-drumroll.jpg)
:
Discussion - April 2011
How can government and industry win public support for new low-carbon technologies?
34 Comments from our contributors
34 Comments from our contributors
Leave a Reply
Registered users must log in to post a comment. New users can register with Comment:Visions, and begin to leave comments once approved.
Loading ...
Twitter
RSS
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
Twitter
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
RSS
Founder
TideNGen 24/7 - baseload decentralised renewable energy retrofit to tollways carparks highways, Brisbane, Australia
said: On 01/04/2011
Come for a journey with me please. Few years ago we started on renewable energy technologies and it quickly became apparent that renewables would not be able to catch the amount of carbon being pumped out by the polluters globally, which is when the term carbon mitigation came into focus and posed the question: is it possible for us to create a product that is renewable in a sense to start with and mitigate carbon? Obviously, my answer was ‘absolutely’, then reality kicked in and the ‘How’ question quickly came to mind.
Two of the biggest polluters are coal fired power plants and cars; the Olympic games in China were a great proof of both of these happening in the same place at the same time. Since I am an inventor innovator with a great team around me, we agreed that we could not tackle the coal fired power plants but cars we could, so now we had a purpose and a direction all we needed was the technology that could use cars to create clean energy directly without touching the car or changing it in any way and also at the exact same time as a result mitigate its own carbon foot print.
To make a very long story short, we finally did it with CompressNGen. You simply go about your business and drive over it and it creates electrical energy via an alternator. This is the first product in the world that has addressed a cars carbon emission at the same time creating clean energy.
What this technology also means is because the modules are re-locatable, we can retro fit them to any existing car park, road way, public transport terminal, air ports etc. Take a few minutes if you would and think about where else there is car traffic and where we can put one of our modules, then you will get just as excited as we are.
Ok, so ‘where are we right now’ you may ask, the simple answer is frustrated by the lack of investment and most of all vision by those with the funds to take us to commercialisation. Every time I watch the movie “Home”, which is about climate change and our environment, it makes me realize how entrenched in the carbon economy all the available investments actually are. It’s pretty sad that we are sitting here with true technology that can make a huge difference not just to clean power generation created where it can be used, but also carbon mitigation and we get a call from Macquarie Bank saying you are out side our funding capabilities. CompressNGen was outside our capabilities too when we started but we figured it out.
Governments and industry do not create new technology -they use it, men and women like me create it and hopefully we find someone to fund us to make it main stream.
Associate Partner, Head of Renewable Energies
Roedl&Partner, Nürnberg, Germany
said: On 01/04/2011
With our expertise from the development of low-carbon emitting geothermal projects, e.g. in Unterhaching, nearby Munich, we learnt from the beginning, that a transparent communication regarding the technology, its risk and potential wins the public for the project. Consequently the project is accepted by the citizens as “their” project and they gratefully sign the heat supply contracts.
For geothermal projects you have to communicate the advantages clearly: CO2-free, price stable and independence. The project of Unterhaching belongs to the cititzens, because the operating company is held by 100 % by the community. An increase from 28 MW to 46 MW (load of tele-heating) within 3 years shows the success of winning “clients”. Making the project yours, activates energy to support it – also if problems occur.
But also with other technologies. In this world it is no longer a problem to get any information, but to win the confidence of the receptor regarding the information; we can face this in the present discussion regarding nuclear power in Germany. Finally people do not know whom to believe and loose even confidence in the government.
Wind power – due to a lack of potential locations in the north – is now being developed in the hills of Central and Southern Germany. If the citizens get a chance to be part of the project by e.g. financial public participation and if it is communicated that they contribute by this small share to the “large battle against climate change” they will be accept the project – even if it destroys any panoramic views.
Making the project for the people and with the people is our strategy.
Independent Researcher, Rome, Italy
Blog.hasslberger.com
said: On 01/04/2011
There is really no problem with public support, as long as the right technology is chosen. Government and industry have to overcome their own reluctance to embrace new low-carbon technologies, and they have to choose the proper technology to implement.
Nuclear, for instance, could be said to be low-carbon, but it is not an appropriate technology for solving mankind’s energy needs. If the seriousness of potential dangers of nuclear fission is taken into account, and if all the costs are accounted for, nuclear does not make sense, neither from the point of view of safety nor from that of economy.
A possible technology that can do the same as nuclear is concentrated solar power. By concentrating the sun’s rays, sufficient heat can be produced to run steam turbines and electric generators, just as nuclear is doing. The fuel is free, all we need is a sunny standpoint and mirrors to concentrate the sun’s rays. Molten salt or other similar storage systems can smooth out times of no sunshine and extend production into the evening hours. Safety of solar is excellent, fuel is free, scalability is excellent. All that is needed is the will to finance it.
So to answer your question in a simple way, government and industry can win public support for new low-carbon technologies by choosing a proper technology that is both safe and efficient.
Research
Nordic Folkecenter for Renewable Energy, Denmark
said: On 01/04/2011
We should be critical of the validity of technologies that are put forth as low-carbon solutions to our current situation. We need to divert our resources and innovation away from technologies that conceal a great deal of embodied energy that is very often left out of equations and therefore create more problems than are solved, problems that are shunted into the not so distant future or merely ignored because we focus too closely on CO2 as the only factor fuelling climate change.
Additionally, the matter is not only support for the technologies, it is not only the object itself that must be accepted but the social distribution of ownership and use is equally important.
There is no better way for people to appreciate these technologies than to participate in the ownership and implementation in their own communities. A large scale wind turbine does not have to be owned by a corporation or utility company (it does not have to be large for that matter) and it does not have to be situated in a wind farm that imposes itself on the local environment and people who have no chance to participate. Co-operatively owned and managed installations will ensure not only acceptance but also the natural decentralized distribution of energy production (large and small) right alongside where that energy is to be consumed. Ideally, this will enable the growth of skilled localized jobs related to the installation, maintenance, manufacture and development of sustainable technologies, benefiting everyone involved.
This has already happened in Denmark where in the 1980’s and 90’s wind power was spread around the country with ownership of any one machine shared amongst dozens of local families. This is also now growing in Minnesota, USA with farmer lead local co-ops, as well as many more places around the world where families, friends and neighbours are getting together to share the initial investment, create a small yearly income from the energy produced, and actively participate in our collective shift away from fossil fuels.
We can shift away from the old model of centralized fossil fuel based energy production and towards a decentralized system of community and locally owned sustainable energy production that will create more skilled and fulfilling jobs, lessen the environmental impacts of centralized power production and lessen the global impacts of our consumption.
And let’s not focus only on the methods of energy production, what’s even more important and harder to do as a global society is to consume less in the first place. This does not mean a decrease in our standard of living, or even a decrease in comfort, but a shift away from the needless waste that we have become accustomed to and all the associated consequences that are most often imposed on other distant places and people.
We need to take responsibility for the damage that has been done, as individuals and as nations. We need to communicate to our local and national politicians that we want policies in place that enable and encourage local and community participation in conservation first, and truly sustainable energy production second. And we need to stop waiting for someone else or some other nation to act first.
Founder
TideNGen 24/7 - baseload decentralised renewable energy retrofit to tollways carparks highways, Brisbane, Australia
said: On 02/04/2011
Hey Katie, what fantastic work! I couldn’t agree more, some brillient points you have made here. I was wondering where you were going to go with generators owned by co-ops then you gave the example of the shared investment and the shared returns, just perfect. Thank you very much. I will refer back to your post to try and implement the same strategy.
National Profession Officer
Environmental Health, WHO Nepal
said: On 03/04/2011
To get public support for low carbon technologies, do the following:
1. If the low carbon technology is cheaper than the alternatives, as happens in many cases, it is automatically supported and only needing promotion.
2. To divert people towards low carbon technologies add environmetal tax to high carbon technologies in ratio of emissions.
3. Develop stronger social values in support of low carbon technologies based on creating sustainability of lives on earth.
4. What else?
General Manager
Key Partners
said: On 04/04/2011
Winning public support is a subject in itself; one does not win public support in a day or a month. It is the result of proper communication towards proper channels that will correctly relay the messages.
For any project, to obtain acceptance, several steps must be taken one after the other:
a) One must know what the present public perception and agreements are on the subject. These can be discovered by proper surveys. From experience, public perception discovered through survey are often quite different than the ones relayed by the media or perceived by governments. This phase is critical and vital because one will then know what habits or agreement exist, and can subsequently work out what to communicate, when, how, and by which channel
b) Then one can communicate in order to change the perception of the public. Here one has to determine what to communicate, when, at which frequency. One should also define by which channels and who will communicate. The main issue remains to determine what to communicate, hence the previous surveys. A proper communication based on correct surveys will improve acceptance. An improper communication may unfortunately create more resistance. On a subject such as new low-carbon technologies, it will be very likely to discover that information on these new subjects will be key. It will also be very likely that one discovers that governments deal with several publics (depending on the country, urban or rural public, etc.). Fortunately, nowadays communication and messages can easily be targeted thanks to the Internet and social media (Facebook, Youtube) that can be very powerful in carrying messages.
c) Then one also has to decline the paradigm shifts needed for each public. A low carbon print does not have the same impact for an urban citizen as for a rural public. This is to be done with the person concerned, are they the ones who best know the problems they encounter every day.
Each of these steps is a project in itself. But properly done, it will give invaluable data to anyone concerned with public acceptance.
Patrice Wellhoff is an international consultant, owner of Key Partners, a European company specialized in change management.
