Electricity and CO2: European cooperation is being held back by mental borders
Am 17. Juli stellt die Europäische Kommission ihre Vorschläge zur Weiterentwicklung des Emissionshandels (EU ETS) vor. Auf Druck der energie- und CO₂-intensiven Industrie zeichnet sich eine Abschwächung des ursprünglich geplanten Preisanstiegs ab. Die Sorge: Wer seine Emissionen nicht kostengünstig senken kann, verliert international den Anschluss. Dabei lassen sich die Kosten der Dekarbonisierung deutlich senken, wenn Europa seine beiden zentralen Hebel gemeinsam nutzt: die Elektrifizierung industrieller Prozesse auf Basis günstigen Ökostroms und die Abscheidung und Speicherung von CO₂ (CCS). Beide funktionieren am besten als europäische Gemeinschaftsprojekte: Strom fließt dorthin, wo er gebraucht wird, CO₂ dorthin, wo es sicher gespeichert werden kann. Doch ein aktueller Kiel Policy Brief zeigt: Die entscheidende Hürde dafür liegt weder in der Technik noch in der Finanzierung, sondern in den Köpfen der Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Sobald Infrastrukturprojekte Landesgrenzen überschreiten, sinkt die Zustimmung deutlich.
The analysis is based on a representative survey of almost 10,000 respondents in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom. It examines how public support for electricity grid and CO₂ storage projects changes depending on whether they are organized nationally or across borders.
The findings reveal a clear pattern. In all five countries, nationally organized infrastructure projects receive substantially higher levels of public support than projects involving the cross-border transport of electricity or CO₂. Respondents are particularly skeptical of electricity exports to other countries and, in the case of CCS, of importing and permanently storing CO₂ from abroad. The direction of this decline in public support appears to reflect how each resource is perceived: electricity is viewed as a valuable national asset, whereas CO₂ is seen as an unwanted waste product.
"People are not opposed to climate action. However, skepticism arises when there is a perception that other countries stand to benefit while the costs, risks, or responsibilities remain at home. For European climate policy, it will therefore be crucial to address these distributional concerns early on and in a credible way," said Christine Merk, Deputy Head of the Research Group Global Commons and Climate Policy and author of the Kiel Policy Brief No Trade for Decarbonization.
The study also sheds light on the drivers behind this so-called "trade penalty". It is particularly pronounced among respondents who view energy security or emissions reduction as a national responsibility or who expect cross-border infrastructure to involve high costs. Even respondents who express strong concern about climate change tend to favor national rather than international solutions.
The findings have direct relevance for the current debate on the future development of the EU ETS. The discussion around a weakening of the planned carbon price trajectory highlights the importance of cost-effective pathways for industrial decarbonisation. These include, in particular, carbon capture and storage (CCS), CO₂ transport infrastructure, and the expansion of European electricity grids—measures that rely heavily on cross-border cooperation.
"Cross-border infrastructure can make decarbonization more affordable and more efficient. Public support will depend on policymakers and project developers clearly explaining the benefits for citizens in each participating country, whether in terms of energy security, price stability, or economic opportunities. At the same time, transparent rules are needed to ensure that costs, benefits, and responsibilities are shared fairly between participating countries," Christine Merk concluded, summarizing the policy recommendations of the Kiel Policy Brief.
