<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  	<channel>
    	<title>CE Delft -  Environmental Economics</title>
		<copyright>Copyright (c) 2012, CE Delft</copyright>
		<link>http://www.ce.nl/ce/rapporten/114/</link>
        <atom:link href="http://www.ce.nlindex.php?go=home.showRapportenRSS&amp;pagenr=284" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<language>nl</language>
		<description>CE Delft Rich Site Summary</description>
		<webMaster>webmaster@ce.nl (Webmaster)</webMaster>
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[A critical examination of the investment proposals for Unit 6 of the Sostanj Power Plant]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/a_critical_examination_of_the_investment_proposals_for_unit_6_of_the_sostanj_power_plant/1205</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/a_critical_examination_of_the_investment_proposals_for_unit_6_of_the_sostanj_power_plant/1205</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The Holding Slovenske Elektrarne (HSE), owner of the Termoelektrarna &amp;Scaron;o&amp;scaron;tanj power plant (&amp;Scaron;TPP) in Slovenia, has commissioned a plan to construct a new unit at this plant. The proposed Unit 6 will replace Units 4 and 5 and be fired using lignite from the nearby Velenje mine. The first investment plan was submitted in 2005 and subsequently adapted in 2006 and 2009 to qualify for loans from the European Investment Bank (EIB) and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). In 2011 a fourth revision of the investment plan was drafted, which was required as the EIB requested a state guarantee. The Slovenian &amp;ldquo;Decree on the uniform methodology for the preparation and treatment of investment documentation in the field of public finance&amp;rdquo; requires certain rules to be followed for a state guarantee of this nature. One of these specific rules concerns the expected rate of return on investments, which must exceed 7%.&amp;nbsp;

As with any investment plan, calculations crucially depend on the assumptions made with respect to the future development of costs and benefits. The CEE Bankwatch Network and Focus, association for sustainable development, asked CE Delft to review the investment plan for the new lignite-fired unit of the &amp;Scaron;o&amp;scaron;tanj plant and investigate whether the crucial variables have been correctly assessed. This report analyses the investment plan and evaluates the assumptions regarding the future which underpin it.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:03:00 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Moving towards a 30% carbon reduction target in the EUEconomic impacts in Slovakia]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/moving_towards_a_30%25_carbon_reduction_target_in_the_eu%3Cbr%3Eeconomic_impacts_in_slovakia/1187</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/moving_towards_a_30%25_carbon_reduction_target_in_the_eu%3Cbr%3Eeconomic_impacts_in_slovakia/1187</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[In this study we perform a quantitative economic analysis of the impacts on the Slovak economy of the EU tightening its climate target from a 20 to a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 as compared to 1990. The main aim of the study is to assess the costs and benefits of meeting a more stringent climate target accruing to different players in the Slovakian economy, with a sectoral breakdown of these costs. Using statistical data (Slovstat, EU ETS Registry) and forecasts (PRIMES/GAINS), a broad macro-economic analysis was performed to assess the likely impacts not only on the electricity and industrial sectors but also on welfare more generally, including budgetary revenues and benefits accruing from abatement of associated pollutant emissions.

The overall conclusion is that the -30% target can be met without any additional direct costs to the Slovak economy. The direct costs are approximately the same as under a 20% target. The modelling effort in this study indicate that overall the -30% policy target for 2020 is about &amp;euro; 5 million cheaper than the -20% target. The higher abatement costs under a -30% scenario are mitigated by greater fuel savings in industry and the electricity sector, higher auction revenues for the government and the higher value of the substantial amount of banked credits that companies hold. In this way, the direct costs and direct benefits of the -30% scenario exactly outweigh each other.

This study identified a number of substantial indirect benefits associated with the -30% target. The required additional investment of &amp;euro; 0.7 billion between 2009 and 2020 could raise GDP by about 0.7% in 2020. Other additional benefits anticipated are improved air quality and a reduction of dependency on fuel imports. Although industry will be faced with higher costs, these are most likely to be passed through to consumers. This will result in a loss in market share for industry. It appears that the loss in value added by energy-intensive sectors more or less equals the benefits accruing from higher investments.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:24:41 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Economic instruments for biodiversity]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/economic_instruments_for_biodiversity/1185</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/economic_instruments_for_biodiversity/1185</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The Dutch Taskforce on Biodiversity and Natural Resources has set up an Economic Instruments workgroup to assess how the recommendations of the TEEB report can be worked up into concrete Dutch policy measures. Based on that report and internal discussions, the workgroup has selected a series of issues for further study and elaboration. For these issues CE Delft was asked to design policy proposals that are both practicable and lead to better protection of biodiversity, not only in the Netherlands, but also by reducing the ecological footprint of Dutch consumption patterns in other countries.

The following proposals have been investigated and/or elaborated in policy terms:

    lowering the social discount rate
    further greening of the tax system
    an import charge on bulk commodities
    a tax on non-sustainable timber
    a tax on development of greenfield sites
    a differentiated tax on animal protein
    a review of incentive schemes for biomass projects&amp;nbsp;
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:12:58 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Government intervention in the energy market]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/government_intervention_in_the_energy_market/1178</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/government_intervention_in_the_energy_market/1178</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[In this study, conducted jointly by Ecofys and CE Delft and commissioned by Eneco and Triodos Bank, government interventions in the Dutch energy market were inventoried under the guidance of a group of leading economists and energy experts. The consequences of these interventions for the playing field for fossil fuels, renewables, nuclear power and energy efficiency were then quantified. The results show that, by design or unintentionally, the Dutch government continues to provide greater incentives for energy consumption and use of fossil fuels than for renewable energy sources. Policies aimed at reducing the price differential between renewable and fossil-based electricity should therefore seek to phase out such support and only then address the residual &amp;lsquo;financial gap&amp;rsquo;.

On June 22nd the report was presented to MPs Liesbeth van Tongeren (Green Left) and Rene Leegte (Liberals) by the respective directors of CE Delft and Ecofys, Frans Rooijers and Manon Janssen.

Supplementary data, October 2011
This report has been revised to accommodate several comments received since original publication in June 2011:

    
        
            1.	
            Tax credit for investments in marginal gas fields on the Dutch continental shelf&amp;nbsp;	
        
        
            &amp;nbsp;
            
            
                Changed from &amp;euro; 196 mln to zero
                As yet, no use has been made of this scheme for 2010
            
            
        
        
            2.	
            Various multi-year subsidies for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;	
        
        
            &amp;nbsp;
            
            
                Changed from &amp;euro; 150 mln to &amp;euro; 15.3 mln (budgeted cash outlay according to cabinet letter to parliament)
                The &amp;euro; 150 mln subsidy made available for the ROAD project in 2010 cannot be fully allocated to that year
            
            
        
        
            3.	
            Buy-off of eight companies' EU ETS emission credits by the State of the Netherlands
        
        
            &amp;nbsp;
            
            
                Changed from &amp;euro; 56 mln to zero
                This scheme only comes into force in 2013
            
            
        
        
            4.
            Free EU ETS emission credits, 2005-2012
        
        
            &amp;nbsp;
            
            
                Changed from &amp;euro; 1.0 bln to 1.2 bln
                The June 2011 report was based on the situation in the year 2020. This was because the EU had already announced its intention to address this indirect subsidy by auctioning a higher proportion of the credits. For the same reason, calculations were based on an emissions trading price of &amp;euro; 30/tCO2. We have now brought this assumption into line with the actual situation in 2010, taking a trading price of &amp;euro;14.3/tCO2 and free credits for 84Mt of emissions.
            
            
        
    

Needless to say, the total figures cited in the report as well as the summary have also been revised accordingly. The new versions can now be downloaded from this page.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:32:20 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Will the energy-intensive industry profit from EU ETS under Phase 3?]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/will_the_energy-intensive_industry_profit_from_eu_ets_under_phase_3/1097</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/will_the_energy-intensive_industry_profit_from_eu_ets_under_phase_3/1097</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This study addresses the question whether the new EU ETS allocation mechanism to be introduced in 2013 will alter the scope for energy-intensive companies to pass through the costs of freely obtained allowances and obtain additional profits. Recent empirical research by CE Delft has indicated that it is not only power generators but also energy-intensive industries that have passed through the costs of their EU emission allowances in product prices. As they obtained these emission rights for free, they may have made a windfall profit during the first two phases of the EU ETS. In the third phase, starting in 2013, more rights are to be auctioned, however, and benchmarks introduced.

This study establishes that under this new system firms will have even more incentives to obtain windfall profits. For the marginal firm, energy costs will rise substantial owing to the auctioning of emission rights in excess of the benchmarks. This will put upward pressure on price levels in EU product markets. Cost pass-through and windfall profits are therefore likely to continue even after 2013.
&amp;nbsp;]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 04:07:16 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Economic science and perspectives for action: more than an energy tax!]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/economic_science_and_perspectives_for_action%3A_more_than_an_energy_tax%21/1183</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/economic_science_and_perspectives_for_action%3A_more_than_an_energy_tax%21/1183</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The Matrix is a multi-year transdisciplinary project initiated in the Netherlands as part of the &amp;lsquo;Climate changes spatial planning&amp;rsquo; programme. Its aim is to develop perspectives for action on climate change in a collaborative effort involving climate scientists, economists, spatial planners and social scientists. CE Delft is responsible for the project&amp;rsquo;s economic component. In this essay Sander de Bruyn looks at the various ways in which the economic sciences impinge on the climate issue.&amp;nbsp;

There is no denying that the economic sciences provide useful perspectives on climate change (cast-ing it as unaccounted damage, say), as well as to creation of concrete (policy) instruments like emis-sions trading. At the same time, though, they also spawn doubts and confusion about the need to in-tervene in the market process in order to avoid dangerous climate change. Much of this confusion arises because economists engage first and foremost with the question of whether climate policy is indeed desirable, to be answered in terms of whether or not the costs of market intervention exceed the benefits of reduced global warming. Economic science is unable to answer this question with any true accuracy, however, because climate change plays out in the (very) long term and economics is equipped above all to explain social phenomena ex post, not predict them. Any cost-benefit analysis of climate change simply skates over the major uncertainties surrounding numerous key issues, such as regional price and income trends across the world one hundred years hence.

When the power of economics as a descriptive science is brought to bear on the climate issue, it is immediately apparent that the costs of mitigation are in all likelihood being underestimated. That the problem of climate change can be technologically resolved at acceptable cost is the general message of the Stern Review, among other reports. In practice, though, climate change is not a technological but a social issue, characterised by complexity. Besides traditional market failures &amp;ndash; which mean that climate damage is insufficiently priced, if at all &amp;ndash; there are also government failures, which occur at two levels. In the first place, international negotiations will not yield the desired results as long as there remains a glaring imbalance between the wealthier nations, where the greatest impact will be expendi-ture on mitigation, and the poorer countries, which will bear the brunt of the actual damage as climate change unfolds. Secondly, the interconnectedness of trade and capital on a global scale has put nu-merous constraints on the scope for governments in wealthier countries to pursue effective climate policy. 

Given all these limitations, economic science should adopt a more modest approach, restricting itself to designing mechanisms that reduce to a minimum the failures of both markets and governments. 

The essay concludes by presenting three perspectives for action, three unorthodox strategies with the capacity to minimise the outlined failures. Internationally &amp;ndash; at the European level, for example &amp;ndash; agreement could be sought on creating a Carbon Added Tax (CAT) which, like Value Added Tax (VAT), would tax carbon on the consumer rather than the producer side, as is the case today. This would remove any incentive for producers to relocate outside Europe and thus shirk their responsibility for reducing global carbon emissions. Nationally &amp;ndash; in the Netherlands, say &amp;ndash; consideration might be given to extending the scope for climate compensation. If such compensation is increasingly accepted as the standard of the day, by corporations and citizens alike, and if the procedures involved are im-proved and extended (to include geo-engineering options, say), this could provide a bottom-up means of steering society in a sustainable, carbon-neutral direction. Thirdly, at the local level more thought should be given to more socially desirable forms of development, on residential or industrial estates, for example. Here there is potential for making car travel and other energy-intensive behaviour less attractive without the government evolving into a &amp;lsquo;nanny state&amp;rsquo;, as some would fear.
&amp;nbsp;]]></description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:39:22 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Impacts of freight and passenger transport pricing policy ]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/impacts_of_freight_and_passenger_transport_pricing_policy_/1073</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/impacts_of_freight_and_passenger_transport_pricing_policy_/1073</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Changes in the prices of fuels, air tickets and public transport affect mobility behaviour. Passenger movements by public transport and plane prove to be fairly sensitive to pricing, as does private vehicle fuel demand. Road haulage is also reasonably sensitive to changes in transport costs, particularly over long distances.&amp;nbsp;

In this desk study, encompassing both Dutch and international literature, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the environmental consultancy CE Delft review the impacts of price changes and various kinds of pricing measures on transport volumes. 

