Friday October 15, 2021
The “sharpest teeth” pulled
Contortions in climate protection under the traffic light
It is probably the greatest challenge facing the future federal government: climate protection. At the same time, the Greens and the FDP traditionally rely on different means. The exploratory paper shows the willingness to work together. However, environmental experts are critical of the compromises.
Of the many challenges facing a red-green-yellow alliance, climate protection is considered to be one of the greatest: on the one hand there are more stringent goals, on the other hand there is a lack of funds and sharp instruments. On the one hand there is an economically liberal party who believes in the market, and on the other there is those who see a lack of climate protection as a typical market failure. With speed limits, coal phasing out or a ban on gasoline and diesel cars, the contrasts came to a head.
But the paper of the three partners already shows where these could be defused – but also where there is still a lot to be clarified in coalition talks. In the twelve-page exploratory paper, the commitment to national and international climate targets, as set out in the Paris Treaty, is at the fore. But already in the next few sentences it becomes clear that Germany will probably miss its self-imposed and legally anchored goals in the coming years – not a good start for a government with the participation of the Greens.
“We will continue to develop the Climate Protection Act consistently in 2022 and launch an immediate climate protection program with all the necessary laws, ordinances and measures,” write the parties. And: “We will check compliance with the climate targets on the basis of a cross-sectoral, multi-year overall account similar to the Paris Agreement.” Both sentences together clearly indicate that the annual specifications, referred to by the SPD as the “sharpest teeth” of the law, are drawn for each individual sector, from energy to transport to agriculture.
Now the “multi-year total accounts” should be in the foreground – and indeed “across sectors”. From 2023 onwards, no green transport minister and no red agriculture minister should have to justify missing their goals and launch a humiliating emergency program in order to get back on track.
Coal exit without deadline
All parties can be found in the formulations of the Greens’ massive demand for an early coal phase-out to 2030. The exit is to be accelerated. “Ideally, this will be achieved by 2030.” The date of the Greens is also mentioned, but in a much weaker form. The massive expansion of renewable energies is also a prerequisite. While this sentence should have been easy for all three, the Greens had to accept that new gas-fired power plants should also be built. Even if only those that can later be operated with climate-neutral hydrogen.
The climate protection think tank “E3G” spoke of the right direction, but was disappointed in the details: “Without a coal phase-out by 2030 and the abandonment of new gas-fired power plants, the German climate targets cannot be achieved,” said its Berlin office manager Brick Medak. Two percent of the country’s area is to be reserved for the expansion of wind power. However, these must be identified by the federal states, so that this sentence is relatively harmless for federal politicians.
The three parties want to establish a requirement for solar roofs for all new commercial roofs. In the case of private houses, on the other hand, “it should become the rule”. The ultimate consequence is missing here, criticizes Christoph Heinrich, board member at WWF Germany. How this can be implemented, as well as the targeted acceleration of planning and approval, will eat up a lot of time in coalition talks. The Greens in particular stand between environmental and nature conservationists and ambitious climate protectionists.
Increase in carbon price unclear
It is clear that climate protection should be largely paid for with the money from the new CO2 price on fossil fuels. The partners initially excluded how much and when this price should rise, although the Greens and the FDP in particular called for tightening. However, the rapidly increasing electricity and gas prices are currently making this less popular.
On the other hand, the paper becomes more specific when gasoline and diesel cars are eliminated and the speed limit: “There will be no general speed limit,” it says in clear FDP handwriting. For combustion engines, reference is made to EU proposals that would mean a Europe-wide end for such new cars by 2035. “This will take effect earlier in Germany,” says the paper.
In contrast, it remains vague about the abolition of climate-damaging subsidies and expenditures that are to be “checked”. This could be, for example, the tax relief for diesel or the tax exemption for kerosene. The WWF expert Heinrich complains: “The budget must not only be checked for environmentally harmful subsidies and expenses – these should be abolished.”