Transatlantic Leadership for Clean Energy Solutions
Post on 18-Jan-2015
3107 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
1
Brooke R. Heaton, Robert Bosch Fellow 2009-10
Transatlantic Leadership
for Clean Energy Solutions
2
About This Report
This report was written as a substantive analysis to fulfill the requirements of the Robert Bosch Foundation Fellowship.
The Bosch Foundation Fellowship Program is a distinguished transatlantic initiative that each year offers twenty
accomplished young Americans the opportunity to complete a high-level professional development program in
Germany. Over the course of a nine-month program, Bosch Fellows complete two work phases at leading German
institutions, both customized to each fellow’s professional expertise, and attend three seminars with key decision-
makers from the public and private sectors, taking place across Europe. Fellows are recruited from business
administration, journalism, law, public policy and closely related fields.
The issue of international cooperation on clean energy policy was the primary focus of my work experiences in Germany,
where I performed two work placements. The first of these placements was at the German Ministry for the
Environment in a division focusing on transatlantic cooperation on renewable energy and other efforts such as the
Major Economies Forum and International Renewable Energy Agency. The second of these placements was with the
First Solar Government Affairs office in Berlin. All opinions and contents within this report are the personal
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Robert Bosch Foundation.
Author Contact Information:
Brooke R. Heaton
brookeheaton@gmail.com
3
Contents
The Climate and Energy Dilemma ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Reversing Climate Challenge: A Titanic U-turn ....................................................................................................................... 8
Beyond Clean: Building Security, Independence and Growth with Low-carbon Energy ...................................................... 12
National Security ............................................................................................................................................................... 12
Price Stability .................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Environmental Quality ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
Economic Competitiveness ............................................................................................................................................... 15
Clean Energy Technologies: Harnessing limitless sources with innovation .......................................................................... 17
Energy Efficiency ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) ......................................................................................................................... 18
Solar Energy ...................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Wind Energy ...................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Biomass Energy ................................................................................................................................................................. 19
Hydrogen Energy ............................................................................................................................................................... 19
Geothermal Energy ........................................................................................................................................................... 20
Hydropower and Ocean Energy ........................................................................................................................................ 20
Smart Grid Systems ........................................................................................................................................................... 21
Electric Vehicles (EV) ......................................................................................................................................................... 22
District Heating and Cooling ............................................................................................................................................. 22
Energy and Climate Laws in the US and Europe: Divergent Paths ........................................................................................ 22
US Climate and Clean Energy Policies ............................................................................................................................... 23
National Policies and Programs for Clean Energy Technologies ....................................................................................... 23
US Regional Cooperation on Climate ................................................................................................................................ 24
States – Leading US Clean Energy Policies .................................................................................................................... 25
Local Governments – Sustainable Grassroots Efforts ................................................................................................... 26
EU Climate and Clean Energy Policies ............................................................................................................................... 27
Germany, Spain and Denmark – European Clean Energy Success Stories........................................................................ 29
Germany ........................................................................................................................................................................ 29
Spain .............................................................................................................................................................................. 32
Denmark ........................................................................................................................................................................ 33
International Climate and Clean Energy Efforts.................................................................................................................... 37
4
UN ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 37
International Energy Agency (IEA) .................................................................................................................................... 38
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) ............................................................................................................. 39
Group of 20 (G20) ............................................................................................................................................................. 40
Major Economies Forum ................................................................................................................................................... 41
Climate Technology Fund .................................................................................................................................................. 41
US-EU Summit ................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Transatlantic Energy Council ............................................................................................................................................. 43
Transatlantic Business Dialogue........................................................................................................................................ 44
Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue ..................................................................................................................................... 44
NGOs and Civil Society ...................................................................................................................................................... 45
NOTES .................................................................................................................................................................................... 51
5
The recent surge of support for “green growth” and a “clean energy economy” in the United States offers a critical and
urgent opportunity to forge a robust transatlantic pact to end our fossil fuel addiction and promote long-term
economic growth through clean and sustainable energy. Although the malaise and disappointment of the COP15
climate summit in December 2009 casts a long shadow on current efforts to combat climate change (1)
, there remains
significant motivation in the transatlantic community to promote policies at national and state levels to rapidly
deploy renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies (2)
. From Southern California to Eastern Europe,
innovative businesses are taking advantage of fertile economic and political frameworks to develop solar, wind and
geothermal energy and to reduce energy consumption through efficiency and conservation (3)
. Though clean energy
firms have proven resilient in the challenging climate of the economic crisis (4)
, international cooperation efforts led by
the US and Europe must be redoubled and a range of collaborative initiatives to share experiences and best practices
must be pursued.
The Climate and Energy Dilemma
As the world’s population hurdles rapidly toward 9 billion inhabitants within the next century (5) nations face a
seemingly impossible task of caring for their citizens while scrambling for increasingly scarce resources. Chief
among these is the energy required to fuel an insatiable global appetite for higher standards of living, inflated
resource consumption, and fast-growing demand in emerging economies like India and China. Yet, the cost of
energy cannot be measured in dollars alone. For nearly two centuries, the fuels that drove industrialization
have slowly disrupted the earth’s climatic balance – a global “tragedy of the commons” that is warming our
planet’s atmosphere, threatening to flood coastal communities, starve rural populations, and permanently
change our oceans and ecosystems if action is not taken to reverse course (Figure 1) (6). Scientists warn that
there is a clear point of no return - 350 parts per million (ppm) of atmospheric C02, beyond which
environmental impacts would be devastating. Worryingly, we have already surpassed this point and are in
dire need to reverse course to avoid dangerous tipping points with irreversible and catastrophic impacts in our
way of life.
Despite over two decades of scientific consensus on the link between ‘greenhouse gases’ released by burning
oil, coal and other fossil fuels, and global climate change, no binding global treaty to regulate this destructive
trend is in force (7). The Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement concluded in 1997 set binding targets for
37 industrialized countries and the European Union, offering a major first step (8), however the United States
and emerging economies like China and India did not agree to its terms. As the Kyoto Protocol nears
expiration in 2012, it is more important than ever for the world’s most developed nations to offer bold and
unwavering leadership and consensus to transition the global economy to sustainable energy and curb the
earth’s rising temperatures. With new US leadership dedicated to joining a global agreement while
aggressively promoting a “clean energy economy” there is significant potential to reach this consensus (9).
6
Figure 1: Global Mean Surface Temperature 1880-2010. In 2010, the Earth’s temperature was roughly 0.5 degrees Celsius above the long-term (1951–1980) average.
(Source: NASA figure adapted from Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis)
The Obama Administration’s commitment to sign a post-Kyoto treaty and promote clean energy through
robust policy measures offers a welcomed change of pace from the denial and inertia of the George W. Bush
era when neither congress nor the President had the political will and wisdom to overhaul the nation’s fossil
fuel addiction (10) (11). Intimate links between the fossil fuel industry and the White House under the Bush
Administration were met with generous support for oil, natural gas and coal producers and a loosening of
federal regulation on practices like off-shore drilling (10) (12) (13). Though many of these links have been severed,
public opinion and congressional leadership on energy transformation are continually undermined by partisan
politics and dubious disinformation campaigns driven by the fossil fuel lobby (14). This lobby continues to
outspend environmental and clean energy groups ten to one (14). Though the election of Barack Obama and a
Democratic majority in congress opened a window of opportunity to work Europe on this transformation,
many obstacles remain. The Obama Administration continues to be shackled by the absence of congressional
legislation on energy and climate and, lacking a national bill with clear emission caps and renewable energy
targets, robust US-European cooperation faces some formidable obstacles (15).
Nevertheless, it is more critical than ever that the United States and Europe develop consensus by exchanging
knowledge and experiences on climate and energy issues while better coordinating policies and standards at
the local and federal levels. Comprising a market that is the world’s largest (16) and built on a foundation
industrial carbon-debt (17), the United States and Europe have a moral imperative to display leadership and
historical accountability by developing effective policies and practices to deploy clean energy technologies,
like wind, solar and geothermal energy. They also possess the resources to promote investment into energy
efficiency and conservation practices at a level need to truly change the global market.
In addition, the US and Europe must work together to develop a more unified position toward a global cap on
greenhouse gas emission through an international treaty that includes emerging economies and significant
assistance to developing nations. Though it is unlikely that a breakthrough will be reached at the Cancun
COP16 climate meeting in Cancun, Mexico this November (18), the US and Europe must continue to cooperate
to ensure that commitments made at the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen are realized and resolve the
7
enduring political rifts on matters related to monitoring and verification of greenhouse gas emissions and
assistance to developing nations.
While political divisions garnered much attention following the COP15 summit, the rapid acceleration of the
clean energy market and clean energy installations has widely been overlooked. Despite wrangling between
the US, the EU and China over long-term limits on CO2 emissions (19), a host innovative start-ups and industrial
giants have begun to race for the lead in the lucrative market for renewable and efficient energy products.
From German manufacturing giants like Siemens to Silicon Valley newcomers like Bloom Energy, companies
around the world are developing innovative ways to generate and save energy while reaping rewards from
venture capital investors and public funds. In fact, as the global economic crisis went into full swing in 2008,
the clean energy sector continued its growth throughout the US and Europe as other sectors shrank. The US
clean energy sector remained resilient as companies set up shop in Texas, Iowa, Ohio and Michigan converting
once skeptical politicians to champions of green growth. Senior GOP leaders like Senator Charles Grassley of
Iowa, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and South Dakota Congressman John Thune of have all
witnessed the rewards that can be reaped by investing in the natural and sustainable energy resources of their
states and are clear in their support for national climate and energy legislation.
Behind the dismal response to the COP15 meeting, the vibrant growth of the renewable energy sector in 2009
offers a refreshing contrast. Despite the strong headwinds of the economic crisis, more funding was invested
into renewable energy projects than in fossil fuels projects around the world in 2009 - this for the second year
in a row (3) (20). By 2009 more than 100 countries had established policy targets or incentives to deploy clean
energy compared with just 55 countries in 2005, a near doubling in just four years. Also in 2009 new
installations of wind solar power reached a record high with renewable power sources accounting for more
than half of new installed power capacity in the US and EU (3). Indeed, the strong acceleration in the clean
energy sector is highly encouraging and offers reassurance to communities looking for ways to build jobs and
businesses.
These positive trends will likely continue their current trajectory in the near-term; however they must be
bolstered and enhanced by targeted actions and programs if the world to commence a downward trajectory
toward 350 ppm of CO2. This will require far more than ‘business as usual’ efforts. Further action must be
taken to ensure that clean energy become the power the drives the future economy.
To ensure this, resources must be invested into international collaboration and cooperation on effective
policies, accelerated trade and facilitation of knowledge transfer between nations and markets. Scientists,
engineers, policymakers, business leaders, students and journalists all play a central role in this
transformation. Looking at current efforts led by international organizations, bilateral partnerships, NGOs and
global firms, a range of excellent ‘best practice’ examples stand out as models to be replicated. Inspired by
these practices, the US and Europe must lead the way through closer consultation, exchange of ideas, and
collaboration on plans for clean energy success.
Closer coordination will require focusing greater attention at all levels of governance and civil society. Key US
and European agencies can help steer these efforts by supporting the work of international organizations and
providing guidance to state and local leaders. NGOs can facilitate better exchange of data, ideas and expertise
while universities provide curricula and exchange programs that will better prepare the future leaders of the
clean energy transformation. Civil society forums can also help identify roadblocks to faster clean energy
deployment such as improved standards and permitting for clean energy installations, financial hurdles for
8
consumers, better urban planning and transport systems and better labeling for green products. International
Organizations can also provide impetus to speed up this process by surveying the global market and policy
landscape and providing information to national officials and investors eager to find opportunities to invest in
the lucrative clean energy market. Through innovative concepts like farmer and engineer exchanges, “green”
study-abroad programs, “green public procurement”, renewable energy atlases, indices, and databases as well
as clean energy blogs, conferences, and tours, the transatlantic community can help broaden awareness and
appreciation of the value of renewable energy and promote growth in markets for clean tech goods and
services.
Reversing Climate Challenge: A Titanic U-turn
The global challenges presented by climate change are formidable. The International Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC)i, the scientific body of experts that releases regular evaluations on the impact of greenhouse gasesii on
the earth’s climate, has warned the international community in four reviews since 1990 that the earth’s
surface temperature has already increased between 0.3 and 0.6 °C since the late 19th century and could rise
by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C during the 21st century due to the “greenhouse effect” (21). Though CO2 and other
greenhouse gases are emitted by the earth’s natural systems, the IPCC has conclusively concluded that human
activities are the primary source of recent temperature increase and other climatic anomalies. They note that
a large part of this trend is caused by the disruption of the earth’s natural ‘carbon cycle’ whereby CO2 is
released and reabsorbed by so-called ‘carbon sinks’ such as rainforests. Eighty-five percent of these manmade
emissions are due to the burning of fossil fuels, while changes in land use and deforestation account for the
remaining 15% (22). Left unabated, these climate trends will accelerate, increasing the risk of abrupt and
irreversible impacts.
Recent reports from meteorological and climate scholars have remarked that current trends are already
nearing the ‘worse case’ scenarios outlined by the IPCC in their four reports (22). The scientists observed that
the earth’s temperature is increasing at a staggering rate, noting that eleven of the twelve years in the period
from 1995–2006 were among the twelve warmest years on record (since 1850) (21). Alarmingly, there is a
strong likelihood of immediate impacts and numerous climate anomalies can already be seen. A key worry is
the melting of the earth’s arctic ice sheets, which could cause sea levels to rise by 18 to 59 cm (21). The IPCC
also warns of more erratic climatic behavior, including frequent warm spells, heat waves, heavy rainfall, and
an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones, and extreme high tides. Additional changes will occur in the earth’s
i The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988. It provides the world with a clear scientific view on
the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences. Thousands of scientists from all over the
world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis and a main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the
implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and
published scientific literature. National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative. ii Greenhouse gases, including Water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3) effectively absorb
thermal infrared radiation, emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including
downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system through the “greenhouse effect”. An
increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation
into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing that leads to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect,
the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect. (220)
9
oceans as their temperature rises, resulting in changing ocean currents. In fact, the ocean has been absorbing
more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system leading to temperatures increased to depths of at
least 3000 m. Furthermore, the increased proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is leading to ocean
acidification, a trend that, when combined with changing ocean currents can have profound impact on marine
nutrition, life-cycles and ecosystems. These trends will inevitably damage or destroy coral reefs and the many
species of marine life that inhabit or depend upon the ecosystem services of the reefs (22).
Figure 2: Climatic Stabilization scenario categories (colored bands) and their relationship to equilibrium global mean temperature change above
pre-industrial levels. In order to stabilize the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, emissions would need to peak and decline thereafter. The
lower the stabilization level, the more quickly this peak and decline would need to occur. (Source: IPCC AR4, WGIII, Summary for Policy Makers)
The chain of events and reactions that this dangerous process is beginning to trigger are startling and should
be of grave concern to citizens and policy makers. To stem this process, bold, concerted collective action must
be taken at all levels of society and government. There will inevitably be great sacrifices to be made if the
international community is to preserve and protect the natural resources and processes that make our current way of
living and working possible. Absence of robust action, significant economic consequences will be paid.
The good news is that many of the tools that will be needed to respond to these threats already exist. The
challenge is finding the political will needed to implement the changes necessary to bring newer and better
technologies. If society wants to avoid even more serious, and in most cases, irreversible impacts of climate
change, then there is very little time left and governments at all levels must begin devising plans and policies
that will contribute to a new global push to clean up our energy habits and develop new ways of consuming
and living that do not emit greenhouse gases. Doing so will require innovative plans that harness the power of
the market by incentivizing transitions to new energy systems and savings through efficiency.
10
As figure 3 illustrates, there is significant room for improvement if the world is to flatten out its levels of CO2
to below 350 ppm. Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning are projected to double in the next 50 years,
keeping the world on course to more than triple the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide concentration from its pre-
industrial level. This course would to lead to dangerous levels of global warming by the end of the century. If
emission rates are kept flat over the next 50 years (orange line) then the negative impacts of climate change
can be mitigated. The flat path, followed by emissions reductions later in the century would to limit CO2 rise to
less than a doubling and skirt the worst predicted consequences of climate change.
But flattening off CO2 for 50 years would require reducing our projected carbon output by roughly 7 billion
tons per year by 2054, preventing 175 billion tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere (yellow triangle).
Filling in this “stabilization triangle” while fulfilling global energy needs will require the world to find energy
technologies that emit little to no carbon and develop the capacity for carbon storage.
Responding to the call for innovative solutions to this global dilemma, a number of institutions and scholars
have proposed forward thinking and groundbreaking concepts. One such report that has garnered much
attention due to its depth and clarity is the McKinsey & Associates report “Pathways to a Low Carbon
Economy” (23). Providing policy makers an in-depth set of information on the efficacy of various actions to
lower greenhouse gas emission, the report offers a sober and meticulous inventory of potential changes that
can be made by national, state and local actors. This detailed how-to guide to build a low-carbon economy
weighs the significance and cost of each possible method of reducing emissions and the relative importance of
different regions and sectors. The report also provides important information for business leaders to help
them understand the implications of potential regulatory actions for companies and industries (23).
