It has been a year since the Federal Constitutional Court declared parts of what was then the German Climate Protection Act to be unconstitutional. One of the first to recognize the consequences was Markus Söder. The Prime Minister and CSU boss, who likes to call the fight against the climate crisis the political mega-topic par excellence and acts as the top climate protector, spoke of a “powerful but correct” decision. At the same time, he announced the revision of the Bavarian climate protection law, which was only five months old and not very ambitious.
Söder’s central promise: Bavaria will reduce CO₂ emissions by 65 percent by 2030, and the Free State will be climate-neutral by 2040, five years faster than the federal government. Everyone expected that Söder would now make the Free State Germany’s climate policy pacesetter and deliver quickly.
Not even close. The new Bavarian climate protection law only exists as a draft. And it’s almost half a year old again. After all, Environment Minister Thorsten Faithr (FW) has now declared on the anniversary of the Karlsruhe decision that he wants to bring the new climate protection law into the state parliament “in the next six weeks”. But even then it will not be possible to decide. The parliamentary procedure – among other things, a number of committees have to deal with the law – takes time. Observers expect that it will be autumn before Söder’s new climate protection law can be passed. That would be one and a half years after the Karlsruhe decision. The federal government only needed four months for its new climate protection law.
Architects miss binding specifications
The reason for the long delay is probably that the draft law is ambitious in terms of reducing CO₂ emissions and climate neutrality, but does not provide the tools for their implementation. At least that’s what a whole series of specialist departments and associations of the state government accuse in their statements on the new law, which is currently being processed in Glauber’s ministry.
This does not only apply to well-known organizations such as the Bund Naturschutz, which has always been very critical of Söder’s climate protection ambitions. But even for the Bavarian chemical associations, which are not suspected of being radical climate protectors. They accuse the state government of leaving open in its new law where the 320 billion kilowatt hours of energy for Bavaria per year after 2040, which have so far been provided by fossil fuels and nuclear power, are to come from.
The Bavarian Chamber of Architects also goes to court with the state government in a very fundamental manner. As in the current climate protection law, it is not binding in the new one. One example is climate protection in local authorities. The draft says vaguely: “The Free State of Bavaria supports the local authorities with funding programs in achieving the reduction targets.” This means that the Free State still does not want to give the municipalities any specifications in which periods and to what extent they have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The reason is that he would then have to finance municipal climate protection. Funding programs, on the other hand, are voluntary; the Free State can collect them from one financial period to the next.
Improvements are not enough
Environment Minister Glauber obviously wants to take the criticism seriously. On the anniversary of the Karlsruhe decision, he made his decision, above all, on the expansion of renewable energies. “A climate protection law without a substantial expansion of wind power will not work,” he says, and is relieved that the CSU advocated relaxing the controversial 10H distance rule on Wednesday. However, the 800 wind turbines that, according to Söder, are now possible in Bavaria are apparently not enough for Glauber. At least one can interpret his reference to an area setting of the State Office for the Environment that shows the possibility for 1700 to 2000 new plants.
For the Green MP and energy expert Martin Stümpfig, such possible improvements are not enough. “Of course, a climate protection law cannot get bogged down in details,” he says. “But it must provide a clear roadmap to climate neutrality. This applies equally to the energy transition, the transport transition and the heating transition.” Stümpfig calls it “dramatic that the state government can’t do it even at the second attempt”.