transforming economies through green investment: needs, progress, and policies

8/9/2019 Transforming Economies through Green Investment: Needs, Progress, and Policies

1/44

CLIMATE & ENERGY PAPER SERIES 2010

Tnfomng EonomE

Though gEEn nvETmEnTNEEdS, PRoGRESS, ANd PoLICIES

mhEL mEhLng

President, Ecologic Institute, Washington, DC

on BET

Senior Fellow, Ecologic Institute, Berlin

Domn mELLno, Fellow, Ecologic Institute, Washington, DC

mhEL PEY, Transatlantic Intern, Ecologic Institute, Berlin

KThn umPfEnBh, Fellow, Ecologic Institute, Berlin


2/44

2010 Te German Marshall Fund of the United States. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing

from the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF). Please direct inquiries to:

Te German Marshall Fund of the United States

1744 R Street, NW

Washington, DC 20009

1 202 683 2650

F 1 202 265 1662

E [email protected]

Tis publication can be downloaded for free at http://www.gmfus.org/publications/index.cfm. Limited print

copies are also available. o request a copy, send an e-mail to [email protected].

gmf Paper eries

Te GMF Paper Series presents research on a variety of transatlantic topics by sta, fellows, and partners of the German

Marshall Fund of the United States. Te views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the

views of GMF. Comments from readers are welcome; reply to the mailing address above or by e-mail to [email protected].

ckwledeets

Te authors would like to thank Kate Carman and Tomas Opp for their contributions to the background research.

bt gmf

Te German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) is a non-partisan American public policy and grant-making

institution dedicated to promoting greater cooperation and understanding between North America and Europe.

GMF does this by supporting individuals and institutions working on transatlantic issues, by convening leaders to discuss

the most pressing transatlantic themes, and by examining ways in which transatlantic cooperation can address a variety of

global policy challenges. In addition, GMF supports a number of initiatives to strengthen democracies.

Founded in 1972 through a gi from Germany as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF maintains a

strong presence on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC, GMF has seven oces in

Europe: Berlin, Bratislava, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, and Bucharest.

Eclic stitte

Te Ecologic Institute is a private not-for-prot think tank for applied environmental research, policy analysis and

consultancy with oces in Berlin, Brussels, Vienna, and Washington DC.

An independent, non-partisan body, the Ecologic Institute is dedicated to bringing fresh ideas to environmental policies and

sustainable development. Te Ecologic Institutes work program focuses on obtaining practical results. It covers the entire

spectrum of environmental issues, including the integration of environmental concerns into other policy elds.

Founded in 1995, the Ecologic Institute is a partner in the network of Institutes for European Environmental Policy. Te

Ecologic Institute acts in the public interest; donations are tax-deductible.

Trasatlatic liate Bride itiatie

Tis paper would not have been possible without funding from the ransatlantic Climate Bridge, an initiative of the German

Ministry for Foreign Aairs to connect and support those working to address the challenges of climate change, energy

security, and economic growth at the local, the state, and the federal level in the United States and Germany.


3/44

Transforming Economies Through Green Investment:Needs, Progress, and Policies

Climate & Energy Paper Series

January 2010

M M, P, E I, W, DC*

A B, S Fw, E I, B*

D M, Fw, E I, W, DC*

M P, T I, E I, B*

K Ub, Fw, E I, B*

Ex S 3

I 7

A T w-b : I 8

E w-b 8

C b : A

3 P 7

3 T b 7

3 I b 9

33 R k 34 E w

35 T 7

36 B 3

37 R 33

4 C 35

5 R 37

*M M E I, W, DC, w b I wk, , b k , b , k

A B w E I B H wk , E U US

D M w E I W, DC H , -, wb

M P w E I B J Ob 9 H wk wb U S E U

K Ub w E I B H , wb E


4/44


5/44

Transforming Economies Through Green Investment:

Needs, Progress, and Policies3

Changing the

trajectory of the

energy economy

to avoid the

worst impacts

of a warming

atmosphere will

require global

investments of

nearly $480

billion annually

in the near term

rising to just ove

$1.2 trillion per

year by 2026.

C j w w w

w q

Ww,

k x

b R

w w, w,

w b x w

A

w b b

w b, w-b

b A : b w

T b w,

M w b

b

b

I ,

C wk

q w

b w

b w-b T

q ,

, b b x,

w w

I

w w bz

,

,

w jb x k

Investment needs

A ,

b

$48 b

, j $

b 6 Tb ES- w bk

, b , w

w b k

U S, C, E

T k w,

b 8

E k b

w b -

:

Pw w w q

6 b

, 8 b

3 K

wb , ,

,

T w q 5

ww , 37

b 3 I

, ,

,

Executve Summary

Table ES-1. Approximate estimates of capital investment needs in abatement, by region and

sector (billions $ per year)

Billion $ per year

2011-2015 2026-2030

Sector N. America W. Europe China N. America W. Europe China

Transport 16 12 13 78 57 117

Buildings 40 32 33 51 37 77

Power 17 13 14 38 28 58

Source: Ecologic Institute estimate based on McKinsey 2009, pp. 42-43


6/44

The German Marshall Fund of the United States4

B b 39 , 4

b b 3 I

wz x

b, w- w ,

b b

D w w

, w q

; w

b q, w b ?

The investment gap: Sustainable energy

investments by region

R b k b

b

F

w b,

k N,

N A, E, C

b

x w

w-b

Sb w

x I 8,

w, b E N A w

ww b

j k x

W C A b

, w E N

A k

b , b w-

b b

8 E N A

GDP, N A

w C

CO

B E b

,

b w

N A, w GDP 6

CO O

, C b b

, w CO N

A GDP

T w b

b 8M $8 b b

k b

b b b

Both Europe and

North America

saw a slowdown

of clean energy

investment

in 2008 due

to reduced

availability of

project finance as

well as decreases

in tax incentives.

Table ES-2. Regional comparisons of GDP, CO2 emissions, and sustainable energy investment

GDP (2008) in billions of $CO2 emissions

(2007) in millions of tons

Sustainable energy investment

(2008) in billions of $

Region Actual % of world total Actual % of world total Actual % of world total

Europe 15,128 22% 3,926 14% 49.7 42%

N. America 15,568 22% 6,342 22% 30.1 25%

China 7,916 11% 6,071 21% 15.6 13%

Rest of world 30,656 44% 12,622 44% 23.5 20%

Total 69,268 100% 28,962 100% 119 100%

Note: GDP data are from IMF (2009) and are in billions of current dollars adjusted for purchasing power parities; CO2

emissions are from IEA 2009, pp. 44-46 and include emissions from fuel combustion only. Sustainable energy investment

totals are from UNEP/NEF 2009, Fig. 13, p. 19. Percentage figures do not total 100% due to rounding.


