D. Urge-vorsatz

""An important question for climate policy making is how much GHG emissions and energy can be saved, in which sectors and at what costs? Traditionally, studies looking at this question are often characterised as either using a Bottom-Up or a Top-Down approach. The differences between these approaches are far from clear-cut. The first approach tends to focus more on available technologies and their characteristics, while the second approach focuses on the processes within the economy as a whole on the basis of observed historic behaviour. The two approaches have also been used in the IPCC fourth assessment report (AR4) (IPCC, 2007) in order to assess the medium-term (2030) sectoral potentials and costs of GHG emission reduction. AR4 finds that at the global level the total emission mitigation potentials and costs of the two approaches are comparable (and presents both results in the summary for policymakers). However, at a regional and sectoral scale, the results could not be readily compared due to different data formats. In this report we analyse available data in more detail, by presenting a detailed comparison between the Bottom-Up and Top-Down approaches on a regional and sectoral scale. Using an updated Bottom-Up analysis compared to AR4 and six hybrid or Top-Down energy-environmenteconomy models, sectoral and regional mitigation potentials are estimated at different cost categories for the year 2030. The aims of this study are to derive improved insights into mitigation potentials, to assess the uncertainties therein and to help bridge the gap in understanding the differences between different assessment approaches.""

The Working Group III Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN) presents an assessment of the literature on the scientifi c, technological, environmental, economic and social aspects of the contribution of six renewable energy (RE) sources to the mitigation of climate change. It is intended to provide policy relevant information to governments, intergovernmental processes and other

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has invited world leaders to come to the Climate Summit on September 23, 2014 to deliver “bold pledges” to tackle climate change. This paper was prepared at the request of the Republic of Nauru, Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, as part of their answer to that call.1 We believe the path to the global low-carbon transformation needed to tackle the climate crisis is within reach, but requiresdecisive political action from leaders around the world, now. This paper is unabashedly prescriptive on the need for action, but recognizes that there are multiple approaches and models from around the world that can be scaled up and adapted to national circumstances. Cost-effective technologies for a low-carbon economy are being implemented throughout the world, but at nowhere the scale and speed necessary. Emissions continue to rise. With every year of delay, human suffering, biodiversity loss, and the costs of mitigation and adaptation in...

The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has calculated and shown that, currently, the buildings sector has the largest potential for low-cost carbon dioxide (CO 2) mitigation in the short to medium term from application of technological options among the sectors examined, based on bottom–up studies. The potential estimates, however, were derived with no regard to indirect costs of CO 2 mitigation, associated benefits, and non-technological options; these factors might change the magnitude of the potential and the costs associated with its implementation. The question emerges how accurate the indicators of the economic potential are according to the current IPCC method and how much they might change if all factors mentioned were taken into account. While research results are presently not sufficient to fully answer this question and quantitative analyses of non-technological options, transaction costs associated with barriers, and non-energy benefits are scarce and fragmented, this paper makes a first attempt to assess the presently available literature in the field. The paper concludes that the ballpark is right for the figures reporting the cost-effective potentials in the buildings sector; however, these assessments indeed need to be corrected by incurred transaction costs and co-benefits relevant for the particular assessment, as well as the potential of non-technological options. The paper also outlines a research agenda in the area so that a possible next Assessment Report of the IPCC can derive a more accurate estimate of the bottom–up potential of CO 2 mitigation.

Co-benefits can often be more attractive entry points for energy efficiency measures to policy-making than climate change or other environmental benefits. However, they are seldom quantified and thus rarely can be effectively entered into the decision-making process. This paper presents the key results of a research that has analysed and quantified the co-benefits of a concrete case where co-benefits have a strong chance to drive policy-making: deep energy-efficient retrofits of buildings in Hungary. In this country, buildings are responsible for half of the energy-related CO 2 emissions, are one of the least energy-efficient in the EU, and contain the largest potential for cost-effective mitigation among the different end-use sectors. At the same time, Hungary has the second lowest employment rate of the EU and the OECD, is highly dependent on natural gas imports and a substantial part of its population lives in fuel poverty. Deep energy-efficient retrofitting of the building stock offers a (partial) solution to most of these problems. The main focus of the research was on employment benefits, for which a novel combination of Input-Output analysis with detailed bottom-up estimates was applied. Our findings indicate that if Hungary's residential and public buildings are deep-retrofit-ted, up to 2030: i) 85 % of its heating-related energy consumed and CO 2 emitted in 2010 will be avoided; ii) up to 59 % of the January net gas imports will be avoided; and iii) as much as 180,000 net additional jobs can be created, with this figure getting lower in time and depending on the renovation dynamic. At the same time, if suboptimal retrofits continue to dominate, 45 % of the 2010 heating-related CO 2 emissions will be locked-in, with also energy security and employment benefits significantly lower than in deep renovation scenarios. The paper also offers a discussion on the qualitative aspects of the forecasted employment effects in the Hungarian labour market, including its geographic and skill level distribution, as well as recommendations stemming from an overall macroeconomic assessment of such a program. The significance of the study is that a few weeks after its release the Hungarian government announced its commitment to a comprehensive, deep retrofit program of its building stock.

