Saturday, March 23, 2019

Ocasio-Cortez: the Green New Deal is feasible and affordable

Originally put forward by the European Federlist movement as a way to re estblish a citizen Europe idea close to that of Altiero Spinelli’s Manifesto of Ventotene, the Green New Deal has been invoked in Europe at various levels until it became the main focus of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ‘s main strategy for the American Democratic Party. While Europe is pushing forward with a very ambitious decarbonization strategy and the Circular Economy package (a 12 Directives package overlly that is inspired to a vision totslly opposed to US trump’s one. It therefore becomes evodent that green policies under a new powerful format like the Green New Deal can help Europe and the US gt back n the same track and put an end to the misfortunate Trump’s period.

Ocasio-Cortez Presenting the Green New Deal in Washington DC

There are three main ideas of the Green New Deal Resolution introduced by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey.

The first is to decarbonize the US energy system — that is, to end the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning coal, oil and natural gas, in order to stop global warming.

The second is to guarantee lower-cost, high-quality health coverage for all.

The third is to ensure decent jobs and living standards for all Americans, in part by making colleges and vocational schools affordable for all.

The right wing and corporate lobbies are already hyperventilating: It is unachievable; it will bankrupt us; it will make us into Venezuela.

These claims are dead wrong. The Green New Deal agenda is both feasible and affordable. This will become clear as the agenda is turned into specific legislation for energy, health care, higher education, and more.

The Green New Deal combines ideas across several parts of the economy because the ultimate goal is sustainable development. That means an economy that delivers a package deal: good incomes, social fairness, and environmental sustainability. Around the world, governments are aiming for the same end — a “triple-bottom line” of economic, social, and environmental objectives.

The key ideas of the Green New Deal — decarbonization, lower-cost health care, and decent living standards for the working class — have been studied for years. The Green New Deal Resolution is the opportunity, finally, to put that vast knowledge into effect.

What is absolutely clear is that the Green New Deal is affordable. The claims about the unaffordability of these goals are pure hype. The detailed plans that will emerge in the coming months will expose the bluster.

Decarbonizing energy

Consider the challenge of decarbonizing the energy system. As noted in the Green New Deal resolution, the recent report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change calls for global decarbonization by 2050, an achievable goal that requires coherent and accelerated actions by the US and other nations.

The Green New Deal is the occasion to put America’s utilities, builders, and automakers to the challenge of accelerating their technological overhauls to complete decarbonization by 2050 or earlier. The resolution calls for a 10-year mobilization effort to achieve “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions” but not for a precise timeline for completing decarbonization. The timing will depend on the pace of new zero-carbon investments and the phase-out of existing fossil fuel-based technologies.

The costs of renewable energy are plummeting, making decarbonization eminently feasible. Detailed estimates put the costs of substantial decarbonization (80% or more by 2050) at around 1% of GDP per year or less. (See here for one recent study). In many cases, renewable energy is already at “grid parity,” meaning that it is at a cost point comparable to fossil fuels. Most of the modest costs of decarbonization will never hit the federal budget, as they will be absorbed by the utility industry, the automobile producers, and other parts of the private economy.

Decarbonization is already underway in the US, just not yet with the pace and scale required. US utilities are no longer building coal-fired power plants; many are now scrapping plans for gas-fired plants in favor of renewable energy. Investors and in-house lawyers are warning companies not to invest in fossil fuels, as these investments would be stranded in future years. Automobile companies are rapidly shifting to electric vehicles. New buildings are going electric, with tough efficiency codes. These transformations are being driven mainly by environmental regulations, integrated resource planning by utilities, and market forces, not by federal outlays.

Medicare for all

The US spends around 17% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care coverage, while other countries spend 10-12%. The main difference lies with the high prices of US health care, for drugs, hospital stays, medical procedures, and other goods and services, rather than with greater utilization of health services. These high prices have resulted in part from the rising concentration and market power of health care providers at the metropolitan level. The result is outlandish salaries, bloated administration, heavy costs of advertising, and other inefficiencies that result in high incomes for the health care industry and exorbitant costs for taxpayers and for workers paying for private health care plans.

The question is therefore not whether we can afford Medicare for All, but whether we will get there before the private health care industry bankrupts us. As one approach, the private insurance premiums now flowing to private health insurers could be re-directed to a Medicare account that would reimburse the health providers at Medicare rates, with much lower management salaries and administrative costs. The nationwide cost savings of Medicare for All — hundreds of billions of dollars per year — could be remitted to taxpayers or used to reduce the federal budget deficit.

College for all

Similar budget analyses demonstrate the feasibility of other parts of the Green New Deal. Can debt-free higher education for all be achieved? The other rich countries all accomplish it. One proposal for “College for All,” presented by Senator Bernie Sanders, would cost around one-quarter of 1% of GDP, a price point that is tiny compared with the burdens of a society weighed down by student debts that create lifelong anxieties until retirement years.

The Green New Deal proponents are absolutely correct on the merits. Decarbonization, Medicare for All, debt-free higher education, and other social benefits are feasible, affordable, and smart. They will deliver great savings in the case of health care, environmental benefits in the case of decarbonization, and renewed social mobility in the case of debt-free higher education.

As a next step, the Green New Deal ideas should be turned into legislation, plans and budgets. When the Federal Interstate Highway System was being debated in 1955, every Congressman received a booklet with detailed maps showing how their district would benefit from an interstate highway system. It’s now important to provide a roadmap of the Green New Deal, showing for each part of the country how the Green New Deal package can be accomplished at low cost and with enormous economic, social and environmental benefits.

The Green New Deal is a new fully comprehensive vision of the economy and the society based on sustainable investments and the transition to a post carbon society. Will the American Democratic party under the Ocasio-Cortez leadership be able to show the way and help the climate and environmental cause? For sur Europe will be totally on their side.

Europe: The future of energy is RED!