Chief Executive Officer
Civic Exchange, a Public Policy Think Tank
said: On 04/04/2011
The rage is all about new technology for a low carbon economy. There is one simple low-tech product that will have considerable impact – the universal charger for mobile phones! There isn’t much to say about the technology really but there is much to say about the GSM Association innovation.
In Feb 2009, the GSM Association (GSMA), the trade body representing the mobile communication industry worldwide, announced that its members together with several major manufacturers of mobile phones would implement a cross-industry standard for a universal, energy efficient charger for new phones.
The association estimated this initiative would result in 50% reduction in standby energy consumption, and the potential elimination of up to 51,000 tons of duplicate chargers. The savings were made based on the estimated 1.2 billion mobile phones sold in 2008, of which 50-80% was replacement handsets where the user already had an existing charger. Moreover, this single initiative can expect to reduce greenhouse gases in manufacturing and transporting replacement chargers by 13.6 to 21.8 million tons per year.
Under this voluntary industry agreement, by 1 January 2012, the majority of manufacturers supported a universal charging connector for all new models, and the chargers would also meet much 3 times higher energy efficiency targets.
The European Commission decided to exploit this initiative in June 2009 by pushing European mobile phone makers to go even faster so that they would have a universal charger for handsets sold in Europe from late 2010. In December 2009, the Commission issued new technical standards for the common charger for Europe. This means European consumers should be able to buy new phones this year without a charger, provided they already own one compatible with the revised standard. In future, they would not need to buy a new charger again for a long time since consumers will be able to use the same charger over again.
This single industry-led initiative for operators to collaborate with each other through their trade association, and together with their supplying manufacturers, is a good example of a win-win solution. The mobile phone makers are competing with each other on phone design and functions – not the charging device. By working with manufacturers, the mobile service operators could reduce costs for the phone producers, make the user experience more convenient and be more eco-friendly all at the same time.
In addition, the GSMA initiative helped to improve energy efficiency standards and the European Commission pushed further to maximize impact within its jurisdiction. The GSMA took the matter up because its leadership identified this as an obvious step it could take to improve the industry’s environmental performance and it had the support of its board, which are made up of the world’s major operators with considerable industry influence. Many of the manufacturers were already working on chargers using less energy, and this initiative enabled them to make fewer and better chargers. With everyone on-side, the GSMA announced this initiative at its annual industry conference in Barcelona to much fanfare, and could bask in the glow of doing something good.
The initiative is a management innovation – it didn’t require new technology to be invented. Indeed, new technology, such as solar-powered charging for mobile devices or wireless charging devices, are important inventions and they too will reduce the use of natural resources and wastes. However, the GSMA-type of initiative can produce massive impact in the short-term and even permanently change how management and a whole industry see what they can do.
Every industry should have their GSMA-type initiative too.
Senior Consultant
RebelGroup Advisory
said: On 04/04/2011
The European Commission DG Energy financed project ‘RESHARE’ (www.reshare.nu) has identified the following benefit sharing mechanisms
1. Community Funds: the local developer provides funds which are at the disposal of the community for common projects or lowering local taxes. These funds are either paid directly into a community fund or collected indirectly through local taxes by the municipality. The use of the funds is managed either by the community or the municipality.
2. Local (Co-)Ownership: the developer grants or offers shares in the project to the local community
3. Compensation: the developer compensates for possible damages such as ecological damages (e.g. by creating a new habitat for species endangered by the development).
4. Benefits-in-kind: the developer creates improvements to the community, usually during the construction phase
5. Local Employment: local employment is prioritised the construction phase and/or in the operation phase.
6. Local Contracting: Local business are awarded contracts or involved in the development.
7. Energy Price Reduction for the Local Community: the local community is granted the opportunity to either consume energy directly from the development at a discount or to purchase energy at lower prices.
8. Indirect Social Benefits: any other benefit accruing to the community which is not directly quantifiable such as prestige, eco-tourism, knowledge etc.
Benefit Sharing Mechanisms are appealing to the public as they create a level of involvement that is unthinkable compared to fossil fuels/nuclear energy. Research shows that the general public attitude towards renewables is positive. This does not take away obstacles in relation to NIMBY, environmental impact in relation to actual projects. Benefit Sharing Mechanisms have the potential to do so, as illustrated by a growing number of cases throughout Europe
(check http://www.reshare.nu)
Nuclear Affairs Attache
French Ministry of Foreign Affairs
said: On 05/04/2011
In order to face Climate Change issues and take the lead, the EU has set very ambitious and necessary targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% in 2020 and by 80 to 90% by 2050.
As energy production and consumption is the major emitting source, low carbon technologies are key to the transition towards a decarbonised economy. However these technologies face a number of challenges, including public acceptance. Strong, coherent public policies and adapted information are required to raise public awareness and involve citizens in the efforts to be made by all sectors of the economy.
The process of decarbonisation of the economy will induce a major industrial shift. To adress this challenge, it is necessary to develop integrated public policies as well as incresase the commitments of industry and citizens to these changes ahead. Climate change issues are not only a challenge but an opportunity for Europe to maintain its leadership in new energy technologies and remain innovative and competitive. Public policies should support R&D and industrial efforts but also communicate and reach out to the citizens. Indeed changes in consumption modes will have to take place, especially in energy efficiency and savings, transport, housing and employment transition.
In order for these changes to take place, governments should send the right economic and regulatory incentives. It is not only about new energy infrastructures! Public authorities should put in place integrated and sustainable approaches. Citizens need to hear a consistent and coherent message from both government and industry. For better public acceptance, targeted information and awareness raising are fundamental: people have to understand what is at stakes and get involved somehow to feel they are part of the trans-sectoral effort of emission reduction. They should make theirs the policies, rather than feel it has been imposed by government or industry. It is also about transparency, dialogue, sharing experiences and contribution at local and regional level in order to move away from the “not-in-my-backyard” rhetoric.
In addition, government and industry should communicate on the changes that are already taking place and emphasise the positive impacts new low carbon technologies will have on growth, employment, competitiveness and innovation. It can trigger a virtuous cycle if every stakeholder is committed and the right incentives are given in terms of regulation, price and public support. Public acceptance and involvement of the citizens will be key factors in this process.
Public policies will also have to accompany this industrial transition not only through emission regulation, infrastructure and other energy measures but also via strong employment policies oriented towards training, re-orientation of personnel, adequate education programme focused on those new technologies to benefit from qualified workers and engineers.
This industrial revolution will need the involvement of low carbon technologies: renewables of course but we must also be realistic and maintain an equilibrium and a diversification in our energy mix with nuclear and other conventional energies such as gas and to a certain extent oil and coal with CCS.
Energy efficiency measures are in first line to reduce consumption and thus emission. Again citizens have a crucial role to play by developing responsible behaviours in energy consumption, transport, housing where major energy savings can be made.
To conclude, public acceptance should not be seen as a problem but as part of the transition process towards a decarbonised society. Governments should better communicate on their reduction objectives, the measures already taken and the efforts of the industry. Public policies and involvement of the citizens will raise public awareness, appropriation and eventually public acceptance for new low carbon technologies.
NB: Opinions or points of view expressed in this article only engage the author and does not necessarily reflect an official position.
Executive Director
REPP - The Renewable Energy Policy Project
said: On 05/04/2011
Manufacturing Climate Stabilization –
Learning from the past / Making the Future
The Obama administration came to office promoting a sweeping climate and energy plan. President Obama proposed to cap CO2 emissions and then auction roughly 5.8 billion emission allowances, raise over $100 billion per year from the auction, and use the revenues from the auction to fund everything from deficit reduction to health care reform to assistance for low-income energy consumers to support for a new green economy.
That effort sank spectacularly and pulled down with it any progress towards CO2 stabilization. Despite this setback, at some point a successful climate stabilization strategy must include a limit or cap on CO2 emissions. In 1990 a cap on sulfur dioxide emissions passed in large part because the allocation of allowances and the availability of technology fixes made the costs and benefits of the cap acceptable. Indeed, the 1990 Amendments are the only successful cap and trade program ever run.
Just as with sulfur dioxide, the acceptance of a CO2 cap will rise or fall depending on the costs and benefits of the cap, which will in turn depend on the allocation of allowances and the portfolio of options available to meet the cap. If a cap is for the moment politically unattainable, federal policy should turn towards ways to expand the portfolio of technologies available to meet the cap. And at a time of economic crisis, technology options developed to meet a CO2 cap should be linked to efforts to support the domestic manufacturing economy.
The competitive advantage of renewable energy lies in its ability to go through rapid, effective cycles of technology innovation. Innovation begins with research but must end with commercial adoption to be successful. Innovation once brought to the commercial market drives down the cost of renewable energy allowing it to capture larger market shares. The lower the price for renewable energy the lower the cost of meeting any CO2 cap. The more the renewable technologies are manufactured domestically, the greater the benefits.
To capture the full potential of renewable energy to not only meet a CO2 cap but also stimulate the economy, the demand for manufactured component parts has to be linked to the creation of a world-class, domestic manufacturing industry. Some innovation will come forward as new types of renewable production but a large share should come from targeted innovations that, if they are channeled through domestic manufacturers, will not only support the competitive position of renewable energy but also provide the competitive advantage for a domestic industry.
Here is how the feds can help.
First, use an Executive Order to create a Renewable Manufacturing America program to provide technical assistance to Chambers of Commerce, Economic Development Agencies, Energy Offices, manufacturers and others in states and regions. The assistance should be tailored to local conditions and opportunities. Increased awareness of the potential for local, renewable manufacturing should build support for an increased federal role to accelerate new manufacturing. The intent is to blend initial support through on-going technology innovation to assure the domestic industry is world-class.
