News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Monday, May 19, 2014

German taxpayer subsidies for renewable electricity are useless says April 2014 UN IPCC climate report. Unfortunately, this scientific finding didn't appear in German gov. official translation of the UN report to its taxpayers-Die Welt

5/18/14, "The brazen report falsification of climate trickster," Die Welt,
"The UN climate protection report debunks the German promotion of green electricity as useless. It has noted no one. Because the Government has distorted the statements in the official summary gross.

"Brave new world of green electricity? The clear verdict of the UN about the climate policy futility of eco-electricity subsidies for simultaneous trading does not appear in the German summary." photo caption

"German consumers have subsidized renewable energy while with triple-digit billions. But that has brought nothing to climate protection. It says so in the recent climate protection the UN report, which was presented in April of the public accordingly, but quite clearly. Noted that no one has so far, however.

One of the reasons for this is quite simple: the Federal Government has simply embezzled the findings of UN scientists in the official German summary ("core messages"). More embarrassing passages from the UN document were wrong in the summary almost into its opposite.

Action on climate change

But in turn: on April 14, the World Climate Council of the United Nations had presented recent and up to date major report to the global climate protection of the public his. While in the previous reports of the "Intergovernmental Panel on climate change" (IPCC) went to causes and effects of climate change, the "third part report on the IPCC's fifth assessment report" dealt with the possible countermeasures.

The advice of the UN IPCC panel of utmost importance are for policy makers. Should you tackle climate change with the introduction of CO2 taxes? Advisable are subsidies for renewables or nuclear power? Or it takes in the fight against the greenhouse effect, if one builds a trading, forcing the industry and power plant operators to purchase so-called emission rights, for every tonne of carbon dioxide, that want to blow them into the air?

On these and similar issues 235 leading scientists from 58 countries had thought four years intensively. Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) listen as carefully as IPCC Chief Rajendra Pachauri and the co-Chairman of the relevant IPCC Working Group III, Ottmar Edenhofer, the results presented on April 14 in the Auditorium maximum of the Technical University of Berlin.

Clear sides

Only: For a deeper analysis of the several thousand pages of strong UN report wasn't enough at the presentation of course. The "technical summary" alone includes 99 pages of complicated science poetry in English. And also the English-language "summary supplied by the IPCC for decision makers" with a circumference of 33 pages for politicians with a closely synchronised schedule remained a challenge.

Even greater journalists, lecturers, and environmental groups took it there, that that provided a pretty clear with four pages summary of "Key messages" of the IPCC report German Federal ministries and authorities for climate protection.

Responsible for the German summary four highly influential institutions: leading the Ministry of the environment, the Federal Environmental Agency in Dessau and the Federal Ministry for research and education are involved also the German IPCC Coordination Office in Bonn. The paper, you should think is a reputable source for the interpretation of the findings of the IPCC. That the Ministerial summary does not match the original text in important ways, no one knew.

Eco-electricity pointless - if there are Finance

So the IPCC highlights the futility of political climate of eco-electricity subsidies within an emissions trading system in his report: "The add-add a CO2 reduction policy to a second do not necessarily lead to a greater CO2 emissions", it means in literal translation in the "technical summary" of the United Nations: "In an emissions trading scheme with a sufficiently strict caps, other measures such as subsidizing renewable energy have no further influence on the entire CO2 emissions."

So now the IPCC confirmed that say the Scientific Advisory Council of the Federal Ministry of Economics, the monopolies Commission, or the President of the Ifo Institute, Hans-Werner Sinn for years: under a solid cover of the European emissions trading scheme with its precisely counted number of pollution rights, eco-electricity subsidies lead only to a shift of CO2 emissions,  

but not to their reduction.

Wind farms displace as a coal power station, the total CO2 emissions of the plant in the form of emission rights is the market again available. The range is larger, other European power plant operators can operate accordingly cheaper from this free coupon quota. The CO2 emissions avoided in Germany are blown then beyond the confines of someone different in the air. Key to climate protection is only that the total amount of pollution rights distributed in Europe in any case cannot be exceeded.

Lacking clear verdict in summary

But this clear verdict of the IPCC about the climate policy futility of eco-electricity subsidies for simultaneous trading does not appear in the German summary. The only comment to this complex reads completely differently here: "emissions trading will reduce the effectiveness of other measures, unless the number of acceptable certificates will be flexibly adapted."

The difference is clear: the United Nations explain emissions trading to a suitable instrument, which eliminates the need for subsidies for renewable energy. The German translation turns the tables and makes the emissions trading scheme to the culprit who supposedly "will reduce the effectiveness of other measures".

Is questionable, what the United Nations - supposedly - to the design of emissions trading even say: "For the success of emissions trading rights it is necessary to achieve high enough prices for emission allowances to provide incentives for a low-carbon energy sources," it says in the summary of the Federal Government. Why must the number of tradable emission rights also "flexible"be adapted.

Ministry: "first explained in an understandable form"

As emissions trading is by definition a system that provided a number of freely tradeable emission coupons allowing free market prices may arise for these pollution rights. From this system of fixed amounts and flexible prices, the German translation makes a system of flexible volumes, 

to enforce as high prices of emission rights.

Straight run contrary to the principle of emissions trading: because the demand is "flexible" adaptation of the tradable amounts of emission certificates in direct contradiction to the statement of the IPCC report, according to which the maximum number of emission certificates should be "binding".

