Tag Archives: green

Germany’s green power surges ahead – at a price that’s finally falling Updated for 2026





Germany is well on its way towards having a predominantly green electricity supply.

The transition from nuclear and fossil-fuel electricity to using renewables is happening faster than anyone had anticipated. This is a success, but there is a downside: it is hugely expensive.

The energy transition is an explicit policy goal in Germany, having been made a priority project by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

It has four strands: reducing CO2 emissions, improving energy efficiency, promoting renewable energy and the gradual phase-out of nuclear power.

Nuclear phase-out is actually an old story that started in 2000 when the Schroeder administration first announced a 20-year timetable.

It was a bit of a ‘yes-no’ rollercoaster until the Fukushima incident, after which the decision in favour was final. This is widely supported by the German public, meaning that nuclear power is politically not an option at the moment.

Installed renewable capacity now equals demand

Yet without a doubt, the most significant development within the energy transition project has been the growth of Germany’s renewable energy sources (RES). Chart 1 (right) shows how it has developed in the past few years and where the government expects it to be by 2050.

The horizontal black line depicts the approximate maximum demand at any time, which is about 85GW (this will not change much in the future).

This shows that installed renewable capacity is now already more or less equal to maximum demand. On a very sunny and windy day, renewables are now capable of meeting the demands of the entire country.

But as we all know, the weather is notoriously unreliable and variable. So a secure system needs more renewable capacity and also more reserve capacity from conventional power plants (mainly fuelled by natural gas) to make sure it can always meet demand.

As Chart 1 (above right) indicates, installed renewable capacity in 2050 is expected to be 180GW, which is roughly twice maximum demand. By that time, the target is that 80% of electricity supply will be from renewables (basically this is how much renewable power you need to meet this level of supply on a regular basis).

Great benefits – but also high costs

In common with other countries moving in the same direction, the government has various motives for this big shift. Renewables are carbon-free and rely on no fossil fuels, so they are an essential component of meeting European emissions targets.

The government hopes for positive spin-off effects on exports, innovation and new jobs. And once the investment cost of the transition has been incurred, we would hope that electricity supply is actually quite cheap. After all, sun and wind are free. Germany sees the energy transition as an investment in the future: we pay for the next generation.

The move to renewables has been a success. It has happened at high speed since the late 1990s. The debate is no longer whether it will succeed, but rather what do we do with ‘too much’ renewable power. But behind this positive story, the dark side is the huge expense.

Early in 2013, the then minister of environment Peter Altmaier mentioned the staggering amount of €1 trillion as the potential cost of the overall transition.

This relied on a quick-and-dirty back-of-the-envelope calculation, which raises many questions and was never confirmed, but it does give a feel for the order of magnitude. The end-users – and thus the voters in Germany – are starting to feel the pain.

Since the installation costs mean that renewables currently cost more per unit of power than conventional power, they are subsidised by a surcharge on the electricity price. In other words, electricity end-users directly pay for it.

As you can see from Chart 2 (above right), the surcharge for small end-users has soared since 2009 to cope with the rapid growth of installed capacity (the step-change that year reflected a sudden big rise in solar power, which is particularly expensive).

The total subsidy is currently about €20bn / year, which amounts to €218 / year per household on top of the normal electricity bill. Whether this is still affordable is a key question in the country right now.

Corporate punishment

The energy transition has meanwhile changed the face of the electricity market, with severe consequences for traditional firms like E.ON and RWE. They are suffering badly at the moment and are having to rethink their business models completely.

In short, they face three challenges. The nuclear phase-out means they have to make very significant write-downs on their nuclear plants, at a loss to the shareholders. They are still fighting the government for compensation payments.

Second, renewable power is suppressing electricity wholesale prices – essentially because they are cheaper to run per unit of power, which under the rules for calculating the wholesale price tends to bring them down across the board.

This means that the revenues for conventional power plants are low and no longer cover the investment costs.

Third, conventional power from gas and coal is being pushed out of the market. This means that a lot of conventional power plants are largely standing idle and not making any money.

Since the future business model for such plants is looking bleak, the power companies are sitting on investments which are not going to be profitable. Of course, RWE and E.ON are adjusting their long-term strategies.

Consumer surcharge for 2015 reduced

While this has been going on, the rising costs for residential end-users have become a political problem.

In 2014 the government responded with a reform package, which slows down the energy transition in an attempt to control the costs. Basically the annual growth of new renewables has been capped to a pre-determined level.

This seems to be working. The surcharge for 2015 has been calculated at 6.17 €c / kWh, which is a small decline compared to 2014. Politically, this may well have been a wise policy, as public support for the energy transition was dwindling. It means that green energy development will happen more slowly.

So far the government appears to be standing by the same targets, perhaps because the explosion in development over the past few years had put it on an even faster track.

Whatever happens from here, one thing remains key: without public support, the energy transition will not work.

 


 

Gert Brunekreeft is Adjunct Professor for Energy Economics at Jacobs University Bremen. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




385722

Germany’s green power surges ahead – at a price that’s finally falling Updated for 2026





Germany is well on its way towards having a predominantly green electricity supply.

The transition from nuclear and fossil-fuel electricity to using renewables is happening faster than anyone had anticipated. This is a success, but there is a downside: it is hugely expensive.

The energy transition is an explicit policy goal in Germany, having been made a priority project by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

It has four strands: reducing CO2 emissions, improving energy efficiency, promoting renewable energy and the gradual phase-out of nuclear power.

Nuclear phase-out is actually an old story that started in 2000 when the Schroeder administration first announced a 20-year timetable.

It was a bit of a ‘yes-no’ rollercoaster until the Fukushima incident, after which the decision in favour was final. This is widely supported by the German public, meaning that nuclear power is politically not an option at the moment.

