Search

Studie zur Verteilungswirkung des Klimawandels bei Unterlassung weiterer Klimaschutzmaßnahmen. Die derzeitig implementierten Klimaschutzmaßnahmen reichen nicht aus, um das 1,5°C-Ziel zu erreichen. Adaptionsmaßnahmen würden Verteilungswirkungen erzeugen, die gerade vulnerable Gruppen stark belasten. Im Rahmen dieser Studie werden daher die Folgen des Klimawandels in den Bedürfnisfeldern Wohnen, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft, Verkehr und Mobilität sowie Gesundheit untersucht., Study on the distributional effects of climate change if further climate protection measures are not taken. The currently implemented climate protection measures are not sufficient to achieve the 1.5 °C target. Adaptation measures would produce distribution effects that put a heavy burden on vulnerable groups in particular. As part of this study, the consequences of climate change in the areas of need of housing, nutrition and agriculture, transport and mobility, and health are examined.

Fortschreitender Klimawandel kann aus unterschiedlichen Gründen Nahrungsmittelpreise beeinflussen. Ein Beispiel sind Extremwetterereignisse, die zu Ernteeinbußen führen und kurzfristig die Preise für bestimmte Nahrungsmittel stark erhöhen. Mit fortschreitendem Klimawandel erhöht sich die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass Extremwetterereignisse häufiger auftreten. Haushalte geben, je nach Einkommensstärke, einen unterschiedlich hohen Anteil ihres Nettoeinkommens für Nahrungsmittel aus. Sie sind daher unterschiedlich stark von Nahrungsmittelpreissteigerungen betroffen. Wir untersuchen anhand von 2 Verhaltensszenarien, wie sich der Anteil der Nahrungsmittelausgaben am Nettoeinkommen unterschiedlich einkommensstarker Haushalte in Deutschland verhält, wenn sie bei plakativen Preissteigerungen entweder ihre Nahrungsmittelkäufe unverändert lassen oder gemäß nahrungsmittelspezifischen Elastizitäten anpassen. Wir nutzen für unsere Analyse drei Preissteigerungsszenarien; begründet aus Empirie und Literatur: 4 % Preissteigerung, 12 % Preissteigerung und 40 % Preissteigerung. Unsere Analyse zeigt: Fortschreitender Klimawandel wird negative Verteilungswirkungen bedingen: Haushalte mit geringen Einkommen geben schon jetzt einen deutlichen höheren Teil ihres Einkommens für Nahrungsmittel aus. Bei Preiserhöhungen haben sie weniger Navigationsspielraum, da sie schneller als Haushalte mit höheren Einkommen in die Lage kommen ihre Nahrungsmitteleinkäufe einschränken zu müssen. Wir leiten daher ab: Klimaschutz lohnt sich: Frühzeitig Anreize zu klimafreundlicher Ernährung zu setzen hilft klimawandelbedingte Härten für vulnerable Gruppen abzufedern und sie gemäß des Vorsorgeprinzips gar nicht erst entstehen zu lassen., Climate change can affect food prices for a variety of reasons. One example are extreme weather events that can lead to yield losses which in turn lead to significant, albeit temporary, increases in the prices of certain foods. As climate change progresses, the likelihood increases that such extreme weather events occur more frequently. Households spend different proportions of their net income on food, depending on their income levels. They are therefore affected to different degrees by food price increases. Using two behavioral scenarios, we investigate how the share of food expenditure on net income changes with increasing food prices. We focus on German households with across the range of net income levels. We look at two behavioural cases in view of rising food prices: households leave their food purchases unchanged or adjust them according to food-specific elasticities. We base our analysis on three price increase scenarios, which we derived from empiric data and the literature: 4% price increase, 12% price increase, 40% price increase. Our analysis shows: Progressing climate change will cause negative distributional effects: Low-income households already spend a significantly higher proportion of their income on food. They have less means to maneuver price increases without restricting their food purchases. We derive: Climate protection pays off: Providing incentives for climate-friendly nutrition at an early stage helps to reduce climate change-related burdens for vulnerable groups. These incentives can also prevent these burdens to arise in the first place and in accordance with the precautionary.

