Following the United Nation’s Climate Summit on the 23 September in New York City, this month’s nuances Newsletter includes an article on Obama’s steps on tacking climate change in the US. This piece discusses Obama’s climate action plan in detail and the implications for the US in the global market. Furthermore, we are pleased to publish a guest article by the Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE). Here the BPIE reports on building renovation and fuel poverty in Europe.

1. 1
N°23 – September 2014
......................................................................................
ENERGY AND
CLIMATE POLICY
..........................................................................................
BYPASSING CONGRESS: OBAMA’S USE OF
EXECUTIVE POWER
UNITED NATIONS CLIMATE CONFERENCE TAKES PLACE ON THE 23 SEPTEMBER
I. Introduction
The United Nations Climate Summit will be held on 23 September in New York City to discuss climate change and global preventative measures. The United States is cur- rently situated in a new role on the international stage, as it is now more strongly than ever before in favour of cli- mate change policy.
This summer, President Obama gave a speech in Washing- ton that began with the quip, “it’s pretty rare that you encounter people who say carbon pollution is not a prob- lem.”
“Except,” he said, “in Congress.”
While the nature of his address was in good spirits as he spoke to a hall filled with conservationists, Obama’s frus- tration with his Congress was visible. In the past few weeks Washington has been filled with rumours of a Republican- led impeachment attempt as well as republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, suing the President. Amidst republican resistance, Obama has re- mained steadfastly focused on his current project: climate protection policy.
©United Nations, 2014
Within the Republican Party is a diverse array of opinions in relation to climate change. There are Tea Party mem- bers who deny the existence of climate change outright, more moderate republicans that acknowledge the exist- ence but do not speak out for fear of losing political fa- vour, and those that do speak out. One such individual is former Republican Congressman Bob Inglis of South Caro- lina. Inglis lost a primary challenge in South Carolina in 2010 after he stated that climate change was real and pushed for a carbon tax. The fear of losing constituency could be a ground for the lack of republican support.
“Republicans don't gain votes or positive recognition from environmentalists but [they] do alienate their base when they vote green,” says one former Republican Senate Aide.
Topics / Themen:
ENERGY AND CLIMATE POLICY
Bypassing Congress: Obama’s Use of
Executive Power / 1
Am Kongress vorbei: Obama setzt seine präsidiale Voll- macht ein 5
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
“Renovation best solution against fuel poverty” – a guest article by the Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE) / 6
„Energieeffiziente Modernisierung gegen Energiear- mut“ - Ein Gastbeitrag des Buildings Performance Insti- tute Europe (BPIE) 8
BANKING
Increased investment in FinTech industry / 9
FinTech-Industrie läuft dem Internethandel den Rang ab

2. 2
N°23 – September 2014
“So, it's not surprising that most Republicans don't spend a lot of time talking about climate change.” Those Republi- cans that do actively support climate protection are few and far between, and do not have a majority within the party due to overwhelming outright denial of climate change or silence on the topic.
In the last few weeks, President Obama has changed the course of US climate policy. The swift changes have come as a surprise to policy-makers as well as domestic and international actors alike. These new regulations have been met with both congratulations as well as consterna- tion.
The question is this: how is President Obama acting so rapidly and so effectively in relation to climate protection policy, seemingly out of the blue?
Obama is able to act as quickly and decisively as he has due to special privileges accorded to him as Commander in Chief. Since Obama took office in 2009, it became appar- ent just how limited –with the exception of foreign poli- cy—the powers of the US president truly are.
© Pete Souza, 2014
II. An Institutional Explanation
The United States government is anchored in three branches: the executive, legislative and judicial. These branches provide each other with a system of “checks and balances;” powers that ensure that no one branch monop- olises the federal government. However, the Constitution provides a way for the president to hurdle over tradition legal barriers.
This special power of the president is that of the executive order. This executive power has been used throughout the last two hundred years over 13,000 times to enact the will of the President: independent of the cooperation of the Congress.