Installed renewable capacity now equals demand

Yet without a doubt, the most significant development within the energy transition project has been the growth of Germany’s renewable energy sources (RES). Chart 1 (right) shows how it has developed in the past few years and where the government expects it to be by 2050.

The horizontal black line depicts the approximate maximum demand at any time, which is about 85GW (this will not change much in the future).

This shows that installed renewable capacity is now already more or less equal to maximum demand. On a very sunny and windy day, renewables are now capable of meeting the demands of the entire country.

But as we all know, the weather is notoriously unreliable and variable. So a secure system needs more renewable capacity and also more reserve capacity from conventional power plants (mainly fuelled by natural gas) to make sure it can always meet demand.

As Chart 1 (above right) indicates, installed renewable capacity in 2050 is expected to be 180GW, which is roughly twice maximum demand. By that time, the target is that 80% of electricity supply will be from renewables (basically this is how much renewable power you need to meet this level of supply on a regular basis).

Great benefits – but also high costs

In common with other countries moving in the same direction, the government has various motives for this big shift. Renewables are carbon-free and rely on no fossil fuels, so they are an essential component of meeting European emissions targets.

The government hopes for positive spin-off effects on exports, innovation and new jobs. And once the investment cost of the transition has been incurred, we would hope that electricity supply is actually quite cheap. After all, sun and wind are free. Germany sees the energy transition as an investment in the future: we pay for the next generation.

The move to renewables has been a success. It has happened at high speed since the late 1990s. The debate is no longer whether it will succeed, but rather what do we do with ‘too much’ renewable power. But behind this positive story, the dark side is the huge expense.

Early in 2013, the then minister of environment Peter Altmaier mentioned the staggering amount of €1 trillion as the potential cost of the overall transition.

This relied on a quick-and-dirty back-of-the-envelope calculation, which raises many questions and was never confirmed, but it does give a feel for the order of magnitude. The end-users – and thus the voters in Germany – are starting to feel the pain.

Since the installation costs mean that renewables currently cost more per unit of power than conventional power, they are subsidised by a surcharge on the electricity price. In other words, electricity end-users directly pay for it.

As you can see from Chart 2 (above right), the surcharge for small end-users has soared since 2009 to cope with the rapid growth of installed capacity (the step-change that year reflected a sudden big rise in solar power, which is particularly expensive).

The total subsidy is currently about €20bn / year, which amounts to €218 / year per household on top of the normal electricity bill. Whether this is still affordable is a key question in the country right now.

Corporate punishment

The energy transition has meanwhile changed the face of the electricity market, with severe consequences for traditional firms like E.ON and RWE. They are suffering badly at the moment and are having to rethink their business models completely.

In short, they face three challenges. The nuclear phase-out means they have to make very significant write-downs on their nuclear plants, at a loss to the shareholders. They are still fighting the government for compensation payments.

Second, renewable power is suppressing electricity wholesale prices – essentially because they are cheaper to run per unit of power, which under the rules for calculating the wholesale price tends to bring them down across the board.

This means that the revenues for conventional power plants are low and no longer cover the investment costs.

Third, conventional power from gas and coal is being pushed out of the market. This means that a lot of conventional power plants are largely standing idle and not making any money.

Since the future business model for such plants is looking bleak, the power companies are sitting on investments which are not going to be profitable. Of course, RWE and E.ON are adjusting their long-term strategies.

Consumer surcharge for 2015 reduced

While this has been going on, the rising costs for residential end-users have become a political problem.

In 2014 the government responded with a reform package, which slows down the energy transition in an attempt to control the costs. Basically the annual growth of new renewables has been capped to a pre-determined level.

This seems to be working. The surcharge for 2015 has been calculated at 6.17 €c / kWh, which is a small decline compared to 2014. Politically, this may well have been a wise policy, as public support for the energy transition was dwindling. It means that green energy development will happen more slowly.

So far the government appears to be standing by the same targets, perhaps because the explosion in development over the past few years had put it on an even faster track.

Whatever happens from here, one thing remains key: without public support, the energy transition will not work.

 


 

Gert Brunekreeft is Adjunct Professor for Energy Economics at Jacobs University Bremen. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




385722

Germany’s green power surges ahead – at a price that’s finally falling Updated for 2026





Germany is well on its way towards having a predominantly green electricity supply.

The transition from nuclear and fossil-fuel electricity to using renewables is happening faster than anyone had anticipated. This is a success, but there is a downside: it is hugely expensive.

The energy transition is an explicit policy goal in Germany, having been made a priority project by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

It has four strands: reducing CO2 emissions, improving energy efficiency, promoting renewable energy and the gradual phase-out of nuclear power.

Nuclear phase-out is actually an old story that started in 2000 when the Schroeder administration first announced a 20-year timetable.

It was a bit of a ‘yes-no’ rollercoaster until the Fukushima incident, after which the decision in favour was final. This is widely supported by the German public, meaning that nuclear power is politically not an option at the moment.

Installed renewable capacity now equals demand

Yet without a doubt, the most significant development within the energy transition project has been the growth of Germany’s renewable energy sources (RES). Chart 1 (right) shows how it has developed in the past few years and where the government expects it to be by 2050.

The horizontal black line depicts the approximate maximum demand at any time, which is about 85GW (this will not change much in the future).

This shows that installed renewable capacity is now already more or less equal to maximum demand. On a very sunny and windy day, renewables are now capable of meeting the demands of the entire country.

But as we all know, the weather is notoriously unreliable and variable. So a secure system needs more renewable capacity and also more reserve capacity from conventional power plants (mainly fuelled by natural gas) to make sure it can always meet demand.

As Chart 1 (above right) indicates, installed renewable capacity in 2050 is expected to be 180GW, which is roughly twice maximum demand. By that time, the target is that 80% of electricity supply will be from renewables (basically this is how much renewable power you need to meet this level of supply on a regular basis).

