On 21 July, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) announced a summary of Japanese Feed in Tariffs (FITs), in which electric power companies are required to buy the electricity generated by all types of renewable sources of energy by households and businesses. FITs seek to promote the adoption of renewable energy sources by offering long-term contracts for the ‘green’ electricity produced by them at fixed purchase prices.

Purchase prices are to be 48 yen/kWh for solar power, which will be gradually decreased, and 15 to 20 yen/kWh for the other types of the ‘green’ electricity. The contract periods are to be 10 years for solar power and 15 to 20 years for the others. In FITs, electricity users  have to bear costs of purchasing the ‘green’ electricity and, according to the summary, the maximum monthly burdens for standard households and for large-scale factories in ten years after Japanese Feed in Tariff (FIT) is to be introduced will be approximately 150 to 200 yen and 1.2 million to 1.63 million yen, respectively.

METI expects that FITs would contribute to CO2 emission reduction by 2% (approximately 24 million to 29 million tons) in ten years after its introduction because FITs would accelerate technological development and promotion of renewable energy. Masayuki Naoshima, Minister for Economy, Trade and Industry, emphasized ‘total national benefits from FITs will be greater than total national burdens’ because they would expand the environment-related market. METI sought to start FIT in 2012 after working out its details within this year.

METI’s summary for FITs is unpopular not only for businesses but citizens. Regarding businesses, as mentioned above, as FITs would increase the electricity prices, they are basically against FITs. For instance, the Japan Iron and Steal Federation suggested in a hearing held by METI that FITs would put Japanese iron and steal industries in a disadvantageous position in a global competition with China.

Finally and most seriously, citizens are seemingly not for FITs suggested by METI. For an article on this news released by Jiji Tsushin, 84 visitors (Yahoo!Japan News) left 113 comments. Then, among the top 100 comments sorted by the number of  ’agrees’,  there were only 3 comments that clearly supported FITs though the most agreed comment among them was ranked 38th.  According to a brief discourse analysis of mine, citizens (or the visitors) are against FITs mainly because (1) FITs would worsen the income difference between the rich and the poor, (2) households would have to suffer more burdens while businesses would be able to reduce their burdens, and (3) METI’s FIT plan had flaws. Further, many of them did not support FITs because they were unsatisfied with climate change policies of Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), a ruling party, especially on the ’25%’ target and a large amount of money spent to buy credits from China, one of the world largest emitters.

The summary of Japanese FITs proposed by METI might be a great first step for Japanese renewable policies. However, it is not sufficiently supported by businesses, environmental groups and citizens. Thus, though it might be difficult to create FITs in which everybody agrees, it is necessary to improve the current ‘everybody is unhappy’ situation.  Especially, it is very much problematic that FITs lacks citizens’ support as they have been recently frustrated with climate change policies of DPJ and DPJ itself. Details of FITs should be carefully examined so that renewable energy can be widely promoted, contributing to the energy security and CO2 emission reduction in Japan. However, successes of FITs or renewable energy policies and climate change policies in Japan depend more on whether public support for them can be increased.

As the Coalition Government attempts to reform the UK’s finances, fatal spending cuts have continued to penetrate the environmental sector. Despite boasting plentiful resources in marine, offshore wind, solar and other forms of renewable energy, significant cuts announced by the Government this week risk the UK loosing out to countries with poorer natural resources, but an increased willingness to invest in renewable energy.

Plans to cut the energy R&D budget by £34m, announced last week, delivered a massive blow to the low carbon technologies sector, particularly for technologies including offshore wind, geothermal energy, wood fuels and building insulation. Ironically, the announcement came just days before the Government’s independent Committee on Climate Change publically stressed the continued need for public support to develop emerging renewable energy technologies – suggesting a minimum of £50m of public money each year.

Chris Goodall highlights that these cuts to the R&D budget represent a reduction of total public expenditure on low carbon technologies by almost 20%. He adds that “this figure is on top of the cancellation of the £80m loan to Sheffield Forgemasters that would have paid for much of the installation of a new press to make the huge parts necessary for new nuclear power stations.”

Goodall suggests that the Government’s plans will diminish Britain’s ability to compete in the global energy race. The cuts also bring the UK’s spending on emerging technologies to an internationally low 0.01% of GDP – 3 times less than the US and 9 times less than Japan (as a %age of GDP).

Furthermore, there is increased speculation about plans to axe the Government’s independent sustainability watchdog, the Sustainable Development Commission. Whilst no official decision has been made, an announcement is expected to be made – ironically – on the day the agency plans to unveil its annual report detailing green improvements to government operations, which would deliver savings of tens of millions of pounds.