Appropriate incentives have to be available for retooling and new renewable manufacturing. To do this, create a new class of tax credit bonds: Renewable Manufacturing Bonds (RMBs) to support the development of renewable manufacturing facilities. RMBs would work by offering the purchasers of the bonds a tax credit in lieu of an interest payment. Sellers of the bonds, in this case new or expanded manufacturing facilities, have to pay back the principal of the bond but in essence they get an interest free loan. RMBs could be marketed as Green Victory Bonds giving individuals an opportunity to invest in climate stabilization efforts and the rebuilding of the domestic manufacturing sector. Every dollar of tax credits will result in two to three dollars invested in new, domestic manufacturing. Estimates are that a ten year program that offered $10 billion each year in RMB bonds for new investments in manufacturing would create a direct demand for 750,000 trained and skilled manufacturing employees.
Targeted R&D has to be made available in order to make domestic manufacturing part of an overall program to drive down the cost and improve the operating characteristics of finished renewable technologies. An aggressive program to support the commercialization of R&D efforts must be available to assure technology innovations flow through domestic manufacturers. The R&D and commercialization efforts should support a Technology Innovation Roadmap, i.e. a credible set of innovations that provide a ‘roadmap’ showing how the costs of renewable energy can be driven down to competitive levels.
A Career Ladder should be created as part of the expansion of domestic manufacturing. As domestic renewable manufacturing expands the need for trained, skilled workers will expand. In order to assure the expansion of domestic industry is not stalled by shortages of skilled workers, firms receiving incentives should be required to provide estimates of the number and skill levels of workers that will be needed. Training programs can be tied to these requirements. Workers will see a potential career ladder.
For every renewable technology there is a roadmap of innovation that, if effected, would dramatically change climate stabilization costs and benefits. We need to support that innovation and link that innovation to a domestic manufacturing industry. This type of innovation and stimulus can radically alter the costs and benefits of capping CO2 emissions and ultimately lead to a revitalized domestic economy and much broader popular support for a sweeping climate and energy plan.
George Sterzinger
Executive Director
Renewable Energy Policy Project
1612 K St., NW Suite 202
Washington D.C.
202-255-8119
Centre of Excellence for Renewable Energy
Energy Efficiency and Environment, Vienna, Austria.
said: On 05/04/2011
I’ve recently been working on a Biogas project, this is the sustainable energy innovative for biogas in Europe and it’s called CB. It’s going to be available at CB.2013.eu, it is a product that came about after the Russians cut off the natural gas supply about two years ago. Many countries were affected by that, people were cold, and so we have now fourteen partners from nine different countries working on this, seeing the viability of biogas in their local countries, and also the trans-nationality aspects of biogas.
We started it last year, so we’re very new in this project. There have been several other biogas projects in Central and Eastern Europe, but something along this scale in terms of the trans-nationality aspects of it, no, there really hasn’t. And then in addition we plan on having competence knowledge centres, which are going to exist after the finish of this project in 2013, so this is going to be a resource where people and municipalities and governments and universities as well can go and find out more information about biogas, the viability of having a biogas plant in their local community, as well as benefits and advantages/disadvantages of having it.
Founder and Chief Executive Officer
Natural Alternative Fuels, Inc., USA
said: On 06/04/2011
Mark Twain once said: “Whiskey’s for drinking…water is worth fighting for.” When government and industry demonstrate a willingness to fight for the well-being of the people, the preservation of the planet, while making a profit, then they will begin to earn the respect and trust of the public. The public suspects government and industry because they have a poor record for environmental protection. We remember Alaska’s Exxon Valdez, and we still see the devastation of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The whole world is watching as nuclear radiation permeates Japan’s food and water supply. If government and industry truly want to win public support for new low-carbon technologies, then they must conduct business with the people and the environment in mind. Industry and government must work together to protect our natural resources for future generations.
Industry must begin to make things that people care about, in a manner that minimizes the pollution of our air, soil and water. Businesses must make the maximum amount of products using the minimum amount of resources, without sacrificing product performance, safety or increasing costs. The transition toward low-carbon technologies drives innovation and innovation drives sustainability. Sustainable innovation is a critical pathway to revenue growth. Companies should be keenly aware that as they grow, they are now being evaluated for their humanity, as well as, judged by the quality of their products and services.
Government must implement sound, stable, low-carbon policies that create certainty in the marketplace. Investors want to fund green projects, but lack of certainty and stability on a federal level creates investor insecurity. Likewise, the lack of dependable mechanisms for allocating and monitoring the flow of investment dollars results in sporadic investment by government and industry. Government must embrace the philosophy of sustainability and then invest therein. Government must then be willing to participate in public-private partnerships geared toward transition to a low-carbon society. Germany, Denmark, and the UK serve as good role models to follow. As early adopters of advanced, clean energy strategies and technologies, these countries prove what can be done when government, industry and the people come together.
To win public support for new low-carbon technologies, the government and industry must be honest. People can see through companies that say they are “green”, yet their track record says something different. Today’s buyers have begun to make buying decisions based upon the corporate social responsibility record of a company. Moreover, companies have now begun to evaluate the environmental compliance record of other companies within their supply chain, to determine whether to continue their business relationship. Government and industry must realize that people are watching closely and can see through the veil of those who falsely claim to be a “green company”.
Plato said: “The direction that education leads a person will determine the direction of their life”. To gain the public trust, government and industry should invest in educating people concerning sustainability, and include them in the decision-making process. Change starts on the inside, and takes time. Transformation is smoother when people learn why change is needed and are given ample opportunity to adjust. Without education and opportunity to prepare, people are suspicious of change and slow to transform. America’s plan to implement a residential electric smart meter program experienced this problem. Class action lawsuits were filed by people who suspected that the new smart meters increased their electric bills rather than lowering them. A study later revealed that electric bills increased due to the unusually hot summer in which the meters were installed. The study found that the meters actually work, therefore, the lawsuits were dismissed. This could have been avoided if the people had been consulted and educated before the technology was installed.
Finally, government and industry should share the wealth generated by low-carbon technologies. Too often, the people who lose the most when there is an environmental mishap are totally excluded from the rewards gained by government and industry. To gain social acceptance of new, low-carbon technologies, close the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Reduce the need to compete for limited resources. There is a reason why people sabotage oil pipelines in Africa. Tremendous savings will be generated from energy efficiency, carbon reduction, carbon capture and trade, and foreign crude oil import reductions. A portion of these savings should be allocated to rebuild infrastructure, redevelop communities, create new jobs and develop new career paths. Show the people that government and industry cares about them and this planet, and then witness the people rally around the deployment of new low-carbon technology. “Whiskey’s for drinking…the people and this planet are worth fighting for!”
Senior Geoscience Advisor
Geotermica, Umeå Area, Sweden
said: On 07/04/2011
With Geotermica we develop electricity and district heat production from medium heat (enthalpy) geothermal resources, with current focus on Italy. Until recently, most of the geothermal resources used for electric energy production in Europe have been from high enthalpy sources, i.e. Iceland and Tuscany. Medium enthalpy resources can now be utilized by newer technologies based on closed circulation of fluids and heat exchangers. With this technique, known adverse effects such as emissions of salt thermal waters and gases can be eliminated. The exploitation of geothermal mid-enthalpy geothermal resources in Europe will help increase the proportion of sustainable energy and reduce dependence of fossil- and nuclear power. To help implement out projects we rely on help to communicate the benefits to society and the limited local environmental impacts of the technology. Local, regional and national authorities are some of the most important parts in this process.
CEO
Vela Gear Systems, Indianapolis, USA
said: On 08/04/2011
This question assumes that both government and industry want the public to support new low-carbon technologies, when in fact it may be the other way around. The question could be, “How can the public get government and industry to support low carbon technologies?”.
Government and industry, as large organizations, expend significant effort to maintain order and control, and therefore tend to favor the status quo. Change is difficult to manage in most large organizations. Businesses recoup investments, by fully utilizing current assets, prior to making new investments. Switching away, from basic infrastructure and technologies, is not done easily by most businesses. In general, it is difficult for most businesses, industries, and governments to support basic infrastructure changes.
Our entire infrastructure is based upon carbon-based technologies. Very nearly 100% of U.S. transportation is carbon-based on gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels. 70% of U.S. electrical generation is carbon based on coal and natural gas. Some of the most prominent icons of American culture are fast cars, rich Texas oilmen, and fighter jets, all carbon based technologies. It will be a long process to create support for low-carbon technologies, when the changes to low-carbon technologies appear to threaten the basic icons of American culture.
However, change does happen. There is continually a new emerging generation of Americans, both in younger people and in new entrants to the U.S. It is a fact that American demographics are changing. There is the effect on the public of events in the world, such as rising gasoline prices, the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf, the tsunami knocking out the nuclear reactors at Fukushima for example. Whether newsworthy events effect the general psyche of the general public is true or not, businesses try to capitalize on those events. For example, there are many new “green” products marketing efforts that try to capitalize on the perception that the public favors “green”. Industries are profitable by recovering their investment in current infrastructure, but also seek emerging technologies that will be profitable in the future.
There is another effect of innovation by individuals and small groups. Innovations and changes that address some perceived need could catch a wave of public support and become wildly profitable industries (like mobile phones specifically the iPhone), or topple governments (like Egypt and Libya). Innovations and the public will drive changes to government and industry, not the other way around. Entrepreneurs with innovative products and services will catch waves of public support, industries will latch on to make profits, and governments will adapt the changes that industry and the public desire. For some innovators and entrepreneurs it is not hard to imagine wind power charging our cars at night, creating entire new industries in low-carbon technologies. Although change is hard, it always comes.
