European emissions trading ensures that it is becoming more and more expensive to manufacture or buy climate-damaging products. The CDU politician Peter Liese sees this as an advantage over statutory regulations. In contrast to the heating law, emissions trading is very technology-neutral, according to Liese. “Emissions trading has the advantage that every technology is promoted, including biomass, but at the same time there are also measures that make a building more energy-efficient and have nothing to do with the heating. Then people can decide for themselves. If there is coercion, that’s it psychologically always counterproductive.”
Peter Liese is environmental and health policy spokesman for the EPP group in the European Parliament, which also includes the CDU and CSU. He was the rapporteur for the reform of European emissions trading that was decided in April – a kind of negotiator for the law within the EU Parliament.
(Photo: picture alliance / Geisler-Fotopress)
ntv.de: You are promoting European emissions trading (ETS) as an alternative to the federal government’s climate policy. How does it work?
Peter Liese: European emissions trading has already worked for energy-intensive industry, the electricity sector and aviation. In April we decided in the European Parliament to also include shipping. And from 2027 there will be a second emissions trading system in the European Union, based on the model in Germany, which will include the transport and building sectors. In general, emissions trading has a fixed limit on emissions that can be emitted per year – i.e. a cap on emissions. But below that cap, everyone is free to decide where to emit and where to save. In contrast to the German heating law, this is very technology-neutral.
The idea behind the ETS is that CO2 emissions become more expensive so that producers and consumers are encouraged to behave in a more climate-friendly manner?
Yes.
In your opinion, does the ETS make the amendment to the Building Energy Act superfluous?
Absolutely. I am convinced that we must also reduce emissions in the heating sector and move towards climate neutrality. In Berlin, there is no argument about the goal, but about the way. Emissions trading has the advantage that every technology is promoted, including biomass, but at the same time it also includes measures that make a building more energy-efficient and initially have nothing to do with heating. Then people can decide for themselves. If coercion is exercised, it is always psychologically counterproductive. That’s why I believe that emissions trading is the right way to go. But the goal that the building sector must also become climate-neutral is beyond doubt. Incidentally, this also applies to Friedrich Merz, who gave me a lot of support when we discussed emissions trading in the European Parliament. In the Berlin discussion, this is always a bit neglected, but the commitment of Friedrich Merz was extremely important for determining the position of the CDU.
At the moment the price is for a ton of CO2 at just under 90 euros. Is it possible to predict how high it will have to rise for Europe to achieve its climate goals?
The 90 euros apply to the first ETS, with energy-intensive industry, the power plant sector and air transport. With the fuel emissions trading law, which regulates emissions trading for the heat and transport sectors in Germany, we are currently at 30 euros. In the European Union, we have decided on a price cap mechanism, with which the price per tonne of CO2 is not expected to rise above 45 euros by 2029. After that, it very much depends on how we all behave. If we as a population make the heating and buildings more efficient, then the price will remain moderate. If we do nothing, then the price will also rise above 45 euros.
The DIW has presented a study according to which in a scenario of a CO2 price rising to 180 euros by 2030, not enough CO2 will be saved.
It depends very much on the technological development and on the question of how we all behave. This study is from 2019. From my point of view, everything that was done in this area before the war in Ukraine is obsolete.
Why?
Since then, many people have reoriented themselves without any coercion – because they didn’t want to support Putin, because they realized how dangerous it is to be dependent on fossil fuels. Even without a legal ban, I reckon that heat pumps will account for a large proportion of new heating systems, because they are also getting better and cheaper. Unfortunately, this is not the case at the moment, which is also why the date January 1, 2024 is so problematic.
Then the amendment to the Building Energy Act should come into force.
This is too early for another reason: in March we decided in the European Parliament that the so-called F-gases should be reduced more and more. These are coolants that are currently still used in heat pumps, among other things, but are harmful to the climate if they get into the atmosphere. German companies are leaders in technologies that do not require these gases, and heat pumps are getting better and better. But on January 1, 2024, the German manufacturers in particular will not be able to manage the ramp-up, so that we would be dependent on Chinese manufacturers that are not so environmentally friendly.
At the moment there is a lot of excitement about the amendment to the Building Energy Act. But what will happen when, in a few years, people realize that energy prices are going up because of European emissions trading?
As politicians, we all have a responsibility to prepare people for the fact that fossil fuels will become scarce and expensive – we got a drastic foretaste of this last year. You have to communicate that clearly, and you have to have a positive image of the alternatives in people’s minds. That’s why this ban on heating is so dangerous: Until six months ago, the heat pump was something great. It was clear that it was not yet working everywhere, but the topic was generally viewed positively. Now let’s just talk about the disadvantages of the heat pump, which will probably not be so relevant in two or three years.
Other European countries have a lot higher proportion of heat pumps than Germany. That seems to be working.
Yes, but that depends on the building stock and the electricity mix. If France, for example, has a lot of nuclear energy and has previously been heated a lot with electricity, then a heat pump is always better than electric heating. With our electricity mix, which still contains a relatively large amount of coal, the state-of-the-art heat pump only makes sense if I have a relatively well-insulated house – that’s better than five years ago, but I reckon that it will be in will be even better in another five years.
Don’t you still fear that a chancellor, no matter which party, will react if, in a few years’ time, the polls say that people don’t like rising prices?
No chancellor can simply overrule the ETS. The EU member states have committed to achieving their climate goals. So without ETS, other measures would have to be taken that are more expensive and less popular. It is very important that you prepare people well. This requires consistent and positive communication. The traffic light is currently doing exactly the opposite.
What advice would you give to a friend who is just considering installing a gas or oil heating system?
It has actually happened. Just recently, an acquaintance told me quite proudly that he had an appointment for the installation of a gas heating system. It was too late by then, but I would have advised him against it. For climate protection reasons, and because gas heating will become very expensive in the long run. But it depends on the specific situation: A friend has an old, relatively poorly insulated house with an old oil heating system and wants to install a gas condensing boiler. I also advised him against it, but I can only do that with a clear conscience if this law disappears completely or is at least changed substantially.
Hubertus Volmer spoke to Peter Liese