Whitehall has announced some significant spending cuts over the last few weeks, and the cuts to low carbon and renewable technologies are likey to have particularly riled environmental stakeholders. Prime Minister David Cameron is going to have a big task on his hand if he wants to prove to UK taxpayers that his Government will be the “greenest government ever.”

Author: Dafydd Elis

Steven Chu in Copenhagen (Image by: Andy Revkin)

The US’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced a new stream of funding for low-energy technologies here in Copenhagen yesterday.

The money is being offered as the result of discussions at the Major Economies Forum (MEF) at L’Aquila, Italy, earlier this year.

The money is for five years, and will be distributed over four different programmes. One will focus on solar-powered lighting using LEDs; another will provide practical and economic support to low-income countries to deploy renewable energy technologies. The other two programmes focus on improving energy efficiency in developed countries’ products and on providing information about clean technology potential globally.

Of these, the bulk of the funding will go to the renewable energy funding – $250m of the $350m announced. In fact, much of this money is not new. $200m of it had already been pledged by the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland.

While this funding might go a little way to filling a near-term gap in financing for technology transfer and development, the short five-year duration of the programme announced and the relatively small sums involved ($70m a year between more than seven major economies) is small fry even compared to the $10billion per year committed by the EU to adaptation funding last week.

More fundamentally, a long-term and economically sizable mechanism for supporting technology transfer will need to be developed as part of a post-Kyoto agreement. This has been under discussion over the last two years as part of the Bali agreement, and featured in the draft negotiation text issued last week.

Exactly how this will look once this week’s negotiations are done remains to be seen.

The announcement, made by the World Bank on the sidelines of the UN climate meeting taking place in Barcelona, will bring music to the ears of the millions of Africans suffering from climatic changes.  The decision made by the trustees of the Climate Investment Funds (CIF), will commit $1.1 billion dollars to six African nations.  The choice of benefiting countries illustrates both Africa’s opportunity and potential international competitiveness within the emerging low-carbon economy but also its extreme vulnerability and limited adaptive capacity to the implications of climate change. 

The six nations will receive the money in a combination of grants or low-interest loans from the CIF which was launched in 2008, and has pledges of over $6 billion dollars to date. The CIF is a collaboration of public development financiers and is run jointly by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the International Finance Corporation and World Bank.

Leading Africa’s position in renewable energy and energy efficiency investments, South Africa will receive US$500 million which will be channelled into helping the country achieve its ambitious target of 4% renewable energy generation by 2013.   The money will be instrumental if South Africa is to achieve the target of a 12% increase in energy efficiency by 2015, a difficult task considering its dependence on coal.  Another large benefactor, Egypt, which is set to get $300 million dollars will also utilise the money to improve its power sector and the urban transport system in Cairo which is grossly under prepared to serve one of the world’s largest cities of over 17 million people.

A promising development for climate investment and possible innovation in low carbon growth is the pledge of US$150 million to Morocco for a fund dedicated to low carbon growth.  The fund will also boost energy security, a development which is likely to be viewed with keen interest from investors in the DesertTec Foundation. 

The climate finance will not all be focused on large scale infrastructure, with some of the money for South Africa dedicated to the distribution of solar water heating to millions of households, especially those with no access to electricity and in remote rural locations.

The CIF also earmarked between US$60 million and US$70 million for individual grants to Mozambique, Niger and Zambia which the World Bank felt all ‘shared dramatic risks in potential loss of land, life and livelihoods as a result of climate change’. These countries will utilise the money to pilot an initiative aimed at creating ‘resilience strategies’ against the impacts of climate change. 

Mont-Saint-Michel, on the Normandy coast of France, is the sight of new conflict.  The most recent battle is not in a medieval setting, but a modern struggle against two good, but opposed environmental causes.  On one side are those who want to reduce carbon emissions by installing windmills.  On the other side stand ecologists who suggest that windmills churning above the tidal flats of Mont-Saint-Michel would distract from the natural beauty of the medieval monument and potentially destroy the landscape in the future.

France is on an ambitious route to expand its use of windmills in renewable energy.  Currently there are 2500 windmills producing 4500 megawatts per year; the goal is to have 8500 windmills producing 25000 megawatts by 2020.  Windmills are becoming increasingly sought after by EU goals to limit greenhouse gases.  Last week, the EU recommended that it invest $ 70 million in clean energy over the coming decade, tripling windmill construction to produce 20 % of Europe’s electricity.