Great benefits – but also high costs

In common with other countries moving in the same direction, the government has various motives for this big shift. Renewables are carbon-free and rely on no fossil fuels, so they are an essential component of meeting European emissions targets.

The government hopes for positive spin-off effects on exports, innovation and new jobs. And once the investment cost of the transition has been incurred, we would hope that electricity supply is actually quite cheap. After all, sun and wind are free. Germany sees the energy transition as an investment in the future: we pay for the next generation.

The move to renewables has been a success. It has happened at high speed since the late 1990s. The debate is no longer whether it will succeed, but rather what do we do with ‘too much’ renewable power. But behind this positive story, the dark side is the huge expense.

Early in 2013, the then minister of environment Peter Altmaier mentioned the staggering amount of €1 trillion as the potential cost of the overall transition.

This relied on a quick-and-dirty back-of-the-envelope calculation, which raises many questions and was never confirmed, but it does give a feel for the order of magnitude. The end-users – and thus the voters in Germany – are starting to feel the pain.

Since the installation costs mean that renewables currently cost more per unit of power than conventional power, they are subsidised by a surcharge on the electricity price. In other words, electricity end-users directly pay for it.

As you can see from Chart 2 (above right), the surcharge for small end-users has soared since 2009 to cope with the rapid growth of installed capacity (the step-change that year reflected a sudden big rise in solar power, which is particularly expensive).

The total subsidy is currently about €20bn / year, which amounts to €218 / year per household on top of the normal electricity bill. Whether this is still affordable is a key question in the country right now.

Corporate punishment

The energy transition has meanwhile changed the face of the electricity market, with severe consequences for traditional firms like E.ON and RWE. They are suffering badly at the moment and are having to rethink their business models completely.

In short, they face three challenges. The nuclear phase-out means they have to make very significant write-downs on their nuclear plants, at a loss to the shareholders. They are still fighting the government for compensation payments.

Second, renewable power is suppressing electricity wholesale prices – essentially because they are cheaper to run per unit of power, which under the rules for calculating the wholesale price tends to bring them down across the board.

This means that the revenues for conventional power plants are low and no longer cover the investment costs.

Third, conventional power from gas and coal is being pushed out of the market. This means that a lot of conventional power plants are largely standing idle and not making any money.

Since the future business model for such plants is looking bleak, the power companies are sitting on investments which are not going to be profitable. Of course, RWE and E.ON are adjusting their long-term strategies.

Consumer surcharge for 2015 reduced

While this has been going on, the rising costs for residential end-users have become a political problem.

In 2014 the government responded with a reform package, which slows down the energy transition in an attempt to control the costs. Basically the annual growth of new renewables has been capped to a pre-determined level.

This seems to be working. The surcharge for 2015 has been calculated at 6.17 €c / kWh, which is a small decline compared to 2014. Politically, this may well have been a wise policy, as public support for the energy transition was dwindling. It means that green energy development will happen more slowly.

So far the government appears to be standing by the same targets, perhaps because the explosion in development over the past few years had put it on an even faster track.

Whatever happens from here, one thing remains key: without public support, the energy transition will not work.

 


 

Gert Brunekreeft is Adjunct Professor for Energy Economics at Jacobs University Bremen. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




385722

Germany’s green power surges ahead – at a price that’s finally falling Updated for 2026





Germany is well on its way towards having a predominantly green electricity supply.

The transition from nuclear and fossil-fuel electricity to using renewables is happening faster than anyone had anticipated. This is a success, but there is a downside: it is hugely expensive.

The energy transition is an explicit policy goal in Germany, having been made a priority project by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

It has four strands: reducing CO2 emissions, improving energy efficiency, promoting renewable energy and the gradual phase-out of nuclear power.

Nuclear phase-out is actually an old story that started in 2000 when the Schroeder administration first announced a 20-year timetable.

It was a bit of a ‘yes-no’ rollercoaster until the Fukushima incident, after which the decision in favour was final. This is widely supported by the German public, meaning that nuclear power is politically not an option at the moment.

Installed renewable capacity now equals demand

Yet without a doubt, the most significant development within the energy transition project has been the growth of Germany’s renewable energy sources (RES). Chart 1 (right) shows how it has developed in the past few years and where the government expects it to be by 2050.

The horizontal black line depicts the approximate maximum demand at any time, which is about 85GW (this will not change much in the future).

This shows that installed renewable capacity is now already more or less equal to maximum demand. On a very sunny and windy day, renewables are now capable of meeting the demands of the entire country.

But as we all know, the weather is notoriously unreliable and variable. So a secure system needs more renewable capacity and also more reserve capacity from conventional power plants (mainly fuelled by natural gas) to make sure it can always meet demand.

As Chart 1 (above right) indicates, installed renewable capacity in 2050 is expected to be 180GW, which is roughly twice maximum demand. By that time, the target is that 80% of electricity supply will be from renewables (basically this is how much renewable power you need to meet this level of supply on a regular basis).

Great benefits – but also high costs

In common with other countries moving in the same direction, the government has various motives for this big shift. Renewables are carbon-free and rely on no fossil fuels, so they are an essential component of meeting European emissions targets.

The government hopes for positive spin-off effects on exports, innovation and new jobs. And once the investment cost of the transition has been incurred, we would hope that electricity supply is actually quite cheap. After all, sun and wind are free. Germany sees the energy transition as an investment in the future: we pay for the next generation.

The move to renewables has been a success. It has happened at high speed since the late 1990s. The debate is no longer whether it will succeed, but rather what do we do with ‘too much’ renewable power. But behind this positive story, the dark side is the huge expense.

Early in 2013, the then minister of environment Peter Altmaier mentioned the staggering amount of €1 trillion as the potential cost of the overall transition.