On November 16th, the European Union has approved the new energy package started with the Commission Communication CLEAN ENERGY FOR ALL EUROPEANS (https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-energy-union/clean-energy-all-europeans) issued ony two years before (30th of November 2016). aimed at providing the necessary stable legislative framework – and thereby taking a significant step towards the creation of the Energy Union and delivering on the EU’s Paris Agreement commitments.

The new policy framework brings regulatory certainty, in particular through the introduction of the first national energy and climate plans, and will encourage essential investments to take place in this important sector. It empowers European consumers to become fully active players in the energy transition and fixes two new targets for the EU for 2030: a binding renewable energy target of at least 32% and an energy efficiency target of at least 32.5% – with a possible upward revision in 2023. These ambitious targets will stimulate Europe’s industrial competitiveness, boost growth and jobs, reduce energy bills, help tackle energy poverty and improve air quality.

When these policies are fully implemented, they will lead to steeper emission reductions for the whole EU than anticipated – some 45% by 2030 relative to 1990 (compared to the existing target of a 40% reduction).

To strive towards a long-term greenhouse gas reduction objective, the framework also sets up a robust governance system for the Energy Union and outlines specific measures for the building sector – the largest single energy consumer in Europe with considerable potential for gains in energy performance.

These new targets also played an important part in the Commission’s preparations for its long-term vision for a climate neutral Europe by 2050, published on 28 November 2018.

The package includes 8 different legislative proposals (each with a linked impact assessment), with political agreement having been reached on five of the eight files, as shown below (as of December 2018):

The package also include three communications and a report

These proposals build on existing EU policies and funding opportunities, such as research, development and innovation projects under the Horizon 2020 Programme, and ongoing EU-financed investment programmes, for example  the Connecting Europe Facility, the European Energy Programme for Recovery and other European Structural Investment Funds (ESIF), as well as funding through the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), where there are more projects related to energy than any other sector.

Among the Directives, by now the first four of the previous list of eight proposals have been approved, including the Directive for the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, (in Brussels shortened in Renewable Energy Directive, acronimous: RED)

It is not an exaggeration to say that this ground breaking directive is a real revolution because it gives official legal recognition and aknowledgement to the “prosumer” and to the “energy Communities” as portraid in his visionary work of 2011 by professor Livio de Santoli. Here following one can  read articles 21 and 22, that we reproduce here below:

Article 21

Renewables self-consumers

1.  Member States shall ensure that consumers are entitled to become renewables self-consumers, subject to this Article.

2.  Member States shall ensure that renewables self-consumers, individually or through aggregators ?, are entitled ?:

(a)  to generate renewable energy, including for their own consumption, store and sell their excess production of renewable electricity , including through renewables power purchase agreements, ?electricity suppliers and peer-to-peer trading arrangements, without being subject ?:

(i)  in relation to the electricity that they consume from or feed into the grid, to discriminatory or disproportionate procedures and charges, and to network charges that are not cost-reflective;

(ii)  in relation to their self-generated electricity from renewable sources remaining within their premises, to discriminatory or disproportionate procedures, and to any charges or fees;

(b)  to installing and operating electricity storage systems combined with installations generating renewable electricity for self-consumption without liability for any double charge, including network charges, for stored electricity remaining within their premises;

(c)  to maintaining their rights and obligations as final consumers;

(d)  to receiving remuneration, including, where applicable, through support schemes, for the self-generated renewable electricity that they feed into the grid, which reflects the market value of that electricity and which may take into account its long-term value to the grid, the environment and society .

3.  Member States may apply non-discriminatory and proportionate charges and fees to renewables self-consumers, in relation to their self-generated renewable electricity remaining within their premises in one or more of the following cases:

(a)  if the self-generated renewable electricity is effectively supported via support schemes, only to the extent that the economic viability of the project and the incentive effect of such support are not undermined;

(b)  from 1 December 2026, if the overall share of self-consumption installations exceeds 8 % of the total installed electricity capacity of a Member State, and if it is demonstrated, by means of a cost-benefit analysis performed by the national regulatory authority of that Member State, which is conducted by way of an open, transparent and participatory process, that the provision laid down in point (a)(ii) of paragraph 2 either results in a significant disproportionate burden on the long-term financial sustainability of the electric system, or creates an incentive exceeding what is objectively needed to achieve cost-effective deployment of renewable energy, and that such burden or incentive cannot be minimised by taking other reasonable actions; or

(c)  if the self-generated renewable electricity is produced in installations with a total installed electrical capacity of more than 30 kW.

4.  Member States shall ensure that renewables self-consumers located in the same building, including multi-apartment blocks, are entitled to engage jointly in activities referred to in paragraph 2 and that they are permitted to arrange sharing of renewable energy that is produced on their site or sites between themselves, without prejudice to the network charges and other relevant charges, fees, levies and taxes applicable to each renewables self-consumer. Member States may differentiate between individual renewables self-consumers and jointly acting renewables self-consumers. Any such differentiation shall be proportionate and duly justified .

5.  The renewables self-consumer’s installation may be owned by a third party or managed by a third party for installation, operation, including metering, and maintenance provided that the third party remains subject to the renewables self-consumer’s instructions. The third party itself shall not be considered to be a renewables self-consumer.

6.  Member States shall put in place an enabling framework to promote and facilitate the development of renewables self-consumption based on an assessment of the existing unjustified barriers to, and of the potential of, renewables self-consumption in their territories and energy networks. That enabling framework shall, inter alia:

(a)  address accessibility of renewables self-consumption to all final customers, including those in low-income or vulnerable households;

(b)  address unjustified barriers to the financing of projects in the market and measures to facilitate access to finance;

(c)  address other unjustified regulatory barriers to renewables self-consumption, including for tenants;

(d)  address incentives to building owners to create opportunities for renewables self-consumption, including for tenants;

(e)  grant renewables self-consumers, for self-generated renewable electricity that they feed into the grid, non-discriminatory access to relevant existing support schemes as well as to all electricity market segments;

(f)  ensure that renewables self-consumers contribute in an adequate and balanced way to the overall cost sharing of the system when electricity is fed into the grid.

Member States shall include a summary of the policies and measures under the enabling framework and an assessment of their implementation respectively in their integrated national energy and climate plans and progress reports, pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/… (36) .