Road pricing: more car ownership, less car use&amp;nbsp; 
Higher petrol prices reduce fuel consumption as well as car ownership and use. Introduction of road pricing to replace today&amp;rsquo;s fixed vehicle taxes (on car purchase and circulation) would increase private vehicle ownership by several percent. Car use would decline, though, in the short term by 2 to 6 percent and in the longer term (10-15 years) by over 10 per cent.

Free public transport attracts mainly new users
Any increase or decrease in the price of public transport is soon reflected in the number of users, particularly in off-peak hours and away from urban conurbations. Trials with free or cheaper public transport generally lead to a distinct rise in passenger numbers, but only a slight decline in car use. Reduced-rate public transport attracts mainly new users and people who previously cycled. 
Mainly recreational travellers sensitive to air ticket prices
Increases or decreases in air ticket prices impact mainly on the number of short-haul recreational travellers. Business travel is less sensitive to price changes and effects on passenger numbers are less pronounced on long-haul than short-haul flights. This is probably because there are good alternatives for the latter.

Road haulage mainly price-sensitive on long distances
Road haulage proves to be fairly sensitive to changes in transport costs, particularly on long hauls. On short hauls there are generally few alternatives available and there is less price sensitivity. Besides distance, the type of freight is also important, with bulk transport and container transport relatively sensitive to price changes, for example. The impact of introducing road pricing on freight movements on Dutch roads will depend on tariff level and design. If today&amp;rsquo;s fixed-rate taxes for freight vehicles are replaced by road pricing, road freight movements are anticipated to decline only very slightly (by less than 1 percent). This minimal decline is due in part to the relatively low charge per kilometre compared with overall transport costs.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:29:46 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Technological developments in EuropeA long-term view of CO2 efficient manufacturing in the European region]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/technological_developments_in_europe%3Cbr%3Ea_long-term_view_of_co2_efficient_manufacturing_in_the_european_region/1098</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/technological_developments_in_europe%3Cbr%3Ea_long-term_view_of_co2_efficient_manufacturing_in_the_european_region/1098</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[To achieve significant CO2 reductions, technological innovation is crucial. In this exploratory study, commissioned by CAN Europe, CE Delft identifies whether innovations under development in the European steel, cement and paper sectors can be expected to yield 80-95% CO2 emission reductions in 2050, which is the EU long-term climate goal. Attention is paid to measures relating to energy use, alterations to production processes and use of carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Based on the available information, several promising technologies with respect to CO2 efficiency have been identified in these sectors. They seem to have the potential to produce significantly lower CO2 emissions per unit of product compared to the current average production plant in Europe.

Most of these technologies are currently in pilot stages of technological development and are expected to become commercially available between 2020 and 2030. In the future, there may be other promising technologies that are not currently under serious development, such as electrolysis in the steel sector and innovative drying techniques in the paper industry. For successful implementation of the identified technologies, it is necessary for policy-makers to:

    Stimulate further technical development, for instance by providing additional R&amp;amp;D funds.&amp;nbsp;
    Create market conditions with a preference for low CO2 emission technologies, by appropriate design of the EU ETS, among other ways.

Finally, most technologies rely heavily on CCS, which raises a priority issue. Since there seem to be limited storage locations meeting safety requirements, the question is whether these should be reserved for use by industry rather than the energy sector (coal), where alternative CO2 abatement options appear to be available.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:35:50 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[An energy tax benchmark for greenhouse horticulture]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/an_energy_tax_benchmark_for_greenhouse_horticulture/1053</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/an_energy_tax_benchmark_for_greenhouse_horticulture/1053</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[With its energy-intensive and at the same time small-scale operations, Dutch greenhouse horticulture is held to be subject to disproportionately high Energy Tax rates. As a compensatory measure a so-called agricultural tariff was introduced a number of years ago, i.e. a lower tax rate on gas consumption specifically for horticulture. The question of whether this tariff can and should be extended for a further period is now on the table, because approval for 2011 and 2012 is soon to be sought from the European Commission in Brussels. To this end a better understanding is required of the energy intensity of the greenhouse horticulture sector and the tax burden of the Energy Tax in comparison with other energy-intensive sectors of the Dutch economy.
At the request of the Dutch Horticultural Product Board and the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality,&amp;nbsp; CE Delft and the Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI) have compared the energy costs and Energy Tax burden of the greenhouse horticulture sector with those of industrial sectors. The aim of the study was twofold:&amp;nbsp;

    To provide insight into the energy costs and energy tax burden of greenhouse horticulture compared with industrial sectors.
    To identify promising feedback mechanisms that would permit abolition of the lower tariff for greenhouse horticulture.

Conclusions
A comparison with industry shows that greenhouse horticulture is one of the most energy-intensive sectors of the Dutch economy, paying markedly more Energy Tax per unit turnover than industry. This holds whether the agricultural tariff or the general tariff is paid. Because of the small-scale nature of greenhouse horticulture, the Energy Tax paid on natural gas (with limited consumption in the cheaper tax bands) makes up a relatively high proportion of operating costs. As a result, a higher Energy Tax rate may have a greater impact on the competitiveness of greenhouse horticulture compared with industry. This confirms that the rationale behind initial introduction of the agricultural tariff is still valid.
Although various feedback mechanisms are theoretically conceivable to compensate for the increased outlay if the agricultural tariff is abolished, implementation will not be straightforward. With some of the options (feedback via income tax and corporation tax) the potential for adequate compensation of the increased tax burden for greenhouse horticulture is problematical. Serious consideration should be given to feedback options based on energy efficiency subsidies and a CO2 benchmark. Further study on these issues is required.&amp;nbsp;]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:48:37 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Renewable electricity: subsidised or compulsory?]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/renewable_electricity%3A_subsidised_or_compulsory/1085</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/renewable_electricity%3A_subsidised_or_compulsory/1085</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[European nations employ a range of instruments to encourage investments in renewable energy. In broad terms, two main types of policy can be distinguished: subsidy schemes and arrangements obliging power suppliers to generate a specified fraction of their output from renewable sources (&amp;ldquo;mandatory renewable energy targets&amp;rdquo;). In the Netherlands the SDE renewable energy incentive scheme is employed to this end. This study examines whether mandatory renewable energy target are:

    A&amp;nbsp;more cost-effective and efficient way of securing the government&amp;rsquo;s near-term renewable electricity target (up to 2020).
    A&amp;nbsp;better means of creating a stable investment climate and thus a structural market for renewable electricity with an eye to the long-term energy transition, i.e. beyond 2020.

To answer these questions, renewable energy incentive schemes were assessed in the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Spain (all with subsidies) and Belgium, Poland, the United Kingdom and Sweden (all with mandatory targets).

The report concludes that there are at present no clear indications that mandatory targets are more cost-effective than subsidisation as long as the share of renewable electricity is still limited (up to 2020). To support the longer-term energy transition, however, from 2015 onwards mandatory targets will need to be gradually introduced as a means of achieving a timely shift in investments from conventional to renewable sources, essential for the envisaged transition. How mandatory targets can best be introduced in the Netherlands is an issue requiring further study.

The present study was commissioned by the Dutch Association for Energy Markets (VME).]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:07:51 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[En route to sustainable ports in the North Sea Canal area]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/en_route_to_sustainable_ports_in_the_north_sea_canal_area/1054</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/en_route_to_sustainable_ports_in_the_north_sea_canal_area/1054</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Increasingly, local and provincial authorities are seeking to promote sustainability in their region, although the precise definitions of the concept differ. This is also the case for development of the harbour facilities along the North Sea Canal, where various parties are currently working on a vision of the future setting out the desired long-term development path for this area. In this context the Green-Left fraction of the Noord-Holland provincial executive is keen to make activities in the area more sustainable so that these still provide sufficient employment and opportunities for economic growth without this going at the expense of environment, biodiversity and landscape. 

Against this background the fraction asked CE Delft to review the strategies available to government authorities to pursue sustainable development in the ports of the North Sea Canal area. In this report three basic policy tracks are elaborated:

    Policies on future industrial activities
    A proactive and coherent location policy can be elaborated that is geared to selective admission of activities having a positive environmental footprint. Relevant in this context is proactive soliciting of companies that dovetail with clusters of industrial sectors using each other&amp;rsquo;s residual raw feedstocks and waste heat.
    Policies on transport operations
    Ships entering ports can be categorised as to their environmental performance (NOx and SO2 emissions). This can be done by introducing differentiated harbour dues based on the Environmental Ship Index, ideally along with other ports.
    Policies on infrastructure modification
    This relates to investments in sustainable zoning of the area, with due focus on efficient use of the available land, provision of green spaces and renewable energy generation and use. Efficient on-site energy use by (new) industries can also be encouraged. The report discusses various instruments that can be employed for this purpose, including &amp;lsquo;deposit&amp;rsquo; schemes, &amp;lsquo;red for green&amp;rsquo;, cost balancing, tradable user allowances and sustainable development funds.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:10:57 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Does the energy intensive industry obtain windfall profits through the EU ETS?]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/does_the_energy_intensive_industry_obtain_windfall_profits_through_the_eu_ets/1038</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/does_the_energy_intensive_industry_obtain_windfall_profits_through_the_eu_ets/1038</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Emission trading schemes belong to the most efficient and effective policy options to achieve a given emission reduction target. In an emission trading system, each source of pollution gets a certain amount allowances that give the &amp;lsquo;right&amp;rsquo; to emit one unit of pollution. By reducing the amount of allowances issued, the system can achieve emission reductions among its participants. By allowing the allowances to be traded on an organized exchange, the market assures that these reductions are achieved at the least possible cost for participants.

In theory, the efficiency of the system is achieved regardless of the initial allocation method. Allocation methods most often considered are auctioning and free allocation. Because free allocation impacts less on the costs for companies, it is believed to be a better system in the context of unilateral climate policies. Through free allocation, companies face less cost disadvantages compared to producers that do not fall under a climate policy regime. Free allocation would therefore have less distortive impacts on trade and economic growth - allowing EU producers to compete at lower price levels than would be possible under an auctioning regime.

However, this belief in the benefits of free allocation crucially hinges on the assumption that companies do not pass through the opportunity costs of their freely obtained allowances in the product prices. If they would pass through the market value of the freely obtained allowances, product prices would rise and the impacts on trade and competitiveness of a system of free allocation would be similar to that of auctioning. The only effect of free allocation would then be that companies gain windfall profits through the emission trading system and income from citizens will be transferred to business. This would be a particularly unfavourable outcome in the European context, where free allocation is presented as a solution towards carbon leakage. 

Economic theory tells us that companies will pass through the costs of the freely obtained allowances in most circumstances &amp;ndash; even if this will bring them a competitive disadvantage to producers not due to climate policies. According to economic theory, companies are profit-maximizing institutions that prefer profitability on invested capital over maintaining market shares. If passing through the opportunity costs in product prices can enhance their profitability, they will do so even if this would bring them some harm in terms of loss of market shares, as long as the additional profits do outweigh the additional costs. How much the firms will be able to pass the costs on depends on market structure and on elasticity of demand and supply. Theoretical analysis shows that typically, assuming linear demand and supply curves, the firms will be able to pass from 50% of increase in marginal costs due to the EU ETS (under the monopoly) to a 100% (under perfect competition). How much the increase in marginal costs reflects the carbon price depends on elasticity of supply and demand. Assuming non-linear demand and supply curves implies different rules and a possibility to pass on more than a 100% of additional costs due to the EU ETS. 

We have tested the hypothesis that energy intensive companies did not pass through the costs of their freely obtained allowances during Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the European emission trading system the EU ETS. The EU emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) was launched in 2005 to cap CO2 emissions from large industrial facilities and electricity producers. Covering over 10,000 installations, it is the largest international emission trading system in the world. During Phase 1 (from 2005-2007) and Phase 2 (from 2008 till 2012), allowances were issued for free to the energy intensive industries in all member countries. The question is whether the value of these free allowances have been forwarded in the price of EU products, signalling windfall profits, or that EU producers did not do that. 

