Mini tax must finance the transition to fossil-free aviation in Denmark by 2030 – Energy and Climate
I «Five on Friday», Energy and Climate presents five international news from the past week. Here are my selections.
Can Danish flight initiative create change in Montreal?
In her last New Year’s speech, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen promised that all domestic flights in Denmark must be fossil-free by 2030. This week she followed up: No new passenger tax of 13 Danish kroner must be introduced from 2025 and must apply to all flights. The parties that make up Frederiksen’s parliamentary base, Enhedslisten, SF and De Radikale, were quick to support the proposal. But they all mean at the level of the new tax is far too low. They undoubtedly have a point: in Danish kroner, the Norwegian airline passenger tax is, for comparison, 58-155 kroner (depending on the destination). But there is a big difference between the Norwegian and Danish models. In Denmark, the tax is not meant to be a purely fiscal tax, we must believe the government. Instead, she must go directly to finance the measures needed to reach the 2030 target. In total, we are talking about 1.8 billion Danish kroner.
The big picture: Aviation is well on its way back to the same level of activity as before the pandemic, which in turn means releasing extras. In light of the climate crisis, action is urgent – and in this work the United Nations Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) plays a key role.
The Danish government play out came exactly one week before the ICAO ministerial meeting took place in Montreal – and must therefore be seen as an attempt to drive a little nudging ahead of it. It needs to. The most concrete outcome of the ICAO meeting will probably be a long-term and non-binding net zero goal in 2050.
In a comment that nyleg is published in Nature aviation receives strong criticism from CICERO’s research leader Steffen Kallbakken. He blames the industry for thinking far too narrowly when it comes to decarbonising the longest flight routes – where batteries are not possible. Almost without exception, the industry’s solutions center on the following alternative: sustainable aviation fuel and compensation for greenhouse gas emissions. Both parts have a questionable effect, writes Kallbakken.
Read also: The airline industry’s climate plans are in line with fire degree heatingshows Climate Action Tracker’s latest analysis.
No emission-free trucks come too full
In connection with the international transport fair in Hannover this week (IAA Transportation), which is the consulting firm McKinsey. a report who claim that road-based heavy transport is not at the starting line for a green revolution. Before 2024, transport companies will be able to choose from 70 models of emission-free trucks. A strong growth compared to today’s product range, but still some way up to the 130 models with diesel tanks that are available. McKinsey believes that by 2040, 85 percent of all newly registered trucks in Europe, the United States and China will be emission-free.
Which technology will win out? McKinsey predicts that battery and hydrogen will live side by side as the dominant technologies. Truck manufacturers such as Volvo, Daimler and Nikola think so, reports report Bloomberg from Hannover. Nikola, which may be in the process of rising again as a challenger company after the serious fraud debts a few years ago, used the transport fair to unveil the Nikola Three FCEV. This is the company’s hydrogen truck meant for the European market. Series production will probably start in 2024.
Read also: The organization Transport & Environment is less optimistic when it comes to the roll-out of emission-free heavy vehicles. In Europe, the pace is far too slow to reach the climate goals, they write in one new study. They urge the EU to introduce a ban on the sale of fossil-fuelled buses and trucks from 2035 onwards.
Energy saving is the fastest way to lower electricity prices
The level of winter electricity prices will largely be determined by how far Europe succeeds in reducing its electricity consumption, writes the Swedish Energy Research Institute in the analysis Lowers prices in a hurry. The analysis is based on the Swedish price areas SE3 and SE4 (south of Sweden) and concludes:
- For every quarter of a percentage point that Europe manages to reduce its electricity consumption, the electricity price for Swedish households will be reduced by around 17 Swedish øre per kWh.
- If the EU reaches the European Commission’s target of reducing consumption by 10 percent by March 2023, the electricity price in SE3 and SE4 will be reduced by approximately 170 Swedish øre per kW For a household with a consumption of 2000 kWh per month, this will give a saving during the winter of around 4000 Swedish kroner per month.
And if you are unable to reduce the power consumption? By work as usual Energiforsk expects that the electricity prices for the winter in SE3 and SE4 will double compared to what was the average price for the period January-August 2022.
Also check: Predicting future electricity prices is highly uncertain. But there is no doubt that energy saving has an effect, says Markus Wråke from Energiforsk i interview with SVT Nyheter.
Oil companies should pay for climate damage
It has our high-level weeks during the UN General Assembly. In contrast to most heads of state who has been on the podium in New York, Secretary-General António Guterres used large parts of sin story to address climate change. The message was unmistakable: “Polluters must pay”! The rich country of the world must tax the fossil industry’s extraordinary super profits (windfall tax), he suggested. The income from the additional tax must be used to help countries that are currently paying for the consequences of climate change, and for citizens who now struggle to pay for more expensive food and energy.
As The Guardian quite rightly pointed out, the words to the Secretary-General were an echo of the proposal presented by the European Commission a short time ago.
The head of the World Bank receives massive criticism after the climate debate
Is the head of the World Bank, David Malpass, unfit for the job? More and more people have asked themselves this very question after a debate organized by the New York Times on Tuesday this week. A whole three times must Malpass have been asked about accepting that climate change is man-made, without him being ready to give a clear answer. In the end, he must have answered something like that he was not a scientist and that he did not know.
The criticism against Malpass has come from everything from public servants to environmental activists, write Financial Times. Al Gore was among those who stepped out and called Malpass a climate negator, something the main character himself has specified above CNN that he is not.
The criticism against Malpass, who was nominated for the job by Donald Trump in 2019, is by no means. Under Malpass, the World Bank has been criticized for holding up the financing of fossil energy projects. Malpass’ term expires in 2024.