Germany’s decision to phase out coal by 2038 lags behind citizens’ timing preferences
Source abstract
Abstract
Coal-fired power generation is the single most important source of carbon dioxide emissions in many countries, including Germany. A government commission recently proposed to phase out coal by 2038, which implies that the country will miss its 2020 climate target. Based on a representative sample of German voters assessing 31,744 hypothetical policy scenarios in a choice experiment, we show that voters prefer an earlier phase-out by 2025. They would uphold their support for greater climate ambition up to an additional cost to society of €8.50 billion. Voters in Rhineland and Lusatia, the country's main coal regions, support an earlier phase-out, too, although to a lesser extent. By demonstrating that political decision-makers are more reluctant to overcoming energy path dependence than voters, our analysis calls for further research explaining the influence of particular stakeholders in slowing energy transitions.
Source: europepmc · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Climate Change Policy and Economics · Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (64)
Show source-provided references
1. McGlade, C. & Ekins, P. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 517, 187–190 (2015).10.1038/nature14016 ↗
2. Hansen, J. et al. Target atmospheric CO2: where should humanity aim? Open Atmos. Sci. J. 2, 217–231 (2008).10.2174/1874282300802010217 ↗
3. Rockström, J. et al. A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science 355, 1269–1271 (2017).10.1126/science.aah3443 ↗
4. BP Statistical Review of World Energy (BP, 2018).
5. Pfeiffer, A., Hepburn, C., Vogt-Schilb, A. & Caldecott, B. Committed emissions from existing and planned power plants and asset stranding required to meet the Paris Agreement. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 054019 (2018).10.1088/1748-9326/aabc5f ↗
6. Fri, R. W. & Savitz, M. L. Rethinking energy innovation and social science. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1, 183–187 (2014).10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.010 ↗
7. Rogge, K. S., Kern, F. & Howlett, M. Conceptual and empirical advances in analysing policy mixes for energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 33, 1–10 (2017).10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.025 ↗
8. Montt, G. et al. Does climate action destroy jobs? An assessment of the employment implications of the 2-degree goal. Int. Labour Rev. 157, 519–556 (2018).10.1111/ilr.12118 ↗
9. Tvinnereim, E. & Ivarsflaten, E. Fossil fuels, employment, and support for climate policies. Energy Policy 96, 364–371 (2016).10.1016/j.enpol.2016.05.052 ↗
10. Morton, T. & Müller, K. Lusatia and the coal conundrum: the lived experience of the German Energiewende. Energy Policy 99, 277–287 (2016).10.1016/j.enpol.2016.05.024 ↗
11. Kuchler, M. & Bridge, G. Down the black hole: sustaining national socio-technical imaginaries of coal in Poland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 41, 136–147 (2018).10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.014 ↗
12. Carley, S., Evans, T. P. & Konisky, D. M. Adaptation, culture, and the energy transition in American coal country. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 37, 133–139 (2017).10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.007 ↗
13. IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. In Global Warming of 1.5 °C. (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (World Meteorological Organization, 2018).
14. Renn, O. & Marshall, J. P. Coal, nuclear and renewable energy policies in Germany: from the 1950s to the “Energiewende”. Energy Policy 99, 224–232 (2016).10.1016/j.enpol.2016.05.004 ↗
15. Lauber, V. & Jacobsson, S. In The Triple Challenge for Europe: Economic Development, Climate Change, and Governance (eds Fagerberg, J., Laestadius, S. & Martin, B. R.) 173–203 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2015).
16. Wronski, R. & Fiedler, S. Was Strom wirklich kostet: Vergleich der staatlichen Förderungen und gesamtgesellschaftlichen Kosten von konventionellen und erneuerbaren Energien (Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft e.V., 2017); https://www.greenpeace-energy.de/fileadmin/docs/publikationen/Studien/2017-10-Was_Strom_wirklich_kostet_lang.pdf
17. Wüstenhagen, R. & Bilharz, M. Green energy market development in Germany: effective public policy and emerging customer demand. Energy Policy 34, 1681–1696 (2006).10.1016/j.enpol.2004.07.013 ↗
18. Energiebilanzen, A.G. Bruttostromerzeugung in Deutschland ab 1990 nach Energieträgern. http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fileName=20161216_brd_stromerzeugung1990-2016.pdf (2019).
