Opinion

The UN climate conference in Katowice: A message from the European capital of coal

Following the COP24 climate talks in Poland, Simone Tagliapietra reviews the arguments for and challenges to decarbonisation.

By: and Date: December 12, 2018 Topic: Global economy and trade

This opinion piece was originally published in Die Zeit.

logo of Il Sole 24 Ore Italian newspaper

This year’s United Nations climate-change conference (COP24) opened this week in Katowice, the European capital of coal. Over the next days, the international delegates who have converged on the Polish city to negotiate a rule-book to make the Paris Agreement work will frequently experience the thick blanket of smog characterising the city: a material reminder of the urgency to move towards a clean-energy world.

Given the most recent trends in global CO2 emissions, even such a reminder is particularly welcomed. In fact, the world is currently well short of the trajectory agreed in Paris to tackle climate change. Last year, global energy-related CO2 emissions reached a historic high of 32.5 gigatonnes and preliminary data from the International Energy Agency suggest this trend will just get worse this year. And energy-related air pollution, such as heavily affects Katowice, continues to result in millions of premature deaths each year across the globe.

Accounting for about a quarter of global energy-related CO2 emissions, coal is the main single contributor to this problem. The top three consumers of coal are: China (50%), India (11%) and – surprise, surprise – the European Union (6%).

Notwithstanding its firm climate-change mitigation policies and its strong support for renewable energy sources, the EU has still not switched off the most polluting part of the energy mix: coal.

Coal continues to play a major role in the electricity generation for several EU countries: 80% in Poland, and over 40% in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany and Greece. Even the gas-exporting Netherlands produces 35% of its electricity from coal. So far, only a few EU countries – such as France, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK – have pledged to shut down their coal-fired power plants altogether. This needs to change, because coal’s lingering place in the EU energy system is disastrous for the climate, for the environment, and for human health.

From a climate perspective, coal is the worst way to generate electricity – even compared to other fossil fuels. A coal-fired power plant emits 40% more carbon dioxide than a gas-fired plant producing the same amount of electricity, and 20% more than an oil-fired plant. To look at it another way, coal is responsible for 75% of carbon emissions in the European electricity sector, but only produces 25% of our electricity. Electricity generation produces a quarter of Europe’s total carbon emissions, and is vital in plans to green other sectors. Decarbonising electricity is vital. After all, a shift to electric cars will mean little if we power them with electricity from coal.

Coal-fired power plants across Europe are responsible for the largest amounts of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter released into the air. These pollutants can enter the human body and cause various health problems, from lung cancer to heart attacks.

And yet, several countries in Europe continue to support coal-fired electricity production. They justify this stance with arguments about energy security and worries about job losses in the coal-mining industry.

Energy security is a valid concern. A country highly reliant on coal cannot switch overnight to cleaner sources of electricity. However, the transition is feasible. Several countries have already successfully phased out coal without compromising energy security and competitiveness. It is a question of good planning, and that needs to start now.

The socio-economic argument about job losses is also unconvincing. Coal-mining employment in Europe is no longer a major issue. The country with the highest number of coal-mining jobs is Poland, with 100,000 people employed. This represents a mere 0.7% of Poland’s total employment. In all other countries coal-mining employment stands below 30,000 units, always representing less than 0.6% of total employment.

Of course, the closure of mines will be painful for those few workers and communities who still depend on them. But well-designed public financial support could help to mitigate these impacts, ensuring a ‘just transition’ that leaves nobody behind.

For instance, we calculated that the EU could put in place a sensible scheme to help coal miners who will lose their jobs with just €150 million per year: a mere 0.1% of the total EU budget. This small investment would have an important leverage, reducing the political damage and incentivising coal-reliant countries to start or accelerate their phase-out plans.