MEP, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
European Parliament
said: On 08/04/2011
How can government and industry win public support for new low-carbon technologies?
European countries face critical choices to preserve their future prosperity and security. Moving to a higher domestic greenhouse gas reduction target which is in line with EU´s climate objective will protect us from soaring oil prices and reduce the risks of extreme weather events as a result of the climate crisis. Investing in climate friendly technologies can bring about a healthier society for our EU citizens and a revitalization of the European economy by creating millions of new jobs.
Unfortunately, some low-carbon technologies reduce our climate emissions, but pose risks to our citizens and therefore gain little public support. Low-carbon technologies are not necessarily sustainable technologies; nuclear energy for example is not a sustainable technology. There are currently no long term solutions for the storage of nuclear waste for example and a possible disaster involving a nuclear power plant can have devastating impacts as we can see now again in Japan unfortunately. When there are substitutions available, we should not try to force these low-carbon technologies on our citizens, but instead focus on renewable technologies like wind turbines.
In countries like the Netherlands and the UK, there is also some local resistance against wind turbines on land, due to “visual disturbance” of the landscape. In principle, most people are not against wind turbines, but there is a “not in my backyard” mentality. Therefore, we should discuss ways of how our citizens can profit from this green technology. Is there a way local citizens can profit from the wind turbine on or close to their land? Can we involve local citizens and let them participate in the decision making process by letting them co-decide on the design of the wind turbine for example?
Policy Advisor
S&D Secretariat, European Parliament. Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
said: On 08/04/2011
“Building a long term political strategy that mobilises support for low-carbon transition is as important as finding the right instruments to facilitate such transition. A successful strategy should take into account and manage public expectations, take advantage of windows of opportunity, offer bold visions, but also clear messages, build consensus and if necessary go beyond consensus.
Recent European Parliament Eurobarometer demonstrates that Europeans value as a first priority stability of energy prices (29% of the respondents), followed closely by renewable energy (27%) and security of energy supply (20%). The support for renewables has not faded away due to the economic recession as some commentators claim. However, the fact that the prime importance for the people is the price of energy, leads to a question, how to ensure a just transition towards a low-carbon economy in times of high, but at the same time volatile energy prices.
Between 50 to 120 million Europeans are confronted with energy poverty on a daily basis, the number stretching to 1, 6 billion globally. That is one out of four people on the planet are energy poor. This means that they do not have access or they cannot afford to serve their basic energy needs for lighting, domestic heating or cooling and cooking.
The transition towards a low carbon society threatens with potentially regressive measures that penalise the most vulnerable in our societies. The tools used to steer this transition, such as shifting the taxation towards carbon emissions, or using market based tools like emissions trading are intrinsically regressive. Furthermore, the effects of the climate change such as the damage to the environment and ecosystems according to current scientific knowledge will disproportionally fall upon some of the poorest regions in the world.
This calls for a set of policy measures, which facilitate both the access and affordability of energy. The most obvious means to achieve this end is through high levels of energy efficiency, for instance in buildings and appliance, as well as targeted social policy measures. Unfortunately, at current the EU and its Member States fall short of its 2020 energy efficiency targets, and measures put forward by the Commission are so far not very assuring.
Furthermore, the effects on the labour market, which will result from the energy transformation, must be anticipated and therefore, training must be provided for workers in carbon intensive energy sectors. Focus on the protection of consumers’ rights and setting right policy framework which will facilitate the consumers switching to more sustainable products, to reduce their energy use, and opt for renewable energy, is a must.
Finally, the global community has to assume its responsibility in alleviating energy poverty. The UN Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change has called for the adoption of a goal of universal access to modern energy services by 2030, a goal to which I fully subscribe, but that has to be backed up by credible financing.”
MEP, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
European Parliament
said: On 11/04/2011
Everyone knows we must move away from a fossil-fuel based economy. But how do we take the long term decisions we all know are necessary but still win elections? Only by winning public support in the short, medium and longer term can such a transformation happen.
I believe the one central factor in winning support is articulating a positive future whereby a greener future means a more successful society and more competitive economy. People at local level must see the 21st century energy transformation as a win-win scenario. From farmers, to small businesses to consumer, everyone can win if the right policies are in place.
That means local employment must be prioritized and highlighted. In my own country for example, the severe crash of the Irish property bubble has left many construction workers unemployed. This is affecting every town in Ireland.
However a new proposal to make Irish buildings more energy efficient will generate up to 40,000 jobs in the building sector. These will be local jobs, utilizing the construction sector skills of those who are now unemployed. The plan, which was developed in conjunction with manufacturers of energy efficiency technology, could also save almost €1 billion in energy costs. The proposal looks at the possibility of “deep energy retrofitting” Ireland’s existing residential, commercial and public buildings, and requires some public funding to kick-start the programme. If you take a typical house which spends about €2,000 a year, it is very easy to halve that and have a much better quality of life and much better living conditions in your house. This is a clear win-win method for reducing our carbon emissions, reducing energy costs and winning the support of local communities.
But other methods such as wind turbines, solar panels, carbon capture and storage (CCS) are not free of controversy. This is where there is a political divide. Low-carbon technologies are not always sustainable; for example nuclear power is not sustainable. There are no answers as to how we store nuclear waste and after the disaster in Japan I am again convinced we must phase out all nuclear power in Europe. CCS is also not proven.
In many countries including Ireland there is sometimes local resistance to wind turbines onshore. As is often the case there is a “not in my backyard” attitude. The best way again is to make it a win-win for the local communities, by reducing their energy bills and getting them involved in the planning process.
The simple way of course to get people to support renewables is to tax carbon based energy sources! Maybe the simplest method is the best?
Investment Consultant
Tilburg area, Netherlands
said: On 11/04/2011
They cannot win support unless they gain credibility and support – real innovation that promises lower energy prices.
Until now, both governments and industry, in general, have been greenwashing themselves at high cost to the consumers. Green has been abused to raise prices and taxes. And instead of supporting development of innovative technology that cuts costs, the governments throw increasingly more money at more and larger implementations that will only run on more subsidies paid by the consumers. There is a serious issue of an incredible government that has created a sense of suspicion of political correctness and window dressing, over embracing green energy and overstating the sense of urgency by claiming oil will run out tomorrow and the world will be flooded by global warming the day after. And blaming the public for not willing to pay higher prices to prevent this.
There are two major reasons claimed for the need for low-carbon Technologies: CO2 is bad for the climate, and oil is running out.
On the short term, the public does not see major effects of CO2, and maybe is even appreciative of warmer summers. That is if the 0.04% CO2 is really the cause, and not solar spots or whatever. And many people are willingly ignorant or even fatalistic about making a difference as long as rain forests are burnt on a massive scale, on the side destroying more biodiversity than just the polar bear. The bureaucratic CO2 trading system is prone to abuse and pays new entrants for being as polluting as possible. And those countries that flare off gas massively or have underground coal fires burn for decades, just stay out of the system. If there is no global agreement, it is better to tax products from countries with massive CO2 production, or else to save money to build higher dikes, just in case, instead of paying for CO2. But in any case, stop blaming the general public. It is not their fault governments mess up.
Oil is running out, but energy is always running out. It was so in the oil crises of the seventies when the “Club of Rome” of great thinkers published their report “ The Limits to Growth” forecasting oil would run out by the year 2000. And by the way, when many books were published forecasting the Next Ice Age by global cooling. A bit longer ago, British noblemen were worried about the wood consumption for iron smelting, ship building and heating, fearing a similar devastation as the Greek did to their islands in ancient times. Of course digging coal became lucrative as wood became expensive, and the issue resolved itself. Why? Because the alternative energy became more economical. And people were supported to improve and invent, leading us into the industrial age.
The general public will switch to low-carbon technology if the price is right. So, if the price of fossil fuel rises high enough this will force more low-carbon technology, but only if the economy can bear those prices. At present, no economy can support low-carbon energy more than in a small amount. It is still just too expensive.
In most EU countries energy taxes are exuberantly high. Two-thirds of the price of petrol are taxes, which means a net 200% tax, with prices of more than € 1,50 where in the US € 0,50 per liter is already considered theft . But people have to drive to work, so they will accept almost any price, but they will not be very happy about this. For electricity net production prices, including transport and infrastructure are about € 0,07 per kWh, but households pay an average of € 0.15. Still, people will keep the lights on in the evening, but do see the energy bill becoming a dominant financial pain. Highest prices are found in Denmark, Netherlands and Germany with € 0,22 per kWh, not incidentally the countries with the highest (but still only 10%) “green” energy. Lowest prices are found in Bulgaria, Estonia and Romania with € 0.09 per kWh, from coal and nuclear power plants. So “green” comes at a high cost, and not every economy can bear to support it, and even if technically possible, switching to 100% renewable would be unaffordable for any country.
So fossil fuel is already priced high, but present low-carbon technologies do not benefit as they are still way too expensive. New technology research does not benefit from high prices and taxes. Just more money goes to more inefficient projects. But it should be about improvement, not just implementation that will make the change possible.
Windmills do not run on wind, but on subsidies. Especially the off-shore ones. Solar electricity panels cost more energy to make than they ever deliver, and end their life as toxic waste. And when the sun does not shine, or the wind does not blow, you still need the old power generators. All of them. Also, you cannot switch on and off a coal or nuclear power plant, so they will be running idle or be wasting their energy accelerating and decelerating like a car in bad traffic.