7/44



$180 billion in

global stimulus

funds for clean

energy will

temporarily narro

the investment

gap, but sustaine

private capital

flows are require

in the long

term to achieve

a low-carbon

future. Ultimatel

policymakers

must correct the

market failures

responsible for

climate change.

B b w b b b ,

- j, b

Pb

B q q w b

q

Policy options for green transformation

C j b

w w

k

A b,

, b,

: , k

k b

b wk

b x

b

A

z w w T w-b

, w b

,

bj w W bj

, b

b

P q b w k

j 86 w

P

b

b b q w Pb

, w, b

k w

b,

A b

I

b b

k

Figure ES-3. Opportunities for green transformation

Renewable Energy Promotion

Advanced Transmission Grids

Supply-Side Efciency Improvement

*Other sectors subject to carbon pricing: industrial emissions; via offsets: agriculture, forestry

Vehicle Efciency Standards

Research and Development

Sustainable Infrastructure and Planning

Carbon Pricing*

Building Codes and Standards

Information and Education

Demand-Side Energy Efciency

Electrical Power Transport Buildings


8/44


- w-b w A, b

b

x I , w,

b w

,

F k b b,

b

:

Feed-in tariffs renewable portfolio

standards

wb w

b x

Efficiency standards

w- - b ,

b w

, ,

b

Public funding w b q

, ,

, ,

Pb

b , w

, ,

b

F ES-3 b

G b -

, b

,

w I w q

w w

wk b

w

w-b


9/44



A Db 9, j- b

b C (C) b ,

w b w

b b (ON

, ) L bw C

(GHG) ww k

x b

(IPCC 7, )

R w w, w, w b GHG x

I k,

w b x

(IPCC 7, )

A w b

b

w b, w-

b T w

,

w b-

A w w

: , b b

w w b

,

b

T xw w

(IEA 9; S 6)

Y bz q b

w b ,

b w

b E

, ,

b

w

b

A ,

b w

b T

wk

, w

b w

q b b

N b

;

b ,

, b b

x, w w

Itrduct1

The right policies

and regulatory

frameworks can

successfully

stimulate private

investment andleverage new

sources of public

revenue. A range

of different

approaches,

combined in a

balanced policy

mix, can serve as

a powerful cataly

toward the clean

energy economyof the future.


10/44


Total investment

needs are

expected to rise

from about $450

billion annually

in the short termto approximately

$1.2 trillion

annually 20 years

from now.

S ww b w-

b w w

T

q

b w bw C T

x b $45 b

x $

w T

b

b

T b b- b

C, N A, E U,

S

w w b

w b w

k

S 3 w ,

b w k

k , w b

k

w

2.1

Estimating low-carbon investment needs

I ,

- b

I E A, S Rw

MK C T w

z b

A

b ,

b w - x w-b

A US I w w , b x $5

T 8 I EA World Energy Outlook

$540 billion wb

q

45 () CO,

b b w

C (WEF, 9, 4) I

b bz 55 CO

6 S Rw , ,

GDP (b $600 billion 8)

b (S,

6, W Bk, 9, 4) T New Energy Finance Global Futures

$515 billion

wb (NVCA

T R 8)

I 9 , Pathways to a Low-Carbon

Economy, MK C

b

b GHG 35 bw 99

b 3 T b

GHG k 48 CO

- bz 4 , w b

IEA w w b k b

w bw C

T MK ,

, b

GHG-b

$9 CO

bw $9

$5 CO, k

b (MK 9, 8) T

, b, b IEA S Rw

CO b x q -z b b b w

Achevg the Trast t a Lw-Car

Ecmy: Ivestmet Needs ad Prgress2


11/44



T MK w k

w ,

F , w

MK T

MK

w - : -

5 63 T,

w w

b , b

w $476 b

5, $

63 , q

x 5 6 b x (MK 9, 4)

F w

b MK C, bk

b,

w, x

8 b

3 E b

:

, , , ,

, , w,

Figure 1. Global capital investment needs

in GHG abatement, by sector

Source: Figure based on data from McKinsey 2009, p.42. Investment needs shown are those above business

as usual that are required to reach the 2C target. The

category labeled Other includes agriculture, cement,

chemicals, forestry, iron and steel, petroleum and gas,

waste, and other industry. Figures are real 2005 ,

converted here into US$ using an exchange rate of 1.5

U.S. dollars per .

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400 Other

Power

Transport

Buildings

2026203020112015

140

78

72

186

248

222

450

297

U.S. $ billions per year

Figure 2. Total capital investment needs

in GHG abatement, by region

Source: Figure based on data from McKinsey 2009, p.

43. Investment needs shown are those above business

as usual that are required to reach the 2C target. Thecategory labeled Other includes all regions outside

North America, China and Western Europe (i.e., Africa;

India; Latin America; Middle East; OECD Pacific; Russia

and non-OECD Eastern Europe; rest of developing Asia;

as well as global air and sea transport). Original figures

are in real 2005 , converted here into U.S$ using an

exchange rate of 1.5 U.S. dollars per .

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400 Other

China

W. Europe

N. America

2026203020112015

206

86

81

104

537

317

153

210

U.S. $ billions per year

Three sectors

buildings, power,

and transport

are expected to

account for 80

percent of globainvestment

needs by 2030.


12/44


F w b

- , w

x

T w b

, b b 6,

x

S,

w w

3 T q b

3 x

3 x $9 b GDP

(MK 9, 4)

F w w bk w b

w T,

N A, W E

C b MK

q j 55 b

GHG b C

x x

N A B 3, q

C w , w

N A W

E x b

A -

w b

q

Tb w bk

b W E, N

A C3 T

q

A

, w b

k ,

N A w, ,

b w q b $73 b

5, $67

b b 63 I C,

w $6

b , $5 b

w W E w

q $57 b

5, $ b

b 63

W

, w b

T

w k k

-

3 T bk b bMK ( bkw b ) T b b w- - - b, w k

Table 1. Approximate estimates of capital investment needs in abatement, by region and sector(billion $ per year)

Billion $ per year

2011-2015 2026-2030

Sector N. America W. Europe China N. America W. Europe China

Transport 16 12 13 78 57 117

Buildings 40 32 33 51 37 77

Power 17 13 14 38 28 58

3-Sector Total 73 57 60 167 122 252

Source: Ecologic Institute estimate based on McKinsey 2009, pp. 42-43

An identification

of sector-specific

investment targets

for regions and

countries will be

necessary formonitoring the

adequacy

of future

investment levels.