Those against the windmills near Mont-Saint-Michel have nothing against the quest for clean energy but rather argue that windmills above the ridgeline are not the way to achieve this goal.  Allies have formed across France, and an ambitious campaign to prove the windmills would desecrate the vista has begun.

The mayor of Mont-Saint-Michel, Eric Vannier, has stayed out of the debate for the most part, but 600 locals have pooled finances to hire lawyers to sue local government.  They expect a court ruling in Spring 2010.  If the group wins the lawsuit, “they’ll have to put everything back beyond 30 km (~18.5 miles),” said Corinne Gressier, who runs the group “Windmills: Turbulences.”  But she also realizes, “if we lose, it’s over.”

French law bans windmills closer than 1500 feet from historical monuments.  The current court case in will be on trial in Nantes.  It concerns plans to build 300 foot high windmills on farmland in Argouges, on a plateau a bit more than 10 miles southeast of Mont-Saint-Michel.  The monument attracts about 3 million visitors each year to admire the rock-top monastery.  Andre Antolini, president of renewable Energies Syndicate, told reporters last month that, “at the proposed distance, tourists to the monument would only see tiny blades peeking over the horizon.”

But for protesters like Gressier and the national alliance of environmental groups, the three windmills at Argouges would just be the tip of the iceberg if building is permitted.  There are current plans for an additional 80 towers in farming communities across the entire ridgeline above Mont-Saint-Michel.

The complicating issue is that farmers and village counters tend to embrace proposals to install windmills in their fields because of the payments they receive.  They get stipends for use of the land and villages are provided tax revenue on income from electricity, which is sold to the national grid.  “It’s a flourishing business,” said Jean-Louis Butre, president of the Durable Environmental Federation, based in Paris.

At present France gets about 80 percent of its energy from nuclear reactors and an additional 12 percent from hydraulic generators.  That leaves a balance of 8 percent that must be filled by oil, coal, natural gas, solar, or wind.  Butre explains that if government decided to fill that gap with windmills, it would have so many that they would be part of the scenery in more than a third of the country.

In fact last year, Butre challenged president Sarkozy’s strong push for wind energy in the book “Fraud: why windmills are a danger for France.”  The former President Velery Giscard d’Estaing, a supporter for nuclear power, wrote the preface to the book.  He denounced windmills as an “unacceptable use of public funds, a deceptive public discourse, and often questionable business.”

Now the delegation from Argouges, with support from groups around France, waits to see if they will win the court battle and put atop to the windmill construction near Mont-Saint-Michel.  It remains to be seen how this part of Mont-Saint-Michel’s represents 13 centuries of history will play out.

© Laura Padgett

Following two days of high-level discussions held in Washington at the beginning of last week, the U.S. and China signed an agreement to increase cooperation on climate change and energy.

These discussions were the first meeting in the China-U.S. Economic and Strategic Dialogue which was launched by Hu Jintao and Barak Obama at the G20 meeting in London in April, and are set to continue later this year. They consisted of two parallel tracks – an economic track, co-chaired by US Treasury Secretary Geithner and Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan; and a policy one, co-chaired by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo

In the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which was signed at the end of the meeting the two nations agree to “strengthen and coordinate our respective efforts to combat global climate change, promote clean and efficient energy, protect the environment and natural resources, and support environmentally sustainable and low-carbon economic growth”. The countries agree that cooperation between them is crucial to reaching these goals, and that they both have an important role in global negotiations. The document also states that this future cooperation will also strengthen and improve the relationship between China and the US, something that will benefit both countries in areas other than climate change as well.

As far as practicalities, the MoU doesn’t contain a whole lot of those. There are no exact targets and no detailed plans for cooperation other than stating that the two countries will “establish Climate Change Policy Dialogue and Cooperation as a platform for the United States and China to address global climate change and to identify and resolve areas of concern.”

So this agreement is no more than a general outline for future cooperation, which while it is definitely a step in the right direction, as US Senator John Kerry pointed out “the fully defined mutuality of effort between our two countries—did not materialize.”

This does not mean though that the improved relationship between the US and China since Obama took office has not yielded more concrete developments. These came two weeks previously when – during secretaries Steven Chu (energy) and Gary Locke (commerce) visit to China – the two countries agreed on several joint projects including an agreement between the U.S. DoE and the Chinese Ministry of Urban-Rural Development to foster collaboration in the development of more efficient building designs and sustainable communities; and an announcement of a joint Clean Energy Center to which the two countries pledged $15 million in support of initial activities.

These increasingly closer ties with China also provide opportunities to expose the US public and members of Congress to the progress made within China in fields such energy efficiency, renewable energy and clean energy technologies. This is important as the perceived lack of progress in other major emitters, especially China, is often used as an excuse to oppose and water down the US climate bill.

