Climate Change – A Law Of Nature. Fabian Brunner

on>

      FABIAN BRUNNER

      CLIMATE

      CHANGE

      A Law Of Nature

      The promise of the energy transition

      and its failure in practice

      1. edition 2022

      Copyright © 2022 Dr. Fabian Brunner

      Set, design & layout Markus Vahlefeld

      Cover: stock-illustration-ID:498571115

      sepio

      Brünner Str. 8

      04209 Leipzig

      CONTENTS

       Preface

      I. Energy policy: the energy law framework

      · Categories of energy policy measures

      · The significance of regulation

      · Excursion: carbon dioxide

      · Regulatory tools

      · International climate diplomacy

      II. Energy markets: the energy policy framework

      · Tools of European climate protection policy

      · Concentration on carbon dioxide emissions and its

       consequences for the German automobile industry

      · Green finance and sustainability taxonomy

      III. The energy industry: implementation

      · Power grids and blackouts – the Achilles heel

      · Europe wants to become sustainable

      · The price of decarbonization

      · The illusion of clean energy

      · Affordable energy is essential for economic prosperity

      IV. Alternative approaches

      V. Conclusion

      VI. End notes and bibliography

      Preface

      There is scarcely a topic that unites people as closely as the development of the climate in which we live. However, this is where the complexity of the topic already starts. Is there really ONE global climate or do we have several different climate zones throughout the world? What is the difference between weather and climate? How much change in the basic situation of the global climate can be considered to be a natural process? Currently, the phenomenon of global warming, frequently referred to as climate change, is among the top items on the political agenda in many countries of the Western world. Global climate change was a central topic for the first time at the G8 summit held in Heiligendamm, Germany in 2007.¹ The high degree of sensitivity with which average global temperature reacts to the smallest changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations is now defined as a central challenge in public discussions.

      Anthropogenic emissions (i.e. emissions caused by human beings) are regarded as the cause of the increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. In public discussion, the increase in the average global temperature of about one degree Celsius since the advent of industrialization and the perceptible rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration observed over the same period when comparing the pre-industrial age and the present day has become the key parameter in public discussions. In this context, the loss of the polar ice caps, the melting of glaciers, rising sea levels and an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events are often seen as visible signs of climate change. Many people in the Western world believe that temperature change must be limited to 2 degrees Celsius (or 1.5 degrees Celsius)² as the essential response of humanity to this situation. Frequently, the introduction of restrictive political measures is seen as indispensable in this context.

      However, although there is widely accepted global agreement among the nations that excessive global warming would entail severe negative consequences for humanity and that appropriate action must be taken to prevent it, there is generally no clear international consensus³ on the questions arising directly in this context, for example questions as to the correct, appropriate reaction to climate change, responsible action or the handling of the resulting costs. On one hand, the various international climate protection agreements have created global awareness; on the other hand, the specific measures taken by individual nation states are very different from each other and range from the use of so-called renewable energies (it would be more appropriate to call them volatile energies) via research and development programs to directives and laws or even, in some cases, no reaction at all.⁴

      Furthermore, even though the international treaties on climate change (such as the Kyoto Protocol or the Paris Accord) have been ratified by many countries, a large number of the signatories did not derive any consequences from ratification. In many cases, emissions were not effectively limited; infringements have rarely been punished. Furthermore, some countries with high anthropogenic emissions do not share the basic hypotheses of the climate accords and have therefore not adopted the limits stated in them. Even in countries which act in the spirit of the climate accords, the efforts undertaken are often scarcely sufficient to meet their voluntary undertakings. As a result, the trend of increasing global carbon dioxide emissions has continued unabated.

      Nowadays, the climate protection efforts of politicians in the Western world often face conflicts that simply cannot be resolved. On one hand, we have the wishes of the general public, encouraged by politicians, for comprehensive climate protection and indeed protection of the basis of their existence. On the other hand, there are problems with acceptance among the general public as regards the affordability of energy and the security of energy supplies (the social and economic component). These aspects, which are mutually interdependent, cannot be optimized at the expense of the other aspect in each case and also offer little prospect of political credit. What politician can score with the topic of security of supply? The conflict between these two objectives always calls for decisions and the assignment of priorities to the primary objective to be pursued in each case.

      The situation is exacerbated by the fact that questions concerning the climate call for interdisciplinary answers which are highly complex in some cases. Despite this complexity, the media and politicians nevertheless often react with highly simplified answers which do not do justice to the topic. It is therefore time for worldwide climate protection efforts to be revisited. This is the objective of this book. Germany can be considered a blueprint and is the ideal point of reference of this book. The country is embedded in the European context and has shown itself to be particularly committed to climate protection. No other country has embarked – under the heading of “energy transition” (Energiewende in German) – with such enthusiasm on such a comprehensive energy industry experiment with an open outcome for its own economy. Scarcely any other country is so convinced that its own approach is right as to use their exemplary character and the encouragement of imitation by other countries as a justification for its national climate protection measures.⁵

      In 2021, climate protection, which can really only be effective at the global level ⁶ even came to be considered as a human right in Germany. In future, German citizens therefore have a constitutional right to climate protection. In the spring of 2021, Germany’s highest court issued a judgment complaining that the German government’s Climate Protection Act only stated targets for the reduction of emissions up to 2030 and did not state any requirements for the subsequent period. The failure to continue emission reduction targets from 2031 onwards was considered to be a violation of constitutional rights. In contrast, as regards the extremely far-reaching climate protection measures resulting from its judgment, which would impinge on the freedoms of German citizens, the court did not see any violation of constitutional rights.⁷ The Federal Constitutional Court has therefore adopted a political position on climate protection and has also shown the high priority of this topic for German society.

      Moreover, the very broadly formulated judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court has given the German state comprehensive justification