13/44



Early-stage

financing in basi

R&D must come

from the public

sector to the

extent that the

market potential

is too uncertain

to interest privat

sector funders.

2.2.1

The financing continuum

B - b-

b w

k

w

b ( F 3) E-

b RD ( )

b x

k

- I ,

w b k

-q w

k (S 3

x w b k

k

)

A ,

b-q k w

2.2

Current levels of sustainable energy

investment: A gap analysis

I C, E, N A,

b

k b

w 89

Hw,

b

R b k b

b

k C, E, N

A4 I ,

N A b

x b w

b EU C

4 U, k b b b

Figure 3. The sustainable energy nancing continuum

Government

Venture Capital

Private Equity

Public Equity Markets

Mergers and Acquisitions

Credit (Debt) Markets

Carbon Finance

Process

Key:

Funding

Technology

Research

Technology

Development

Manufacturing

Scale-Up

Roll-Out

[Asset Finance]

Source: Figure reproduced from UNEP/NEF 2009, p. 9


14/44


2.2.2

Regional gap analysis

A S , C, E,

N A w

w x

wb

I ,

b b

, w b

j b U N

E P (UNEP) Nw E

F (NEF)

T

x w

A b b

b w

w

q b b L- - w-b b

b

b T k

F 3

j

b

O ,

j, - b

w w

q b w

w T ,

, w

, w

O, j

b

, w b

wk

Table 2. Financial new investment in sustainable energy by region 2002-2008, billion $

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Middle East & Africa

South America

Asia & Oceania

North America

Europe

2008200720062005200420032002

Note: Does not include government stimulus spending in response to the 2008 financial crisis.

Source: UNEP/NEF, Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2009, Figure 14, p. 21

The vast majority

of investment

in sustainable

energy must come

from the private

sector, whichgovernment policy

can stimulate

with appropriate

incentives.


15/44



North America

and Europe

each contribute

22 percent of

global GDP,

but Europes

sustainable

energy

investment

accounts for

42 percent

of global

sustainable

energy

investment

compared to

only 25 percent

for North

America.

T b Tb 3 b

S O k

bw w

MK

b b (BAU) w w-

b Tb 3 BAU

S, b w

b k

F x, w b-BAU

N A 3

E, - E, 8, 65

N A

Lk C, 8 -

w E, w MK

-

C w E

Tb 4

x w GDP CO

D N A

E b b

GDP, E b 4 b b

5 N

A O ,

N A C b b

A Tb , b- x

I N A, 8,

w (b )

b w 8-,

$7 b $3 b Gb w

w b ,

$7 b $89 b Hw,

b b w,

b j

x ,

N A E

w bw7 8 (UNEP/NEF 9 )

Tb 3 bw 8

C, w A

b- , ,

8, $56 b w

T 8

, C

3 w b-

(UNEP/NEF, 9) Hw, w E N A

k bk b-

, w- b

8

Table 3. Financial new investment in sustainable energy by region, 2008, billion $

Region New investment ($ billions) Percent of total

Europe 49.7 42

North America 30.1 25

China 15.6 13

Asia and Oceania (not including China) 8.6 7

South America 12.3 10

Middle East and Africa 2.6 2

Total 119 100

Note: Regional percentage figures do not total 100% due to rounding.

Source: UNEP/NEF, Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2009, p. 19


16/44


- w,

b- b ,

w

2.2.3

Green stimulus allocations

I b

8,

8 9 O

$83 b

b b

b

(UNEP, 9, 58) Tb 5

b w

T U S C

w b

(x $67 b),

w E x $6

b T UNEP/NEF

x

w b w:

w b

9, 4 , 3

4 w T j

b CO , b N

A b C D

b w

, b E

w N A,

w GDP 6

b O , C

b ,

w CO N A

GDP

T w k - T

- b -

j

b T w,

x 7 8 b

b- 3

-- Nw

q 9 w j w

w (UNEP/

NEF, 9, 4 6)

W

Table 4. Regional comparisons of GDP, CO2 emissions and sustainable energy investment

GDP (2008) in billions of $CO2 emissions

(2007) in millions of tons

Sustainable energy investment

(2008) in billions of $

Region Actual % of world total Actual % of world total Actual % of world total

Europe 15,128 22% 3,926 14% 49.7 42%

N. America 15,568 22% 6,342 22% 30.1 25%

China 7,916 11% 6,071 21% 15.6 13%

Rest of world 30,656 44% 12,662 44% 23.5 20%

Total 69,268 100% 28,962 100% 119 100%

Note: GDP data are from IMF (2009) and are in billions of current dollars adjusted for purchasing power parities; CO2

emissions are from IEA 2009, pp. 44-46 and include emissions from fuel combustion only. Sustainable energy investment

totals are from UNEP/NEF 2009, Fig. 13, p. 19. Percentage figures do not total 100% due to rounding.

The carbon

intensity of

Europes economy

is significantly

lower than that of

North Americas,with a GDP nearly

60 percent higher

for every ton of

carbon emitted.


17/44



b

w zb - b k, ,

b q

C

W-

w

T

w

wk

- ,

k, b

F, b w b

b - ,

b b

T, b

b q q

b

Tk ,

w b

Table 5. Green stimulus allocations to sustainable energy, billion $World region Country/region Green stimulus allocation (billion $)

Asia (86.6 billion $)

China 67.2

Japan 11.7

South Korea 7.7

India 0

North America (68.6 billion $)United States 67.8

Canada 0.8

Europe (25.8 billion $)

EU27 11.3

Germany 8.4

Italy 2.6

France 2.4

Spain 0.8

United Kingdom 0.3

South America Brazil 2.5

Total 183.4

Note: Stimulus allocations as of April 2009. Country/region totals do not add to 183.4 due to rounding.

Source: UNEP/NEF, Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2009, Figure 18, p. 24

Despite

substantial

increases in

sustainable

energy

investment in

recent years

as well as the

sizable one-time

boost through

fiscal stimulus

packages,

massive,

sustained

investments

in sustainable

energy are

still required

to avert a

catastrophic

climate change.


18/44


Widespread

adoption of

transformational

technologies will

depend on the

availability of

significant capital

flows, which will

in turn require an

enabling policy

environment

to channel

investments into

the right kinds of

technology.

