Connect with us

Energy News

Europe: electric car sales surpass diesel

Published

on

In a milestone for the environment, Europeans purchased more electric cars than those powered by diesel last month. According to recent data, over 20 per cent of new cars sold in Europe and the United Kingdom (UK) in December 2021 were electric. Meanwhile, the sale of diesel vehicles in the European Union (EU) slipped below 19 per cent.

While many developed nations have pledged to phase out petrol and diesel vehicles in the next 20 years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the transition will be more complicated in developing countries where old imported cars are often the most affordable option. A 2020 report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) found that the three largest exporters of used vehicles – Europe, Japan and the United States exported 14 million used light-duty vehicles worldwide between 2015 and 2018.

We spoke to Rob de Jong, head of the Sustainable Mobility Unit at UNEP, to find out more about the rise in electric vehicle sales and what can be done to support this transition globally. 

What could the increase in electric vehicle sales mean for Europe in regards to air pollution and emissions reductions?

Rob De Jong (RDJ): This trend shows that consumers are keenly interested in shifting to cleaner vehicles due to a combination of factors. The first is economic incentives. Electric vehicle subsidies were (and often still are) very high at several thousands of dollars per vehicle, although governments are slowly reducing these subsidies as they become more mainstream.

Second, diesel vehicle sales have continued to decline since we discovered that actual emissions were much higher than we thought – after some manufacturers were caught cheating on emissions tests. Meanwhile, the sale of electric vehicles globally has doubled every year, with the highest growth rates in Europe. The leader is Norway, where 80 per cent of all new vehicles are currently being sold are fully electric.

This has massive benefits for pollutant and climate emissions as diesel vehicles are a leading contributor to small particulate emissions pollution, so-called PM 2.5, which has major health impacts. In contrast, electric vehicles have no tailpipe and therefore no exhaust emissions. Air pollution and the climate change characteristics of the electricity source are also critical factors. 

What kind of regulatory framework and infrastructure helped Europe to reach this goal? 

RDJ: Many European countries used subsidies for new and used electric vehicles, whilst others set dates in the near future for the complete phase-out of petrol vehicles (for example, UK 2030). Most countries have introduced a network of charging stations, allowing for fast charging of electric vehicles, and some cities banned the entry of old diesel vehicles in their city centres. Awareness campaigns have also helped to inform consumers.

The introduction of electric vehicles goes hand in hand with the decarbonization of the electricity grid – more electricity is generated from renewable sources such as wind and solar, making electric vehicles more and more climate-friendly. At the same time, manufacturers are rapidly increasing the number of electric models available in the market. A few years ago, only a few models were available. Today, almost all major brands have multiple electric vehicle models. Some brands have set a date after which they will only sell electric vehicles, and they are getting cheaper, while specifications such as range are improving.

Can developing countries aspire to do the same, or must they follow a different pathway? 

RDJ: To achieve the targets of the Paris Agreement, we have to switch to zero-emissions mobility worldwide. We should not forget that we also need to better design our cities and promote walking, cycling, and public transport. In 2050 globally, two out of three vehicles will be found in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), so we must also include LMICs in shifting to zero-emissions mobility. We can’t afford for developed countries to switch while developing countries continue using fossil fuel vehicles.

There are many good reasons for LMICs to make the shift. It is predicted that the number of vehicles in LMICs will grow by 1 billion by 2050. So, we can still avoid a major increase in fossil-fueled vehicles by putting in place the right measures. Building local manufacturing capacity for e-mobility, such as manufacturing and assembling electric motorcycles locally, can also create green jobs. A relatively large share of the climate emissions of some LMICs come from the transport sector, so introducing zero-emission e-mobility will be key to achieving national climate targets.

In addition, LMICs have the highest urbanization rates – cities are growing rapidly. Switching to low- and no-emissions mobility now can help prevent major air pollution in many megacities. As cities around the world have shown – fixing this later is much more difficult -and costly- than preventing it in the first place.

How is UNEP helping countries make the shift to e-mobility?

RDJ: UNEP is implementing a major global programme to support LMICs in joining the global switch to zero-emissions e-mobility. Largely funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), UNEP’s Global Electric Mobility Programme is supporting more than 50 LMICs by developing policies and standards, accessing financing, and developing local industry. It also provides technical support, creates regional platforms with suppliers and financiers, and implements regional training programmes.

UNEP

Energy News

Olaf Scholz Calls for Accelerated Energy Transition

Published

on

In a special address delivered on the closing day of the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz delivered a scathing indictment of the Russian war against Ukraine and called for an accelerated drive towards a clean energy future.

“A major nuclear power is behaving as if it had the right to redraw borders,” Scholz said. “Putin wants a return to a world order in which strength dictates what is right; in which freedom, sovereignty and self-determination are simply not for everyone. That is imperialism. That is an attempt to blast us back to a time when war was a common instrument of politics, when our continent and the world were without a stable peaceful order.”