This is investigated using econometric methods stemming from the concept of co-integration and market integration. The idea is that several dependencies exist between EU and non-EU markets through the prices of inputs in production processes and the prices of outputs on the various markets. If, for instance, prices of iron ores increase in Asia, they are likely to start to increase in Europe as well. This will put an upward pressure on the price of steel in both Europe and Asia. If Asian steel prices increase due to local shortages, this will also put an upward pressure on European steel prices as a larger portion of European steel will be shipped to Asia. In this system of market dependencies, it can then be investigated if the price of an emission allowance at the European ETS market is a significant variable for the variation in prices between EU and non-EU products over time. 

A standardized estimation procedure was developed (co-developed and reviewed by three independent econometricians) in order to come up with robust outcomes (and preventing data mining and spurious outcomes). This estimation procedure was subsequently applied to a few selected products from the iron and steel, refineries and (petro)-chemical industries. For these products, prices were compared between the EU and the US and it was investigated to what extent European prices were influenced by price developments on the EU ETS markets. 

The outcomes of the econometric analyses show that for most products a significant influence of the EUA prices on the European product prices can be found. For products from the refineries sectors (gasoil, diesel and gasoline) a quite direct influence can be found. Within two weeks are higher prices on the EU ETS markets translated into higher prices on the German markets for diesel and gasoline. For gasoil traded in Rotterdam an immediate price increasing effect from CO2 prices can be found. For the products of the iron and steel sectors (hot and cold rolled coil), a significant influence of CO2 prices can be found after one month, while for polyethylene, polystyrene and polyvinylchloride a delayed influence from 3-8 weeks can be found. 

The cost-pass-through rates from the econometric estimations show that for products of the refineries sector full cost-pass-through rates are likely. The econometric results even suggest that more than 100% of the costs were passed through, but this cannot be stated with certainty. For both steel varieties, the cost-pass-through was close to 100%. The same value was found for polyvinylchloride and polyethylene. For polystyrene the cost-pass-through rate was significant but much lower at 33%. 

These results cannot be directly interpreted in amount of windfall profits, as we have no information on the individual emissions stemming from producing these products. However, if the full cost-pass-through rates would prevail for all products in the refineries and iron and steel sectors, it can be calculated that the total amount of windfall profits would equal &amp;euro; 14 billion between 2005 and 2008. This implies a substantial transfer of money from consumers to the energy intensive industry. 

This research hence results in the conclusion that there is ample evidence that the energy intensive industry has passed through the prices of their freely obtained allowances during Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the EU ETS. This has generated windfall profits in these sectors. The cost price increase is identical as it would have been under an auctioning regime but without the possibility that governments would have to compensate consumers by recycling auction revenues. Politicians seem to have underestimated the potential of windfall profits in exposed sectors and have believed overall the claims of industry that additional costs cannot be passed through. The higher prices on the EU markets may have stimulated imports from non-EU producers but this was not quantitatively assessed in this study. The results, however, do point at the suggestion that free allocation falls short of its intentional goals: to prevent carbon leakage. Under free allocation both windfall profits and carbon leakage may be stimulated.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 11:47:02 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Trade Exposure of Energy Intensive Sectors]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/trade_exposure_of_energy_intensive_sectors/1028</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/trade_exposure_of_energy_intensive_sectors/1028</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This report analyses the source and destination of trade flows between EU and non-EU countries with respect to eight industrial sectors, combining these insights with an analysis of the political pledges made during the Copenhagen negotiations last December to assess the risk of carbon leakage due to EU climate policies. Our analysis shows that much of EU trade is with countries that already have climate policies in place. As these major trading partners can be expected to adopt similarly stringent climate policies to the EU, carbon emissions may be assigned a price in these markets, too, thus reducing or eliminating the risk of carbon leakage. This should be duly corrected for in trade intensities.

If the EU adopts a 30% emission reduction target, trade with Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Switzerland, Brazil and Mexico will need to be excluded from the calculation of trade intensities, as these countries will adopt comparable climate policies. The average downward correction of trade intensities is then 3%. If the EU eventually decides to adopt a 20% reduction scenario, trade flows with Russia, Canada and the USA should also be excluded, as these countries will then have policies of similar stringency. In that case the average downward correction of trade intensities is 8.5%. &amp;nbsp;

These findings have direct consequences for the allocation mechanism for certain sectors which will then no longer receive free emission allowances as they no longer qualify for being &amp;lsquo;exposed&amp;rsquo; to international competition. A list of sectors is provided in the report. At the same time, though, those sectors that are expected to face large cost increases (&amp;gt;5%) as a result of the EU ETS will still be eligible for free allocation.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:36:48 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Shadow Prices Handbook : Valuation and weighting of emissions and environmental impacts]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/shadow_prices_handbook_%3A_valuation_and_weighting_of_emissions_and_environmental_impacts/1032</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/shadow_prices_handbook_%3A_valuation_and_weighting_of_emissions_and_environmental_impacts/1032</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The Shadow Prices Handbook provides an extensive description of the methodology employed for determining and using shadow prices and derived weighting factors for individual types of environmental impact. The Handbook provides a useful scientific background document in which relevant factors, methodological choices and the assumptions to be made in calculating shadow prices and weighting factors are explicitly detailed. 

Two datasets are also presented: one based on avoidance costs, the other on damage costs. These data can be used in economic and environmental analyses, under the provision that due allowance is made for the fact that they are Dutch averages. 

What makes this study unique is that the latest developments relating to environmental characterisation factors and approaches to economic valuation have been combined into a single methodologically consistent framework. The publication thus contributes not only to the existing economic literature on the valuation of externalities, but also to the environmental literature on the elaboration of weighting factors.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:13:47 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Cost allocation under the EU ETS]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/cost_allocation_under_the_eu_ets/1064</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/cost_allocation_under_the_eu_ets/1064</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[After 2012, the third Phase of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) comes into place that lasts until 2020. New to this system is the European harmonized allocation of rights. In addition, a larger part of the rights will be auctioned. For the Netherlands the third Phase of EU ETS implies that emissions of companies under the EU ETS have to be reduced by 21% compared to 2005. This results in cost increases. Companies have to reduce their emissions by means of investing in technical measures or buy allowances on the market. Also the cost of inputs may rise, such as electricity used in production processes.

This study, commissioned by the Ministry of Finance, addresses the question who in the end will pay for these higher costs: is that consumers, governments or businesses? This study focuses primarily on direct costs. Indirect effects and costs (such as changes in sales, employment or income from the corporation for the government) are not included in this study. The study takes a quantitative stand in assessing these costs using econometric and statistical techniques.
The analyses in this study show that CO2 emissions of Dutch plants under the EU ETS are expected to decrease to 68 Mton in 2020. About half of the 68 Mton rights that will be allocated in 2020 will be auctioned&amp;nbsp;- the other half will be distributed for free. Auctioning takes place almost exclusively for electricity generation. Only 2% of industrial emissions are expected to fall under an auction regime, especially in some subsectors of the food industry and the paper industry.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 12:58:43 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Why the EU could and should adopt higher greenhouse gas reduction targets]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/why_the_eu_could_and_should_adopt_higher_greenhouse_gas_reduction_targets/1021</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/why_the_eu_could_and_should_adopt_higher_greenhouse_gas_reduction_targets/1021</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Should the EU adopt more ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets? Recently, from different perspectives, a large number of studies concluded that such higher emission reduction targets are desirable, feasible or necessary. This study reviews recent research and tries to answer the question how to make the EU's GHG reduction target consistent with its goal of limiting the increase in global temperature to below 2&amp;ordm; C above pre-industrial levels. The study concludes that the present target of -20% is insufficient to limit the increase in global temperatures to below 2&amp;ordm; C and falls behind the emissions pledges of other countries. The study estimates that the costs of a higher reduction target have fallen considerably due to the economic crisis. Moreover, if the current policy target of -20% is to be maintained, EU climate policies will be undermined and become inconsistent.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:01:17 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Limits to green? Greening tax system in the Netherlands]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/limits_to_green_greening_tax_system_in_the_netherlands/1026</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/limits_to_green_greening_tax_system_in_the_netherlands/1026</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The central issue considered in this report is the extent to which a further extension of environmental taxation can contribute to building a sustainable economy. In the context of the present study, a sustainable economy is taken to mean that the risks associated with climate change and resource depletion are reduced to an acceptable level by 2050.

One strategy towards achieving this aim could comprise the following key elements:&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;

    Introduction of a new carbon tax as part of the Energy Tax.
    A broadening of the scope of the Energy Tax to include sectors like agriculture and industry and removal of other fiscal subsidies and reduced rates.
    Extension of the tax system to include new taxes on the import/production of natural resources (timber, fish, meat) and land use.
    A European agenda on green tax reform.

The proposed &amp;lsquo;additional greening&amp;rsquo; package comprises:

    An increase in the duty on motor fuels combined with the proposed carbon tax (average overall increase in tax on motor fuels: 20%).
    Abolition of Energy Tax reductions for business and industry by setting the second and third tier rates equal to the first, combined with subsidies for energy conservation.
    On top of the existing Energy Tax, introduction of a CO2 indexed component of 50%, to induce further energy-saving and introduce differentiation with respect to the carbon content of the various energy sources.
    Introduction of a tax on meat or animal feed that ensures that the harmful impacts of meat consumption, many of them outside the Netherlands, are passed on to Dutch consumers.
    Abolition of tax breaks such as that in force for &amp;lsquo;red diesel&amp;rsquo; and reduced Energy Tax rates for greenhouse horticulture and industry.
    Introduction of a tax on &amp;lsquo;green-field&amp;rsquo; land development.

Tax revenues
With the ambitious package of environmental taxes outlined, a 20% share of green tax revenue is feasible in the Netherlands, equivalent to 5% of the country&amp;rsquo;s Gross Domestic Product. This figure of 5% is in line with what international studies anticipate as being the fiscal limits of a green tax system. For this level of greening, Euro-pean coordination is not essential. In calculating the figure of 20% green tax revenue, due allowance has been made for the fact that reduced pollution will lead to declining tax revenues. Expectations are that this package will make a major contribution to achieving the government&amp;rsquo;s environmental and climate targets, particularly the latter. With this package, an additional greening of around &amp;euro; 8 billion can be achieved over and above existing green revenues of some &amp;euro; 19 billion. The share of green taxes would then rise from 14% today to around 20%. These revenues can be recycled in the form of lower taxes on corporate profits or labour, with the additional option of using some fraction to incentivise further energy-saving by selected target groups.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:33:14 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[A Global Maritime Emissions Trading System]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/a_global_maritime_emissions_trading_system/1024</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/a_global_maritime_emissions_trading_system/1024</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This report designs a global cap-and-trade scheme for maritime transport and assesses its impacts on the shipping sector, regions and groups of countries.
&amp;nbsp;
It shows that it is feasible to implement a cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gas emissions in the maritime transport sector. Such a scheme ensures that the environmental target is met, while allowing the sector to grow and ensuring that the target is met in the most cost-effective way. An emissions trading scheme would result in an increase in the costs of shipping of less than 10%, depending on the price of allowances. The increase in import values is likely to be less than 1% for most commodity groups, and the impact on consumer prices even lower. 

Using new data on emissions of ships sailing to regions and country groups, this report demonstrates that the additional costs of imports for most regions and country groups are estimated to be less than 0.2% of GDP, with a few exceptions. 

This report demonstrates that it is possible to compensate developing countries for the increased costs of imports by using approximately two thirds of the revenues of the auction. The remainder of the revenues can be used for other aims, such as R&amp;amp;D into fuel-efficiency of ships. 

The study has been written by a consortium comprising CE Delft, DLR and Fearnley Consultants.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:16:01 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Resource productivity,  competitiveness and  environmental policies ]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/resource_productivity%2C__competitiveness_and__environmental_policies_/1007</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/resource_productivity%2C__competitiveness_and__environmental_policies_/1007</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The use and consumption of natural resources (like materials, energy and land) put an increasing burden on the environment. This recently has gained significant interest in scientific and political discussions. Resource productivity is often presented as a strategy to lower resource consumption and the environmental impacts while maintaining our wealth. 

It is often said that policies aimed at improvements of resource productivity are a win-win situation: they could both enhance the environment and the economy. The environmental improvements occur because saving on resources in the end implies less emissions and waste. The economic improvements occur because saving on resources simply would save money. Business normally tends to overlook profitable saving options, in this view, and resource productivity policies could help business in internalizing them. 

