} } @article{ThonigDelRioKieferetal.2020, author = {Thonig, Richard and Del Rio, Pablo and Kiefer, Christoph and Lazaro Touza, Lara and Escribano, Gonzalo and Lechon, Yolanda and Spaeth, Leonhard and Wolf, Ingo and Lilliestam, Johan}, title = {Does ideology influence the ambition level of climate and renewable energy policy?}, series = {Energy sources, part B: economics, planning, and policy}, volume = {16}, journal = {Energy sources, part B: economics, planning, and policy}, number = {1}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Philadelphia}, issn = {1556-7249}, doi = {10.1080/15567249.2020.1811806}, pages = {4 -- 22}, year = {2020}, abstract = {We investigate whether political ideology has an observable effect on decarbonization ambition, renewable power aims, and preferences for power system balancing technologies in four European countries. Based on the Energy Logics framework, we identify ideologically different transition strategies (state-centered, market-centered, grassroots-centered) contained in government policies and opposition party programs valid in 2019. We compare these policies and programs with citizen poll data. We find that ideology has a small effect: governments and political parties across the spectrum have similar, and relatively ambitious, decarbonization and renewables targets. This mirrors citizens' strong support for ambitious action regardless of their ideological self-description. However, whereas political positions on phasing out fossil fuel power are clear across the policy space, positions on phasing in new flexibility options to balance intermittent renewables are vague or non-existent. As parties and citizens agree on strong climate and renewable power aims, the policy ambition is likely to remain high, even if governments change.}, language = {en} } @article{OllierMelligerLilliestam2020, author = {Ollier, Lana and Melliger, Marc Andr{\´e} and Lilliestam, Johan}, title = {Friends or foes?}, series = {Energies : open-access journal of related scientific research, technology development and studies in policy and management}, volume = {13}, journal = {Energies : open-access journal of related scientific research, technology development and studies in policy and management}, number = {23}, publisher = {MDPI}, address = {Basel}, issn = {1996-1073}, doi = {10.3390/en13236339}, pages = {23}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Energy efficiency measures and the deployment of renewable energy are commonly presented as two sides of the same coin-as necessary and synergistic measures to decarbonize energy systems and reach the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement. Here, we quantitatively investigate the policies and performances of the EU Member States to see whether renewables and energy efficiency policies are politically synergistic or if they rather compete for political attention and resources. We find that Member States, especially the ones perceived as climate leaders, tend to prioritize renewables over energy efficiency in target setting. Further, almost every country performs well in either renewable energy or energy efficiency, but rarely performs well in both. We find no support for the assertion that the policies are synergistic, but some evidence that they compete. However, multi-linear regression models for performance show that performance, especially in energy efficiency, is also strongly associated with general economic growth cycles, and not only efficiency policy as such. We conclude that renewable energy and energy efficiency are not synergistic policies, and that there is some competition between them.}, language = {en} } @techreport{BlanzEydamHeinemannetal.2022, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Blanz, Alkis and Eydam, Ulrich and Heinemann, Maik and Kalkuhl, Matthias}, title = {Optimal carbon pricing with fluctuating energy prices — emission targeting vs. price targeting}, series = {CEPA Discussion Papers}, journal = {CEPA Discussion Papers}, number = {51}, issn = {2628-653X}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-56104}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-561049}, pages = {12}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Prices of primary energy commodities display marked fluctuations over time. Market-based climate policy instruments (e.g., emissions pricing) create incentives to reduce energy consumption by increasing the user cost of fossil energy. This raises the question of whether climate policy should respond to fluctuations in fossil energy prices? We study this question within an environmental dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (E-DSGE) model calibrated on the German economy. Our results indicate that the welfare implications of dynamic emissions pricing crucially depend on how the revenues are used. When revenues are fully absorbed, a reduction in emissions prices stabilizes the economy in response to energy price shocks. However, when revenues are at least partially recycled, a stable emissions price improves overall welfare. This result is robust to different modeling assumptions.}, language = {en} } @techreport{HaenselFranksKalkuhletal.2021, type = {Working Paper}, author = {H{\"a}nsel, Martin C. and Franks, Max and Kalkuhl, Matthias and Edenhofer, Ottmar}, title = {Optimal carbon taxation and horizontal equity}, series = {CEPA Discussion Papers}, journal = {CEPA Discussion Papers}, number = {28}, issn = {2628-653X}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-49812}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-498128}, pages = {51}, year = {2021}, abstract = {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.}, language = {en} } @misc{SchuetzeFuerstMielkeetal.2017, author = {Sch{\"u}tze, Franziska and F{\"u}rst, Steffen and Mielke, Jahel and Steudle, Gesine A. and Wolf, Sarah and J{\"a}ger, Carlo C.}, title = {The Role of Sustainable Investment in Climate Policy}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {137}, issn = {1867-5808}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-47048}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-470485}, pages = {21}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Reaching the Sustainable Development Goals requires a fundamental socio-economic transformation accompanied by substantial investment in low-carbon infrastructure. Such a sustainability transition represents a non-marginal change, driven by behavioral factors and systemic interactions. However, typical economic models used to assess a sustainability transition focus on marginal changes around a local optimum, whichby constructionlead to negative effects. Thus, these models do not allow evaluating a sustainability transition that might have substantial positive effects. This paper examines which mechanisms need to be included in a standard computable general equilibrium model to overcome these limitations and to give a more comprehensive view of the effects of climate change mitigation. Simulation results show that, given an ambitious greenhouse gas emission constraint and a price of carbon, positive economic effects are possible if (1) technical progress results (partly) endogenously from the model and (2) a policy intervention triggering an increase of investment is introduced. Additionally, if (3) the investment behavior of firms is influenced by their sales expectations, the effects are amplified. The results provide suggestions for policy-makers, because the outcome indicates that investment-oriented climate policies can lead to more desirable outcomes in economic, social and environmental terms.}, language = {en} }