The report is clear that with appropriate action, greenhouse gas emissions could be lowered by over one-third
by 2030 from 1990 levels, in order to limit global warming to a 2 °C increase from pre-industrial levels. It
outlines over 200 greenhouse gas abatement opportunities across 10 economic sectors and 21 world regions
and concludes that the annual cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 35-40% below 1990 levels by
Figure 3: The "Stabilization Triangle" produced by the Princeton University Carbon Mitigation Initiative. A
current path climbing upward from 1.9 Billion Tons of Carbon Emitted per year in 1954, to 14 Billion of Tons
by 2054 would tripling CO2 in the atmosphere. To avoid doubling CO2, a "flat Path" at 8 Billions of Tons
Carbon Emitted per year must be achieved by a combination of various adaptation strategies.
11
2030 would be $260 to 450 billion – or less than 1 percent of forecasted global gross domestic product in
2030.
A highly encouraging aspect of the McKinsey report is that a great number of changes could come at no cost at
all and can, in fact, save money. As the global greenhouse gas abatement cost curve below shows, nearly 20
different sector changes would result in a net gain for businesses and consumers. From waste recycling to
utilizing hybrid cars and more efficient appliances, tackling global climate change will not always be expensive
(23). In fact, the first course of action, according to the McKinsey report is to focus efforts fast and furiously on
energy efficiency. By increasing the energy efficiency of vehicles, buildings, and industrial equipment while
shifting to low-carbon energy alternatives such as wind, nuclear, hydro, and carbon capture technologies,
consumers will be able to see some direct saving on their energy bills.
Accomplishing this ambitious plan laid out will not be easy. To do so, global consumers will need to
purchase42 million hybrid vehicle, land areas equivalent to the size of India will need to be reforested and
deforestation must be prevented on another 170 million hectares (23). Meeting these goals would also require
an increase in the world’s relative share of low-carbon electricity from 30% to 70%. If implemented the plan
would increase global carbon productivityiii from around 1.2% to 5-7%. While the plan does present a number
of questions about how to achieve these tasks, it does provide a general roadmap that can inform a broader
discussion by national leaders.
There are five areas on which we should focus. First, boosting energy efficiency could cut global energy
demand by 20-24 percent of projected 2020 demand. Second, to reduce emissions by one-fifth of current
levels by 2020, the carbon productivity of energy sources must increase by two-thirds. Third, additional
investment in R&D and incentives to boost innovation will be necessary. Fourth, companies and governments
iii Carbon productivity is the amount of GDP produced per unit of carbon equivalents (CO2e) emitted.
12
can do more to educate consumers on "green" behavior. Fifth, forestation and avoided forestation offer the
largest abatement lever at 25 percent of the global total under €40 per ton. (24)
Beyond Clean: Building Security, Independence and Growth with Low-carbon Energy
Although the threat of global climate change and the resulting ecological, agricultural and economic damage
present ample reason to kick-start an accelerated move away from fossil fuels, it is not the only motive. A
host of other reasons could convince even the most hardened skeptics of climate change to champion a clean
energy transformation. Linkages between national security and energy supply, our growing foreign
dependence, instability of fuel prices and threats to national economic competitiveness all present convincing
motivations to speed up our national energy transformation. From cutting off the source of funding for
Islamic fundamentalist networks to improving human health and gaining an edge in the global race of the
clean tech market, there are many reasons to support policies promoting a clean energy transformation.
National Security
Even for those unconcerned or unconvinced of global warming’s impact on our fragile atmosphere, there is
irrefutable evidence that national fossil fuel addiction is increasingly dangerous and destructive. In a famous
essay drafted in the January 1999 addition of Foreign Affairs, US Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) and former CIA
Director James Woolsey made the case that oil is a magnet for conflict. Noting that over two-thirds of the
world’s oil reserves lie in the Middle East, US dependence on oil makes it highly dependent on a number of
autocrats and dictators in the region. As a result, Lugar and Woolsey argued that US oil dependence continues
to prop up highly undemocratic regimes driven more by a desire to control valuable resources than to provide
for their citizens (25). In fact, the authors note, the US intervention in Iraq in 1990 was triggered by Saddam
Hussein’s attempt to seize oil resources from neighboring Kuwait, a maneuver that proved costly to the lives
of US servicemen. Lugar and Woolsey make the case that the US must aggressively pursue alternative sources
of liquid fuels in order to cut off this cycle of dependence that has required the US to maintain a military
presence in the region for decades (25).
Echoing these sentiments six years later, Thomas Friedman penned an essay in Foreign Affairs titled “The First
Law of Petropolitics” arguing that the pace of democratic reform in oil producing nations moves inversely with
the price of oil (26). As the global market pushes the price of oil upward, oil-rich petrolist states begin to repress
freedom of speech and the press, halt free and fair elections, and erode the independent judiciary, rule of law,
and independent political parties. As a result, the bottomless demand for oil in the United States means the
American’s are unintentionally but inevitable eroding the movement toward democratic reform in these
countries.
13
Friedman returned to this argument with his 2008 book “Hot, Flat, and Crowded”. Picking up on the problem
of petropolitics, Friedman makes the case the current global struggle against Islamic fundamentalism is being
exacerbated by the flow of money from oil consuming states to oil producing states in the Middle East. As
leaders in countries like Saudi Arabia funnel cash from oil exports to support fundamentalist schools and
organizations throughout the Middle East, Americans and Europeans become targets for terrorist attacks. In
addition to strengthening the “most intolerant, anti-modern, anti-Western, anti-women's rights, and anti-
pluralistic strain of Islam”, Friedman argues, we are funding both sides of the war on terror. By enriching
conservative, Islamic governments in the Persian Gulf that share their windfalls with charities, mosques,
religious schools, and individuals in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Dubai, Kuwait, and around
the Muslim world, American and European wealth is eventually passed on to anti-American terrorist groups,
suicide bombers, and preachers (27).
This rather unsustainable trend means that Americans and Europeans are financing their enemies' armies as
well as their own. While financing national armies and NATO operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq with
tax dollars, the transatlantic community is indirectly financing al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad
with imported petroleum. In addition to being an environmental necessity, kicking the fossil fuel habit has
become a strategic imperative. By reducing global demand for oil and gas, the US and Europe can help
promote a more democratic, more stable and more peaceful future.
Price Stability
As commodities on the global market that are extracted, processed, transported and sold to consumers, fossil
fuels are highly vulnerable to price changes due to shifts in supply, transport and speculation in futures
markets. This vulnerability can have devastating impacts on consumers, leading to unaffordable prices for
consumers. While this may lead to some desired shifts in behavior to decrease fossil fuel consumption and to
use public transportation, these shifts are risky and destabilizing to national economies. Moving toward
cleaner, domestic energy sources would remove the great degree of uncertainty about energy cost and access
and would produce a stable and predictable price measure.
The incredible impact that prices instability can have on national economies was illustrated all too well by the
1973 OAPEC oil embargo. After years of cheap and stable oil imports by the US and European nationsiv, a
global crisis was unleashed in October 1973 when the members of Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting
Countries proclaimed an oil embargo in response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military during
the Yom Kippur war. Aiming to leverage influence over U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, OAPEC members
demanded a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict that had been inflamed by Israeli occupation of the
Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights.
Following a joint surprise attack by Egypt and Syria against the Israel occupied Sinai Peninsula, Israel
responded with a four-day counter-offensive. As a key ally in the Middle East, the US offered significant aid to
Israel and air-lift to replace Israeli military losses. These actions triggered a collective OAPEC response
iv From 1947-1967 the price of oil in U.S. dollars had risen by less than two percent per year. Until the Oil Shock, the price
remained fairly stable versus other currencies and commodities, but suddenly became extremely volatile thereafter. (227)
14
including an embargo of all oil shipments to the United States, which they viewed as a “principal hostile
country”. The embargo was variously extended to Western Europe and Japan and the market price for oil rose
substantially, from $3 a barrel to $12 (Figure 4).
The increase in the global price led massive shortages in the U.S. and prices to levels previously thought
impossible. Customers experienced lines and empty pumps at the gas. By December 1973, the situation was
so desperate that US President Richard Nixon announced that the lights on the national Christmas tree would
not be turned on (28). The crisis shifted energy to the center of public attention and, combined with an ongoing
economic recession, led to a reassessment of America's strategic position in the world (28).
Figure 4: Oil prices from 1861–2007, showing a sharp increase in the 1973 and 1979 energy crises. The orange line is adjusted for inflation. Source: US Energy
Information Administration
For nearly a decade following the 1973 embargo, the price of oil climbed, putting excessive pressure on
consumers and leading to a national wake-up call. In the aftermath of the crisis, industrialized nations took
steps to define principles for international cooperation and to identify solutions for the major challenges that
confronted the global energy system. In November 1974, the International Energy Agency (IEA) was
established within the framework of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development with a
broad mandate to promote improved energy security through cooperation on energy policy between major
consuming nations (29). In addition to coordinating information and policy, the IEA nations established a
requirement of all members to maintain national oil reserves sufficient to sustain consumption for at least 60
days with no net oil imports, leading to national petroleum reserve systems (30).
As the experience of the 1973 embargo and subsequent oil shocks in 1979 and 2007 illustrate, there is great reason for
concern for nations that rely heavily upon imported fuel sources. In addition to the dangers presented to national
security outlined above, these fuels pose a significant threat to economic security. Moving away from dirty, imported
fuels to a system of domestically produced energy from clean, renewable sources will bolster national economic security
and provide a predictable means to drive future growth without risk of interruption.
Environmental Quality
Fossil fuels pose a danger not only to national and economic security, but also to the quality of human health.
Through the process of transporting, processing and burning fossil fuels, an array of damaging effects are
unleashed. From vast oil spills that impact local communities and waterways for decades to clouds of smog
Price Shocks
15
hovering over urban centers to prolonged and even deadly sickness, our fossil fuel habits have a number of
hidden costs that are paid for by diminished quality of life.
As a result of burning fossil fuels like oil, coal, or natural gas, numerous toxins are released. These include
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and hydrocarbons. Inhaling these chemicals can significantly
damage human health and the accumulation of these particles in the air can significantly reduce on air, land,
and water quality. Nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons can build-up in the atmosphere to form tropospheric
ozone, leading to permanent lung damage, smog, and even reduced cop yields (31). Inhaling the accumulated
exhaust from automobiles, power plants and other industrial sites can lead to a range of health problems such
as headaches, lung damage, bronchitis, pneumonia and heart disease. Inhaling these pollutants can also
impair the immune systems, leaving the body vulnerable to more health problems. In the US, the
transportation sector is responsible for close to half of all emissions of nitrogen oxides while power plants
produce most of the rest (31).
In addition to burning fuels, the process of producing and transporting them can also lead to significant
pollution and damage to waterways and land. Oil spills, like the massive leak from a BP offshore well that
spewed oil for months during the spring and summer of 2010, can leave waterways and their surrounding
shores uninhabitable for some time. Oil spills also lead to the loss of plant and animal life and can cause
disruptions to the local economies of coastal areas. They are also very costly. The BP catastrophe of 2010 has
been estimated to have cost over $30 billion, including cleanup costs and losses to local fisherman, shrimpers
and beaches (32).
Beyond the threat that coal poses to the lives of miners, thousands of whom have lost their lives from ‘black
lung’ (33) or collapsed mines (34), coal has many damaging impacts on the environment. The most extreme
environmental damage is caused by coal mining, especially strip mining. After mining is completed, lands
around the mine often remain barren. Materials other than coal can rise to the surface in the process and are
left as solid waste. When water washes through a coal mine a dilute acid is formed and can wash into nearby
rivers and streams. In washing the coal for later use more waste material is left. Finally, when coal is burned,
the remaining ash is left as a waste product (31).
Unfortunately, a history of lax or nonexistent regulations and weak oversight has meant that many of the
hidden environmental consequences of fossil fuels have gone unchecked. The expenses for the myriad of
health problems and environmental damage have gone unpaid, resulting in a massive market failure that has
to date, not been fully corrected. While environmental regulations are being increasingly put in place to
protect individuals from the damage caused by fossil fuels, their low cost and near-term abundance means
that they will be around for some time to come. Nevertheless, the advantage of clean energy technologies
over their dirtier peers offers a sobering reason to switch to cleaner and greener pastures.
Economic Competitiveness
In sheer economic terms, clean energy solutions make bottom line sense. From the cost of adjusting to the
effects of climate change to the potential to save consumers on their energy bills, to the need to create high-
skilled jobs in areas hit by the economic crisis, there is no shortage of economic motivators for a clean energy
16
transformation. There are scores of success stories of bright, innovative ideas leading to smart new products
that can produce cheaper and cleaner energy and do it more efficiently. The global market for such products
is growing fierce so that policies that are put in place today will decide who dominates the market tomorrow.
As companies look for welcoming nations to set up their shops, the US and Europe will have to keep pace with
competitors in Asia who have embraced renewable energy technologies as the way of the future and are
willing to back this up with robust government support.
A key economic motivation to transition to cleaner and more efficient power supply is avoiding the economic
damage that may be wrought by climate change. The high price of preventing a global climate catastrophe
has been intricately detailed by Sir Nicholas Stern in his famous reportv in which he argues that strong, early
action on climate change considerably outweighs the costs of inaction. The Stern Review proposes that one
percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) must be invested in order to avoid the worst effects of climate
change, and that failure to do so could risk sinking global GDP to 20% lower than it otherwise might be (35).
This figure has most recently been increased to 2% percent of GDP due to the continued worsening of the
earth’s climatic balance and reticence from the world’s biggest green-house gas emitters to take action.
Another major economic incentive to change paths is the potential to spur ‘green growth’ with investment
into clean energy ventures. With global investment in renewable energy projects rapidly increasing,
communities are hoping to win over potential companies and firms by offering a
$162 billion. Investment only fell 6.6% from 2008 - small potatoes compared to the 19% decrease in the oil
and gas industry. Investment next year should reverse and make a huge leap forward. Global renewable
energy investment expectations for 2010 are $200 billion, up 25% from last year, according to Bloomberg New
Energy Finance. It's not a passionate movement to save the earth that's behind the clean energy market; its
market competition and job creation driving the clean energy race - and the United States is losing. Prices of
renewable technologies are decreasing, making them more competitive. If climate concern isn't enough
motivation to encourage use, economic and employment benefits will.
v The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is a 700-page report released for the British government on October 30, 2006 by economist Nicholas Stern,
chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. The report discusses the effect of global
warming on the world economy. It is the largest and most widely known and discussed report of its kind and argues that climate change is the greatest and widest-
ranging market failure ever seen, presenting a unique challenge for economics
17
Clean Energy Technologies: Harnessing limitless sources with innovation
A central problem with dependence on fossil fuels for national energy production is that the sources for fossil
fuels are finite and due to reach peak levels within a generation. Clean energy technologies offer relief from
this unsustainable scenario and lift national addictions to external resources by conserving resources and
harnessing the earth’s natural processes for virtually limitless supplies of energy. The benefits of doing so are
numerous. By focusing on domestic resources and domestic innovation, nations can help build job
opportunities for local communities and help relieve national transmission and distribution systems by
diversifying energy resources. By harnessing locally generated electricity, residents and businesses will
become less vulnerable to large-scale blackouts caused by overly stressed grids and utilities.
A range of energy production technologies being developed over the last century are reaching levels of
maturity that will soon make them competitive with traditional fuels. These energy sources, when combined
with techniques that help save energy by squeezing more out of each unit of input, will provide the recipe
necessary to level-out and decrease green-house gas emissions. These innovations will also provide a more
sustainable supply by making national resources autonomous from outside forces or market speculation.
Finally, focusing on and perfecting these technologies will provide a competitive edge to nations hoping to eke
out a niche in high quality goods and services in the increasingly competitive global market.
The clean energy economy of tomorrow will focus on a range of emerging and established technologies.
While some current energy resources such as nuclear fission and natural gas will be needed as bridging
technologies, the energy revolution will be driven by energy efficient measures, carbon capture and
sequestration, solar energy, wind energy, biomass energy, hydrogen energy, geothermal energy, hydropower
and ocean energy, smart grid systems, electric vehicles and community heating and cooling.
18
Figure 5: Greenhouse Gas stabilization 'wedge' to 2050 utilzing a range of clean energy technologies
Energy Efficiency
Using less energy to provide the same level of energy service in various ways, from heating and cooling homes
to providing light for office buildings to getting more mileage out of a tank of gas. For example, insulating a
home allows a building to use less heating and cooling energy to achieve and maintain a comfortable
temperature and installing LED lights and/or skylights instead of incandescent lights can achieve the level of
illumination while using far less energy. Getting more out of each unit of energy input can help reduce global
greenhouse gas emissions by millions of tons per year. Many
reports estimate that energy efficiency measures will provide the
largest return on investment of all clean energy technology
measures.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS)
CCS is a broad term for technologies used to capture CO2 from
point sources, such as power plants and other industrial facilities,
compress it and transport it mainly by pipeline to suitable
locations where it can be injected it into deep subsurface
geological formations for indefinite isolation from the atmosphere. While CCS remains to be proven in large
scale commercial installations, it is widely seen to be a critical option in the portfolio of solutions available to
combat climate change, because it allows for significant reductions in CO2 emissions from currently available
and price-competitive fossil fuels (36). Like nuclear energy and lower-emission natural gas, CCS is likely be used
as a bridging technology until such point that renewable energy can cover 100% of consumer demand.
Solar Energy
Most renewable energy comes either directly or indirectly from the sun. Sunlight, or solar energy, can be used
directly for heating and lighting homes and other buildings, for generating electricity, and for hot water
heating, solar cooling, and a variety of commercial and industrial uses (37). Photovoltaic solar power is the
Figure 6: Global solar irradiance. Source: 3Trier Inc.