G b ,

- w w

b w

, j ,

j

w w

I x

w -

j, b

w k

(C ,

9, 6) A , w, w w

b

w A , , q b

k

3.1

The role of public and private investment

A w,

w

w-b I , w

j

b

A ,

w k

b ;

b w q , b

w b (Mb, 9,

) Mw, k

Pcy Opts fr

Gree Trasfrmat3

Bx 1. A portfolio of policies for green transformation

Available policies and measures to limit the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere include

regulations and standards, taxes and charges, tradable permits, voluntary agreements, informational

instruments, subsidies and incentives, and research and development (IPCC 2007b, p. 750). The shiftto a low-carbon energy economy will need to be supported by a balanced and coordinated strategy that

integrates a combination of these tools. In such a portfolio of approaches, the selection of individual

instruments will be typically guided by the following criteria:

Environmental effectiveness: How well does the policy meets its intended environmental objective? How

certain is its level of environmental impact?

Cost effectiveness: Can the policy achieve its objectives at a lower cost than other policies? Does it create

revenue streams that can be reinvested?

Distributional considerations: How does the policy impact consumers and producers? Can it be

considered fair and equitable?

Institutional feasibility: Is the policy instrument likely to be viewed as legitimate, gain political acceptance,be adopted and finally implemented? (IPCC 2007b, p. 751).

In the context of clean technology investment, the ability of policies to foster efficient levels of innovation

and diffusion may additionally depend on the speed at which measures can be decided and implemented,

the ability to trigger investment and multiplier effects, and the effect on public budgets and public debt

burden (Edenhofer et al. 2009, p. 18).


19/44



Innovative

instruments can

help finance

public spending

programs and

drive privateinvestment

to stimulate

activity in green

technology

markets while

suppliers drive

down their costs

w (E 9, 8)

I b wk

G

b, bj

b w

b w

R bw

k

, b

k w w

Q w

b , b-

b

;5 b

Bx w k

b

b x6

5 D -, w w Y ,

b , w x

6 I w- bw b wk ; , w, w b

Bx 2. Barriers to sustainable energy investment

Despite the widely acknowledged potential of sustainable energy technologies not only to reduce greenhouse

gases but also to frequently lower energy costs, generate employment and provide access to new and

competitive markets, actual deployment figures in many areas have lagged behind expectations. A number of

barriers to clean technology investment have been identified to explain this observation, including:

Behavioral barriers, such as the agency problems faced by property owners when deciding on efficiency

investments in buildings that will primarily benefit tenants, but not the owners themselves;

Knowledge externalities, locking investors into technologies they already have experience with

typically conventional, carbon-intensive technologiesand preventing capital flows into new and

uncertain technologies;

Institutional barriers, such as economic and political frameworks that provide investors with littlepredictability over the long term, and rather promote short-term decision making in line with electoral

cycles and quarterly earnings reporting;

Limited ability to appropriate returns on innovation, with high spillover rates and complexity in the clean

technology sector rendering classic patent protection less effective as a way to guarantee returns on

clean energy investments.

To help overcome these barriers and deploy capital at the scale required, investors need policy and price

signals that are long-term, clearly defined, and legally enshrined (Cameron et al. 2009, p. 9).


20/44


Providing a strong,

stable carbon

price is the single

policy action that

is likely to have

the largest effect

in promoting

economically

efficient

low-carbon

growth over the

longer term.

A 86 q w

q b (UNFCCC, 8,

7) G

b

,

wk w

Pk b

w

I ,

b w-

b ( Bx )

G wk, w,

b w ,

B b

b ,

b b ,

7 G,

k

b -

A,

x b w-b

w

(C 9, ), b

jb

3.2

Introducing a price for carbon

T W E F b

b

(WEF 9, 39) P , b

b k

w-b w

7 A , b w w ,

I w w b, w x

xb A

b x k

b

w-b

w

k b

(E

9, 39) M, b

b b

b ( Bx 3)

G

b k x Cb k

GHG b w

b

A b k

b w

b b w

G,

, b (OECD 8,

89; E 9, 4) B w

, b

k b

8

B , x q

GHG

A , w w

x; k

x, b w

8 Bw 8, , C DM (CDM) K P $95b (W Bk 9b, 4)


21/44



However, carbon

prices cannot

be realistically

expected

to achieve

sufficiently highlevels in the

short to medium

term to provide

an economic

rationale for

the large-scale

deployment

of high-cost

abatement

options. A broade

portfolio of policyinstruments is

hence required. x (IPCC7: 755)

B x b k

,

b O ,

w

, b -

C, w,

b x b k

b w, ,

w - z

w-b q

w (C

Bx 3. Generating revenue for public ependiture

According to UNFCCC estimates, only a share of clean energy investmentapproximately 15 percent

will need to be covered by public spending (UNFCCC, 2008, p. 170). Providing stable revenue sources to

fund such expenditures will be crucial to avoid straining public budgets and incurring sovereign debt or

inflationary pressures. Numerous instruments have been proposed to yield such revenue streams, including

innovative instruments such as green bonds (Cameron, 2009, p. 10). Mostly, however, these revenue

streams are based on carbon markets or some form of carbon tax, and some examples currently under

discussion are described below.

A budget plan submitted by the U.S. President in February 2009, for instance, assumed $78.7 billion in

revenue in 2012 from the sale of greenhouse gas allowances, rising to a total of $645.7 billion by 2019

(OMB 2009). Likewise, about half of all allowances in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme will be auctioned

beginning in 2013, potentially yielding revenues of up to $60 billion annually (CCAP 2009 p. 11). At the

international level, Norway has proposed to withhold a small portionbetween 2 and 6 percentof Assigned

Amount Units (AAUs) from national quota allocations, auction it to developed countries through an appropriate

international institution, and thereby raise revenues of $15-25 billion annually (Norway 2009, p. 2).

Auctioning 50 percent of allowances in emissions trading systems already in operation or likely to be

implemented in the OECD over the next years could raise $90-180 billion a year between 2010 and

2020, assuming carbon prices of $25-45 per ton of CO2e (Project Catalyst 2009, p. 17). However,

revenue from auctioning funds will typically be earmarked for a range of domestic purposes, such as

deficit reduction. Allocating only half of these revenues to activities related to climate change, as the

European Commission has proposed for the EU, could still raise $45-90 billion, more than covering the

public investment needs outlined above. Alternative sources of financing, such as levies on bunker fuels

used in aviation and maritime shipping, have also recently featured in the political debate and could yield

$10 billion in funds each year.

