climate scorecards -g8yg5- wwf

8/14/2019 Climate Scorecards -G8yG5- WWF

1/51

P epa e by f A anz an WWF

climate scorecards8 2009

climate performance of canada, france, Germany, italy, Japan,russia, united KinGdom and united states of america

BacKGround information for china, Brazil, india, mexico andsouth africa


2/51

ContaCt:

authors:

Layout:

the G8 CLimate sCoreCards were Commissioned jointLy by aLLianz, a LeadinGGLobaL finanCiaL serviCe provider, and wwf, a LeadinG GLobaL environmentaL nGo.

WWF:

Thomas Duveau, Of cer Climate and Finance, WWF GermanyReinhardtstrasse 14, D-10117 Berlin, GermanyE-Mail: [email protected], Phone: +49-30-30 87 42 36

Allianz: Nicolai Tewes, Corporate Affairs, Allianz SEKoeniginstrasse 28, D-80802 Munich, GermanyE-Mail: [email protected], Phone: +49-89-38 00-45 11

Ecofys, Germany:Dr. Niklas Hhne, [email protected] Eisbrenner [email protected] Hagemann, [email protected]

Sara Moltmann, [email protected]

Meike Naumann Visuelle Kommunikation

www.meikenaumann.de, [email protected]

Please visit also the online ash application at:http://www.knowledge.allianz.com/scorecards_2009

Pub she n Ju y 2009 by WWF - W W e Fun f Natu e (f me y W W fe Fun ), G an , Sw tze an an A anz SE, Mun ch,Ge many. Any ep uct n n fu n pa t f th s pub cat n must ment n the t t e an c e t the ab ve-ment ne pub she as the c py-ght wne . Text (2009) WWF an A anz SE. A ghts ese ve .


3/51

Summary

Ranking summary

Explanation of the scorecardsAggregation method

CanadaFranceGermanyItaly

JapanRussiaUnited KingdomUnited States of America

Comment by AllianzG8 performance in carbon marketsG8 performance on energy ef ciencyG8 performance on renewable energy

BrazilChinaIndiaMexicoSouth Africa

Technical annexFurther reading

CLimate sCoreCards G8

CLimate sCoreCards G5

method

summary

foreword aLLianz / wwf

tabLe of Contents

4

5

12

1314

15171921

23252729

31323335

3739414345

4750


4/51

G8 CliMATE SCorECArdS2009

4

C limate change is the greatest threat to developmentand prosperity on this planet, endangering peopleand cultures as well as the natural base of life.

While there might be a bailout possibility for the nancialsystem, no amounts of money will save the planet onceclimate change crosses the danger threshold. It is thereforecrucial to limit the rise of global temperature to below twodegrees compared to pre-industrial levels.

The writing is on the wall and the latest ndings of climatescience are even more alarming. The urgency is real andaccepted by all. Now is the time to act.

The opportunity to set the world on a more sustainablecourse comes in December, when a decisive UN Summitin Copenhagen will see the nal round of negotiationsfor a new climate treaty, following the rst phase of theKyoto Protocol.

In this context it is particularly important that WorldLeaders meeting at the G8 Summit and Major EconomiesForum in July set the scene for success in Copenhagen.They can do this by:

clearly committing to deep emission reductions inline with the 2 degree threshold

securing massive ows of secure and predictablefunding for climate adaptationsteering the transition to a low carbon future with

binding nancial support

For the third consecutive year, Allianz and WWF are joint-ly presenting the Climate Scorecards 2009. Our StrategicPartnership is based on the belief that the nancial sector has a key role to play to avert dangerous climate change.Allianz is committed to putting climate change right at thecenter of its business strategy, both on a products and aninvestment side.

Our contribution in the context of the G8 summits is the provision of an annual analysis of the G8 national efforts

to tackle climate change. The 2009 edition shows thatwhile some efforts exist, action remains insuf cient to setthe world on a low carbon economy course.

In the report, we provide a series of recommendationsand concrete actions that political and business leadersmust take to avoid dangerous climate change.

Dr. Joachim Faber B a Membe A anz SE

James P. Leaped ect Gene a WWF

dr. Joachim faber (le t)James P. leape ( ght)

Now is the time for decisions


5/51


5

the G8 in a CruCiaL CLimate year

s cientists warn more strongly than ever that theexpected climate impacts exceed even the mostchallenging models of the Nobel-prize winning Inter-

governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

We do, however, still have a window of opportunity to

keep climate change and the warming of the atmosphere below the danger threshold de ned as a 2C rise of aver-age global temperatures, compared to pre-industrial times.

To realize this, we need to put the world on a pathwaywhere global emissions peak and decline well before2020 and are reduced by more than 80 % below 1990levels by 2050.

2009 is a crucial year for climate change: at a pivotal UNconference in Copenhagen at the end of 2009, govern-

ments of the world need to agree the continuation of theglobal climate treaty, building on and strengthening theKyoto Protocol.

The G8 leaders meeting in Italy this July have the oppor-tunity to set the course for the Copenhagen conference tosucceed. In doing this they will realize the l -g c g cl c g :

Action now will start to clean up our climate act, keep-ing the option open for the planet to avoid catastrophicclimate change.Action now will set the world on a sustainable energy

path, which in the short run can help stabilize theeconomy, and in a few decades can provide ampleenergy for the whole planet.

Action now can help develop a low carbon economythat helps avoiding millions of climate refugees andmassive cost for later adaptation to climate impacts.

testinG G8 Leaders wiLLinGness to aCt

WWF and Allianz present the Climate Scorecards 2009.

These score the developments in national legislation andimplementation of climate protection.

The scorecards look back at achievements and the lack of them. Based on this insight, leaders at the G8 Summitcan grasp the opportunity and signal to the world howthe course is changing. The analysis shows that action isunderway in all countries but it is by far insuf cient tokeep the planet below the danger threshold of a 2C riseof average global temperature above pre-industrial levels.

New developments at the legal and practical level need to be introduced with much greater vigor and rapidity thanour scoring shows so far.

A simple 4-point test will reveal whether they will winor fail:

Leaders commit to a strong UN climate agreement inCopenhagen in December as a key lever for economicrecovery.To take advantage of the opportunities of climateaction, leaders commit to increase their ambitionlevel by setting strict emission reduction targets for their own countries.Leaders acknowledge their responsibility to providesupport to the most vulnerable countries for copingwith those impacts of climate change that are alreadyunavoidable.Leaders agree with the large emerging economies theneed for fair and pragmatic cooperation on technol-ogy, to ensure rapid deployment and diffusion of thecleanest technologies, as well as providing adequatenance to developing countries for low-carbon devel-opment.

Summary


6/51


6

sharinG the remaininG CarbonbudGet fairLy

It is critical for world leaders to recognize that only alimited atmospheric carbon budget remains, beyondwhich climate impacts will be catastrophic, and that the

bulk of that remaining budget must be allocated to thedeveloping world.

The atmospheric carbon budget is de ned as the envi-ronmental space for additional CO 2 pollution to ensurewarming stays well below the 2C danger threshold.Leaders will have to focus on how to share that carbon

budget. The decision needs to be based on the principleof common but differentiated responsibility (of thecountries, dependent on their historical emissions) andcapacity to act (e.g. relative wealth, level of R&D).

Leaving a margin for economic growth in developing

countries, industrialized countries need to decrease their emissions by at least 95 % by the year 2050 (contributingto bringing about a reduction of global emissions by atleast 80 %). Current trends are still going in the oppositedirection, with high emissions in developed countries andgrowing emissions in most developing countries.

The G8 also have a responsibility to drive global coop-eration with the G5 (Brazil, China, India, Mexico andSouth Africa) and other developing countries to foster sustainable development through technology transfer andnancing. Strong political signals from the G8 summit in

July that G8 leaders are willing to cooperate with devel-oping countries are necessary to making UN climatetalks in Copenhagen this December a success. The ques-tion remains as to how G8 countries will assist thesecountries in developing in a less carbon intensive manner and how much effort they will undertake themselves.

the assessment - Country aCtions are stiLL too sLow

Individual countries have reacted differently to the climate

challenge. Each country is unique in its starting position,including the economic activities that result in greenhouse

gas emissions, its level of development, industrial struc-ture, availability of natural resources and public percep-

tions. Accordingly, improvements since 1990, currentstatus and policies for the future vary signi cantly.

The G8 climate scorecards provide a comparable snap-shot of the current situation across the G8 countries aswell as the ve major developing countries. They presentrecent and expected emission developments of eachcountry and various other indicators. The scorecards alsogive an overview of the most important activities by thefederal governments to respond to the threat of climatechange.

The overall performance of the G8 countries is assessed by comparing three groups of indicators: improvementssince 1990, current status and policies for the future.In addition, G8 countries performance in the areas of energy ef ciency, renewable energy and the developmentof the carbon market are summarized separately.

The core benchmark of this assessment is whether coun-tries are on track to reduce emissions by 95 % until 2050.As such, the rating of this years version is more ambi-tious compared to last years version where the bench-mark was a reduction of 80 % by 2050. This re ects thegrowing urgency of climate science. Major poli cies thatare planned but not yet approved have been incorporatedinto the evaluation but given less weight. WWF does not


7/51


7

consider nuclear power to be a viable policy option, dueto its costs, radiotoxic emissions, safety and proliferationimpacts. To re ect this, a policy approach that favors theuse of nuclear power was assessed in the following way:Indicators for the current status were adjusted, by as-suming that electricity from nuclear energy was producedwith gas, the most carbon ef cient fossil fuel.

Key expeCtations for a suCCessfuLCopenhaGen CLimate treaty

The WWF Expectations Paper for the global climate dealand an NGO proposal for the treaty, published in Junethis year, outline what needs to be agreed at the Copen-hagen Climate Summit in December 2009. It lists the keyasks and ideas for an adequate and fair treaty that willhelp keep global warming far below the danger thresholdof 2C.