In order to calculate the financial return of energy efficiency measures, a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a proven tool for investors. Generally, however, most CBAs for investors have a narrow focus, which is - simply speaking - on investment costs compared with energy cost savings over the life span of the investment. This only provides part of the full picture. Ideally, a comprehensive or extended CBA would take additional benefits as well as additional costs into account. The objective of this paper is to reflect upon integrating into a CBA two important cost components: transaction costs and energy efficiency services - and how they interact. Even though this concept has not been carried out to the knowledge of the authors, we even go a step further to try to apply this idea. In so doing, we carried out a meta-analysis on relevant literature and existing data and interviewed a limited number of energy experts with comprehensive experience in carrying out energy services. Even though data is hardly available, we succeeded in constructing three real-world cases and applied an extended CBA making use of information gathered on transaction costs and energy services costs. We were able to show that, despite these additional cost components, the energy efficiency measures are economically viable. Quantitative data was not available on how energy services reduce transaction costs; more information on this aspect could render our results even more positive. Even though empirical and conceptual research must intensify efforts to design an even more comprehensive CBA, these first-of-its-kind findings can counterargue those that believe energy efficiency is not worth it (in monetary terms) due to transaction costs or energy services costs. In fact, this is good news for energy efficiency and for those that seek to make use of our findings to argue in favor of taking up energy efficiency investments in businesses.

We explore historical trends of household electricity prices and consumption in Germany and show that, whilst prices have risen, consumption has largely remained stable in the last 16 years, indicating that the average household was not able to compensate higher prices by reducing the amount of electricity consumed. Data from the German Income and Expenditure Survey (EVS) is applied to the EEG surcharge to show its effect on different household types. We show that those groups with the largest consumption of electricity often face the smallest relative burden due to the EEG surcharge, as they can compensate with their relatively large income. Groups with little discretionary income, such as low-income households, the unemployed and single parents face the highest relative burden, although the amounts they consume are not large in absolute terms. In light of our findings, we review the provisions relating to energy expenditures in the German social security system. We then go on to examine the main energy efficiency policies that are implemented and planned in Germany relating to buildings and electricity consumption/appliances. Results indicate that those policies do have the potential to reduce the burden imposed by the EEG surcharge. Furthermore, the combined effect of the EEG surcharge and those policies turns out to be nearly proportional. On the one hand, this shows that energy efficiency measures are not only relevant climate and energy policy instruments, but can also serve distributional goals. On the other hand, we highlight that the result regarding their positive distributional effects only holds if indeed these measures are taken up also by low-income households. Therefore, it is crucial to monitor the beneficiaries of energy efficiency measures in the evaluation of these policies and if necessary design more targeted approaches.

We explore historical trends of household electricity prices and consumption in Germany and show that, whilst prices have risen, consumption has largely remained stable in the last 16 years, indicating that the average household was not able to compensate higher prices by reducing the amount of electricity consumed. Data from the German Income and Expenditure Survey (EVS) is applied to the EEG surcharge to show its effect on different household types. We show that those groups with the largest consumption of electricity often face the smallest relative burden due to the EEG surcharge, as they can compensate with their relatively large income. Groups with little discretionary income, such as low-income households, the unemployed and single parents face the highest relative burden, although the amounts they consume are not large in absolute terms. In light of our findings, we review the provisions relating to energy expenditures in the German social security system. We then go on to examine the main energy efficiency policies that are implemented and planned in Germany relating to buildings and electricity consumption/appliances. Results indicate that those policies do have the potential to reduce the burden imposed by the EEG surcharge. Furthermore, the combined effect of the EEG surcharge and those policies turns out to be nearly proportional. On the one hand, this shows that energy efficiency measures are not only relevant climate and energy policy instruments, but can also serve distributional goals. On the other hand, we highlight that the result regarding their positive distributional effects only holds if indeed these measures are taken up also by low-income households. Therefore, it is crucial to monitor the beneficiaries of energy efficiency measures in the evaluation of these policies and if necessary design more targeted approaches.

Ex-ante policy evaluation requires a detailed understanding of how the subjects addressed by the policy react to its implementation. In the context of energy efficiency, policy measures typically aim at influencing investment decisions towards more efficient options. As has been discussed widely in the context of the "energy efficiency gap", investments in energy efficiency improvements are frequently not conducted even though they seem cost-effective from a simple cost-benefit perspective, where transaction costs have been identified as one important barrier. While transaction costs have been discussed widely from a conceptional perspective, empirical studies quantifying transaction costs and measures to reduce them are rare. This paper presents approaches, results and insights from a recently completed research project funded by the German Federal Energy Efficiency Center (BfEE), addressing transaction costs in various energy efficiency measures and the role of energy efficiency services to overcome the barrier. We analyse a set of 11 energy efficiency investments covering private households, public institutions and the industry sector. We gather data on direct investment costs and energy cost savings and provide a detailed analysis of the various barriers and transaction costs associated with the implementation. We then analyse the costs of existing energy efficiency services using data provided by the BfEE. We compare the different cost elements and analyze the potential of energy efficiency services to reduce transaction costs. We find that the role of transaction costs differs substantially between households, public institutions and companies and that the impact of energy efficiency services on transaction costs needs to be evaluated using different methodological approaches. We conclude that while data availability on disaggregated transaction costs is a major challenge, energy services can reduce transaction costs considerably.

