As Minister of Health, Jens Spahn fought at the forefront against the corona pandemic – he has now switched to the topics of economy and energy. In an interview with ntv.de, he warns that Germany could run out of electricity in the coming years and attacks Economics Minister Habeck for his plans to ban new gas heating systems. But he also says where he deliberately does not criticize the government.
ntv.de: Mr. Spahn, you have been working on the topics of economy and energy in the CDU since the general election. Did you have déjà vu in the energy crisis? Political scientists are the new virologists, the gas storage facilities the new seven-day incidence?
Jens Spahn: And the Federal Network Agency has taken on the role of the RKI in this analogy. Yes, even if comparisons lag, there are parallels. First of all, the starting position: After relatively good years, our certainties were shaken first with the pandemic and then with the war in Europe. We experience that things that we take for granted, such as good health care, freedom or electricity from the socket, are very demanding. Based on the previous experience of the crisis, I rate the traffic light’s actions in a differentiated manner. If decisions are made quickly in the crisis and have to be corrected later, I will not criticize that. In times of crisis, speed comes before perfection.
You are now also alluding to mask procurement. They were badly needed in the early stages of the pandemic and were later criticized for paying too much for them.
At that time, as in the current crisis, the basic principle “Having is better than needing” applied. In the pandemic, these were vaccines, ventilators, masks, tests or drugs. In the end we always had more than we needed. That was always better than if something was missing. The same now applies to gas. The federal government has rightly done everything and in some cases paid any price to fill the gas storage tanks and prepare us for the winter. I am very sure that the Federal Audit Office will tell us in a year’s time: That was too expensive. Just like the masks. But I won’t criticize that.
Speaking of expensive: inflation remains at a high level. How do we get the prices down again?
First of all, the government would have to make this its main economic policy issue. That doesn’t happen. At the cabinet meeting in Meseberg next Sunday, inflation is not even on the agenda. But inflation is the mega-topic. And it’s also a social catastrophe. An inflation of 8 percent last year and maybe 6 percent this year means for an average earner of 4000 euros 600 to 700 euros less – per month! So that really packs a punch. I’m sometimes amazed at how calm the Germans remain in the face of this massive loss of prosperity.
But what to do?
You fight inflation by increasing supply. It starts with energy prices. Anything that can go online should go online. If, for example, more electricity from biomass is permitted or the nuclear power plants run longer, this increases supply and stabilizes prices. The year before last we shut down three nuclear power plants. As far as I know, at least two of these can be retrieved, and that should at least be checked without prejudice. Because in a location that has the highest taxes and the highest energy prices, there will soon be no more industry.
What about the expansion of renewable energies?
It won’t happen fast enough to bring inflation down over the next two years. The expansion of renewables is still too slow. During our time in government, we have expanded renewables more massively than almost any other industrialized country. But we have too often allowed the impression of doing it in a bad mood. The fact is that the expansion of renewables is the right thing to do, but that alone will not solve our acute problems.
Why not?
We also need storage capacities and electrolysis of hydrogen. Only then can we also use renewable electricity when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. I’m always amazed that the Greens only look at the electricity sector. However, this is only a small part of our final energy requirement. Large parts of the energy consumption take place in the areas of heat, industry and transport. I think it would be a mistake to narrow everything down to one energy source in all of these areas.
There have just been reports that Economics Minister Robert Habeck is planning to ban the installation of new gas heating systems.
Why should everyone install a heat pump now? After all, the goal is to supply at least 65 percent of the heat from climate-neutral energy, with the prospect of 100 percent. It is enough to set these targets as binding. And then the citizens can see whether a heat pump would be better for them at home, or rather combined heat and power or geothermal energy. Openness to technology is more than just a buzzword, you have to want it. The second problem is the schedule. Habeck wants to ban the installation of new oil and gas heating systems from 2024. That’s in nine months. But there are too few craftsmen. Thus, Habeck’s heat plan automatically becomes a housing freeze. And it will now lead to a run on gas and oil heating.