19. IPCC Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).
20. Laird, F. N. in Germany’s Energy Transition: A Comparative Perspective (eds Hager, C. & Stefes, C.) 111–131 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).
21. Meckling, J., Kelsey, N., Biber, E. & Zysman, J. Winning coalitions for climate policy. Science 349, 1170–1171 (2015).10.1126/science.aab1336 ↗
22. Fraune, C. & Knodt, M. Sustainable energy transformations in an age of populism, post-truth politics, and local resistance. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 43, 1–7 (2018).10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.029 ↗
23. Lockwood, M. Right-wing populism and the climate change agenda: exploring the linkages. Env. Polit. 27, 712–732 (2018).10.1080/09644016.2018.1458411 ↗
24. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie Abschlussbericht, Kommission “Wachstum, Strukturwandel und Beschäftigung” (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie, 2019).
25. Deutsche Bundesregierung Klimaschutzplan 2050: Klimaschutzpolitische Grundsätze und Ziele der Bundesregierung (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit, 2016).
26. Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J. & Yamamoto, T. Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Polit. Anal. 22, 1–30 (2013).10.1093/pan/mpt024 ↗
27. Dharshing, S., Hille, S. L. & Wüstenhagen, R. The influence of political orientation on the strength and temporal persistence of policy framing effects. Ecol. Econ. 142, 295–305 (2017).10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.014 ↗
28. Stokes, L. C. & Warshaw, C. Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States. Nat. Energy 2, 17107 (2017).10.1038/nenergy.2017.107 ↗
29. Leipprand, A. & Flachsland, C. Regime destabilization in energy transitions: the German debate on the future of coal. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 40, 190–204 (2018).10.1016/j.erss.2018.02.004 ↗
30. Huneke, F. & Niggemeier, M.-L. Jamaica and the coal. Energy BrainPool https://blog.energybrainpool.com/en/jamaica-and-the-coal-energy-market-2-0-passes-functioning-test/ (2018).
31. Setton, D., Matuschke, I. & Renn, O. Soziales Nachhaltigkeitsbarometer der Energiewende 2017 (Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V., 2017).
32. Mehrheit wünscht sich möglichst schnellen Braunkohle-Ausstieg. Infratest Dimap https://www.infratest-dimap.de/umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/umfragen/aktuell/mehrheit-wuenscht-sich-moeglichst-schnellen-braunkohle-ausstieg/ (2019).
33. Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. & Ecker, U. K. H. Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS ONE 12, e0175799 (2017).10.1371/journal.pone.0175799 ↗
34. Ding, D., Maibach, E. W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C. & Leiserowitz, A. Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 462–466 (2011).10.1038/nclimate1295 ↗
35. Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K. & Gignac, G. E. NASA faked the moon landing-therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: an anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychol. Sci. 24, 622–633 (2013).10.1177/0956797612457686 ↗
36. van der Linden, S., Maibach, E. & Leiserowitz, A. Improving public engagement with climate change: five “best practice” insights from psychological science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 758–763 (2015).10.1177/1745691615598516 ↗
37. Cook, J. et al. Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 048002 (2016).10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 ↗
