Many people want effective climate protection. But the truth is that people want prices not to rise even more. Anyone who believes that the transformation required to defossilize our economy can take place without any effort or costs is lying to themselves. The costs necessary for the transformation will of course be passed on by the industry to the products and to us end consumers. The conflict of interests between climate protection and selfish particular interests is pre-programmed, because the willingness to accept measures that make sense for the common good often ends when this thwarts one's own interests. The willingness to engage in pro-social behavior is usually limited to one's own family or immediate social group.
Furthermore, regulatory bans and constraints hardly find social acceptance or a political majority. Although very few people question the climate target, many question the way to achieve it. A government that seriously attempts to implement climate protection measures is therefore automatically committing political suicide. Because as soon as the personal comfort zone of citizens or their wallets are affected, the willingness to take action dwindles significantly. And once the protests within the population (or from the opposition) are big enough, laws that have been passed are withdrawn or watered down to the point of meaninglessness. A vicious circle between the desire to limit global warming to a habitable level, the diffusion of responsibility and selfish conflicts of interest.
Squaring the circle seems easier to accomplish
This article aims to show how hopeless the systemic intertwining of politics and business is and how great the general contradiction is between the particular interests of citizens and the need for swift action to protect the climate. This is not intended as a criticism of political actors, because this is simply in the DNA of our democratic system. Robert Habeck (German Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection) has a task to solve that is on a par with squaring the circle. Because in the current system, the political options for action with regard to the task of "reducing emissions to meet the climate target" are similarly hopeless within Germany and at European level.
No matter what the government tries to implement, it always steps on someone's toes, or someone's sinecure is always affected. There is a lack of great honesty - that nobody has a plan to get us out of this dilemma.
In the end, money always wins
Robert Habeck put it unusually bluntly in a recent interview with Caren Miosga (she discusses the topic of the week on German television with personalities from politics, business, culture and society):
The economic situation in Germany is tight. Moreover, the tax burden for many companies is higher than in international comparison. We have a weak investment situation, so it would actually help to reduce taxes so that more investment is made again. This is why the Growth Opportunities Act came into force on March 1. It is intended to take us further along the path to a climate-neutral economy and strengthen Germany's competitiveness as a business location. Overall, the Growth Opportunities Act has the potential to reduce the annual burden on the economy by around 8 billion euros by 2028. However, reducing the overall burden on companies sufficiently would cost 30 billion euros a year. We are now "only" discussing 8 billion and already have problems with that. Habeck explained: "We are not only under economic pressure, we are also under democratic pressure. The large demonstrations, for example, show this. Nevertheless, democratic parties often do not talk to each other constructively - for party tactical reasons."
But where is all the money supposed to come from? Habeck wants to create a new "special fund", whereas Lindner wants to make savings and comply with the debt brake. But saving means cutting back - taking something away from someone/somewhere. At the moment, it has mainly been agricultural diesel - with a savings potential of around 450 million, a fraction of what is needed (450 million vs. 30 billion). "It is questionable whether democratic politics can withstand this" - says Habeck.
The party conference is more important than the country
One wants to chain himself to the debt brake, the other wants to loosen it. One wants to run up debts, the other wants to save. Where is there to be a compromise? It would certainly be very easy for some members of parliament to say: we'll raise taxes. But it is impossible to find a majority for this - even within the coalition. It would be very easy for another part of parliament to say: we are cutting pensions. But it is also impossible to find a majority for this. One section might say: cut this or that benefit. Another part will say: make flying more expensive. It is impossible to find majorities sufficient for the required volume. All sorts of things are mutually exclusive. "But then it is the case that we cannot achieve what is actually necessary to maintain the competitiveness of our economy. You can only find that if you believe that the party conference is more important than the country, and that is not satisfactory," said Habeck. We can't stop there. The difficulty is to manage this democratically. We have to question all the rules - including regulations on emissions. We talk about how the country can survive in a highly competitive situation, but money always wins in the end.
Too little and too late
We are living in extremely challenging times. The government is trying to find solutions under great time pressure and yet is failing to find them - in the interests of climate protection. Politicians must also act in such a way that the competitiveness of industry is not jeopardized - especially in an international context.
Take steel companies, for example: The current economic policy is not competitive compared to other countries because energy prices in Germany are far too high. In the transition phase to green energy, we have an electricity price that is not competitive internationally. Electricity and gas are more expensive than in other countries - partly because we pay a CO2 levy that doesn't even exist in other European countries. And there isn't even enough green electricity, which means we pay a levy for a switch that we can't make.
We need clear guidelines, less regulation and more planning security.
"It would be nice if we could at least see the light at the end
of the tunnel of the climate crisis, but at the moment
we can't even see the tunnel."
The systemic problem can only be solved by changing the system
Politicians find themselves in a vicious circle from which they cannot - cannot - find their way out. There are good reasons for everything the government does - but what is missing is a sustainable systemic solution to fulfill its important social mission of "climate protection".
If any climate policy method has a chance of gaining majority support, then it must not only be able to achieve the required emissions reduction quickly and effectively, it must also function in an extraordinarily fair manner. For example, by turning the current operating principle of climate policy on its head and shifting emissions trading completely to the citizen level:
An approach that provides every single citizen with exactly the same CO2 budget to pay for their individual CO2 consumption. An ecological basic income that is the same for everyone by means of a complementary climate currency ECO (Earth Carbon Obligation) thus sets the necessary ecological guard rails within which everyone can move freely and decide for themselves how they integrate climate protection into their lives - and not whether!
Such a concept does not require any additional regulatory increases, as is the case with the EU ETS or the CO2 tax, for example. Such measures, which rely predominantly on additional taxation, are rightly perceived as unfair, as they place a disproportionate burden on lower-income households.
In order to improve the competitiveness of our industry, the additional price increase must also be eliminated. The aim must also be to keep energy-intensive companies in the country and prevent carbon leakage. The transformation drive towards defossilization should be based on contingent personal emissions budgets.
The market-based approach of the ECO climate currency means that the most suitable methods and most efficient technologies that achieve the greatest reduction in emissions with the least financial outlay are automatically applied. It solves the urgent problem of linking national interests with global necessities - without the need to implement often unpopular political measures and monitor compliance with them.
The non-profit organization for sustainable economics SaveClimate.Earth describes how such a model could initially be introduced at EU level in its "Exit Strategy Climate Currency ECO".
This page was translated with the help of DeepL