KONTEXT Pocket Guide (en)
In Austria, the climate crisis is hardly being denied anymore. Instead, delay strategies are used to prevent or slow down climate action measures, e. g. in order to pursue individual interests.
This guide helps to identify delay tactics and to argue against three widespread misconceptions in the climate debate.
1. Identify delay strategies
It is often claimed that the ecological transformation would endanger jobs and harm competition due to high investment needs and the transformation of industries. Threatening images of costs or the migration of industry are painted without taking the negative consequences of the climate crisis and the economic benefits of the ecological transformation into account.
2. Analyse the source and context, address legitimate concerns
- Which economic indicators are being discussed? Is the claim based on scientific or technical expertise?
- Have necessary accompanying measures for a smooth transformation been considered?
3. Counter with constructive arguments
In reality, the ecological transformation is well underway. Investments in renewables are increasing, the production of future technologies is on the rise. A global race is developing between the leading industrial nations. Being at the forefront brings enormous economic benefits:
- The ecological transformation strengthens the economy and labour market. Future-oriented industrial policies could bring a 3.3 percent higher economic output and create 2.5 million new jobs in the EU by 2050.
- Investing in the future pays off. Every euro invested in selected measures to ecologize EU industries can yield five euro in long-term economic output.
- Key technologies have an increasing potential. If just five emerging technologies had been locally manufactured in 2020 in the EU, they could have boosted economic output by € 18.4 billion, with numbers expected to rise.
1. Identify delay strategies
At the heart of the ecological transformation are the expansion of renewable energies and the electrification of processes in all sectors. However, to maintain the status quo, some actors are spreading the misconception that fossil fuels, especially gas, are cheaper and safer in the long term, and that renewables could never meet the entire energy demand.
2. Analyse the source and context, address legitimate concerns
- Which data is being compared? Over what period and in which region?
- Are the actors making the statement connected to the fossil fuel industry?
- What concerns are there about energy prices and security of supply? How can they be addressed?
3. Counter with constructive arguments
- Fossil fuels are largely being imported in Europe, leading to high energy prices and outflows of purchasing power. Gas in Europe was on average twice as expensive as in the US between 2011–2019 and five times as expensive in the months following the start of the Russian attack on Ukraine. The EU's natural gas import dependency rate was 90 percent in 2023. Using fossil fuels means competitive disadvantages and dependencies.
- Fossil fuel prices are highly sensitive to external shocks. A gas price shock similar to the one at the start of the Russian attack on Ukraine results in over € 10 billion in losses in emission-intensive sectors the following year in Austria. As a result, geopolitical and economical dependencies on other nations remain.
- Nearly three-quarters of the primary energy from fossil fuels used globally is lost after conversion into usable energy. Renewable energies are more efficient, as they can mostly be used directly without conversion processes.
1. Identify delay strategies
Supposed “technological openness” often leads to favouring technologies that fit into existing structures. E-fuels and hydrogen, for example, which power combustion engines and gas heaters, are presented as large-scale solutions by certain actors. In many cases, however, they are neither technically nor economically viable. Holding onto such technological illusions delays the establishment of essential frameworks for future technologies.
2. Analyse the source and context, address legitimate concerns
- Which technologies are favoured in the status quo – through subsidies, legal frameworks, or existing infrastructure?
- Are the promoted technologies market-ready and widely applicable? How do they compare to alternatives in terms of efficiency, availability and costs?
3. Counter with constructive arguments
- Technological openness results in inefficient energy use and resource allocation. For instance, only around 14 percent of the energy supplied to e-fuels for cars can be utilized, compared to over 80 percent in electric vehicles. Hydrogen heating systems achieve merely one-fifth the efficiency of heat pumps. Moreover, establishing a hydrogen supply would necessitate new (and costly) infrastructure.
- Green hydrogen and e-fuels will remain relatively expensive and available in limited quantities. They should therefore be used where there are no alternatives, such as in industry, shipping, and aviation.
- Technological clarity creates investment and planning security. To effectively expand and deploy future technologies, companies and households need clear legal frameworks.