This relied on a quick-and-dirty back-of-the-envelope calculation, which raises many questions and was never confirmed, but it does give a feel for the order of magnitude. The end-users – and thus the voters in Germany – are starting to feel the pain.

Since the installation costs mean that renewables currently cost more per unit of power than conventional power, they are subsidised by a surcharge on the electricity price. In other words, electricity end-users directly pay for it.

As you can see from Chart 2 (above right), the surcharge for small end-users has soared since 2009 to cope with the rapid growth of installed capacity (the step-change that year reflected a sudden big rise in solar power, which is particularly expensive).

The total subsidy is currently about €20bn / year, which amounts to €218 / year per household on top of the normal electricity bill. Whether this is still affordable is a key question in the country right now.

Corporate punishment

The energy transition has meanwhile changed the face of the electricity market, with severe consequences for traditional firms like E.ON and RWE. They are suffering badly at the moment and are having to rethink their business models completely.

In short, they face three challenges. The nuclear phase-out means they have to make very significant write-downs on their nuclear plants, at a loss to the shareholders. They are still fighting the government for compensation payments.

Second, renewable power is suppressing electricity wholesale prices – essentially because they are cheaper to run per unit of power, which under the rules for calculating the wholesale price tends to bring them down across the board.

This means that the revenues for conventional power plants are low and no longer cover the investment costs.

Third, conventional power from gas and coal is being pushed out of the market. This means that a lot of conventional power plants are largely standing idle and not making any money.

Since the future business model for such plants is looking bleak, the power companies are sitting on investments which are not going to be profitable. Of course, RWE and E.ON are adjusting their long-term strategies.

Consumer surcharge for 2015 reduced

While this has been going on, the rising costs for residential end-users have become a political problem.

In 2014 the government responded with a reform package, which slows down the energy transition in an attempt to control the costs. Basically the annual growth of new renewables has been capped to a pre-determined level.

This seems to be working. The surcharge for 2015 has been calculated at 6.17 €c / kWh, which is a small decline compared to 2014. Politically, this may well have been a wise policy, as public support for the energy transition was dwindling. It means that green energy development will happen more slowly.

So far the government appears to be standing by the same targets, perhaps because the explosion in development over the past few years had put it on an even faster track.

Whatever happens from here, one thing remains key: without public support, the energy transition will not work.

 


 

Gert Brunekreeft is Adjunct Professor for Energy Economics at Jacobs University Bremen. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




385722

Germany’s green power surges ahead – at a price that’s finally falling Updated for 2026





Germany is well on its way towards having a predominantly green electricity supply.

The transition from nuclear and fossil-fuel electricity to using renewables is happening faster than anyone had anticipated. This is a success, but there is a downside: it is hugely expensive.

The energy transition is an explicit policy goal in Germany, having been made a priority project by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

It has four strands: reducing CO2 emissions, improving energy efficiency, promoting renewable energy and the gradual phase-out of nuclear power.

Nuclear phase-out is actually an old story that started in 2000 when the Schroeder administration first announced a 20-year timetable.

It was a bit of a ‘yes-no’ rollercoaster until the Fukushima incident, after which the decision in favour was final. This is widely supported by the German public, meaning that nuclear power is politically not an option at the moment.

Installed renewable capacity now equals demand

Yet without a doubt, the most significant development within the energy transition project has been the growth of Germany’s renewable energy sources (RES). Chart 1 (right) shows how it has developed in the past few years and where the government expects it to be by 2050.

The horizontal black line depicts the approximate maximum demand at any time, which is about 85GW (this will not change much in the future).

This shows that installed renewable capacity is now already more or less equal to maximum demand. On a very sunny and windy day, renewables are now capable of meeting the demands of the entire country.

But as we all know, the weather is notoriously unreliable and variable. So a secure system needs more renewable capacity and also more reserve capacity from conventional power plants (mainly fuelled by natural gas) to make sure it can always meet demand.

As Chart 1 (above right) indicates, installed renewable capacity in 2050 is expected to be 180GW, which is roughly twice maximum demand. By that time, the target is that 80% of electricity supply will be from renewables (basically this is how much renewable power you need to meet this level of supply on a regular basis).

Great benefits – but also high costs

In common with other countries moving in the same direction, the government has various motives for this big shift. Renewables are carbon-free and rely on no fossil fuels, so they are an essential component of meeting European emissions targets.

The government hopes for positive spin-off effects on exports, innovation and new jobs. And once the investment cost of the transition has been incurred, we would hope that electricity supply is actually quite cheap. After all, sun and wind are free. Germany sees the energy transition as an investment in the future: we pay for the next generation.

The move to renewables has been a success. It has happened at high speed since the late 1990s. The debate is no longer whether it will succeed, but rather what do we do with ‘too much’ renewable power. But behind this positive story, the dark side is the huge expense.

Early in 2013, the then minister of environment Peter Altmaier mentioned the staggering amount of €1 trillion as the potential cost of the overall transition.

This relied on a quick-and-dirty back-of-the-envelope calculation, which raises many questions and was never confirmed, but it does give a feel for the order of magnitude. The end-users – and thus the voters in Germany – are starting to feel the pain.

Since the installation costs mean that renewables currently cost more per unit of power than conventional power, they are subsidised by a surcharge on the electricity price. In other words, electricity end-users directly pay for it.

As you can see from Chart 2 (above right), the surcharge for small end-users has soared since 2009 to cope with the rapid growth of installed capacity (the step-change that year reflected a sudden big rise in solar power, which is particularly expensive).

The total subsidy is currently about €20bn / year, which amounts to €218 / year per household on top of the normal electricity bill. Whether this is still affordable is a key question in the country right now.

Corporate punishment

The energy transition has meanwhile changed the face of the electricity market, with severe consequences for traditional firms like E.ON and RWE. They are suffering badly at the moment and are having to rethink their business models completely.

