Revealing the Hidden Subsidies: Climate-Harming Funds Harming Our Future
Research: Government proposes to earmark up to 15 billion in subsidies potentially harmful to the climate. - Research Finds Potential for Significant Financing of Pollution-Inducing Incentives by Government, Totaling Approximately €15 Billion
Let's dive into the shocking revelation of the upcoming climate-damaging subsidies—worth a staggering €15 billion—according to a recent study. The study hints that these subsidies could be just as substantial as additional funds for the Climate and Transformation Fund (KTF) from the federal asset, which is supposed to help Germany reach its climate neutrality goal by 2045.
Swantje Fiedler, a FÖS scientist and co-author of the study, shed some light on the issue. She pointed out that the coalition agreement between the Union and the SPD contains measures that not only maintain but even bolster existing climate-damaging subsidies. The primary recipients of these new subsidies and incentives are the energy sector, raking in €5.9 to €9.8 billion, and the transport sector, estimated to receive around €1.9 billion.
Specific examples from the transport sector include an increase in the commuter allowance totaling €1.4 billion and a decrease in the air traffic tax to €0.6 billion. For the energy sector, the plan is to continue the use of fossil fuels in the general reduction of electricity prices, amounting to €4.0 to €4.4 billion, and the promotion of new fossil gas power plants, totalling €1.9 to €5.4 billion.
Moreover, subsidies for a lower industrial electricity price, cheaper agricultural diesel for agricultural operations, and compensations for industry due to the new EU emissions trading for transport and buildings are also on the table.
The study further mentions that there are also questionable measures with uncertain effects and costs. For instance, while additional capacities for gas power plants might be needed, the planned extent is not advisable, and a binding path towards a switch to climate-friendly gases such as hydrogen is essential.
Critics, like Stefanie Langkamp, the head of politics of the climate alliance, warn that the special asset meant to enhance investments in climate protection instead risks being undone by new climate-damaging subsidies like the increase in the commuter allowance or the promotion of additional gas power plants. Langkamp is particularly concerned that the Union and SPD want to reduce core climate protection programs while simultaneously expanding the promotion of fossil structures.
Similarly, Anja Gebel from Germanwatch criticizes the proposed subsidies, stating that they endanger the modernization of the German economy to a climate-neutral and crisis-resistant one. With growing risks from the climate crisis and the scarcity of public funds, it's irresponsible to continue promoting fossil business models, according to Gebel. Instead, incentives should focus on promoting climate-friendly transformation and future-proof business models.
The specific climate-damaging subsidies detailed in the coalition agreement remain unclear. However, the agreement suggests a broader approach to re-evaluate existing subsidies to ensure they support climate goals. The use of foreign carbon credits could play a role in achieving climate targets, but they are limited to no more than three percentage points of the 2040 reduction target.
- Despite the substantial funds allocated for the Climate and Transformation Fund (KTF) to promote Germany's climate neutrality goal, a recent study reveals that climate-harming subsidies, worth €15 billion, continue to persist, particularly in the energy and transport sectors.
- In the transport sector, questionable measures such as increasing the commuter allowance and decreasing the air traffic tax pose a risk to Germany's climate goals, according to critics like Stefanie Langkamp, the head of politics of the climate alliance.
- Anja Gebel from Germanwatch emphasizes the need to promote climate-friendly transformation and future-proof business models, arguing that it's irresponsible to continue subsidizing fossil business models in the face of growing climate crisis risks and limited public funds.