In this research we investigate the potential use of resource productivity as theme in environmental policy. We investigate various market failures that may form an argument for governmental policies. We also investigated the claim that resource productivity could enhance competitiveness of firms and thereby result in a win-win situation. We do this by referring to the literature on the Porter hypothesis and present empirical analysis on the relationship between energy productivity and income. Finally we address the use of economic instruments that can help to circumvent some of the lack of progress on increased resource productivity. ]]></description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:46:09 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Impacts on Dutch industry from sharpening the EU CO2 target from -20 to -30%]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/impacts_on_dutch_industry_from_sharpening_the_eu_co2_target_from_-20_to_-30%25/1020</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/impacts_on_dutch_industry_from_sharpening_the_eu_co2_target_from_-20_to_-30%25/1020</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This study presents an analysis into the consequences of the costs for industry in the Netherlands of moving within the EU from a CO2 reduction target of -20 to -30%. Three scenarios have been formulated with respect to the input of CDM and the associated price developments in the EU ETS market. In these scenarios the impacts of the financial crisis have been taken into account. These three scenarios have been analyzed with respect to the potential costs for industry of complying with EU ETS. We distinguished both the direct costs of complying with EU ETS and the costs of increased electricity-inputs. It appears that the highest additional cost increases occur for the cement industry, the aluminum industry and the inorganic chemicals. These sectors have little opportunities to reduce emissions or electricity demand. The aluminium and inorganic chemical industry mainly suffer from the higher electricity prices, while the cement sector will be a net buyer of allowances. Some sectors, e.g. refineries and fertilizer, may profit from the more strict emission regime as they have opportunities to reduce their emissions at lower costs and become net sellers of emission credits. The costs presented here are gross cost price increases. However, part of these costs will be passed on to the consumers - this has not been taken into account in this study. Earlier research indicated that about half of the additional costs of EU ETS may be passed on to the consumers. . 
&amp;nbsp;
The total sum of costs were estimated at 0.4 billion annually in 2020 under the -20% target (less than 0.1% of GDP). For the target of -30% and no additional use of CDM, these costs will increase to about 0.2% of GDP.&amp;nbsp; Hence additional costs of more ambitious targets are estimated to be low.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:29:24 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Environmental Impact of the use of Natural Resources and Products]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/environmental_impact_of_the_use_of_natural_resources_and_products/990</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/environmental_impact_of_the_use_of_natural_resources_and_products/990</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[A key issue in European policies on resources and products, is the development of an aggregated impact indicator to measure decoupling: an indicator that is expected to show the impact of environmental pressures related to resource use and economic development on the state of the environment in an aggregated manner. In this study, various indicators have been assessed and recommendations are made for the use of such an aggregated environmental impact indicator, or set of indicators, at the Eurostat Datacenter for Natural Resources. 

The indicator assessment included the following indicators: HANPP (Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production), EF (Ecological Footprint), DMC (Domestic Material Consumption), EMC (Environmentally weighed Material Consumption) and EE-IO (Environmentally Extended Input Output) derived indicators. 

To be used in a general decoupling context, the indicators should be (1) encompassing with regard to the economic system, (2) encompassing with regard to environmental impacts or pressure, and (3) include foreign impacts that are related to consumption within EU. This was tested in a number of hypothetical case studies. 

The conclusion from this exercise is, that none of the indicators appears to be the ideal decoupling indicator. All have their own strenghts and weaknesses, but also their own potential niche of useful policy supporting application. 

HANPP and EF are both rather limited in their scope and are therefore less suitable as general decoupling indicators. The other three are more encompassing. For a policy on resources, it is important to have the resources and resource flows visible in the indicator. Resource flows themselves are captured in the DMC or TMC indicator, based on MFA accounts. The EMC seems most suitable to add the environmental dimension. By using these two indicators, the &amp;quot;double decoupling&amp;quot; of the Resource Strategy can be made measurable. A combination could be considered of EMC and EF, taking strong points out of either. The EF then could supply the land use data and the EMC the emissions, including CO2. 

A product policy could benefit clearly from an EE IO approach. This may be the only way to get a perspective on all combined products in a national economy. A product policy obviously should be supplemented by product studies for priority product groups based on detailed LCAs. Without these, it would not be possible to do eco-labelling or provide guidelines for product design &amp;ndash; be it ecodesign, design for recycling or otherwise. However, the individual products are too numerous to keep track of all of them: instead of roughly a hundred materials, there are tens of thousands of different products to keep track of. A certain amount of aggregation therefore is inevitable, and to do this via EE-IO seems a sensible road to take.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:47:19 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Nuclear employment ]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/nuclear_employment_/969</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/nuclear_employment_/969</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[At the request of Greenpeace-Netherlands, CE Delft has looked into the direct employment effects of construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant in the province of Zeeland. Although a study covering only direct employment does not give a complete picture, it does provide an indication of what can be expected if plans go ahead.
&amp;nbsp;
Based on a desk study of employment studies carried out in the US and Europe, an estimate was made of the number of jobs associated with building and operating a 1,600 MW nuclear plant, looking at the main aspects in terms of job creation. The desk study indicates that construction will create an average of 1,500 direct jobs on the site itself for a period of five years, with peaks of between 2,500 and 3,000. In the operational phase there will be 500 jobs.&amp;nbsp; 

Based on the main factors governing employment at nuclear facilities (nuclear experience, international building consortiums, international tendering) and a comparison with current Dutch construction projects in the energy sector, an estimate was made of the number of jobs that can reasonably be allocated to the Netherlands as a whole and Zeeland in particular, giving due consideration to types of positions, training levels, the local labour market and current recruitment potential in the Netherlands. The study concludes that construction of a nuclear power plant can reasonably be assumed to lead to a peak of around 120-150 direct, local jobs in Zeeland at a minimum. These are temporary jobs, for the duration of the construction phase. The permanent, direct employment generated in the operational phase is estimated as totalling 150 jobs.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:12:37 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Compensation for mink farms ]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/compensation_for_mink_farms_/963</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/compensation_for_mink_farms_/963</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The Netherlands&amp;rsquo; Lower Chamber is considering introducing a ban on mink farms, to come into force on 17 January, 2018. An important issue in this context is the extent to which mink farmers should be compensated for economic losses due to the envisaged ban. In the past few months a string of studies have been published on the topic by the Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), CE Delft and Deloitte estimating the potential costs facing mink farmers if Parliament indeed decides to outlaw their trade. There are considerable differences between these studies, however, in terms of both methodology and results. 

This short report discusses the most important differences and sets out the assumptions and methods that are justifiable from an economic perspective on compensation. The focus is on the main contours of the debate. The party that commissioned the report, the campaigning group Bont voor Dieren (&amp;lsquo;Fur is for Animals&amp;rsquo;), hopes it will contribute to balanced decision-making in the Lower and Upper Chambers. 

The following questions are addressed:

    Why do the three reports give such different estimates of economic losses?
    Were these losses calculated in an arbitrary fashion?
    Should compensation be related to the scale of economic losses?
    How will the mink-farming sector respond if there is phased introduction of the ban?
    What are the animal welfare consequences if the sector is phased out?
    Is there a future for mink farmers without their mink farms?
    What effect will a ban have on the pension provisions of these entrepreneurs?
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:30:49 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Impact and elaboration of an Energy Conservation Fund]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/impact_and_elaboration_of_an_energy_conservation_fund/972</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/impact_and_elaboration_of_an_energy_conservation_fund/972</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This report, prepared at the request of the Dutch environment ministry, VROM, looks into the options for setting up an Energy Conservation Fund to encourage investments in energy efficiency by private home owners and the utility building sector. It examines the costs and impacts of energy conservation measures and the (financial) barriers currently impeding their implementation. A range of incentives for removing these barriers are then assessed, viz. a government guarantee on loans, a subsidy on interest payments, a limited investment subsidy and several hybrid variants. The option &amp;lsquo;energy loan with guarantee&amp;rsquo; is then elaborated in more detail. 

One of the report&amp;rsquo;s final conclusions is that loan access and affordability are a necessary but not sufficient condition for securing substantial cuts in CO2 emissions and an attendant improvement in local environmental quality and quality of life. It is therefore recommended to make serious efforts on other fronts, too, so that the lack of knowledge and sense of urgency and ingrained opposition on the part of home owners can be remedied. In this respect, first and second time buyers in lower and medium income brackets are a key target group.

Meanwhile, political agreement has been reached on the design of a guarantee scheme for energy credits, to be announced this month in the Government Gazette.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:46:04 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Evaluation of the Dutch Environment ministry's 'climate standards']]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/evaluation_of_the_dutch_environment_ministrys_climate_standards/964</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/evaluation_of_the_dutch_environment_ministrys_climate_standards/964</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[One of the ways in which the Dutch government can effectuate &amp;lsquo;climate compensation&amp;rsquo; is to purchase voluntary emission reduction (VER) credits, and in this context it is important there are guarantees as to the soundness of such credits. The Environment minister has therefore stated in the Lower Chamber that minimum quality standards will be developed for future activities in this area. Arcadis and CE Delft were commissioned by the Environment ministry (VROM) to research the issue.

In the VER market there are numerous standards for the credits on offer. At a minimum there are two criteria such standards should meet to guarantee the credibility of emission cuts. First, the quality of the auditors needs to be validated. These auditors evaluate project proposals, and on this basis a decision is taken on whether a particular project is assigned VER credits and, if so, how many. Second, projects must be tested for &amp;lsquo;additionality&amp;rsquo;: the guarantee that the CO2 emissions reduction would not have occurred without additional investment in VER credits. From a preliminary (desk) survey of VER standards it emerged that only the Gold Standard scores as well as CDM(1). Gold Standard checks auditors&amp;rsquo; validation (and verification) reports and whether the additionality tests used are equivalent to or even tougher than the CDM tests. As yet it is only renewable energy and energy efficiency projects that are eligible for the Gold Standard.

At the request of VROM, the study paid particular attention to projects involving land use, land-use change and forestry (&amp;lsquo;LULUCF&amp;rsquo;) and projects in which the emissions reduction will only be secured at some dat in the future (&amp;lsquo;futures&amp;rsquo;). The question is to what extent it is desirable for national government to invest public funds in projects like this.

With regard to LULUCF projects, Arcadis and CE Delft recognise on the one hand that financial incentives have a crucial role to play in preserving the world&amp;rsquo;s afforested regions. This is something the government can contribute to by purchasing VER credits. Land-owners to whom credits are allocated receive a financial reward for afforestation/reforestation and for preventing deforestation. On the other hand, there are a number of valid criticisms of LULUCF projects, such as the risk of only temporary emissions cuts, &amp;lsquo;carbon leakage&amp;rsquo; and the issuing of credits for &amp;lsquo;non-additional&amp;rsquo; projects. To guarantee the quality of emission cuts, CE Delft therefore recommends that the government only purchase LULUCF credits that have been certified by the CDM Executive Board. This standard requires that credits be replaced in the course of time, as a means of guaranteeing permanent CO2 reductions. For the time being, these relate only to afforestation, as the prevention of deforestation is still not internationally accepted and is not CDM-certified.

Finally, Arcadis and CE Delft recommend that the government not acquire any &amp;lsquo;futures&amp;rsquo;, as there is a risk of projects turning out to deliver lower emission cuts (or none at all), even though these have already been paid for. In terms of communication, it is also hard for the government to explain that it is engaging in &amp;lsquo;climate compensation&amp;rsquo;, while at the time of announcement no such compensation has yet actually been effectuated.

