Suchergebnisse

Low and middle income countries are responsible for more than two thirds of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Although climate stabilization is now impossible without effective climate mitigation policies in developing countries, they are in conflict with developing countries' legitimate development goals. With economic growth being a major explanatory variable for both GHG emissions and poverty alleviation, developing countries face a difficult but critical trade-off with consequences for their inhabitants' livelihoods and global climate change trajectories. With this thesis I seek to...

AbstractWe study the welfare and energy poverty implications of energy price change scenarios in Indonesia. Our analysis extends previous analyses of energy price impacts at the household level in three ways. First, by employing a household energy demand system (QUAIDS), we are able to distinguish between first- and second-order welfare effects over the income distribution. Second, our results point to the ownership of energy-processing durables as another source of impact heterogeneity. Third, we extend the welfare analysis beyond the money-metric utility effects and look at energy poverty, which is understood as the absence of or imperfect access to reliable and clean modern energy services. The analysis indicates that energy prices may serve as an effective instrument to reduce energy use but also have important adverse welfare effects. The latter can, however, be mitigated by appropriate compensation policies.

Low and middle income countries are responsible for more than two thirds of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Although climate stabilization is now impossible without effective climate mitigation policies in developing countries, they are in conflict with developing countries' legitimate development goals. With economic growth being a major explanatory variable for both GHG emissions and poverty alleviation, developing countries face a difficult but critical trade-off with consequences for their inhabitants' livelihoods and global climate change trajectories. With this thesis I seek to...

Energy use is not only crucial for economic development, but is also the main driver of greenhouse-gas emissions. Developing countries can reduce emissions and thrive only if economic growth is disentangled from energy-related emissions. Although possible in theory, the required energy-system transformation would impose considerable costs on developing nations. Developed countries could bear those costs fully, but policy design should avoid a possible 'climate rent curse', that is, a negative impact of financial inflows on recipients' economies. Mitigation measures could meet further resistance because of adverse distributional impacts as well as political economy reasons. Hence, drastically re-orienting development paths towards low-carbon growth in developing countries is not very realistic. Efforts should rather focus on 'feasible mitigation actions' such as fossil-fuel subsidy reform, decentralized modern energy and fuel switching in the power sector.

In December 2015 world leaders agreed upon a new global climate agreement in an attempt to limit the global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius. Despite the general optimism after the Paris agreement and well-intended new commitments during the recent Marrakech conference, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are growing strongly in developing countries, where there is a desire for prosperity. If the dual challenge of reducing GHG emissions and achieving economic development cannot be addressed, the world will fail to meet the desired climate targets. GHG emissions continue to grow, which threatens climate stabilisation. This growth now comes mostly from the developing world, and many developing countries are on a CO2-intensive development path. The Paris agreement will not be more than the sum of its parts. The aggregate climate protection efforts that result from country-level nationally determined contributions (NDCs) are very likely to fall short of the mitigation actions needed for climate stabilisation. There is a lack of concrete actions by a number of developing countries. Domestic climate policy is either inexistent in certain states or the policies implemented are insufficient, as we illustrate with evidence from Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, and Thailand. The huge gap between the objectives of the Paris agreement and what is happening "on the ground" reflects significant barriers to decarbonising the world's energy and transport systems. The short-term economic, political, and social costs of reforms are key barriers. Developing countries cannot be blamed for their economic development ambitions. To trigger the transformational change required to curb GHG emissions calls for immediate policy responses. International agreements and cooperation need to support emerging middle-income economies with a clear focus on mitigation actions that matter, such as - in particular - taxing carbon through green fiscal reform. At the same time, climate finance for low-income economies should systematically seek to prevent lock-in effects.

Im Umfeld des Rio+20 Gipfels, der vom 20.-22. Juni 2012 in Rio de Janeiro stattfand,
rückten Brasilien und Mexiko als größte Verursacher von Treibhausgasemissionen in
Lateinamerika in den Fokus der Klimapolitik.
Aktuell beträgt der Anteil Brasiliens und Mexikos an den globalen Treibhausgasemissionen
etwa vier Prozent. Die Regierungen beider Länder bekennen sich zu einer aktiven
Rolle in der Klimapolitik. Maßnahmen zur Reduzierung der Emissionen können allerdings
den Zielen der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung und Armutsreduzierung entgegenwirken.
Es gilt daher, Maßnahmen zu identifizieren, die sowohl die wirtschaftliche und
soziale Entwicklung fördern als auch die Emissionen oder zumindest das Emissionswachstum
reduzieren.
Schwellenländer wie Brasilien und Mexiko, aber auch China, Indien, Russland und
Südafrika stehen vor der Herausforderung, den Lebensstandard ihrer Bevölkerung
zu erhöhen und sozioökonomische Ungleichheiten zu beseitigen, ohne den Klimawandel
zu beschleunigen.
Die Struktur der wachsenden Emissionen dieser beiden Länder zeigt, wie vielfältig
die Lösungsmöglichkeiten zur Reduzierung von Emissionen sein können. Brasilien
erzeugt einen Großteil der Energie durch erneuerbare Energien, kämpft jedoch mit
massiven Problemen bei Flächenverbrauch und Entwaldung, während Mexikos CO2-
intensiver Energiesektor eine große Herausforderung darstellt.
Für beide Länder lassen sich Win-win-Maßnahmen identifizieren; das Potenzial zur
Vermeidung von Emissionen ist nicht ausgeschöpft. In Mexiko könnte die Effizienz
der Fahrzeugflotte durch höhere Kraftstoffsteuern verbessert werden. In Brasilien
gilt es vor allem, die weitere Entwaldung zu verhindern.
Die politische und wissenschaftliche Debatte zur Bekämpfung des Klimawandels
konzentriert sich zu sehr auf die technische Machbarkeit und theoretische Effizienz
von Maßnahmen. Wichtiger wäre es aber, deren politische und praktische Umsetzbarkeit
sowie deren Armuts- und Verteilungswirkungen zu diskutieren.