In short, they face three challenges. The nuclear phase-out means they have to make very significant write-downs on their nuclear plants, at a loss to the shareholders. They are still fighting the government for compensation payments.

Second, renewable power is suppressing electricity wholesale prices – essentially because they are cheaper to run per unit of power, which under the rules for calculating the wholesale price tends to bring them down across the board.

This means that the revenues for conventional power plants are low and no longer cover the investment costs.

Third, conventional power from gas and coal is being pushed out of the market. This means that a lot of conventional power plants are largely standing idle and not making any money.

Since the future business model for such plants is looking bleak, the power companies are sitting on investments which are not going to be profitable. Of course, RWE and E.ON are adjusting their long-term strategies.

Consumer surcharge for 2015 reduced

While this has been going on, the rising costs for residential end-users have become a political problem.

In 2014 the government responded with a reform package, which slows down the energy transition in an attempt to control the costs. Basically the annual growth of new renewables has been capped to a pre-determined level.

This seems to be working. The surcharge for 2015 has been calculated at 6.17 €c / kWh, which is a small decline compared to 2014. Politically, this may well have been a wise policy, as public support for the energy transition was dwindling. It means that green energy development will happen more slowly.

So far the government appears to be standing by the same targets, perhaps because the explosion in development over the past few years had put it on an even faster track.

Whatever happens from here, one thing remains key: without public support, the energy transition will not work.

 


 

Gert Brunekreeft is Adjunct Professor for Energy Economics at Jacobs University Bremen. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




385722

Greens join Swedish government with radical environmental agenda Updated for 2026





Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven heralded a return for the green and progressive values for which Sweden is internationally known as he welcomed the Green party into government for the first time last Friday.

Feminism, environmental responsibility and social security were all at the forefront of the government program in the unveiling of a new Social Democrat / Green coalition after eight years of centre-right rule.

As Löfven strolled to meet the press he was flanked by two smiling faces – Green Party co-spokespeople Åsa Romson (the new Minister for Climate and Environment and Vice Prime Minister) and Gustav Fridolin (Minister for Education).

Government posts are also going to Mehmet Kaplan (Minister for Housing and Urban Development and IT), Per Bolund (Minister for the Financial Market and Consumer Affairs), Alice Bah Kuhnke (Minister for Culture and Democracy) and Isabella Lövin (Minister for Development Assistance).

The new government has vowed to make Sweden a global leader again in tackling environmental degradation and inequality.

With 25 seats in the Riksdag (parliament) and three ministries, as well as important portfolios in the finance and business departments, the coalition marks a milepost on a long journey for Green politics in Sweden.

Rising from the ashes of the 1980s anti-nuclear movement, the Greens have spent the last decade readying themselves for government, and now find themselves a powerful voice in Scandinavia’s largest country as junior partners to Löfven’s Social Democrats.

Putting Green politics on the map

From his office window on Stockholm’s South Island, Green Party chairman Anders Wallner can see the Swedish parliament across the weir where the freshwater of Sweden’s inland lakes meets the Baltic Sea.

Wallner himself is typical of the new face of Green politics in Sweden. Like co-convenor Fridolin he is in his early 30s and has attempted to profile the party as a young and dynamic alternative to the older, more dogmatic politics of the Social Democrats and Left Party.

Unfortunately for Wallner and his colleagues, the left bloc failed to command the full majority it had expected from some opinion polls. The Greens even saw their vote fractionally decrease, by 0.45% to 6.89% – but still enough for them to retain their entire 25-seat bloc in Parliament.

And despite failing to match the record 15% achieved by the Greens in the European elections, Wallner is positive about the movement’s direction.

“If you had to choose between 7.3% as an opposition party or 6.9% in government”, he says, the choice is clear. “You can see we now have a chance to introduce more of a Green angle to government and then hopefully grow in light of what we will be able to show has changed.”

Hard fought gains

The coalition agreement took almost two weeks to hammer out, but it contains several key concessions to Green policy, points out Wallner. The holy grail of accelerated nuclear decommissioning is now within reach, as is a change of tack in other key areas of green policy.

“If you look at that declaration it is pretty clear this is a government that will put the climate first. We will introduce a framework that means the current government and its successors have to implement measures at the rate required to bring emissions down.

“We have also opened up the discussion toward big investments in rail and public transport, completely renewable energy and more funding for biodiversity.”

Åsa Romson the new Green Environment Minister, has plenty on her plate – including a lot of environmental ground to be made up following eight bleak years.

Under former Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt’s liberal-conservative coalition, in charge from 2006 until last week, 14 of an ambitious 16 environmental goals for 2020 were timetabled to fail according to the country’s own environmental protection agency.

Sweden also suffers from being one of Europe’s most consumer driven societies. A recent ranking by the WWF placed Sweden just behind the US and Gulf states in terms of its global environmental impact.

The nation’s wealth has created an insatiable appetite for consumer goods, meat and long distance travel. Less affected by the global economic downturn than the Eurozone or the UK, it has carried on spending in the globalised marketplace.

Its middle class regularly winter in Thailand, and central Stockholm is filled with large jeeps and estate cars belonging it wealthy suburban commuters.

Struggling with self-image

Across the city, in the middle of a busy shopping centre, stands former Green leader Maria Wetterstrand. What might not seem fertile territory for Green politics in other countries is illustrative of Sweden’s particular brand of mainstream environmentalism.

Wired up with a radio miccrophone, Wetterstrand and fellow Green Gabriel Liljenström talk at the shoppers diving in and out of chain stores and sipping coffees at American style mall cafes. They are there to sell a book, but also to sell Green politics.

“The environment is quite mainstream in Sweden”, says Liljenström. “All the parties try and profile themselves as green. In that sense we have achieved a breakthrough for the environment, and the environment is a big issue for Swedes.