(1) CDM was taken as a reference point because this system is grounded in the Kyoto Protocol, currently has a major share of the market and is embedded in numerous procedural guarantees with which there is already considerable experience.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:38:23 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Peer review of LEI report on phasing out mink farming]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/peer_review_of_lei_report_on_phasing_out_mink_farming/919</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/peer_review_of_lei_report_on_phasing_out_mink_farming/919</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
At the request of the Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality the Netherlands Agronomic Institute (LEI) estimated the financial compensation that would have to be given to the sector if a ban on mink farming were to be introduced. This calculation was included in the report 'Sanering nertsenhouderij in Nederland: een actualisatie', which provides an update of the situation in the Netherlands (LEI, 2008). In this report LEI calculates the total financial damage as the sum of loss of financial assets, loss of income and demolition costs under two policy scenarios: an outright ban and a gradual phase-out of the sector within ten to fifteen years. The anti-fur campaigning group Bont voor Dieren asked CE Delft to carry out a peer review of the main elements of the LEI report.
CE Delft concludes that under both scenarios LEI overestimates the funds required to compensate the sector for the damage that would result from discontinuation of mink farming.
In the &amp;lsquo;outright ban&amp;rsquo; scenario our cost estimate is at least 23% lower than that of LEI: 490.8 million Euro compared with 638.5 million. This difference is due mainly to LEI ignoring the opportunity costs of labour, having the government unjustly pay a certain amount of compensation for entrepreneurial risk and overestimating capital destruction and demolition costs. The recalculated figure of 490.8 million Euro in damages should even be seen as a maximum, i.e. &amp;lsquo;worst case&amp;rsquo; scenario. There are a number of other crucial parameters involved which we suspect have been overestimated by LEI. However, as we have no access to the microdata in question (from LEI), we have no way of presenting reliable alternative figures. A sensitivity analysis indicates that if a 10% decrease in the price of mink fur is assumed and a 50% decrease in the current book value of assets, the required compensation would be 373 million Euro.
In the &amp;lsquo;gradual phase-out&amp;rsquo; scenario the differences between the two sets of calculations are particularly pronounced. For phase-out periods of ten and fifteen years, LEI calculates respective figures of 535.6 and 508.4 million Euro for damage compensation. In our calculations these figures come to only 16.5 and 5.6 million Euro. This difference is due mainly to LEI making the in our view inappropriate assumption of there being loss of income and capital that requires compensation. In reality, though, the entrepreneurs in question will have plenty of time to gear up to the approaching phase-out, i.e. switch to other activities or another job and cancel investments that would not be recuperated within the transition period (with the exception of the animal welfare investments required by law). If so desired, the government might provide a retraining and/or investment subsidy to support the entrepreneurs in this process.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:38:16 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Additional research on sustainability aspects of pipelines]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/additional_research_on_sustainability_aspects_of_pipelines/957</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/additional_research_on_sustainability_aspects_of_pipelines/957</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[In its &amp;lsquo;Structural vision on pipelines&amp;rsquo; the Dutch government sets out its ideas on policy-making concerning pipelines and the preferred role of government in this area. One of the aspects involved is the sustainability of pipeline transport.

This study examines the overall costs and benefits of pipelines, by calculating their economic and social costs and benefits. The study comprises two parts: an assessment of four pipeline projects that either just went ahead or just failed to do so; and a limited social cost-benefit analysis (SCBA) of the case of LPG transport from Vlissingen (Flushing) to Kijfhoek. 

The direct costs of constructing an LPG pipeline are so much higher than the alternative costs of rail transport that they are unlikely to be shouldered by a private party. In many cases this does not mean the government should support funding, however. In the case of LPG there are clear benefits to be expected for society as a whole, in the form of reduced &amp;lsquo;risk contours&amp;rsquo; along transport routes. In the majority of cases this seems unlikely to be the case, though. The situation may possibly differ for future transport of hydrogen, but there are not many other commodities for which this is likely.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:12:22 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Emissions trading and fuel efficiency in road transport, An analysis of the benefits of combining instruments]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/emissions_trading_and_fuel_efficiency_in_road_transport%2C_an_analysis_of_the_benefits_of_combining_instruments/854</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/emissions_trading_and_fuel_efficiency_in_road_transport%2C_an_analysis_of_the_benefits_of_combining_instruments/854</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Despite EU and national climate policies, CO2-emissions in the transport sec-tor have grown steadily in the past decades, whereas many other sectors have managed to reduce emissions. Reason for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Naturv&aring;rdsverket, to commission CE Delft to analyse a potential solution to this problem. 
The report starts with a literature overview on emissions trading in the road transport sector. Two systems are assessed: emissions trading as part of the EU ETS or as a separate system. Then, the potential drawbacks and benefits of a combination of emissions trading with CO2 emission regulation for new passenger cars are analysed. It is concluded that the combination of these policy measures has significant advantages. Fuel efficiency improvements in passenger cars are a relatively cost-effective measure to reduce emissions, with significant CO2 reduction potential. However, due to temporal myopia of car buyers, this measure is insufficiently addressed by price incentives created by emissions trading. At the same time, an emissions trading system can be complementary to fuel efficiency regulation, as it can alleviate a number of disadvantages of regulation.

]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Emissions trading and road vehicle emission standards ]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/emissions_trading_and_road_vehicle_emission_standards_/954</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/emissions_trading_and_road_vehicle_emission_standards_/954</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[While other sectors have managed to reduce their CO2 emissions over the past few decades, road transport emissions have consistently risen. This prompted the Swedish environmental protection agency Naturv&amp;aring;rdsverket to ask CE Delft to carry out a study on how this issue can be resolved. 

To this end, CE Delft examined the strengths and weaknesses of emissions trading for road transport, and the pros and cons of combining such a policy with CO2 emission standards for cars. From the results it emerges that combining the two strategies has considerable advantages, as they cancel out each others drawbacks. Thus, while CO2 emission standards for cars lead to no reduction in overall emissions, they do provide a strong incentive for buying fuel-efficient vehicles. What emissions trading does is put a cap on aggregate emissions. However, if this were adopted as an isolated policy, there would no longer be any incentive to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, even though this would then lead to major environmental gains. ]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:37:40 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Competitiveness issues for Dutch aviation from EU ETS]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/competitiveness_issues_for_dutch_aviation_from_eu_ets/926</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/competitiveness_issues_for_dutch_aviation_from_eu_ets/926</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This report analyses the impact of aviation&amp;rsquo;s inclusion in the EU ETS on the competitiveness of EU airlines. It specifically addresses the risk of carbon leakage due to auctioning of allowances. 

The main findings are:

    Airlines are unlikely to reap windfall profits from the inclusion in the EU ETS.
    All airlines are likely to be able to pass on the costs associated with emissions trading to their customers in most markets.
    Consequently, the competitiveness of EU airlines is unlikely to change in these markets.
    However, on long haul routes where an alternative routing via a non-EU hub exists, not all the costs may be passed through.
    Consequently, on these markets EU airlines may see their competitiveness deteriorate as levels of auctioning or allowances prices increase.
    For Dutch aviation, the cost price increase of full auctioning is 2.5%.
    At least 80% of this increase can be passed through to consumers. 
    
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:06:57 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Perception and SCBA in noise policy]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/perception_and_scba_in_noise_policy/865</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/perception_and_scba_in_noise_policy/865</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The Dutch ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management is drawing up new regulations intended to afford citizens better protection from traffic noise. To prevent any further increase in noise nuisance, so-called &iuml;&iquest;&frac12;noise production ceilings&iuml;&iquest;&frac12; are to be introduced, the aim of which is to ensure that the amount of noise generated does not just go on increasing, due to autonomous traffic growth, among other things. In addition, the ministry is about to embark on a major &iuml;&iquest;&frac12;clean-up&iuml;&iquest;&frac12; operation to address the worst sources of noise pollution.   Against the background of this intensification of policy, the ministry commissioned CE Delft to investigate whether the envisaged policy strategy to address the noise issue is optimal from the perspective of both noise nuisance perception and cost-benefit considerations.   Based on the results we can conclude, on the one hand, that the proposed policy is robust and economically sound and that from the perception angle it is an im-provement on the old policy. On the other hand, though, we advocate extending its scope to include several other issues, including greater potential for public par-ticipation and similar policy focus and elaboration with respect to noise caused by inner-city traffic.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 11:45:27 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Social impact of air pollution reduction]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/social_impact_of_air_pollution_reduction/864</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/social_impact_of_air_pollution_reduction/864</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The NEC directive, an EU directive laying down emission ceilings for a range of air pollutants for all member states, is about to be amended. This report describes the results of a social cost-benefit analysis (SCBA) of possible new NEC targets for 2020, making due allowance for the impact of an intensification of Dutch climate policy on emissions of NEC pollutants. Policies already scheduled for implementation were included in a &iuml;&iquest;&frac12;zero variant&iuml;&iquest;&frac12;. The study is to serve as part of the input for establishing the Dutch position in negotiations within the EU on the level of the emission ceilings.   The net present value of all impacts to which a price was assigned amounts to around minus 1.7 billion Euro. In the &iuml;&iquest;&frac12;project variant&iuml;&iquest;&frac12; the net present value of the external effects was calculated as 5.2 billion Euro (with benefits to nature being taken along as an as yet unvalued item). The main factor on the benefit side was reduced mortality due to exposure to airborne particulates. This  involves both primary and secondary particles, implying that these benefits also depend on cuts in NH3, NOx and SO2 emissions.  Chronic bronchitis and days of illness (hours/days lost at work) due to exposure to particulates also play a significant role in the SCBA. The other effects contribute only marginally to the analysis results.  A comparison of the discounted costs with the benefits shows that a tightening of NEC targets is an efficient form of policy, with the benefits of 3.5 billion Euro clearly well in excess of the costs. This conclusion remains valid even if a lower value (than is customary) is assigned to the health effects of improved air quality. The benefits will be even greater (their monetary value will be even more positive) if impacts on nature and ecosystems are also included in the equation. In a tentative analysis we show that in this study benefits to nature may amount to as much as 20% of the health benefits.   The costs of tightening the NEC targets are borne by the various sectors, but appear to be affordable to society as a whole. Ultimately, most of the costs will be passed on to private citizens. The benefits of the NEC targets accrue to all citizens benefiting from cleaner air. In the Netherlands the benefits arise largely through measures to concurrently reduce the NH3 and primary particulate emissions of Dutch agriculture and measures taken in neighbouring countries to cut particulate emissions.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 11:46:57 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Impacts on Competitiveness from EU ETS]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/impacts_on_competitiveness_from_eu_ets/835</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/impacts_on_competitiveness_from_eu_ets/835</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) was launched in 2005 to cap CO2 emissions from large industrial facilities and electricity producers. The European Commission is currently designing the post 2012 EU ETS, as outlined in COM(2008)16. Novel to this system is that a greater part of the rights will be auctioned. Auctioning in general assures a greater deal of efficiency compared to (certain types of) free allocation, lowers the administrative costs and prevents eventual windfall profits.   However, auctioning also implies a potential loss of competitiveness for industry. If no international agreement on future climate policies is reached, firms may not be able to pass on the higher costs to their customers and may be faced with a loss in profitability and the threat of import substitution. In any emission trading scheme with an absolute cap, a relocation of production that is not covered by CO2 targets implies an increase in global CO2 emissions. This phenomenon has been labelled as &amp;lsquo;carbon leakage&amp;rsquo;. To prevent carbon leakage, the Commission has proposed to exempt exposed sectors from auctioning and allocating them rights freely on the basis of a benchmark. A severe loss of competitiveness is here the main criterion against which it is decided whether sectors will be subject to auctioning or free allocation.  This study has investigated which industrial sectors of the Dutch economy possibly face a loss of competitiveness from auctioning. The competitive position is determined by the combination of significant potential cost price increases and substantial imports and export flows to countries that have no comparable climate change policy. It appears that especially in the aluminium, fertilizer, iron and steel , inorganic and other base chemicals sectors relatively high cost price increases can be expected which may not be fully passed on to their customers. Profitability in these sectors may be reduced and the risk of carbon leakage increased.   However, in terms of impacts on the national economy (i.e. GDP) the effects are probably small. The direct costs of EU ETS are 0,2% of GDP (for an emission price of &amp;euro;20/ton CO2) of which about half can be passed on to the customers. Impacts on the competitive position may occur in the vulnerable sectors but these sectors are in general the smaller sectors of the Dutch economy - with the exception of the iron and steel industry (in total 1,1% of GDP). In addition, if international climate policy until the year 2020 will result in more countries agreeing on binding reduction targets, impacts on competitiveness will be smaller than analyzed here.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:04:50 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Analysis of progressive road vehicle tax indexed to absolute CO2]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/analysis_of_progressive_road_vehicle_tax_indexed_to_absolute_co2/906</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/analysis_of_progressive_road_vehicle_tax_indexed_to_absolute_co2/906</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[At the request of the Dutch Finance Ministry, CE Delft has investigated the CO2 impact of redesigning the vehicle tax for passenger cars (BPM) from being based on catalogue value, as at present, the CO2 based system whereby the CO2 charge is progressively indexed to the CO2 emissions of the new vehicle. This variant was compared with the effectiveness of the two BPM variants from the study on &amp;lsquo;greening the Dutch tax system&amp;rsquo; (differentiation of BPM according to absolute CO2 emission and BPM based on CO2) and the current BPM based on energy labels (rates for 2008).]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:13:26 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Greening the tax system]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/greening_the_tax_system/909</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/greening_the_tax_system/909</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[At the request of the Dutch Environment ministry (VROM) CE Delft has assessed the environmental effectiveness of 15 fiscal measures included in the government&amp;rsquo;s 2009 Tax Plan. The measures relate to traffic and transport (e.g. differentiation of Vehicle Purchase Tax according to absolute CO2 emissions), household energy consumption and industry (e.g. an increase in energy tax) and the built environment (e.g. an income tax deduction indexed to energy performance of the home). Besides their environmental effectiveness, these &amp;lsquo;tax-greening&amp;rsquo; measures were also assessed with respect to competition effects for Dutch industry, political support, impact on spending power and burden-sharing, coherence within the specific context of environmental policy, fiscal compatibility and enforceability. The results of the study are to be used in preparing the present government&amp;rsquo;s &amp;lsquo;second round&amp;rsquo; of tax-greening measures.