19
energy created by converting solar energy into electricity using photovoltaic solar cells. Solar thermal energy is
the energy created by converting solar energy into heat. Concentrating solar power is a type of solar thermal
energy that is used to generate solar power electricity. This technology is aimed at large-scale energy
production. Because of this, as a homeowner, you won't use concentrated solar power directly, but could take
advantage of it through a green-pricing service offered by your regulated utility or an alternative energy
supplier. There are several solar applications a homeowner can use to take advantage of solar thermal
energy... Solar space heating Solar water heating Solar pool heating Solar thermal cooling.
Wind Energy
Wind energy uses ground or ocean mounted turbines to capture the wind currents driven by the earth’s
natural weather patterns. To generate electricity, wind rotates large blades on a turbine, which spin an
internal shaft connected to a generator. The generator produces electricity, the amount of which depends on
the size and scale of the turbine. Multiple wind turbine sizes are available from a few kilowatts to tens of
megawatts (MW). At the end of 2009, worldwide nameplate capacity of wind-powered generators was 159
gigawatts (GW). (38) Energy production was 340 TWh or about 2% of worldwide electricity usage (38) and is
growing rapidly, having doubled in the past three years. Several countries have achieved relatively high levels
of wind power penetration (with large governmental subsidies), such as 20% of stationary electricity
production in Denmark, 14% in Portugal and Spain, 11% in Republic of Ireland, and 8% in Germany in 2009 (39)
As of May 2009, 80 countries around the world are using wind power on a commercial basis. (38)
Biomass Energy
Biomass energy is fuel, heat, or electricity produced from organic materials such as plants, residues, and
waste. These organic materials span several sources, including agriculture, forestry, primary and secondary
mill residues, urban waste, landfill gases, wastewater treatment plants, and dedicated energy crops. Biomass
energy takes many forms and can have a wide variety of applications ranging including direct firing or co-firing
with fossil fuels for electricity to produce electricity, direct firing of boiler for heating or combined heat and
power (CHP). Biomass may also be converted into a gas or liquid to be burned as fuel, particularly in transport
(40).
Hydrogen Energy
Hydrogen is the most abundant element on the Earth. Though it does not occur naturally as a gas it can be
separated from other elements and be burned as a fuel or converted into electricity with pure water as its
only emission (37). Hydrogen has been proposed as a solution for transport fuel and as a fuel for large scale
power plants, utilizing Carbon Capture and Sequestration with hydrogen derived from coal or natural gas (41).
20
Figure 7: Availability of Renewable Energy Compared to Current Energy Demand (German Federal Ministry for the Environment, 2007)
Geothermal Energy
Geothermal energy is produced from heat and hot water found within the earth. Geothermal energy can be
used to heat and cool air and water, as well as for electricity production. Geothermal resources can be at or
near the surface or miles deep in the earth. Geothermal systems move heat from these locations where it can
be used more efficiently for thermal or electrical energy applications. Geothermal systems include heat
pumps (GHPs) that use the ground, groundwater, or surface water as a heat source or heat sink as well as
direct-use applications that use hot water directly for space conditioning or process heat. Geothermal energy
may also be used to fuel utility scale power plants to generate electricity by leveraging heat from geothermal
resources to drive turbines (42).
Hydropower and Ocean Energy
Hydropower refers to various forms of renewable energy harnessed from the flow of water. Hydropower
dams generate electricity by harnessing the kinetic power of moving water with turbines. Oceanic forms of
energy include tidal power, tidal stream power and wave power. Tidal power harnesses the tides in a bay or
estuary with turbines that capture water entering and escaping the tidal barrage. Tidal stream generators
draw energy from currents in much the same way that wind generators do by capturing the flow of water with
turbines (43). Wave power harnesses power from ocean surface wave motion using floating devices or by
capturing the displaced by waves in hollow concrete structures. Using these three technologies, electricity can
be generated (44).
21
Smart Grid Systems
Today’s electricity ‘grids’ – the network of electricity transmission stations and power lines that bring
electricity from power providers to consumers – were with technology that has been around for more than a
half-century – decades before the integrated circuit made things like laptops, iPhones and mp3s integral parts
of our lives. Whereas electronic and digital products have evolved greatly in sophistication and efficiency, the
power grid remains clumsy, inefficient and difficult to manage. With power producers unable to communicate
effectively with customers, it is difficult to introduce more effective way buying, selling and managing
electricity.
The ‘smart grid’ concept aims to solve this by harnessing the communicating power of information technology
with national electricity distribution. By installing smart meters capable of communicating with the source of
energy in their homes and business, consumers can better monitor their energy use against the price of
energy at any time of day. Smart grid technology does this by using uses information technologies to improve
how electricity travels from power plants to consumers and allowing them to interact with the grid. A smarter
grid will enable many benefits, including improved response to power demand, more intelligent management
of outages, better integration of renewable forms of energy, and the storage of electricity.
Up and down the electric power system, the Smart Grid will generate billions of data points from thousands of
system devices and hundreds of thousands of consumers. What makes this grid "smart" is the ability to sense,
monitor, and, in some cases, control (automatically or remotely) how the system operates or behaves under a
given set of conditions. In its most basic form, implementation of a smarter grid is adding intelligence to all
areas of the electric power system to optimize our use of electricity
.
Figure 8: Smart Grid: A Smart Power Grid incorporates information and communications technology into
every aspect of electricity generation, delivery and consumption in order to minimize environmental
impact, enhance markets, improve reliability and service, reduce costs and improve efficiency Source:
Electric Power Research Institute (http://www.smartgrid.epri.com/)
22
Electric Vehicles (EV)
Electric vehicles are propelled by electric motors that derive power from rechargeable battery packs. Electric
vehicles offer a number of advantages over traditional internal combustion engines (ICEs). The motors in
electric vehicles are far more efficient than combustion engines as they convert over 75% of the chemical
energy from the batteries to power the wheels. Internal combustion engines (ICEs) convert a mere 20% of the
energy from gasoline. They also emit no exhaust from burning fuel. When powered with electricity from clean
energy sources. Importantly, electric vehicles do not rely on foreign oil and help reduce energy dependence.
Since electricity is a domestic energy source.
Currently, a number of barriers stand in the way of large-scale EV deployment, notably the significant battery
and driving range challenges. Most EVs can only go about 100–200 miles before recharging their batteries
while gasoline vehicles can go over 300 miles before refueling. Fully recharging the battery pack can take 4 to
8 hours and even a "quick charge" to 80% capacity can take 30 min. The batteries are also costly and bulky (45).
Future R&D and demonstration projects will be needed in order to help this technology become more mature.
For the moment, plug-in hybrid cars, which combine traditional combustion engines with battery back-up and
power generation are hitting the market and will help to increase fuel efficiency and save consumers at the
pump.
District Heating and Cooling
District Heating and Cooling (DHC) is an established technology that has proven to be a significant asset in
Greenhouse Gas (GHG)reduction. DHC involves the use of steam, hot water, or chilled water generated in a
centralized plant and transported to multiple other buildings, sometimes an entire town or community via an
underground pipeline system. DHC offers a highly reliable, efficient, cost-effective way to heat and cool
building without on-site boilers, furnaces, chillers, or air conditioners. (46). When combined with Combined
Heat and Power (CHP) technology to recapture heat that would otherwise be lost in the production of electric
power DHC can offer an ideal solution. DHC can also utilize biomass or biogas fuels and waste in order to
reduce carbon emissions and minimize resource depletion. Several countries such as Denmark are already
supplying urban centers with heat from waste burning CHP plants. (47).
Energy and Climate Laws in the US and Europe: Divergent Paths
Laws and policies promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency take very different shape and form in the
United States and European Union, with the US taking a decentralized ‘bottom up’ approach as the EU takes a
centralized ‘top down’ approach (48). This divergence is reflective of the different nature of governance
between the two polities as well as divergent political cultures, economic and legal institutions and resources.
While the US has generated far-reaching legislation on various environmental and energy matters, climate
change remains a highly controversial issue, leaving representatives in Congress vulnerable to a host of
interest groups vying for influence over the drafting of national legislation. American resistance toward non-
market based solutions as well as fears over the impact of increased costs for energy have hampered progress
on a national energy bill. In the EU, a unique system of ‘multi-layered governance’ allows for centralized
lawmaking on energy and climate matters that are implemented on the national level by member states.
23
More ‘statist’ countries, like Germany or Denmark, have been able to implement highly centralized policies
that have had significant impacts on their national energy portfolios. While Europe has continued to ratchet
up its ambition at the supranational level, the US continues on a very federal path with individual states taking
the initiative with their own policies.
US Climate and Clean Energy Policies
While the US has been slow to develop far reaching legislation at the national level a great amount of activity
can be seen at the state and local level. Numerous states such as California, Iowa, Nevada, Vermont and New
York, have been tailoring their state laws in ways to encourage greater adoption of clean energy and energy
efficiency for a decade or more (49) (50). Furthermore, individual communities, such as Gainesville Florida, or San
Francisco are taking extra steps beyond state requirements to respond to residents’ concerns about climate
change and the need to reduce carbon emissions. Combined, these policies and programs create a complex
yet effective patchworkvi of action that is has led to dividends locally, investments in new businesses and
increased options for energy consumers (51).
National Policies and Programs for Clean Energy Technologies
Though individual states have served as the primary driver of US clean energy policies, the US federal
government offers significant incentives to businesses and individuals through federal tax credits, loan
guarantees, grants, funding for research and development and national standards for transportation. These
policies received a significant boost in 2009, as the Obama Administration and US Congress chose to boost
incentives for clean energy deployment through extensions of corporate tax credits and funding from the US
stimulus package. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act over
A key piece of federal legislation that has helped boost recent investments into clean energy businesses and
increased solar, wind, geothermal biomass energy installations is the federal renewable electricity production
tax credit (PTC). The PTC is a per-kilowatt-hour tax credit for power generated by renewable energy
technologies that was originally introduced in 1992 and renewed and expanded numerous times, most
recently in February 2009. Under the PTC, companies that generate wind, solar, geothermal, and “closed-
loop”vii bio-energy are eligible for a 2.1 2.1-cent per kilowatt-hour (kWh) benefit for the first ten years of a
renewable energy facility's operation. Other technologies receive a reduced credit of 1.0 cent per kWh (52). In
2009, the credit was adapted in order to allow buyers of renewable energy technology to take a grant from
the US Treasury, in lieu of the tax credit. This change served to significantly boost the number of businesses
and individuals claiming the credit, as it allowed them to circumvent the rather shaky tax-credit equity market
that had dried up during the economic crisis. The PTC can be applied to federal tax liabilities dating from the
previous year and can be carried forward up to 20 years
Another significant federal incentive, the federal Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC) is an incentive
that reduces federal income taxes for qualified tax-paying owners based on the amount investment in
renewable energy projects. This credit is earned once the renewable energy system is placed into service and
allows businesses and individuals to offset upfront investments in projects and provide an incentive to deploy
vi According to the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency, there are over 2200 distinct state programs promoting clean energy technology. The
scope of this analysis does not permit an exhaustive discussion of these programs. vii
Not exposed to air.
24
capital-intensive technologies, such as more costly solar photovoltaic systems and fuel cells. The ITC was
expanded significantly in 2009 and provides a premium credit to solar, geothermal and fuel cell technologies.
As with the PTC, the ITC can be applied to federal tax liabilities dating from the previous year and can be
carried forward up to 20 years (53).
Beyond federal tax credits to companies and individuals, the federal government provides significant support
to renewable energy investors with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee program. This
program is of significant importance, as it provides investor security to banks and other lenders by providing
federal backing for massive clean energy projects allaying fears of borrower default (54). Initiated in 2005, the
program allows the DOE to issue loan guarantees for projects employ in renewable energy and energy
efficiency technologies, plug-in hybrid vehicles and power transmission (54). The loan guarantee program has
been authorized to offer more than $10 billion in loan guarantees. These guarantee target the commercial
use of innovative technologies rather than energy research, development, or demonstration programs.
Manufacturing projects, stand-alone projects, and large-scale integration projects that combine renewable
energy, energy efficiency and transmission technologies are eligible for billions of dollars under the program.
In 2009, the program was allotted $8.5 billion in funding, with the stimulus bill (ARRA) expanding funding by
$2.5 billion (54).
In addition to the loan guarantee program, the DOE is a leading force in funding R&D on new and novel energy
and energy efficiency technologies. The lead division for this innovation is the Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Program (EERE), which works to enhance energy efficiency and productivity and accelerate
clean technologies to the marketplace (55). From its headquarters in Washington, DC the EERE division oversees
deployment and diffusion projects across the country and works collaboratively other organizations as well as
DOE research labs to develop and implement codes, standards, rules and regulations for clean energy and
energy efficiency (55). EERE identifies market barriers interfering with the widespread adoption of these
technologies and helps formulate solutions. EERE also helps promote education and workforce development
to increase awareness about the benefits of clean energy and energy-efficient technologies. The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or "Recovery Act," provides a significant boost to the projects at EERE
by awarding $16.8 billion to its programs and initiatives. This funding is now being released to research
centers, universities and clean tech countries across the nation.
US Regional Cooperation on Climate
Outside of actions by national and state leaders, regional coordination provides another important dimension
to the complex American energy and climate scene. Currently in US, three major regional initiatives have been
established to create a market-based ‘cap and trade’ system for carbon emissions from utilities. As advocates
of clean energy await the potential for a national ‘cap and trade’ system and federal requirements for
renewable energy in the power sector, these regional accords are making strong headway. Recognizing the
trans-boundary nature of greenhouse gas emissions and the shared responsibility states have for the quality of
their citizens’ health and environment, progressive states have opted to move ahead when national leaders
are deadlocked.
The first of these regional cooperative systems to be established was the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
(RGGI), is a cooperative effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont to cap and will reduce CO2 emissions from
electricity by 10 percent by 2018 (56). On the US west coast, the Western Climate Initiative or WCI is an initiative
25
of US states and Canadian provinces along the western rim of North America aiming to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 15% from 2005 levels by 2020 (57). The first phase of this plan will be implemented on January 1,
2012, followed three years later by a broader cap on carbon emissions in 2015. Both the RGGI and WCI utilize
a system of CO2 allowances and auctions to trade these credits in a free-market based system. Like its coastal
peers, the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord is a regional agreement by six governors of states in
the US Midwest and the Premier of one Manitoba to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Established by the
Midwestern Governors Association, the Midwest Accord will establish greenhouse gas reduction targets and
time frames, develop a market-based and multi-sector cap-and-trade mechanism, establish a system to enable
tracking, management, and crediting for entities that reduce emissions (58) (59).
While the primary objective of these regional cooperation schemes is to reduce greenhouse gas gases, they
also play an important role in exchanging experiences and best practices on clean energy deployment in
individual states and in paving the path for a potential national ‘cap and trade’ bill. Through regular forums
and meetings, these regions are aiming to increase the effectiveness and impact of their policies. In May,
2010, these three regional initiatives joined forces through a cooperative effort to share experiences in the
design and implementation of regional cap-and-trade program and to inform federal decision makers
currently working on national climate change policy and explore the potential for further collaboration among
the programs in the future. Together the three regional programs encompass 23 U.S. states and four
Canadian Province, accounting for over half of the U.S. population and half of Canada’s greenhouse gas
emissions (60).
States – Leading US Clean Energy Policies
As legislators in Washington continue to debate various proposals for strict national green-house gas
emissions caps, individual states are already using the constitutional powers reserved to them to adopt
forward thinking and progressive clean energy laws. In fact, many states already have over three decades of
experience in tailoring such legislation and have increasingly added new and more effective elements to their
existing portfolio of laws. Through a combination of various legislative tools including renewable portfolio
standards (RPS)viii, business and personal tax credits and deductions and other programs, states are providing
incentives to consumers and requirements and guidelines to utilities in order to increase the share of clean
energy in their state energy portfolios. Combined with participation in the regional ‘cap-and-trade’ initiatives
outlined above, these state-level efforts
One of the most effective and common policy mechanisms utilized by states is the renewable portfolio
standard (RPS). An RPS is a market based mechanism for the American Wind Energy Association in 1996 that
obliges supply companies or consumers to purchase a specific amount of electricity from renewable energy
sources. The goal of the RPS is to minimize the costs of increasing renewable energy capacity through
competition to fulfill obligations. In order to facilitate this market mechanism, energy providers may purchase
certificates (renewable energy certificates), which may also be bought and sold freely on the market. By
purchasing such a certificate, a utility can certify that a portion of the electricity that it has produced or
purchased is from verified renewable energy sources. Funds from the purchase of such certificates can be
used by renewable energy producers to cover the higher cost of their production process. By increasing the
required portion of renewable over time -- the RPS can put the electricity industry on a path toward increasing
sustainability.
viii
RPS policies may also be described as ‘renewable electricity standard’ or a renewable energy quota or obligation mechanism.
26
Currently, 29 states and the District of Columbia have RPS schemes. While not having strict requirements, a
further 7 states of goals. California, for instance has a RPS target of 33% renewable energy by 2020. Texas has
a goal of 5,880 megawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2015 and Minnesota has a target of 25% by 2025.
Some states, such as New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland include more specific targets for certain
renewable energy sources, such as solar electricity, solar heating, wind and . Many states, such as Colorado,
Missouri, and Arizona offer additional credits for renewable energy produced within the state, rather than
purchased through renewable energy credit markets or for smaller scale projects that may otherwise face
difficulty financing their operation (61). Though various proposals for a national RPS have been raised in
congress, it has not been determined how such legislation might impact RPS models at the state level.