The only way an executive order can be struck down is through review by the judicial branch, the third branch in the trifecta of the republic, or by the president’s successor. In this case, the courts must decide that the president’s executive order is either unsupportable by statute or un- constitutional. This is rarely done, and as a result, execu- tive orders tend to have an overwhelmingly significant impact on the internal affairs of the US government, as can be witnessed today.
III. Obama Legacy taking on Shades of Green
President Obama’s sudden and independent push to cre- ate a legitimate, functioning climate action plan has gar- nered dramatic responses from both sides of the aisle in Washington. With a first term failure after promises to create comprehensive legislation regulating carbon emis- sions in 2009, Obama has returned to his pledge to leave office without “betray[ing]…children and future genera- tions” and leaving them to face “the threat of climate change” alone.
This raises the question: why the renewed interest and intense focus on climate protection policy and why now, with only one-third of the second term remaining?
The general consensus is that this climate action plan could very well be Obama’s last chance to positively shape US domestic policy and secure a green-hued legacy. After all, Obama’s first-term attempt to pass a vast climate change bill failed due to rejection by Congress, and with the 2016 presidential elections looming around the corner and a stagnant Congress, this could be a dramatic push in a new direction. Now, through the power of executive order, the proverbial ball is rolling.
However, Obama is not achieving his climate action plan goals alone. Working in tandem with President Obama is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a government agency that works to maintain and enforce national law for the purpose of, “protecting human health and the envi- ronment.” When Congress writes a law, the EPA supple- ments this law by writing regulations, which in turn, set

3. 3
N°23 – September 2014
national standards that must be followed. These national standards are currently a topic of controversy across the United States, as they will revolutionise the manner in which coal in over 600 coal-fired power plants across the nation is used. The power plants that cannot meet these new regulations will be shut down. Coal states such as West Virginia and Kentucky, whose economies rely heavily on coal, could suffer.
In pursuing the climate action plan against all odds—and with divided support from within the Democratic Party— Obama is neglecting some of the political concerns of his own party. Democrats in coal states claim that they will suffer in the upcoming November midterm elections and turn their seats over to Republican candidates. For states whose economies heavily depend on coal and the jobs the industry provides, the new climate action plan has dealt them a difficult hand—adapt or shut down.
This mentality is very much echoed in Obama’s handling of the climate action plan—support the plan, or regulations will ensure that the plan is ultimately supported. Either way, President Obama’s climate action plan is happening. With only one-third of his second term remaining, Obama no longer has to assuage bipartisan political opinions or disagreement within his own party. The climate action plan is Obama taking a stand and pushing regulations through regardless of public opinion.
In turning against members of his own party that represent coal states, Obama is making decisive action without too much concern for political repercussions. The climate ac- tion plan will be his legacy in the White House in a way that the Affordable Care Act—also known as Obamacare— will not be. Obamacare did not transpire smoothly, and remains heavily criticised. Obama is insuring that by the time his second term is over in January 2017, his presiden- tial legacy will take on shades of green.
Obama has asked the EPA to have the climate regulations ready to issue by June 2015 so that the Administration can put said regulations into place before the end of the se- cond term, 20 January 2017. That being said, coal states will have time to adapt to the new regulations. This time frame has not yet been declared.
While concerns in the US over the climate action plan run high domestically, internationally Obama has placed the US in a good position globally going into this coming fall’s United Nations General Assembly at UN headquarters in New York City. The assembly will begin on 23 September.
IV. California’s Cap and Trade System: America’s Role Model
California is viewed as the beacon for environmental legis- lation in the US. With the world’s eighth largest economy and progressive social system, California is looked to as the way the rest of the world would like the entire nation to behave.
True to expectation, California instituted the first multi- sector cap and trade system not only in the US, but also in North America, based on the Northeast Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. The system was first introduced in 2011 and offi- cially began on 01 January 2013.
Cap and trade is a tool used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It does this by creating politically set limits on greenhouse gas emissions and reduces the total cost to emitters of these gases while at the same time, distrib- uting allowances on emissions. The market element is: these emissions are then auctioned off to regulated emit- ters throughout compliance periods. At the end of each compliance period, the regulated emitters have to pay for the emissions that were not covered. Over time, the amount of available allowances decreases. This serves to lower the overall level of greenhouse gas emissions by increasing the price per unit.
Therefore, cap and trade creates a market and set price for the reduction of emissions, which in turn, creates a re-

4. 4
N°23 – September 2014
sponse to climate change that is both proficient economi- cally and effective environmentally. While these regula- tions currently only apply to a selected group of electric power plants and industrial plants, fuel distributors will be included in 2015.
California’s cap and trade system has been so successful since 2011, that despite the US’ economic recession, the state’s economy rebounded and held five successful quar- terly auctions that boast full sales of yearly allowances. These results demonstrate that the program is well de- signed. Further supporting this success is the recent “memorandums of understanding” California has signed with Australia, Canada, China and three US states. In these partnerships, the California cap and trade system will serve as an example of successful emissions management.
V. Critical Voices
Obama’s recent crackdown on carbon emissions in the climate action plan is the strongest US action to date. Guided by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), President Obama has set forth regulations that will mini- mise emissions from power plants, with a goal of a 30 per cent decrease of 2005 levels by 2030. This has been par- tially achieved due to a mixture of the economic crises of 2008, as well as the increase in the use of natural gas. However, there is a long way to go, and 600 coal-fired power plants standing between the present and the fu- ture.
Obama’s push with the climate action plan provides incen- tive for scientists and entrepreneurs alike to invest in the pursuit of new technologies. The fuel industry, however, feels that its livelihood is threatened. Dubbed, “the war on coal,” fossil fuel representatives make the case that the new regulations will effectively eliminate jobs and raise the cost of electricity for the average American citizen.
The “war on coal” could negatively impact the US econo- my, according to business groups. The US Chamber of Commerce estimates that the new climate action plan could lower the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by up to 50 billion USD annually.
For power plants lacking capital, the fears held by the fossil fuel industry are not without merit. Many of the 600 coal- fired plants could potentially close in the future if they cannot maintain the EPA’s new standards. The plants that potentially develop methods to capture and store carbon might be able to continue to operate. Those that fail to adapt to the new regulations are likely to be shut down.
If all of these regulations are met by June 2015, the US would be on track to meet its UN target emission standard from the 2009 United Nations Climate Framework Conven- tion on Climate Change. At this convention, Obama prom- ised to cut greenhouse gas pollution by 17 per cent from 2005 reference levels by 2020. Secondly, Obama promised to cut about 80 per cent from the 2005 reference levels by 2050. These new standards would, according to Andrew Steer, President of the Washington think tank World Re- sources Institute, “send a powerful message around the world.”
VI. Freedom due to Fracking?
The US' ability to act more decisively in relation to carbon reduction regulations is due to the success of hydraulic fracturing, or as it is more commonly known, fracking. Fracking is the process in which high-pressure liquids are used to split shale formations and access oil. Despite the topic's controversy politically, fracking has placed the US ahead in terms of economic recovery from the recession.
Due to fracking, the US is currently the world's largest oil producer, surpassing both Saudi Arabia and Russia. The “shale revolution,” as it has been labelled, has placed the US at maximum worldwide production of crude oil as well as liquids separated from natural gas. The current daily

5. 5
N°23 – September 2014
output exceeds 11 million barrels, according to the Inter- national Energy Agency (IEA), a Paris-based adviser to over 29 nations worldwide. Additionally, the IEA estimates that US oil production will reach as many as 13.1 million barrels per day by 2019.
Two of the main states benefiting from the oil and natural gas boom are Texas and North Dakota. Both states have some of the largest shale rock formations in the US and are responsible for a majority of the oil production.
Though the US has made leaps and bounds in oil produc- tion, there has been little to no effect on global oil prices. The lack of price decrease stems from the geopolitical situation in typically oil-rich regions of the world.
In addition to bolstering the US economy, fracking has also impacted investments in manufacturing. Job creation has been a large theme for the oil and natural gas industry.
The industry claims that 9.8 million people are “directly and indirectly employed by the US oil and natural gas in- dustry.” Additionally, research firm IHS has predicted that almost 3.8 million new jobs could be created in relation to the natural gas industry by 2025. This estimate hinges on the manner in which the US government deals with the oil and natural gas industry in the coming years—whether access to federal land is given and no new drilling regula- tions are made.
VII. Conclusion
In Obama's State of the Union Address from 28 January 2014, he said, "One of the biggest factors in bringing more jobs back is our commitment to American energy. Busi- nesses plan to invest almost $100 billion in new factories that use natural gas."
How far investment in manufacturing will go is at this time, uncertain. Manufacturing in the US could certainly be revived. However, since mid-2009, manufacturing em- ployment has increased by 2.6 per cent. Only time will tell if, and how many, manufacturing jobs come to fruition.
AM KONGRESS VORBEI: OBAMA SETZT SEINE PRÄSIDIALE VOLLMACHT EIN
DER KLIMAGIPFEL DER VEREINTEN NATIONEN WIRD AM 23. SEPTEMBER IN NEW YORK CITY STATTFINDEN
Am morgigen UN-Klimagipfel in New York werden der Klimawandel und die globalen Gegenmaßnahmen disku- tiert. Die Vereinigten Staaten sind dabei zum ersten Mal in einer neuen Rolle als Klimaschützer auf der internationalen Bühne vertreten. Dies liegt an der neuen Klimaschutzpoli- tik von US-Präsident Barack Obama, der zunehmend auf energetische Gebäudesanierung, erneuerbare Energien und Gas aus Fracking setzt. Alles Maßnahmen, die den Treibhausgas-Ausstoß erheblich verringern. Dabei stößt die Klimapolitik des US-Präsidenten auf erheblichen innen- politischen Widerstand.
In diesem Sommer sagte Präsident Obama in einer Rede: „Es ist ziemlich selten, dass man Leute trifft, die sagen, dass CO2-Emmissionen kein Problem darstellen“ und er- klärte weiter: „Außer im US-Kongress“.
Innerhalb der Republikanischen Partei gibt es eine Vielfalt von Meinungen in Bezug auf den Klimawandel. Es gibt Tea- Party-Mitglieder, die die Existenz des Klimawandels leug- nen. Es gibt weniger Republikaner, die das Faktum des Klimawandels anerkennen. Diese Minderheit in der kon- servativen Partei äußert sich aber nicht öffentlich, aus Sorge, Wähler zu verlieren. Fast schon beispielhaft ist das Nominierungsschicksal von Bob Inglis, ein ehemaliger „Congressman“ aus South Carolina. Inglis verlor eine par- tei-interne Nominierung in South Carolina für das House of Representatives im Jahr 2010, nachdem er den Klima- wandel als Realität bezeichnete und auf die Einführung einer Kohlendioxid-Steuer drängte.
„Republikaner gewinnen keine Stimmen oder Anerken- nung von Umweltschützern, wenn sie grün wählen, aber sie verlieren ihre Basis wenn sie dies tun“, sagt ein ehema- liger republikanischer Senatsmitarbeiter, „also ist es nicht verwunderlich, dass die meisten Republikaner nicht viel Zeit damit verbringen über den Klimawandel zu sprechen“. Die Republikaner, die sich aktiv für den Klimaschutz einset- zen sind spärlich. Die große Mehrheit der Partei leugnet den Klimawandel oder schweigt dazu.

6. 6
N°23 – September 2014
Die Frage ist: Wie kann Barack Obama nun gegen die poli- tischen und institutionellen Widerstände im Kongress eine neue Klimaschutzpolitik durchsetzen? Die Regierung der Vereinigten Staaten ist in drei Bereiche aufgeteilt: Exekuti- ve, Legislative und Judikative: Diese Bereiche kontrollieren sich gegenseitig. Dieses System der gegenseitigen Kontrol- le („Checks and Balances“), sorgt dafür, dass keiner der Bereiche zu einem Machtzentrum wird. Jedoch gab die Verfassung dem Präsidenten das Instrument der Executive Order an die Hand. Damit kann er seinen Spielraum ver- größern.
Die Executive Order wurde in den letzten zweihundert Jahren mehr als 13.000-mal eingesetzt, um den Willen des Präsidenten durchzusetzen. Oft auch gegen den Wider- stand des Kongresses.
Der dritte Bereich der Regierung ist das Verfassungsgericht („Supreme Court“). Dieses kann eine Executive Order wi- derrufen. Dies allerdings nur, wenn der Präsident gesetzes- oder verfassungswidrig gehandelt hat. Auch der Nachfol- ger oder die Nachfolgerin des Präsidenten kann eine Exe- cutive Order widerrufen – eine Würdigung des Rechtscha- rakters ist dabei nicht notwendig. Insgesamt sind also die Voraussetzung einer Executive Order günstig, insbesonde- re da Obama nicht mehr zur kommenden Wahl antreten darf.
OBAMAS GESCHEITERTE GESETZGEBUNG
In seiner ersten Amtszeit scheiterte Obama daran, ein umfassendes Klimaschutzgesetz zu verabschieden. Der Kongress lehnte dies mit der Mehrheit der Republikaner ab. Der jetzige Klimaschutzplan stellt also einen erneuten Vorstoß dar. Dabei zeigt sich allerdings auch Widerstand innerhalb der demokratischen Partei. Funktionäre aus den sogenannten Kohle-Staaten, wie North-Carolina oder West-Virginia, erwarten, dass sie bei der kommenden Wahl ihre Sitze an republikanische Kandidaten verlieren werden. Die neue Klimapolitik geht auf Kosten des Berg- kohlebaus und gefährdet damit die ohnehin schon knappe Mehrheit, argumentieren Demokraten aus diesen Bundes- staaten. Insbesondere North-Carolina kommt eine zentrale Bedeutung in den Wahlen zu. Frühere Wahlen haben ge- zeigt, dass diejenige Partei den Präsidenten stellt, die die- sen Bundesstaat gewinnt. Bei der vergangenen Wahl gab es eine knappe Mehrheit für die Demokraten.
WIRTSCHAFTLICHE PERSPEKTIVEN DURCH FRACKING
Der Wunsch von Obama die CO2-Belastung zu senken, ist eng verbunden mit dem Erfolg des “hydraulic fracturing“, besser bekannt als „Fracking“. Fracking hat den USA nied- rige Energiepreise und einen Wirtschaftsaufschwung be- schert. Gleichzeitig ist Gas in Bezug auf seine CO2-Bilanz besser zu bewerten als Kohle und reduziert somit den Ausstoß von Treibhausgasen.
Die „Schieferöl Revolution“, wie sie genannt wird, hat die USA zum größten Produzenten von Erdöl und Erdgas welt- weit gemacht. Durch Fracking sind die USA neuerdings der größte Öl-Hersteller der Welt, während Saudi Arabien und Russland hintenan stehen. Zwei der Bundesstaaten, die vom Fracking profitieren sind Texas im Süden und North Dakota im Norden des Landes.
In der Rede zur Lage der Nation am 28. Januar 2014 sagte Präsident Obama: „Einer der wichtigsten Faktoren, um mehr Arbeitsplätze zu schaffen, ist unser Engagement für Energieträger aus den USA. 100 Milliarden Dollar werden in den nächsten Jahren in unsere produzierende Industrie fließen, da wir über günstige Energie verfügen“.
......................................................................................
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
..........................................................................................
RENOVATION BEST SOLUTION AGAINST FUEL POVERTY
GUEST ARTICLE BY THE BUILDINGS PERFORMANCE INSTI- TUTE EUROPE (BPIE) IN BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
Today, between 50 and 125 million Europeans are affected by fuel poverty, with high numbers in Central and Eastern EU countries such as Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, and Hungary. But even in Germany, 13.4 per cent of the population lives in dwellings with leakages and damp walls and five per cent is unable to keep their homes adequately warm (Eurostat 2012). The share of people at risk of pov- erty and affected by fuel poverty is even more striking: 21 per cent live in dwellings with bad joints and 14.8 per cent cannot keep their homes warm enough. In terms of com- parison, Germany is doing less well than other countries

7. 7
N°23 – September 2014
such as Austria, Finland or Sweden. The data available shows no signs of significant improvement over the past few years.
Since the economic crisis and the explosion of energy pric- es affecting all European households, fuel poverty or ‘En- ergiearmut’ has been catapulted high up on the European political agenda. Fuel poverty is not only a major problem for the so called ‘new’ member states but is gaining mo- mentum in historically stronger economies like the UK, France and Germany. The issue of fuel poverty is therefore addressed by the new BPIE report „Alleviating fuel poverty in the EU“.
While there is no commonly agreed definition of fuel pov- erty, the term describes the inability to keep a home ade- quately warm in winter due to air draughts caused by damaged joints and bad quality windows or due to poorly functioning heating systems.
The indicators used to measure fuel poverty are referring to the inability of people to keep their home adequately warm, to pay their utility bills and to live in a dwelling without defects (leakages, damp walls, etc.). In 2012, 10.8 per cent of the total European population were unable to keep their home adequately warm, increasing to 24.4 per cent when referring to low-income people.
Fuel poverty is not only an important economic and social issue; it has severe health impacts as supported by many medical studies. Consequences are excess winter deaths, mental disability, respiratory and circulatory problems.
Fuel poverty is mainly a problem of low income house- holds, unable to make energy efficiency investments and by consequence strongly affected by fuel price increase. There is evidence that energy costs are growing faster than household income. In many European countries the state offers support to low income households by providing energy subsidies or direct financial support for heating. However, this is not a long-term solution to the problem according to the findings of the BPIE report by Dr. Bogdan Atanasiu, Eleni Kontanasiu and Francesco Mariottini.
These measures require continuous public budget alloca- tion without generating added value or economic growth. In contrast, energy renovations could create an economic lever and be a long-term answer to fuel poverty by reduc- ing energy costs and ensuring improved thermal comfort. Larger scale energy efficiency measures can create or maintain jobs, reduce illness, rehabilitate poor districts and therefore contribute to social inclusion. Results from im- plemented energy renovation programmes targeting the fuel poor highlight these positive effects.
In order to achieve the social, environmental and energy goals set by the EU for 2020, the BPIE report recommends to allocate a bigger share of European funds and national budgets for renovation programmes targeting social hous- ing, for example, and neighbourhoods of fuel poor house- holds. To create a reliable basis for policy making in this field and to provide additional evidence on the scale and impact of fuel poverty in the EU, it is also recommended to improve the availability of statistical data.
The EU Commission has also recognised the issue of fuel poverty in Europe. In 2012, the Commission set up an expert group on vulnerable consumers in energy. The group published a report - http://bit.ly/1BGbOcu in Janu- ary 2014 with the aim of providing guidance to Member States to meet their obligations on vulnerable customers and energy poverty under EU energy legislation. The re- port noted the difficulty of financing energy efficiency measures. The group suggested one solution might be to add the costs of building insulation to future energy bills instead of the consumer paying up-front.
To read the full BPIE report, “Alleviating fuel poverty in the EU – Investing in home renovation, a sustainable and in- clusive solution”, consult this link: http://bit.ly/1seZcST. The Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE) is a European not-for-profit think-tank with a focus on knowledge creation and dissemination for evidence-based policy making in the field of energy performance in build- ings (www.bpie.eu). BPIE delivers policy and advice as well as implementation support. The Brussels-based institute is the European partner of the Global Buildings Performance Network (GBPN).

8. 8
N°23 – September 2014
ENERGIEEFFIZIENTE MODERNISIERUNG GEGEN ENERGIEARMUT
EIN GASTBEITRAG DES BUILDINGS PERFORMANCE INSTI- TUTE EUROPE (BPIE) IN BRÜSSEL, BELGIEN
Heutzutage sind zwischen 50 und 125 Millionen Europäer von Energiearmut betroffen, wobei der Prozentsatz in den zentral- und osteuropäischen Ländern wie Bulgarien, Ru- mänien, Lettland, Litauen und Ungarn sehr hoch ist. Aber auch in Deutschland leben 13,4 Prozent der Bevölkerung in Wohnungen mit Mängeln wie einem feuchten Mauerwerk und fünf Prozent können ihre Wohnung nicht ausreichend beheizen (Eurostat 2012). Der Anteil der Menschen, die an der Armutsgrenze leben und von Energiearmut betroffen sind, liegt mit 21 Prozent beziehungsweise 14,8 Prozent sogar noch höher. Im Vergleich zu Ländern wie Österreich, Finnland oder Schweden schneidet Deutschland schlechter ab. Die aktuell verfügbaren Daten zeigen zudem keinerlei Verbesserung in den vergangenen Jahren.