The statement that high CO2 prices for the success of emissions trading would be "necessary", as the German translation will have us believe, is nowhere found in the original. In principle, and that is precisely the great advantage of emissions trading, the CO2 targets are achieved even if resulting low prices for emission allowances on the market. Climate protection can be also cheap, market mechanisms prevail. That the EU has set itself from the outset only relatively modest CO2 reduction targets, is not to be blamed on emissions trading: the instrument itself therefore does not work equally well.

The Environment Ministry referred a request on the German IPCC Coordination Office. There is incitement to off. The "key messages" are not actually "to a literal or even official translation of the IPCC report", says a spokeswoman about the paper on which the logos of Ministry of environment, Ministry of research, and federal environmental agency can be seen. It was "a first discussion of the report in an intelligible form". The statements made are various passages of the UN report "derived from" been. "Also should be taken into account, that the core messages ', which were developed in collaboration with authors of the IPCC report, statements made in the report can reflect much condensed."

IPCC: "we have not written so that"

The scientists of the IPCC but respond very perplexed, as they were confronted with the German translation of its core messages of the "Welt am Sonntag". "We have not written, so that in the report of the IPCC" Ottmar Edenhofer determines which leading participated in the formulation of the original reports of the UN as co-Chair of working group III. "It is basically not the task of an emissions trading scheme, to generate high prices." "The English original text is authoritative," says Edenhofer, who also Deputy Director and Chief Economist of the Potsdam's Institute for climate impact research (PIK). Then what "the ministries or other institutions that do, is not in my hands".

The Federal Association of emissions trading and climate protection (BVEK) the interpretation of the IPCC report considers a "scandal". "Major statements of the UN Panel were wrong straight into its opposite", criticized Association Chief Jürgen Hacker: "The demand for highest possible CO2 prices have nothing to do with the statements in the UN report at all, correspond to the interest of the Federal Ministry of the environment but very good."

Actually, the recent decline of CO2 prices brings the Environment Ministry in trouble. Because through the auctioning of emission certificates a billionaire was supposed "Energy and climate fund" be fed from several environmental programs of the Ministry of Barbara Hendricks should be funded. Because the proceeds from the auctions are down less than expected, the Ministry is forced to rely on taxpayers for the fulfilment of its commitments.

The Ministry of environment should be of opinion that subsidies for renewable energy despite functioning emissions trading are meaningful or that emissions trading works only with artificially increased CO2 prices. "One can't do Ministry", finds Hacker: "It may the public not pretend that this is also the opinion of the IPCC, the United Nations."" image, dpa. via Free Rep.


5/19/14, "German Govt Falsifies Climate Report Translation To Hide Green Policy Failure," Breitbart London, M.E. Synon

"The German Ministry of Environment has falsified the conclusions of a UN climate change report in the German-language version released last week, in an attempt to hide the fact that the country's 'green policies' are useless.

The ministry’s four-page summary of the report contains outright contradictions and falsifications of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendations, apparently made to hide UN criticism of the way the German government has turned emissions-trading into a cash cow for futile renewable energy projects.

Die Welt said on Sunday that parts of the thousands of pages-long English-language report which the ministry found embarrassing were mistranslated in the government’s “core messages” version released to the German news media and public.

“The UN declares emissions trading an effective instrument that makes subsidies for renewable energy unnecessary. But the German government reverses the conclusion and makes emissions trading the culprit that supposedly ‘constricts the impact of other measures’,” Die Welt reported.

According to Pierre Gosselin, writing on the independent climate news website, this “brings us yet another spectacular scandal, one that shows how the Environment Ministry of the German government is not really interested in climate science after all, but in using the climate issue as an instrument to generate hundreds of millions of euros for funding pet environmental programmes.”

Die Welt said the UN report debunks German green energy as useless.

The newspaper called the Ministry of Environment version “the brazen falsification of a climate trickster,” explaining that: “Emissions trading is by definition a system in which a number of freely tradable emission certificates is prescribed so that free market prices can result for the emissions certificates. From this system of a fixed certificate number and flexible prices, the German translation turns it into a system of flexible certificate numbers to force the highest possible price for emission rights.”

According to Gosselin’s interpretation of the Die Welt article, the Ministry of Environment was banking on high CO2 certificate prices. The auctioning of emission certificates was supposed “to feed a billion-euro energy and climate fund which in turn would finance a number of environment programs of Ministry, led by Barbara Hendricks. Now that certificate prices are so low, the German Ministry has to go begging for money.

Meanwhile the German Association for Emissions Trading and Climate Protection (BVEK) views the misinterpretations of the IPCC report as “a scandal". 

Die Welt reports: “‘Essential statements of the UN IPCC were simply reversed to say the opposite,’ criticised association director Jürgen Hacker: ‘The demand for the highest possible CO2 prices have nothing to do with that statements of the UN report, but they do correspond very well to the interests of the German Federal Ministry of Environment.’”

The original UN report included a 99-page Technical Summary in English, and a 33-page Summary for Policymakers, also in English. The government agencies responsible for helping the Ministry of Environment with the dishonest translation were the German IPCC Coordination Office in Bonn, the Federal Environmental Agency in Dessau and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Die Welt points out that with such ministries behind the translation no one suspected that the summary did not match the original in important ways."


Explosive Scandal…”Climate Tricksters” Of German Government “Brazenly Falsify” UN IPCC Recommendations

- See more at:




No comments:


Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.