The central asks for a powerful, transformational ClimateTreaty can be summarized as follows:

Global emissions must peak in the next commitment period (before 2020).Industrialized countries as a group should commit to

binding absolute emission reduction targets at 40 % below 1990 levels by 2020, the vast majority of these being achieved domestically (30-35 %). They shouldalso commit to put in place Zero Carbon Action Plans

(ZCAPs) to achieve zero net emissions (at least -95 %)

by 2050.Developing countries as a group should pledge to re-duce their actual emissions substantially by deviating

by at least 30 % below a business as usual pathway by 2020.Adaptation Action Framework: Massive ows of secure and predictable funding delivered through well-governed and effective funding mechanisms, plus

regional climate risk insurance schemes. Together,these should be in the order of US$ 63 billion per year.A new institution, the Copenhagen Finance Facility should be set up to steer the transition to a lowcarbon future with binding nancial support of atleast US$160 billion per year by 2017 from industrialized countries.

the G8 domestiC ChaLLenGe bestpraCtiCe for aLL performanCe indi-Cators

The rating of the G8 countries is based on the assump-

tion that a country that adequately addresses the issueof climate change to safeguard the 2C limit should meetthe performance indicators noted below. Meeting thesecriteria is rewarded with a green dot in the respective

category.

i c 1990Have reduced emissions between 1990 and 2007 to beon a linear path from 1990 to - 95 % in 2050. - Onlyemissions in Russia have declined more, mainly dueto the economic downturn between 1990 and 1999and emissions have risen again since then. Emissionsare still steadily increasing in Canada and the USA.Have already reached or are very close to the Kyototarget, which applies to the period of 2008 to 2012.- Only Russia, France, UK and Germany are in this

position.Have increased the use of renewable energy signi -cantly since 1990. - This is only true for Germany.The share of renewable energy is declining or stag-nating in four of the eight countries (Canada, France,Japan and USA).

C Have per capita emissions on a linear path from theaverage level of all developed countries in 1990 to-95 % in 2050. - Only Italy achieves this goal, due to

its economic structure.


8/51


8

Produce fewer emissions per GDP than the averageof all developed countries on a path towards -95 % in

2050. - Only the UK and Italy qualify here.Produce electricity on average with fewer emissions per kWh than using natural gas and without nuclear power. - Only Canada meets this criterion, due to itshistorical use of hydro power. This indicator was ad-

justed to account for electricity from nuclear energyas if being generated by gas.Use only 24 % more energy in industry than the bestavailable technology. - Only Japan quali es here, butin some Japanese industries the ef ciency is decreas-ing again.

p l c Show leadership in the international climate nego-tiations. - Most of the G8 countries are either toosilent or actively block the process at the UN level or within the EU on some or many aspects. - The UK,Germany and the US are rated best since they have

pushed the issue of climate change to a high politicallevel. However the UK and Germany have blocked

progress on crucial issues, together with other EUcountries, in the recent EU internal climate negotia-tions and the US has not set a target that increases

in ambition with international action.Have ambitious policies in place to decarbonize the

power sector and to reduce demand for electricity. -

All G8 countries are underperforming here, even theEuropean countries with an emissions trading system,

as the overall cap is not ambitious enough.Have covered all emissions from industry with ambi-tious policies. - The UK comes closest with innovativeand comprehensive policy making.Have ambitious polices in place to reduce all directfuel emissions in the households and service sector. -

None of the G8 countries tap the full energy ef ciency potential in this sector.Have policies in place that start to transform the trans-

port sector. - Policy making in this sector is largelyunderdeveloped. Stringent, ambitious or binding mea-sures are mostly lacking. Only Japan has top runner

standards for vehicle ef ciency. The US has recentlyimproved its automobile standards, but they are still

below best available international standards.Have successful measures in place to support the useof renewable energy. Only Germany is performinghere, all other G8 countries are underperforming.

f g 1 provides an overview of the scoring of the G8countries. The three areas, i.e. improvements since 1990,current status, and policies for the future are weightedequally. f g 2 provides the overall rating.

Cu ent status

0 % 1 0 % 5 % 1 5

% 2 0

% 2 5

%

P c es f the futu e

0 % 1 0 % 5 % 1 5

% 2 0

% 2 5

%

imp vements s nce 1990f g 1

0 % 1 0 % 5 % 1 5

% 2 0

% 2 5

%

C

usa

r

j

i l

f c

uK

G


9/51


9

Canada and russia have faiLed the test

Canada scores lowest of all G8 countries: total emissions are steadily increasing and are far above theKyoto target, per capita emissions are among thehighest in the world. Mid to long-term greenhouse gastargets are inadequate. A plan to curb emissions wasdeveloped last year but has not been implemented.The Kyoto target will stay completely out of reach.Russia is rated only well for the past trend categorydue to declining absolute emissions in the early 1990s.

But since 1999 emissions have been increasing steadilyagain. Few policies are in place to curb emissions. Re- cent high-level government goals exist but still needto be implemented.

usa is improvinG on future poLiCies

The United States have improved compared to lastyears rating, moving up in rank from last place. Inthe policies for the future category the US evenrank fourth. The new Obama administration has

presented ambitious plans for new climate changerelated policies, some of which have already been

implemented, and others that still have to undergo

the legislative process. The agreed economic recov-ery package includes substantial support for energy

ef ciency and renewable energy. The package andthe new plans led to the improvement in rank. Severalstate and regional climate initiatives are reducingemissions, but these were not rated in this study.Overall, there has been more action in the US onclimate change in the last four months than in the lastthree decades a trend that will hopefully continue inthe coming years. However, the United States are stillthe largest total emitter of the G8 countries, and haveamong the highest per capita emissions in the world.Furthermore, its emissions are projected to continueto increase. The United States have also not rati edthe Kyoto Protocol.

japan and itaLy have reLativeLy Lowemissions (per Capita, per Gdp and perindustriaL produCtion) but poLiCies

are inadequate to reduCe emissionsfurther:

Japan has relatively low emissions due to high energyef ciency and its use of nuclear power (which WWF

does not consider a viable alternative option, due to

C

usa

r

j

i l

f c

uK

G

0 % 1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

imp vements s nce 1990Cu ent status

P c es f the futu ef g 2Summa y f G8 c unt es c mate pe f mance. 100 % s the max mum sc e


10/51


10

its costs, radiotoxic emissions, safety and proliferationimpacts). However, absolute emissions are not declin-ing and are still above the 1990 level. The recentlyannounced emission target for 2020 is incompatiblewith the 2C limit. No mandatory emission reduction

policies are implemented. The lack of such policiesled to the relatively low rank of Japan.Italys per capita emissions are at the low end of theG8 due to its economic structure. But Italys absoluteemissions have increased considerably since 1990and are well above the Kyoto target. The country hasstarted some policy efforts, but in general policy isweak and a strategic approach is lacking.

franCe, uK and Germany performbetter than the other G8 Countries,but are stiLL not maKinG an adequateContribution to KeepinG GLobaL

CLimate ChanGe beLow the 2C Limit:Emissions in France are relatively low for an industri-alized country, partially due to a high share of nuclear energy (which WWF does not consider a viable policyoption). Due to the adjusted assessment for nuclear energy used in this rating, France moved to third

place. Total emissions have only slightly declinedsince 1990.The UKs emissions are already below the Kyototarget, largely due to a transition from coal to gas inthe 1990s. The strong national climate debate has led

to innovative national policies, such as the ClimateChange Act, and there is potential for this to drivesigni cant emission reductions in the future in areaswhere progress has been lacking: renewables, trans-

port, households and services.Germany leads the ranking only very slightly aheadof the UK. Germanys emissions declined between1990 and 2000 partly due to the economic downturnin Eastern Germany but also due to national measures.Since then, emissions have been declining only slow-ly. Germany is successful with its promotion of new

renewable energy sources and has an ambitious -40 %

reduction target for GHG emissions by 2020. Imple-mentation of this target is however lagging behinddue to supporting less stringent rules in the emissiontrading system during the EU climate negotiations, noclear action against planned new coal power stationsand not suf ciently stringent action on transport.As EU member states, all three support the EU green-house gas emission reduction targets for 2020 as well

as EU energy ef ciency and renewables targets. Theearly announcement of the target was very construc-tive for the international debate. However, in the lightof recent scienti c ndings, even the more ambitiousvariant of a 30 % reduction by 2020 with an interna-tional agreement on climate change is not stringentenough.

the G5

The G5 have not been scored in the same manner as theG8 countries due to their different national circumstancesand levels of development. Also some of the rating cri-teria cannot be applied to the G5, e.g. distance to Kyotogoal.

All of the ve developing countries are undertaking ac-tion to slow emissions growth in the future:

All countries have presented or are preparing nationalstrategies to reduce emissions in the future. The mostdetailed plans were presented by South Africa andMexico. South Africa acknowledges that their emis-sions need to be reduced by 30 % by 2050. Mexicoannounced a 50 % cut by 2050.Support for renewables is signi cant e.g. in China,South Africa and India or a longstanding support for

bioethanol in Brazil.China and India have substantial national energy ef-ciency targets/objectives of reducing energy use per GDP by 20 % in 5 years (China) and 9 years (India).Their implementation would have a signi cant effecton emissions. China negotiated energy reduction tar-gets for 1000 most energy-intensive enterprises which

are now being implemented.


11/51


11

Brazil has very ambitious plans to reduce deforesta-tion, its most important source of emissions. Theimplementation of these plans will be dif cult, butwould reduce emissions signi cantly.

some reCent overaLL positivedeveLopments are to be hiGhLiGhted:

The new Obama administration has made climatechange a priority. Several clean energy initiativesare already underway and Congress has taken upclimate-related legislation. The emission projectionswere corrected downwards as a result of the agreedeconomic stimulus package. The Administration hascommitted to participating in the international climatechange negotiations. Such new actions, in conjunctionwith ongoing state and regional climate initiatives,signal a real change for the USA.