9, ) N b b

x

:

w

(WEF 9, 35),

w q b b

- - b

, wb b

q A b q

b ,

(OECD 8, )


22/44


Meeting emission

reduction

targets will only

be possible

by drastically

reducing the

greenhouse gas

emissions per

unit of energy

produced.

3.3

Recommendations for key sectors

T b, w

x 8

b

39 F k , w

w

B w

w

, bw

b x

b

W b, w- -

b

9 E - : , , , , , , w,

3.4

Electrical power

T w , w

-b ,

59 b GHG (R

7, 5) P-

,

x

w M

w b b b

, q

w

B MK , w

U S, G, C

w q 6 b b

(BAU) , 8

b 3

G x

, - b

Bx 4. Eliminating subsidies on fossil fuels

A corollary to the introduction of a price on carbon is the elimination of price supports for carbon-

intensive technologies and especially for fossil fuels. Globally around $300 billion is being spent on

energy subsidies annually, with the largest share used to artificially lower or reduce the real price of

conventional fuels such as oil, coal and gas or electricity generated from fossil fuels (UNEP 2008, p. 10).

Cancelling these subsidies might reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 6 percent a year while

contributing 0.1 percent to global GDP (UNEP 2008, p. 15).

Prevalent in developing countries as a means of assisting low income groups and promoting access to

energy, fossil fuel subsidies are also used in advanced industrial economies such as the United States,

where a recent survey by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) found price support for fossil fuels to

substantially exceed subsidies for renewable energy sources: fossil fuels benefited from approximately

$72 billion between 2002 and 2008, while subsidies for renewable energy totaled only $29 billion in the

same period (ELI 2008, p. 3).

It is encouraging, therefore, that G20 leaders convening in Pittsburgh on 25 September 2009 pledged to

phase out and rationalize over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted

support for the poorest (G20 2009, p. 3). Without a specified timeline or detailed commitments,

however, it remains to be seen whether and how this pledge will ultimately be implemented.


23/44



A majority of

investment will

need to come

from the private

sector, especially

in the mid- andlonger term, with

public investmen

mainly important

to restart stalled

projects and

spur financing i

the wake of the

financial crisis.

Governments

must also expan

public investmenin early stage

research and

development.

E w w

:

Renewable energy generation. K wb

w, (PV),

(CSP), ,

b w T W E

F

- -

w T

wb w

( ),z

wk b b b

( ), (b k)

b , b

b-

(WEF 9, 39)

Grid infrastructure. A W E

F , w w

b w b

z w b

b (WEF 9, 3) T

z w-

b w w

, WEF b Nw

E F w

$ , $68

b

x wk (WEF 9, 3) S-

- w b

Electricity storage. I

w ,

- wb, w

w b k

w , , C

$5/MW

b b,

$48/MW (WEF 9, 3)

Energy efficiency. Pk - b

w b w

b

(IPCC

7, ; WEF 9, ) I ,

C

k, w

33 w

U S (WEF 9, 3)

T w w -

S w

kw b

(, ),

w --

(, wb

) N w

, q b

b A j

w

, -

, w b

j wk w

w b b

A, x

b -

,

wb

3.4.1

Encouraging investment in renewable energy

Rwb

( w )

( b)

w

A

wb

x


24/44


While renewable

portfolio

standards provide

greater certainty

in terms of

deployment levels,

evidence from

implementation

suggests that

feed-in tariffs

are ultimately

more effective in

promoting rapid

deployment of

renewable energy.

z

,

q w wb

A b

wb - A -

b kw-

b wb ;

b ,

w

bk Sb, x

w w

k -

G, w wb

w

995 4 7

- (HBS 9, ) W

$9 b wb

9 (N 5, 54),

- , w b

wb

k

(S 9) A,

wb

G

w I 8,

78, jb G

wb w b F-

I T A (BMU 8, 36)

A - wb , wb q

T b E

US ; b

I 8, b 5 (BMU 8, 7)

w

wb W wb

wb b ,

w- -

wb ( Bx 5) T

x, w: UK,

, -

I b ,

b wb

, - b

Lk ,

wb

S, ,

x ,

bbb bq w M

, - x T

wb b

, q b , b I

G, , w -

- wb

x kW

k ,

-

w

(CDU/CSU/FDP 9, 9)

W wb

k w- wb

, - wb

A

k-,

Rwb

k b


25/44



A smart grid has

the potential

to integrate

renewable

sources of energ

and to reducesuperfluous

demand, both of

which will result

lower greenhous

gas emissions.

-, w -

b

wb

3.4.2

Advanced electricity grids

A w , , w

b

wb z b

O , q

w

k w,

b w bk

O ,

b

w - b

, w - b

w k

A,

wb

, b w w

w Y,

w b w

b b w

b A , x wk

b

$ , w 7

wk ( WEF 9, 3)

Bx 5. Stimulating green-power generationGermanys feed-in tariffs versusthe U.K.s renewable obligations

The two biggest economies in the EU took very different pathways in promoting the deployment of

renewable energy in the electricity sector. Germany introduced guaranteed prices for each kWh produced

from renewable sources. In contrast to the German feed-in tariff, the U.K.s renewable energy support

system has primarily relied on the Renewables Obligation (RO)a quota system comparable to the

Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) widely used in the United States. The U.K. scheme obliges utilities

to supply a certain share of their power generation from renewable sources or to pay a buy-out price.

Compliance is proved through freely traded certificates (Renewable Obligation Certificates), which are the

main source of income for operators of renewable-energy installations.

Even though a direct comparison of the schemes is subject to some caveats (most importantly a much

later starting point of the U.K. scheme), current installation rates suggest that feed-in tariffs have fuelledmore dynamic growth in Germany than the RO policy has in the United Kingdom. Starting with a share of 3.4

percent renewable energy in total electricity consumption in 1990, Germany had doubled the contribution

of renewable energy to 6.7 percent in 2001 and then doubled it again by 2007, when the share reached

14 percent. Despite its enormous wind-energy potential, the United Kingdom only increased its share

of renewable electricity by 2 percentage points, from 3 percent in 2000 to 5 percent in 2007. Certainly,

the support regime is not the only explanation for different outcomes in the two countries, as planning

procedures and grid structure also play an important role. However, the planning security provided by fixed

feed-in tariffs has clearly made renewable energy projects a more attractive investment in Germany for all

types of investors, including small-scale developers and private households, as well as banks financing the

capital investments required. In addition, the technology differentiation built into Germanys various tariff rates

has allowed the promotion of all forms of renewable energy (e.g. more expensive solar generation) while the

British RO scheme has mostly benefitted the technology closest to cost-effectiveness: onshore wind.


