Nevertheless, my conversations with energy experts in Washington, DC, and Berlin suggested that there are areas that bear the potential for cooperation toward global emission reductions and the advancement of clean energy.Some of them are yet untapped, some of them could be expanded.
Instead, the Trump administration’s energy policy is driven by the familiar “America First” paradigm. no longer contributes to the UN Green Climate Fund and has distanced itself from its fellow G20 and G7 members on questions of climate protection and clean energy. The German government fosters its goal of a global energy transition internationally through bilateral and multilateral engagement and initiatives.
The administration has withdrawn its engagement from several international formats to foster clean energy, such as the Extractives Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), and is “reviewing” its commitments under most of the Clean Energy Ministerial’s (CEM) working groups, such as the Multilateral Solar and Wind Working Group. The goal of nearly decarbonized energy systems, to be achieved especially by focusing on renewable energies, energy conservation and the highest possible energy efficiency, latest by 2050, is an important Leitbild of national climate and energy policy as well as energy foreign policy and development policy. It hosts some twenty energy partnerships and dialogues in order to promote sustainable energy with its partner countries.
As Germany has few fossil fuel resources of its own, it is a net importer of oil, gas, and coal.
Russia is already the main supplier for all three, which has led the Trump administration to criticize German efforts to tighten its energy ties to Russia even further through the construction of the “Nord Stream 2” gas pipeline.
[O]ur withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty […]. and Germany are moving in fundamentally different directions with their energy policies. Some believe that “not much has changed” in terms of climate and sustainable energy since President Trump took office.
Staying in the agreement could also pose serious obstacles for the United States as we begin the process of unlocking the restrictions on America’s abundant energy reserves, which we have started very strongly. Germany has embarked on its “Energiewende,” an energy strategy based on renewable energy and energy efficiency as well as the phase-out of fossil fuels and nuclear energy. under the Trump administration has abandoned its national and international climate commitments. This strategy marks a significant departure from the Obama administration, which pursued a climate action plan focused on fostering clean energy in the U. To others, “everything has changed” and the situation for sustainable energy is “very bad,” even “an embarrassment.” How can there be such different perceptions of current energy policy? and Germany thus persist and the essay concludes with some ideas on how this could translate into transatlantic energy cooperation.I therefore propose that we have a discussion in the climate cabinet about how we could reach the goal of being CO2 neutral by 2050 and the discussion should not be about whether we can reach that goal but about how we will reach it. is not universally perceived as straightforward policy reversal.The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy […]. Conversations with energy experts in Washington, DC, in the spring of 2019 yield two different interpretations.At the May 2019 Petersberg Climate Dialogue, Chancellor Merkel rather praised China on the expansion of renewable energy and the way it “face[s] up to the challenges posed by climate change.” What this means in practice is that the U. doesn’t limit itself to promoting fossil fuels abroad.For geopolitical reasons, it also continues to support clean energy, for instance through its efforts to promote energy access in Africa and the Asia Pacific, because in many countries they are the most economical alternative in setting up electricity supply and the U. has an interest in maintaining close relations with these countries.Enhancing such cooperation is not trivial: Through their foreign energy policy, both countries are shaping energy systems on a global scale, building up energy infrastructure which may determine energy supply in their partner countries for decades to come.Their international energy policy efforts may thus also determine their relationships with their partners vis-à-vis large energy players such as China, Russia, and the OPEC countries for the foreseeable future.It is an important building block in the country’s climate protection endeavors. It is pursuing an “Energy Dominance” strategy that seeks to expand the production of U. And what does this mean for the potential of transatlantic clean energy cooperation? It shows that there is truth to both sides: The Trump administration’s energy policy, in contrast to its predecessor’s, no longer focuses on fostering sustainable energy. continues to support renewable energy and energy efficiency. An early focus of the Trump administration’s energy strategy was to eliminate climate protection programs and regulations set up by the Obama administration.This creates some tensions with the climate and energy policy goals of the German government. The current budget proposal for fiscal year 2020, for instance, would eliminate most funding for climate programs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).Trump’s central energy policy goal is to eliminate environmental regulation which, in his view, limits the country’s production of coal, gas, and oil.A “powerful America,” the administration explains in its National Security Strategy (NSS), is based on unleashing the nation’s “abundant energy resources.” As with other policy areas, the Trump administration has demonstrated a general unwillingness to operate its energy policy within a multilateral framework.