Climate change is a complex global problem that needs international solutions. But it is clear that coal needs to go. By compensating regions that still depend on coal mining, the EU can show solidarity with those who have something to lose from the phase-out. It can also speed up the transition, generating substantial benefits for all Europeans in terms of climate, environment and health. By doing so, the EU could also provide a blueprint that might then be followed by others around the globe. This would certainly represent a tangible and important contribution to the implementation of the Paris Agreement.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint.

Due to copyright agreements we ask that you kindly email request to republish opinions that have appeared in print to [email protected].

Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

REPowerEU: will EU countries really make it work?

By acting together, the European Union can optimise its response to the energy crisis in all scenarios but each country will have to make concessions.

By: Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Green economy Date: May 18, 2022
Read article
 

Blog Post

The EU needs transparent oil data and enhanced coordination

The EU lacks the coordination structure and transparent data necessary to most effectively navigate an embargo on Russian oil.

By: Agata Łoskot-Strachota, Ben McWilliams and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: May 16, 2022
Read about event
 

Past Event

Past Event

[Cancelled] Shifting taxes in order to achieve green goals

[This event is cancelled until further notice] How could shifting the tax burden from labour to pollution and resources help the EU reach its climate goals?

Speakers: Niclas Poitiers and Femke Groothuis Topic: Green economy, Macroeconomic policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: May 12, 2022
Read article More on this topic
 

Opinion

For Europe, an oil embargo is not the way to go

Even at this late hour, the European Union should consider taking a different path.

By: Simone Tagliapietra, Guntram B. Wolff and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade Date: May 9, 2022
Read article
 

External Publication

The Global Quest for Green Growth: An Economic Policy Perspective

A review on green growth and degrowth arguments.

By: Klaas Lenaerts, Simone Tagliapietra and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: May 5, 2022
Read article More on this topic
 

Opinion

A tariff on imports of fossil fuel from Russia

A tariff on imports of Russian fossil fuels would allow Europe to hit Russia's energy sector without great suffering.

By: Guntram B. Wolff and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade Date: May 2, 2022
Read article More on this topic
 

External Publication

How to weaken Russian oil and gas strength

Letter published in Science.

By: Ricardo Hausmann, Agata Łoskot-Strachota, Axel Ockenfels, Ulrich Schetter, Simone Tagliapietra, Guntram B. Wolff and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade Date: May 2, 2022
Read article More on this topic
 

Opinion

A phase out of Russian oil may be less effective than a tariff at reducing Putin’s rents

A punitive tariff on all energy imports from Russia would be a better choice than a gradually phased-in embargo on selected fuels.

By: Simone Tagliapietra, Guntram B. Wolff and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade Date: May 2, 2022
Read article
 

Blog Post

How a European Union tariff on Russian oil can be designed

The European Union should apply a tariff on imports of Russian oil; it can be accompanied by a quota for a gradual, conditional phase-out of all Russian oil imports.

By: David Kleimann, Ben McWilliams and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: April 29, 2022
Read article
 

Opinion

EU risks letting Putin’s gas divide-and-rule strategy win

The 2 May meeting of EU energy ministers should deliver strong and common EU action. Failing to do so would undermine Europe’s unity, energy security and foreign policy.

By: Agata Łoskot-Strachota, Simone Tagliapietra and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: April 29, 2022
Read article More by this author
 

Opinion

Europe must get serious about cutting oil and gas use

As energy security risks increase, European governments must stop subsidising oil and gas, and ask people to consume less.

By: Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: April 29, 2022
Read article Download PDF
 

Working Paper

Cutting Putin’s energy rent: ‘smart sanctioning’ Russian oil and gas

The most efficient way for Europe to sanction Russian energy would not be an embargo, but the introduction of an import tariff that can be used flexibly to control the degree of economic pressure on Russia.

By: Ricardo Hausmann, Agata Łoskot-Strachota, Axel Ockenfels, Simone Tagliapietra, Ulrich Schetter, Guntram B. Wolff and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: April 28, 2022
Load more posts