26/44


A , k

w

w I

z, b

qk

w

I

bkb

,

T

b w

j , b w b b

z

b

M q

w b b,

w I

, b wb

T b

x

, q -

w

W , b

- wb j

x G

w b

, b

G

-

wb

F,

b x

w

I ,

Nw Yk w

b

w, wk w w k (W, 9) S

b b

w , w

w w w bw

R

w w

;

b Pw w b

,

x b ,

b wb w (HBS 9, 3)

T b q

, b

,

w w -

w

3.4.3

Energy efficiency

I j

b

MK C

b - -

w w

(MK 9) Hw,

b w

- T

b b b b

-

-

C

- ,

b I , , b-

Without new

infrastructure

such as

transmission

lines, the barriers

to investment

in large-scale

renewable

projects far from

the existing grid

are too large.


27/44



, w

b D

b

- ,

-bb

- q

b (WEST 8, 9),

w b b

Tx x

b w b

w

( ) I

, x

, b

, qk (UNEP

7, 37) L x

b k w x

x, x w b

w bz

I - ,

b

b w (CHP)

A kw ,

b

w C

w w

Bx 6. Carbon capture and storage: A controversial option

Reflecting the wide availability of coal and the role it plays in the production of electricity, many

studies and policies promote investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) (WEF 2009, p. 32; UCS

2009, p. 77). CCS is a technology through which carbon dioxide is captured at the point of emission,

compressed, and transported to a storage site, such as an aquifer. CCS has received limited support

from environmental groups, although there is recognition that significant barriers to full-scale deployment

of renewable energy may justify investment in CCS to produce low-carbon energy on a large scale (UCS

2009, p. 77). The World Economic Forum identifies insufficient legislative incentives, incomplete

regulatory frameworks, and a lack of public acceptance as impediments to the deployment of CCS at this

point (WEF 2009, p. 32).

The development and deployment of CCS does have potential to drastically reduce the carbon profile of

coal-fired power plants. In addition to demonstrating the technology at scale, however, widespread use of

CCS would require tremendous infrastructure investments to develop the system of pipelines that would

transport carbon captured in the production process to underground storage sites. Environmental risks

from the storage of vast amounts of carbon dioxide undergroundincluding, notably, the risk of leakage

can only be assessed by demonstration projects. Furthermore, CCS reduces the efficiency of a coal-fired

power plant, requiring the mining, transportation, and burning of more coal (WEF 2009, pp. 7980), all

with inherent negative environmental impacts.

Despite these concerns, the political barriers for other sources of energy may very well be too real

to ignore in the short term, and thus CCS should not be altogether omitted from the toolbox of policy

options. As mitigation strategies are deployed over the long term, moreover, and other abatement options

are increasingly exhausted on the path toward a carbon-neutral economy, CCS can prove an essential

technology to sequester unavoidable process emissions in various sectors, such as cement and steel.

More research and development and actual deployment projects are required to better assess the costs,potential, and risks of using large-scale CCS to provide low-carbon energy.


28/44


; CHP , b , w w

, , ,

b G

,

w T

E P A

CHP

- w U S

33 bw 6

8 (EPA 9) T CHP

b 45

(Ww 9, 4) I w , CHP

, b ,

A

w w

w CHP ,

bk

w CHP

R b

x,

CHP

x T UK

CHP , : VAT -

CHP, b EU

E T S, b

w, x

(DECC 9)

3.5

Transport

T 3

b w

(R 7, 5) C

b

w B

b MK C,

w q 5

b BAU , 37 b 3

K :

Transitioning to hybrid and electric vehicles.

C bz

b

A w

b w : -

b, ,

b w

w b b (IPCC 7, )

R x b b

w w

(E S

9, 5)

Public transportation and transportation

planning. Lw

w q

b

,

-

(EDF 9) I ,

x k

-

Improving vehicle efficiency. Lw

q b -

- A Pw

C Gb C C,

- (

) b

b b - - w x

w , b w

(Pw 3, 3) I ,

b RD w

w

Climate

stabilization

scenarios rely

heavily on the

concept of a

rapid transition to

hybrid and

electric cars.


29/44



Freight transportation. S b

T Pw

- b b b

5 - 5

- (Pw 3,

8) T Pw

b -

,

, bk ( b

) (

) (Pw 3, 9) I, w b

-

, w b

, w w

(Pw 3, )

Hw , w

, w

q

k

C A w ,

q A j

q w w

G

wk z

w; b w b

,

Tw

RD

b

Pb

b

, w-b b Bw

k b

w-b b

3.5.1

Vehicle efficiency standards

G z

b O

CO , q

z (UCS 9, 5)

S w b

,

w b b

- -

D , q

w -w x

C b b

w q : b

,

- b, ,

R

EU (R (EC) N 443/9)

x b z

EU 3 CO k (/k) b

5 A

,

b b -

b, w b w

w

b w w

T b b

w T R

b b-

( S 36)

V w b

w b

,

w z

How humans fue

their cars, how

transportation

infrastructure is

designed, and

how goods aretransported are

all investment

opportunities

that require

policymakers

immediate

attention to

maintain a

2C limit.


30/44


b T w

b

b, b , - b,

-

3.5.2

Research and development

W k

w w w-b

, b

w q

bk Pb

w b

x Pb

RD b w k

T

w-b

, b w j

x F

b b ,

b , , b

z B , b

G

, ,

-w-b , ,

S

b

b w

k w, w-b b

(C

9, 9) F, b

b RD,

(C

9, 9)

3.5.3

Infrastructure and sustainable cities

A -

Pb b

F, b

w w-b

, w

b

W b

, w

w- -b

b b

S, b b

b b

P

- b

z

b

w ,

wkb b P

b

w x

b b

T w w

wk, ,

w-b b

b-

A , b

x

-

, b, w

b

P w

Hw,

w b

, b w b z

(Pw 3, 5)

R w b

x , w

As in other

sectors, public

investment

to upgrade

and expand

transportation

infrastructure

and regulatory

changes

to remove

disincentives for

transit-oriented

private real-estate

investment can,

in combination,

create new

opportunities

for profitable

private investment

in low-carbon

alternatives.


