Klimaforscher will finanzielles Risiko für Energiewende von Staat auf Wirtschaft verlagern | Nr. 652

Welcome to the Epoch Times Podcast with the topic European Carbon Central Bank Climate researchers want to shift financial risk for energy transition from state to economy. An article by Reinhard Werner from September 23, 2024. The EU is committed to its goals for climate neutrality by 2050. Since state measures have so far been less successful, the economy should now bear the risk of success. Climate researcher Eden Hofer is putting certificates on CleanUp and a European Carbon Central Bank. The state has so far not proven to be a successful player when it comes to achieving CO2 savings goals, despite high costs and heavy burdens on citizens. The EU still does not want to shake when it comes to achieving climate neutrality by 2050, and therefore the economy should bear the risk of succeeding in the project in the future. This is the quintessence of this year's Thünen lecture of the Association for Social Policy in Berlin. This time, the director of the Climate Research Institute MCC, the Mercator Foundation, Otmar Eden Hofer, was a reference. He proposed concepts that should contribute to achieving those goals in a market economy that have so far not been implemented by administrative measures. Eden Hofer assumed that an excess of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would have to be purchased for some time. Geoengineering for surface correction As potential ways out, Eden Hofer presents two major strategic approaches The first is located in the field of geoengineering and is known as Solar Radiation Management, SRM. Small dust particles are injected into clouds so that they subsequently reject sunlight into the atmosphere. The other is carbon dioxide extraction, CDR. This should be preferred to the SRM, as the limit costs would be lower and the so-called temperature rise could best be prevented. However, measures for carbon dioxide extraction could cost up to 3% of global economic output and would have to be organized efficiently. For this, Eden Hofer wants to take the economy into account. It is already forced to acquire CO2 emissions rights. They are constantly being narrowed down and, according to the current legal situation in 2039, fall to zero. In the case of the CDR strategy, companies should acquire legal rights to emit CO2, in conjunction with the obligation to retrieve these emissions at a certain future time. The European Carbon Central Bank should save the climate through clean-up certificates. These so-called clean-up certificates should represent a chance for a cheaper climate change and make it more flexible. The CO2 emission must not be avoided in any case. Instead, it will be bought on credit and paid back at a later time by extraction. The more advanced the technologies are, the cheaper and more profitable the model will be. To date, among other things, the separation and storage, CCS, air filtration, DAC, foraging of forests, rehydration of wetlands or binding of CO2 through rock extraction on fields, Enhanced Rock Weathering are available. Not all of these technologies are advanced. Many are still in the children's shoes and are complex and expensive. By acquiring clean-up certificates, investments in these areas could be made easier. The European Carbon Central Bank, ECCB, which Edenhofer came up with, should issue clean-up certificates. In order to prevent companies from exercising their emission rights and avoiding the obligation to retrieve them by insolvencies, they should also pay a security to the ECCB. This should also be able to be traded and be repaid by the European Carbon Central Bank if the extraction obligation is successfully fulfilled. CO2 extraction as a potential game-changer in climate protection. Advantages of this approach are the direct possibility of excessive CO2 emissions and the creation of new markets. This creates a CDR market with strong throughput capacities as a creditor of the last instance and one for the expansion of CDR technologies. As a potential disadvantage, Edenhofer calls possible unintended consequences of distribution. A weak mandate for the ECCB could also lead to a soft inter-temporal budget limitation. In addition, unappreciated land-use emissions could negatively influence the biological diversity. In addition, Edenhofer admits that the ECCB and the concept of a lacking democratic legitimacy exist. In summary, however, Edenhofer is sure that technological progress will significantly reduce costs in this area. In addition, the concept could strengthen international cooperation in climate protection. The CO2 extraction could become a game-changer, the researcher is sure. Success prospects for the ECCB are uncertain. What costs the transformation of Europe to a CO2 vacuum cleaner will cause for every company remains unclear. The referendum admits that some of the extraction technologies are still very expensive and underdeveloped. They are still in the development phase and neither their effectiveness nor their scalability are still foreseeable. It is not foreseeable how, above all, smaller companies from their own power can stem the financial burden. The implementation and monitoring of such a system also requires complex regulatory framework conditions and a strong, credible institution to prevent abuse and inefficiency. In addition, the system is based on the principle of hope. Should the expected technological progress and cost reductions not occur, this and its social acceptance would be endangered.