7.  This Article shall apply without prejudice to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU.

Article 22

Renewable energy communities

1.  Member States shall ensure that final customers, in particular household customers, are entitled to participate in a renewable energy community while maintaining their rights or obligations as final customers, and without being subject to unjustified or discriminatory conditions or procedures that would prevent their participation in a renewable energy community, provided that for private undertakings, their participation does not constitute their primary commercial or professional activity .

2.  Member States shall ensure that renewable energy communities are entitled to:

(a)  produce, consume, store and sell renewable energy, including through renewables power purchase agreements;

(b)  share, within the renewable energy community, renewable energy that is produced by the production units owned by that renewable energy community, subject to the other requirements laid down in this Article and to maintaining the rights and obligations of the renewable energy community members as customers;

(c)  access all suitable energy markets both directly or through aggregation in a non-discriminatory manner.

3.  Member States shall carry out an assessment of the existing barriers and potential of development of renewable energy communities in their territories.

4.  Member States shall provide an enabling framework to promote and facilitate the development of renewable energy communities. That framework shall ensure, inter alia, that:

(a)  unjustified regulatory and administrative barriers to renewable energy communities are removed;

(b)  renewable energy communities that supply energy or provide aggregation or other commercial energy services are subject to the provisions relevant for such activities;

(c)  the relevant distribution system operator cooperates with renewable energy communities to facilitate energy transfers within renewable energy communities;

(d)  renewable energy communities are subject to fair, proportionate and transparent procedures, including registration and licensing procedures, and cost-reflective network charges, as well as relevant charges, levies and taxes, ensuring that they contribute, in an adequate, fair and balanced way, to the overall cost sharing of the system in line with a transparent cost-benefit analysis of distributed energy sources developed by the national competent authorities;

(e)  renewable energy communities are not subject to discriminatory treatment with regard to their activities, rights and obligations as final customers, producers, suppliers, distribution system operators, or as other market participants;

(f)  the participation in the renewable energy communities is accessible to all consumers, including those in low-income or vulnerable households;

(g)  tools to facilitate access to finance and information are available;

(h)  regulatory and capacity-building support is provided to public authorities in enabling and setting up renewable energy communities, and in helping authorities to participate directly;

(i)  rules to secure the equal and non-discriminatory treatment of consumers that participate in the renewable energy community are in place.

5.  The main elements of the enabling framework referred to in paragraph 4, and of its implementation, shall be part of the updates of the Member States’ integrated national energy and climate plans and progress reports pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/… (37) .

6.  Member States may provide for renewable energy communities to be open to cross-border participation.

7.  Without prejudice to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, Member States shall take into account ?specificities of renewable energy communities when designing support schemes in order to allow them to compete for support on an equal footing with other market participants.

This piece of European legislation takes way forward the most advanced ideas on energy production and distribution and starts a new process in the European democratic access to energy production and use, recognizing new figures that until just a couple of years ago were completely unknown to the European baggage of knowledge and terminology: prosumers (consumers and producers of energy) and energy communities.

The EU paints its energy policy  RED.

Red like the sun.

RED as the Renewable Energy Derective.

 

 

The Third Industrial Revolution film event in the Italian Parliament

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Third Industrial Revolution European Society and the Camera dei Deputati

present

a film by Eddy Moretti

Rome 15th of October 10 am

Aula dei gruppi parlamentari, (Parliamentary Groups room)
Camera dei Deputati – Rome

After the film there will be a panel discussion with
Eddy Moretti and Jeremy Rifkin

 

A detailed event program will follow
Entrance allowed upon invitation and registration

Film trailer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntBlNdI0wXo

 

The Venue is in Via del Campo Marzio 74.

 

 

 

Hydrogen on the EU agenda!

Federal Minister Elisabeth Köstinger and EU Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete at the informal meeting of energy ministers on 18 September 2018

On 18 September 2018 the use of hydrogen as a future?oriented energy form was among the items on the agenda of the informal meeting of EU energy ministers.

“The Austrian Presidency of the Council of the European Union proposed a Hydrogen Initiative that many member states approved of and signed”, said Elisabeth Köstinger, current chair of the EU energy minister meetings. “Under this initiative, the signatory states commit themselves to continue research and investment in the production and use of hydrogen as a future?oriented technology”,

Elisabeth Köstinger added. In Linz, where the informal meeting of energy ministers took place on 17 and 18 September, one of the most modern European hydrogen production plants is currently being built.

“In order to achieve the European?wide 2030 climate and energy goals, renewable energy forms have to be strengthened and better integrated”, Elisabeth Köstinger emphasised. “A big challenge is also being able to use renewable energy at those times when the sun is not shining, the water level is low or the wind is not blowing. Therefore, energy storage solutions are crucial in order to stock energy and to store it in the case of overproduction.”

According to Elisabeth Köstinger, renewable hydrogen could, in future, play an important role in this area. Moreover, she said, hydrogen constituted not only a potential future?oriented technology for storing energy but its use as a vehicle fuel would also add to reducing the role of fossil energy sources in mobility. “With the Hydrogen Initiative we want to send out a strong signal for renewable hydrogen and a European-wide cooperation”, Elisabeth Köstinger said.

EU Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete also welcomed the initiative of the Austrian Presidency of the Council of the European Union:

“Green hydrogen offers significant potential for the d“WE HAD A VERY OPEN AND ACTIVE DISCUSSION ON THE POINTS MENTIONED ABOVE. IN THESE DISCUSSIONS, THE POSITIONS OF ALL MEMBER STATES WERE FULLY RESPECTED. THIS IS ONE OF THE BASIC PREREQUISITES FOR MAKING PROGRESS POSSIBLE AND POTENTIALLY FINALISING THE CLEAN ENERGY PACKAGE IN THE COMING MONTHS.”ecarbonisation of the European economy. The Commission warmly welcomes the Hydrogen Initiative as it will further harness the innovative drive across the EU.”

More information about the informal meeting of energy ministers can be found on the event page.