The overall package will lead to cuts in CO2 emissions of around 0.74 Mt in 2010 and 1.5 Mt in 2020. These figures should be seen as the lower bound of actual effects, as some of these proved unquantifiable. The overall impact of the tax-greening package thus represents some 4 to 7% of the government&amp;rsquo;s climate aspirations for 2020 with respect to the built environment and transport sectors. ]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:18:19 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[The economics of Heathrow expansion]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_economics_of_heathrow_expansion/817</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_economics_of_heathrow_expansion/817</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[At the request of HACAN ClearSkies, CE Delft has carried out a study on the economic importance of expansion of Heathrow airport. The main conclusion is that an earlier, highly influential report failed to properly calculate the eco-nomic benefits of expansion and may even have substantially overestimated them. Furthermore, it would have been worth examining the effects of 'de-mand management', in the form of internalisation of external costs and restric-tions on slots for short-haul flights. Finally, it is concluded that the issue of in-ternational competition among European hubs is no reason for further cross-country harmonisation of environmental policy vis-&amp;agrave;-vis nuisance to local communities. Because the bulk of the benefits also accrue to these communi-ties, local administrators are best placed to make prudent decisions.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:12:06 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Climate policy costing methodologies]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/climate_policy_costing_methodologies/784</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/climate_policy_costing_methodologies/784</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This study examines why studies to assess the cost effectiveness of policies addressing the climate impact of transport have yielded such widely different results to date. To this end, experts in the Netherlands were consulted and the national and international literature reviewed. Our analysis of the costing methodologies in use shows there are three types of choice having a major influence on results. The first concerns the perspective adopted. Are costs being considered from the perspective of the end user, society or government? Secondly, there are a series of choices to be made in calculating direct expenditures, with respect to depreciation rates and prior estimates of investments, among other things. Finally, there is a basic choice as to whether only direct expenditures are to be included, or a comprehensive welfare-economic analysis carried out. Are the welfare effects of behavioural change or additional externalities to be included, for instance?]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Environmental policy for power stations]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/environmental_policy_for_power_stations/676</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/environmental_policy_for_power_stations/676</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[At the moment, ambitious CO2 emission reduction goals co-exist with continued existence and even building of high-emission power plants in the Netherlands. This study identifies two explanations for this situation. First, long-term public policy regarding climate change is so vague that companies are not able to take them into account when they make investment decisions. It concerns, among others, the uncertain design of the European Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) after 2012. Second, the Dutch allocation mechanism of emission rights under the EU ETS appears to be biased towards high-carbon technologies and allows strategic firm behaviour.  The policy consequences of these findings are twofold. First, efforts need to be undertaken to improve the distribution of emission rights among participants. Benchmarking can be done, but it should be as independent of historic use and fuel type as possible. The auctioning of emission permits is also an option. Whether significant alternations to the EU ETS system will be made and which changes are to be expected is, however, uncertain. It highly dependents on the political climate in Brussels and in other EU member states. Therefore, govern-ment regulation might also be needed in the short term. It would direct firms into the right direction by stimulating the adoption of no regret technical measures.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:56:02 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Price effects of incorporation of transportation into EU ETS]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/price_effects_of_incorporation_of_transportation_into_eu_ets/712</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/price_effects_of_incorporation_of_transportation_into_eu_ets/712</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[CO2 emissions from transport are steadily increasing, despite implementation of a number of CO2 mitigation policy measures. A potential new policy measure for CO2 mitigation in the transport sector is CO2 emission trading. In this report the consequences of including the European transport sector in the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) were assessed. The report was commissioned by the VROM Council (VROM-Raad), also on behalf of the Dutch Energy Council (AER) and the Council for Transport and Public Works (Raad voor Verkeer en Waterstaat).  First, the effect of integrating transport in the current EU ETS on the price of tradable EU allowances (EUa) was determined, for two different scenarios. Second, an indication was given of the effects of this CO2 price increase on competitiveness of the European industry and electricity sector. The results provide a first insight into the effects on EUa price that this policy option could have, and indicate that this might be a viable option for the future. However, as this was only a rough analysis, we also provide a number of recommendations for further research into this topic.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:24:18 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Emission trade in Dutch greenhouse horticulture]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/emission_trade_in_dutch_greenhouse_horticulture/602</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/emission_trade_in_dutch_greenhouse_horticulture/602</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This report evaluates the effects of an introduction of a CO2 emission trading system in Dutch greenhouse horticulture. The report analysis six variants of such a system, some of them in combination with an energy tariff. The report concludes that systems which correspond with the European Emission Trade System (ETS) are the most efficient.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Eco-labelling: to be or not to be? : Desirability of eco-labels from an environmental and poverty perspective]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/eco-labelling%3A_to_be_or_not_to_be_%3A_desirability_of_eco-labels_from_an_environmental_and_poverty_perspective/542</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/eco-labelling%3A_to_be_or_not_to_be_%3A_desirability_of_eco-labels_from_an_environmental_and_poverty_perspective/542</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Eco-labelling is increasingly considered as a market instrument to bring about greater sustainability of human consumption and production patterns. At the same time, however, the application of labelling is controversial. Concerns have been raised on its actual environmental effectiveness and on its impact on growth and poverty alleviation in developing countries. The fear is that eco-labels act as barriers to trade. 

Government agencies operating in the field of environmental management and poverty alleviation need to take a position in the debate on ‘eco-labelling; to be or not to be?’. This report aims to help defining this position. A theoretical framework with key indicators of labelling impacts is developed. Subsequently, two existing labelling schemes are evaluated: the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) label. 

The main conclusion is that the desirability of eco-labelling is limited at the moment. When eco-labels grow to be successful, they are likely to become undesirable from a poverty perspective, whereas their ability to solve environmental problems remains uncertain. Therefore, the government is advised to solely support eco-labelling in its role as market participant. As a regulator it should not be heavily involved in eco-labelling; leave these initiatives to the markets. ]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Green4sure; A Green Energy Plan*]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/green4sure%3B_a_green_energy_plan%2A/550</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/green4sure%3B_a_green_energy_plan%2A/550</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[On June 5th Dutch environment minister Jacqueline Cramer was presented with the final report of Green4sure, a plan to halve the Netherlands’ carbon dioxide emissions by 2030. This comprehensive and ambitious plan has been elaborated by CE Delft at the request of six of the country’s major trades unions and environmental NGOs. At the heart of the plan is introduction of a system of emission allowances for all energy consumers, either individually (industry, electrical power generation and aviation, to be brought under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme) or collectively (the built environment and transport). To promote acceptance of these ‘climate budgets’, the required efforts and thus the costs have been differentiated according to a three-tier system: a 40% reduction for sectors under the EU ETS, -60% for the built environment and -35% for transport. The allowances for all three systems would be auctioned rather than issued. This core policy would be backed up by a variety of flanking policies, including efficiency standards for vehicles, buildings (new and existing) and appliances.

Given the evident need for urgent action and the fact that climate budgets will take a number of years to implement, Green4sure includes an array of temporary policies. One of these is an interim Power Generation Act setting a cap of 375 g/kWh on the carbon emissions of new generating plant. How this is to be achieved is up to the generator. 

The effects of the plan have been quantitatively assessed, and the targeted 50% reduction in carbon emissions can indeed be achieved, with an attendant 2.1% improvement in energy efficiency. In 2030 the overall costs will be over 4 billion euro, but these will be offset by major benefits totalling around 3 billion a year. There will be slight growth of employment. For the average household, the increase in costs will  rise to around 600 euro over 25 years, but over the same period national income will have grown by 50%. ‘Frugal’ consumers and users will be better off under Green4sure, while their ‘wasteful’ counterparts will face higher costs.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Manual for Social Cost-Benefit Analysis for Environmental Policy Issues]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/manual_for_social_cost-benefit_analysis_for_environmental_policy_issues/565</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/manual_for_social_cost-benefit_analysis_for_environmental_policy_issues/565</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[In drawing up new environmental policy plans, Dutch policy-makers are making increasing use of social cost-benefit analyses (SCBAs). Within the space of a few years there have been SCBAs on the phasing out of LPG, soil remediation, waste policy, offshore wind farms and several other issues. At the European level, too, policy-makers are turning more and more to SCBAs when drawing up policies as well as for identifying areas where new policy is required. 

In the Netherlands SCBAs are performed according to the so-called OEI Manual. However, this document was written specifically with investments in infrastructure in mind and before it can be used for environmental policy SCBAs it needs adapting on a number of points. A special SCBA Manual has therefore been prepared for use by environmental policy-makers. Although the manual runs parallel to the OEI Manual in most respects, there is a difference in focus on a number of specific issues, in particular policy costs, policy cost-effectiveness, project-related risks, and assessment and financial valuation of environmental impacts. 

The manual sets out eleven concrete steps to be followed when drawing up an SCBA and defines the respective roles of those commissioning the analysis and those performing it. There is considerable focus on the presentation of results, because it is these that guarantee proper transfer of responsibilities from analysts to principals. 
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Unforeseen profits from a green energy subsidy scheme]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/unforeseen_profits_from_a_green_energy_subsidy_scheme/566</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/unforeseen_profits_from_a_green_energy_subsidy_scheme/566</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Over the past few years the Dutch government has granted more subsidies to increase the profitability of investments in on-shore wind-power projects than were in hindsight needed. In many cases the level of subsidisation was such that returns on investment were higher than what the market generally dictates; in other words, considerable extra profits were made. One of the main reasons is that the government underestimated the price of electricity.

This is the principal conclusion of a study carried out by CE Delft for the Netherlands’ Court of Audit (Algemene Rekenkamer). Last year the so-called MEP subsidy scheme for green power generation was discontinued. Under this scheme producers of electricity from biomass, solar, wind and water were eligible for a fixed subsidy per kWh. However, the sums paid out threatened to get out of hand and it was estimated, moreover, that the Netherlands would  manage to secure its target of generating 9% of domestic power sustainably by 2010 on the basis of the subsidies already issued. 

Meanwhile, though, the cabinet has formulated a higher target and announced its intention to set up a new green power subsidy scheme. The challenge in designing a follow-up to the original MEP will be to ensure equal effectiveness, but at less cost to government coffers. 

]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Energy conservation: fiscal and financial options]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/energy_conservation%3A_fiscal_and_financial_options/493</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/energy_conservation%3A_fiscal_and_financial_options/493</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This report, commissioned by the Dutch environment ministry following a parliamentary motion on the issue, examines fiscal and financial options for energy saving in the built environment. Such measures can be designed to tie in with Energy Performance certification for dwellings and other buildings, scheduled for introduction in mid-2007.

The conclusions are as follows:The envisaged annual rate of energy conservation in the built environment (1.3% as of 2008, 1.5% as of 2012) cannot be achieved with the policies in place today; perhaps worse, these policies fail to tap into many of the options with a pay-back of less than 4 to 6 years.To increase the tempo of energy savings, overcome resistance and instil a sense of urgency requires policies that oblige parties to improve the energy performance of their entire building stock.Fiscal and financial instruments can be designed to specifically address the remaining barriers and instances of market failure. This means an array of dedicated measures targeting the following groups:
Private housing: A discount on property transfer tax may be an effective instrument, particularly because of the scope for tying in with renovation work. After all, property sale is often taken as a natural opportunity for structural renovations like insulation or purchase of energy-efficient equipment and appliances.Social housing: Greater weight should be given to energy efficiency in housing valuation procedures, to give housing corporations greater flexibility to ask more rent for low-energy dwellings, which occupants can then compensate with the lower energy bill. Experience has shown that renovation projects provide substantial scope for CO2 cuts without a need for any increase in overall gross monthly rent (i.e. inclusive of energy costs).Utility buildings: Energy conservation agencies can develop new funding modes and administrative structures that allow owners to make a better job of weighing up the costs and benefits of conservation measures. A key problem in the utility sector is that owner-investors have nothing to gain from their investments, through a lower energy bill or greater comfort; there is thus a split incentive. 
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[High-energy nature on and around the De Veluwe national park]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/high-energy_nature_on_and_around_the_de_veluwe_national_park/494</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/high-energy_nature_on_and_around_the_de_veluwe_national_park/494</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This report, commissioned by the Shell Research Foundation, describes a concept for harvesting more biomass for energy on and around the Netherlands’ De Veluwe national park in such a way that nature comes out stronger. Its implementation would allow biomass to make a welcome contribution to nature conservation and nature development. 