31/44



b I ,

GHG : C

k

b

T, b b w

k

w

3.6

Buildings and energy efficiency

I b ,

bb

b T

b CO

(79 ) (R 7, 5),

b x w b

B MK ,

b

4 b

BAU N A, W

E C T b

,

b w

3 w

T w

k - x

b k - B 3,

b x

w b , b

w 39

GHG b 4

b 3

K GHG-b :

Building design and retrofitting. S w -

b, b

(MK 9,

7) A b IPCC,

b

b GHG , -x/,

, b ,

PV ,

ww (IPCC 7, )

Improved energy efficiency. T IPCC

w b

b:

;

; k ;

; (IPCC 7, ) N 8

b j k :

x w (WEF 9, 3) A,

w- -

w (MK 9,

7)

Urban planning. I b

b

b ,

I

w b w- b

A w z

, b IPCC,

w q q b b

k bk, wk,

b

(IPCC 7, )

T bk w, ,

W ,

, w

,

b

b (UNEP 9, 8) R

b b

b


32/44


Building codes

themselves only

capture part of

the potential to

reduce emissions

in the building

sector. Over half

of the reduction

potential from

the building

sector stem

from changes in

equipment.

b w (IPCC7, 7) M w

, w x

(MK 9, 7), b

wk,

b x

A , ,

b ,

b w b z w

b RD (USGBC 8, 5; NSTC 8, 58) Pb

w b

,

w

b G-

w

b w

b W w

k b

b

3.6.1Building codes and efficiency standards

G

b T k w :

b

j q ( ,

, )

-b

b

T , w

b x (UNEP

7, 9), w

F w , -

b

: )

b w b b ; )

b b b w b

, w w

(, b, x , )

b w w

; 3) -

b ,

z

w (EURIMA 6, )

W - ,

(b )

w b, b-b

, -

b W w b

, b

k b w S

b

w w T

x

, (x

, x) w k b

B

b

O

b b MK

q (MK 9,

6-7) T,

q b

T T R P b

J , w

q

;

, w

T b

,

, A


33/44



To be effective

in the long-

term, codes and

standards must

updated regularly

to reflect producdesign, and

material

advances.

w x

M, b

, b

, ,

B x ,

b

b k I

b

q, , , w (USGBC

4) w b

-z b (NSTC 8,

6), w

b

3.6.2

Information and education

Lk b

b ,

( Bx 7) W w GHG- , b

w- -

I b b z w

b T b ,

b

(w ,

x) w

(w b) S

,

w k b

w q

(UNEP 7, 4445)

Pb b

,

, ;

b -

T , wk

x ,

, b b

w

(WEST 8, 69)

A, b

-

b b

B z

w b w

x-

(USGBC 8, 5)

Bx 7. Policy packages for developing countries

The policy strategy outlined here can be effective in nearly every setting. However, a UNEP report sheds

particular light on the unique difficulties faced by developing countries in the building sector (UNEP

2007, pp. 65-68). Research demonstrates that a basket of measures introduced simultaneously is most

likely to achieve meaningful results in the developing country context. One possible integrated policywould combine a regulatory mechanism (building standards) with capacity building and training along

with demonstration projects (funded by the government) and financial incentives for adoption. Without

implementation and enforcement, many policies to promote building efficiency will failespecially in many

developing countries. As many developing countries face financial and capacity limitations to develop

and enforce building codes and other policies, developed countries could facilitate building investment in

developing countries by directing funds toward training, enforcement, and financial incentives.


34/44


3.7

Remaining sectors

T w MK

b 3 T

GHG b w (

w 3):

(5 ), (4 ),

(3 ), (3 ),

O -

( ), w ( ), (

), ( ) A

b x w, $5

CO b, q

(MK 9, 7) T

q 8 b 3,

b w q

GHG b,

$395 b

$475 b 63

Figure 4. Policy portfolio for green transformation

Renewable Energy Promotion

Advanced Transmission Grids

Supply-Side Efciency Improvement

*Other sectors subject to carbon pricing: industrial emissions; via offsets: agriculture, forestry

Vehicle Efciency Standards

Research and Development

Sustainable Infrastructure and Planning

Carbon Pricing*

Building Codes and Standards

Information and Education

Demand-Side Energy Efciency

Electrical Power Transport Buildings


35/44



R w , b

b w

bz

w-b Y w

,

- w

b

b

b

T w-b w q ,

w q bw

$5 b $8 b T

86 w

q b

Pb , w,

w k

wk,

b b w

k ,

,

I N A,

w $4 b j w

, w

E w b $8 b

(5) C w

, $86 b

, $35

b b 3

E ( )

w w k :

, b A

w

b w

w

I w , wb

, ,

w b F , k

b , b

,

I b ,

, b b

x ,

, b

-

E w

k w

wk G

b ,

b, -

wk k

w b Pk b

w

I , q w :

A price on carbon. A

b b b k b x,

w w-b

R b x w

w b k b

b

Incentives for renewables. P

z

wb ,

- , wb

, b b

Efficiency standards. Rb -

, b --w

,

,

b

Ccus4


36/44


A successful

transformation

process will

depend on the

ability to channel

financial flowsinto strategic

technologies

within each sector.

Governments have

a vital supportive

role in providing

the appropriate

enabling

environment,

including stable,

long-terminstitutional

and regulatory

frameworks that

make private

investment flows

viable.

Public funding where markets fail. Pb w b q ,

, , ,

Pb

q b ,

w ,

, b

G b - , b

, w

T , -

b , w

q w w

wk b


37/44



BMU (B Uw,Nz Rk) 8

Electricity from Renewable Energy Sources:

What Does It Cost Us?Ab : ://www

b//////

b__

C, J, D B 9

Cz C w Lw-Cb

E C C C

T L S Ab : ://

www/

CCAP (C C A P) 9

Nw P A A

A U: I O

Ab : ://www//k/

/CCAP%R%%Nw%

%S%,%9()

CDU/CSU/FDP (C Dk

U D, C Sz U

B F Dk P)

9 W, B, Z

K zw CDU, CSU FDP

7 L Ab : ://www///94-k-

-

C, R, S C, D

F 9 C 3: A N

B C E E U

C S Ab : ://

www/b_w//b_

_/-3-b

DECC (D E C

C, U K) 9 CombinedHeat and Power Ab : ://www

k////w_w_/k_/

_x/_//x

D, R 9 A Tx I R G G E

I ECO/WKP(8)44 Ab

: ://www//8/

LkT/NT58F/$FILE/JT35687PDF

E, O S N S

9 Tw Gb G R:

R I G A

Ab : ://wwwk-/

b

ECCJ (T E C C, J)