We, the signatories of this initiative, gathered in Linz, Austria, on the 17th and 18th of September 2018, collectively aim to maximise the great potentials of sustainable hydrogen technology for the decarbonisation of multiple sectors, the energy system and for the long-term energy security of the EU. Acknowledging climate change as a common global challenge and focusing on our commitments to the UNFCCC, we especially underline the key role of sustainable energy technologies in the targeted process of decarbonisation. We need to increase our ambition in all sectors to fulfil the targets set by the Paris Agreement, namely to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The signatories of this declaration stress that in light of the continuous progress of automation and digitalisation in industry, the energy sector should prepare for new challenges in energy demand, usage, transport and storage. We highlight the potential of renewable hydrogen as an energy storage solution as well as a sustainable climate neutral energy carrier and feedstock. Therefore, renewable hydrogen is able to store as well as provide reliable and timely access to renewable energy, thus offering new opportunities to increase energy security and reduce the Energy Union’s dependency on fossil imports…

The full text is available here  The Hydrogen Initiative (not available in an accessible format) (EN only)

Germany in the lead for the hydrogen implementation strategy.

Klaus Bonhoff

Klaus Bonohff, Managing director of the German Hydrogen support and research organisation that had been funded with 2 bn euro until 2026, sends us a short update on the situation.
The German Government has approved to continue the National Innovation Program for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies (NIP) for another ten years (2016-2026). While in the first phase (2007-2016) the target was on market preparation of respective technologies, with the result of market-ready technical performance,  the second phase (2016-2026) will focus on (i) continued R&D to further reduce costs and (ii) market activation. Market activation for transportation will especially include support for a commercial development of a hydrogen station network (e.g. via H2 Mobility Germany), development of hydrogen production based on renewable power (electrolysis), incentive programs for fuel cell vehicles (especially rail and busses) and green logistics (FC applications at production sites, airports etc.).

For further information on the Nationale Organisation Wasserstoffen please go to this page:
https://www.now-gmbh.de/de

TAP with no flow!

Today, at a board meeting in Luxembourg the European Investment Bank (EIB) has decided, for now, to postpone loaning €1.5 billion to the controversial Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP).

A growing number of civil society groups are calling on the EIB not to fund this fossil fuel pipeline. In the last few days over 4000 people across Europe and beyond told the bank’s board members that supporting TAP with a massive public loan would be inconsistent with the EIB’s attendance at the One Planet Summit in Paris where the bank pledged, once again, to align its finance with the Paris climate Agreement.

Traversing Greece, Albania and the Adriatic Sea before making a landfall on Italy’s southern shores, TAP is envisaged as the western section of the Southern Gas Corridor. A 3500 kilometre long chain of pipelines starting in Azerbaijan’s Shah Deniz II offshore gas field, this grandiose project is designed to annually pump 10 billion cubic meters of gas to Europe starting 2020, in addition to 6 billion cubic meters to Turkey as early as next year.

Nevertheless, TAP, and the entire Southern Gas Corridor, is a climate-busting fossil fuel project that serves to prop-up corrupt regimes that trample over human-rights, and today’s tragic news of the gas explosion in Baumgarten, Austria, demonstrates that these pipelines increase danger and vulnerability, not European energy security.

On a day in which the World Bank pledged to end funding for oil and gas exploration and gas extraction projects, the EIB board seemed to recognize the myriad problems with the TAP project and decided it needs further discussion before deciding on such a large, controversial loan. The project has been sitting in the bank’s pipeline for more than two years now, and the board will discuss the loan again no earlier than February 2018.

Anna Roggenbuck, EIB Policy Office with CEE Bankwatch Network, says:

“Acknowledging the impacts the project would have on both the climate and impacted communities, the EIB board decided it needs more discussion. We expect the board to demand the bank responds meaningfully to all the complaints raised so far by affected communities along the pipeline route.”

Xavier Sol, Director of Counter Balance, says:

“This further postponement of the Board’s decision on TAP is an important sign that the project’s toxicity has become increasingly obvious. The climate paradox at the heart of the project, together with the human rights abuses, impacts on local communities and corruption links associated with it have made it harder and harder for the EU’s bank to endorse.”

Cécile Marchandclimate and public actors campaigner from Friends of the Earth France says:

“Clearly it was too much even for the EIB to fund this fossil fuel mega project on the anniversary of the Paris Agreement – now they should make sure that 2018 sees them end support for fossil fuels entirely’’

Tim Ratcliffe from 350.org says:

“Communities in Italy, like the people of Melendugno, have been bravely resisting this pipeline in the face of fascist-era laws. Now, everyone that has been demanding the European Investment Bank defund the Trans Adriatic Pipeline just got the decision on a €1.5bn delayed until next year. This is a massive blow to this dangerous new pipeline – we’re turning the tide on new fossil fuel projects. TAP will not go ahead.”

For more information contact

Xavier Sol
Director, Counter Balance
xavier.sol@counter-balance.org
+ 32(0)2 893 08 61
Twitter: @xavier_sol

Anna Roggenbuck
EIB Policy Officer, CEE Bankwatch Network
annar@bankwatch.org
Mobile: +48 509970424 Office: +48 91 831 5392
Twitter: @RoggenbuckA

Cécile Marchand (in the One Planet Summit)
Climate and Public Actors Campaigner, Friends of the Earth France
cecile.marchand@amisdelaterre.org
Mobile: +33 (0)6 69 97 74 56
Twitter: @Cecile_Mcd

Mark Raven
European Communications Specialist, 350.org
mark@350.org
+447841474125 (UK) +90544145425 (Turkey)

L’Eurodeputato Tamburrano rimette in carreggiata il Regolamento sull’Energia

Buone notizie da Bruxelles: le commissioni energia ed ambiente del Parlamento Europeo introducono con il contributo determinante del Movimento 5 Stelle nuovi elementi nel regolamento UE per la governance dell’Unione dell’energia, eliminando i sussidi all’energia fossile e mettendo in corsia preferenziale gli interventi per l’efficienza energetica.