Dutch conservation policy is not on track, witness recent reports from the National Auditor’s Office and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, among others. New ‘push factors’ for nature development are therefore urgently needed. From the perspective of the transition to sustainable energy systems, too, ‘high-energy nature’ is important. In many energy scenarios biomass is set to play an ever greater role, but there are major concerns that this trend will be at the expense of nature, biodiversity and food production. The concept elaborated in this report shows that, if properly organised, biomass can make a positive contribution.

]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Reflecting housing energy performance in property tax]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/reflecting_housing_energy_performance_in_property_tax/492</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/reflecting_housing_energy_performance_in_property_tax/492</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[As yet, there is still very little ‘greening’ of the tax system at the local level. This is surprising, because the overall extent of local taxation is on the rise and local government today has major responsibilities in implementing national environmental policy. Property valuation, in particular, offers perspectives for supporting the policy target of more sustainable construction and renovation of private dwellings. In this study, commissioned by SenterNovem, the key question addressed is whether reducing the property tax in proportion to a building’s energy performance is feasible in legal terms, i.e. whether relevant Dutch legislation (Municipalities Act, Property Valuation Act) provide local authorities the power to take such fiscal action.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Zuiderzee rail link]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/strategic_environmental_assessment_of_the_zuiderzee_rail_link/496</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/strategic_environmental_assessment_of_the_zuiderzee_rail_link/496</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[As part of the Structural Vision procedure for the proposed Zuiderzee rail link between Amsterdam and the north of the Netherlands, a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) was carried out on the so-called Regional Package elaborated as one of the alternatives to the link, looking specifically at major economic projects with a spatial planning dimension, known in the jargon as ‘spatio-economic projects’.   

In the current planning phase (go or no-go for the rail link), the aim of these SEAs is to inventory, in broad brushstrokes, the main environmental impacts of the various alternatives so these can be duly considered in the upcoming decision.

As far as can be judged at present, it seems unlikely that the spatio-economic projects in the Regional Package will generate any really significant environmental impacts. The ZEPP power station, the Multi-Biorefinery, the Groningen ‘Central Zone’ and possibly expansion of the TT motorcycle racing circuit at Assen are anticipated to have the greatest impact. In the case of ZEPP, there is a risk of CO2 escaping from the subsurface and during transport, as well as of changes to local hydrology. On the other hand, the use of clean power generation technology will mean lower CO2 and NOx emissions. The Multi-Biorefinery may lead to environmental gains in terms of water quality, air pollutant emissions and energy consumption. One risk here is the possibility of stench nuisance. In the ‘Central Zone’, a general increase in the scale of economic activity, and particularly in transport movements (people and goods) may have a negative impact on the living environment. The infrastructure measures to the south of Assen racing circuit may have an impact on biodiversity. As no precise locations have yet been indicated, however, the impact on nature areas forming part of the Ecological Main Structure is unclear. According to the information available, 200 ha ‘nature compensation’ will be required for the development work around the circuit.

Apart from these projects, few significant, direct, primary environmental impacts are anticipated. There may well be substantial secondary impacts, though, both positive and negative, as projects are scaled up, say, or owing to knock-on effects. This will be of greatest relevance for changes in agricultural cropping patterns and the energy supply. 

A more general secondary impact of the Regional Package will be an overall increase in economic activity in the north of the Netherlands. This will generate extra traffic and lead to development of additional commercial and housing estates. All of this will in turn again have a range of environmental impacts. This is also true of the so-called ‘accessibility alternatives’, however, although compared with full implementation of the Zuiderzee rail link the Regional Package will probably have less impact in this respect.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Survey sustainable Biomass]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/survey_sustainable_biomass/468</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/survey_sustainable_biomass/468</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[As part of an array of strategies to combat climate change, biomass is being used increasingly as a substitute for fossil fuels. It is important that the sustainability benefits thus accruing to the Netherlands are not at the expense of sustainable development in producer countries. Against this background the ‘Sustainable biomass imports’ project group, chaired by Professor Jacqueline Cramer, is developing a set of criteria for evaluating the sustainability of biomass projects. 

To assess support for such criteria, CE conducted an internet survey among the various stakeholders (NGOs, industry, government), drawing a total of 104 responses. This report presents all the results and conclusions of the survey, for each category of stakeholders and overall. 

Among the most striking conclusions are the following:The majority of respondents see a sustainability audit on biomass as feasible, provided the sustainability criteria are adequate for the purpose (68%).Almost all the respondents are of the opinion that such sustainability criteria should apply to all applications of biomass (90%).On the issue of whether these criteria should vary according to the producer region concerned, respondents were divided (50% for, 50% against).Many NGOs state there should be different sustainability criteria in force for different biomass flows (50%), in contrast to industry, which argues for a uniform set of criteria for all flows.Most respondents hold that any biomass criteria should apply to both subsidised and unsubsidised projects.At the same time, a sizable majority of respondents state that subsidisation of biomass projects should depend on the degree of sustainability (72%) and in particular on the CO2 emission cuts achieved, this being regarded as the single most important factor.When it comes to the issue of GMO, opinions differ markedly between NGOs and industry, with some 75% of NGOs wanting this aspect included, but only 10% of industry.Respondents also commented on a number of additional issues of their own accord. Attention was drawn surprisingly often to the importance of small holdings, i.e. ‘family farms’, and maximisation of yields and CO2 reductions per hectare of farmland. It is recommended to take this latter issue on board, in part as a means of elaborating the aspect of ‘preventing competition with food production’ in practical terms.Based on the survey results, the report concludes with several concrete recommendations on sustainability criteria for biomass. The report published by the Cramer Commission in August 2006 is largely grounded in these survey results and the accompanying evaluation.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[The environmental impact of differentiated parking fees]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_environmental_impact_of_differentiated_parking_fees/464</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_environmental_impact_of_differentiated_parking_fees/464</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[By introducing ‘smart’ charges and taxes, municipal authorities can make a major contribution to improving environmental quality. One example of this kind of fiscal strategy is differentiation of parking fees according to a vehicle’s environmental impact. A number of Dutch municipalities (including Amsterdam, Tilburg and Nijmegen, as well as the Association of Dutch Municipalities, VNG) have already shown an interest in differentiated parking tariffs and legislation on municipal governance is to be adapted to allow municipalities to implement this kind of green tax scheme. In support of these changes, information is required on the likely environmental consequences of these kinds of measures. This study looks specifically at the environmental impact of ‘green’ parking fees, if introduced for both resident permit-holders and visitors.

Differentiated parking fees can help encourage in-town use of low-emission vehicles and discourage use of ‘gas guzzlers’. This CE study shows that such differentiation can make a major contribution to reducing the urban emissions of the target groups in question (permit-holders and visitors), although in absolute terms these cuts are fairly limited.  

]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[The future of biofeedstocks in the Netherlands]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_future_of_biofeedstocks_in_the_netherlands/495</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_future_of_biofeedstocks_in_the_netherlands/495</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[As part of its current assessment of the modalities of a long-term national transition to sustainable energy systems, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency asked CE Delft to conduct an in-depth evaluation of the system option ‘Green Feedstocks’. For this purpose a literature study was carried out and interviews held with six people working ‘in the field’. The study provides insight into the approximate production costs and environmental burden associated with ‘biofeedstocks’, and compares these with the production costs and burden of competing, conventional petrochemical alternatives.

Based on current data, we conclude there are already plenty of technologies available and that in terms of technical feasibility a significant or even very substantial share of today’s chemical feedstocks could in principle be produced from biomass. The two main impediments to market introduction are cost price and unfamiliarity with the product on the part of potential customers. With cost prices sometimes 2 - 3 times higher than those of the conventional petrochemicals being replaced, these alternatives are often only implemented if the petrochemical in question has been banned because of its in-use environmental impact (lubricants, solvents, inks, paints) or in cases where an end-user is keen to promote a ‘green’ image (bioplastics). We found only a limited number of examples of biomass-based production being cheaper than production based on petrochemical feedstocks (ethanol, 1,3-propanediol). 
The main advantages of biofeedstocks, in terms of the life-cycle environmental impact, are the lower toxicity of a range of products during usage (lubricants, solvents, inks, paints). 
In many cases the environmental burden per unit product, in the form of greenhouse gas emissions, is only lower because a petrochemical feedstock has been substituted – and its fossil energy and carbon content therefore saved. However, biofeedstock production processes are often less energy-efficient than their petrochemical counterparts. One possible exception here is production of chemicals with a nitrogen atom. 
 
Another issue is that cultivation of oilseed rape and other protein crops involves significant greenhouse gas emissions because of the need for substantial inputs of nitrogen fertiliser. Most oil and carbohydrate crops are perennials and do not have this drawback.

A third issue when it comes to using dedicated biofeedstock crops is that land requirements may have a major environmental impact if it is unspoilt nature that is being converted to cropland. It is therefore recommended to make maximum use of biomass waste streams, or otherwise crops with an as high as possible per-hectare yield of useful crop constituents (sugarcane, sugarbeet, palm oil). 

What we also see in Europe is that the subsidies on using biomass for power generation and vehicle fuels have created an uneven playing field, with less priority being given to development of biofeedstocks and the cost of the raw materials for today’s biofeedstocks continually rising because of the massive market demand for these materials for subsidised application in the former two areas.

Given the above, our recommendations are as follows:Create a level playing field and develop an across-the-board vision on how biomass is to be used, giving due attention to both competition and potential synergies between bio-energy, biofuels, bioproducts and food.Consider introducing a temporary ‘bioproducts CO2-reduction subsidy’, similar to the present ‘kWhe biomas subsidy’.Alongside government targets for bio-energy and biofuels, consider setting a target for sustainable new bioproducts.Create a ‘decision filter’ enabling more rapid selection of promising options and routes, and rejection of others.Focus efforts on routes with clear, independently proven environmental gains and a reasonable cost equation.With respect to R&amp;D subsidies, also focus on added value in terms of reduced toxicity, possibly accompanied by appropriate legislation – prescribing use of bio-lubricants in nature areas, for example.Leave production of bulk chemicals and cultivation of the required crops to countries other than the Netherlands, and do no more on this score than support development of conversion technologies.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Dutch inventory for CSD 14]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/dutch_inventory_for_csd_14/429</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/dutch_inventory_for_csd_14/429</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Background
Dutch policy efforts on sustainable development are geared broadly to ensuring that the opportunities for growth and development available to future generations are at least equal to those enjoyed by ourselves. As a tangible objective of Dutch sustainability policy this has been translated into the goal of achieving absolute delinkage between economic growth and emissions.

In preparation for the 14th Meeting of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD, responsible for the implementation of Agenda 21), the CSD secretariat has asked each country to prepare a national inventory on the themes of industrial development, energy and air pollution/atmosphere. The Dutch input is being furnished by CE Delft.

Current status
Compared with other European countries, the Netherlands is highly urbanised and densely populated and has an energy-intensive industrial base. Dutch emissions per square kilometre are consequently higher than the EU average. There are also substantial pollution imports from across the borders. Lying low in a river delta, the country is moreover vulnerable to the potential impacts of climate change: as the world’s climate warms, there will be a greater risk of extreme weather events. All in all, the Netherlands therefore has much to gain from additional international efforts to control emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.

In the last few decades Dutch environmental policy has been successful in several respects, with the human environment becoming healthier and safer on a variety of yardsticks. The eco-efficiency of Dutch production – the ratio between a sector’s earnings and the emissions that entails – has improved and there has consequently been a marked decline in emissions of NOx, NH3, SO2 and particulates over the past few decades. National as well as European legislation has proven quite successful in this respect. This has led to an improvement in Dutch air quality, though still not sufficient to comply with international standards. Overall, there has been absolute delinkage of economic growth and environmental impact. This achievement has been due largely to technical measures and to historical shifts in the structure of the Dutch economy, in particular the growth of the services sector. 