Scholz noted that Russia’s invasion has produced an unprecedented closing of ranks among Western nations. “Putin underestimated the unity and vigour with which the G7, NATO and the EU would respond to his aggression,” he said. “Working together, we have imposed sanctions that are tougher and further-reaching than any previously imposed on a country of Russia’s size.”

The chancellor urged leaders to accelerate the energy transition. “Now we have even more cause to move away from fossil fuels than before,” he said. “Ultimately, our goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 has been given an additional boost by Putin’s war.”

He pointed to German plans to phase out imports of Russian oil by the end of 2022, adding: “We are also working flat out to end our reliance on Russian gas.” Germany plans to nearly triple its rate of emissions reductions by 2030 and increase renewables’ contribution to the country’s energy mix to 80%, by the end of this decade.

On China, Scholz said: “China is a global player – once again, we should add, because historically speaking, that was consistently the case throughout long periods of world history.” He went on: “But just as that does not mean we need to isolate China, neither does it give rise to the claim of Chinese hegemony in Asia and beyond. Particularly since we are seeing new and ambitious powers emerging in Asia, Africa and Latin America.”

Scholz also emphasized the need for the developed nations of the Global North to expand ties to the democracies of the Global South. “For too long we have practically equated ‘democracy’ with ‘the West’ in the classical sense,” he said. “Yet it was actually this Western world that denied the South its rights and its freedom in a most undemocratic manner until well into the last century. I am speaking of colonialism.”

While recognizing the need to diversify supply chains and end dependence on Russian oil and gas, Scholz listed the many benefits that globalization yielded over the past several decades. “Deglobalization is not the right way to go,” he said. “It will not work. Contrary to everything that populists grandly proclaim, it is the enterprises, employees and consumers in our countries who pay the price of customs duties and trade barriers. Those people are already bearing the brunt of soaring prices.”

Scholz called for “a sustainable, resilient globalization that uses natural resources sparingly and, above all, takes the needs of future generations into account”.

Continue Reading

Energy News

Southeast Asian nations need to accelerate their clean energy transitions

Published

on

Southeast Asia’s reliance on fossil fuels to meet rising demand for energy is proving to be a significant vulnerability in today’s energy crisis. Meeting energy security and emissions goals will require countries in the region to make major efforts to improve energy efficiency, accelerate renewable power generation and switch to low emissions fuels, according to the International Energy Agency.

The 10 member economies of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are among the world’s fastest growing. Their accelerated transition to sustainable energy would not only cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and fossil fuel imports, according to the IEA’s Southeast Asia Energy Outlook 2022, but also speed up universal access to electricity and clean cooking for their citizens, as well as provide greater business opportunities in the emerging clean energy economy.

Based on today’s policy settings, energy demand in the region is set to grow by around 3% a year to 2030, with three-quarters of that increased demand being met by fossil fuels, according to the new report, the IEA’s fifth edition of the regional outlook. As a result, Southeast Asia’s CO2 emissions would grow 35% from 2020 levels. And without stronger policy action, its net oil import bill, which stood at USD 50 billion in 2020, is set to multiply in size rapidly if today’s high commodity prices endure. 

“Southeast Asia is an emerging heavyweight of global energy, and the speed of its economic development makes it even more essential that the region’s governments hasten efforts to transition to sustainable energy and that they get the international support they need to do so,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. “This report is a testament to the IEA’s strong and productive relationship with ASEAN’s dynamic members, and we stand ready to accompany them as they strive to provide clean, affordable and secure energy for all their citizens.”

ASEAN’s members are Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam. Several of them have announced ambitious targets for reaching carbon neutrality and curbing reliance on coal-fired power. The report notes that international support will be critical, especially to boost innovation and develop much needed infrastructure such as renewable power generation and grids, as well as facilities for low emissions fuels. 

Total energy investment would need to reach USD 190 billion a year by 2030 to meet the region’s climate goals, up from around USD 70 billion a year between 2016 and 2020. While international development finance is essential, the report says ASEAN members could reduce financing costs and attract private investors by signalling their clear commitment to deploy low-carbon energy and by improving regulatory and financing frameworks.

Southeast Asia is set to play a major role in global energy transitions as a key supplier of critical minerals and manufacturer of clean energy products. Indonesia and the Philippines are the two largest nickel producers in the world; Indonesia and Myanmar are the second and third largest tin producers; Myanmar accounts for 13% of global rare earth production; and Southeast Asia provides 6% of the world’s bauxite. Meanwhile, Malaysia and Viet Nam are the world’s second and third largest manufacturers of solar PV modules, while Thailand is the 11th largest car manufacturer in the world and could become a key manufacturing hub for electric vehicles.

Investment in mineral exploration has declined in recent years, and the region’s share of the global mineral exploration budget has halved since 2012. This trend needs to reverse if Southeast Asia is to realise its potential in this growing sector.