The coalition agreement states that from January 1, 2025, gas heaters should no longer be installed.
One year makes a big difference for the planning security of hundreds of thousands of home builders, craftsmen and investors. If you want to convert everything to electricity, mobility, heat, transport, then electricity must also be affordable. But he isn’t! For a family, 40 cents per kilowatt hour means 300 to 400 euros per month for a heat pump. Many cannot afford that.
There would be subsidies, i.e. money from the state. You also used this instrument during the Corona crisis.
That’s true, but it’s different to cushion stress for a limited time. Heat pumps, on the other hand, are an investment in the future and should run for decades. The same applies to electromobility. It’s only possible with cheap electricity. And this federal government has no plan on how we can achieve affordable electricity prices by 2030. And the traffic light has reduced the funding for heat pumps for the time being.
When it comes to nuclear power, the Greens say that leaving nuclear power plants on the grid is of little use. It’s certainly a symbolic issue for the Greens, but isn’t it for you too?
Nuclear power is really a symbol – for the question of how seriously the Greens take climate policy. They are now leaving an old GDR coal-fired power plant in Jänschwalde on the grid, one of the biggest polluters in Europe, in order to switch off CO2-free nuclear power plants. It is actually a question of principle, whether we are serious here about climate protection. The German Greens are more anti-nuclear party than climate protection party. It’s more about Jürgen Trittin’s life’s work than that of Greta Thunberg.
It is of course your job as the opposition to criticize the government. But when you look at how quickly the LNG terminals were built and how full the gas storage facilities are – you can’t really complain, can you?
We don’t complain about the two topics – on the contrary. Where the traffic light was radically pragmatic, it worked well. Wherever it is not pragmatic, where it gets tangled up in fundamental issues of all kinds, especially the Greens and the FDP, it doesn’t work there. I would like this “Germany speed”, which worked for LNG terminals, to be transferred to other areas. For example with rail and power lines.
As Minister of Health, didn’t you also want a German pace? And then you came across the fax machines in the health departments. How much do you actually have in your hands as a government?
The question is: How did the Germany speed come about? Planning law has changed. That’s just the law. In this respect, the comparison with the fax machines is flawed, they could not simply be replaced by law. Even if I sometimes wish I had.
Germany’s great dependence on Russian oil and gas also arose during the government of the CDU. Don’t you have to constantly apologize for past mistakes?
Yes, in retrospect we were wrong. We should never have become so heavily dependent on Russia for gas. Decisions in which we were involved contributed to this. But also social democrats and the German economy. I would say it was a collective not wanting to see.
The Greens were at least against Nord Stream 2.
You have to acknowledge that. As I said, we have to deal with it critically. The SPD, by the way, was completely different, because parts of it were corrupted. Angela Merkel has never had any illusions about Putin. It was obviously different with Gabriel, Schröder and Schwesig.
Why didn’t you actually stick to health policy? That was always your specialty long before you became a minister.
I recently spoke to the Bishop of Munster about this. We agreed: It is not appropriate to comment on his successor. Whether as a minister, bishop or pope. I had already dealt with economic issues as State Secretary in the Ministry of Finance. Together with Friedrich Merz, I considered what a good lineup for the CDU would be and then we came to this solution. Anyway, I like the themes.
What’s it like when you’ve been on the front lines of the biggest health crisis and then wake up as a simple MP? How do you motivate yourself to keep going?
It’s tough the first few days. But it has happened to many others, it is part of democracy. That’s easier said than it feels, that’s probably the way it is. But I have always been a convinced parliamentarian. We use the opposition period for intensive content-related work. But four years are enough.
Is it just a setback on the way to the Chancellery?
It is an intermediate stage for the Union. I am convinced that it would be better for Germany if the CDU governed. I want to help make that happen again.
Volker Petersen spoke to Jens Spahn