With action in the USA, competitiveness concerns of the industry could be removed, enabling more ambi-tious targets for all countries.All major developing countries are making signi - cant efforts to slow emission growth. Most promi-nently, Mexico aims to reduce its emissions by 50 %until 2050.

The economic crisis has not yet watered down theambition levels of countries. There is a general re- cognition that well-designed and properly spent

public money can bene t economic developmentand employment as well as reducing greenhousegas emissions.

neGative deveLopments in someCountries CLimate performanCe:

Despite 20 years having passed since the internationalrecognition of climate change as a problem, green-house gas emissions in some developed countries arestill increasing.Economic recovery packages for many countrieshave mostly missed the opportunity for greeningthe global economy. The stimulus for weak econo-mies would have been a unique opportunity to make

signi cant investments in a climate friendly future.However most packages only include a few climatefriendly measures. Some are even counterproductive. 1

Uncertainty about the future of emission reduction projects in developing countries under the cleandevelopment mechanism (CDM) has increased dueto falling carbon prices as a reaction to the nan cialcrisis, criticism of the performance of the mechanism 2 and the uncertain outcome of the Copenhagen Climateconference in December 2009.

1 See Ec n m c/c mate ec ve y sc eca s - H w c mate f en y a e the ec n m c ec ve y packages? f Ap 2009, http://www.e3g. g/ mages/up a s/E3G-WWF_Ec n m c_C mate_ ec ve y_sc eca s.p f 2 See ep t pub she by WWF n May 2009 A at ng f des gnate ope at na Ent t es (doEs) Acc e te un e the C ean deve pment Mechan sm (CdM) Sc pe,met odolo and re ult ttp://www.wwf.de/ leadm n/fm-wwf/pdf_neu/WWF_Rat n _der_Kl ma utac ter.pdf.


12/51


12

Ranking summary

ic 1990 C s p l c f r k g

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Canada

usa

russia

Germany

franCe

uK

japan

itaLy

i n c e a

s e f t h e s h a

e f

r e n e

w a b l e

e n e r g y

s o u r c

e s

C u e n t

s t a n

c e

t o t h e K y

o t o t a r g

e t

P a s t e m s s n

t e n

f m 1 9 9 0

t 2 0 0 7

E m s s n

s p e c a p t

a

E m s s n

s p e G d P

C o 2 p e k W h e

e c t c t y

E n e r g y

e f c i e n

c y

n n

u s t y

l e a e s h p

n

c m a t e

n e g t a t n s

E e c t c t

y / n u c e

a

i n u s t y

H u s

e h

s a n

s e v

c e s

T a n s p t

r e n e w a b e

s


13/51


13

Explanationof the scorecards

22G8Climate SCoreCardS

2009

23

G8 C e Sc ec

Italy Rank 4

EmiSSiontrEndS

EmiSSionSandEnErGy

EmiSSionSby SECtor EnErGy SourCES

e ss ns( xc .s n

n . nsp )

e ss np j c n

K g

e ss nss

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

-100

-200

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 5

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 5

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 5

2 0 2 0

[m Co .]

ag c 7%

W s 3%e c c&h ng 30%

in s 21%

t nsp 23%

H s h s&s v c s15%

B ss/W s 3%C 9%

o 45%

G s38%

N c 0%H 2%

S /W n /o h s 0.16%G h 3%

GEnEral

ClimatEpoliCiES

Emission ratesare average/lowcompared to theindustrialized countriesaverage dueto economicstructureEmissionsare considerablyabove Kyoto targetand areprojected to increasefurther Overallclimate policyapproach isweak

Nouseofnuclearpowersince1987,butdecisionshavebeenmadeforitsreintroduction

Summary Evaluation

+7.1 %

+13.6%- s

+2.8 %- s

1.4 Co 2eq./c

328 Co 2eq./m$

404gCo 2 /kWh

1.3

2.2 Co 2eq./c

e ss ns nh s h sn s v c sp c p

P s ss n n

1990 2007

C n (2007)s nc h

K g

inc s hsh nwbn g s c s

e ss nsp c p

e ss nsp GdP

Co 2 p kWhc c

Energy ef ciency inindustry

e ss nsn nspp c p

9 Co 2eq./c

mariaGrazia midulla, HEadof ClimatE and EnErGy, WWf italy italylaCKS adequateClimate PoliCieSaNd StrateGieS.additioNallytHe CouNter-ProduCtive iNveStmeNtSiNtoNuClear eNerGyaNd CoalratHer tHaNiNtoCleaN teCHNoloGieSaNd eNerGyeffiCieNCy raiSe douBtS aBout tHe real leaderSHiP role tHat italy SHould Be aBle to SHoW aS

PreSideNt oftHe G8.

le esh c eeg s

Insuf cient implementationof its Kyoto target;hasbeen blocking progresswithinthe EUsinternal decision-makingn h n g n c p ck g

Eec c / ce

Participant inthe EU EmissionTrading Scheme;moderate allocationfor 2008to 2012 andno limit for newentrants;tradable energy ef ciency certi cates(white certi cates); nancial incentivesforcombinedheat andpower; projectednewcoalpowerinstallationsnotcompatiblewithpresentKyoto targets;stateaidto powerplantsjeopardizesef cientp c nc b ng Co 2 emissions;no use of nuclearpowercurrently but adecisionhas recently beenmade to reintro-duce nuclearpower;cleanenergy strategy ismissing;only classA electrical appliancescanbe soldafter2010 andn stand-by allowedafter2010;no incandescent bulbsafter2011

i s Half of industry emissionscoveredby EU EmissionTrading Scheme;tradable energy ef ciency certi cates(white cer-ti cates),withnewtargetsfor the2010-2012period;negotiatedagreements;tax rebateforhighef ciencymotorsandinverters;CO 2 taxnot weightedon real carboncontent of energy sources;energy consumptionperGDP increased

H seh sse ces

Financial incentive forsolarthermal installationsandef ciency improvements;supporting measuresat regional andlocallevelforrenewableheator cooling;taxrebatefor energyef ciencyinvestmentsupto 2010;mandatorystandardsfornewbuildings;energy ef ciency certi cationof building isinprogressbut still not in place,withimplementing de-creesstill underapproval (recently the government abolishedthe obligationto enclose the energy certi cate whenab ng ss s )

t s Mandatory EU emissionlimit value fornew carsof 130 g/kmto be phasedinfrom2012 to 2015;incentivesfor thepurchasingof low-emissionvehicles;biofuelstax exemptionthentransformedingreencerti cateobligation;measures

c n c c v nc j n s n w s

reew es Renewable certi cates,newfeed-intariff;old feed-insystem(CIP6)still inplace,whichhasbeen criticizedforusinggovernment revenue to support fossil fuels;tax credit forgeothermal energy andbiomass;small plants(upto 1 MW)have choice betweenbeing grantedgreencerti catesandreceiving feed-intariff;renewable incentive scheme ham -p b n s v b s

Rati edUNFCCCon15.04.1994,rati edKyoto Protocol on31.05.2002 ag eu g s 2020: n c GHG ss ns20 %b w1990 v s n 30 % h c n scto similarefforts,to reduce energy consumptionby 20 %andincrease renewablesto a national 17 %share

Traf c light A v sua sat n f the app x mate ve ac mate pe f mance tak ng nt acc unt theem ss n n cat s an the c mate p c es.

The benchma k s, whethe a c unt y s n apath t keep the g ba -ave age tempe atu enc ease be w 2C n c mpa s n w th p e-n ust a eve s.

e inc u es theh st ca t en anfutu e p ject nsf em ss ns f th se g een-h use gases ansect s that a ee evant un e the

K oto Protocol nc mpa s n t theK oto tar et.

e cinc u es the sp t f em ss nsnt the ffe ent sect s. itsh ws wh ch act v t es a eesp ns b e f the em ss ns.Exc u es em ss ns f m n-te nat na t ansp t an lanUse Change & F est y.

e g c As m st g eenh use gas em ss ns

g nate f m ene gy use, t s nst uct vet exam ne the ene gy m x f a c unt y.

The cha t sh ws the p ma y ene gyc nsumpt n, wh ch nc u es a s ene gythat s c nsume but n t use such aswaste heat.

Traf c lights An app x maten cat n h w thesen cat s e ate tthe necessa y eve tstay be w the 2Cm t.

i cp ve the wh e ec n myC c K g asmagn tu e f em ss n e uct ns st necessa yto reac t e K oto tar etC g l g csh w ng eff ts ma e t use m e enewab e ene gys nce 1990e ce G d c p cCo 2 kw l c c f e ect c ty p uct n(nat na agg egate)

Energy ef ciency in industry as a ua tat veagg egate f maj n ust esG g

cG g l

c c exc u ng em ss ns f m usef e ect c ty

s l

A gene a eva u-at n f the c un-t es c mate pe -f mance basen the nf mat np v e be w.

s c l cand traf c lights

A esc pt n f the status f the

c mate p c es np ace n ffe entsect s. Assess-ment f the e a-t ve c mpa s n

f the amb t neve an c mp e-

hens veness f p c es.

s wwf A statement f

nat na WWFc mate hea s

c mment ng thepe f mance f

the c unt y.

G lcl l c

A b ef esc pt nf the gene a c mate

p c es put np ace by the nat na

g ve nment.


14/51


14

Aggregationmethod

The overall performance of the G8 countries is assessed by comparing three groups of indicators: improvementssince 1990, current status, and policies for the future. Theyare weighted at a third each.

i c 1990 includes emission trendssince 1990, the current distance to the Kyoto target andthe increase in the share of renewable energy since 1990.