Another popular policy mechanism employed by states is the tax credit or tax deduction. These credits may
be offered to individuals (personal income tax credits and deductions) or to corporations as corporate tax
credits, deduction and exemptions. These credits aim to reduce the expense of purchasing and installing
renewable energy or energy efficiency systems and equipment. There is frequently a maximum limit on the
dollar amount of the credit or deduction. The credits may also be earned through the construction of energy
efficient, ‘green buildings’ and may also be used to support the manufacture of renewable energy systems or
equipment, or energy efficiency equipment (62).
Additional measures used by individual states in the US include ‘net metering’, efficiency standards for
buildings and transport, rebates, biofuel policies and public benefit funds. Net metering is a policy that
requires power providers to purchase excess electricity that is not used on-site by a renewable energy
producer, sometimes at a set premium rate per kilowatt hour. This policy is made possible through the use of
so-called ‘smart meters’ that are able to gauge power flowing from the electricity grid as well as back into it.
Efficiency standards for buildings and transport set a minimum level of efficiency for things like building
insulation and windows, heating and cooling systems and miles-per-gallon for cars. California, the largest
market for automobiles in the US, has been a model example in the field of transport efficiency, having set the
standards prior to a national policy. Biofuel policies offer premium pricing to producers of ethanol and
biodiesel in order to encourage motorists to burn cleaner fuels. In order to achieve a goal of replacing 10
percent of fuel needs with ethanol Minnesota instituted a producer payment program of 20¢/gallon for small,
in-state producers. Finally, public benefit funds (PBFs) offer financial support for renewable energy, energy
efficiency and low-income energy programs through a surcharge on electricity consumption. PBFs commonly
support rebate programs, loan programs, research and development, and energy education programs (63).
Local Governments – Sustainable Grassroots Efforts
As US States provide the political momentum for the America’s clean energy transformation, a number of local
communities have passed laws and ordinances that go a step further by providing for locally tailored rules,
programs and institutions to fight climate change and provide sustainable energy to their residents. Working
together with municipal utilities and local authorities, communities from California to Vermont are building on
top of efforts by state and national legislators by drafting local rules to encourage residents to invest in clean
energy and adopt low-carbon and sustainable consumer habits. These efforts are reaping important benefits
for clean energy companies as well as for the health and wellbeing of citizens.
Gainesville, Florida offers a unique example of a local community taking extra steps to harness the states
abundant solar resources. The city of Gainesville established a local ‘feed-in tariff’ program in early 2009 that
offers solar energy producers a premium rate for electric power derived from photovoltaic installations.
27
Under the terms of the program, these electricity producers will receive a premium rate for each kilowatt hour
of energy between 26¢ and 32¢, depending on the size and location of the installation. Modeled after similar
programs in Europe (outlined below), solar energy producers receive this rate through a 20 year fixed contract
The Gainesville program was the first feed-in tariff in the United States and has already been fully subscribed
through 2016. (64).
San Francisco voters have also expressed their strong local support for solar energy by approving a proposition
to allow the city to issue $100 million in revenue bonds to finance enough renewable energy to supply about
25 percent of the city government's needs. With the program, San Francisco aims to become the largest single
producer of solar energy in the U.S. San Francisco voters have also allowed the city to issue other bonds for
renewable energy projects in the future without their approval at the ballot box. The goal is to have 10-12
megawatts of new solar energy and 30 megawatts of wind energy online in a year or two (65).
In 2004, Residents in Washington, DC took action to confront local air pollution and to encourage the use of
hybrid cars with a local law that makes it more expensive to own and drive vehicles consumer high-amounts of
gas. Under the new Act, owners of hybrid and other alternative fuel vehicles are not required to pay a local
excise tax and their vehicle registration fee is cut in half. To discourage use of heavy passenger vehicles, such
as SUVs, owners must pay an increased excise tax of 8% (up from 7%) and higher registration fee. Thus, an
owner whose SUV costs $60,000 would pay an excise tax of $4.800 (an increase of $600) while the owner of a
hybrid vehicle would pay nothing. By encouraging residents to purchase hybrid vehicles, Washington is
providing support and visibility to fuel efficient car models while protecting residents health (66).
Also aiming at more efficient, low-emission transport, communities in southern California launched a major
effort to promote plug-in hybrid cars. The regional initiative launched in December 2009 is helping to ease the
transition to electric vehicles by bringing together cities, utilities, automakers and others in the Southern
California region to actively to support and build the necessary infrastructure for the commercial launch of
electric vehicles. The collaborative includes: Southern California Edison, Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power, Southern California Public Power Authority, California Electric Transportation Coalition, Electric Power
Research Institute, South Coast AQMD, Nissan, GM, Ford, and the cities of Burbank, Los Angeles, Pasadena,
Santa Ana, and Santa Monica. (67) Recognizing the long-term benefits of plug-in hybrids as well as the
significant barriers presented to their deployment, Southern California is preparing for the future with needed
investments today. With current infrastructure heavily geared toward conventional, inefficient and polluting
combustion engine vehicles, this initiative will build a foundation for the rapid deployment of hybrid and fully
electric vehicles tomorrow.
EU Climate and Clean Energy Policies
These trends stand in contrast to the European Union where increasingly ambitious energy and climate
legislation originating at the EU level is being implemented by member states (48). In contrast to the US, the
European Union has not confronted significant barriers to legislating caps on carbon and establishing EU-wide
goals for clean energy as a percentage of its overall energy portfolio. With the EU Commission providing
guidance and initiating legislation, the European Council and European Parliament formulate the details of EU
28
legislation on climate and energy. EU legislation on climate and energy is issued in the form directives that
provide guidelines and targets for EU member states to achieve or face the consequence of sanctionix.
Energy is not a new issue for EU policymakers. In fact, energy issues were central to the formation of the
European Community in 1951 when the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the initial and less
elaborate incarnation of the EU was established. The ECSC played a key role in managing the coal and steel
production of France and Germany, thus aiming to prevent a repeat of the disastrous events of the Second
World War. With the 1973 oil crisis, the EU began to work more closely on the EU actively sought "to expand
the role of renewable in the EU energy mix". In 1973, the European Commission issued "Guidelines and
Priority Actions for Community Energy Policy," making note of the increasing world demand for energy and its
corresponding scarcity (68).
By the 1990s, with increasingly strong levels of European policy coordination, EU expansion and increasing
pressure to confront environmental issues related to energy, the EU the Commission released a Green Paper
entitled "Energy for the future: Renewable sources of energy", followed a year later with a White Paper urging
the formulation of a renewable energy directive (69). Following the Commissions initiation, a Directive of the
European Parliament and the Council on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the
internal electricity market was introduced and went into force in October 2001. The directive set the
requirement of all EU member states to increase the share of renewable electricity in their overall electricity
supply. The directive also set out targets for each Member amounting to a collective goal of 22 percent share
of renewable electricity sources by 2010. This requirement has been set for all new EU accession nations, and
applies now to all 27 EU nations.
The goals set out in the 2001 renewable energy sources directive have been further increased with the
approval of the 2009 EU Climate and Energy Package - a set of directives that outline new goals for renewable
energy, energy efficiency, and biofuels applicable to all 27 EU member states (70). This package outlines the so-
called “20-20-20 goals”: a 20% cut in emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020, compared with 1990 levels; a
20% increase in the share of renewables in the energy mix; and a 20% cut in energy consumption (71). These
ambitious goals are set out by a number of new directives.
These directives include a new EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) directive to reduce CO2 emissions from
energy intensive sectors. Taking effect in 2013 establishing, it will establish an EU wide cap on CO2 which will
decline each year to 2020 and beyond. The Renewables Directive, in addition to mandating an EU wide goal of
20% renewable energy, also sets every Member State a target of supplying 10% of transport fuel from
renewable sources by 2020. Finally, a Directive on the geological storage of CO2 outlines a regulatory
framework for the safe capture, transport and storage of carbon dioxide in the EU (70).
The new Renewable Energy Directive sets out a set of targets for individual countries - 'indicative trajectories',
- to ensure that each nation makes progress towards the 2020 targets. However these targets are not binding.
Each nation may decide upon its own 'mix' of renewables, allowing them to best harness their national
ix Adopted by the Council in conjunction with the European Parliament or by the Commission alone, a directive is addressed to the
Member States. Its main purpose is to align national legislation. A directive is binding on the Member States as to the result to be
achieved but leaves them the choice of the form and method they adopt to realise the Community objectives within the framework
of their internal legal order. If a directive has not been transposed into national legislation in a Member State, if it has been
transposed incompletely or if there is a delay in transposing it, citizens can directly invoke the directive in question before the
national courts (234).
29
resources and domestic industry. Should a member state fail to meets its targets, they must take appropriate
measures of face infringement proceedings (72). Member states will be able to harness their own national
support schemes to those of other EU states and to import 'physical' renewable energy from third-country
sources, such as large solar farms in North Africa. As with the ETS, trading scheme allowing member states to
sell or trade excess renewables credits to another, based on statistical values, will be permitted. However
these so-called 'statistical transfers' may take place only if the member state has reached its interim
renewables targets.
In implementing the EU legislation to achieve the “20-20-20” goals, member states must find effective and
efficient policy mechanism at the national level to ensure results. Through a mix of government coordination,
financial incentives, low-interest loans and research grants, EU nations are aiming to quickly increase energy
savings and clean energy production. Leading the pack are countries Germany, Spain and Denmark where a
combination of ambitious national policies, a strong knowledge base and rich clean energy resources are
leading accelerating the clean energy share in their national energy portfolios.
Germany, Spain and Denmark – European Clean Energy Success Stories
Germany
As the world’s fifth largest economy, Germany is a dominant player in the global clean energy arena. Germany
has led global growth in wind and solar production by making use of its rich industrial infrastructure as well as
its strong history of high-skill, precision manufacturing. Driven by its highly effective Feed-In-Tariff law for
renewable energy, Germany has dramatically expanded its onshore wind energy capacity while investing
heavily in domestic solar energy installation. Despite a national solar energy resource on par with the US state
of Alaska, Germany has become the global leader in installed solar energy capacity with over 9.8 GW of
installed solar PV in 2009 - 47 percent of existing global solar PV capacity.
Like many nations, Germany was hit hard by the 1973 OPEC
embargo and sought ways to expand its domestic energy
supply. In addition to investments in nuclear energy
Germany initiated a research program wind turbine
development in 1974. Its large-scale wind plant project
(GROWIAN) produced what was then the largest wind
turbine ever before built. Experiments with new wind
technologies continued through the late 1970s and early 80s
before Germany decided to end the GROWIAN project in
1987 due to manufacturing and system integration problems
(73). Meanwhile, Germany constructed a number of nuclear
reactors throughout the 1970s and 1980s. This ended
abruptly with the nuclear catastrophe of Chernobyl when
public opinion and political leadership shifted swiftly against
nuclear energy, resulting in a halt to nuclear plant
construction with the ultimate aim to phase out its use by
2022.
Figure 9: Solar Resource: United States - Spain - Germany
30
As a consequence, and due to the rising power of the German environmental movement and Green Party,
Germany once again aimed to rapidly expand renewable energy technologies. In 1991, Germany adopted a
federal Electricity Feed- In Law (StrEG) which has become the central national instrument for the promotion of
renewable energy in Germany. The law established a requirement for public utilities to purchase renewably-
generated power from wind, solar, hydro, biomass and landfill gas sources, on a yearly fixed rate basis, based
on the average revenue per kWh for energy. Specific rates were set for each type of technology depending on
plant size, with smaller plants receiving the higher subsidy level (74). The cost of this premium rate for
renewable energy producers is paid for by the electricity consumers, not by government funds, so the tariff is
not a subsidy in the conventional sense.
The Feed-In Law was successful in launching Germany’s wind power market throughout the 1990s, driving the
total national wind energy capacity to over 6 GW by 2000. The Feed-In law was complemented by other policy
instruments including nationally funded research programs and low interest loans subsidized by a domestic,
state-owned development bank, the Deutsche Ausgleichsbank. This provided badly needed funding for new
wind power development (74).
In 2000, the StrEG was updated and reformed with the introduction of the Renewable Energy Law (EEG). The
new EEG aimed to double Germany’s renewable energy capacity from 1997 levels by 2010 with the ultimate
goal to reach a minimum of 12.5% electricity from renewable sources. In contrast to the StrEG, the EEG’s tariff
rate was based, not on the average utility revenue per kWh sold, but on a set of fixed, regressive rates based
on technology and plant size. Low-cost renewable energy producers, such as wind farms, were compensated
at a lower rate than higher-cost producers, such as solar PV. The EEG also set a requirement for electric grid
operators to purchase power from local producers and set up a national equalization scheme to minimize
regional differences in electricity production so that all national regions share an equal share of costs (74).
Figure 10: Development of electricity generation from renewable energies in Germany since 1990
As a result of the EEG, Germany has managed to rapidly transform its energy sector and set itself on a path
toward 100% clean energy usage by 2050 (75). As illustrated by Figure 7, Germany has doubled its share of
renewable energy time and time again. Renewable energy now accounts for over 10 % of Germany’s total
energy consumption and over 16 % of gross electricity consumption (76). By 2008, Germany had already
overshot its goal of 12.5%, three years ahead of schedule (77). Due to such rapid growth in Germany’s clean
energy sector, over 340,000 people are employed directly or indirectly by clean energy companies in Germany
a doubling of clean energy jobs from 2004 (78).
31
In the most recent revision of Germany’s Renewable Energy Law, the government set for a goal to have
renewable energies account for at least 30 % of electricity provision by 2020. The Germany government also
expanded the scope of its clean energy policies by adopting the the Act on the Promotion of Renewable
Energies in the Heat Sector (EEWärmeG) in January 2009. This law specifies that the renewable energies’
share of heat supply is to grow to 14 % by 2020. In addition a “Biomass Action Plan” aims to increase biofuels’
share of fuel use to 12%.
Thanks to Germany’s aggressive and effective clean energy promotion, renewable energy may become cost
competitive with conventional energy in Germany by 2020. While wind energy continues to dominate
Germany’s renewable electricity production, other renewable sources such as hydropower and biomass
continue to gain a larger market share.
Today, renewable energy supplies 6.5% of all Germany’s energy consumption (3), 8.8 % of final heat
consumption and 5.5 % of fuel demand. In 2009 20 billion euros were invested into renewable energy in
Germany with over 16 billion euros value added through the operation of renewable energy installations (76).
Because of its generous support measures, Germany has attracted significant foreign investment in solar PV
and is home to Q-cells, the world’s largest manufacturer of PV cells. Germany is also the European Union
leader in biofuel production and solar thermal heat is quickly gaining market share.
Of all renewable sources, biomass represents the greatest share providing
7.2% of all end consumer energy. Wind energy is the second largest
renewable source. In 2009, wind energy generated nearly 40,000 gigawatt
hours of energy accounting for over 6% percent of Germany’s final electric
power consumption. Hydropower was third among renewable energy
technologies producing 3.3 % of Germany’s electricity (76). Solar PV
installations provide a modest 1% of electricity, though it receives the most
public support of any renewable energy technology in Germany. In 2010,
Germany remains number one in the world in grid-connected installed PV
systems.
Thanks to the success of the Germany Renewable Energy Law, Germany has been able to meet its CO2
emissions reduction targets set out by the Kyoto Protocol. In 2008, Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions were
recorded at lowest levels since 1990, almost 12 million tons lower than 2008 and a drop of 1.2 percent.
Inspired by such progress Germany has become a major advocate of strong clean energy goals and targets at
the EU level and has also developed strong public diplomacy efforts to engage other nations. It supports a
network to promote the implementation of feed-in-tariff laws and engages local and state level stakeholders
in the United States with the Transatlantic Climate Bridge, a program launched by the Social Democratic
Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier in 2008 (79).
In addition to the driving force of its Renewable Energy Law, a number of other measures have helped to
accelerate the rapid expansion of clean energy in Germany. In 2006, the Federal Ministry of Economics and
Technology, established its High-Tech Strategy in order to spark funding for innovation, setting aside $1.67
billion of clean tech investments for 2009 and 2010. The program has helped to build strategic alliances
between the public and private sector to create new and more efficient renewable energy technologies and
has helped encourage startups.
Figure 11: Solar PV Existing Capacity, Top
Six Countries 2009
32
The German development bank, KfW, is a federal institution that has helped provides to $1.45 million of
equity financing to promising technology companies through its High-Tech Start-Ups Fund. Already the fund
has helped to support 177 budding technology companies. Further funding for clean technology companies is
provided by the ERP Innovation Program, another public-private partnership that supports innovative small- to
medium-sized businesses in research and development projects with loans up to $7.24 million secured by
theby KfW and the federal government. Through these and other mechanisms, Germany has been able to
leverage $14.5 billion in investment between 2006 and 2009 (80).
Spain
Like Germany, Spain has established itself on the international stage as clean energy leader. By investing in
innovation, manufacturing, deployment, and job retraining, Spain is aiming to harness its natural resources to
drive green growth (80). Historically dependent on imports to cover its energy needs, Spain also aims to achieve
a greater level of energy independence by harnessing rich wind and solar resources and by reducing waste
through efficiency and conservation measures. After establishing a national feed-in tariff for renewable
energy technologies in 1994, Spain has followed Germany’s lead by providing premium rates to encourage
private investments into clean energy solutions.