Eine Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse ist ein bewährtes Mittel, um die Rentabilität einer Energieeffizienzmaßnahme zu bewerten: Die Investitionskosten werden mit den eingesparten Energiekosten verglichen. Investitionsentscheidungen für Energieeffizienzmaßnahmen erfolgen allerdings häufig nicht nach einer reinen Erwägung der direkten Kosten und Nutzen. Gründe hierfür sind unter anderem "versteckte" Kosten und Risiken (z. B. Kosten für die Beschaffung von Informationen, Unsicherheiten über zukünftige Energiepreise und Einsparungen), aber auch nicht-monetäre Hemmnisse, die bei Entscheidungen eine Rolle spielen (z. B. beschränkte Rationalität, Präferenzen, Zeitverfügbarkeit). Vor diesem Hintergrund verfolgt der Bericht das Ziel, ein besseres Verständnis der Kosten-Nutzen-Erwägungen von Investoren und deren Entscheidungswirklichkeit zu erlangen. Die Untersuchung zeigt, dass Energieeffizienzdienstleistungen (EEDL) generell die versteckten Kosten - Transaktionskosten - reduzieren können. Das setzt aber voraus, dass EEDL sachgerecht durchgeführt werden. Transaktionskosten werden allerdings im Zusammenhang mit Energieeffizienzmaßnahmen von den Akteuren kaum wahrgenommen und entsprechend nicht quantifiziert. Des Weiteren zeigt sich, dass insbesondere bei Unternehmen die EEDL-Kosten für bestimmte Maßnahmen hoch sein können. Doch werden gerade in diesen Fällen die Transaktionskosten reduziert. Grundsätzlich erscheinen kostenaufwendigere EEDL, wie umfassendere Vor-Ort-Beratungen, im Gegensatz zu den preiswerteren Vor-Ort-Checks besser geeignet, um Transaktionskosten zu reduzieren.

This publication is the English version of the summary of the German report „Meilensteine 2030“ (THRÄN et al. 2015) which is published in the series of the funding programme “Biomass energy use”. The report describes elements and milestones for the development of a stable and sustainable bioenergy strategy.

This publication is the English version of the summary of the German report „Meilensteine 2030“ (THRÄN et al. 2015) which is published in the series of the funding programme “Biomass energy use”. The report describes elements and milestones for the development of a stable and sustainable bioenergy strategy.

In einer weitgehend auf erneuerbaren Energien fußenden Energieversorgung in Deutschland muss Bioenergie künftig die Lücken füllen, die nicht aus anderen Quellen gespeist werden können – diese These hat die Diskussion um Bioenergie im beginnenden 21. Jahrhundert stark bestimmt (BARZANTNY et al., 2009; KIRCHNER & MATTHES, 2009; SaCHVERSTÄNDIGENRAT FÜR UMWELTFRAGEN, 2011; SCHLESINGER et al., 2010, 2011). Dabei gibt es sowohl starke Argumente für den flexiblen Einsatz im Strombereich als auch für ausgewählte Kraftstoffpfade (z. B. Schwerlastverkehr, Schifffahrt, Flugverkehr), während im Wärmebereich Bioenergie als gut durch alternative erneuerbare Versorgungskonzepte ersetzbar gilt. Jedoch hat sich auch gezeigt, dass Biomasse zwar regenerativ, jedoch für den konkreten Zeitraum und unter Nachhaltigkeitsaspekten nur begrenzt verfügbar ist. Künftig wird erwartet, dass der Bedarf an Nahrungs- und Futtermitteln wie auch für die stoffliche Nutzung steigt. Damit wird eine Priorisierung der Einsatzbereiche für den weiteren Ausbau zunehmend notwendig (BMVBS, 2010; THRÄN et al., 2011; KOALITIONSVERTRAG, 2013; MAJER et al., 2013). Es herrscht Einigkeit, dass Bioenergienutzung im Einklang mit den Zielen der nachhaltigen Entwicklung stehen muss und insbesondere gegenüber der Ernährungssicherung nachrangig ist, dass die Nutzung zunehmend an den Erfordernissen des Energiesystems ausgerichtet sein müssen und dass nur bei stetiger Weiterentwicklung der Technologien ein angemessener Beitrag der Bioenergie erreicht werden kann. Auch scheint es sinnvoll, dass man – vor dem Hintergrund der vielfältigen aktuellen Entwicklungen im Bereich der regenerativen, nicht-biogenen Energietechnologien und Energieträger – Bioenergiestrategien favorisiert, die geringe Pfadabhängigkeiten aufweisen und z. B. Technologiekonzepte berücksichtigen, die sowohl im Strom- / Wärme-Bereich als auch im Kraftstoffsektor genutzt werden können.