C includes national emissions per capitaand per Gross Domestic Product in 2007 as well as theelectricity sectors emissions per electricity production in2007 and the ef ciency in industry.

p l c are rated for each of the major sectors. Additionally the support for renewable energyand the leadership in climate negotiations are also rated.Policies included in the rating are only those implemented

by national governments (not sub-national governments),

since the G8 scorecards are targeted at the heads of state.Some countries have major new policies in the pipeline,

but agreement has not yet fully been reached by the gov-ernment institutions. In such cases, the implemented and

planned policies are weighted at 75 % vs. 25 %.

For each numerical indicator, a score of between -2.5 and+2.5 is given, where the extremes are the worst and best

performance within developed countries not consideringsmall country outliers outside of the G8. The threshold to

a green rating (+0.5) is chosen in line with keeping global

average temperature increase below 2C. In each sector policies are rated at between -2.5 (lacking or symbolic)and +2.5 (ambitious and/or very innovative) by expert

judgment. The weight given to this indicator is differentfor each country; it is proportional to the sectors share of national emissions. A country with very high emissionsin e.g. transport has to have very good transport policies,

while a country with already very low emissions in e.g.electricity generation can have weak policies.

All indicators are aggregated using the weightings shown below. Finally, the scores (between -2.5 to +2.5) for eachindicator, each policy eld and the summary climate per-formance are translated into colored dots or traf c lights.

WWF does not consider nuclear power as a viable policyoption, due to its costs, radiotoxic emissions, safety and

proliferation impacts. In this report focusing on climate

policies, a policy approach that favors the use of nuclear

power is hence adjusted. The indicators emissions per capita, emissions per GDP and CO 2/kWh are adjusted asif the generation of electricity from nuclear power had

produced 350 gCO 2/kWh (emission factor for natural gas).

A country using nuclear energy is therefore rated as acountry using gas, the most ef cient fossil fuel.

Further detail on the method and data sources is providedin the technical annex.

CLimate performanCe

*We ghte n v ua ype c unt y by thesect s sha e f

nat na em ss ns,e.g. f Cana a the

we ght s 9 % f e ec-t c ty, 5 % f n ust y,

3 % f h useh san se v ces an7 % f t ansp t

-2.5 -0.5

-0.5 0.5

0.5 2.5

C o 2 / k W

h

5 . 5 %

l e a e s h p

c m

a t e

n e g t a t n 5

%

E e c t c t y / n u

c e a

x % *

i n u s t y

x % *

H u s

e h

s a n

s e v

c e s x

% *

T a n s p t

x % *

r e n e w a b e

s 5 %

E f c i e n

c y i n

n u s t y

5 . 5 %

P a s t e m s s n

t e n

1 1 %

E m s s n

s / G d P

1 1

%

E m s s n

s / c a p

1 1

%

i n c r e a

s e n

r e n e

w a b l e

s 1 1

%

D i s t a n

c e t o

K y o

t o

t a g e t 1 1 %

ic 1990: 1/3 C s : 1/3 p l c f : 1/3


15/51


15

G8 Cl sc c

Canada Rank 8

emissions and enerGy

emissions by seCtor enerGy sourCes

emission trends

Ag cu tu e 8%

Waste 3%E ect c ty& heat ng 34%

in ust y 18%

T ansp t 26%

H useh s& se v ces 11%

B mass / Waste 5%C a 10%

o 35%

Gas 29%

Nuc ea 9%

Hy 11%

S a / W n / othe s 0.08%

Ge the ma 0%

+26.2 %

+32.2 %-

-0.1 %-

2.5 Co 2 ./c

668 Co 2 ./m$

240 gCo 2 /kw

1.7

6.1 Co 2 ./c

Em ss ns n h useh san se v cespe cap ta

Past em ss n t enf m 1990 t 2007

Cu ent (2007)stance t the

K oto tar et

inc ease f thesha e f enewab eene gy s u ces

Em ss nspe cap ta

Em ss nspe GdP

Co 2 pe kWhe ect c ty

Ener ef c enc n ndu tr

Em ss nsn t ansp tpe cap ta

24 Co 2 ./c

Very high emission rates per capita compared to the industrialized countries averagedespite high share of hydropower Among the few G8 countries with emissions still increasingExpanding energy-intensive non-conventional oil development (tar sands); neither

provincial nor planned federal regulation will reduce overall emissions No signi cant policy improvements since last year; earlier climate plan does not aimfor compliance with Kyoto target and has not been implemented

summary evaLuation

Em ss ns (exc .f est y annt. t ansp t)

Em ss np ject n

K oto tar et

Em ss nsf est y

1000

800

600

400

200

0

-200

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 5

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 5

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 5

2 0 2 0

[Mt Co2e .]


16/51


16

L clg

A andonment of t K oto Protocol comm tment; enerall low n rat er t an ad anc n t e nternat onalneg t at n p cess by nt uc ng a f cus n nat na c cumstances (e.g. em ss ns an em va s f m f ests)

el c c / cl

Ta ncent e for ef c ent or renewa le ener product on; planned: mandator reduct on re u rement a of 2010,tandard for new fac l t e , new coal red power plant a of 2012 onl w t CO 2 captu e an st age

i P anne : man at y GHG ntens ty e uct n e u ements as f 2010, stan a s f new fac t es, egu at y ta getsbase n Co 2 capture and tora e a of 2012 for o l product on from tar and w c come nto effect n 2018;fe e a bu get nc u es 1 b n CAd $ f Co 2 captu e an st age p jects

h l c

La el n and ener performance tandard for man ener -u n appl ance ; nanc al ncent e a a la lefor ener ef c enc retro t to mode t num er of ou e old

t P anne : aw t m t GHG em ss ns f m the aut m t ve sect t be base n the USA fe e a g ve nmentstan a (n t the m e agg ess ve Ca f n a Stan a ) (01.04.2009 n te f ntent)

r l N a t na fun s by the g ve nment f the successfu ec ENErGY f renewab e P we P g am ( unn ng utof fund n 2009); Et anol tar et of 5 % 2010 and 2 % od e el 2012,w t mode t nanc al ncent e a a la lefor ofuel producer ; ofuel pro ram (2008-2017) w ll n e t up to CAD $1.5 ll on to upport ofuel product on pro d n operat n ncent e; e eral ot er renewa le ener pro ram , e. . Pro nce of Ontar o: uaranteed pr cef e ect c ty f m enewab e ene gy

Rat ed UNFCCC on 04.12.1992, rat ed K oto Protocol on 17.12.2002 The 2007 Tu n ng the c ne p an has n t been mp ementeFederal o ernment w ll not purc a e nternat onal em on cred t to reac K oto tar et alt ou propo al would allow ndu trt pu chase c e ts f up t 10 % f the e uct n

Va us p v nces have GHG egu at ns, nc u ng B t sh C umb a (ec n myw e ca b n tax, cap an t a e system f a geem tter to come), Al erta (12 % reduct on of ndu tr al em on nten t t e end of 2008), Man to a (at le el of t e K oto tar et)an onta (t phase ut c a p ants)

GeneraL

CLimate poLiCies

Keith stewart, manaGer, CLimate ChanGe CampaiGn, wwf Canada NoWHErE ElSE oNEArTH do FEWEr PEoPlE STEWArd MorE rESoUrCES, YET CANAdA NoW STANdS lAST AMoNGST

THE G8 NATioNS iN ProTECTiNG oUr SHArEd HoME FroM THE THrEAT oF dANGEroUS CliMATECHANGE. iT iS CrUCiAl THAT THE GoVErNMENT oF CANAdA rECoGNizE THAT oUr FUTUrE liES iNBUildiNG THE GrEEN ECoNoMY THAT Will ProVidE SUSTAiNABlE liVEliHoodS oN A liViNG PlANET,NoT iN TrANSForMiNG THE TAr SANdS iNTo MooNSCAPES.

G8 Cl sc c

Canada Rank 8


17/51


17

G8 Cl sc c

France Rank 3

Low emission rates per capita compared to the industrialized countries average partiallydue to high share of nuclear energy, which WWF does not consider a viable policy optionEmissions are currently below Kyoto target and transport emissions have stabilized, buttotal emissions are projected to increase if no further policies are implementedOne of the rst countries to agree a long-term target (-75 % by 2050) by law, but a detailedimplementation plan is missing

summary evaLuation


emission trends


Ag cu tu e 18%

Waste 2%E ect c ty& heat ng 14%

in ust y 23%

T ansp t 26%H useh s& se v ces 18%


o 33%

Gas 14%

Nuc ea 42%

Hy 2%

S a / W n / othe s 0.09%Ge the ma 0.05%

-5.3 %

-5.3 %-

-0.9 %-

1.6 Co 2 ./c

3581 Co 2 ./m$

3621 gCo 2 /kw

1.3

2.3 Co 2 ./c




K oto tar et


Em ss nspe cap ta

Em ss nspe GdP




111 Co 2 ./c

1 WWF es n t c ns e nuc ea p we t be a v ab e p cy pt n. The n cat s em ss ns pe cap ta, em ss ns pe GdP an Co 2 pe kWh e ect c ty f a c unt eshave the ef e been a juste as f the gene at n f e ect c ty f m nuc ea p we ha p uce 350 gCo 2 /kWh (em ss n fact f natu a gas). W th ut the a justment, the

g na n cat s f F ance w u have been much we , e.g. 86 gCo 2 /kWh.

Em ss ns (exc .f est y annt. t ansp t)Em ss n

p ject nK oto tar et

Em ss nsf est y

700

600

500

400300

200

100

0

-100

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 5

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 5

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 5

2 0 2 0

[Mt Co2e .]