Dario Tamburrano al Parlamento Europeo

Cominciamo col dire che le lobby fossili hanno sempre operato in modo da stroncare qualunque tentativo di introdurre norme di favore a livello europeo per l’efficienza energetica e il risparmio di consumi energetici, per una ragione molto semplice. I monopoli dell’energia fossile non vedono di buon occhio il restringimento del mercato che questo comporta. Ovviamente. E la seconda cosa che non hanno mai visto di buon occhio è la perdita dei privilegi fiscali e dei sussidi diretti e indiretti che generosamente i poteri pubblici hanno sempre loro accordato (tanto per capire di che si parla, all’incirca 700 miliardi di euro che rappresentano quasi il doppio dei 400 miliardi invece accordati all’energia solare).
Ebbene, le commissioni Energia e Ambiente (ITRE & ENVI) hanno votato per l’eliminazione entro il 2020 di tutti i sussidi, diretti ed indiretti, ai combustibili fossili.

Nell’UE questo enorme flusso di denaro, a seconda di come si fanno i calcoli, ammonta alla bellezza di 39-200 miliardi di euro ogni anno (FONTE Parlamento Europeo – Fossil Fuel Subsides a pag. 4). La stima del Fondo Monetario Internazionale, che include anche le esternalità, è addirittura di 300 miliardi annui (FONTE Commissione Europea – Action to boost the clean energy transition a pag. 6).

E non è tutto: sono stati votati a maggioranza anche gli emendamenti che infondono nel quadro legislativo il concetto, finora del tutto assente, di “energia sociale” e il riconoscimento degli interventi di efficienza energetica come “opere infrastrutturali”.

Le commissioni parlamentari ITRE (industria ed energia) ed ENVI (ambiente) hanno approvato giovedì 7 dicembre le modifiche che vorrebbero apportare al testo del Regolamento UE sulla Governance dell’Unione dell’energia proposto dalla Commissione Europea. Come nel caso della direttiva efficienza energetica, bisognava scegliere fra due serie contrapposte di emendamenti relativi alle politiche UE su clima ed energia: una rigorosamente orientata verso rinnovabili, efficienza energetica e riduzione delle emissioni; l’altra molto più bendisposta a perpetuare l’uso dei combustibili fossili. Il  voto del M5S é stato determinante insieme a quello di Verdi, S&D (socialisti), GUE (sinistra) e ALDE (liberali).

Questo regolamento è l’architettura portante delle politiche UE su energia e clima fino al 2030 poiché stabilisce come gli Stati membri dovranno concretamente recepire diversi provvedimenti in merito alle politiche energetiche dell’Unione, tra i quali la nuova direttiva rinnovabili e la nuova direttiva efficienza energetica. Viene stabilito inoltre come gli Stati membri dovranno redigere i loro piani nazionali energia e clima per diminuire le emissioni climalteranti e per raggiungere i target di efficienza energetica e di energia rinnovabile al 2030.

Sono indicati, ovviamente, anche gli strumenti con cui l’UE controllerà che gli obiettivi nazionali vengano effettivamente raggiunti e siano coerenti con quelli unionali.

EFFICIENZA ENERGETICA ELEVATA AL RANGO DI INFRASTRUTTURA ED ELIMINAZIONE DEI SUSSIDI AI COMBUSTIBILI FOSSILI ENTRO IL 2020

In base agli emendamenti approvati dalle commissioni ITRE ed ENVI, il regolamento stabilisce che la ristrutturazione finalizzata al risparmio di energia é un investimento prioritario e che l’efficienza energetica é un’infrastruttura. Questo recepisce completamente l’ emendamento 580 di questo elenco) presentato da Dario Tamburrano e cofirmato dagli europarlamentari Pedicini, Borrelli, Evi e D’Amato.

Ancora, gli emendamenti “incorporano” nel regolamento gli accordi di Parigi che mirano a contenere entro due gradi (possibilmente entro 1,5 gradi) il riscaldamento globale e inseriscono quindi nei piani nazionali relativi ad energia e clima l’obbligo di

  • eliminare tutti i sussidi ai combustibili fossili entro il 2020 ed indicare la traiettoria verso questo obiettivo. Era uN emendamento specifico (in questo elenco al numero 553), sempre cofirmato dagli eurodeputati suddetti.
  • raggiungere i target di rinnovabili e di efficienza energetica attraverso una traiettoria lineare
  • mirare alla decarbonizzazione dell’economia entro il 2050, muovendosi verso un sistema basato sulle rinnovabili e sull’efficienza energetica.
ENERGIA SOCIALE

Per quanto riguarda la dimensione “sociale” dell’energia, sempre in base agli emendamenti approvati in commissione i piani nazionali dovranno:

  • indicare quante persone si trovano in condizioni in condizioni di povertà energetica e, se sono in numero significativo, le misure per ridurle
  • stabilire un target di energia rinnovabile prodotta dai cittadini e dalle comunità per l’energia, e la traiettoria per raggiungerlo
  • specificare quali benefici i cittadini trarranno dall’autoproduzione ed autoconsumo di energia rinnovabile
  • essere il frutto di consultazione e partecipazione pubblica
I PROSSIMI PASSI

Queste novità andranno confermate dal voto in assemblea plenaria, che avverrà presumibilmente in gennaio, insieme alla direttiva rinnovabili e alla direttiva efficienza energetica.

Sarà quindi una delle plenarie più importanti della legislatura e la più importante per le politiche energetiche dell’Unione. I risultati finora ottenuti sono molto buoni e in parte insperati. Ma in plenaria si dovrà lottare per ogni singolo voto dato che sono coinvolti estesi interessi geopolitici, enormi quelli finanziari.

Il testo che sarà approvato in plenaria servirà come base per i negoziati con il Consiglio UE – l’altro co legislatore europeo – durante i quali nascerà la versione definitiva del regolamento. Nell’UE, un regolamento  è un atto legislativo superiore alle direttive perché viene direttamente applicato in tutti gli Stati membri senza che vi siano ulteriori passaggi per recepirlo nelle legislazioni nazionali.

