Green investment declines as priorities change

Just when you thought that the financial crisis couldn’t have any more serious ramifications, we discover that the health of the planet is also at stake

A new report – Durban Dynamics: navigating for progress on climate change – published by professional services firm Ernst & Young, reveals that European governments are unable to afford their previous levels of investment into carbon emission efficiencies and green projects because of their self-imposed austerity measures. According to the report, the so-called ‘funding gap’ among 10 of the world’s major economies could reach approximately $45bn by 2015, a figure that is likely to increase if the eurozone crisis is compounded by national defaults.

The report suggests that, under current austerity measures, the climate change funding gap is set to be the most pronounced in Spain, the UK and France, with Spain forecast to spend $5.1bn less on climate change by 2015 – relative to a scenario in which government spending grows at an average historical rate – with the UK spending $4.2bn less, and France $2.9bn less. In the event that the eurozone crisis could escalate and lead to a new banking crisis, Germany would face the biggest climate change funding gap, estimated to reach as much as $8.3bn. In addition, Spain, Japan and the US would face a gap of more than $6bn, and the UK and France would see a gap of over $5bn.

Furthermore, there are suggestions that the financial crisis is being used as an excuse to push the issue of climate change on to the back burners. And it is easy to understand that, when governmental policies are focused on achieving economic recovery, emissions reductions are taking a back seat.

One step forward, two back
According to the EU’s annual report on renewable energy investment trends, the eurozone debt crisis and the accompanying austerity measures taken by member states have had a significant impact on investment in renewable energy. The report states that several EU governments have cut their support for renewables in order to alleviate short-term budget gaps.

The report goes on to describe how initiatives of countries including Germany, Italy, Spain and the Czech Republic in making photovoltaics tariffs less profitable contributed to reduced investment in 2011. Both the Czech Republic and Spain made retroactive cuts for feed-in tariffs for projects already set in place, hindering investment in the sector.

Germany and Italy also began to reduce feed-in tariffs at the beginning of 2011.

Furthermore, The Global Carbon Project – a think tank comprising a group of climate scientists and economists – details that between 2008 and 2009, the global financial crisis had virtually no impact on the long-term increase in greenhouse gases released from the burning of fossil fuels and other industrial activities. According to research, the amount of man-made carbon dioxide released in 2010 reached a record 10 billion tonnes – almost six percent higher than in 2009.

Silver linings
According to a report carried out by Bloomberg – Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2011 – there has still been some progress made, especially in asset finance of utility-scale projects such as wind farms, which rose 19 percent to $128bn in 2010.

Meanwhile, venture capital investment increased by 59 percent to $2.4bn and public market investment gained 23 percent to $15.4bn. Even more successful was the realisation of some of the “green stimulus” funds promised after the financial crisis hit which saw an increase by 121 percent of government-funded research and development to $5.3bn.

Small-scale projects also increased by 91 percent from 2009-2010 to $60bn.

The areas that fell short of the progress made in 2009 were corporate research, development and deployment, which combined fell 12 percent to $3.3bn, and provision of expansion capital for renewable energy companies by private equity funds, which fell one percent to $3.1bn. A positive trend however – if you want to see it that way – is that for the first time developing countries overtook developed economies for the first time, totaling $72bn to $70bn respectively. This fact is even more impressive for the developing world if you take into account the high performance of China for the developed nations, which amassed $48.9bn (28 percent) of the total investment. What is discouraging is the slowdown across continental Europe, which remains preoccupied with survival of the euro.

Missed opportunities
Unlike previous global recessions, which caused long-term dips in carbon dioxide emissions lasting several years, the current downturn caused just one year’s fall of 1.9 percent, which was quickly reversed by a dramatic rebound in 2010 and 2011. And the Kyoto agreement – the United Nations’ framework on climate change – seems to be doing little to alleviate the issue.

In November 2011, Canada announced that it would withdraw from the agreement, because, as a spokeman said, “the country would face crippling fines for failing to meet its targets.” This is the first country to withdraw from the treaty. The protocol, initially adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, is focused on fighting global warming. Canada’s obligations under Kyoto would cost $13.6bn, representing $1,600 from every Canadian family. In spite of this cost, greenhouse emissions are expected to continue to rise, as two of the world’s largest polluters – the US and China – are not covered by the Kyoto agreement.

Following Kyoto there have been other attempts to reach an agreement on climate change targets, with varying degrees of success. Whereas the 194 attending nations that convened at the Copenhagen climate summit failed spectacularly to reach a satisfactory agreement to cut emissions of the greenhouse gases, the UN’s Climate Change Conference 2011, held in Durban, South Africa, in December 2011, resolved for the first time to negotiate a legally enforceable agreement to control all nations’ emissions. However, while this did break new ground in terms of agreed emissions quotas, the rules of the agreement will only come into force after 2020.