18/51


18

GeneraL

CLimate poLiCies

damien demaiLLy, offiCer CLimate ChanGe and enerGy, wwf franCe BETWEEN AN iN-NOvATiNg gRENELLE ENviRONMENT ROUND TAbLE DEFiNiNg ThE KEy POiNTs OF gOvERNMENT PoliCY oN EColoGiCAl ANd SUSTAiNABlE dEVEloPMENT iSSUES For THE CoMiNG FiVE YEArS

AND A WEAK sTiMULUs PLAN, FRANCE CULTivATEs PARADOxEs. ThE ObjECTivEs ARE AMbiTiOUs,BUT THE MEANS oF iMPlEMENTATioN ANd TECHNoloGY CHoiCES rEMAiN VAGUE.

L clg

Lon -term reduct on tar et law, ut nat onal mplementat on la n e nd; not ocal n dr n t ente nat na ebate

el c c / cl

Part c pant n EU Em on Trad n sc eme; moderate allocat on for 2008 to 2012; weak mandator tar et mpo edon ut l t e to promote ener ef c enc b demand de act on ; nanc al ncent e for ChP and eat n network;st ng supp t f nuc ea p we

i Ha f f n ust y em ss ns c ve e by EU Em ss n T a ng Scheme, m e ate a cat n f 2008 t 2012

h l

c

incent e for ener ef c enc , nclud n mpro ed n ulat on and u e of renewa le ener ource ( rant , ncome

and alue added ta reduct on, 0 % ntere t rate loan, w te cert cate c eme, er feed- n tar ff for bu ld nnte rated p oto olta c tem ); ener con umpt on m n mum tandard for new u ld n ; m n mum tandard toappl for reno at on of lar e u ld n ; compul or ener la el c eme for u ld n ; ener performance cert cateeve y t me a bu ng s bu t, s ente

t Mandator EU em on l m t alue for new car of 130 /km to e p a ed n from 2012 to 2015; upport for ofuel ;ncome ta reduct on for e cle u n electr c t , natural or l que ed a ; CO 2 em on label on new car ; tancent ves base n Co 2 em ss ns, but at w amb t n eve (h ghe tax f use ca s ab ve 200 gCo 2 /km an newca s em tt ng ab ve 160 gCo 2 /km, tax c e t be w 130 gCo 2 /km); de elopment of alternat e to road tran port

r l F nanc al ncent e for renewa le ener ource and feed- n tar ff for del ered electr c t ; am t ou tar et for 2020;mpact f b fue ta get unc ea because f p em ss ns ba ance f F ench b fue s (but ta get f 7 % b fue n fuec nsumpt n by 2010 st n p ace)

Rat ed UNFCCC on 25.03.1994, rat ed K oto Protocol on 31.05.2002l ng-te m nat na em ss ns ta get: -75 % by 2050 c mpa e t 1990 eve f a GHGs. Ta get f 2020 n t yet n ne w th theng-te m g a

Ag ee t EU ta gets f 2020: t un ate a y e uce GHG em ss ns 20 % be w 1990 eve s an 30 % f the c unt es c mm tt s m a eff ts, t e uce ene gy c nsumpt n by 20 % an nc ease enewab es t a nat na 23 % sha eO ect e ector (law under preparat on, t ll need to e con rmed) are: reduce ener con umpt on of e t n u ld n 38 % 2020 (Part of t e bu ld n Plan to e mplemented n 2009); reduce ghg em on from t e tran port ector 20 % 2020

G8 Cl sc c

France Rank 3


19/51


19

G8 Cl sc c

Germany Rank 1

Signi cant reductions in emissions since 1990, partly due to economic downturnin Eastern Germany until 2000, but also due to national measuresSuccessful promotion of new renewable energy sources

No explicit national emission targets after 2020Electricity sector is coal dominated, risk of carbon lock-in due to planning of newunabated coal capacity

No convincing strategy for low carbon transition in the transport sector

summary evaLuation

emission trends



Ag cu tu e 5%Waste 1%

E ect c ty& heat ng 42%

in ust y 22%

T ansp t 16%



o 35%

Gas 23%

Nuc ea 12%

Hy 0.49%


-21.3 %

-0.6 %-

+4.3 %-

1.6 Co 2 ./c

384 Co 2 ./m$

497 gCo 2 /kw

1.3

1.9 Co 2 ./c




K oto tar et


Em ss nspe cap ta

Em ss nspe GdP




12 Co 2 ./c

Em ss ns (exc .f est y annt. t ansp t)Em ss np ject n

K oto tar et

Em ss nsf est y

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

-200

[Mt Co2e .]

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 5

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 5

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 5

2 0 2 0


20/51


20

GeneraL

CLimate poLiCies

reGine Guenther, direCtor CLimate and enerGy poLiCy, wwf Germany AlTHoUGH GEr-MANY HAS SCorEd CoMPArATiVElY WEll iN THE lAST YEArS THErE iS No rEASoN To CElEBrATE.UNTil NoW GErMANY HAS NEiTHEr CoMMiTTEd To A rEqUirEd loNG-TErM TArGET oF rEdUCiNGEMiSSioNS BY AT lEAST 95 % BY 2050 CoMPArEd To 1990 lEVElS, Nor To A zEro CArBoN STrAT-Egy TO TRANsFORM sOCiETy WiThiN ThE NExT FOUR DECADEs. This WOULD bE EssENTiAL TO KEEP

GloBAl TEMPErATUrE riSE WEll BEloW TWo dEGrEES.

L clg

stron leader p n 2007 dur n g8 pre denc , ut le act e recentl ; ad ocated e ten e e empt on fromauct n ng f Co 2-cert cate for ener - nten e ndu tr e and uota for t e u e of off et (CDM) n t eEU Em on Trad n s tem; u n re enue from t e EU Em on Trad n sc eme to elp de elop n countr ee uc ng em ss ns bu s t ust

el c c / cl

Part c pant n t e EU Em on Trad n sc eme; auct on n of 8.8 % of allowance planned for 2008-12; moderate to tr n ent allocat on for 2008 to 2012; p a n out of nuclear power; carbon capture and tora e law appro ed

Apr l 2009; eco-ta on coal, coke and l n te weakened man e empt on , e. . for coal for electr c t enerat on;no lon term tar et for t e power ector; ma or t of capac t to e u lt una ated coal or l n te w t t e r k of a car on lock- n; effect of t e amended com ned eat and power law l uncerta n (tar et: dou le are of CHP t 25 % by 2020)

i half of ndu tr em on co ered EU Em on Trad n sc eme, ut onl er l m ted auct on n planned;a v ce p g ams an nvestment c e ts f sma /me um ente p sesPlanned ener ef c enc law wa po tponed

h l c

Fa orable loan for ener ef c enc and CO 2 e uct n measu es n mest c sect , exten e as ec n m creco er mea ure; ener a n ord nance: am t ou u ld n tandard , ut no mon tor n or penalt e n placePlanned ener ef c enc law wa po tponed

t Mandator EU em on l m t alue for new car of 130 /km to e p a ed n from 2012 to 2015; o far oluntar ef c encen ancement from automot e ndu tr , ut no german manufacturer l kel to meet t e a reement; new partl CO 2 related car ta ; ener -ef c enc la el on new car ; ta e empt on for ofuel a andoned; quota for ofuel lend n aeen decrea ed due to u ta na l t con derat on ; automot e ndu tr re ularl protected o ernmentP anne act n p an f e ect c veh c es

r l Gua antee fee - n ta ffs f e ect c ty f m enewab e s u ces th ugh fee - n aw, wh ch e t c ns e ab e nc easen enewab e capac ty. The nat na ta get f 12.5 % f e ect c ty f m enewab es by 2010 was a ea y excee e n 2007(14 % enewab e e ect c ty).

Rat ed UNFCCC on 09.12.1993, rat ed K oto Protocol on 31.05.2002integ ate Ene gy an C mate Package: env sages 40 % em ss n e uct ns by 2020 c mpa e t 1990

Ag ee t EU ta gets f 2020: t un ate a y e uce GHG em ss ns by 20 % be w 1990 eve s an by 30 % f the c unt esc mm t t s m a eff ts, t e uce ene gy c nsumpt n by 20 % an nc ease enewab es t a nat na 18 % sha eEf c enc tar et : -11 % reduct on n electr c t con umpton 2020 compared to 2001-2005, dou l n ener product tfrom 1990 to 2020, planned ener ef c enc law a een po tponed.

G8 Cl sc c

Germany Rank 1


21/51


22/51


22

GeneraL

CLimate poLiCies

mariaGrazia miduLLa, head of CLimate and enerGy, wwf itaLy iTALy LACKs ADEqUATECliMATE PoliCiES ANd STrATEGiES. AddiTioNAllY THE CoUNTEr-ProdUCTiVE iNVESTMENTS iNToNUClEAr ENErGY ANd CoAl rATHEr THAN iNTo ClEAN TECHNoloGiES ANd ENErGY EFFiCiENCY rAiSE doUBTS ABoUT THE rEAl lEAdErSHiP rolE THAT iTAlY SHoUld BE ABlE To SHoW ASPrESidENT oF THE G8.