As in Germany, Spain’s renewable energy law provides premium tariff rates to producers of wind, hydro, solar
biomass, biogas and solar thermal electricity. Spain also provides low-interest loans that cover up to 80% of
the reference costs of renewable energy projects. A fuel tax exemption supports the rapid deployment of
biofuels and Spain’s Technical Buildings Code mandates that 30-70% of the domestic hot water needs be
covered by solar thermal energy, a requirement of all new buildings and renovations. (81) As of 2010, over 30 %
of Spain’s energy was derived from renewable power. Several Spanish regions are already aiming to cover
their energy needs with 100 percent renewable power. Two, Castilla y León and Galicia—are poised to reach
70% very soon.
As of 2010, Spain’s clean energy sector employs 200,000 people, including over 36,000 direct jobs in wind
energy, 31,300 direct jobs in solar PV and 3,500 direct jobs in solar thermal energy, an area of great promise
for Spain. (82). With continued support for clean energy development Spain aims to generate 20% of its energy
from renewable sources, reduce energy intensity by 20% and lower CO2 emissions by 10% from current levels
by 2020 (83)
With its large agricultural sector, biomass is a key renewable energy sources for Spain and the nation has set
out aggressive targets for the use of biofuels and bio-based heating and power. In 2008, Spain was the EU’s
third largest bioethanol producer in the in 2008, and the seventh largest biodiesel producer providing 1.9
percent of Spain’s transport energy needs were covered with biofuels.
Wind is Spain’s second largest clean energy sector, but one with great economic promise. Spain currently
ranks fourth in the world in wind energy installments, behind the United States, China and Germany (3). Since
the 1990s, deployment of wind energy has increased drastically in Spain, from 114 MW in 1995 to over 25 GW
of installed capacity in 2009. Over 16,546 MW of wind turbines were installed at the end of 2008 and another
1,500 MW in 2009. By harnessing the rich wind resources with strong government policies to support wind, a
number of wind manufacturing companies have emerged in Spain, including Iberdrola and Acciona. (80) Most
recently, Spain approved a map of locations along its 8,000 kilometers of coastline for potential offshore wind
33
projects, offering major companies the opportunity to bid for their development. Proposed projects amount
to nearly 6 GW of additional capacity (84) .
Incredibly, in November 2010, due to strong wind gusts, Spain broke a record by generating 70% of its power
from clean sources, 40% from wind - illustrating the promising potential of clean energy to cover the energy
needs of a nation.
In addition to wind, Spain has become a powerhouse in solar energy. In 2008, Spain’s photovoltaic solar
installations surged with an addition of 2.5 GW of capacity, reflecting close to half of the world's total of
5.5GW. This brought Spain up to number two in the world for installed solar PV with 3.5 GW, second only to
Germany’s 5.3 GW. The surge was largely explained by a miscalculation of the solar feed-in tariff rate, and is
somewhat of a fluke (85). This led to explosive growth which could not be repeated due to significant caps that
were introduced in 2009.
Beyond its robust government support for renewable energy technologies, Spain is highly focused on energy
efficiency and conservation. The Spanish Energy Efficiency Strategy 2004-2012 reduced Spain’s energy
consumption per unit of GDP, or energy intensity, by more than 11.3 between 2005 and 2008—after a long
period with increased consumption.54
Investments into renewable energy have proven to be an economic engine for Spain. A 2009 report by the
Spanish Wind Power Association (AEE) estimates that 35% of Spain’s GDP was directly from the Wind Power
Sector and predicted that in 2010 it would represent 42% of the GDP based on current trends (84). In 2007, the
Spanish wind industry included over 50 companies and generated approximately $5.73 billion in business
volume. (84)
Reflecting the power of the Spanish clean energy sector, the Spanish company Iberdrola recently purchased
the American energy company Energy East, in what was the largest industrial acquisition ever by a Spanish
company in the United States. Iberdrola was already the 2nd largest wind power company in the US, operating
2,000 MW of installations before the merger. Iberdrola is projected to increase this capacity to 6,900 MW of
by 2012. In 2009 Iberdrola had a net profit at €2,824 million increasing its profits by 6.3% to €6,815 million
while its manufacturing output grew by 1% in 2009 to 143,000 GWh, due primarily to the increase in wind
power generation. Wind power activities now represent 15% of the Iberdrola’s total output. Iberdrola
currently manages 25,705 MW of wind installations in Spain, 6,818 MW in the UK, 5,536 MW in Latin America,
and 1,083 MW in the rest of the world (86).
Denmark
Denmark is heralded worldwide for its pioneering approach to clean energy policy and innovation. Beginning
with a fundamental shift in its energy strategy in the aftermath of the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, Denmark
emerged as a pioneer in wind energy and has become a leader on the EU level, urging ever more ambitious
policies to deploy cleaner energy technologies to reduce carbon emissions. Denmark is now a world leader in
wind turbine manufacturing with significant export markets abroad and has developed a deep expertise in
offshore wind farms that is sought after around the world. As the share of electricity from wind and other
renewable sources has grown in Denmark, the nation has taken on the challenge of integrating these variable
energy sources with conventional power. Today, Denmark generates a quarter of its own electricity from
wind (87), the majority of its renewable energy supply and a large share of its total energy needs.
34
Like many other nations rocked by the OPEC embargo outlined above, Denmark responded to the crisis by
looking for ways to ensure the security of its national energy supply through energy resource diversification.
Prior to the crisis, Denmark had become 100 % dependent on imported oil for its electricity and heating &
cooling needs (88) and 90% of its total energy needs (88). This highly asymmetrical relationship left Denmark
vulnerable to external factors and energy disruptions. In 1976 Denmark responded by establishing its first
national energy plan, outlining plans to explore oil and gas in its North Sea territory and identifying renewable
energy, energy efficiency & conservation, and reduced consumption as important steps towards a greener and
more secure energy supply (89) (90). Denmark also began to shift from a focus on imported oil, to use of coal-
fired electricity plants and began using highly-efficient combined heat and power (CHP) plants to recoup lost
energy and to provide district heating and cooling to entire communitiesx.
As part of Denmark’s energy transition, wind energy emerged as a promising solution to diversify its energy by
harnessing the large coastline and consistent wind gusts in the country. A comprehensive energy research and
development program was launched in 1976 with renewable energy sources, including wind energy, as areas
for potential growth (90). The program sponsored efforts to plan and construct of large (more than 500
kilowatts) wind turbines and helped spark new initiatives to establish wind turbine standards and certification
procedures for turbine producers. A wind turbine testing facility was established in 1978 and in 1979 a
subsidy equal to 30% of the investment costs of a wind turbine was offered to those seeking to invest in the
increasingly lucrative wind energy sector. This subsidy was funded primarily via a nation-wide tax on
electricity consumption initiated in 1977. Due to the subsidy, 200—300 turbines were deployed yearly
following its implementation (90).
Rapid growth in Denmark’s renewable energy sector continued throughout the 1980s and early 1990s,
spurred by the governing Social Democratic Party, which saw the promotion of clean, alternative energy as a
national imperative. With the 1983 “Alternative Energy Plan 83”, renewable energy electricity producers
were provided a subsidy equivalent to the electricity tax. In 1984, Danish utilities and wind turbine
associations agreed on long-term wind power purchases at a set tariff. And in 1985, the government
committed utilities to purchase an additional 100MW of wind power, an agreement that was achieved by
1992 (91). This goal was set again in 1990 and doubled in 1996, for a total capacity goal of 400 MW of wind
energy by the year 2000. In 1998 a new order was issued for 750 MW of offshore wind power (91).
While Denmark made vast progress in wind and other alternative energy technologies during this period, the
shift from imported oil to use of coal for combined heat and power plants resulted in rather high per-capita
rate greenhouse gas emissions. Under pressure from environmental groups and citizens increasingly
concerned about climate change, Denmark chose to tie its national energy goals to climate targets. With
nuclear power outlawed by a 1988 parliamentary resolution (92), Danes chose to pursue heavy investments into
renewable energy as a solution to these emissions problem. In 1990 Denmark introduced sustainable energy
plan “Energy 2000” with proposals for increased energy efficiency, combined heat and power plants
(cogeneration), renewable energy and a goal of 20% CO2 reduction by 2005 from 1988 level. The plan also
introduced national CO2 taxes to help fund new clean energy initiatives (93). The plan was updated in 1996 with
the energy plan “Energy 21” that included a target of 1% additional renewable energy in the energy supply
annually and projection of 50% electricity consumption from wind energy by 2030.
x Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Combined heat and power (CHP), also known as cogeneration, provides thermal energy for buildings or processes while
simultaneously generating part of the electricity needed at the site. It is the sequential production of two forms of useful energy from a single fuel source. A CHP
system recovers heat from electricity generation for productive uses such as heating, cooling, dehumidification, and other processes. This heat is usually wasted at
conventional power plants. (228)
35
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, fueled by generous research support, new design innovations, and a
national government set on energy transformation, Danish wind energy companies expanded to new export
markets while building ever cheaper and ever larger wind turbines. Leapfrogging over older manufacturers,
newer companies harnessed of economies by selling cheaper turbines in emerging clean energy markets like
California. Wind turbine exports to California from Denmark leaped to over 2,000 annually by 1985.
Meanwhile the number of people employed by the Danish turbine manufacturers increased drastically from
300 to about 2,500 between 1982 and 1985 as the Danish market share in California increased from 0% to
65% (94).
One wind energy manufacturer, Vestas, emerged from this period as a
major global player in the clean energy sector that has seen nearly
exponential growth in its global staff and manufacturing activity. The
‘success story’ of Vestas is remarkable. Founded in 1945 by Peder
Hansen as the West-Jutlandish steel technology, Vestas initially
manufactured household appliances, moving its focus to agricultural
equipment and industrial equipment in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1979, it
made its first foray into the wind turbine industry, though it nearly went
bankrupt in 1986 after the Danish government halved the tax rebate for
wind turbines, leaving Vestas with a massive overstock. Fortunately,
global demand for the turbines kept the fledgling company afloat.
In 2003, West-Jutlandish merged with the Danish wind turbine manufacturer NEG Micon to create the largest
wind turbine manufacturer in the world, under the banner of Vestas Wind Systems. By consistently expanding
its exports, lowering the cost of manufacturing in a global values chain and drastically increasing the scale of
its turbines, Vestas has become a major global company with manufacturing plants in Denmark, Germany,
India, Italy, Britain, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Australia, China and the United States. Today, Vestas employs
more than 20,000 employees globally reflecting a staggering growth rate for a global manufacturer (Figure 6)
(95). In 2009, Vestas weathered the storm of the global financial crisis, increasing its revenue by 10 per cent to
EUR 6.6bn, increasing its earnings by 28 percent at EUR 856m (95).
The Vestas story would not have been possible without the concerted efforts of the Danish public and
government and without the furtive policy frameworks that Denmark put in place to seek new sustainable
forms of energy. These measures have launched Denmark into a front-runner position in the global race a
global clean energy economy. With Denmark’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in 2002 and promotion of
ever stronger climate and energy legislation at the EU level, the Danish clean energy sector has prospered and
become a central pillar of the national economy. By 1997, Danish companies like Vestas were dominating the
world market for wind turbines, with 58.5% of global sales. By 2001 over 100,000 Danish families belonged to
wind turbine cooperatives (90). And between 1998 and 2008 Danish energy technology exports more than
tripled and today make up around 11% of total Danish goods exports. In 2008, Danish energy technology
exports reached over 11 billion USD in 2008 (87).
As a result of highly effective policies to promote clean energy deployment, Denmark now has the lowest
energy consumption per unit of GDP in EU and highest contribution to electricity from new renewable in the
EU. Pushed by the etraordinary effort by the national government and citizens to increase energy efficiency
and massive investments in renewable energy sources, Denmark has achieved this without sacrificing its
national economy. Effectively de-coupling economic growth and energy consumption since 1980, Denmark
Figure 12: Growth in Vestas global employees
from 1986 to 2008
36
has continued economic growth while reducing per-capita energy consumption (96). According to official
statistics, the Danish economy has grown, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP), since 1980 by 78
percent, at prices of the year 2000. During the same period, the country’s energy consumption remained
practically the same. This means that the Danish economy’s energy intensity - the ratio of energy
consumption to GDP - has fallen by 40 percent. Danish GHGE, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), has also
decreased substantially, by some 20 percent. According to the International Energy Agency, the Danish CO2
intensity of GDP is the third lowest among European Union (EU) members, only after Sweden and France (97).
Despite lower than expected results from 2009, Vestas has a bright future in Europe and beyond. According to
Vestas corporate communications, thus far in 2010 Vestas has signed agreements for the production of over
5GW of wind turbine capacity in countries around the world. From Brazil to India and China, Vestas will be
contributing to some of the largest and most powerful wind park projects around the world (98). China
represents an area of serious growth and demand for Vestas
Denmark aims to one day income 100% independent of fossil fuels. By 2020, it aims to generate 30%
renewable energy in final energy consumption and 10% renewable energy in its transport sector. With these
efforts, it is aiming for a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with 2005 by 2020. If current
progress is any indication, this Scandinavian powerhouse is well on its way to reaching these ambitious goals.
37
International Climate and Clean Energy Efforts
International coordination efforts are of central importance in the fight against climate change and in
coordinating the exchange of knowledge and expertise on energy. Providing global rules and institutions to
reduce green-house gas emissions, coordinating trade rules to reduce market barriers and providing forums
for debate and discussion, intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations, the International
Renewable Energy Agency and the G20 and bilateral coordination forums such as the Transatlantic Energy
Council offer essential channels of communication and coordination as the world’s energy resources become
increasingly scarce and citizens call for more sustainable forms of power. The United States and Europe are
lead players in these organizations and have a unique responsibility to help guide the international community
to a clean energy future. Possessing the resources, knowledge and political power to change course, the
transatlantic community must embrace the efforts being made by international organizations and bolster
collaboration by placing greater emphasis on these forums and projects.
UN
The United Nations has played a lead role in international negotiations on climate change. The United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change was the product a major United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro from 3
to 14 June 1992. The treaty aims to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that
would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system by setting an overall framework
for intergovernmental efforts. The treaty recognizes that the climate system as a shared resource whose
stability is impacted by industrial and other emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Under
the treaty, members gather and share information on greenhouse gas emissions, national policies and best
practices launch national strategies for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to expected
impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries cooperate in
preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change (99).
The Convention entered into force on 21 March 1994 and served as the basis for the formulation of the Kyoto
Protocol, which was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005.
The Kyoto Protocol which established a global agreement to reduce national CO2 emissions from 1990 levels
by setting binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These targets amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over
the five-year period 2008-2012. While the UNFCCC encouraged industrialized nations to stabilize their
emissions, the Kyoto Protocol commits them to do so.
The Kyoto Protocol took notice of the fact that developed countries are principally responsible for today’s high
levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity and thus
placed a a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of “common but differentiated
responsibilities.”
38
To achieve its aims the Kyoto Protocol relies primarily on measures established by member nations, but also
offered additional ways to meet targets with market-based mechanisms including an emissions trading
scheme and the use of a Clean development mechanism (CDM) and Joint implementation (JI) measures, which
allow developed nations to assist developing nations with clean energy and reforestation projects (100). The
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), allows a country with an emission-reduction or emission-limitation
commitment under the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Party) to implement an emission-reduction project in
developing countries, which might include funding for renewable energy or energy efficient infrastructure. By
supporting such project, developing countries earn certified emission reduction (CER) credits enabling them to
meet their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. These credits may then be traded and sold in the global
carbon credits market.
Since the CDM was put into place in 2006, it has been successful in stimulating investment in over 2099
projects which, if implemented, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 220 million ton CO2 equivalent
per year. An additional 4,000 projects, which could reduce CO2 emissions by over 2.5 billion tons until the end
of 2012 are awaiting certification. Currently, the fastest-growing project types are renewable energy and
energy efficiency and by 2012, the largest potential for production of CERs are estimated in China (52% of
total CERs) and India (16%). CERs produced in Latin America and the Caribbean make up 15% of the potential
total, with Brazil as the largest producer in the region (7%) (101).
Through the UNFCCC process and the ongoing negotiations for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which is set
to expire in 2012, the UN provides one of the most important forums for the international community to
confront the rapidly emerging threat of irreversible climate change. Through their efforts, the US and EU can
help to engage the global community and particularly the emerging economies of Brazil, India, and China in
order to find consensus on a global cap on carbon. Such an achievement would send needed price signals to
global investors that the international community is serious about the need to transition to a low-carbon
economy. This is, of course, easier said than done. Yet, the leadership of US President Barack Obama the
resilience of US clean energy companies may provide the needed impetus to pass national legislation in the US
and to push for consensus at a future COP meeting.
International Energy Agency (IEA)
Established in the wake of the 1973-74 oil crisis, the IEA is an intergovernmental organization that advises its
23 member countries on balanced energy policy making, including matters of energy security, economic
development and environmental protection. Based in Paris, it focuses on climate change policies, market
reform, energy technology collaboration and outreach to developing nations and OPEC countries (102). While
the IEA’s historical workload has placed a heavy emphasis on the sustainable supply of conventional fossil
fuels like oil, coal and natural gas, it has begun to focus intensively on renewable energy, providing forecasts
and technology roadmaps for wind, solar photovoltaic and concentrated solar energy.
In fact, the IEA’s has recently urged its member nations to maintain strong and sustained support for
renewable energy, warning that without deliberate efforts, western nations would begin to see large increases
in the price of conventional fuels surging demand by China. Such demand could drive the price of oil from an
average price of $60 in 2009 to $113 in current dollars by 2035, according the IEA forecasts. The agency said
renewables can increase their share of world energy output from 7 percent to 14 percent, an amount it found
“collectively inadequate to meet the Copenhagen Accord’s overall goal of holding the global temperature
increase to below 2°C.” (103)
39
In addition to supporting renewables, the IEA urges member governments to discontinue their subsidies for
fossil fuels in order to enhance energy security, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollution and
bring economic benefits.