The financial crisis in 2008-09 had been an opportunity for the global economy to move away from high emissions growth, but all signs indicate that this opportunity has not been seized upon. Governments will need to do more to encourage action in this area if they are to ensure the issue isn’t pushed to the bottom of the pile altogether.

Comments: 5
Join the discussion below

The May – June 2013 Issue

Highest corporate tax
rates in Europe

European countries are scrambling to raise every last penny of funds through taxes. But some countries may have gone too far...

Belgium

Though all business taxes in Belgium can be paid online with little effort and preparation, the rates are still sky-high at 57.7 percent, including a staggering 50.8 percent total rate on profits only in social security contributions.

Belarus

In Belarus, a company spends up to 338 hours annually preparing for and paying ten different taxes and duties. The total tax rate has incredibly been lowered to 60.7 percent, from 117.5 percent in 2008.

France

A company in France pays seven different taxes and duties, the sum of which can amount to 65.7 percent of profits; though President François Hollande has announced a wave of business tax rate cuts coming up.

Estonia

A business in Estonia pays 67.3 percent of profits in tax, 37.2 percent exclusively in social security contributions. The country has gone against the grain in Europe by raising businesses taxes from 48.6 percent in 2008 to the current rates.

Italy

While corporate income tax (IRES) in Italy is limited to 38 percent of taxable profit, a company operating in Italy can expect to pay 14 other taxes and duties, including social security contributions, bringing their total payable tax to 68.7 percent of profits, according to the World Bank.

Norway

Norway taxes motor fuels twice, with a road use tax and a CO2 emissions tax. Combined with strikes in the energy sector that have curbed output, the price of gas at a local pump has soared to $10.12 per gallon.

Turkey

Though Turkey sits on the Suez Canal and neighbours many oil rich countries, the price of a gallon of average gas clocks in at $9.41 in Turkish pumps, because of a 60 percent share of taxes. 

Israel

Like Turkey, Israel is surrounded by oil-rich neighbours, but drills very little itself. Gas prices are controlled by the government, so about half of the $9.28 per gallon goes to taxes.

Hong Kong

There are few gas stations in Hong Kong, but the ones available charge up to 76 percent more per gallon than mainland China, where the government caps the cost of fuel. A gallon at the pumps will cost around $8.61 on the island.

Netherlands

Expensive labour costs make the Dutch petrol prices the dearest in Europe, at $8.26 per gallon; though the 57 percent tax add-ons don’t help.

The credit crisis

8 February 2007
HSBC warns of subprime mortgage losses

2 April 2007
New Century goes bus

14 September 2007
Wholesale markets have dried up

17 March 2008
Rescue of Bear Stearns

7 September 2008
Rescue of Fannie Mae

15 September 2008
Lehman Brothers file for bankruptcy

3 October 2008
US congress approves $700bn bailout

14 February 2009
$787bn stimulus approved by congress

 

The effects of the current financial crisis are global and irrefutable. With the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the domino effect of irresponsible public monetary policies, huge levels of unsustainable debt, and a deregulated financial sector, has escalated to the point where no corner of the globe has been left untouched.

1973 oil crisis

October 1973
Syria and Egypt launch an attack on Israel on Yom Kippur and set off a twenty day war;

1977
US President Carter creates Department of Energy, which develops the US strategic petroleum reserve

 

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) used their oil reserves as a weapon with the Arab Oil Embargo against those who supported Israel. By January 1974, world oil prices were four times higher than they were at the start of the crisis, especially in the US, and the shock led to a huge drop in the stock market with NYSE losing $97bn in just six weeks.  The embargo lasted five months, and the effects are still seen today.

German hyperinflation

1922-1923

Hyperinflation
1923 – 1924
Stabilisation

 

The trouble began when Germany missed a repatriation payment, worth about one third of the German deficit in this period. Inflation was already high but by 1923 it was raging. Prices doubled within hours, and by late 1923, it cost 200bn marks to buy a single loaf of bread. People burned money as it was cheaper than buying firewood. Germany eventually regained control of its economy when it introduced the Rentenmark into circulation in 1923, and then the Reichmark in 1924.

The Great Depression

1929-1933
The Great Crash
1934-1939
Recovery and Recession

 

After the decadence of the Roaring Twenties, the 1930s saw the biggest economic slump of all time. The stock market crashed on 29 October 1929, and optimism and decadent living tumbled along with the figures. The GDP fell from $103.6bn in 1929, to $66bn in 1934 and the subsequent years of recovery were the most dramatic in US history.

1907 bankers’ panic

1907
Otto Heinze and his brother Augustus Heinze bought shares of United Copper.

 

The stock market was already cautious over the tight money supply, but the US was thrown into a depression after the stock market fell nearly 50 percent from its peak in 1906. The Heinze brothers thought they could influence market shares but ended up bankrupting lenders that provided the financing to buy the stock. A chain reaction left nine institutions bankrupt. By February 1908, the panic was over and the government created the Federal Reserve system, to prevent banks from exercising too much control over the economy.