Continue Reading

Energy News

Q&A: ‘People have to be at the centre of the energy transformation’

Published

on

Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Vice-Chair, GCSA

In June 2021, the EU’s Group of chief Scientific Advisors (GCSA) published the Scientific Opinion entitled “A systemic approach to the energy transition in Europe”, arguing that the clean energy transition in the European Green Deal must keep people at its centre. In light of tomorrow’s RePowerEU announcement that is critical to the future of energy supply in Europe, we invite GCSA Vice-Chair Nebojsa Nakicenovic to comment on the centrality of a just transition and the importance on staying focused on a clean energy future even at times of intensifying pressure. 

 Tell us why the European Commission even needs a scientific opinion at all. Does not the evidence speak for itself?

This publication (A Systemic Approach to energy Transition in Europe) is part of the Science Advice Mechanism (SAM) of the European Commission. From my perspective, this is a very unique way of providing scientific advice to the decision makers.  Many governments have chief scientific advisors with that function. What is unique about SAM in the European Commission is that it has three independent parts. 

First, there is the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors who provide the scientific opinion. There are very clear process rules about how that happens. The other independent part is the so-called SAPEA (Scientific Advice for Policy of the European Academies). This is a consortium of over 100 European academies. They provide a scientific evidence review, similar to the climate change assessment of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

The assessment is a scientific analysis of what we know about a particular topic. They (SAPEA) do not provide a scientific opinion or scientific advice, importantly they look into the possible options. We, the group of seven chief scientific advisors, based on this evidence review — evidence, so factual scientific knowledge — provide a scientific opinion to the European Commission. 

There is also a unit in the Commission that catalyses this process. The three groups work closely together but we are independent. That explains the context. Why would we provide a scientific opinion? It is because the topic is considered really crucial and central to multiple crisis facing Europe and the world.

Does a just transition require a transformation of the economic model of energy services? People own the problem, should they not own the solution too?  

That is precisely what we have tried to address in our scientific opinion – based on the scientific evidence. We didn’t go beyond the scientific evidence. 

Energy cannot be seen as a silo. We – people – have to be at the centre. That means it has to be an inclusive process involving everybody and, importantly, not leaving anyone behind. Because there is a great danger that any transformation, unfortunately, leads to winners and hopefully there will be many, many winners but also – I wouldn’t say “losers” – but there are people who fall through the cracks who might be left behind and do not have an escape hatch. This is what was a high priority – to identify how to do that.

In our scientific opinion – and in fact we say explicitly, it is essential that sustainable energy, lifestyles, and behaviours become the preferred choice for the people – become a natural choice. For that, we have to create an environment that allows that. This is clearly very, very complex, I don’t think anybody has a silver bullet on that question.  

The world has changed since the paper was published in June 2021. In particular war, inflation and recent dire warnings from the IPCC about rising temperatures. How does that affect your opinion on a just transition?

I have to be very careful to distinguish what is in our scientific opinion based on the evidence and what is my personal view. It’s important not to mix the two or I would not be reflecting the scientific advice mechanism which I think is very unique – I just want to make that clear. Here is my private opinion based on our scientific opinion but not in it.

Geo-politics are changing. There is no doubt that we are in a crucial moment in history. And this is why we argued before – again, my view – that we shouldn’t lose sight of the long term objectives .

We are likely to exceed 1.5 degrees – it is almost certain that by 2040 we will be above (the limit prescribed), perhaps even earlier. From the scientific point of view, this is not new.

From the policy point of view and behavioural point of view, this is something one needs to somehow internalise. We will exceed that goal and we will bear the dangerous consequences. But, we should not lose the perspective of doing our utmost to reach 1.5 degrees in the future – and for that we need to act now.

This is another dimension of justice – intergenerational justice. We have to make sure that we leave the planet to the future generations (hopefully) in better condition than what will occur over the next decade or two.

Is it even possible for the EGD to achieve ‘a clean, circular economy, a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy’ by 2050?

Again, we are in the realm of opinion. Nobody can tell what the future will be like.

I was very enthusiastic when in 2015 all of the world adopted the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and when there was the Paris Agreement on climate change. I think those were the two really important visionary steps towards this aspirational transformation that we were talking about.

I would also argue that the European Green DealFit for 55 and New European Bauhaus initiatives are even more actionable in some sense. They provide a clearer agenda for how the world and life might and should look in 2050.

I don’t want to sound too pessimistic and again let me add, this is my personal perspective – you know, 30 years is a long enough time to achieve this transformation. 

We have done that before. The most recent example is of mobile phones. It all started in 1990 and today, everybody in the world has a phone. Even the poorest people have a phone because it has enabled new economic activities, because it’s beneficial for many (despite the nuisance of always being reachable!)

Another example just to show in principle this is doable, is the replacement of horses by motor vehicles. That also took 30 years in most of the countries. We have 30 years to replace our vehicle fleet by hydrogen and electric. We have just enough time for the transformation if we act immediately.

The research in this article was funded by the EU. This article was originally published in Horizon, the EU Research and Innovation Magazine.  

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending