Czech Republic Czech Republic

The Czech Republic drops four places in this year’s CCPI, as the country now ranks 51st and among the very low performers.

After rising to a medium rating in the Energy Use category in last year’s CCPI, the Czech Republic falls back to a low rating this year. In the Renewable Energy category, it also receives a low. In GHG Emissions and Climate Policy, its performance rates very low.

The CCPI experts welcome the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), which has shown successes in the Czech Republic, though the country has no clear coal phase-out. The ETS has, however, pushed energy companies towards developing coal phase-out strategies. The phase-out year under discussion is 2038. A new Renewable Energy Act was approved in 2021 and there are subsidies and funds in place in the country to support renewable energies (e.g. New Green Savings Programme and Just Transition Fund). However, the experts criticise that the Czech Republic has much greater potential for renewable energies and that the RE development plan must be updated to be in line with the EU 2030 targets. The main demand is to expand renewable energies effectively.

The lack of a carbon price for non-ETS sectors, weak decarbonisation measures in the transport sector, and absence of a concrete coal phase-out plan are other shortcomings noted by the experts. While the Minister of Finance promised before the parliamentary elections in 2021 to keep the military budget at 1.4% of the GDP, the newly elected coalition declared intent to raise it to 2% without including GHG emissions from the military sector towards any decarbonisation measures.

The following national experts agreed to be mentioned as contributors for this year’s CCPI: Jiri Jerabek (Greenpeace Czech Republic), Karel Polanecký (Hnutí DUHA)

Technical note: how to read the target comparison graph

The graph above shows the development of a country over the past years compared with its Paris compatible pathway and 2030 target. For all three quantitative categories of the CCPI, this visualisation gives an overview of where a country is right now, where it would need to be to fulfil the Paris Agreement promises and where it aims to be in 2030.

For GHG emissions per capita, the data includes LULUCF, as used for the emissions per capita indicator. This leads to the vast changes in emissions of some countries with high forest coverage.
The calculation of individual country target pathways is based on the common but differentiated convergence approach (CDC). It is based on the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” laid forth in the Framework Convention on Climate Change. All Annex I countries therefore have a decreasing pathway from 1990 onwards, starting at that year’s emissions. 60 years later, in 2050, these countries are expected to reach net zero emissions. All other countries, which did not reach the level of global average emissions in 1990, are allowed to increase emissions until the average is reached. But by latest 2015 these countries, too, have decreasing pathways and 60 years to reach net zero. These pathways start from the global average.

The Renewable Energy data is given in per cent of Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES) and includes hydro energy, consistent with the respective CCPI indicator. As global distribution of Renewables (especially solar and wind) only started in the 2000s, the pathways in this category start in 2010. All countries have an equal goal: 100% Renewables in 2050, each starting from its 2010 value.

For Energy Use the Primary Energy Supply per capita is shown. All pathways for this category start at country’s 1990 values and meet at global average of 80 gigajoules per capita in TPES.
For 2°C and 1.5°C scenarios, a decrease in emissions by reducing the (growth in) energy use is as crucial as deploying renewable (or other low-carbon) technologies. The IPCC carried out a scenario comparison using a large number of integrated assessment models. From the scenarios available, we observe that the total amount of global energy use in 2050 has to be roughly the same level or a bit higher than it is today, with a margin of uncertainty. At the same time population will grow slightly between today and 2050. We therefore pragmatically chose the well-below-2° compatible benchmark to be “same energy use per capita in 2050 as the current global average”, which is 80 gigajoules per capita in TPES.