“It always features in the top three concerns in polls, but then Swedes have an outdated picture of themselves. We were among the most progressive countries in the world in the nineties, but today we’re on the climate blacklist. Sometimes if you criticise our environmental record people think you are trying to talk the country down.”

Retaking the initiative

Despite being small in population terms, Sweden has always been a big hitter in environmental circles. The 1972 United Nations conference on the human environment, held in Stockholm, was a turning point in mobilizing politicians globally and at home.

With its seemingly endless forests and pristine lake systems the country is also a paradise for people wishing to escape the big cities. Yet thirty years on, the impacts of environmental degradation are still clearly visible in Sweden, from the bare hillsides of industrial forestry to increasing urban sprawl.

Neither is it safe from the impacts of climate change: last summer a forest fire tore through the region of Västmanland west of Stockholm, forcing people from their homes. The outgoing government was generally perceived to have responded badly, and an inquiry was launched to improve readiness for natural disasters.

The new government has also for the first time appointed a Minister for the Future, tasked with developing long term understanding of Sweden’s economic, environmental and social challenges.

There is another challenge lurking in the forests beyond the cities too. In the recent elections the far-right Sweden Democrats, whose policies include ‘balance’ in the science of climate change and increasing reliance on nuclear energy, cemented their support in large parts of rural Sweden.

They are one of the reasons the Greens and Social Democrats lack a full majority, and getting ambitious changes to the green agenda through parliament will be difficult.

“If you look at the negotiations between the Greens and Social Democrats they have gone pretty well … the danger is that we don’t then achieve the consensus to implement that policy”, says Liljeström, who was partly responsible for running the recent election campaign.

Breaking the deadlock

However there are things that can be done without parliament. The Greens were successful in pushing MEP Isabella Lövin, known in Brussels for her work in fishing reform, as aid minister in the Swedish Foreign Office.

And with Social Democrat former EU environment commissioner Margot Wallström as Foreign Minister, major foreign policy changes are on the way.

Under the last Government, Sweden moved radically to the right, as set out in a thundering article on CounterPunch by Jan Oberg: ‘Sweden, No Longer a Force for Good?‘, which alleged:

“There is no closer ally than US / NATO. It has stopped developing policies of its own and basically positions itself in the EU and NATO framework. It no longer produces important new thinking – the last was Olof Palme’s Commission on Common Security (1982).

“It has no disarmament ambassador and does not consider the UN important; it does not have a single Swede among the UN Blue Helmets. None of its top-level politicians make themselves available as mediators in international conflicts. Nuclear abolition is far down the agenda, problematic as a NATO-aspiring country.”

Now Sweden’s foreign policy is expected to take on an explicitly ethical outlook, according to Sofia Tuvestad of the Swedish peace and equality lobbying group IKFF:

“We’ve already seen some positive signs from the Foreign Office. Wallström has come out and declared that Sweden’s foreign policy will be more feminist, with nuclear disarmament at the centre of what they are trying to do.”

Another indicator of changes to come is that Mehmet Kaplan, City Planning and Environment Minister, was on board the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara in 2010 as it sought to break Israel’s naval blockade of the Palestinian Gaza Strip.

And in 2003 Education Minister Gustav Fridolin was arrested by Israeli security forces in the Palestinian West Bank as he protested with against the ‘apartheid wall’ alongside the International Solidarity Movement.

Can Sweden transition to genuine sustainability?

The big question of whether Sweden can transition to sustainability will, for the time being, remain unanswered according to Jonas Hinnfors, Professor of Political Science at Gothenburg university and a close watcher of the Swedish Social Democrats.

“I think it will be hard for the Greens to make any impact at all in terms of getting away from the growth economy. It will be in the details that they will no doubt be able to make a difference, and that means they can use it as a symbolic marker that the party is on the way to changing people’s views on growth.”

If the Swedish model is to be made sustainable enough to last, it means voters being prepared to abandon some of the consumer prosperity they have grown used to in order to make it work.

Even if the Greens can put Sweden at the forefront of global environmentalism once again, the country is not out of the woods yet.

 



Dominic Hinde is a freelance journalist specialising in the Nordic countries. He has written a PhD on contemporary environmental politics in Sweden and also works as a translator of literary and journalistic texts. He tweets at @dominicmhinde.

 

 




385148

Wild horses, Hunter Lovins, and the way to a better world Updated for 2026





American author, economist, lawyer and environmentalist Hunter Lovins lives on a ranch in Colorado, north of Denver.

Here, she keeps horses which she buys at so-called “killer sales” – where people sell unwanted horses that would otherwise face slaughter. These are then rehabilitated at her ranch and eventually rehomed.

She speaks fondly of life on the ranch, the local community and rural activities such as riding, attending pie baking contests and celebrating the annual upcoming Hay Day.

But truth be told, Lovins spends most of her time on the road, traveling on her one-woman mission to make the world a better place. And her day-to-day reality is far from mowing hay and ‘angling horses’, she complains: “I live on a god damn airplane!”

Lovins has been in sustainability since 1972. She has won numerous awards, such as the European Sustainability Pioneer award and the Right Livelihood Award.

President and Founder of Natural Capitalism Solutions – a non-profit which educates decision makers on the benefits of green business and a regenerative economy. She is also a professor of Sustainable Business and has worked with the UN, governments and businesses in over 30 countries.

It was through working on a project called Green Afghanistan that she ended up with a membership at the prestigious Frontline Club in Paddington, London. And it is here, at Frontline, that I manage to get a piece of her time before she sets off for Heathrow, and her next airplane journey.

Engaging the crowds

Howdy!” she greets me. Lovins is in London for the Green Economy Summit, organised by the Green Economy Coalition. On stage, her style contrasts starkly with the more conventional speakers’ approach to discussing climate change and how to kickstart a green economy, and I dare say she raised some eyebrows.