So alternatively, apart from some token windfarms, new coal and nuclear power stations will be built. Even after Fukushima. And who remembers “acid rain” and the hole in the Ozone layer? It did not stop us from getting the dominant share of our electricity from coal power plants. It’s simply about the economy.
But all of the above does not hide the unbearable truth that oil will run out, and something has to be done. Maybe not today, but the time will come. So is there alternative dependable power from sources that can compete, anytime soon?
Well, there is a virtually inexhaustible amount of energy right below our feet. At about 10 km down, anywhere on earth, there is enough heat to power any city. The energy is free, but the cost of drilling is so high, it is not economical. Today that is, drilling with conventional drilling technology from the oil and gas industry, fit for drilling soft sandstones and limestones, not geothermal granite.
Like drilling concrete with a drill for brick. But new technologies are being developed lowering drilling costs exponentially and making the cost of geothermal energy lower than coal. Without any CO2, inexhaustible, 24/7. Unfortunately, deep geothermal is hardly ever mentioned as alternative, and very little funding for research is available.
Governments might get public support for technology that promises lower energy bills. But it should change from implementation to innovation. Not just bigger, uglier and still uneconomical wind farms, but create and develop new ideas and technologies. That will save the people money, not cost them more
Head of Unit, Energy Policy & Power Generation Unit
eurelectric - Electricity for Europe
said: On 11/04/2011
There is huge concern with public support for the new low-carbon technologies: infrastructure and generation projects face major delays, twelve years in average for electricity projects of all kinds, and irrespective the country in Europe, irrespective the technology. In addition, commissioning is bureaucratic, includes many steps, and one stop shops are missing.
This is an even more severe problem as investment cycles in the electricity industry are very long, from three to six decades, with investment decisions for tomorrow having to be made today. Without investments and the right investment climate, which includes public acceptance, the climate targets can not be met. Europe will find itself with an ever more ageing generation park and grid infrastructure, ever more limited system stability and occasional blackouts, and emotionally inconsistent choices depending on short term election cycles.
If we want to make the carbon neutrality vision reality – as set out by EURELECTRICs report “Powerchoices: Pathways to Carbon-neutral electricity in Europe by 2050”, we have to win hearts and minds. How is it possible that European citizens have happily accepted the introduction of new information technologies, have switched to cell phones, stick to computers, facebook, twitter – but reject nearly everything when it comes to infrastructure projects of all kinds? Train infrastructure as much as hydropower plants, nuclear plants as much as coal plants, and indeed electricity grids. But the reason is not only NIMBY- not in my backyard- or BANANA- Build absolutely nothing at any moment anytime, as some try to explain all too simply. There is a widespread landscape of refusal, linked to a huge amount of wrong information. Only well-informed citizens are empowered to decide constructively. But the link is missing today between the necessary common vision on one hand, and the individual agenda, on the other. There will be always some people who resist, but this can be accepted, since democracy is about majority, not unanimity. And minorities should not be empowered to offset what is identified by the majority as the common interest. Industry and policy makers, as well as schools, NGO’s and media have to acknowledge that they have neglected to engage the public for too long. Many citizens believe that one can have green energy for free and with no impact on the environment. Irresponsible statements have been delivered to citizens, adding into the information gap. The “all green all for free” myth has to be replaced by the presentation of the existing options for low-carbon technologies, to be explained with their place in the system, their advantages and disadvantages, their timeline, their price, their technological maturity and learning curve, their impact on jobs etc. Today, citizens answer questions which do not exist, missing the ones that matter: there are choices to be made, but not between “green for free” and “conventional expensive power.” The public debate is thus full of wrong assumptions. Major questions are omitted, like the fact that various Renewables, like wind and sun must be balanced by conventional power, storage and demand side measures, and can’t stand alone.
Public private stakeholder platforms have to be set up in order to prepare a major information campaign here. And schools have to take the electricity future on board: the deep understanding that infrastructure means progress, that carbon neutrality is the necessary shift to make, and that it has a price. Like the deep acceptance for IT and its contribution to progress citizens’ lives, citizens should be able to take part and become stakeholders in their future. In addition to the unprecedented pedagogical effort which is required here and democratic discussion based on the realistic options, commissioning has to be eased, freed from bureaucratic procedures, and one-stop-shops set up. Not to forget, last but not least, that low-carbon technologies and their deployment make sense in a European context and a market environment only.
Director of Communications
European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power plants (ZEP)
said: On 12/04/2011
The way I’d put it is this: we’re going to need a portfolio of technologies if we hope to meet our climate change targets in the EU. That is undoubtable. The EU itself has stated so, its scientific evidence and all global energy scenarios say that we’re going to need a variety of technologies. One of those which is crucial is CCS. The challenge of CCS of course is that it addresses the reality that is with us today. We burn fossil fuels. We’re going to continue to burn fossil fuels for decades to come, and here’s where the issue and challenge arises. The impression today is that renewables are available here and now, but they will require time to be deployed fully, as will energy efficiency. In the meantime, we have to bridge this gap, and this is where CCS comes into play. It’s helping us to have this bridge to a sustainable energy system.
Association Manager
European Geothermal Energy Council
said: On 12/04/2011
How can government and industry win public support for new low-carbon technologies?
Firstly, we should use the term carbon free technologies. Low carbon technologies include nuclear and CCS which are not sustainable solutions.
The public support for RES needs several conditions:
- Establish a level playing field: citizens don’t have a real understanding of the energy costs because the prices they are paying for electricity and heating/cooling do not represent these costs. All externalities must be included (CO2, waste, infrastructure…) and support measures for RES are needed to compensate this fact. This will show the competitiveness of RES and in particular geothermal
- The economic aspects are crucial to convince customers: RES especially in heating and cooling have reached grid parity.
- Moreover market barriers (administrative procedures) must be removed to convince everybody of installing a RES system
- Public acceptance needs transparency. The nuclear example in japan is highlighting this issue. RES developers must explain and detail their project to local communities.
The main benefits of geothermal energy for local communities are:
• It is a renewable Energy Source: the heat from the earth is inexhaustible delivering heat and power 24 hours a day throughout the year, and available all over the world with a minor land use, and contributing to the reduction of Green House Gas emissions.
• A safe and controlled technology: Independent of the season, climatic conditions and time of day; Proven and controlled technically, use from antique time for heating & cooling, and for more than 100 years for electricity.
• An energy adaptable with high performance: an answer to all energy needs: electric power, heating, cooling, hot water, energy storage; Modulated according to type of resources, to size and nature of equipments, and in order to meet demands; with an extensive global distribution: that makes it accessible to both developing and developed countries.
• An economically sustainable energy: Indigenous, it is independent of external supply/demand effects and fluctuations in exchange rates; saves on overseas expenditure; allows ‘local’ fossil resources such as soil, coal and natural gas to be saved with a Long-term durability of installations and Not sensitive to conventional energy prices
• Furthermore geothermal energy can help to improve the competitiveness of industries, at least in the long run, and can have a positive impact on regional development and employment.
Geothermal energy has several benefits for society, including: positive externalities of private investments, reduction of CO2 and other emissions, security of energy supply, local economic development, contribution to the creation of economies of scale and thus to cost reductions in the medium and long term. By saving conventional fuels, geothermal systems have lower running costs but usually higher investment costs than a conventional heating system. With rising oil, gas and electricity prices, the timeframe for a positive return on investment is becoming shorter. In many cases, it is already well below the average lifetime of the equipment.
Philippe DUMAS
EGEC Manager
Professor of Geophysics
University of Nevada, Reno
said: On 14/04/2011
In most of the U.S., acceptance of low-carbon energy technologies is an entirely economic issue. Of the US States that have mandated proportions of “green power,” few are meeting their own legislated mandates. Natural gas is viewed as a low-carbon “green” fuel, and since shale-gas development and hydrofracturing technology has doubled US gas reserves in the last five years, it is widely accepted and used. Geothermal power, on the other hand is still viewed as too risky to invest in. Cheap US shale gas is the main impediment to accelerated development of zero-emission geothermal.
Policy Officer
European Commission, Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Unit for Maritime Policy in the Atlantic, Outermost Regions and Arctic.
said: On 18/04/2011
In my opinion, the key point is to provide means and tools to involve the public from the beginning of a political process. Industry and governments should listen carefully to citizen’s requests and needs; provide them meaningful and transparent information; create public awareness and give them the opportunity to participate in the process.
In this specific case and broadly speaking, I think the public is supportive with the development of new-low carbon technologies due to their positive connotations, are enough clear: creating jobs, promoting innovation, boosting economic growth and of course for their role in reducing greenhouse gasses emissions to mitigate climate change impacts and protect the environment.
Mechanical Engineer
Jaidah Group
said: On 18/04/2011
Government may spend millions of dollars researching and inventing new, low-carbon technologies. But of all is vain, unless the common man can avail this energy. Accesbility, Realiablity and Availability are the three key areas that should be taken into account to garner the support of the public.
Any household with all the members of the family tied up in their day to day activities, will greatly welcome a technology that is easily accesible. Something like connectivity to the power grid or buying fuel from the gas station. Secondly reliability means to level of dependency. For e.g. if solar energy is used only to heat water or recharge batteries for TV Remote; then solar energy can not be depended upon to resolve energy crisis issues. Thirdly is the new low carbon technology available thourghout the year or just during summer/fall season? Is it available only during day time or round the clock?
Therefore it is important that governments should focus on not only developing new low-carbon technologies; but also making it easily available for the public
Senior Fellow, School of Public Policy and the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environmental and Economy
University of Calgary in Canada
said: On 18/04/2011
Winning Support for a Transition to Low-Carbon Technologies
It is a given that energy is a non-negotiable and fundamental element of life, not to mention production, comfort and transportation.