L clg

in uf c ent mplementat on of t K oto tar et; a een lock n pro re w t n t e EU nternal dec on-mak nn the ene gy an c mate package

el c c / cl

Part c pant n t e EU Em on Trad n sc eme; moderate allocat on for 2008 to 2012 and no l m t for new entrant ;trada le ener ef c enc cert cate (w te cert cate ); nanc al ncent e for com ned eat and power; pro ectednew coal power n tallat on not compat le w t pre ent K oto tar et ; tate a d to power plant eopard ze ef c entp cy n cu b ng Co 2 em on ; no u e of nuclear power currentl ut a dec on a recentl een made to re ntro- duce nuclear power; clean ener trate m n ; onl cla A electr cal appl ance can e old after 2010 andn tand- allowed after 2010; no ncande cent ul after 2011

i half of ndu tr em on co ered EU Em on Trad n sc eme; trada le ener ef c enc cert cate (w te cer- t cate ), w t new tar et for t e 2010-2012 per od; ne ot ated a reement ; ta re ate for ef c enc motor andn erter ; CO 2 ta not we ted on real car on content of ener ource ; ener con umpton per gDP ncrea ed

h l c

F nanc al ncent e for olar t ermal n tallat on and ef c enc mpro ement ; upport n mea ure at re onal andlocal le el for renewa le eat or cool n ; ta re ate for ener ef c enc n e tment up to 2010; mandator tandardfor new u ld n ; ener ef c enc cert cat on of u ld n n pro re ut t ll not n place, w t mplement n decree t ll under appro al (recentl t e o ernment a ol ed t e o l at on to enclo e t e ener cert cate w en abu ng s s ease )

t Mandator EU em on l m t alue for new car of 130 /km to e p a ed n from 2012 to 2015; ncent e for t epurc a n of low-em on e cle ; ofuel ta e empt on t en tran formed n reen cert cate o l at on; mea uref ec n m c ec ve y nc u e maj fun s f new a s

r l Renewa le cert cate , new feed- n tar ff; old feed- n tem (CiP6) t ll n place, w c a een cr t c zed for u no ernment re enue to upport fo l fuel ; ta cred t for eot ermal ener and oma ; mall plant (up to 1 MW)a e c o ce etween e n ranted reen cert cate and rece n feed- n tar ff; renewa le ncent e c eme am -pe e by a m n st at ve ba e s

Rat ed UNFCCC on 15.04.1994, rat ed K oto Protocol on 31.05.2002 Ag ee t EU ta gets f 2020: t un ate a y e uce GHG em ss ns 20 % be w 1990 eve s an 30 % f the c unt es c mm tt s m a eff ts, t e uce ene gy c nsumpt n by 20 % an nc ease enewab es t a nat na 17 % sha e

G8 Cl sc c

Italy Rank 4


23/51


23

G8 Cl sc c

Japan Rank 5

Relatively low emission rates compared to the industrialized countries average due to highef ciency and use of nuclear power, which WWF does not consider a viable policy optionStable annual emissions but still a wide distance to Kyoto target

No major changes in policy: good use of top runner ef ciency standards, but no other mandatory emission reduction scheme National emission target for 2020 is incompatible with the 2C threshold

summary evaLuation

emission trends



Ag cu tu e 2%Waste 2% E ect c ty

& heat ng 33%

in ust y 34% T ansp t 18%



o 46%

Gas 15%

Nuc ea 15%

Hy 1%


+8.2 %

+15.1 %-

0 %-

1.3 Co 2 ./c

3671 Co 2 ./m$

5161 gCo 2 /kw

1.1

1.9 Co 2 ./c




K oto tar et


Em ss nspe cap ta

Em ss nspe GdP




121 Co 2 ./c

1 WWF es n t c ns e nuc ea p we t be a v ab e p cy pt n. The esu ts f the n cat s em ss ns pe cap ta, em ss ns pe GdP an Co 2 pe kWh e ect c tyf a c unt es have the ef e been a juste as f the gene at n f e ect c ty f m nuc ea p we ha p uce 350 gCo 2 /kWh (em ss n fact f natu a gas). W th ut thea justment, the g na n cat s f Japan w u have been we , e.g. 418 gCo 2 /kWh.



Em ss nsf est y

1600

1400

1200

1000800

600

400

200

0

-200

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 5

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 5

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 5

2 0 2 0

[Mt Co2e .]


24/51


24

GeneraL

CLimate poLiCies

naoyuKi yamaGishi, Leader CLimate ChanGe proGramme, wwf japan GiVEN THAT JAPANis ThE hOsT COUNTRy OF ThE KyOTO PROTOCOL, iTs PERFORMANCE is NOT PARTiCULARLy iMPREs -SiVE. THiS FACT ClEArlY iNdiCATES THAT THE CoUNTrY NEEdS To dEliVEr MorE THAN WHAT iT HASBEEN doiNG ANd HAS To MoVE BEYoNd iTS rEliANCE oN VolUNTArY ACTioNS oN To MANdATorY PoliCiES SUCH AS STriNGENT CAP ANd TrAdE.

L clg

Nat onal pol c weak e cept for ood u e of top runner ef c enc tandard ; nat onal em on tar et for 2020 ncompat le w t t e 2C t re old; po t on n nternat onal cl mate ne ot at on omet me unclear, e. . t e

japane e propo al on a ectoral approac wa r t m under tood

el c c / cl

voluntar a reement w t ndu tr a oc at on; tar et -20 % CO 2 em ss ns pe un t f utput n 2010, but Co 2 em ss nsof ector a e een ncrea n ; tron upport for nuclear power; en anc n ef c enc of ou e old appl ance t routop runner (automat call mpro n ) tandard and ener a n la el ; ta deduct on for -ef c enc e u pment(l t n , a r cond t oner ) and u d e for ef c ent water eater ; tou tandard for elected electr cal appl ancePlan to ncrea e nuclear power; part al feed- n tar ff under d cu on

i voluntar a reement w t ndu tr a oc at on, l nked to oluntar em on trad n tem; tar et to reduce ghgem on elow 1990 le el 2010; o l ator ener mana ement tem; e per mental em on trad n temunder mplementat on Planned de elopment of renewa le ener -related tec nolo e ; planned promot on of CCs

h l c

O l ator ener mana ement tem for commerc al u ld n ; ta cred t for ou e old to appl ChP; en ancedmea ure for ener ef c enc n lar e u ld n and ta ncent e for pr ate ou e old ; compre en e u ld nc es m ss ng

t Top runner tandard for e cle and fuel econom la el ; o l ator ener mana ement tem for em tter ;clean e cle pro ram for l ef c ent e cle ; ood de elopment of pu l c tran port nfra tructure (ra l network);fuel ef c enc tandard for pa en er car and ea e cle to e ntroduced 2015; low-fuel con umpt on a rcraft;

-ef c enc p ; mpro ed traf c and ood d tr ut on ef c enc t rou intell ent Tran port s tem (iTs);supp t techn g es f the use f b massP anne eve pment f next-gene at n veh c es

r l R&D pro ram and rant ; er weak tar et on renewa le ener ; new u d for p oto olta c (70,000 en/kW)t ta ng 9 b n yen, pa t a fee - n ta ff un e scuss n

Rat ed UNFCCC on 28.05.1993, rat ed K oto Protocol on 04.06.2002go ernment plan to ac e e at lea t 1.6 % of t e 6 % K oto tar et from ji and CDM and 3.8 % from land-u e c an eand fore tr ; owe er, t e reduct on potent al n fore tr nk le t an e pected and a ortfall l kell ng-te m g a f e uc ng 60 t 80 % f ts cu ent eve f em ss ns by 2050, n t n ne w th 2C th eshJapan Act n P an f Ach ev ng a l w-ca b n S c ety s st effect ve un e new g ve nmentNat na em ss n ta get f 2020 f 15 % be w 2005 eve s (8 % be w 1990 eve s) w th mest c e uct ns (10 June 2009),wh ch s nc mpat b e w th the 2C th esh

G8 Cl sc c

Japan Rank 5


25/51


25

G8 Cl sc c

Russia Rank 6

emission trends





in ust y 15%

T ansp t 9%



o 21%

Gas 54%

Nuc ea 6%Hy 2%


Emission rates are average for industrialized countries, with high use of natural gas but low ef ciencyEmissions well below Kyoto target due to economic downturn but currentlysteadily increasingVery few climate related policies

summary evaLuation

-33.9 %

-33.8 %-

+0.4 %-

1.2 Co 2 ./c

1140 Co 2 ./m$

384 gCo 2 /kw

2.5

1.4 Co 2 ./c




K oto tar et


Em ss nspe cap ta

Em ss nspe GdP

Co2

pe kWhe ect c ty



16 Co 2 ./c

Em ss ns (exc .f est y annt. t ansp t)Em ss np ject n

K oto tar et

Em ss nsf est y

[Mt Co2e .]

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

-500

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 5

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 5

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 5

2 0 2 0


26/51


26

L clg

No compre en e nat onal plan; rat ed K oto Protocol er late and onl under pre ure; not eract ve n the p epa at y neg t at ns, an ften an bstac e at the ast m nute

el c c / cl

Pro ram to p a e out u d e to fo l a ed ener product on; ener ef c enc pro ram announced, ut pract callno concrete mea ure mplemented et; ntend to ncrea e rel ance on nuclear power; ncrea n dome t c demandfor electr c t alread lead n to re ntroducton of old nef c ent enerat n capac t e en f pre ou l ret redP anne p cy t ve t gas f exp t an thus ep ace ts mest c c nsumpt n w th m e ca b n ntens ve c a ,wh ch w u push up em ss ns

i Pre dent Decree (june 2008) to mpro e ener ef c enc of econom 40 % compared to t e 2007 le el 2020 could po t el mpact on ndu tr, ut pract cal mea ure to upport t a e not commenced; law on eneref c enc t ll under de elopment

h l c

P c es n mest c sect a e st m te t a few eg ns an a ge c t es

t P an t use gas an e ect c ty f pub c t ansp t, but c nc ete measu es a e m te t a few eg ns an c t es

r l dec ee f the P me M n ste (Janua y 2009) t nc ease the sha e f enewab e ene gy exc u ng a ge hy p wen tallat on from le t an 1 % to 4.5 % 2020 could mpro e t e tuat on; owe er, pract cal mea ure to upportt a e not commenced; law on renewa le ener t ll under de elopment

Rat ed UNFCCC on 25.03.1994, rat ed K oto Protocol on 18.11.2004dec ee f the P es ent f a 40 % e uct n n ene gy ntens ty f GdP by 2020 ( n t e pe un t f GdP n PPP)dec ee f the P me M n ste f nc eas ng the sha e f enewab e s u ces (except a ge hy ) n ene gy ba ancef m ess than 1 % t 4.5 % by 2020Reco n ze u e untapped potent al for ef c enc and t e need to d er f econom

GeneraL

CLimate poLiCies

aLexey KoKorin, CLimate ChanGe proGramme Coordinator, wwf russia rUSSiA iS iN- TENdiNG To dEVEloP NUClEAr AS A loW-CArBoN ENErGY. THiS iS ABSolUTElY THE WroNG WAY ForWArd. ToTAl CArBoN CAPACiTY ANd ToTAl CoST oF NUClEAr iNdiCATE THAT iT iS NoT A SUiT-

ABlE PoliCY AT All. THE SCorECArdS SHoW THAT iNSTEAd, rENEWABlE ENErGY dEVEloPMENT iS A PoWErFUl Tool, NoT oNlY iN oil ANd GAS iMPorTiNG CoUNTriES, BUT iN rUSSiA AS WEll.

