The federal government is running out of time: it has to present a climate protection program by the end of March in which it explains how it intends to meet the climate targets. At least that’s what it says in the Climate Protection Act. That’s not easy, because according to the Federal Environment Agency, Germany is currently missing its climate target for 2030 by 35 million tons of CO2that is almost 6 percent more climate damage than legally permitted. Until 2040 there are according to the Climate Expert Council even 554 million tons of CO2 or 20 percent too much.
The taz now has a draft of the climate protection program, which Spiegel reported first reported. This early version still has many gaps. It is clear that the federal government has no idea how to achieve the climate goals. Observers agree on this.
The draft is a disappointment, says Swantje Michaelsen, transport policy spokeswoman for the Green parliamentary group. Violetta Bock, climate policy spokeswoman for the Left in the Bundestag, puts it more sharply: The draft is “not a climate protection program, but a collection of ideas without a backbone.” Jürgen Resch, managing director of the German Environmental Aid DUH, considers this early version to be an “honest depiction of the government’s powerlessness to take climate protection measures”.
The DUH had just two weeks ago before the Federal Administrative Court a judgment is obtainedwhich is likely to cause great concern for the federal government: The court found that the federal government cannot present a climate protection program that is foreseeably inadequate. In the specific case, it was about the 2023 traffic light government program. Resch called the ruling a “resounding slap in the face” for the federal government.
Buildings and traffic violate EU regulations
The present draft contains a wealth of measures. The appendix, the CO2-The savings potential as well as the economic and social consequences of the individual projects run on 222 pages. Whether that is enough to keep the CO2However, it is not clear from this that the gaps will be closed in 2030 and 2040: for many measures there is no information about how much CO2 they can save.
“The draft reveals the same methodological deficiencies as the 2023 climate protection program, on which we reached the Federal Administrative Court’s decision,” said Resch.
Especially in traffic– and building sector, the federal government would have to take drastic steps: According to the Climate Expert Council, 224 million tons of CO will be released there by 20302 more emitted than allowed under EU law.
In the transport sector, “some things read well at first glance,” said Green Michaelsen. “Unfortunately, hardly any of this is reflected in the real politics of the black-red coalition.” The 800 million euros noted in the draft for the expansion of cycle paths are only “a fraction” covered in the federal government’s budget. Likewise, the Germany ticket should be preserved permanently. “Unfortunately, it becomes one-sidedly more expensive for passengers every year, so there is no increase in subscription numbers,” criticized Michaelsen.
Who should follow the law if not the federal government?
Jürgen Resch, German Environmental Aid
If you look at the proposed climate protection measures in the building sector, another problem becomes clear: the draft does not address the fact that climate protection is currently under great pressure at the German and European level. The EU-wide CO2-The price for heating and refueling has been postponed by a year. The CO2– Prices for electricity and industry should be handled more loosely due to pressure from industry, At least that is a proposal from the EU Commission. And the CDU and CSU want to weaken key climate protection requirements when reforming the Building Energy Act.
DUH: “Of course” we will complain again
Unimpressed by this, the draft proposes that funding for heating replacement and building renovation be aimed more at households with low incomes.
“To now put new measures for the building sector in the window for which there is neither the political majority nor the corresponding financing commitments is irresponsible,” said the Left Party Bock. “This kind of make-a-wish policy will not help people with their current concerns about skyrocketing rent and heating costs.”
In order to meet the requirements of the Climate Protection Act, significantly more far-reaching measures are necessary, said Jürgen Resch from the DUH: a renovation offensive for schools, kindergartens and other public buildings; a speed limit that would “take effect immediately and cost nothing,” as well as a restructuring of the funding rates for heating replacement from the current percentage funding to a fixed amount.
If the final climate protection program is not significantly more ambitious than the leaked proposal, the DUH will “of course” sue again, said Resch. “It is absurd that we are even discussing which means of coercion we have to use. Who should adhere to the law if not the federal government?”