In short, energy is critical for survival. However, like everything else in the known universe, acquiring, producing and consuming energy is not costless or totally efficient no matter which source of energy we consider. We can’t suspend the laws of physics. There will always be waste products, such as a wide variety of carbon compounds that, in sufficient concentration, can be problematic to deal with.
These byproducts and waste streams matter and are threatening, in large measure due to accumulation in atmospheric and water systems. History and scale matter in this case. History because there are more of us each year, and scale because we continuously demand more energy per capita and we create more waste in the process. Most of this happens because we don’t put a price on the energy we consume. Consumers, whether individual or industrial, have no clear linkage between the carbon content in products or processes. They have no incentive other than a vague connection between carbon waste and changes in their overall environment. They might support the idea of changing behavior, but without compelling evidence, they won’t be enthusiastic about paying for it.
There is a reason for this. The early days of energy use might well be compared to entering a low-price, all you can eat smorgasbord after a long hike. Discipline, pace and conservation are not on the menu. Take transportation as an example. In the early days of combustion engines, powered by unlimited fossil fuels, overconsumption was simply not possible. Never mind the mal-distribution of fuels and even capital, the future, fueled by cheap fuels, was endless and full of promise. It was economic development on steroids. Increasing the efficiency of automobile engines further blurred the connection.
Now, an emerging consensus suggests that we need to cut the carbon component of this energy diet and in the process, diminish the waste stream in the form of toxic emissions and corresponding impact on other fundamental resources. In other words, we have to curtail externalities and that demands some combination of conservation, lower carbon intensive energy sources and inventing technologies that will be more efficient in delivery.
These are noble and undoubtedly prescient sentiments but for one thing. Economic and policy reality.
Technology is expensive, even when costs fall with volume. It is even more expensive when replacing what we have with something new. It is hard to justify replacing even the most inefficient-but-already-installed-and-producing energy generating facilities. In fact, absent coercion or new rules, the benefit of installing new technologies, even responsible low-carbon generation, will be happily left to someone else.
Public policy is fickle; it can shift without much warning and is often based on nothing more than substantive than changes in taste or worse – polling data. Consumers, constituents and voters are self-interested and inconsistently altruistic. Here, price matters most of all, so programs or policies seen to disenfranchise them will, in the absence of a clear threat, be ignored or changed at the ballot box.
Most people live in the now. Individuals in society tend not to plan more than about 1/2 generation beyond themselves. Our social institutions fail to act in a selfless, effective way. The trend of free-riders, delayed participation and simple reluctance to invest dear capital in the interest of more efficient technologies guarantees minimal restraint for trends that create the problems of the future.
So, here is a dilemma. Clearly society can’t do without energy. However, unchecked, unregulated and uncontrolled, it will undermine our economic and social fabric.
There are choices, of course. We can adapt. We can develop and deploy technology that reverses the impact of the high carbon diet we have consumed since the industrial revolution. We can change behavior and consumption patterns.
Here again, there is an issue. Only a fraction of the earth’s population is ready to make such a change – many of us are still waiting for our first toaster or light bulb. Even with incentives, affording the technology necessary diverts money from other investment opportunities.
So, if we plan to win this race, and really move to a lower-intensity carbon world, we have to start with those who can afford to make the change, have the incentive to do so, and are willing to empower their policy-makers and regulators to initiate the change. Next we need to find ways to make the change palatable, profitable and attractive to those coming up the ladder behind. We are not there yet, but it is a reasonable goal.
How do we get to the next stage? First, we need a collective vision that works well for most and a reasonable time frame for changing paths. I suggest that vision is electric power, not liquid fuels, especially for transportation, and the time frame is 1 1/2 generations, enough time to divert capital and change behavior.
Since we generally can’t see the carbon problem, we must take someone’s word for it. There are three likely groups who could be the poster children for change, who carry credibility suitable to the task, namely policy-makers, teachers and religious leaders. Then, to be persuasive, these representatives must perceive the threat, and then share their understanding and commitment in such a way that the impression of a shared benefit is apparent to all.
Without this core group to influence the rest of us, it is unlikely we will make the necessary transition, and will be left with less attractive adaptive behavioral choices. To get there, I believe we need five key changes to take place.
First, the price of efficient alternatives must come down. Public policy in the form of rules that penalize inefficient technologies or offer subsidies or incentives to higher efficiency will help.
Second, the footprint can’t be all about carbon. The environment in general matters as well, from land use to social equity. Combining the concept of full life cycle accounting will be critical.
Third, all available, and some emerging, technologies must be on the table. Nuclear energy will play an important role. Accidents, absent regulators and incompetent contractors don’t invalidate the technology. Getting regulatory oversight and enforcement will be a better option than closing down existing plants because we took shortcuts in design and in safety standards.
Fourth, ee need to get the price right. We pay too little for energy generally and consequently don’t have enough in the payment stream to neutralize adverse effects of use or to avoid them in the first place. We need price transparency. We can’t expect people to change behavior if they don’t know what they are consuming or why it costs more (or less) at different points in the day.
Fifth, we need to accept the fact that behavior has to change, not over the summer, but forever. We have been living a subsidized dream with the bill always due tomorrow. Now, with the need to accommodate an increased demand base, and corresponding impacts on climate patterns, crop cycles and water supplies from energy use, there is no choice but to alter short-term behavior patterns. Sustainability should be more than a word, but without sufficient information on options and choices, it is less than a fact.
Winning support is a grass roots and fundamental process that must be more than momentary. To be successful it must be embedded in all of our future energy decisions and effectively show up as revealed preference in product design and energy consumption patterns for ever.
Senior Regulatory Affairs Advisor on Climate and Environment
European Wind Energy Association (EWEA)
said: On 19/04/2011
How can government and industry win public support for new low-carbon technologies?
There is good news! Winning public support for renewables is not necessary: it’s already there! The October 2010 EU opinion poll (Eurobarometer on biotechnologies) starts with a simple question: Do you think following technologies will have a positive or negative impact on your life? Answers from EU citizens are unequivocal: 82% think wind will have a positive impact, 84% for solar photovoltaics, with only 4% expecting a negative impact in both cases. For nuclear, 39% were positively minded, but 39% did expect negative impacts. I think asking that question again after Fukushima will yield interesting results…
Sadly, CCS wasn’t represented in this poll, but the simple fact citizen opposition stopped storage at the first ever EU demonstration project at Schwarze Pumpe in Germany gives a good impression of how difficult it will be to implement the technology if ever becomes a reality.
Luckily, we don’t need CCS nor new nuclear to reach climate targets: By 2020 we expect wind energy to avoid the equivalent of 31% of the EU’s current emissions reduction target, and do this domestically creating EU jobs and wealth. Gas can act as a bridging technology, and renewable energy installations in the last 10 years show clearly that ever increasing amounts are being built: in 2009 62% of new installed capacity in the EU was renewable, up from 20% in 2000.
Building wind energy is quick: 3 to 4 years on average in the EU from planning to generation, less than a year of construction only once all the administrative issues are out of the way (nuclear plants require 10-15 years). This means wind energy can start avoiding emissions today, and so can most other renewables.
Of course, even for well accepted technologies like wind energy, NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard) can sometimes be an issue, but there are ways to address it: for example in northern Germany local inhabitants can invest their savings in their local wind projects, with a fix return on investment from the farms’ revenue, vastly increasing local acceptance. Public information about the benefits of wind energy, and the involvement of local authorities who can use the land rental revenues to improve their own infrastructures and services, are another way.
So why ponder about low-carbon when you can go carbon free? It is now established that 100% renewable electricity generation is technically feasible, and most of the time economically sensible as well. Different renewables sources can balance each other, the wind always blows somewhere and wind farms are installed in places where it blows at least 75% of the time.
In the end the world will need to reduce emissions, so it boils down to whether you want Europe to be the leader in renewable technologies and benefit economically from it, or whether you rather leave the job to China or the US!
President & CEO
InnovationTrek
said: On 19/04/2011
In some ways it may be up to governments, but that’s not the core mechanism available and [having governments mold public opinion] certainly isn’t the core one we should do. I personally believe that education is key here and I personally believe that if we educate children—young children—into a green economy, green energy production and so on from an early age, it will raise from the top up in complex adaptive systems fashion. I think it is a matter of coolness if you wish. I’ll pull out my iPod, ok? I think the iPod was never government imposed. I think it was a cool device, right? So, maybe, if you have a Steve Jobs type of person to come up and say… “You know? Co-generation in your own apartment where you actually can half down your energy bill—both heating and electricity—is cool, it is fun, then it will not be governments that have to pass that message; it will just be… you and I, talking to each other: “oh, have you gotten your Stirling co-generation machine yet?”… this is much more effective than a top down government imposed policy and it is good opinion forming.
Secretary General
European Heat Pump Association (EHPA), Brussels, Belgium
said: On 23/04/2011
It is high time for a much more speedy uptake of low carbon technologies – and much has been achieved over the last decade. What we is still lacking is even faster uptake and possibly more support to achieve it. This is particularly important for the heating sector. This sector, often referred to as “the sleeping giant” bears considerable potential in energy and climate savings.
Heat pumps use energy from air, water and ground to provide heating, cooling and sanitary hot water with a tripple dividend: efficiently designed and installed systems reduce the demand in non-renewable energy by replacing them with renewables. At the same time they save greenhouse gas emissions.
The auxiliary energy needed is then used in the most efficient manner. The technology is reliable and mature.