The Netherlands has been pursuing an policy on energy conservation for thirty years now, using a wide range of instruments to achieve steady and continued improvement in energy efficiency, targets for which were recently tightened once more. Renewable energy does not have a long tradition in the Netherlands, particularly as the country lacks any real hydro-power resources. Wind power and bio-energy both have considerable potential, however. Although there has been some decline in CO2 emissions growth, there has been no absolute delinkage. This represents a fundamental challenge to Dutch envi-ronmental policy-makers. 

The report reviews progress and problems in the fields of industrial development, energy and air pollution/atmosphere as well as their interrelationships. 
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Cost effectiveness of CO2 mitigation in transport]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/cost_effectiveness_of_co2_mitigation_in_transport/396</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/cost_effectiveness_of_co2_mitigation_in_transport/396</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The ECMT is currently writing a report on carbon emission reductions in the transport sector. To support this study, CE Delft was asked to write a background report on cost effectiveness of measures to reduce CO2 emissions in the transport sector. In this report, various technical mitigation options in the transport sector are analyzed: im-proved fuel economy of cars, biofuels and hydrogen. 

The report concludes that studies on this topic are not always in agreement. Several studies find that efficiency measures in the transport sector can be more cost effective than measures in other sectors, whereas other studies, for example a recent EEA report, disagree. Regarding biofuels, the report concludes that biomass use in power stations is more favourable from a cost effectiveness point of view. New biofuels are being developed that are expected to perform better. 

It is furthermore concluded that there are only very few studies available that address the issue of cost effectiveness of measures across sectors. Even data on the cost effectiveness of measures within the transport sector is scarce.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[The environmental impact of materials use: the 1990-2004 dataset]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_environmental_impact_of_materials_use%3A_the_1990-2004_dataset/417</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_environmental_impact_of_materials_use%3A_the_1990-2004_dataset/417</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[In contemporary environmental policy, the physical consumption of materials is a theme that is seldom addressed. Measured from cradle to grave, however, the processes associated with materials consumption have a substantial environmental impact, not only in the Netherlands but also abroad. At the request of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (NMP), for the government’s Environmental Balance 2006 CE has analysed trends in the consumption of the 20 materials having the greatest environmental impact between 1990 and 2004. 

The data collected for this project show that from 1990 to 2001 materials consumption increased in tonnage terms. Since 2001, though, there has been an absolute decoupling of GDP and kilogram materials consumption. This is due specifically to a decline in the use of sand and other building materials. Although sand predominates in the statistics in kilograms terms, environmentally speaking it plays only a very minor role. When material flows are aggregated on the basis of estimated environmental impact (expressed as 11 LCA impact categories), it is found that materials consumption continued to rise after 2001. Over the entire period, consumption of materials with a com-paratively high environmental impact is seen to have grown faster than that of relatively low-impact materials. 

The environmental impact associated with the consumption of materials in the Dutch economy is not restricted to the Netherlands, but occurs abroad too. Indeed, a substantial fraction of the environmental impact of the materials consumed in the Dutch manufacturing industry occurs abroad, accounting for some 40% of the overall ‘cradle-to-grave’ impact of the materials in question. Part of this sector’s output is exported, though, and if the material flows associated with exports and imports are factored into the equation, the Dutch economy is found have no net environmental impact in other countries. The opposite is in fact the case, with the Netherlands on balance ‘absorbing’ environmental pollution and other impacts associated with overseas consumption. This is due above all to the relatively prominent role of agriculture and basic industry in the Dutch economy. It may be added that the picture varies depending on which environmental theme is being considered. In the case of land use, for example, the Netherlands does prove to be a ‘net importer’.

]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Impact of an ecotax on cans and bottles]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/impact_of_an_ecotax_on_cans_and_bottles/394</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/impact_of_an_ecotax_on_cans_and_bottles/394</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The end of 2005 sees the expiry of the 3rd Packaging Agreement, one of the aims of which was to reduce the number of beverage cans and bottles in street litter by 80% compared with 2001. If this target is not met, the Environment secretary may opt to introduce a compulsory financial deposit on beverage packaging.

One alternative to compulsory deposits would be a flexible ecotax/deposit system under which producers or retailers would have a choice of either imposing a fixed charge per beverage packaging or introducing a deposit. CE has assessed the impact of two ecotax variants: € 0.10 and € 0.25 per can or bottle. An ecotax/deposit system is less of a burden to industry than compulsory deposits and industry support for this option is therefore likely to be greater than for compulsory deposits.

The impact of an ecotax will depend on the exact response of producers, retailers and consumers, and the scope for interaction between them makes it difficult to predict with any precision. In this study an attempt was nonetheless made and it was estimated that an ecotax of € 0.10 could lead to a 20-60% reduction in the number of cans and bottles in street litter and a € 0.25 charge to a 40-80% reduction. Under a compulsory deposit system, an 80% reduction might be achieved. With the two ecotax options, the impact depends very much on the response of the various parties. If deposit scheme meets  with strategic resistance, it will probably be less effective than calculations of economic optimisation would suggest. A compulsory deposit scheme is far less susceptible to strategic response of whatever kind. 

Finally, it should be noted that a generalised policy for all types of litter, not just for bottles and cans, is also an option. This broader approach appears fairly promising, too, and the report sketches some of the possibilities in this direction.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[CO2 sequestration: an interesting climate policy option, but should it be subsidised?]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/co2_sequestration%3A_an_interesting_climate_policy_option%2C_but_should_it_be_subsidised/379</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/co2_sequestration%3A_an_interesting_climate_policy_option%2C_but_should_it_be_subsidised/379</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Many Dutch subsidy schemes, such as those for renewable energy and energy conservation, were introduced with the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Today, though, sequestration of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion appears to be in potential competition with renewable energy and energy saving with respect to subsidisation. The Dutch chapter of Friends of the Earth (Milieudefensie) therefore asked CE to examine whether it is desirable, from a societal perspective, that CO2 sequestration be subsidised.

The report concludes that CO2 sequestration is an effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, there are no good reasons for additional subsidisation of CO2 sequestration at power stations (i.e. over and above emissions trading) via operating subsidies like the MEP ‘green power’ subsidy, for example, because there are no major secondary objectives, as in the case of renewable en-ergy, that justify operating subsidies on top of the emissions trading price.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Free electricity, dirty electricity, no electricity?]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/free_electricity%2C_dirty_electricity%2C_no_electricity/376</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/free_electricity%2C_dirty_electricity%2C_no_electricity/376</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[In recent years the electricity market has been increasingly opened up, with the sector being liberalised and players now preparing for privatisation and further internationalisation of operations. At the request of the Dutch Energy Policy Platform, CE has carried out an (interim) analysis of the impact of these developments on the three traditional 'mainstays' of energy policy, that the electricity supply should be:

    clean (indicator: CO2 emissions)
    reliable (indicator: security of supply), and
    affordable (indicator: company costs / customer tariffs).

Overall, it can be concluded that there has been a shift from providing for long-term, societal interests to the attainment of short-term, corporate goals. As a result, the three 'classic' aims of energy policy - affordability, reliability and environmental compatibility - are now under threat.  Liberalisation as such is proving to have negative impacts, particularly in terms of environmental compatibility, which are offset only partly by flanking policies. With time, the same will hold for reliability and affordability, too. If societal objectives are to be safeguarded, the situation must be structurally addressed by means of rather more stringent flanking policies.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:37:42 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Evaluation of cost-effectiveness of Dutch domestic climate policy 1999-2004]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/evaluation_of_cost-effectiveness_of_dutch_domestic_climate_policy_1999-2004/365</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/evaluation_of_cost-effectiveness_of_dutch_domestic_climate_policy_1999-2004/365</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This study reports on the cost-effectiveness of Dutch domestic climate policy between 1999 and 2003/2004, analysing the costs and the emissions reductions achieved. Policy costs have been broken down by target group (government, society as a whole and end users) and by sector (transport, urban environment, agriculture, industry/energy, and 'other greenhouse gases': OGG). Between 1999 en 2003 domestic climate and energy policy resulted in an overall reduction of 11.4 Mt in greenhouse gas emissions, 1.5 Mt of which through reductions in OGG, 8.1 Mt through energy saving and 1.7 Mt through use of renewable energy. From a national perspective the measures implemented under the various policies from 1999 to 2003/2004 had a cost-effectiveness of &amp;euro; 40-90 per tonne CO2 avoided. During this period, government expenditures on climate policy totalled over &amp;euro; 4.6 billion (in 2004 prices).  The bulk of the measures implemented by the various target groups were funded by the Treasury via a number of major subsidy schemes. Partly because of the ample scope for free-riders under these schemes, Dutch climate policy has probably been rather more expensive than originally conceived. There was comparatively little government support for sectors where low-cost abatement options were available (passenger and freight transport, OGG). This is another indication that policy efforts were not as cost-effective as they might have been; a more rigorous approach would have focused on emission reductions in sectors where abatement was cheapest.  On the other hand, certain synergies were achieved, with energy saving and use of renewables leading to 1-4% reductions in emissions of VOC, PM10, NOx and SO2. during the same period. If these synergies are factored in, the figure for the cost effectiveness of Dutch domestic climate policy becomes about &amp;euro; 10-15 per tonne lower, bringing it down to about &amp;euro; 30-75 per tonne of CO2 avoided.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:39:47 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Giving wings to emission trading]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/giving_wings_to_emission_trading/334</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/giving_wings_to_emission_trading/334</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The study examines the feasibility of including international aviation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme in order to mitigate the climate impacts of the sector by encouraging airlines to integrate reduction of those impacts into their business objectives. 

This study can be regarded as the third study commissioned by the European Commission on the use of economic instruments to mitigate the climate impacts of aviation. Previous studies have shown that introducing a tax on aviation fuel at the European level would give rise to considerable distortions in competition and may need amendment of bilateral air service agreements. En-route emission charges are also under consideration. The study published today complements the existing knowledge base by examining the consequences of including aviation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). 

The main conclusion of the study is that emissions trading is a policy option worthy of consideration alongside other instruments for tackling aviation climate impacts. Effects on ticket prices are expected to be relatively modest. The system can be designed to encompass non-European air carriers too, thereby minimising economic distortions among carriers. Introducing emissions trading for the aviation sector does not appear to pose many challenges beyond those already encountered in the context of the current EU ETS. 

]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Renewable energy in the new EU member states]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/renewable_energy_in_the_new_eu_member_states/326</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/renewable_energy_in_the_new_eu_member_states/326</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[At the request of the EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation, CE has carried out a study to assess the status of renewable energy in the ten (East European) countries that joined the EU in 2004. In each new member state current capacity, future potential and the policy setting were reviewed and an individual case study elaborated. ]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Economy-wide materials flows and environmental policy]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/economy-wide_materials_flows_and_environmental_policy/337</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/economy-wide_materials_flows_and_environmental_policy/337</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Our consumption of natural resources in Europe has consequences on the environment outside the EU borders. Current policy does not sufficiently address these issues and therefore the topic has gained increasing interest of policy makers, both within the Netherlands, the EU and the OECD. From the EU and the OECD plans have been developed to monitor material flows entering the economy. From these monitoring systems, indicators can be derived, like Direct Material Input, which aggregate material flows on the basis of weight. This study, commissioned by VROM, CE and CML shows that weight is a poor indicator for the environmental problems associated with material consumption. Moreover, the proposed indicators do not link with the policy objectives of a material flow policy. We propose alternatives using information from LCAs and discuss the use of these alternatives in actual policy making.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:13:48 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Resource productivity and policies]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/resource_productivity_and_policies/338</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/resource_productivity_and_policies/338</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Our consumption of natural resources in Europe has consequences on the environment outside the EU borders. Current policy does not sufficiently address these issues and therefore the topic has gained increasing interest of policy makers. The EU is developing a Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources. Increasing resource productivity in order to maintain the environment and enhancing the competitiveness of European industries is the central concept in this Thematic Strategy. Yet it is unclear how resource productivity is to be measured and to be translated into policy actions. This discussion paper, written in consultation with policy makers and business representatives, adds to the insight of the possibilities of natural resources policies and discusses indicators to measure resource productivity. 

]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
			</channel>
</rss>