Seit der Wirtschaftskrise und steigenden Energiepreisen, von denen alle europäischen Haushalte betroffen sind, steht Energiearmut oder "fuel poverty“ auf der politischen Agenda Europas. Energiearmut ist nicht nur ein großes Problem für die sogenannten „neuen" Mitgliedstaaten, sondern wird auch verstärkt in den historisch stärkeren Volkswirtschaften wie Großbritannien, Frankreich und Deutschland aufgerufen. Dem Thema Energiearmut wid- met sich der BPIE-Bericht „Alleviating fuel poverty in the EU“.
Noch gibt es keine allgemein anerkannte Definition von Energiearmut. Der Begriff als solches beschreibt die Unfä- higkeit, eine Wohnung im Winter angemessen warm zu halten – entweder aufgrund von undichten Fugen, Fens- tern von schlechter Qualität oder einem mangelhaften Heizsystem.
Die Indikatoren, anhand derer Energiearmut gemessen werden kann, beziehen sich auf die Unfähigkeit einen Haushalt angemessen zu beheizen, die Energierechnungen zu zahlen und in einer Wohnung ohne Mängel (undichte Fugen, feuchte Wände, etc.) zu leben. Im Jahr 2012 waren 10,8 Prozent der europäischen Bevölkerung von Energie- armut betroffen. Diese Zahl steigt auf 24,4 Prozent, wenn es sich um Menschen mit geringem Einkommen handelt.
Energiearmut ist nicht nur eine wichtige wirtschaftliche und soziale Frage, sondern dies kann sich auch auf die Gesundheit auswirken – eine Tatsache, die allgemein aner- kannt ist. Folgen sind steigende Todesfälle im Winter, psychische Beeinträchtigungen sowie Atemwegs- und Kreislaufprobleme.
Energiearmut betrifft vor allem Haushalte mit geringem Einkommen, die nicht in der Lage sind, in eine energeti- sche Sanierung zu investieren und somit auch stark von Energiepreiserhöhungen betroffen sind. So steigen die Energiekosten häufig schneller als das Haushaltseinkom- men. In vielen europäischen Ländern bietet der Staat Un- terstützung für einkommensschwache Haushalte durch Energiesubventionen oder direkte finanzielle Unterstüt- zung für das Heizen. Dies ist jedoch keine langfristige Lö- sung für das Problem der Energiearmut, wie die Autoren des BPIE Berichtes Dr. Bogdan Atanasiu, Eleni Kontanasiu und Francesco Mariottini feststellen.
Solche finanziellen Maßnahmen erfordern kontinuierlich öffentliche Gelder ohne konkreten Mehrwert oder Wirt- schaftswachstum. Hingegen könnten energetische Sanie- rungsmaßnahmen zu einer langfristigen Lösung der Ener- giearmut beitragen, denn durch einen reduzierten Ver- brauch sinken die Energiekosten und Wärmekomfort stellt sich ein. Dadurch können Krankheiten reduziert, Armen- viertel rehabilitiert und zur sozialen Integration beigetra- gen werden. Darüber hinaus wirken sich insbesondere größere Modernisierungsprojekte förderlich auf die Wirt- schaft aus und Arbeitsplätze werden erhalten beziehungs- weise geschaffen. Ergebnisse aus Gebäudesanierungspro- grammen unter Einbeziehung einkommensschwacher Haushalte bestätigen diese positiven Effekte.
Um die sozialen, ökologischen und energiepolitischen 2020 Ziele der EU zu erreichen, empfiehlt der BPIE-Bericht, ei- nen größeren Anteil an EU-Mitteln sowie den nationalen Haushalten Renovierungsprogrammen für Sozialwohnun- gen und von Energiearmut betroffenen Haushalten zuzu- sprechen. Darüber hinaus setzt sich das BPIE für eine bes- sere Verfügbarkeit von statistischen Daten ein. Dadurch könne eine zuverlässige Grundlage für die politische Ent- scheidungsfindung in diesem Bereich geschaffen und wei- tere Erkenntnisse über das Ausmaß und die Auswirkungen der Energiearmut in der EU erlangt werden.
