Government Decisions: Social-Liberal Core with Green (Fig) Leaves

The Greens certainly have their work cut out for them, having swallowed more than they could handle in the latest absurdly long coalition committee meeting. Not to mention that the largely ignored biodiversity crisis by the government, and particularly its social-liberal part, leaves hardly any toads in nature. But leaving bitter irony aside: In view of the content, much of which was already known from the coalition agreement, one wonders if large parts of the government, increasingly morphing into a social-liberal coalition with a green appendage, really understand the seriousness of the situation.

Environmentalists complain that not only are court rulings from the highest level ignored, but also scientific facts. And energy expert Claudia Kemfert from the German Institute for Economic Research told the SZ that there is nothing left of "Climate Chancellor Scholz" and that the "blocking party FDP" has prevailed. However, economists like the economic wise woman Monika Schnitzer see the decisions as "pragmatic and sensible solutions." And for fellow economic wise woman Veronika Grimm, it has been shown that the coalition is capable of acting. That is an important signal.

However, an important signal would have been: speed limits of 130 and 30 km/h, reduction of fossil car subsidies like diesel and company car privileges or the commuter allowance, essential for a faster ramp-up of e-mobility, as well as city or car tolls. All this is painfully missing from the paper, highlighting what is not included.

Ultimately, there was a lack of honesty to explain that a lot needs to change so that not everything changes. Instead, people are being lulled in Scholz's manner, proclaiming that no one should be overwhelmed and that everyone should be taken along, leaving no one behind. Only Green Robert Habeck speaks frankly: "We must not fool ourselves into thinking that change generally means imposition. Power relations need to be re-adjusted," he noted at a subsequent meeting in the World Hall of the Foreign Office.

Again and again: "Technology-neutral"

Instead, "adequate transition periods" for the installation of new oil and gas heating systems should be created, a "technology-neutral approach" pursued, as if the climate crisis had sprung out of nowhere, and as if we hadn't already had "adequate transition periods." Economists also approve here: This way, the sentiment doesn't turn against climate protection, commented Veronika Grimm. It succeeded in eliminating the "negative aspects." The "technology neutrality" in transport, however, is viewed negatively. "The E-Fuel debate is a pseudo-debate," Grimm said. These fuels from hydrogen are too expensive, and combustion engines would be phased out anyway, believes the economist. DIW expert Kemfert points out: "Even the auto industry wants climate-friendly regulatory policies." In other words, a combustion engine ban creates planning security.

Where everyone agrees: Increase the truck toll!

In the transport sector, they go where the least resistance is expected and increase the truck toll: From 2024, a CO2 surcharge of 200 euros per ton will apply, and the truck toll will start from 3.5 tons. Not mentioning that this is nothing more than a tax increase through the back door, as the surcharges will eventually be passed on to consumers. It's also unclear how the chronically low-margin transport industry is supposed to switch to emission-free trucks immediately, which would then only be exempt from tolls until 2025 and would then pay 25 percent of the regular rate.

Given the doubling of the truck toll starting in 2024, the industry association BGL speaks of "political harakiri" without market-available alternatives to diesel trucks and without charging infrastructure. At least, there's approval from the field of economic science, and economic wise woman Grimm praises the plan to divert funds from road to rail. However, it might have been noted that this could also have been accomplished with a car toll, which the coalition doesn't dare to touch.

Further decisions in the transportation sector:

• The necessary expansion of truck charging or H2 refueling infrastructure will at least be supported, as will the acquisition of electric trucks.
• Expand the car charging infrastructure, as already decided for buildings (GEIG), but also include a requirement for gas station operators to "set up at least one fast-charging point per gas station within five years." Exception: operators of small gas stations.
• Proactive expansion of distribution networks
• Unlock additional potential for expanding charging stations: The BMWK and BMDV plan to examine how additional potential in approval and grid connection procedures for
  charging stations can be unlocked (including calibration law, digital application procedures) and grid connection costs reduced.
• Synthetic fuels (a nearly one-sided and disproportionately significant chapter). So-called E-Fuels should be used more, production and use are to be "encouraged in the short term," it says, referring to the compromise between the federal government and the EU to allow vehicles with internal combustion engines to continue to be registered after 2035, provided they run exclusively on E-Fuel.
• In fuel taxation, there will be a stronger differentiation based on environmental and climate impact
• Road traffic law should also consider climate and environmental protection goals, and the expansion of the fiber-optic and mobile network should facilitate home office and reduce commuting.
• Public fleets should only acquire emission-free vehicles from 2030, such as public transport buses
• Car sharing: CO2-neutral vehicles required for the approval of car sharing fleets starting in 2026.
• Clear labeling for car purchases: the energy consumption labeling for cars ("climate label") will be reformed to better show the burden over the life cycle of the car through CO2 pricing and vehicle tax.
• Public transport, especially in rural areas, is to be expanded, as well as bike paths and alternative drives for rail vehicles promoted.
• Renewable energies and electrification for air and sea transport will be supported, such as shore power for ships and planes

However, the contradiction remains unresolved on how to finance the expansion and new construction of a whopping 144 highway projects over nearly 1,000 kilometers (dubbed "horror news" by the DUH), which are now to be of "outstanding public interest," when 80 percent of toll revenue is supposed to go towards the expansion of the dilapidated rail network, 45 billion euros by 2027, including for digitization in passenger and freight networks. The Greens' small lifeline: Projects will only be realized if the federal states want them too.