Il percorso è ancora lungo, ma siamo inaspettatamente in una buona direzione, grazie a Dario Tamburrano.

Per ulteriori riferimenti si può consultare l’articolo dello stesso Dario Tamburrano a questo link: https://www.dariotamburrano.it/governance-unione-energia-sussidi-combustibili-fossili/

Parma: nuova vita in chiave “educational” per il Modulo Eco.

Dopo quasi un anno, e centinaia di manifestazioni a cui hanno preso parte decine di migliaia  d ragazzi e ragazze, Il Modulo Eco si sposta da Piazzale della Pace alla sua sede definitiva
nel Parco Testoni del quartiere Crocetta.

L’Associazione Manifattura Urbana sotto la sapiente direzione dell’architetto Francesco Fulvi, del Comitato Scientifico del CETRI e responsabile del modulo “high School” del CETRI Educational, organizza una serie di workshop che si svolgeranno in una o più giornate ciascuno, alternando momenti didattici di lezione frontale, tenute da professionisti ed aziende sponsor leader nel settore, e momenti
operativi di costruzione dei vari elementi durante le varie fasi costruttive del Modulo.

Antonio Rancati e Francesco Fulvi

Una splendida occasione di fare l’ esperienza di un cantiere in autocostruzione!
Fin dalla nascita del progetto CETRI-TIRES ha concesso con entusiasmo il suo patrocinio per le numerose attività di educational e tutti gli eventi in linea alle teorie della Terza Rivoluzione Industriale di
Jeremy Rifkin.

COS’É IL MODULO ECO?
E’ un progetto dell’associazione culturale Manifattura Urbana costruito da volontari sotto la direzione di Francesco Fulvi, senza l’uso di soldi pubblici come strumento di divulgazione e didattica sui temi della sostenibilità economica, ambientale e sociale. E’ uno spazio per il quartiere e la cittadinanza dove incontrarsi e fare rete. Luogo per realizzare iniziative a carattere sociale e culturale, fondamentale per la socializzazione e per un processo di riappropiazione delle città da parte di chi la vive.

CHI LO FINANZIA?
Lo smontaggio e rimontaggio da Piazzale della Pace al Parco Testoni è realizzato grazie al sostegno di Fondazione Cariparma. I materiali per la costruzione del padiglione sono sponsorizzate da aziende del settore. Il progetto è sostenuto dal Comune di Parma e da Fondazione Cariparma. In foto la splendida iniziativa “La tua Casa in Classe A” per aiutare tutti i cittadini negli interventi di efficentamento energetico.
CHI PUO’ PARTECIPARE?
Cittadini, scuole, associazioni, enti proponendo temi, progetti o eventi.
Anche società sportive come le Zebre Rugby di Parma, che si sono rese disponibili a promuovere le nostre lanterne green per i bambini che vivono al buio.

CANTIERE DIDATTICO IN AUTOCOSTRUZIONE

Impianto domotico dell’ecomodulo controllabile vi smartphone

Chi volesse partecipare come osservatore o collaborare alle fasi di assemblaggio delle varie parti ed alla loro verifica attraverso una serie di workshop tematici, come l’assemblaggio della struttura in legno, la
posa dei serramenti, del tetto verde, la realizzazione di muri ed intonaci in terra cruda, sistema di tenuta all’aria, impianto elettrico, fotovoltaico, VMC, domotico, blower door test e diagnostica.

In questo primo anno di attività il Modulo ECO ha ricevuto 9 certificazioni e premi nazionali, ed alcuni studenti che ne hanno fatto argomento per la loro Tesi di Laurea, che hanno anche ricevuto importanti attestati istituzionali.

PER PARTECIPARE: è necessario compilare il form online disponibile sul sito internet e su facebook, e MUNIRSI DI DISPOSITIVI DI PROTEZIONE INDIVIDUALE (scarpe antinfortunistiche, guanti e caschetto).
LE DATE DI OGNI WORKSHOP VERRANNO COMUNICATE IN RELAZIONE ALLA SVOLGIMENTO DEI LAVORI

COSTO
Singola giornata € 10 + 5 € quota associativa
WS completo € 40 + 5 € quota associativa

A BREVE INSERIREMO IL LINK DEL FORM PER L’ISCRIZIONE AD OGNI SINGOLO
WORKSHOP. SE SIETE INTERESSATI E PER OGNI INFO NON ESITATE A SCRIVERE A:
manifatturaurbana@gmail.com

E’ UN’OCCASIONE DA NON PERDERE!
http://www.facebook.com/ModuloECO

 

 

 

Le idee della Terza Rivoluzione Industriale in concorso !

Il CETRI TIRES ha concesso il proprio patrocinio al concorso

Smart solutions for a smart living,

indetto da EXITone con la collaborazione di EcoSteer, società specializzata nello sviluppo di software verticali e multicanale.

Il concorso è rivolto a laureandi o Neo Laureati, Professionisti, PMI – PMI innovative e Start-up, e nasce con lo scopo individuare e sviluppare idee progettuali innovative, vision di nuovi servizi, nuove applicazioni, ricerche sperimentali e proposte di ottimizzazione di processi e sistemi riconducibili al concetto di Smart City, che siano in grado di migliorare, semplificare e rendere fruibili, “a costi sostenibili”, i servizi pubblici e privati della collettività e promuovere una crescita intelligente della comunità stessa.

Il concorso consta di due categorie:

  1. Vita delle persone
  2. Ambiente e territorio  .

Per iscriversi al concorso bisogna indicare le sottocategorie alle quali si vuole partecipare inviando i propri progetti entro le ore 12,00 del 28 febbraio 2018 all’indirizzo indicato

La partecipazione al concorso non comporta alcun costo.

Il monte premi, messo a disposizione da EXITone per un ammontare complessivo di 20.000 € verrà così suddiviso fra i primi tre classificati per ognuna delle due categorie:
7.000 euro al primo classificato,
2.000 al secondo   classificato
1.000 al terzo classificato.

Il CETRI garantirà nel comitato di valutazione, la coerenza nell’ambito della visione TRI dei progetti candidati.