In light of these efforts, the IEA will play a key role in supporting US and European governments in a clean
energy transformation. Combined with efforts by the International Renewable Energy Agency and other
relevant bodies, the IEA will serve as a critical source for information, forecasts and policy coordination. It will
be ever more important that the transatlantic community heed its advice.
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)
Nearly 20 years in the making, the International Renewable Energy Agency was formally established in 2009
and will serve a key institution to facilitate access to renewable energy and energy efficiency information and
as a center to exchange experiences, best practices and lessons from policy frameworks, projects, and
financing (104) (105). IRENA will allows member nations access to a wealth of technical, economic and renewable
resource potential data, allowing them to better tailor their own national and regional programs using the
collective wisdom and knowledge of experienced nations (105). The establishment of IRENA signals a logical and
significant step in the development of global energy governance. Complementing the work of the
International Atomic Energy Agency and the International Energy Agency, which have historically focused on
conventional and nuclear fuels, IRENA will focus solely on clean energy and provide a better resourced
institution to drive global clean energy efforts.
The IRENA was officially established in Bonn on January 26, 2009 at the Founding Conference, which convened
125 delegations from the 75 nations that signed the Agency’s Statute. The Statute officially entered into force
on July 8, 2010 and to date 149 countries and the European Union have signed the agency’s statute. These
include countries in 48 African, 38 European, 35 Asian, 17 American and 10 Australia/Oceania States. Forty
two nations have ratified its treaty.
IRENA is headquartered in Abu-Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates, and will host an innovation and technology
center in Bonn, Germany, and an office dedicated to liaising with the United Nations and other international in
Vienna, Austria. Driven by this institutional framework, IRENA aims to work closely with the UN programs and
agencies such as the UN University, UNESCO, the World Bank and GEF, UNIDO, UNDP, UNEP and the WTO in
the areas of education and training, financing, access to energy, potential studies and trade.
At the third session of the Preparatory Commission in January 2010 Member States adopted the 2010 work
program and budget. This meeting also outlined the key priorities for the coming year including the launch of
the first advisory programs and pilot projects, the establishment of secretarial and governance structures, and
hiring of experts at Agency. It was agreed that The 2010 budget for IRENA’s headquarters will amount to USD
13.69 million, with USD 678,000 provisioned for the Liaison Office in Vienna and USD 2.4 million for the Centre
for Innovation and Technology in Bonn. These modest figures will allow for the initial hiring of staff and
operational costs.
IRENA’s work program will focus in its first year on building a network with organizations, stakeholders and
experts in renewable energy. This will include building a database and institutional links to build information
and exchange structures with main partners working in renewable energy such as UN-Energy, the European
Union and the IEA, as well as with relevant NGOs such as REEEP and REN21. IRENA will also focus on
40
knowledge management in the field of renewable energy including a comprehensive review of existing
information and data, launching a policy database, including policy instruments and best practices on its
website and a publication series on policy challenges. (106)
While IRENA has faced some particular difficulties in its first year, including the unexpected resignation of its
Director General Helene Pelosse and a budget shortfall, it is expected that new leadership will bring an
injection of momentum and improved management by the new Interim Director General, Mr. Adnan Amin, a
Kenyan development economist and seasoned UN official (107). Already, IRENA started its first program with
the Kingdom of Tonga, a group of South Pacific islands heavily reliant on imported diesel for electricity. Under
IRENA’s guidance Tonga developed a Energy Road Map (TERM) for 2010-2020, that hopes to reduce diesel
importation. This will be accomplished through a range of appropriate renewable technologies, including wind
and solar, as well as innovative efficiencies.
IRENA will require continued support and engagement from the United States and Europe in order to build the
capacity and structures that it will need to perform its incredibly important function for the global clean
energy transformation. In addition to assuring its financial wellbeing, the US and EU should provide
contributions of expertise and political support as IRENA begins to stand on its own while building out its body
of programs and resources.
Group of 20 (G20)
As the official successor of the Group of 8 (G8), which, like the IEA was established following the 1973 oil crisis
to better coordinate policy efforts between industrialized democracies, the G20 brings together the heads of
state and government of 20 industrialized democracies to better coordinate matters of mutual economic
interest to its members. Comprising the United States, European Union, and other nations, the G-20 was
established in 1999 to promote open and constructive discussion between industrial and emerging-market
countries on key issues related to global economic stability and to the strengthen the international financial
architecture. The G20 reflects two-thirds of the global population and 90 percent of world (108).
In recent years, G20 has focused its attention increasingly on matters of energy as they related to global
economic development. At the 2009 Pittsburgh G20 Summit leaders focused on the urgent need to transition
the world to cleaner energy and to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Under US President Barack Obama’s
urging, G20 leaders committed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies over the medium-term and expanding access
to renewable energy to the world’s poorest nations (109). While this agreement contained to concrete, binding
elements, it reflects the consensus of the world’s major economies that they must work harder to reduce their
carbon footprint while maintaining economic growth.
During the 2010 G20 Summit in Seoul this November, energy is once again expected to be an important
agenda item. South Korean leaders are expected to put green growth high on the agenda, focusing on
continued international efforts on global economic recovery as well as the need to fight climate change (110).
Going forward, it will be important for the United States and Europe to build on their leadership within the
G20 to engage emerging economies and build consensus on a global clean energy transformation. In light of
US President Barack Obama’s remarks at recent G20 Summits, this forum could prove to be a very important
body for policy coordination between developed and lesser developed nations, while circumventing the very
41
difficult gridlock that has entrapped the UNFCCC process. However lacking political commitments and clear
binding agreements, the G20 could remain a rhetorical forum. It must not be allowed to.
Major Economies Forum
Like the G20, the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) offers great potential to promote
more robust international cooperation on clean energy matters in a forum outside of the UNFCCC process.
The MEF was launched under the initiative of US President Barack Obama in March 2009 and aims to facilitate
candid dialogue between 17 major developed and developing economies in order to develop concrete
initiatives and joint ventures to promote clean energy use and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. MEF
members include Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia,
Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Prior to the December 2009 COP15 meeting in Copenhagen, the MEF played a very important role by initiating
a series of Technology Action Plans for clean energy. The MEF launched the Technology Action Plans for the
Global Partnership covering Advanced Vehicles; Bioenergy; Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage; Energy
Efficiency – Buildings; Energy Efficiency – Industrial Sector; High-Efficiency, Low-Emissions Coal; Marine
Energy; Smart Grids; Solar Energy; and Wind Energy. With the Technology Action Plans as a basis, the MEF
aims to increase and coordinate public sector investments in research, development, and demonstration of
transformational clean energy technologies. These efforts will be assisted by the International Energy Agency,
which has developed a preliminary analysis titled, "Global Gaps in Clean Energy Research, Development, and
Demonstration (RD&D)."
In addition to the Technology Action Plans, the MEF will regularly host a Clean Energy Ministerial bringing
together ministers and stakeholders from around the world to collaborate on policies and programs that
accelerate the world's transition to clean energy. The first such meeting was held in Washington DC on 19-20.
At the meeting governments discussed the outcome of the Technology Action Plan initiative and presented
ideas and actions for the global deployment of clean energy. The second Clean Energy Ministerial will be held
in the United Arab Emirates in April 2011.
With its central focus on the global deployment of clean energy and a broad membership spanning the
Atlantic and the globe, the MEF offers an invaluable opportunity for the US and Europe to engage each other
and other nations and to formulate concrete plans. With involvement from important actors in the US
Department of Energy and Department of State and contributions from Energy and Environmental Ministers,
the MEF has all the right people in the room to provide invaluable ideas and concrete measures for a global
clean energy transformation. By coordinating efforts with the IEA, IRENA, and the initiatives of the G20 and
national governments the MEF may prove to be a central forum in a global clean energy transformation. But,
like the G20, it must aim to produce concrete commitments and outcomes.
Climate Technology Fund
Financial support is a critical element for the large scale deployment of clean energy technologies. In addition
to obstacles presented by cheaper conventional fuels, large scale clean energy and energy efficiency projects
42
are massive investments, requiring long-term planning and financial risk. Recognizing this, the international
community established a Clean Technology Fund to drive clean energy development in poorer nations. These
funds are channeled through multilateral and regional development banks including the African Development
Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Inter-American
Development Bank, and World Bank Group. With their support, 44 developing countries are eligible for
funding to support clean technology, sustainable management of forests, and increased energy access to
renewable energy (111).
The Clean Technology Fund provides needed support to governments in developing nations to transform their
energy and climate policies through long-term planning and projects. The CTF helps fund important
demonstration projects to scale up renewable energy, energy efficiency, and urban transport infrastructure. It
also helps to leverage private sector funding. In fact, for every CTF dollar 8.4 dollars are leveraged from other
sources (111). Such support has become critically important has governments around the world struggle to
recover from the global economic crisis.
Thus far, CTF Investment Plans totaling $4.5 billion have been introduced in 13 nations including Colombia,
Egypt, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Morocco, Philippines, South Arica, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and
Vietnam. Additionally, projects for large scale Concentrated Solar Power have been approved for CTF support
in Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia (111).
The CTF has already gotten off to a strong start and, while not making headlines, will be leading to very
concrete outcomes including major clean energy demonstration projects and support for developing nations
as they formulate long term clean energy strategy. The CTF is poised to make a major contribution in
resources rich developing nations in Northern Africa and the Middle East. By supporting the rapid deployment
of concentrated solar power and wind installations, the CTF will be able to help these nations leapfrog over
more developed countries.
Going forward, it will be important that the US and Europe maintain financial and political support for the CTF
and its work. Additionally, it will be important to utilize multilateral development bank funds and foreign
assistance resources in order to leverage more funding for CTF projects. In light of the current global financial
crisis, home governments may be tempted to forego or cut such important programs. By emphasizing the
importance of supporting developing nations and the vast demand that they will have for energy in the future,
the transatlantic community can not only provide critical assistance, it will be able to open new markets for
high-tech companies and build long-term economic growth.
US-EU Summit
With policies increasingly formulated at the ‘transnational’ level in the EU, the regular meetings between the
US President and the European Council Presidency have grown increasingly important for the coordination of
US and European policies. Initiated in 1995, the US-EU summits have covered key areas of mutual US and
European interest, including matters of financial, economic, security and political concern. With the
establishment of the Transatlantic Economic Council in 2007 and the Transatlantic Energy Council in 2009,
energy has moved increasingly to the fore of transatlantic relations. The annual US-EU Summit is thus a key
forum for the Transatlantic community to forge more robust cooperation on clean energy deployment and to
initiate important new programs that will allow the US and Europe to help drive a global clean energy
economy.
43
Energy was an issue high on the agenda of the 2009 US-EU Summit in Washington DC. In the lead up to the
2009 UNFCCC COP 15 meeting, US President Barack Obama discussed ways to coordinate the US and EU
position on climate change going into the meeting. In addition to addressing legislative challenges in the US
Congress, leaders discussed the need to better coordinate research and policies on clean energy and agreed to
establish a permanent forum with the Transatlantic Energy Council.
Energy is once again expected to be a key issue at the 2010 US-EU summit. Once again, it will be important
that the US and EU use the opportunity to work toward a coordinated position in the UNFCC process and to
support the efforts of the Transatlantic Energy Council. The US and Europe should continue to push forth an
agenda that reduces barriers for clean energy companies to invest in the transatlantic marketplace and
coordinates regulation of key clean energy products, including clean energy and energy efficiency production
components and systems, electric vehicles, and fuels. Promoting the mutual recognition of standards and
programs, such as EnergyStar, can have tremendous mutual benefits of the US and Europe.
Transatlantic Energy Council
The Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) was established in 2007 with the aim to promote greater economic
integration and promote prosperity in the Atlantic community. Established by an agreement signed on 30
April 2007 at the White House by US President George W. Bush, EU Council President Angela Merkel (also
German Chancellor) and EU Commission President José Manuel Barroso, the TEC offers a particularly effective
tool to address mutual economic concerns, such as energy security and the role of the transatlantic market in
driving a clean energy transformation. The TEC received input from a Group of Advisers, consisting of the Co-
chairs of three transatlantic dialogues, the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue, Transatlantic Consumer
Dialogue and Transatlantic Business Dialogue. But as a rather new institution, the TEC’s great potential has not
yet fully materialized, so the importance of its role and potential must be reemphasized.
Since its first meeting in 2007, the TEC has focused primarily on the implementation of a Framework for
Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration, including ways to coordinate compatible regulatory approaches
to goods and services and to remove barriers to mutual investment. This process has built on top efforts of
the EU-US High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum established at the 2005 EU-US Summit (112). In 2009, the
TEC took a bold step into the area of energy by establishing a new Transatlantic Energy Council in November
2009 with the aim to deepen the EU- US bilateral cooperation on energy security, complementing the work of
the Transatlantic Economic Council on energy (113). The Transatlantic Energy Council aims to increase
transatlantic cooperation on energy policy and technology research and to promote discussion of global
energy security and the need to switch to low-carbon energy sources. The establishment of the Transatlantic
Energy Council reflects the growing urgency of energy related matters as well as the increasing relevance of
energy coordination for the United States and Europe.
On November 5, 2009, the Transatlantic Energy Council held its first meeting chaired by US Secretary of
Energy Steven Chu and Swedish Minister for Enterprise and Energy Maud Olofsson (114). In the discussion,
which included high level government representatives from across the US and Europe, the group agreed to
focus on ways to coordinate programs and policies on energy efficiency, renewable sources of energy the
clean energy market. They also addressed the need to better integrate the business sector in these issues and
the need to promote scientific cooperation to foster development of low carbon energy technologies (114).
44
The Transatlantic Energy Council is building on previous transatlantic cooperation that began at the 2006 EU
Presidential Summit in June 2006 in Vienna. Initiated by this meeting the US and EU have been working to
coordinate energy labeling of products the EU-US 'Energy Star' agreement. The forum has also been used to
discuss technological cooperation on hydrogen energy, the ITER project for nuclear fusion form an important
part of joint efforts in the field. (115)
Going forward the TEC might be able to establish far more far reaching programs and efforts, including
potential joint US-EU demonstration projects for emerging clean energy technology; permanent liaisons and
exchange programs for US and EU energy officials; increased funding for training and educational programs
that focus on clean energy success stories in the US and EU; joint ventures to build harmonized clean energy
infrastructure such as electric car powering stations, smart grid and smart metering technology and electricity
transport. The TEC should also explore the potential role that the US might plan in contributing to and
learning from the EU’s Mediterranean Solar Plan – a process that could provide key lessons as the US seeks to
harness the rich solar and wind resources of its desert Southwest.
Transatlantic Business Dialogue
The Transatlantic Business Dialogue presents a particularly valuable forum with great promise to advise the
Transatlantic Community on a clean energy transformation. Established in 1995 under the guidance of former
U.S. Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown, the TABD was intended to encourage public and civil society input to
fostering a more closely integrated transatlantic marketplace. The dialogue system, which includes separate
dialogues for consumers, labor, environment and business, is led by an Executive Board and works in close
cooperation with its conveners in the U.S. Administration, the European Commission and the Presidency of
the European Council (116). The Dialogue is funded exclusively by the membership companies and regularly
convenes meetings of the executive leadership of some of the largest companies in the world and has
provided highly influential
Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue
Like the Transatlantic Business Dialogue, the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue plays an important consultative
role for the Transatlantic Economic Council and provides a key channel of communication for consumers on
both sides of the Atlantic. Launched in 1998, The TACD serves as the official forum of US and EU consumer
organizations to develop joint consumer policy recommendations to the US government and European Union
and to promote the consumer interest in EU and US policy making. The TACD provides input to EU and US
political negotiations and issues statements and recommendations on important food, information society,
and intellectual property and trade issues.
In light of the very direct role that energy plays for consumers, both as an input into goods and as a
commodity, the TACD offers an opportunity to focus on consumer needs and to consider ways the that the US
and EU can work together to provide benefits to their publics. The TACD has already begun to provide valuable
input on matters related to clean energy, issuing a set of comments on the EU-US Innovation Dialogue in
January 2010. In its comments, the TACD encouraged the TEC to find ways to promote and harness energy
efficient technologies, focusing on production and consumption-driven solutions. In particular, TACD
recommended a joint approach to the funding of research into energy saving; cooperation on the
development of ambitious energy efficiency and eco-design standards; the sharing of best practice and
45
research regarding the use of policies and incentives to promote change in consumer behavior; exchange best
practices on how to connect effectively with consumers, such as learning from branding, psychology,
communications and social marketing to engage with them more effectively on the up-take of energy efficient
technologies; coordinated work on facilitating consumer up-take through consumer information policies such
as labeling; and cooperation regarding the use of public procurement to stimulate green innovation.
This set of comments offers a number of good ideas and illustrates the importance of such forums. In a set of
comments issued in September 2010, the TACD once again addressed the issue of clean energy innovation,
urging the Transatlantic Energy Council to address methodologies for measuring product lifecycle impacts
(including indicators on carbon and water foot-printing); to facilitate exchange of information and best
practice regarding the most effective labeling schemes that would allow consumers to make product and
lifestyle choices to manage their overall environmental footprint; and to cooperate on initiatives to remove
the least sustainable products from the shelves.