It suffers however from higher investment cost than existing fossil-fuel-based competiton. While it is cost effective in the long run, this collides with a rather short time horizon of investors.
In the light of this situation: what can stakeholders do to support this (and other low carbon heating technologies). Support options can roughly be divided in institutional and financial support.
Institutional support provides the background for using a technology. Positive coverage of the technology, leading by example in public buildings, transparency orientated campaigns – all of this leads to a better informed consumer that is enabled and encourage to ask relevant questions and to focus on quality systems. In addition, high quality systems, appropriately installed, will deliver efficiency and should be the standard.
Financial support should then focus on reducing the initial investment as well as operating costs. Different measures exist from direct subsidies to tax reductions. For them to be successful, they need to be long term, transparent and budget independent.
The combination of quality requirements and financial support will incentives purchasing action into the required direction.
Energy Coordinator
Bankwatch
said: On 26/04/2011
How can governments and industry win public support for new low-carbon technologies?
As a start, lumping together all low-carbon technologies is not the most advisable approach to win public support for new, low-carbon technologies.
Wind turbines and solar panels, for instance, cannot be grouped together with carbon capture and storage (CCS). While the operation and benefits of the first two are well known, there is still much to learn about the costs, feasibility and environmental impacts of CCS. The associated environmental risks differ and warrant separate public discussions. For instance the potential impacts of CCS are not timebound because the CO2 must be kept undergound indefinitely.
Arguing that a lack of public support to develop new renewable technologies like wind or solar power is often used as a political ruse by authorities to mask unwillingness or incapacity to take decisive action.
For example in central and eastern Europe (CEE), green investments are often framed as luxury spending that these economies cannot yet afford. There is little public awareness about the benefits decentralised renewable energy can have, not just for environmental protection, but also for the reduction of energy poverty, the creation of green jobs and the strengthening of local economies and innovation.
A robust public information campaign about the benefits of such investments is the first step authorities need to take to garner support for the renewables sector. The European Commission has estimated that current EU policies on climate, including development of renewable energy, are expected to create 1.4 million jobs by 2020. Benefits from energy savings can amount to 1000 euros per household annually in the EU. Moreover, energy savings and job creation are powerful arguments in times of economic downturn.
While decision-makers are willing to make ambitious statements in favour of green technologies, they are less keen to take concrete actions in their support. In CEE, EU structural and cohesion funds that could be used to co-finance green investments are poorly absorbed because climate mitigation projects are not prioritized by governments and EU funds managing authorities continue to have low capacities to implement such projects.
National governments need to increase structural and cohesion fund allocations for energy efficiency and renewable energy measures. Unfortunately at the moment precisely the opposite is happening – governments in Slovakia, Czech Republic and Poland are attempting to shift funds from areas including environmental programmes towards carbon-intensive road infrastructure.
While CEE countries have the potential for new renewables development, complicated legislation or even the lack thereof has not ensured the long-term business environment conducive to developing these types of projects. Not enough investments are made to strenghten and reconstruct national grids in order to accomodate renewables. Neglecting these priorities, not public opposition, is the main barrier for CEE countries’ to unlock their potential for renewable resource development.
And at the EU level, a mismatch between rhetoric and reality continues to confuse the public. While EU leaders declare support for decarbonising the European economy, European money from public sources does not always follow. Rather than focus on renewables and energy efficiency, EU money, under the guise of energy security, centres on building new infrastructure to import fossil fuels to Europe for 40 years and more. At the same time, European public banks like the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development continue to support the development of new coal plants in CEE, in spite of insitutional objectives to further EU policy priorities.
The most basic element of garnering public support by national and European decision-makers, whether for a low-carbon economy or any other objective, is to be transparent and consistent.
Piotr Trzaskowski
Piotr is Energy and Climate Coordinator at international non-governmental organisation CEE Bankwatch Network. Bankwatch, present in 12 countries of central and eastern Europe, monitors activities of the international financial institutions, which operate in the region, and propose constructive alternatives to their policies and projects in the region.
Responsible for Region Västra Götaland's office in Brussels
Region Västra Götaland
said: On 26/04/2011
Giving people a choice to change behaviour
Cooperation between business and local government can lead to substantial successes in mitigating climate change effects and establishing a greener future. It is through collaboration that climate measures will have a larger impact, when creating markets for new products or trying to change attitudes in people.
Region Västra Götaland explores the beginnings of the regional climate strategy, Smart Energy, they adopted in 2009 to reduce climate effects and achieve fossil energy independence by 2030, while creating growth and jobs.
Concrete, common agreements have been made in sectors with a greater chance of affecting development and making a difference. They have so far concentrated on energy-efficient building, solar energy, river shipping and public procurement.
Work is run process and project orientated within priority areas. Municipalities, businesses, research and education are important partners and add competence in the development work.
In 2006, Region Västra Götaland, with its own project, Considerate Design, published a 20-page catalogue called Gröna Listan – The Green List – with furniture and fabrics with high eco labelling standards. The latest list in 2010, now 120 pages long, is a successful tool for both eco-adapted procurement and business. Companies want to be listed with their new or environmentally-improved products. Interior designers, architects and purchasers nationwide use it to see which products are best for the environment and climate.
The list covers only 6-8% of the whole range of furniture on the Region Västra Götaland procurement lists for the last three years. However, 32% in 2008 and 41% in 2009 of all furniture and fabrics were purchased from the list. The goal for 2010 is for at least 50% to be sourced from it.
Demonstrating energy efficiency
In 2001, Sweden’s first passive house was built outside Göteborg, the region’s capital. Region Västra Götaland started the three-year programme, Energy-efficient Building, in 2007. As part of this, two years later, 5% of all new buildings in the region had been built with the passive house technique; this is likely to increase to 10% over 2010. So far 90 building companies have made energy-efficient building an integrated part of their business and 25 new companies, both consultants and manufacturers, have started with energy efficient building as their business idea.
Co-funded by Region Västra Götaland and Alingsås Municipality, the Passive House Centre is a public resource hub linking the market to research in this area. It provides ongoing education and training for urban planners, builders and consultants. Show-houses, in particular, a low-energy kindergarten and blocks of flats from the 1970s, refurbished to the passive house standard, have been visited by thousands of people from the building sector.
Västra Götaland is the lead partner in Build with CaRe, a project in the Interreg IVB North Sea Region Programme. Its aim is to make energy-efficient building mainstream. Experience tells us that it does not cost more to build, manage or own an energy-efficient building. Now, in the final year of the programme, the challenge is to retrofit the large existing building stock. The first buildings that deliver more energy than they use, so-called plus houses, will mark the start of a new era.
Public bodies are fundamental to showing that energy efficiency is necessary, possible and affordable. Frontline academic work by the universities and research institutes is also essential. Bringing local government, academia and business together is combining the best of all. These successful public-private partnerships are testament to the potential.
Manager Wind Energy Department
Energoconsult Ltd, Stara Zagora, Bulgaria
said: On 26/04/2011
The government and industry should make clear to the society, that the Low-Carbon Technologies (Renewable Energy Sources) are the one of the possible future moves/milestones in energy generation sector. The second one is the nuclear ,which now suffers from lack of trust for its reliability, but this will be repaired in the near future with a current learned lessons.
Fossil Fuels were/are our energy past&present and the Low-Carbon are/will be our energy present&future.
The obvious reasons for this are Climate Change/Global Warming and the exhausting of the Fossil Fuels reserves.
MEP, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
European Parliament
said: On 27/04/2011
Mieux valoriser le patrimoine naturel et culturel
Tout d’abord, l’accent devrait être mis sur la valorisation du patrimoine naturel et culturel. Les bases de l’économie européenne ne sont pas celles auxquelles on pense habituellement et qui en réalité appartiennent à l’économie du passé ou à des secteurs dans lesquels les pays du sud ont des avantages compétitifs intrinsèques. Ces bases s’appuient d’abord sur un patrimoine naturel et culturel exceptionnel qui fait aujourd’hui de l’Union Européenne une destination touristique de premier rang, une région dont l’image mondiale est (encore, mais pour peu de temps si les tendances ne sont pas corrigées) la plus proche des idées de qualité de vie, ce qui contribue pour beaucoup à l’attractivité économique reconnue de cette zone (les chiffres d’investissement étranger dans l’Union Européenne, année par année, le montrent malgré les discours déclinâtes).
En outre, quelle activité économique pourrait subsister sur un territoire dont les fonctionnements de base (eau, éco- et agro-systèmes, mais aussi services publics et cohésion sociale) ne sont plus assurés? Ce qui signifie que notre développement futur devrait être fondé essentiellement sur les nouvelles technologies environnementales en raison précisément des potentiels dont nous disposons en termes d’énergies renouvelables. Il serait bon de rappeler ce potentiel à l’esprit du citoyen européen.
Au delà du PIB
Par ailleurs, les gouvernements et l’industrie devraient adopter une approche économique intégrant pleinement la dimension environnementale, de ce fait plus proche du citoyen. Par exemple, il est temps d’intégrer la baisse du stock de ressources naturelles dans le calcul du PIB. En 2008, le rapport Stiglitz faisait des recommandations pour prendre en compte le bien être et la qualité de vie ou encore la mesure des stocks. Dans la même optique, selon le rapport Sukdhev de l’ONU, publié lors de la conférence sur la biodiversité en cours à Nagoya, les dommages subis par la nature représenteraient entre 2 et 4,5 milliards de dollars par an, or, le PIB ne fournit aucun renseignement quant aux répercussions des activités économiques sur l’environnement. Disposer d’indicateurs permet de quantifier le degré d’assimilation des principes du développement durable dans les processus de production, pour une zone donnée. De l’outil de diagnostic, nous pourrions passer ainsi à l’outil d’action.