Tutte le informazioni sul concorso “Smart solutions for a smart living” sono disponibili sulla sezione del sito www.exitone.it/concorsi o contattando la segreteria organizzativa: EXITone S.p.A. – Stradale San Secondo, 96 – 10064 Pinerolo (TO), Telefono +39.0121.040100, e-mail infoconcorsi@exitone.it

The Fourth Industrial Revolution does not exist!

It is finally out the book conceptualized two years ago by German economist Klaus Schwab, inventor of the “exclusive Davos Club”  (the World Economic Forum).

It took him two years to get from the initial definition paper published by the Foreign Affairs Review (which can be viewed here based on the original Davos paper that can be downloaded here )   to the actual book that is presented by the publisher as a great novelty in the panorama of the new ideas (but really only repeats in the “chow and spit” format, concepts that Jeremy Rifkin has been expressing in due and fully researched fashon for the last 30 years, since he wrote his book “Entropy“.

Mr

Schwaub, defines his idea of Fourth Industrial Revolution” as  “ the inexorable shift from simple digitization (the Third Industrial Revolution) to innovation based on combinations of technologies (the Fourth Industrial Revolution)“. This very statement suggests that the author did not took the bother to even read the back of the cover of THE THIRD INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, book, never mind reading “THE ZERO MARGINAL COST SOCIETY” where all the aspects of the “the innovation based on combinations of technologies” are exhaustively covered since 2014, when he did not even know that Industrial Revolutions exist.

Schwab argues (echoing Rifkin)   “the key technologies driving this revolution and discusses the major impacts expected on government, business, civil society and individu­als. … We all have the opportunity to contribute to developing new frame­works that advance progress”.

But the only concrete suggestion that comes out from his pen is a warning at risks implied by the possible social riots that will be unleashed by the unavoidable effects to “disrupt the labor market” . In fact Schwaub argues that “the revolution could yield greater inequality, particularly in its potential to disrupt labor markets. As automation substitutes for labor across the entire economy, the net displacement of workers by machines might exacerbate the gap between returns to capital and returns to labor. On the other hand, it is also possible that the displacement of workers by technology
will, in aggregate, result in a net increase in safe and rewarding jobs.
We cannot foresee at this point which scenario is likely to emerge, and history suggests that
the outcome is likely to be some combination of the two.

Yes, Mr Schwaub belongs to that old school that thinks that economic scenarios “emerge”  alone by themselves like irresistable forces of nature,  No possible doubt that “economic scenarios”  are designed and forged by man. They simply “happen” by decision of the Gods of the Economy (with Capital E) because the Economy is a Science governed by unchangeable laws like Physics, laws which human beings cannot govern or influence but can only observe and suffer.

Then the Author goes on.

Discontent can also be fueled by the pervasiveness of digital technologies and the dynamics
of information sharing typified by social media. More than 30 percent of the global population
now uses social media platforms to connect, learn, and share information. In an ideal world, these interactions would provide an opportunity for cross­cultural understanding and
cohesion. However, they can also create and propagate unrealistic expectations as to what
constitutes success for an individual or a group, as well as offer opportunities for extreme
ideas and ideologies to spread.

Yes because, you know? all these people enabled by new technologies might get the wrong idea and pursue protagonism true false ideologies spread…

Also government must be aware of the danger!

As the physical, digital, and biological worlds continue to converge, new technologies and platforms will increasingly enable citizens to engage with governments, voice their opinions, coordinate their efforts, and even circumvent the supervision of public authorities.”

God forbid! Do not let the citizen  use the new technologies and platforms to circumvent the supervision of public authorities. The government must be in charge. Of course not with businesses. That would be an intrusion in economic freedom. But when it comes to simple citizen, then the government must use all its authority to prevent “citizen to engage with covernments”…

The analysis on what the government should and shuould not do in face of this new “citizen enabling” revolution goes on: ”

“Ultimately, the ability of government systems and public authorities to adapt will determine their survival. If they prove capable of embracing a world of disruptive change, subjecting their structures to the levels of transparency and efficiency that will enable them to maintain their competitive edge, they will endure. If they cannot evolve, they will face increasing trouble.
This will be particularly true in the realm of regulation. Current systems of public policy and decision-making evolved alongside the Second Industrial Revolution, when decision-makers had time to study a specific issue and develop the necessary response or appropriate regulatory framework. The whole process was designed to be linear and mechanistic, following a strict “top down” approach.
But such an approach is no longer feasible. Given the Fourth Industrial Revolution’s rapid pace of change and broad impacts, legislators and regulators are being challenged to an unprecedented degree and for the most part are proving unable to cope.
How, then, can they preserve the interest of the consumers and the public at large while continuing to support innovation and technological development? By embracing “agile” governance, just as the private sector has increasingly adopted agile responses to software development and business operations more generally. “

Finally, Mr Schwab becomes a faithful supporter of Jeremy Rifkin’s vision and concluding on a high note declares that “In the end, it all comes down to people and values. We need to shape a future that works for all of us by putting people first and empowering them. In its most pessimistic, dehumanized form, the Fourth Industrial Revolution may indeed have the potential to “robotize” humanity and thus to deprive us of our heart and soul. But as a complement to the best parts of human nature—creativity, empathy, stewardship—it can also lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness based on a shared sense of destiny. It is incumbent on us all to make sure the latter prevails

But these are just words. The facts remain that governments must “embrace agile governance” and “mantain their competitive edge” (a concept that should not apply to public powers but only to private businesses).

Bearing in mind that the above mentioned definitions given by the authors, of the Third and the Fourth Industrial Revolutions clearly shows that he has not understood either, we then go now to see more in detail how according to Mr Schwab the industrial revolutions can be recognized:

Schwab says that the First Industrial Revolution introduced steam-powered and mechanized production. The Second Industrial Revolution introduced electric power and mass-production processes. The Third Industrial Revolution introduced the digitalization of technology. He then declares that “now a Fourth Industrial Revolution is building on the Third, the digital revolution that has been occurring since the end of the last revolution. It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.”