9 D W B E-

E A (J T R

S) Ab : ://wwwjj/

_/x__

EDF (E D F) 9

Reinventing Transit: American Communities

Finding Smarter, Cleaner, Faster Transportation

Solutions Ab : ://www/

/95_R_T_FINAL

EIA (E I A, US D E) (9) 2009

International Energy Outlook Ab : ://

www////484

ELI (E Lw I) 9

E US G Sb

E S: -8 Ab : ://

www/D//9_7

EPA (U S E P

A) 9 Cb H Pw

P Ab : ://www/

Refereces5


38/44


EU (E P) 8 MEP C P CO

Ab : ://www

//w/x//

8IPR4344/8IPR4344_

E J 6 Better Buildings Through Energy

Efficiency: A Roadmap for Europe Ab

: ://www/MbF/

EURIMA/R_

F, J 9 F- T A:

D E w Rwb E

P Wk H B F

Nw R Pj Ab : ://www

b/w//FIT__A_

wb

F, H, M R, G

G 9 Toward a Transatlantic Green

New Deal: Tackling the Climate and Economic

Crises Ab : ://wwwww

///Tw%%T%

G%Nw%D

G (G ), 9 L S, TPb S, Sb 4-5 9

Ab : ://www/D/

b____599

IEA (I E A) 8 World

Energy Outlook 2008 Ab : ://www

wk/8

IEA (I E A) 9 World

Energy Outlook 2009 Ab : ://www

wk

IEA (I E A) 9b CO2

Emissions from Fuel Combustion Ab :

://www/

IMF (I M F) A 9World Economic Outlook Database Ab

: ://www/x/b//

w/9//w/xx

IPCC (I P C

C) 7 Climate Change 2007: The

Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working

Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

S, S, D Q, M M, Z C, M

Mq, KB A, M T HL M

() Cb U P, Cb,U K Nw Yk, NY, USA

Ab : ://www/b_

_/b____

_w_____b

IPCC (I P C

C) 7 S Pk,

7 In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation

Cb Wk G III

F A R

I P C C,

[B Mz, OR D, PR B, R D,

LA M ()] Cb U P,

Cb, U K Nw Yk,

NY, USA Ab : ://www//

-/4/w3/4-w3-

IPCC (I P C

C) 7b Climate Change 2007:

Mitigation Cb Wk G

III F A R

I P C C,

[B Mz, OR D, PR B, R D,

LA M ()] Cb U

P, Cb, U K Nw

Yk, NY, USA Ab : ://www

/b__/b_

____w3__

___


39/44



Mb, Nk 9 D Sb LwCb R: P G L

S E3G Ab : ://www3/

//E3G_D__Sb_

Lw_Cb_R

MK (MK C) 9 Pathways

to a Low-Carbon Economy: Version 2 of the

Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve

Ab : ://k/

k////_/

x

Nw 9 FAWGLCA Nw

b w Ab

: :////k_/

//w__w

NSTC (N S T C,

C T) Ob 8

F R D A

N-Z E, H-P

G B Ab : ://

//NSTC%R/

FRDANZEH

NVCA (N V C A)

T R M 8 New Energy

Finance Global Futures

OECD 9 Climate Change Mitigation: What Do

We Do?P: OECD Ab : ://www

//3/4/475345

OMB (O M B) 9

A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing Americas

Promise Ab : ://wwww

/b/x?AI=793

ON, B C M O

D C I K

P Science 96 (J 4, )

Pw (Pw C Gb C C),3 Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From

U.S. Transportation Ab : ://www

w/U/

P, Rb, J Hz H G-

P J 9 The Economic Benefits of

Investing in Clean Energy: How the Economic

Stimulus Program and New Legislation Can Boost

U.S. Economic Growth and Employment. Political

Economy Research and Center for American

Progress ://www/

/9/6//_

Pj C Sb 9 Scaling up

Climate Finance Ab : ://www

j-//b/

_

R, H-H, D Z, R B P Cbb, O

E, B H (A), L Kj,

M Y 7 I In Climate

Change 2007: Mitigation. Cb

Wk G III F A

R I P

C C, [B Mz, OR D, PRB, R D, LA M ()] Cb

U P, Cb, U K

Nw Yk, NY, USA Ab : ://

www//-/4/w3/

4-w3-

S, F, M Rwz, M G, 9

T M- E: A D A

P E Rwb E

G S Mk P G,

36 Energy Policy (9), 386-394

S, N 6 Stern Review (S Rw

R E C C)

Ab : ://www-k/

_w_


40/44


UNEP (U N E P)9A Global Green New Deal. Ab :

://www//A_Gb_G_

Nw_D_P_B

UNEP (U N E P),

9 R E Sb:

O Cb C

C A Ab : ://www

//PR/R_E_

Sb

UNEP (U N E P)

C E U

A P I R

G G E B

UNEP Sb B C

I, 7 Ab : ://www

b/SBCIR/RS/

/A__P_I_

_R_G_G_E_

_B/SBCI_CEU_P_T_R

UNEP/NEF (U N E

P Nw E F) 9

Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment2009: Analysis of Trends and Issues in the

Financing of Renewable Energy and Energy

Efficiency Ab : ://www/

/Gb___9

UNFCCC (U N Fwk C

C C) 8 I

F Fw A C C:

A U Ab : :///

/__/_

///bk_

U, G J U Cb

Lk-, 8 Energy Policy (), 87-83

USGBC (US G B C RC) Fb 8 A N

G B R A Ab

: ://wwwb/SwF

x?DID=34

W, Mw 9 W E B I

Pw G L The New York Times

A 7, 8 Ab : ://www

/8/8/7/b/7

?_=w=

WEF (W E F) 9 Green

Investing: Towards a Clean Energy Infrastructure

J Ab : ://wwww/

//G

WEST (W G A) J

8 P R E

E B Ab : ://www

w/w/b/EE7

W, P Rb C 9 B

C T S G:

T P C LS Rwb E P

US H B F ACORE

Ab : ://wwwb//

ACORE_S___wb

W Bk 9 W D I

b J Ab : ://

wbk/DATASTATISTICS/R/

GDP

W Bk 9b State and Trends of the

Carbon Market 2009 Ab : ://

wbb//S_T__

_Cb_Mk_9-FINAL_6_M9

Ww (T Ww I) 9 The

State of the World: Into a Warming World WW

N C, Nw Yk


41/44

Ntes


42/44

Ntes


43/44


44/44

Off

transforming economies through green investment: needs, progress, and policies

Documents