Policies to improve energy access and energy efficiency are often discussed, designed and assessed in isolation from each other. In this paper, we highlight possible synergies in these two domains of policy making by looking specifically at some key household end uses that are the first to be met once improved access has been provided. By building in efficiency considerations at the very inception of activities aimed at improving access, effective energy supply available is potentially increased, the level of energy services that can be provided by the existing capacity and infrastructure or from existing budgets available is also enhanced, and the potential for reducing the cost for those populations for which cost has the highest consideration is also improved. In particular, we recommend two areas where policy maybe leveraged to benefit both access and efficiency objectives, first in the setting of standards, labels and codes and second coupling energy subsidies for access with rebates or grants for more efficient end use devices. Policy Implications • Pursuing energy access and efficiency policies in tandem can help realize substantial synergies by potentially increasing the level of energy services that can be provided by existing infrastructure, reducing energy costs, and avoiding lock in into inefficient technologies and practices. • Providing increasing energy access more efficiently is likely to benefit from a reorientation of subsidy policies from subsidies on energy alone to grants, rebates or easy credit for efficient end use equipment as well. • The use of appliance standards and labels coupled with financing schemes for efficient equipment purchases can be an effective means to diffuse more efficient appliances even among the poorest and reduce the overall amount of energy needed to meet growing energy service demands. • Building codes and regulations can be an effective means of attaining desired levels of thermal comfort while reducing the energy needed for using heating and cooling equipment. Two standard recommendations made in practically all policy documents relating to the future sustainability of the energy system relate to the need for improving energy efficiency and increasing energy access for populations that are denied this. The United Nations (UN) Secretary -General's Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change (AGECC) has also chosen two specific areas that present immediately actionable opportunities with many cobenefits: energy access and energy efficiency (AGECC, 2010). However, policies and programs for energy efficiency and energy access have historically not always been pursued in tandem. The two issues have been often discussed and assessed in isolation from each other, and often efficiency is perceived as a secondary policy priority to be addressed after having met primary access goals. This is despite general consensus that providing additional energy access in an effective and efficient manner is desirable. Consequently, discussions of the possibility of synergies in policies for addressing both objectives simultaneously are limited. If such syner

Fuel poverty is a still insufficiently researched social and energy challenge with significant climate change implications. Based on evidence from Hungarian panel apartment blocks connected to district heating, this paper introduces a new variant of fuel poverty that may not be properly captured by existing fuel poverty indicators. This newly defined variant can be largely attributed to post-communist legacies – though it might also exist in other contexts – and assumes that consumers living in poor-efficiency, district-heated buildings are trapped in dwellings with adequate indoor temperatures but disproportionately high heating costs because (a) changing supplier or fuel is difficult because of the existing technical and institutional constraints, and (b) they do not realistically have the option to reduce individually their heating costs through individual efficiency improvements. This situation often translates into payment arrears, indebtedness, risk of disconnection, or reduced consumption of other basic goods and services. State-supported policy responses to date have favoured symptomatic solutions (direct consumer support) combined with superficial retrofits, though it is argued that only state-of-the-art retrofits such as the passive house-based SOLANOVA pilot project in Dunaú jvá ros can fully eradicate fuel poverty in this consumer group.

Even though energy poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation are inextricably linked policy goals, they have remained as relatively disconnected fields of research inquiry and policy development. Acknowledging this gap, this paper explores the mainstream academic and policy literatures to provide a taxonomy of interactions and identify synergies and trade-offs between them. The most important trade-off identified is the potential increase in energy poverty levels as a result of strong climate change action if the internalisation of the external costs of carbon emissions is not offset by efficiency gains. The most significant synergy was found in deep energy efficiency in buildings. The paper argues that neither of the two problems – deep reductions in GHG emissions by mid-century, and energy poverty eradication – is likely to be solved fully on their own merit, while joining the two policy goals may provide a very solid case for deep efficiency improvements. Thus, the paper calls for a strong integration of these two policy goals (plus other key related benefits like energy security or employment), in order to provide sufficient policy motivation to mobilise a wide-scale implementation of deep energy efficiency standards.

Fuel (or energy) poverty is understood as a situation in which a household is unable to afford an adequate amount of domestic energy services and/or is forced to pay a disproportionate share of its income on domestic energy. Taking Hungary as a representative case study, the paper first presents relevant indicators which indicate that 10 to 30 % of the Hungarian population was in fuel poverty as of the late 2000s. The results show that fuel poverty rates in Hungary have increased in parallel to the price of imported natural gas, forcing some households to go back to heating systems based on firewood. Together with households' income and energy prices, the energy performance of residential buildings has been identified as a key contributing factor of this social and environmental challenge, thus expanding the scope of the benefits of domestic energy efficiency investments. Based on this premise, the second part of the paper presents the results of a social cost-benefit analysis according to which market (energy savings) and non-market (avoided fuel poverty-related mortality, improved comfort and avoided emissions of GHG and other harmful pollutants) benefits more than justify retrofitting Hungary's residential stock to near passive house levels. The results also confirm the relevance of co-benefits for the economic assessment of residential energy efficiency scenarios. This multi-dimensional analysis of fuel poverty emphasises the importance of co-benefits as policy drivers for the implementation of advanced residential energy efficiency solutions in countries with moderate levels of commitment to global climate goals and high or increasing fuel poverty rates.