How many of you went on vacation?” she asks the audience of sustainability professionals from around the world. After a small number of us have raised our hands, she says: “We don’t have time for vacation anymore!”

Her voice is loud and assertive. She goes on to say that the problems we are facing today are “vastly more severe than any of us are acknowledging. And even though we know that, we aren’t living our lives that way.”

If we carry on, business as usual, she says, “it’s going to get really ugly.” She believes the earth is facing collapse in terms of resources, agriculture and population, sometime between now and 2035.

She is a no-nonsense business woman who, at the age of 64, wears a trademark cowboy hat (even in boardrooms), but although she looks tired, she has the eyes and demeanor of a much younger woman.

In 1999 she set off on a journey to promote one of her books, Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution, which she co-authored together with then husband Amory Lovins and Paul Hawken. The book has since sold 100,000 copies and was translated into a dozen languages.

The modern-day economy is driving us toward disaster

Lovins’ natural capitalism is very different from the established concept of capitalism. It is about people, ‘human capital’, and having an economy that works for 100% of humanity.

Put simply, Lovins believes the linear economy of today is depleting our resources and driving us towards financial and ecological disaster: “We dig stuff out of the ground, we put it through various resource-crunching activities and then we throw it away.”

So what is natural capitalism? No doubt capitalism in itself is a charged word. “What we are practicing now is bad capitalism”, says Lovins.

“We are liquidating several forms of capital, human and natural, in order to generate several other forms of capital: manufactured and financial stuff and money. And we define success as more stuff and money, not counting the loss of the human and natural capital.”

People all over the world are unemployed, she says – and that’s a waste of human capital.

Good capitalism equals well-being

The alternative is natural capitalism, or “good capitalism” as Lovins also puts it, combined with a new concept called ‘regenerative capitalism’, which has been developed by the Founder of Capital Institute, John Fullerton.

This regenerative approach, explains Lovins, covers what happens beyond dealing with the immediate threat and will be laid out properly in a soon-to-be-released report.

But overall, she explains, it’s all about sustainability and the enhancement of all forms of capital, to be able to create greater well being: “Wealth defined as money in a bank, digits on a computer screen, is a very pale form of wealth in the old sense of ‘weal’, of well-being.

“And if we and all our friends and neighbours got together, the first thing we’d agree to is: what we really want is to be happy, to be healthy, to live in an environment that sustains us, and can do so indefinitely. That’s the root definition of sustainability, that what we are all doing can go on, indefinitely.”

How can this be achieved? Improving efficiency is the first step, she explains. Then, companies should look at redesigning products using approaches such as ‘circular economy’ (a restorative approach where nothing is wasted) and ‘biomimicry’ (where product design imitates elements of nature).

Lastly, institutions should work to become regenerative of the forms of capital that previously have liquidated human and natural capital. “And there is growing evidence that, again, companies that are taking the lead in this are turning in the better business.”

Lovins says there are more than 50 studies from large companies such as McKinsey, Deloitte, and Harvard Business Review showing that there is a business case for behaving more responsibly to the people and the planet.

Large players in her portfolio

Among companies Lovins has consulted for are carpet giant and sustainability pioneer Interface, Unilever, clothing company Patagonia and US retail giant Walmart (who owns ASDA in the UK).

Walmart, she says, has come a long way in terms of implementing some sustainability measures, but still has a long way to go when it comes to looking after their people and they are stuck in what Lovins calls an “old mental model” of looking at people as a cost, something they demonstrated last year.

“Walmart got its tail in a crack about a year ago coming onto US Thanksgiving. They put out boxes in Walmart stores for employees and shoppers to donate food for employees who don’t make enough money to have a Thanksgiving dinner … What they are saying is: ‘We are not paying a living wage'”.

A new life

Lovins has had a long and successful career, but she wouldn’t be what she is today if she hadn’t had to start over after she was fired in 2002 from the company Rocky Mountain Institute, which she and her ex-husband Amory Lovins founded together in 1982.

She says the company had started losing money after the dotcom bubble in 2000. Lovins and an associate, a businessman she had brought in to help save the company, had gone off to get new business, and when they came back with a new contract, she and her associate were fired.

“We had made the executive director look really bad, and she realised that. So when we were beavering away to get this contract, she’d gone to the board and got us both fired. Now Amory [Lovins] had to be in on it. But I don’t know, because he won’t talk to me. Maybe they said to him: we’re going to fire Hunter and if you get in the way we’ll fire you too, and he didn’t want to start again.”

She, on the other hand, did start a new life: “I lost everything: home, job, community. See entrepreneurial challenge, begin again. So this guy and I looked at each other and said: Wanna go again? And so we created Natural Capitalism Solutions.”

An alternative to the modern economy

Listening to Lovins, it is not entirely clear to me where on the political spectrum her economic ideas fit. This may be because they are neither here, nor there, nor in between, but are more of an alternative way of looking at how humans live on Earth.

What is clear is that she believes in entrepreneurialism, and the value of having people involved in creating and making something that is of value to them.

One of the things that people really want is a sense of meaning in their life. And I think this notion of regenerativeness is one of the better ways of getting that meaning. The constant state of becoming. The celebration of the entrepreneurial in all of us, of creating anew.”

And she is fundamentally a humanist – and her mission os far more to save humanity from itself, than to save the planet.

“George Karlan, the comedian, says: ‘Save the earth? the earth will be fine, it will shake us off like a bad case of fleas.’ And we’ve been through mass extinction events before. 60-90 percent of species go extinct, and the earth goes on.”

She also believes governments have an important role today, and she has a lot to say about subsidies – especially when it comes to the energy market.

The fossil fuel industry is far more heavily subsidised than renewables, she says, and although the final figures are unclear and to be investigated further, she has heard numbers of up to $9 trillion per year in fossil fuel subsidies worldwide. But she says the confirmed figures are high enough:

“The International Energy Agency says $1.9 trillion. You take all the subsidies being given to all forms of renewables and efficiency and any of the countervailing. It’s in the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions if you aggregate it all together. It’s sure not in the billions or trillions. So we have a very unlevelled playing field.”