Moving forward, it will important that the contributions of the TACD and the TABD be included in the work of
the Transatlantic Economic and Energy Councils. With a direct ear to the needs of consumers, the end users
of energy, the TACD and TACB will play invaluable roles. It will be important that these forums continue to
follow and comment on developments in the energy sector and to continue to advocate for the interests of
consumers. Issues such as standards and labeling can have a very large impact on consumer decisions and
could help to reduce waste while encouraging the consumption of more sustainable products.
NGOs and Civil Society
In addition to these important government and intergovernmental forums, a host of non-governmental
organizations have been urging greater transatlantic cooperation and coordination on clean energy.
Institutions ranging from the German Heinrich Böll Foundation to the Atlantic Council and Center for
American Progress have released publications, coordinated events and exchange programs and provided
invaluable suggestions to policy makers on ways to better coordinate a clean energy transformation by
adopting best practices and sustained support programs.
In the field of renewable energy, the REN21 network plays a critical role in convening experts from around the
world in order to assess the status of global clean energy deployment. REN21 is the global policy network that
and forum for international leadership on renewable energy that seeks to bolster policy development for the
rapid expansion of renewable energies in developing and industrialized economies. It brings together
representatives from governments, international institutions, non-governmental organizations, industry
associations, and other partnerships and initiatives. Through its annual conferences, interactive website and
annual Global Status Report, REN21 provides an important forum for clean energy experts and crucial data for
policy makers and investors. Going forward it will be important the American policy makers and leaders
engage in the REN21 network, particularly as it ramps up its cooperation with the newly established IRENA.
Complementing the efforts of REN21, the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP) is a
global partnership aims to reduce barriers limiting the uptake of renewable energy and energy efficiency
technologies, by focusing on emerging markets and developing countries. It was conceived in 2002 at the
World Summit on Sustainable Development and is now hosted in Vienna, Austria with support from member
46
governments around the world. REEEP works with governments, municipalities, financial institutions and
industry to initiate and fund projects to assisting governments in creating favorable regulatory and policy
conditions for clean energy and energy efficiency and to promote innovative finance and business models.
Through a web of expert-oriented sub-networks, including the Energy Efficiency Coalition (EEC), the
Sustainable Energy Regulation Network (SERN) and Renewable Energy and International Law (REIL), REEEP
helps to promote the exchange of knowledge and best practices. It also operates a search engine for the green
energy world (reegle) including a clean energy blog. REEEP also works with governments in emerging markets
to help formulate laws and legislation in support of renewable energy or energy efficiency.
As members of REEEP, US and EU nations must continue to support its important work by providing invaluable
assistance to emerging nations, allowing them to develop policy frameworks that suit their needs and that will
allow for rapid clean energy deployment. They US and EU can also help to better coordinate the overlapping
efforts of REN21, REEP, IRENA and the IEA by identifying a clear division of labor and opportunities for synergy.
In light of the commitments made by the G20, IRENA and the UNFCCC, the importance of organizations like
REEEP cannot be underestimated.
A highly influential NGO with a deep network bridging the Atlantic, the Atlantic Council of the United States,
has provided some very important recommendations to business and policy leaders through its Energy and
Environment at Transatlantic Relations programs. Of note are a set of recommendations outlined in its report:
“A Shared Vision for Energy and Climate Change” issued in 2009. The report urges a strong government role
to create a holistic framework with input from industry and the public for addressing the multiple challenges
associated with transforming the energy industry. The report urges a set of coordinated communications
across the transatlantic community to help overcome growing resistance to new facilities and infrastructure,
and reluctance to absorb higher per unit energy costs. The Council encourages the creation of “Track II
workshops” bringing together business, NGOs and government experts have the potential to strengthen
significantly the understanding of issues, broaden the political will, and provide governments with useful
information on energy issues (117).
In a subsequent report, “Transatlantic Cooperation for Sustainable Energy Security”, the Atlantic Council urges
the development and commercialization of renewable energy technologies, as well as the coordination and
acceleration of demonstration projects for carbon capture and storage through US-EU cooperation. The
report emphasizes the need to quickly develop and deploy of safe, lower-cost nuclear power, and to focus on
nuclear waste and site issues, and international regulation. The report argues for the establishment of a
Transatlantic Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment Fund to support joint research
on new technologies, as well as the creation of a transportation initiative to cut oil consumption in
transportation in half by 2030. In addition, the report argues that the US and EU assess the future availability
of oil and gas supplies and develop options, including alternatives. It urges the IEA to expand its membership
base (118).
These suggestions are well complemented by the work of the Heinrich Boell Foundation, which recently
released a report titled “Clean Energy Jobs for the U.S. Midwest -Lessons Learned from the German Success
Story of Low Carbon Growth”. In the report, author and German clean energy expert Christine Wörlen
presented her finding from a study tour of the US Midwest. Based on her observations in Germany and in the
US, Wörlen argues the case for long term sustained growth based on clean energy deployment. Citing the
German Experience, she notes that due to their nature renewable energies require more local labor than
47
other energy industries and could present an opportunity for Midwestern job creation in manufacturing
renewable energy plants, as well as in installing and operating those plants, jobs that remain local in the long
and that cannot be outsourced. She also notes that the US needs state-wide standard offer programs (aka
“Feed-In Tariffs”) as implemented in Germany in order to set price signals to clean energy investors (119).
Through its Energy [R]evolution series, Greenpeace has provided some important thinking on a global clean
energy transformation, making the case that a complete shift to a low-carbon global energy is an urgent need
in order to avoid catastrophic climate change. Looking at the various financial, infrastructure and policy
needs, the Energy [R]evolution series offers some convincing arguments for governments to make a
concerted, holistic plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuel energy and to rapidly scale up clean energy
projects and infrastructure, including smart-grid, electric vehicles and large scale wind, solar, geothermal and (120) (121) (122) According to Greenpeace’s Energy Revolution Scenario – without considering the costs of CO2
emissions – the cost of the transformation will amount to a maximum of 6 billion € yearly in 2020. These
additional costs will begin to decrease after 2020, and by 2050 the annual costs of electricity supply will be 10
billion €/a below the electricity supply costs in a business as usual scenario.
The Energy Revolution Scenario notes that renewable energies will make a growing contribution to the global
economy by providing 700,000 jobs in electricity generation from renewable energy sources alone. Comprising
‘direct’ effects related to electricity generation and the production of investment goods as well as ‘indirect’
effects covering the upstream production chain. It’s anticipated that, under the Energy Revolution Scenario, in
2050 more than 90% of the jobs related to electricity generation will be linked renewable energies.
To make this transformation possible, Greenpeace urges the phasing out of all subsidies for fossil fuels and
nuclear energy and the internalization of external costs. It argues for legally binding targets for renewable
energy, the provision of defined and stable returns for investors and guaranteed and priority access to the grid
for clean energy producers. To tackle the growth of emerging economies, Greenpeace argues for a
‘decarburization’ track, engaging rapidly industrializing countries such as China, India and Brazil in major with
programs to ‘decarbonize’ their economies. The report argues for an early start and rapid conclusion of a
post-Kyoto treaty for the period of 2013-2017 that contains absolute emission-reduction caps for
industrialized countries and increasing them to at least 30% overall reductions for the third commitment
period 2018-2022 (120).
While its aims are ambitious and it’s rejection of nuclear energy highly controversial, Greenpeace continues to
play an important role in tenaciously advocating to national governments about the need to for concerted u-
turn from current fossil fuel dependence. Policy makers should listen closely to the expertise of its staff and
the arguments they make on behalf of the environment.
Like Greenpeace, the World Resources Institute based in Washington, DC, has issued a number of highly
influential reports on the global clean energy economy. Focusing on thematic and regional areas, WRI offers
some of the best thinking on a range of climate and energy issues such as CCS technology, transformation of
public transport infrastructure, Tax incentives for clean energy, Chinese policy on clean carbon, global
financing for clean technologies, the US solar PV market and a host of other issues. As a central institution in
the field of energy and climate, WRI has a will continue to play a critical role in international coordination and
knowledge exchange on clean energy (123).
48
Finally, while officially funded and managed by the German Foreign Office, the Transatlantic Climate Bridge is
a flagship initiative that is reaping tangible benefits by promoting closer cooperation and idea exchanges
between the German clean energy sector and regional stakeholders in the US (79). Originally intended as a
means to foster better German-US bilateral cooperation by circumventing the Bush Administration’s lack of
action on climate issues, the Transatlantic Climate Bridge has already lead to some very concrete outcomes.
In addition to organizing a number of important conferences, the Transatlantic Climate Bridge continues to
support a Transatlantic Renewable Energy Exchange, bringing talented young Americans to Germany to learn
first-hand from German experts and practitioners. This unique program has already provided an opportunity
for over 20 young Americans to meet and learn from Germans about their success in advancing renewable
energy (124) (125). The Climate Bridge has also been deeply engaged with leaders in Northern Virginia who are
aiming to develop an ambitious, long-term community energy plan that will borrow ideas from Germany
municipalities by decreasing energy consumption in buildings, promoting low-carbon technologies, increasing
use of sustainable transportation and us of district heating and cooling with CHP (126).
Organized cooperatively between the German Foreign Office and the German Environmental Ministry the
Transatlantic Climate Bridge has organized an exchange between US and German farmers, hosted
representatives from the US Governors Associations in Germany and has endorsed a number of reports by the
German Marshall Fund, Heinrich Böll Foundation and the Ecologic Institute.
These NGOs and initiatives provide the critical ‘grassroots’ thinking and advocacy that will be required to
implement a clean energy transformation ‘on the ground’. By convening leading experts, local and national
policy makers and by reaching out to the next generation of clean energy stakeholders, these organizations
and many others are playing very important roles on the ‘front lines’ of policy and market transformations.
Within these reports and programs are a wealth of invaluable information on best practices and convincing
arguments for urgent action. Many of these could be replicated and applied in new areas and regions and
many could use sustained support to continue their efforts.
To promote continued transatlantic cooperation on a clean energy transformation, these organizations must
be provided with a voice and support by policy makers and private citizens alike. Heeding their words and
guided by their advice, policy makers, business leaders, and students will be provided with the information
and tools they need to succeed.
Conclusions
In the face of the seemingly insurmountable obstacles presented by our faltering global economy and an
energy system that is entrenched in dangerous fossil fuel dependence, the prospects for a clean energy
transformation and recovery seem daunting. To avoid a 2 degree increase in atmospheric surface
temperatures, the global economy must attempt a drastic and rapid about turn away from fossil fuels and
toward more sustainable, secure and clean forms of energy. To do so will require levels of coordination and
cooperation that are unprecedented. The United States and Europe, by far the greatest historical culprits of
49
the earth’s greenhouse gas binge, must take bold and swift action and must do so in a harmonized and
coordinate fashion.
Representing the largest trade market in the world and holding some of the most influential positions in
intergovernmental organizations, the US and Europe hold the tools to make a significant impact by leading by
example and providing badly needed support to emerging economies, allowing them to circumvent the epic
error of fossil-fuel based development. Not only is this ecologically catastrophic, it is economically necessary.
As the world’s fossil fuel sources continue to be depleted, their prices and the cost to attain them will slip
increasingly out of reach. At the same time clean energy technologies will become increasingly affordable as
innovative businesses drive down their cost with new approaches and practices. But to do so, governments
and international organizations must lead the way by creating inviting markets and stable policy frameworks
for investment.
The tools for this transformation are already at hand. The challenge is no longer if this transformation is
possible, but when. It is a matter of investment in the right portfolio of clean technology solutions. From
geothermal energy to solar photovoltaic systems and smart grid integration clean technology companies are
offering the tools that nations need to kick their fossil fuel addictions. Sadly, these technologies have been
unable to compete with historically subsidized conventional fuels like coal and petroleum. This can only
change with a concerted global effort that is coordinated by the world’s wealthiest nations.
The US and Europe are already making good progress on this path, but efforts must be redoubled if the global
community is to avert a climatic disaster. Efforts by US states like California and Texas have shown that even
in the absence of global price on carbon or national renewable energy law, rapid deployment of renewable
energy technologies and green growth are possible. And through their national policies, European nations
such as Spain, Germany and Denmark have set first class examples of how to decouple economic growth and
energy consumption. The tremendous success of their policies, including the feed-in-tariff, soft loans to clean
energy projects and stiff low-carbon building codes, offer important lessons for the United States and other
emerging economies.
Drawing from these experiences and aiming to continue the rapid success of the European Union, the
transatlantic community must make use of all avenues to continue to push for an even faster advancement.
There is no time to spare. By continuing to focus on mutual interests and promoting even greater investments
into the transatlantic market the US and Europe can maintain their competitiveness in the global clean energy
market. In the face of rising competition from China and with new markets in India and Africa opening, now is
the time to act to ensure the US and European businesses have a chance to thrive in what is certain to be a
rapidly growing area of demand.
By ensuring that emerging institutions like the International Renewable Energy Agency, the Major Economies
and the Transatlantic Energy Forum are effective, the US and EU must invest the necessary time, resources
and guidance necessary for them to thrive. Alongside the efforts of existing institutions, like the International
Energy Agency, the UNFCCC and the G20, these institutions offer great promise to create a new global
institutional arrangement to better and more rapidly coordinate matters of clean energy deployment.
50
Through financial institutions like the German KfW or the Clean Technology Fund, the US and Europe can
provide badly needed seed money for innovative start-ups and large scale power plants to provide for future
energy needs.
Finally, the US and Europe must heed the advice and expertise of civil society actors, such as the Atlantic
Council and Greenpeace, who have offered up some of the best thinking and valuable road-maps to guide
policy makers toward a clean energy future. By offering opportunities for input from forums like the
Transatlantic Consumer and Business Dialogues and by fostering exchanges of experience and knowledge
through the Transatlantic Climate Bridge, stakeholders and policy makers in the US and Europe can better
learn from one another and empower private citizen to begin making a difference by advocating new
approaches in their communities, businesses and in their own careers.
Together the US and Europe hold a key to a clean energy future. By harnessing the power of clean energy
innovation and the powerful tools presented by a range of institutions, the transatlantic community can be on
its way to a cleaner, brighter and more sustainable future. There is no time to spare.
51
NOTES
1. John Vida, Allegra Stratton and Suzanne Goldenberg. Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure.
Gaurdian.Co.Uk. [Online] December 19, 2009. [Cited: August 27, 2010.]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal.
2. American Council on Renewable Energy. An Overview of the U.S. Renewable Energy Field in 2009. Washington :
American Council on Renewable Energy, 2009.
3. REN21. Renewables Global Status Report: 2010 Update. s.l. : Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
(GTZ) GmbH, 2010.
4. The Pew Charitible Trust. The Clean Energy Economy. s.l. : The Pew Charitible Trust, 2009.
5. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. World Population to 2300. World
Population to 2300. New York : United Nations, 2004.
6. Katherine Richardson, Will Steffen, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Joseph Alcamo, Terry Barker. Synthesis Report:
Climate Change - Global Risks, Challenges & Decision. 2. Copenhagen : University of Copenhagen, 2009.
7. Franz, Wendy E. The Development of an International Agenda for Climate Change: Connecting Science to Policy,
Discussion Paper E-97-07. Boston : Harvard University, 1997.
8. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Kyoto Protocol. Kyoto Protocol. 1997.
9. Obama, President Barack. Speech on the US Economy at George Mason University. January 8, 2009.
10. Sandalow, David. Freedom From Oil: How the Next President Can End the United States' Oil Addiction. s.l. : McGraw-
Hill, 2007.
11. Blake, John. How the Power of Oil Dogged Former President and Could Tar Obama. CNN. [Online] June 22, 2010.
[Cited: August 27, 2010.] http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/22/oil.presidents.obama/index.html.
12. Big Oil's White House Pipelines. Stone, Peter H. 14, 2001, National Journal, Vol. 33, p. 3.
13. Greenpeace USA. Koch Industries Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine. Washington, DC : Greenpeace USA,
2010.
14. Goldenberg, Suzanne. Barack Obama's key climate bill hit by $45m PR campaign. Barack Obama's key climate bill hit
by $45m PR campaign. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 27, 2010.]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/12/us-climate-bill-oil-gas.
15. Garber, Kent. Energy, Climate Bill Stalled in the Senate. US News and World Report. [Online] May 3, 2010. [Cited:
August 27, 2010.] http://politics.usnews.com/news/energy/articles/2010/05/03/energy-climate-bill-stalled-in-the-
senate.html.
16. Hamilton, Daniel S. and Quinlan, Joseph P. The Transatlantic Economy 2009: Annual Survey of Jobs, Trade, and
Investment Between the United States and Europe. s.l. : Center for Transatlantic Relations, Johns Hop, 2009.
52
17. Agarwala, Ramgopal. Towards a Global Compact for Managing Climate Change. Boston : Harvard University
Kennedy School of Government, 2008.
18. Lewis, Joanna I. Decoding China's Climate and Energy Policy Post-Cop. Washington, DC : German Marshall Fund,
2010.
19. Winter, Brian. China lashes out at U.S. at climate conference. USA Today. [Online] December 12, 2009. [Cited:
August 27, 2010.] http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2009-12-11-china-climate-
criticism_N.htm.
20. REN21. Renewables Global Status Report: 2009 Update. s.l. : Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
(GTZ) GmbH, 2009.
21. International Panel on Climate Change. Fourth Assessment Report. 2007.
22. Richardson, Katherine, et al., et al. Synthesis Report: Climate Change - Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions.
International Alliance of Research Universities and University of Copenhagen. Copenhagen : s.n., 2009. IPCC. 978-87-
90655-68-6.