G8 Cl sc c

Russia Rank 6


27/51


27

G8 Cl sc c

United Kingdom Rank 2

Emissions are already below Kyoto targetProactive in taking innovative measures and driving international debateLegally binding long-term target of at least -80 % by 2050 and plan for itsimplementation, but in mid-term not prepared to go beyond level of ambitionfor the UK in the EU agreementVery small share of renewable energy

summary evaLuation

emission trends





in ust y 17%

T ansp t 21%



o 36%

Gas 35%

Nuc ea 9%Hy 0.17%


-17.3 %

-5.2 %-

+1.5 %-

1.7 Co 2 ./c

334 Co 2 ./m$

572 gCo 2 /kw

1.9

2.2 Co 2 ./c




K oto tar et


Em ss nspe cap ta

Em ss nspe GdP




11 Co 2 ./c



Em ss nsf est y

1000

800

600

400

200

0

-200

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 5

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 5

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 5

2 0 2 0

[Mt Co2e .]


28/51


28

CLimate poLiCies

GeneraL

L clg

in t ated de ate on cl mate c an e w t n t e g8; dr e de ate n nternat onal fora, leader p e ampleby eve p ng nn vat ve an c mp ehens ve nat na p c es

el c c / cl

Part c pat on n t e EU ETs; relat el tr n ent allocat on for 2008 to 2012; o l at on on electr c t and auppl er to ncrea e ener ef c enc n ome (Carbon Em on Reduct on Tar et, end Marc 2011);C mate Change levy w th exempt n f c mb ne heat an p we : p ans t bu new c a an nuc ea stat ns,n w c nsu t ng n me um-sca e em nst at n scheme f Co 2 captu e an st age

i half of ndu tr em on co ered t e EU ETs w t moderate allocat on ; ne ot ated mode t ener ef c enctar et w t ndu tr - ector a oc at on ; e empt on from Cl mate C an e Le f ne ot ated a reement met;man at y t a ng scheme f m st n ust y that s n t c ve e by the EU Em ss n T a ng System n t c ve eby a neg t ate ag eement (Ca b n re uct n C mm tment, c mmences Ap 2010)

h l c

Bu ng stan a s f h uses base n Co 2 em on ; ta e empt on for ou e meet n zero car on tandard ; am -t us stan a s ann unce n 2006 t e uce Co 2 em ss ns f new h uses by 25 % n 2010, 44 % n 2013 an 100 %(zero car on) n 2016; mode t rant pro ram for m cro enerat on on u ld n ; lar e commerc al and pu l c ector or a -n zat on mu t part c pate n t e Car on Reduct on Comm tment; new non-dome t c u ld n to e zero-car on 2019

t Mandator EU em on l m t alue for new car of 130 /km to e p a ed n from 2012 to 2015; ofuel ta e empt on;mode t ta rel ef for low em on car ; annual ncrea e n road fuel ta at on a andoned n 2001, and furt er ncrea erepeatedl deferred (alt ou mode t future ncrea e were recentl announced); contro er al de ate o er plan for

n cant e pan on n a rport capac t and a at on em on ; ntroduc n ncent e for roll-out of electr c e clean ass c ate nf ast uctu e

r l O erall, low penetrat on of renewa le en u tant al re ource (nota l w nd and mar ne); o l at on on electr c tuppl er to uppl percenta e of renewa le ener l nked to trada le cert cate ; con ultat on completed on d fferent ated le el of upport for d fferent renewa le tec nolo e and ntent to mplement t em; e empt on of renewa leener from Cl mate C an e Le ; renewa le tran port fuel o l at on on fuel uppl er tarted n 2008, ut tar et werewe e by the g ve nment n decembe 2008- 3.25 % f 2009/10 (p ev us y 3.75 %), 3.5 % f 2010/11 (p ev us y

5 %), 4 % for 2011/12, 4.5 % for 2012/13, 5 % for 2013/14; Renewa le Ener strate to e pu l ed n jul 2009(c nsu tat n c se Sept 2008)

Rat ed UNFCCC on 08.12.1993, rat ed K oto Protocol on 31.05.2002C mate Change Act 2008 nt uce ega y b n ng ng-te m ta get t cut g eenh use gas em ss ns by at east 80 % by 2050 an atlea t 34 % 2020 compared to 1990 le el , r n to a er tar et n t e conte t of a new nternat onal a reement; car on ud et n

tem cap em on o er 5 ear ud et w t 3 ud et et at a t me; l m t et on t e purc a e of cred t for eac ud etar per odlega y b un t ep t eve y 5 yea s n the sks f c mate change an h w these w be a esse

Ag ee t EU ta gets f 2020: t un ate a y e uce GHG em ss ns 20 % be w 1990 eve s an 30 % f the c unt es c mm t ts m a eff ts, t e uce ene gy c nsumpt n by 20 % an nc ease enewab es t a nat na 15 % sha eNew coal power plant planned and cau n n cant contro er , go ernment now con ult n on opt on to re u re omeCo 2 captu e an st age f m the utset f a new stat ns. New nuc ea p we a s p anne .Planned nte rat on of nternat onal a at on and pp n em on n t e Cl mate C an e Act to Parl ament 31 Decem er 2012;exp anat n w have t be p v e n case f n n- nc us n.

G8 Cl sc c

United Kingdom Rank 2

Keith aLLott, head of CLimate ChanGe, wwf uK ThE UK hAs shOWN A DEgREE OF LEADER -

shiP, MOviNg ThE iNTERNATiONAL DEbATE ON CLiMATE ChANgE FORWARD ThROUgh gROUNDbREAK -iNG lEGiSlATioN SUCH AS THE CliMATE CHANGE ACT. HoWEVEr, To MAiNTAiN iTS CrEdiBiliTY oN ThE iNTERNATiONAL sTAgE ThE UK REALLy NEEDs TO shOW ThAT iT ACTUALLy WiLL DELivER A LOW-CArBoN ECoNoMY AT HoME, BY rEJECTiNG HiGH-CArBoN ProJECTS SUCH AS UNABATEd CoAl-FirEd PoWEr STATioNS ANd NEW rUNWAYS, ANd CrEATiNG A SUSTAiNABlE FUTUrE BY iNVESTiNGiN rENEWABlES ANd ENErGY EFFiCiENCY iNSTEAd.


29/51


29

G8 Cl sc c

United States Rank 7

The new Obama administration has a very positive and encouraging attitude towardsclimate policies, plans for signi cant new policies and legislative initiatives are underway;

projections were corrected downwards as a result of the agreed economic stimulus package.The new automobile standards have not yet been incorporated into the new projectionsand would further reduce them.Country with the highest absolute emissions in the G8. Emission rates are amongthe highest in the world, strong dependence on coal and oilKyoto protocol was not rati ed and target is unattainable, national targets under discussion but are less ambitious in the short-term

summary evaLuation

emission trends





in ust y 17% T ansp t 27%



o 40%

Gas 22%

Nuc ea 9%Hy 1%


+16.8 %

+23.8 %-

-0.2 %-

2.6 Co 2 ./c

567 Co 2 ./m$

625 gCo 2 /kw

1.6

6.3 Co 2 ./c




K oto tar et


Em ss nspe cap ta

Em ss nspe GdP



Em ss nsn t ansp t

pe cap ta

25 Co 2 ./c

Em ss ns (exc .f est y annt. t ansp t)Em ss np ject nK oto tar et

Em ss nsf est y

80007000600050004000300020001000

0-1000-2000

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 5

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 5

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 5

2 0 2 0

[Mt Co2e .]