Die EU-Kommission hat das Problem der Energiearmut in Europa erkannt. 2012 setzte die Kommission beispielswei-

9. 9
N°23 – September 2014
se eine Expertengruppe für schutzbedürftige Verbraucher im Bereich Energie ein. Diese Gruppe veröffentlichte im Januar 2014 einen Bericht (http://bit.ly/1BGbOcu). In die- sem stellten sie fest, dass die Schwierigkeit vor allem in der Finanzierung von Energieeffizienzmaßnahmen liege. Als Lösung wurde vorgeschlagen, die Kosten für die Gebäu- desanierung könnten in die zukünftigen Energie- Rechnungen integriert werden statt dass diese bereits im Voraus durch den Verbraucher gezahlt werden müssen.
Der vollständige BPIE Bericht, “Alleviating fuel poverty in the EU – Investing in home renovation, a sustainable and inclusive solution”, ist auf Englisch unter folgendem Link zu finden: http://bit.ly/1seZcST. Das Buildings Performance Institute Europe, kurz BPIE, ist ein europäischer, gemein- nütziger Think-tank. Die Arbeit des BPIE fokussiert auf Wissensbildung und -Transfer für den faktenbasierten, politischen Entscheidungsprozess im Bereich Energieeffizi- enz bei Gebäuden (www.bpie.eu). Das BPIE entwickelt politische Handlungsempfehlungen und unterstützt bei der Umsetzung dieser. Das in Brüssel ansässige Institut ist europäischer Partner des Global Buildings Performance Network (GBPN).
......................................................................................
BANKING
..........................................................................................
FINTECH INDUSTRY TAKES PRIORITY FOR INVESTORS OVER E-COMMERCE
NEW TRENDS IN STARTUP INVESTMENT
The flow of investment is ebbing away from e-commerce and moving on to the new trend, FinTech. A portmanteau of the words ‘Financial’ and ‘Technology’, FinTech is the term for any technology applied to financial services. This shift can be seen in the 50 million EUR investment in startup incubator Nova Founders by the Pacific Century Group (PCG) in Hong Kong.
Nova Founders either initiates startups, invests in existing ones or buys startups with potential. One such addition to their portfolio is a consumer comparison website for finan- cial services. Here you can see the business model is based directly at the cross-over between finance and technology. It is in this area, that investors like the PCG see growth potential.
FINTECH-INDUSTRIE LÄUFT DEM INTERNETHANDEL DEN RANG AB
INVESTOREN SEHEN POTENZIAL ZUNEHMEND IM FINTECH-BERECH
Der Fluss an Investitionen in Richtung E-Commerce schwindet und folgt dem neuen Trend: FinTech. Der Begriff „FinTech“ steht für Unternehmen, die Technologie mit Finanzdienstleistungen verbinden. Dieser Trend zeigt sich in den 50 Millionen Euro an Investitionen, die der Startup- Inkubator Nova Founders von der Pacific Century Group (PCG) aus Hong Kong erhalten hat.
Nova Founders gründet Start-ups, investiert in bestehende oder kauft Start-ups mit Potenzial. Neu im Portfolio von Nova Founders ist eine Vergleichsplattform für Finanz- dienstleistungen. In solchen FinTech-Unternehmen sehen Investoren wie PCG Wachstumspotenzial.
......................................................................................
Please feel free to send us your questions and comments to mail@nuances.de.
Für Fragen und Rückmeldungen wenden Sie sich bitte an
mail@nuances.de.
* If you wish to be removed from the newsletter mailing list, please contact mail@nuances.de and place “unsub- scribe” in the subject heading.
* Sollten Sie den Newsletter nicht weiter beziehen wollen, senden Sie uns eine E-mail an: mail@nuances.de mit der Nachricht: „unsubscribe“.
N°9 – May 2013