But here’s the hitch. The very nature of digitalization — which characterizes the Third Industrial Revolution — is its ability to reduce communications, visual, auditory, physical, and biological systems, to pure information that can then be reorganized into vast interactive networks that operate much like complex ecosystems. In other words, it is the interconnected nature of digitalization technology that allows us to penetrate borders and “blur the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.” Digitalization’s modus operandi is “interconnectivity and network building.”  In other words the  “simple digitization” that is supposed to characterize the Third Industrial Revolution and the “innovation based on combinations of technologies”  that is supposed to connote the Fourth Industrial Revolution, perfectly coincide in the Third Industrial Revolution. That’s what digitalization has been doing, with increasing sophistication, for several decades. This is what defines the very architecture of the Third Industrial Revolution.

Which raises the question: why, then, a Fourth Industrial Revolution? Here we should ask the enlightement of Jeremy Rifkin who, in an editorial published by th Huffington Post on January the 15th (that you can read in its full lenght at this link:  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-rifkin/the-2016-world-economic-f_b_8975326.html ) explains: “Perhaps, realizing he’s on thin ground, arguing that “blurring the lines” between the physical, digital, and biological world is somehow a qualitatively “new development” that necessitates the postulation of a Fourth Industrial Revolution, Professor Schwab switches his argument away from what the technology does, concentrating rather on the dramatic temporal, spatial, and organizational effects of digitalization, suggesting that the changes are so pronounced that they warrant the exiting of the Third Industrial Revolution and the entrance of the Fourth Industrial Revolution onto the world stage. Schwab writes, “there are three reasons why today’s transformations represent not merely a prolongation of the Third Industrial Revolution, but rather the arrival of a Fourth and distinct one: velocity, scope, and systems impact.” On closer examination, Schwab’s argument that a qualitative change in the velocity, scope, and systems impact of the new technologies forces a shift from a Third to a Fourth Industrial Revolution fails to hold up on several grounds.
The plunging fixed costs of digital technology, the near zero marginal cost of utilizing it and the intrinsic interconnected nature of the technology itself is what has enabled a qualitative leap in “velocity, scope, and systems impact” for the past twenty-five years. Certainly Professor Schwab is aware that digital technology — the heart of the Third Industrial Revolution — has been responsible for unleashing exponential curves, disrupting entire sectors of the economy, and creating new business models for several decades, beginning with the doubling of capacity and the halving of cost of computer chips at Intel, bringing the cost of computing to near Zero Marginal Cost.
Wherever digital technology has spread — personal computers, cell phones, the World Wide Web, social media, data storage, digital music and video, renewable energy technology, fabrication technology, robotics, artificial intelligence, gene splicing and gene sequencing, synthetic biology, GPS tracking, and now the Internet of Things — the velocity, scope, and systems impact has been both exponential and transformative. Again, this has been going on for decades.

The music industry, television, the news media, the knowledge sector, and more recently, the energy sector, transport sector, and retail sector have been massively disrupted and diminished by the free sharing of music, YouTube videos, e-books, social media, Wikipedia, and Massive Open Online Courses at near Zero Marginal Cost. Millions of people are also producing renewable energy at near Zero Marginal Cost, car sharing and home sharing at low marginal cost, producing 3D printed products at low marginal cost, and increasingly transferring their shopping to virtual retail. At the same time, while traditional industries have declined, thousands of new entrepreneurial enterprises — some profit driven, others nonprofit — have arisen. These new enterprises are harnessing the productivity potential of the digital revolution by creating the digital platforms, algorithms, apps, and interconnections, speeding humanity into the digital era and a Third Industrial Revolution.

Still, despite the fact that for several decades now, the introduction and spread of digital technology and accompanying networks across sector after sector has gone hand-in-hand with exponential curves whose velocity, scope, and systems impact has been massively disruptive and forced a wholesale rethinking of the way we do business, Professor Schwab argues that “the speed of current breakthroughs has no historic precedent.” Quite the contrary.

Nor are exponential curves and velocity, scope, and systems impact only unique to the digital revolution. Consider, for example, the exponential curves and the velocity, scope, and systems impact that accompanied the First Industrial Revolution as society was forced to make a wholesale transformation from a largely agricultural society to an industrial economy in less than four decades. Would Professor Schwab have said that the dramatic change in velocity, scope, and systems impact during the First Industrial Revolution justify naming it a Second Industrial Revolution at some point, even though the defining technologies of the First Industrial Revolution were still operational and not yet replaced by the Second Industrial Revolution technologies and infrastructure? Doubtful!”

What makes a break between Industrial Revolutions os not a quantitative change in pace and velocity of the defining technologies, but a quality change in those technologies. This happens, (explains Rifkin), when three defining technologies emerge and converge to create what we call in engineering, a general purpose technology platform that fundamentally changes the way we manage, power, and move economic activity: new communication technologies to more efficiently manage economic activity; new sources of energy to more efficiently power economic activity; and new modes of transportation to more efficiently move economic activity.
For example, in the 19th century, steam-powered printing and the telegraph, abundant coal, and locomotives on national rail systems gave rise to the First Industrial Revolution. In the 20th Century, centralized electricity, the telephone, radio and television, cheap oil, and internal combustion vehicles on national road systems converged to create an infrastructure for the Second Industrial Revolution.

These are not simple quantitative changes of the technologies velocity and pace! These are quality indications of an historic great economic paradigm shift!
That’s what qualifies as a new industrial revolution and not a simple modulation of intensity of the same industrial revolution.

This is where Mt Schwaub theory falls to its epic fail!

As Jeremy Rifkin concludes, ” The Third Industrial Revolution — the digital revolution — has yet to reach its vast potential, making it far too early to declare it over and done. It is possible that a new technology revolution, as powerful, expansive, and far-reaching in its impact on society as digitalization, will come along in the near or distant future, at which time we might affix the label “Fourth Industrial Revolution.” Until then, we can safely mantain that the Fourth Industrial Revolution does not exist!

 

RSS Feed