Where’s your money?

Lovins says people can do a lot themselves and her solutions get right down to the nitty gritty of everyday life: it’s not about worrying whether or not your neighbour recycles, she says.

Instead, it’s about whether or not the big investment flows by business are being put into regenerative investments or degenerative investments, that matters:

“So where’s your money? If you have a retirement plan, is it invested in an adviser who is just investing in the general markets? Or is it with someone who is divesting of ownership and fossil, is investing in the regenerative opportunities? And there are a growing number of funds that are committed to doing this.”

On a smaller scale, she adds, “what is your company doing? Individuals at work can help their company save money, become more profitable, by beginning to move steadily in the direction of becoming a regenerative company.”

One minute she talks about the severity of these catastrophical issues, the next she is positive that change is on the way. I can’t help but wonder if she herself knows whether to feel hope or despair, but I am guessing it’s a bit of both.

But, she says, “we are winning” – and much of what has been achieved so far is all thanks to all the environmental organisations:

“Everything that all of these annoying tree huggers have been doing has built up to this momentum. There is recognition now on the part of the world’s major governments that we are at a crisis point, that the economy as it has been is no longer fit for purpose, and we’re going to start seeing changes. Now, the responsibility shifts to us to be explicit about what kind of a future we want.”

One can’t help but wonder if she practices what she preaches. She is the first to point out that one of her main means of transportation, aeroplanes, are perhaps not the most sustainable.

But how else will she make it to all these events and meetings around the world and proceed to drive change and work towards a better future? At home, however, her ranch is powered by solar power, and her town has a community solar garden.

Why don’t we all drive electric?

And she drives electric, a Nissan Leaf. She says: “I love it. No emissions! I plug it into my solar system and I continue to be gobsmacked: why don’t we all do that? The damn things are on the road now. Why don’t we all drive cars that need no gasoline?”

After our meeting, Lovins is off to wow people somewhere else. For motivating people seems to be what she does best. Finally, I ask her what she would say if she only had one minute to engage the world in taking action to secure a sustainable future. After the briefest pause she says:

“What do you want your future to be? We have all the technologies to solve all the problems facing us. We can build a better world for us, for all of life on the planet.

“Doing that is better business. Let’s engage the business community. Let’s build sensible regulations that enable us to be moving steadily in the direction that we want to be. And let’s reinvent the economy, starting at the community level, but also at an intellectual level.

“The economy we have now is going over a cliff. You know it. You talk to everybody, they know it. It’s going to go over a cliff financially. It’s going to go over a cliff environmentally. So we are on a bus headed for a cliff at 60 miles an hour enjoying the view out the window.

“Guys, first step: slow the bus. Second step: turn the bus around. And then, where do we want the bus to go? We can build a better world. Let’s do it.”

Lovins ideas are compelling, and I leave filled with thoughts, a vague fear of what the future will hold, a reinforced notion that I’m not doing as much as I could, and an eagerness to do more.

And this, it strikes me as I walk down the creaky wooden steps in the Frontline Club, was precisely what she wanted.

 


 

Sophie Morlin-Yron is a freelance journalist based in London, for more of her work see her website. Twitter: @sophiemyron

 




383958

With 4% support, Labour robs Green seat in ‘rotten borough’ election Updated for 2026





Back in May, there were council elections in Oxford. In the Carfax ward, the former Labour council leader, Alex Hollingsworth stood. He lost narrowly to the Green candidate, Ruthi Brandt.

A couple of months later, a by-election was triggered. Each Oxford ward has two councillors, and there are elections for one of them every two years. The other councillor in the ward, Ann-Marie Canning, announced she was standing down.

Ann Marie had moved to London for a job soon after she’d been elected in 2012, and was finding it hard to do both jobs.

Elections timed for electoral advantage at public expense

Usually, it’s frowned upon to trigger a by-election immediately after there’s been a city-wide election, as it costs extra resources and it’s easier for everyone just to elect both seats for the ward on the same day.

But Oxford Labour have done it three times this summer. They know it’s easier to hold by-elections than to hold seats during the city-wide vote because they can pour resources in from across the county and beat the various smaller parties they have to contend with in each area.

Since Greens won the Carfax seat up in May, it seems likely they’d have got two, had both been contested then. Up against the whole Labour machine, it’s harder.

This case is more shocking though. Carfax is a funny kind of a ward. Fully 60% of the people who live there are students living in their Oxford colleges – and are unable to be present outside term time.

No public mandate at all

In a move clearly planned for many months by Labour, Ann-Marie announced her resignation at exactly the right moment to ensure that the by-election would be held at a time when students weren’t there.

She and the Oxford Labour Party connived to ensure that the majority of voters in the ward would be disenfranchised. Oxford students tend to vote Green. The non-students in the ward lean to Labour.

Not surprisingly, therefore, among the 40% of the voters who remained, Labour won. Or rather, among the 8.6% of the electorate who voted. 8.6% is apparently the lowest turnout in British electoral history. It provides no mandate at all.

Hollingsworth should refuse to take up his seat, and the by-election should be held again. If it was, Hollingsworth could well win again.

But he won’t stand down. He’ll instead claim to represent an electorate his party actively chose to disenfranchise, and vote in their name on issues which affect them.

 


 

Adam Ramsay is the Co-Editor of OurKingdom  on Open Democracy, and also works with Bright Green. Before, he was a full time campaigner with People & Planet. His e-book ‘42 Reasons to Support Scottish Independence’ is now available.

Adam also contested Oxford’s Carfax seat for the Green Party in 2012, taking second place to Ann-Marie Canning.

This article was originally published on Bright Green.

 




383785