38. Leiserowitz, A. et al. Climate Change in the American Mind: March 2018 (Yale Univ. and George Mason Univ., 2018).
39. Davidson, D. J. Exnovating for a renewable energy transition. Nat. Energy 4, 254–256 (2019).10.1038/s41560-019-0369-3 ↗
40. Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T. & Sorrell, S. Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science 357, 1242–1244 (2017).10.1126/science.aao3760 ↗
41. Heyen, D. A., Hermwille, L. & Wehnert, T. Out of the comfort zone! Governing the exnovation of unsustainable technologies and practices. Gaia 26, 326–331 (2017).10.14512/gaia.26.4.9 ↗
42. Kivimaa, P. & Kern, F. Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Res. Policy 45, 205–217 (2016).10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008 ↗
43. Turnheim, B. & Geels, F. W. Regime destabilisation as the flipside of energy transitions: lessons from the history of the British coal industry, 1913–1997. Energy Policy 50, 35–49 (2012).10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.060 ↗
44. Broockman, D. E. & Skovron, C. Bias in perceptions of public opinion among American political elites. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 112, 542–563 (2018).10.1017/S0003055418000011 ↗
45. Hertel-Fernandez, A., Mildenberger, M. & Stokes, L. C. Legislative staff and representation in Congress. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 113, 1–18 (2019).10.1017/S0003055418000606 ↗
46. Breetz, H., Mildenberger, M. & Stokes, L. The political logics of clean energy transitions. Bus. Polit. 20, 492–522 (2018).10.1017/bap.2018.14 ↗
47. Markard, J. The next phase of the energy transition and its implications for research and policy. Nat. Energy 3, 628–633 (2018).10.1038/s41560-018-0171-7 ↗
48. Vona, F. Job losses and political acceptability of climate policies: why the ‘job-killing’ argument is so persistent and how to overturn it. Clim. Policy 19, 524–532 (2019).10.1080/14693062.2018.1532871 ↗
49. Bechtel, M. M. & Scheve, K. F. Mass support for global climate agreements depends on institutional design. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 13763–13768 (2013).10.1073/pnas.1306374110 ↗
50. Gampfer, R., Bernauer, T. & Kachi, A. Obtaining public support for north-south climate funding: evidence from conjoint experiments in donor countries. Glob. Environ. Change 29, 118–126 (2014).10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.006 ↗
51. Kohleausstieg jetzt einleiten (Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen, 2017).
52. Matthes, D. F. C. et al. Zukunft Stromsystem: Kohleausstieg 2035 - Vom Ziel her denken (WWF Germany, 2017).
53. Pietroni, A., Fernahl, A., Perez Linkenheil, C., Niggemaier, M. & Huneke, F. Klimaschutz durch Kohleausstieg: Wie ein Ausstieg aus der Kohle Deutschlands Klimaziele erreichbar macht, ohne die Versorgungssicherheit zu gefährden (energy brainpool, 2017).
54. Höhne, N., Kuramochi, T., Sterl, S. & Röschel, L. Was bedeutet das Pariser Abkommen für den Klimaschutz in Deutschland? (NewClimate Institute, 2016).
55. Connolly, K. G7 leaders agree phase out fossil fuel use end of century. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/08/g7-leaders-agree-phase-out-fossil-fuel-use-end-of-century (2015).
56. Stratmann, K., Sigmund, T., Flauger, J. & Kersting, S. Streit um Enegiewende: Kohleausstieg entzweit die Wirtschaft. Handelsblatt https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/streit-um-enegiewende-kohleausstieg-entzweit-die-wirtschaft-/20550070.html (2017).
57. Ecke, J. Gutachten: Sozialverträgliche Ausgestaltung eines Kohlekonsenses (ver.di - Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft / enervis energy advisors GmbH, 2016).
58. Elf Eckpunkte für einen Kohlekonsens. Konzept zur schrittweisen Dekarbonisierung des deutschen Stromsektors (Langfassung) Version 1.2 (Agora Energiewende, 2016).
59. O’Sullivan, M., Edler, D. & Lehr, U. Bruttobeschäftigung durch erneuerbare Energien in Deutschland und verringerte fossile Brennstoffimporte durch erneuerbare Energien und Energieeffizienz (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie, 2016); https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/S-T/bruttobeschaeftigung-erneuerbare-energien-monitioringbericht-2015.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=11
60. Dehnen, N., Mattes, A. & Traber, T. Die Beschäftigungseffekte der Energiewende: Eine Expertise für den Bundesverband WindEnergie e.V. und die Deutsche Messe AG (Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, 2015).
61. DIW Glossar: Parteibindung. Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.413409.de/presse/diw_glossar/parteibindung.html (2018).
62. Global Panel Book (Lightspeed, 2016); http://www.lightspeedresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Lightspeed_PanelBook_Q4_2016.pdf
63. Rinscheid, A. Replication data for: Germany’s decision to phase out coal by 2038 lags behind citizens’ timing preferences. Harvard Dataverse https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TEFCBL (2019).10.7910/DVN/TEFCBL ↗
64. Nationale Inventarberichte zum Deutschen Treibhausgasinventar 1990 bis 2017 (Stand 01/2019) (Umweltbundesamt, 2019).