Photovoltaics as a fig leaf next to the (new) highway

That the new construction routes will be flanked by photovoltaic systems is probably no more than the "green fig leaf" on projects that, for example, would probably have no chance in Austria after the strictly scientific climate check was introduced there in the transport sector. Where exactly the coalition intends to take the claimed offset areas for infrastructure projects is a mystery. Germany is already a highly sealed land today, and locally, creating offset areas often proves to be a token gesture. Compensation for road construction is to be enabled through monetary payments, which will then be used to buy larger and contiguous areas. But where, is the question. Environmentalists at least praise this principle, to create larger and higher-quality natural area networks. Ideally, a "cross-regional biotope network" would emerge. If 30 percent of areas could be placed under "effective protection," said Greenpeace chief Martin Kaiser, nature conservation would be placed on a "whole new footing." However.

The principle of prioritization is also interpreted confusingly: For now, contrary to the coalition agreement, the pace is to be increased for both rail AND road infrastructure projects. The danger is: those who prioritize everything end up realizing nothing. Accelerating both the railway bonus and the highway simultaneously is anything but a traffic transition, Kemfert criticizes. Photovoltaic systems next to new highways won't help either. "A lettuce leaf in a burger is not a dietary change," she told the SZ succinctly. Road construction offices are already complaining about project backlogs, and construction workers are almost a rarity. Implementing these decisions practically will still be challenging.

The biggest point of criticism from environmentalists: The coalition is loosening the climate protection rules left by the previous government and allowing for multi-year accounting and compensation through other sectors when exceeding in one sector. This means "cross-sectoral and multi-year total accounting." Greenpeace calls this a "hollowing out" of the Climate Protection Act and speaks of a partial rollback by the "traffic light marathon." Claudia Kemfert considers the "softening of sector targets problematic because it releases the transport sector from responsibility."

"The necessary traffic transition will not be achieved this way. Even the climate targets will not be achieved," she criticizes.

Industries or the energy sector will not be pleased if they are held accountable for the continued "failure of climate protection" in transport. The transport minister, whose tenure was almost endangered, rejoices promptly: "We ensure that sectors can help each other" and "shackles have been loosened."

Wissing cannot rest

Although approval comes from economist Grimm here: Inter-sectoral flexibility is a good thing, provided emission reduction targets are met. However, she cautions that flexibility should not lead to the emissions trading for transport and heating starting later than 2026. Earlier would even be better, Grimm thinks, and demands a clear signal from the government. Wissing should not feel too secure either, as he has lagged behind targets for two years already. If this continues, suspects economist Jens Südekum from the University of Düsseldorf: "By then, he will probably have to agree to a speed limit."

At least the coalition mentions a previously overlooked point: Energy must be used much more efficiently in the future to reduce consumption and increase independence from fossil imports. For this, the government plans to create an "Energy Efficiency Act," although its outline remains very vague.

And unlike with environmentalists, the paper generally fares better among economists: It contains "sensible measures that at times come across as unspectacular, technocratic, almost boring, but are all the more important for effective climate protection" and does not put "large sums in the shop window," no "debt-financed large package," says VWL professor Südekum from the University of Düsseldorf to the Spiegel. Perhaps no major "climate bang," but a template that doesn't take the easy way out and invokes the "painful structural reform," a compromise in many ways.

The universal formula not found

In the end, what remains is the impression of a fairly long and complicated "everything and nothing" paper that offers something for everyone and leaves plenty of room for cherry-picking. It is definitely not the "climate bang." Rather a mirror of society, in which 85 percent of the parties represented in parliament, as the Greens never tire of emphasizing, at best want moderate or far-right climate protection because in their view the climate crisis does not even exist. One may doubt that this paper will satisfy the coalition conflict, and the Greens promptly demand revisions and clarifications the next day.

The coalition increasingly mutates into a social-liberal government with the Greens as an appendage once climate protection gets serious.

"2 to 1" was often the situation in the talks. Whether this won't lead to much greater "overloads" in the long term is the big question. But that's something future governments and generations will have to grapple with. Longer than 49 hours of committee meetings. "We haven't found the universal formula yet," said SPD General Secretary Kevin Kühnert. But a clear political framework within which one can operate. Let's hope for the best. Because hope dies last.