Certains Etats membres et d’autres pays voisins de l’Union Européenne avancent déjà dans cette direction. La Norvège, par exemple, s’est fixé l’objectif d’être neutre en carbone en 2030. Pour cela elle s’est dotée d’un indice qui a permis de mettre en évidence le déséquilibre entre la qualité de ses eaux (indice 0,8) et celle des forêts et des plaines (indice 0,4). Ainsi a-t-elle pu prendre les mesures nécessaires pour nettoyer les fjords. Elle utilise 300 indicateurs pour connaitre l’état de son environnement.
Nouvelle approche économique
Une nouvelle approche économique doit donc être adoptée, dans laquelle le citoyen européen puisse mieux se reconnaître.
Le premier objectif est de transformer nos économies en une éco-économie sociale.
- éco : car la pénurie de ressources et de matières premières doit être une donnée fondamentale, de même que la mise en danger des fonctionnements planétaires fondamentaux, qu’elles soient immédiates ou futures. C’est donc ce critère de rareté qui doit apparaître comme déterminant pour orienter les choix publics et le développement des nouveaux secteurs et produits. Il doit donc exister une comptabilité de ce capital et de ses usages, tout comme il existe une comptabilité nationale des finances publiques et de leurs utilisations.
- économie : car la force de l’indicateur que constituent les prix de marché, dans le cadre d’une économie qui devrait assurer la liberté de choix du consommateur, la création de richesses et d’emplois, n’a pas de substitut ; par ailleurs, comme lors de tout changement de contexte, cette nouvelle économie est riche d’opportunités …à la condition que les prix reflètent une vérité écologique au sens large (incluant environnement et santé), et que les systèmes de formation permettant d’adapter les professions à ces opportunités soient instaurés. Il doit donc exister d’une part une internalisation des coûts de destruction du capital naturel et sanitaire, et une valorisation de son épargne sur la durée, et d’autre part un programme partenarial public-privé de renouvellement et d’adaptation des compétences humaines.
- sociale : car cette éco-économie doit permettre de satisfaire aux critères de la création d’activités auto-portantes et donc d’emplois non aidés, de justice sociale et de réduction des inégalités par l’amélioration du pouvoir d’achat. Elle comportera donc des garde-fous en matière de retombée de la création de richesses, afin d’assurer, dans cette période de transition, l’adaptation et l’épanouissement du plus grand nombre. Cette dimension sociale est capitale pour le citoyen européen.
Il s’agit de ne plus faire supporter de façon aveugle par les budgets collectifs les externalités produites par les activités publiques et privées. L’objectif est d’aller vers une vérité écologique des prix. Un tel objectif implique tout d’abord de connaître les effets, puis de les évaluer, les comptabiliser et enfin de trouver les mécanismes les plus adaptés pour les intégrer dans les prix. Cette internalisation peut prendre la forme d’une normalisation (par exemple pour la baisse massive de la consommation énergétique dans les appareils vendus ou dans les locaux construits) d’une fiscalité sachant inciter les uns et décourager les autres, de la réglementation interdisant les externalités les plus fortes ou enfin purement et simplement des mécanismes de marché comme les quotas d’émission.
L’internalisation des externalités ne doit pas se limiter à la question du carbone et plus généralement des émissions de gaz à effet de serre même s’il s’agit d’un domaine privilégié. Elle doit toucher la totalité des ressources naturelles utilisées, les effets sanitaires des produits et services, et au delà les effets redistributifs sur le bien-être collectif. Ces analyses sont essentielles pour le dimensionnement et les modalités d’application.
Comme les analyses environnementales et sanitaires constitueront un élément récurrent pour l’adaptation des stratégies et politiques dans un contexte où les ressources naturelles (au sens large) sont des facteurs limitants impératifs, les évaluations d’externalités devront être fournies par un dispositif partenarial, ouvert et contradictoire, garanti par les pouvoirs publics.
Afficher des objectifs ambitieux et une volonté politique forte
Les enjeux et conséquences liées au changement climatique sont considérables. Il convient donc d’avoir des objectifs ambitieux à la hauteur des enjeux, et l’Union Européenne est la région du monde qui s’est dotée des objectifs les plus ambitieux en la matière. Cependant, ayant mesuré à Cancun l’enthousiasme des pays du Sud, il est possible d’affirmer que si l’Union Européenne souhaite garder son leadership économique et industriel, elle doit revoir ses objectifs à la hausse et essayer d’atteindre l’objectif de 30% de réduction des gaz à effet de serre d’ici 2020, ne serait-ce que pour assurer le bon fonctionnement et l’intégrité de notre système d’échange de quotas carbone. Ceci serait d’ailleurs le moyen de stimuler son industrie et de faire garder ou acquérir à celle-ci les leaderships qui sont déjà ou doivent devenir les siens.
Des politiques cohérentes et globales
Par ailleurs, les gouvernements et l’Union Européenne doivent mener des politiques de lutte contre le changement climatique cohérentes. Cette cohérence est indispensable au bon fonctionnement du système de quotas, pour une véritable rentabilité des investissements, que ceux-ci se fassent sur l’efficacité énergétique ou sur les énergies renouvelables. Dans cette optique, les politiques ne doivent pas encourager le développement d’industries fossiles, celles allant à contre-courant de ces objectifs généraux. Nous connaissons tous le poids des lobbies, contribuant aux blocages et à l’inertie du système. La question des sables bitumineux et gaz de schiste constitue un très bon exemple à cet égard. D’après les compagnies pétrolières, les réserves disponibles en pétrole et gaz non conventionnels doivent nous permettre de mettre de côté notre ambition et nos objectifs de réduction de nos émissions et de lutte contre le changement climatique. Or, nous connaissons tous le débat concernant la prise en compte des émissions supérieures liées à l’extraction des sables bitumineux dans le cadre de la Directive sur la Qualité des carburants. Concernant la question des gaz de schistes et des sables bitumineux par exemple, une étude commanditée par la Commission vient d’être publiée et conclut que la valeur probable de l’intensité carbone de l’exploitation des sables bitumineux est de 107.3 grammes de CO2 par mégajoule, soit une valeur de 23% supérieure à l’intensité carbone du pétrole conventionnel. C’est précisément la valeur que la Commission avait inclue dans une version précédente de la proposition, et qui a été enlevée sous la pression de certains lobbys. Il faut la maintenir si nous voulons être crédibles et cohérents. En effet, il est une chose que les industriels agissent, que les pouvoirs publics encouragent ces investissements en est une autre. De cette cohérence des politiques dépend leur crédibilité auprès du public européen.
Renforcer la cohérence entre les politiques est également indispensable. Au-delà d’une économie pauvre en carbone, il serait préférable de parler d’économie pauvre en déchets, en considérant que les émissions de carbone sont des déchets parmi d’autres. Cela permettrait d’avoir une vision globale et de faire des choix cohérents. Les énergies renouvelables et des énergies qui seraient pauvres en carbone mais non durables et génératrices de déchets ne peuvent par exemple pas être mises sur un pied d’égalité.
Enfin, il est très important d’adopter une vision globale à la fois économique, sociale et environnementale des conséquences qu’aura chacun des choix politiques. Seule une telle vision englobante peut rejoindre les intérêts du public européen et lui permettre de se reconnaître dans les politiques mises en œuvre. Il faut que ces préoccupations soient prises en compte et s’intègrent dans toutes les politiques sectorielles. C’est de cette manière que pourra être atteinte une véritable prospérité économique et que pourra être endossée la responsabilité à l’égard des générations futures. Le 21 août 2010, l’humanité avait déjà consommé toutes les ressources mises à sa disposition par la terre pour l’année 2010. Cette date symbolise clairement la dette que nous laissons à nos enfants.
MEP, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
European Parliament
said: On 29/04/2011
I think the basic problem with sustainable low carbon technologies, energy efficiency and renewable energy, is not public acceptance but inconsistent policies of many governments an lack of ambition in many big companies to be more proactive.
In all opinion polls the acceptance rates of energy efficiency and renewable energy are very high.
But concerning energy efficiency, most governments, if not all, are inconsistent. All analyses show that we have a huge potential of cost effective energy saving and energy efficiency investments. But governments are reluctant to turn the EU 20% by 2020 energy efficiency target binding. In the detailed EU decision making governments have also opposed legal obligations for public sector to set energy efficiency criteria for public procurement, and governments have also supported watering down the energy labeling of household devices. For the public the most clear and understandable label would have been a scale from A to G where the criteria for each class would have to be updated regularly according to the development of technology. Instead of that the governments pushed trough a model where a level which was classified A long ago can keep this rating, and better classes will be labelled A+, A++ etc.
Concerning renewable energy forms, globally, according to IEA, the subsidies for fossil fuels are still many times more than subsidies for renewable energy forms. Also in EU all environmentally harmful subsidies have not yet been eradicated. And recently some governments have at least tried to retroactively decrease subsidies for renewable energy.
But of course diffirent actors mean different issues with low carbon technologies.
Concerning carbon capture and storage, I think there is no need to try to find public acceptance before the safety of the technology can be proven. Experts warn of risks for ground water, CO2 leaks etc. In Canada there might have been leaks of CO2 killing animals.
What comes to nuclear technologies, including new options, I agree with the majority of Europeans that we should gradually phase out nuclear power. Nuclear power is already in decline both in Europe and globally, and I am quite convinced that this decline will be accelerated by the Fukushima accident.