23. McKinsey & Company. Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy. Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement
Cost Curve. January 2009.
24. McKinsey & Associates. The Carbon Productivity Challenge. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/Carbon_Productivity/slideshow/slideshow_6.asp.
25. Woolsey, James and Lugar, Senator Dick. The New Petroleum. Foreign Affairs. January/February 1999, Vol. 78, 1,
pp. 88-102.
26. The First Law of Petropolitics. Friedman, Thomas. 154, 2006, Foreign Affairs, pp. 28-37.
27. Friedman, T. Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America. s.l. : Farrar,
Straus and Giroux, 2008. 978-0374166854.
28. US Energy Information Administration. 25th Anniversary of the 1973 Oil Embargo. Energy Information
Administration. [Online] March 7, 2000. [Cited: November 1, 2010.]
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/anniversary.html.
29. Kissinger, Henry. Speech by Henry Kissinger at the IEA Ministerial. Speech by Henry Kissinger at the IEA Ministerial.
2009.
30. Scott, Richard. International Energy Agency - The First 20 Years Vol 2: Major Policies and Actions. Paris : International
Energy Agency, 1994.
31. Union of Concerned Scientists. Hidden Cost\ of Fossil Fuels. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/impacts/the-hidden-cost-of-fossil.html.
32. Swing, Brian. BP Spill Costs Raised to $33 Billion, Bernstein Says. Bloomberg. [Online] July 2010. [Cited: August 28,
2010.] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-07/bp-gulf-oil-spill-costs-raised-to-33-billion-on-oil-flows-bernstein-
says.html.
53
33. Derickson, Alan. Black Lung: Anatomy of a Public Health Disaster. 1. Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 1998.
34. Cnn.com. Mine accidents in the United States. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/06/mine.accidents.timeline/index.html.
35. Stern, Sir Nicholas. Stern Review on The Economics of Climate Change: Executive Summary. Treasury of the United
Kingdom. London : s.n., 2006.
36. Word Resources Intitute. Carbon Capture and Sequestration. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.wri.org/project/carbon-capture-sequestration.
37. National Renweable Energy Laboratory. Renewable Energy Basics. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.nrel.gov/learning/re_basics.html.
38. World Wind Energy Association. World Wind Energy Report 2009. Bonn : s.n., 2009.
39. US Department of Energy. Wind Powering America Update. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/filter_detail.asp?itemid=746.
40. —. Biomass Energy Resrources and Technologies. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/technologies/renewable_biomass.html.
41. Hydrogen Power Abu Dhabi. World’s first hydrogen power plant with CCS. [Online] 2010. [Cited: November 9, 2010.]
http://www.hydrogenenergy.com/details.aspx.
42. US Department of Energy. Geothermal Resources and Technologies. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.] 2010.
43. World Energy Council. Survey of Energy Resources 2007. [Online] 2007. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.worldenergy.org/publications/survey_of_energy_resources_2007/tidal_energy/754.asp.
44. —. Summary of Energy Resources 2007. [Online] 2007. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.worldenergy.org/publications/survey_of_energy_resources_2007/wave_energy/761.asp.
45. US Environmental Protection Agancy. Fueleconomy.gov. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml.
46. Energy Systems. District Heating & Cooling: Frequently Asked Questions. [Online] 2010. [Cited: November 9, 2010.]
http://www.esc-omaha.com/heating-and-cooling/faqs.aspx.
47. International Energy Agency. District Heating and Cooling. [Online] March 3, 2008. [Cited: November 9, 2020.]
http://www.iea-dhc.org/0305.html.
48. Schreuers, Miranda A., Selin, Henrik and VanDeveer, Stacy D., [ed.]. Transatlantic Environment and Energy Politics
(Global Environmental Governance). s.l. : Ashgate, 2009.
49. New Rules Project. Rules. Rules. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 27, 2010.] http://www.newrules.org/energy/rules.
50. North Carolina Solar Center. Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August
27, 2010.] http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/rrpre.cfm.
54
51. New Rules Project. Energy. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.] http://www.newrules.org/energy.
52. North Carolina Solar Center. Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. [Online] 2010. [Cited:
August 28, 2010.] http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US13F&re=1&ee=1.
53. —. Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US02F&re=1&ee=1.
54. US Department of Energy (DOE). Loan Guarantee Program. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/features.html.
55. US Department of Energy Energy Effciency and Renewable Energy Program. EERE Programs Plans, Implementation
& Results. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.] http://www1.eere.energy.gov/pir/.
56. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Program Design. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.rggi.org/design.
57. Western Climate Initiative. About the WCI. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/about-the-wci.
58. Midwastern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.midwesternaccord.org/.
59. Office of the Governor of Wisconsin, Jim Doyle. Ten Midwestern Leaders Sign Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord.
Office of the Governor of Wisconsin, Jim Doyle. Madison : s.n., 2007. Press Release.
60. Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord . Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord . [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.midwesternaccord.org/news.html.
61. North Carolina Solar Center. Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August
28, 2010.] http://www.dsireuse.org/incentives.
62. —. Database of State Incentives for Renewable & Efficiency - Glossary. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.dsireusa.org/glossary/.
63. —. Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.dsireusa.org/glossary/.
64. New Rules Project. Gainesville Solar Feed-In Tariff. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.] 2010.
65. —. Solar Energy Incentive - San Francisco, CA. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.newrules.org/energy/rules/green-citizenship-vs-green-pricing/solar-energy-initiative-san-francisco-ca.
66. —. Sport Utility Vehicle Fees - Washington, DC. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.newrules.org/energy/rules/vehicle-limitations/sport-utility-vehicle-suv-fees-washington-dc.
67. —. Regional Plug-In Electric Vehicle Planning. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.newrules.org/energy/rules/plugin-electric-vehicles/regional-plugin-electric-vehicle-planning-southern-
california.
55
68. European Comission. Guidelines and Priority Actions under the Community Energy Policy. SEC (73) 1481. Archive of
European Integration. [Online] April 19, 1973. [Cited: November 9, 2010.] http://aei.pitt.edu/1520/.
69. —. Energy for the Future: Renewable Sources of Energy. [Online] November 26, 1997. [Cited: November 9, 2010.]
http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com97_599_en.pdf.
70. UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. EU 2020 Climate and Energy Package. [Online] [Cited: November 9,
2010.] http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/change_energy/european/cepackage/cepackage.aspx.
71. BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7765094.stm. [Online] 2009. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7765094.stm.
72. Euractiv.com. EU renewable energy policy. Euractiv. [Online] November 9, 2010. [Cited: November 9, 2010.]
http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/eu-renewable-energy-policy-linksdossier-188269.
73. Runci, P. Renewable Energy Policy in Germany: An Overview and Assessment, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Technical Lab Report PNWD-3526. s.l. : Joint Global Change Research Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, 2005.
74. Runci, Paul. Renewable Energy Policy in Germany: An Overview and Assessment, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory Technical Lab Report PNWD-3526. s.l. : Joint Global Change Research Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, 2005.
75. German Advisory Council on the Environment. Climate-friendly, reliable, affordable: 100% renewable electricity
supply by 2050. [Online] May 5, 2010. [Cited: November 9, 2010.]
http://www.umweltrat.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/CurrentPressReleases/2010/2010_05_PressRelease_100
percent_renewable_electricity_%20supply.html.
76. German Ministry for Energy, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Renewable Energy Sources in Figures. Berlin :
German Ministry for Energy, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, 2010.
77. van Mark, Michael, Wolfhart, Dürrschmidt and Böhme, Dieter. Development of Renewable Energies in Germany in
2007. [Online] March 12, 2008. [Cited: November 9, 2010.] http://download.inogate.org/Seminar%2015-
16%20April%202008%20%93EE,%20DSM%20&%20RES%94/DENA%20Documentation/background_paper_renewables_
Germany_2007_en.pdf.
78. German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. DeutschlandErneuerbar
beschäftigt! [Online] September 2010. [Cited: November 9, 2010.]
http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/broschuere_erneuerbar_beschaeftigt_bf.pdf.
79. German Foreign Office. Transatlantic Climate Bridge. [Online] 2009. [Cited: November 9, 2010.]
http://www.germany.info/Vertretung/usa/en/09__Press__InFocus__Interviews/03__Infocus/03__ClimateBridge/__Cli
mate__Bridge.html.
80. Gordon, Kate, Wong, Julian L. and McLain, JT. Out of the Running? How Germany, Spain, and China Are Seizing the
Energy Opportunity and Why the United States Risks Getting Left Behind. Washington, DC : Center for American
Progress, 2010.
56
81. European Union Directorate General for Energy and Transport. Spain - Renewable Energy Fact Sheet. European
Union Directorate General for Energy and Transport. [Online] January 23, 2008. [Cited: November 9, 2010.]
http://www.energy.eu/renewables/factsheets/2008_res_sheet_spain_en.pdf.
82. Bilan Eurobserver. The State of Renewable Energies in Europe. Eurobserv-er.org. [Online] 2009. [Cited: November 9,
2010.] http://www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/barobilan9.pdf.
83. The Reader. Zapatero banks on "green economy" to create employment. [Online] November 11, 2010. [Cited:
November 11, 2010.] http://thereader.es/en/spain-news-stories/5089-Zapatero-banks-on-.html?quot;green-
economy="-to-create-employment=.
84. Maine International Trade Center. Renewable Energy in Spain and Germany: Market Opportunities. Marine
International Trade Center. [Online] 2009. [Cited: November 9, 2010.]
http://www.mitc.com/PDFs/renewable_energy_spain_germany.pdf.
85. Haavind, Bob. Global PV market may decline in 2009 as Spain caps subsidies. electroiq.com. [Online] August 2009.
[Cited: November 9, 2010.] http://www.electroiq.com/index/display/article-display.articles.Photovoltaics-World.thin-
film_solar_cells.cadmium-telluride.2009.08.global-pv_market_may.QP129867.dcmp=rss.page=1.html.
86. Iberdrola. In Figures. Iberdrola, S.A. [Online] 2010. [Cited: November 8, 2010.]
http://www.iberdrola.es/webibd/corporativa/iberdrola?IDPAG=ENWEBCONENCI&codCache=12894362824802850.
87. Danish Energy Agency. Danish key figures. Danish Energy Agency. [Online] 2010. [Cited: November 7, 2010.]
http://www.ens.dk/en-us/info/factsandfigures/keyfigures/sider/danishkeyfigures.aspx.
88. Danish Energy Agency . Danish Energy Policy 1970-2010. Danish Energy Agency. [Online] 2010. [Cited: November 1,
2010.] http://www.ens.dk/en-US/Info/news/Factsheet/Documents/DKEpol.pdf%20engelsk%20til%20web.pdf.
89. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Wind Energy in Denmark. International Institute for
Sustainable Development. [Online] [Cited: November 7, 2010.] http://www.iisd.org/greenbud/winden.htm.
90. Renewable Energy Policy Project. Denmark's Wind Energy Program. Renewable Energy Policy Project. [Online]
[Cited: November 7, 2010.] http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articles/issuebr14/02Denmrk.htm.
91. Krohn, Soren. The Wind Turbine Market in Denmark. Danish Wind Industry Association. [Online] [Cited: November 8,
2010.] http://guidedtour.windpower.org/media(487,1033)/The_wind_turbine_market_in_Denmark.pdf.
92. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Nuclear Legislation in OECD Countries - Denmark. Paris :
OECD, 2007.
93. Olesen, Gunnar Boye. Danish Initatives and Plans in the Field of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [Online]
[Cited: November 8, 2010.] http://www.inforse.org/europe/word_docs/s_gbo_dk.doc.
94. Kamp, M. L. Learning in wind turbine development : a comparison between the Netherlands and Denmark. [Online]
2002. [Cited: November 9, 2010.] http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2002-1128-170921/c4.pdf.
95. Vestas. Vestas Annual Report . Copenhagen : Vestas, 2009.
57
96. European Renewable Energy Council . Renewable Energy Policy Review - Denmark. European Renewable Energy
Council. [Online] 2009. [Cited: November 8, 2010.]
http://www.erec.org/fileadmin/erec_docs/Projcet_Documents/RES2020/DENMARK_RES_Policy_Review__09_Final.pdf.
97. Godoy, Julio. The Danish Example. Interpress Service News Agency. [Online] November 20, 2009. [Cited: November
9, 2010.] http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49357.
98. Vestas. News from Vestas. Vestas. [Online] November 2010. [Cited: November 8, 2010.]
http://www.vestas.com/en/media/news.aspx.
99. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php.
100. —. Kyoto Protocol. [Online] [Cited: November 9, 2010.] http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php.
101. World Bank. World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change. [Online] 2010. [Cited: November
9, 2010.] http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2010/Resources/5287678-1226014527953/WDR10-Full-Text.pdf.
102. International Energy Agency. About the International Energy Agency (IEA). [Online] 2010. [Cited: August 28, 2010.]
http://www.iea.org/about/index.asp.
103. Eurosolar and World Council on Renewable Energy. The Long Road to IRENA. Bochum : Ponte Press, 2009.
104. International Renewable Energy Agency. Vision and Mission of IRENA. International Renewable Energy Agency.
[Online] October 16, 2010. [Cited: October 16, 2010.] http://www.irena.org/ourMission/vision.aspx?mnu=mis&page=1.
105. Preperatory Comssion for the International Renewable Energy Agency. Decision on the 2010 Work Programme
and Budget - RENA/PC.3/dc.6. [Online] January 17, 2010. [Cited: November 9, 2010.]
http://www.irena.org/pdf/IRENA_Work_Programme_2010.pdf.
106. Najam, Adil. A firm hand at the helm of Irena could chart a new course. The National. [Online] November 1, 2010.
[Cited: November 9, 2010.] http://www.thenational.ae/the-national-conversation/comment/a-firm-hand-at-the-helm-
of-irena-could-chart-a-new-course?pageCount=0.
107. G20. About G20. [Online] [Cited: November 9, 2010.] http://www.g20.org/about_faq.aspx#3_How_does_the_G-
20_differ_from_the_G-7.
108. Walsh, Bryan. G20 Leaders Agree, Broadly, on Climate Change. Time. [Online] September 26, 2009. [Cited:
November 9, 2010.] http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1926384,00.html.
109. The Korea Herald. Summit to tackle protectionism, climate change. [Online] November 11, 2010. [Cited: November
11, 2010.] http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20101110000563.
110. Climate Investment Funds. CIF Basics. [Online] 2010. [Cited: November 9, 2010.]
http://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/.
111. European Comission Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry. International affairs - EU-USA - Regulatory
Cooperation. [Online] April 8, 2008. [Cited: November 9, 2010.]
58
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/international/cooperating-governments/usa/regulatory-
cooperation/index_en.htm.
112. Euractiv.com. EU-US Summit Yields Energy Cooperation. [Online] November 5, 2009. [Cited: November 9, 2010.]
http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/eu-us-summit-yields-energy-cooperation/article-187060.
113. Energy Environ Finland. New EU-US council to boost transatlantic energy cooperation. Energy Enviro Finland.
[Online] November 6, 2009. [Cited: November 9, 2010.] http://www.energy-
enviro.fi/index.php?PAGE=2&NODE_ID=4&ID=191.
114. Euractiv. EU-US summit yields energy cooperation. Euractiv. [Online] November 5, 2009. [Cited: November 9,
2010.] http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/eu-us-summit-yields-energy-cooperation/article-187060.
115. Transatlantic Business Dialogue. TABD History. Transatlantic Business Dialogue. [Online] 2010. [Cited: November 9,
2010.] http://www.tabd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=55.
116. Atlantic Council and Clingendael International. A Shared Vision for Energy and Climate Change: Establishing A
Common Transatlantic Agend. Washington, DC : Atlantic Council, 2010.
117. Atlantic Council. Transatlantic Cooperation for Sustainable Energy Security. [Online] March 19, 2010. [Cited:
November 9, 2010.] http://www.acus.org/files/publication_pdfs/523/EnergySecurityReport.pdf.
118. Wörlen, Christine. Clean Energy Jobs for the U.S. Midwest. [Online] September 2010. [Cited: November 9, 2010.]
http://www.boell.de/downloads/ecology/Clean_Energy_Jobs_for_the_US_Midwest.pdf.
119. Greenpeace International. Energy Revolution: a sustainable pathway to a clean energy future for Europe. [Online]
September 27, 2005. [Cited: November 9, 2010.]
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/energy-revolution-a-sustainab/.
120. —. Future Investment: A Sustainable Investment Plan for the Power Sector to Save the Climate. 2007.
121. Teske, Sven and Thomas, Rebecca Short. Renewables 24/7: Infrastructure Needed to Save the Climate. s.l. :
Greenpeace International, 2009.
122. World Resources Institute. Publications: Climate, Energy & Transport. [Online] [Cited: November 9, 2010.]
http://www.wri.org/publications/climate?page=1.
123. CDS International. Transatlantic Renewable Energy Fellwship. [Online] 2009. [Cited: November 9, 2010.]
http://www.cdsintl.org/fellowshipsabroad/tref.php.
124. —. Transatlantic Renewable Energy Exchange. [Online] 2010. [Cited: November 11, 2010.]
http://www.cdsintl.org/internationalstudytours/treestudytour.php.
125. German Foreign Office. The Transatlantic Climate Bridge Celebrates its 1st Birthday. [Online] January 19, 2010.
[Cited: November 9, 2010.]
http://www.germany.info/Vertretung/usa/en/__pr/TCB/2010/01/TCB__AnniversaryEvent__S,archiveCtx=2098216.html
top related