Angela Merkel’s CDU (with their Bavarian sidekicks, the CSU) and the free-market FDP - the main winner of Germany’s federal elections - will form the next governing coalition. This is almost certainly bad news for German climate change policy - both domestically and on the international stage - but the policy setbacks in this area will arguably be more limited than what the FDP would prefer. Looking at international negotiations and energy policy as examples will show why.

1) International negotiations

Within the Grand Coalition that governed Germany for the past 4 years, Germany’s stance at international negotiations was never a hotly contested political terrain, for several reasons. Because Germany started important environmental measures earlier than other countries (and cleverly pushed for CO² emission-reduction targets to be based on 1990, before the heavily eastern German industry was mostly shut down) being progressive in contrast to international negotiating partners was never particularly hard, because it did not necessitate painful domestic policy measures. While this is changing to an extent, Germany, and indeed Europe, are not the crucial barriers to a post-Kyoto. And Angela Merkel, a former environment minister and early believer in the science behind climate change is unlikely to give up control over negotiations to an extent that would endanger a progressive German position.

Nevertheless, another danger is more real. Sigmar Gabriel (SPD), German’s environment minister had four years in which to build relationships with other negotiators and governments, get a feeling for the limits of other countries’ room for political maneouvre and learn the tricks of the trade. Given the lack of high-profile candidates in the area of environmental and climate change policy within the FDP and CDU/CSU, Gabriel successor will almost certainly struggle to make a similar impression. And, in addition, she or he will only have had three weeks at the most to get their head into an issue that is among the most complicated and tricky of any ever attempted to be dealt with by international negotiations.

2) Energy policy

While it is fair to say that climate change policy did not feature in the run-up to the federal elections at all, this is not true for energy policy. A long string of lies about nuclear energy was masterfully publicised by SPD environment minister Sigmar Gabriel. They included cover-ups about leaks in the site of Germany’s proposed site for the long-term storage of nuclear energy, high costs for cleaning up an alternative site borne by the tax-payer, the existance (and subsequent denial of this fact) of a strategy paper commissioned by an energy major and outlining communication strategies to promote nuclear energy in the election campaign (conclusion: keep quiet and point out nuclear energy’s green credentials). In addition to further accidents in a notorious north-German nuclear power plant and the emotive nature of many Germans’ thinking about nuclear energy made the CDU/CSUs and FDPs election pledge of ‘exiting-the-exit’ of nuclear energy (Ausstieg vom Ausstieg) one of the few clear dividing lines in an otherwise uneventful election campaign.

The high percentage of Germans who want to exit nuclear energy doesn’t seem to have helped the SPD very much. Nor is there a clear-cut impact of nuclear policy on climate change. Nuclear energy is clean (with regards to CO² emissions), and not extending the life of nuclear power plants would almost certainly have meant building more coal powered ones, even at the breakneck speed of German renewables growth. While there is a valid argument that being able to keep written-off nuclear plants running will decrease the pressure for large energy companies to invest in renewables, this would have been equally true for investment in coal that is already happening. If the new government sticks to the CDUs election pledges of not building new nuclear and taxing nuclear providers half the extra profits they make from extending their lifetime to invest this money in renewable energy, then this may not actually be bad news for preventing climate change. Yet this is doubtful. The traditional energy companies are not friends of renewables, and their deep pockets and lobbying prowess may mean they will push further, for government-subsidised new nuclear power stations and reductions in funding for renewables. If the market knows best, skepticism may prevail. On Monday morning after the election the shares of EON and RWE jumped, while those of renewable technology producers fell sharply…

(c)yomiuri online

The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) won 308 of the 480 seats though the ruling bloc of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and New Komeito got only 140 seats in the Lower House election on Sunday. This is a landslide victory for DPJ, as DPJ had only 115 seats while the ruling bloc had 331 seats before the election. It can be called ‘revolution’ because LDP was out of power for only 11 months (1993-1994) and was always the largest party.

Then, the question is ‘can the new government led by DPJ reduce GHG emissions more than the Government led by LDP/New Komeito for the greener future?’

As climate change issues were not sufficiently discussed during an election campaign period because other topics such as employment and social welfare were main issues, it is difficult to answer the question.

However, as shown in the previous post, as far as climate change issues are concerned, DPJ is more ambitious and environmental groups and environmentalists normally support DPJ. Indeed, DPJ proposes stricter mid-term targets than the Government in its manifesto. Namely, DPJ promises to cut GHG emissions reductions by 30 percent below the 2005 level by 2020 though the government’s target is 15 percent. Before the Government chose this target, the Economic bloc (e.g. the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and Nippon Keidanren) proposed 4% while the Environment bloc (e.g. the Ministry of the Environment and environmental NGOs) suggested 20-30%. Thus, the LDP’s proposal is a compromise but the DPJ’s proposal is clearly the one proposed by the environment bloc.

Although there seems a big difference between them, the difference might not be so big because 15 percent is the total amount of ‘domestic’ reductions of GHG gas emissions while 30 percent is the total amount of reductions achieved by reducing domestic GHG gas emissions as well as buying carbon credits, GHG absorption by forests and plants, and etc.  Nonetheless, according to an anonymous highly-ranked official of the Ministry of the Environment, ‘the DPJ’s targets are clearly stricter.’ Katsuya Okada, the Secretary-General of DPJ, emphasizes, ‘by setting ambitious targets, we want to take an initiative in international negotiation on climate change.’ In order to achieve the targets, DPJ has considered introduction of a wide range of measures, such as a domestic emissions trading system and a global warming tax, though Japanese industries have been strongly against these measures.