30/51


30

G8 Cl sc c

United States Rank 7

GeneraL

CLimate poLiCies

L clg

T e O ama adm n trat on en a n n nternat onal cl mate ne ot at on and w ll n to take on a quant ed em onreduct on tar et; po le reduct on tar et are lower t an w at needed to ma m ze c ance of l m t n lo al warm -n to elow 2 de ree C; tar et for nternat onal comm tment l kel to depend on a reement on nat onal pol c e ;c nt nuat n f the Maj Ec n m es F um as a supp t ng scuss n p atf m

el c c / cl

De elopment pro ram for future clean tec nolo e ; pro ram for ncrea ed u ld n ef c enc and ener - a nappl ance (federal ef c enc tandard and Ener -star la el); mandator cap and trade c eme currentl operat nn e eral tate ; ener ef c enc oal or tandard n at lea t 19 tate ; planned nat onal market- a ed pro ramco er n electr c ut l t e , o l compan e , lar e ndu tr al ource ; planned fac l tat on of t e deplo ment of a mart r dand new tran m on l ne for electr c t enerated from renewa le ource ; planned pro ram of nanc al ncent et eta e s se ng h gh v umes f Best- n-C ass app ances

i voluntar partner p etween o ernment and ndu tr , NgO and ndu tr to reduce em on ; Cl mate W eand indu tr for t e Future pro ram ; mandator cap and trade c eme n e eral tate ; ta cred t for eneref c enc n e tment ; planned market- a ed pro ram for electr c ut l t e , o l compan e , lar e ndu tr al ource ;planned mplementat on of ener ef c enc re ource tandard to enl t electr c t and natural a d tr ut on com -pan e ; planned e ta l ment of tandard for ndu tr al ener ef c enc ; planned award pro ram for nno at on nncrea n t e ef c enc of t ermal electr c enerat on proce

h l c

su tant al upport for ener ef c ent u ld n n t e reco er packa e (ener ef c enc mea ure n low ncome ome ;ta cred t for ener ef c enc n e tment ; retro t of federal u ld n ); e t n m n mum ener ef c enc tandard fornew u ld n n e eral tate ; mandator tandard for new federal u ld n (30 % elow ndu tr tandard ); pro ramto fac l tate de elopment of zero ener ome 2020 and zero ener commerc al u ld n 2025; oluntar EnerSta pro ram for u ld n ; ener ef c enc reduct on tar et n man tate ; planned promot on of ener ef c enc nnew u ld n elp n tate to adopt ad anced u ld n code ; planned fund n for retro tt n e t n u ld n ; plannedprocedure for rat n u ld n ener ef c enc ; planned re ate to low- ncome fam l e re d n n pre-1976 ome for pur -

c a e of new ef c ent ome ; planned ef c enc tandard for l t n ; effect el an on ncande cent lamp 2014

t New fuel ef c enc tandard for car and truck were announced recentl , w c w ll a e an effect on pro ected em -on . Re earc and de elopment rant for clean fuel and e cle ef c enc ; oluntar n t at e etween t e o ernment

and t e automot e ndu tr to reduce em on ; tar et to reduce a ol ne con umpt on 20 % etween 2006 and 2011;e t n and planned nanc al upport for electr c e cle ; planned armon zat on of nat onal and federal fuel tandard ;p anne e u ement f states t estab sh g a s f e uc ng g ba wa m ng p ut n f m t ansp tat n sect

r l Federal ta ncent e ncrea ed w t reco er packa e (product on ta cred t, accelerated co t reco er tem);Renewa le Portfol o standard (RPs)- m n mum tar et for renewa le electr c t - n 28 tate and D.C.; Federal le la -t n un e way f man at y rPS at a nat na eve . S a Ene gy Techn g es P g am t make s a ene gy c st-compet t e w t con ent onal electr c t 2015, tar et: at lea t 5-10 gW new olar electr c capac t ; clar cat on andeff t t fac tate ev ew an pe m t f enewab e ene gy eve pment ffsh e an n pub c an s

riChard moss, vp & manaGinG direCtor, CLimate ChanGe, wwf usa PrESidENT oBAMA HAS doNE MorE To SUPPorT A ClEAN ENErGY ECoNoMY iN THE lAST FoUr MoNTHS THAN HASbEEN DONE iN ThE LAsT ThREE DECADEs TOgEThER iN ThE Us. iF CONgREss PiCKs UP ON ThisLEADERshiP AND PAssEs A sTRENgThENED CLEAN ENERgy biLL, ThE Us RANKiNg WiLL ChANgEqUiTE drAMATiCAllY iN THE CoMiNG YEArS.

Rat ed UNFCCC on 15.10.1992, re ected K oto ProtocolEconom c t mulu packa e ncluded n cant upport for renewa le and ener ef c encd aft C ean Ene gy an Secu ty Act f 2009 e ease , eg s at n s un e g ng C ng ess na ev ew.P anne nat na em ss n ta gets: 3 % be w 2005 eve s n 2012, 17 % be w 2005 eve s n 2020, 42 % be w2005 eve s n 2030 an 83 % be w 2005 eve s n 2050P anne sett ng f em ss n stan a s n s u ces that a e n t c ve e by the a wance systemP anne U.S. ass stance t enc u age w esp ea ep yment f c ean techn g es t eve p ng c unt esNat na g eenh use gas em ss ns ep t ng e u ements p anne f 2011


31/51


31

[F ure taken from T e lo al nanc al cr and t mpact on renewa le ener nance, a tud comm oned UNEP D on of Tec nolo , indu tr and Econom c(DTiE) under t su ta na le Ener F nance in t at e. Apr l 2009. source: ttp:// e .unep.or / leadm n/med a/ e /doc /pu l cat on /stud _F nanc al_Cr _ mpact_on_RE_.pdf ]

Comment

by dr. armin sandhveL[Ceo aLLianz CLimate soLutions ] on the G8 CLimate sCoreCards report

Global clean technologyand renewables marketshave observed impressive

growth rates during the past ve years, althoughgrowth experienced astrong dent in 2008 dueto the nancial crisis.Global clean energy in-vestments increased from35 billion USD in 2004 to155 billion USD in 2008.

Nevertheless industrialized nations still face a large un-tapped potential for action as only Germany has attained

an increasing relative share of renewables in its energymix. Promoted by national targets clean technologies aresuccessfully being implemented, including wind power developments in Western Europe and China, photovoltaic

installations in the Mediterranean area or carbon projectdevelopments under the Kyoto Protocol in emerging markets like Brazil and India. We have to be aware that these

positive developments can only be the start of much stron-ger, concerted and dedicated action to achieve the globalgoal of a temperature increase of less than 2 degrees.

Allianz is active in these key markets and is offering

a suite of tailored solutions for clean energy activitiesincluding carbon projects and renewable energy insur-ances. For several years Allianz has directly invested intorenewables and considers this asset class a promisingengagement. The Group holds wind power assets worthover 500 million EUR and plans to expand its renewables

portfolio by another billion EUR of combined wind and photovoltaic investments until the end of 2012. We arealso actively expanding carbon market related activitiesand services for our clients.

The threats posed by global warming need global, imme-diate and decisive action to keep the impacts of climatechange at a manageable level. Current levels of climatenance are by far not suf cient to meet the necessaryinvestments into renewable energy, energy ef ciency andclean technology transfer. Given that the large majorityof additional climate-related nance and investments willhave to be provided by the private sector, it is for govern-ments to set the right regulatory and political signals for markets to act.

Markets require con dence in the long-term predictability

and the value of climate investments whereby encom- passed risks need to be re ected in corresponding returns.In the future, public and private sector nance will need tocooperate more closely, for example through global funds,guarantees and insurance vehicles which could catalyze ad-ditional climate nance, render climate projects economi-cally more attractive and keep risks at manageable levels.

Gl l Cle g i ,

2004-2008

Est mate t ta newnvestment n y.

G sse -up an buffe eva ues a e base n s-

c se ea s. A justef e nvestment. Gea ee nvestment assumes a1 yea ag between VC/ PE/Pub c Ma kets funa se an e nvestment

n p jects.

S u ce:New Ene gy F nance

175

150

125

100

75

50

25

0

[$ b n]

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

155148

93

59

35

5 %G wth

59 %G wth

58 %G wth

68 %G wth


32/51


32

unitedKinGdom

Participates in and supports the internal EU ETS with relatively stringent allocationsDeveloped a pilot national trading scheme before EU ETSAgreed on national carbon budgetsImplementing national trading scheme for most industry not covered by the EU ETS570 registered CDM and 0 registered JI projects

Germany Participates in and supports the internal EU ETS with moderate to stringent allocations;introduced many exceptionsUses allocation revenues from the ETS to support climate friendly development indeveloping countries98 registered CDM and 9 registered JI project

franCe Participates in and supports the internal EU ETS with moderate allocations No additional activities to support CDM/JI36 registered CDM and 1 registered JI project

japan Japans Voluntary ETS (JVETS)Proactive support for the development of JI and CDMAllocated about US$ 730 million (2008 incl. future payments) to fundsto purchase emissions credits from developing countries209 registered CDM and 0 registered JI projects

itaLy Participates in and supports the internal EU ETS with moderate allocations and no

limit for new entrants41 registered CDM and 0 registered JI projects

usa No national ETS (but several state initiatives for emission trading systems,not considered in ranking)Planned federal market based program for electric utilities, oil companiesand large industrial sourcesPlanned offsetting of up to 2 billion tons per year, split evenly between domesticand international offsets

Canada No national ETSAn ETS for large emitters is proposed to begin 1.1.2010

No government intent to purchase credits from CDM/JI40 registered CDM and 0 registered JI projects

russia No national ETS93 registered JI projects (host) generating 43167 ktCO 2eq

The instruments of the carbon market, emission trading schemes (ETS) and creditable emission reduction projectsthrough the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) are expected to play a major role infuture actions against climate change. This section provides an overview on how countries support the developmentof the carbon market and how much they use it. Performance on carbon markets is part of the overall assessment of the countries climate policies.

8 performancein carbon markets


33/51


33

japan Achieved relatively high average ef ciency through policies since the 70sIncrease of energy ef ciency has been offset by increasing use of cars, electricalappliances and power production; total energy consumption has been risingEf ciencies have worsened since 1990 in cement and chemicalsBuildings: Top runner (automatically increasing) energy ef ciency standards for electrical appliances, to date no effective policies or standards to improve overallenergy performance of buildings but promotion of this is plannedTransport: Top runner energy ef ciency standards for cars, planned implementationof infrastructure for electric cars and use of bioethanolPower/industry: no absolute reduction target but voluntary action; no policies toencourage combined heat and power generation (CHP)

itaLy Average energy ef ciency level in power, industry, buildings and transport

Buildings: reasonably effective for new buildings, partly effective for renovated buildings;recently the Government abolished the obligation to encl

climate scorecards -g8yg5- wwf

Documents