1 / 13

Public engagement in Germany Alexander Boehringer UBA Germany

Explore the dynamics of public engagement in Germany regarding CCS projects, analyzing key concerns such as lack of information, property damages, local risks, and political strategies. Learn from past experiences and legislative developments to understand the complexities of gaining public acceptance for carbon capture and storage initiatives.

dcorrea
Télécharger la présentation

Public engagement in Germany Alexander Boehringer UBA Germany

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Public engagement in Germany Alexander Boehringer UBA Germany

  2. 2009 – the start • EU-CCS-Directive passed and went into force June 24th, 2009; • EEPR (European Energy Programme for Recovery) from July 2009, i.a. long-list of CCS-projects; • Transposition into national law (1st attempt) April 2009 • RWE-Project Hürth, application under mining law 2008 (exploration for brine) • Vattenfall-Project Jänschwalde (planning stage) 2009

  3. RWE CCS Project

  4. Public concerns • Public engagement: No experience from CCS Most important issues to the public: • Lack of information: • What happens to ground water/drinking water ? • My position as land owner • How to regulate property damages • Local effects: • Estate prices, Tourism • Local risks, why the risks here ? • General discussion • Renewable energies (wind) and CCS

  5. Analysis Four weeks in spring 2009 swept away the storage project and the German CCS-bill. What went wrong? • Timing: Federal and state elections (Schleswig-Holstein) in Autumn 2009 • Intransparancy of the mining law, engagement of stakeholders and public very late in the process • No public debate nationwide; • No information campaign locally before the start of project; • Strategy of „Never wake up sleeping dogs“ failed; • „Proxy War“: Beat CCS, Hit coal, hit utilities;

  6. Level European Federal State (Länder) Local Distance to Storage Site Objection

  7. Level European Federal State (Länder) Local Conclusion: You dont win public acceptance in Brussels, but out there in every storage area Distance to Storage Site Objection

  8. 2010 – time of repositioning 2010 • New political majorities on federal and state level (Schleswig-Holstein) • Citizens initiatives had momentum, felt and looked strong; • Politics intimidated, no poltical leadership • Some Länder (S-H, Lower Sax.) drew opt-out (comparable to Art. 4 EU-Dir) • RWE Project shelved, later withdrawn • Vattenfall-Project application stage

  9. Vattenfall-Project Jänschwalde

  10. 2011 ccs-bill • Lessons learnt: • More transparency, information offices in storage areas • Local initiatives not backed by state government in Brandenburg • CCS-bill as demonstration law by downsizing and deadline, Opt-out-article • Political Result: • Differing interests • Old maid-effect (Schwarzer Peter) 2011

  11. Lawmaking in Germany Lawmaking is like producing sausages: You better dont look too closely how its done (Bismarck) Grafics: wikipedia

  12. Fragen ? FG I 2.2 Alexander Boehringeralexander.boehringer@uba.deFG I 1.3 Ralf Beckerralf.becker@uba.dewww.umweltbundesamt.de Any questions ? alexander.boehringer@uba.de www.umweltbundesamt.de

More Related