The DPJ’s proposal has been severely criticized mainly by LDP and industries as infeasible and unrealistic, again as told in the previous post. For instance, Akihiro Sawa, a senior researcher at the 21st century public policy institute, a thinktank established by Nippon Keidanren (Japan Business Federation), criticized the proposal because of three reasons.  First, according to Sawa, DPJ has not clarified how much the costs to achieve its proposed targets will be. While LDP clarified that the costs will be 76,000 yen per year per household, DPJ has not. Second, he argued that though a domestic emissions trading system and a global warming tax (environmental tax) cannot be introduced at the same time in terms of policy objectives and policy effects, DPJ considers introducing both. Third, he maintained that, although DPJ insists that Japan will be highly evaluated by the world and take an initiative in international negotiation on climate change by setting the mid-term targets as 30%, the world would not evaluate Japan so highly because developing countries such as India and China required industrialized nations to reduce GHG emissions more.

Further, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry pointed out that if Japan is to achieve the mid-term targets of DPJ, it would cost more than 190 trillion yen for ten years, leading to critical economic damages to the Japanese economy, while the Government’s targets would require approximately 62 trillion yen. Moreover, Tetsuo Saito, Minister for the Environment, criticized that though DPJ proposes stricter targets in its manifesto, DPJ inconsistently proposes  to make highway charges free, which would lead to increases in CO2 emissions from automobiles.

Thus, it is now unclear whether the new government led by DPJ can reduce GHG emissions more than the Government led by LDP/New Komeito for the greener future. However, one thing that is clear is that DPJ will attempt to reduce GHG emissions more than the Government whether its attempt will be successful or not.

Photo Credit: A. Sridhar, 2008

In previous Climatico blogs, it has been highlighted that the Government of India has placed sustainable economic development high on its priority list. Last week, the Government of India published its highly anticipated Interim Budget. Not surprisingly, development initiatives gained precedence in budget allocation.  In 2008, the Government had lots to say about bolstering India’s climate policies- with an Action Plan and high international involvement. Does the interim budget reflect these commitments- translating policy statements into implementation phase through budget allocation?

Notable points to note from the budget  on climate issues include:

• The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Ministry of Power received slight increases in the interim budget estimates.
• The Ministry of Environment and Forests was allocated the same budget from previous years at Rs. 150 billion (approx.3 billion USD) distributed between conservation and afforestation initiatives.
• Allocation of Rs. 140 billion (approx. 2.8 billion USD) in infrastructure and rural development schemes- an increase  from previous years.   

  -          Various farming subsidies schemes were given focus.

  -           Integrated Water Management Programme was allocated Rs. 20210 million (approx.  404 million USD)

• Ministry of Earth Sciences received funding for research on polar climates, meteorology, and climate change research center.
• Environmental Equity and Safety

  -          In coordination with the 2009-2010 central plan, the interim budget highlights a desire to ensure legal rights to forest dwellers and subsequent infrastructure building for forest tribes to promote what PM Manmohan Singh referred to as ‘growth with equity.’

  -          The budget provides Rs. 73000 million (approx. 1460 million USD) to states in efforts to ensure safe drinking water to rural communities.

The publication of the Interim budget comes amidst what is likely to be a heated election season from now till May. With the possibility of change in India’s political landscape, we are taking the opportunity to highlight some policy areas worth looking into:

• Invest more in transport infrastructure. In the past, more focus has been placed on development of roads and highways and the current Interim budget follows this trend without a more aggressive push towards efficient public transport plan for the nation. While public transport in most cities  is fairly good, there has to be a shift in perception away from private transport and towards public transport. Better networks that allow people to give up their cars.
• National level of coordination of natural resources. Many resources fall under State supervision but lack unified coordination at the national level unless litigation is involved. Establishing national-level advisory bodies can assist in the management of such resources.
• Public awareness on climate change needs to grow. Awareness is limited, initiatives at making Indians ‘go green’  have taken place but a public environmental awareness campaign like the ones we frequently see on domestic violence, education, gender and family planning will help scale up environmental initiatives and make people more aware.
• Promote new methods in farming. Agriculture forms a big chunk of our economy and much of it still remains at the subsistence level. India needs to match new technologies with better infrastructure and resource saving methods (water conservation, organic farming for example). As this report points out, Indian agriculture needs to become sustainable.
• Establish minimum standards for and incentivize green certification. For example, the Indian Green Building Council is a council representing diverse stakeholders (business, government) that offers green certification for construction. While the costs of certification are currently high right now, the Government should look towards incentivizing certification - not only in the construction sector but in other sectors too (from industrial to consumer goods - in order to bring down costs as well as raise the bar when it comes to green standards. In the past years, the Bureau of Energy Efficiency has had trouble informing and supporting its appliance labeling scheme to small enterprises.

Elections in India have usually played out on issues like food and security. While environmental policy and climate change may not resonate in the heart of the common Indian man who is concerned with other more pressing issues such as employment, access to food and development, it doesn’t mean that environmental issues don’t form the heart of political manifestos.  The BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) has called for climate change to be treated as a form of terrorism, a very important election issue and the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) promoted its Common Minimum Program  which dealt with issues that are directly affected by climate change. This includes commitments to bolster rural health and rural employment and strengthen India’s agriculture sector amidst environmental (ex. water availability/quality and desertification) and economic pressures.

(Climatico Analyst, Radhika Viswanathan, contributed to this post)