Environmental issues are central to the new government’s plan. Refusing to sign up to “any legal commitments or binding, mandatory targets on climate change”, Jairam Ramesh, the new Environment and Forests Minister reiterated that India will stick to its own climate change initiative: the eight national missions announced in the NAPCC last year. Perhaps reacting to the much repeated criticism of the climate change action plan, the government has stressed the need for more “action” and less “talk” this time around.

To start, the self certification clause that would have allowed industries to simply “self certify “ the environmental impact of any expansion will be dropped. BT Brinjal will not be hitting the supermarket shelves anytime soon either as the government has indicated that a comprehensive study on genetically modified foods is needed before clearance for any new foods will be given.

While the finance ministry may be keen on doing away with these “anti-market” environmental obstacles, Jairam Ramesh has declared that he will focus his energies on strengthening the regulatory system and ensuring stricter environmental norms. Environmental laws have long been seen in India as obstacles to development and growth. Arguing that a more accountable and transparent system will integrate environmentalism into the country’s economic model creating a more sustainable growth plan, Jairam Ramesh hopes to set up new overseeing authorities as well. The new government has announced that the current Central Pollution Control Board will be converted into a new environmental protection authority. Biodiversty and wildlife protection authorities and a new public environmental research institute will also be set up.

This new pro environment stance taken by the government is a good start. Till now, the environmental ministry has generally maintained a low profile and a strong environmental ministry that is ready to a take a stand is a welcome change.  India really needs to start putting in place the promised missions and enforcing environmental standards. But there also is pressure on the government to maintain economic growth rates during the economic slowdown and in order to do so it appears they have realised that India will have to match economic growth with environmental protection and adaptation.

According to a UNEP report, investment towards renewable energy in India increased by 12 percent this past year, with a 17 percent rise in investment in the wind energy sector and India has been lobbying at the international level for more technology transfer. At the domestic level, the new Minister has set the right tone. But for India to come out on top, the government has to follow through these next five years.

Seven years ago, Hamburg sold its municipal energy provider to the Swedish utility Vattenfall. Yesterday, in a telling example of changed thinking on energy policy, Hamburg’s Green environment minister announced the start of construction for the first (admittedly tiny) windpark operated by the city’s newly created municipal energy provider. The re-claiming of political control over energy production and supply by municipal providers, in line with developments elsewhere in Germany, highlights three issues. First, that for environmental and economic reasons political control over energy production and supply might be desirable. Second, that Green and Conservative politicians can make pragmatic policy. And third, that ‘greening’ energy supply might be a paying proposition for a city like Hamburg.

To provide more competition and therefore choice for citizens; to have an energy provider taking responsibility for fighting climate change; and to have an energy provider that operates in Hamburg, re-invests profits and represents the city’s interests; these are are the goals Anja Hajduk, Hamburg’s Green environment minister names for the creation of the new state-owned energy utility. They are to be achieved, in the medium-term, by Hamburg Energy, the new company by not only producing its own renewable energy, but also re-taking control over the heat- and gas-grids currently operated by Vattenfall and providing its customers with exclusively non-coal-non-nuclear electricity.

Hamburg Energie’s creation was first announced last autumn, at the same time as the government – legally obliged – granted Vattenfall the right to operate a coal-fired power station in the city. And while the Left party in the city characterizes the move as a cynical political ploy, it is more likely the expression of a spectacularly unspectacular Conservative-Green coalition’s pragmatic approach. Apart from announcing the creation of a municipal rival to Vattenfall, Hajduk – faced with her party’s discontent but legally obliged to grant the plant’s construction – also placed stringent regulatory limits on its size and the amount of cooling water from the river Elbe it is allowed to withdraw. And while traditionally seen as big-business friendly, Hamburg’s CDU members of government have so far gone along which a majority of the Green’s environmental policy – in striking contrast to the constant quarreling observers are used to from Red-Green coalition days.

And there is evidence that the optimism placed in renewable energy has sound economic footing. For example, in an unrelated – but not accidental move – Siemens announced the creation of a European sales and project execution headquarter in Hamburg. For northern German manufacturing, mostly rural and hurt by the demise of the ship-building industry from the 70s onwards, wind turbines have long provided a dynamic and fast-growing engine of job creation and economic growth. Siemens’ announcement, part of a wider trend of growth in renewable-energy related services in northern Germany and Denmark, show that this industry can create white-collar jobs in the city as well. The creation of Hamburg Energie is a sign that this message has been understood.