Climate, rents, phasing out coal, environmental protection: SPD, Greens and FDP want to tackle the urgent projects in a traffic light coalition. They have now presented their plans. Criticism came promptly – from various parties as well as social and environmental associations.
The SPD, the Greens and the FDP have agreed on common principles in order to negotiate for the first time at the federal level on the formation of a traffic light coalition. “A departure is possible here – supported by the three parties,” said SPD chancellor candidate Olaf Scholz on Friday in Berlin at the presentation of the exploratory results. If the responsible bodies of all parties approve the paper, the formal coalition negotiations should begin and be concluded before Christmas.
“We are convinced that we can conclude an ambitious and sustainable coalition agreement,” says the twelve-page result paper. This outlines joint projects in areas such as climate protection, digitization, social security and housing construction. The important question of the financing of these projects is still open – it should play an important role in the upcoming coalition discussions. STAR PAID Commentary traffic light
SPD Chancellor candidate Olaf Scholz described the planned Ampel coalition as “the largest industrial modernization project that Germany has probably carried out for over 100 years”. The top representatives of the traffic light parties also expressed themselves positively. “If such different parties could agree on common challenges and solutions, then there is also an opportunity to bring our country together as a whole, then there is a chance that a possible coalition will be greater than the sum of its parts,” said FDP boss Lindner .
“Little concrete, a lot of poetry”
The basic agreements of the traffic light parties for the start of coalition talks have met with criticism from other parties. Union parliamentary group leader Ralph Brinkhaus (CDU) described the result paper presented on Friday by the SPD, Greens and FDP as an “uncovered check for the future” because important financing issues had not been resolved. “Almost all spending requests are met, but nowhere is it reliably stated how all of this should be paid for.”
Brinkhaus also pointed out that each of the three parties had to move away from key campaign promises in the exploratory talks. The SPD “started with big redistribution and regulation promises such as tax increases and rent caps – there is little left of that”. Traffic light plans at a glance 14.17
CSU regional group leader Alexander Dobrindt also spoke out with criticism. The exploratory paper was “not a basis for a progress coalition, but for left-wing dreaming,” explained Dobrindt. “The traffic light is clearly red.” The criticism of left parliamentary group leader Dietmar Bartsch aimed in a different direction: “The exploratory result reads like a ‘book of noble projects’ – little concrete, a lot of poetry,” said Bartsch to the newspapers of the Funke media group. The financing questions are also “vague to open”. Above all, the left parliamentary group leader criticized the fact that a redistribution was not taking place. On the other hand, Bartsch positively highlighted the plans to introduce basic child benefits. “A child’s basic security is certainly the right step,” he said.
Particularly sharp criticism came from the AfD. The “traffic light” is “about a transformation of Germany into a laboratory for left-wing social experiments”, criticized the interior expert of the AfD parliamentary group, Gottfried Curio. He also criticized the changes in migration policy envisaged by the traffic light parties: Curio spoke of “forced immigration” which was “mostly not perceived as enrichment”.
Praise for coal exit – criticism of the traffic turnaround
The German environmental associations view the exploratory results of the SPD, Greens and FDP with mixed feelings. “Bringing the coal phase-out to 2030 and expanding renewable energies are the right approaches that must now be implemented,” said Greenpeace board member Martin Kaiser on Friday. However, he criticized the lack of clarity regarding the move away from vehicles with internal combustion engines and the abandonment of a general speed limit on motorways.
“The exploratory paper gives cause for optimism and sets the course for a climate-neutral Germany,” said the WWF board member for nature conservation, Christoph Heinrich. However, with regard to the management of the climate and biodiversity crisis, the text “sometimes still leaves too much leeway and some gaps”, he also criticized. PAID Co2 atmosphere 12.00
The German Environmental Aid (DUH) spoke of a “worrying number of question marks on climate protection”. Federal Managing Director Jürgen Resch urged “a combustion engine off 2025, a mandatory speed limit, a real change in mobility with the expansion of pedestrian, bicycle and public transport, a 365-euro ticket”. However, all of this is missing from the exploratory results. Instead, the reference to expensive synthetic fuels is going astray.
Weaknesses in rents and consumer protection
The tenants’ association found the plans for affordable building and living to be “still inadequate”. The financing of the construction of 400,000 apartments annually is still unclear. “The financial support must not just continue, as stated in the exploratory paper, but must be increased significantly from the point of view of the tenants’ association,” said President Lukas Siebenkotten. He complained that an “urgently needed rent freeze in ongoing rental contracts” was apparently not even being considered. Only the existing tenant protection regulations should be extended – but they would have turned out to be inadequate. On the other hand, the tenants’ association finds the intention to create a non-profit apartment again “very gratifying”.
The Federation of German Consumer Organizations (vzbv) criticized weaknesses in climate protection and old-age provision. During the coalition negotiations “more must come” for consumer protection, said vzbv boss Klaus Müller on Friday in Berlin. In coping with the climate crisis, the interests of consumers are not sufficiently in focus. The income from CO2 pricing would have to flow back to consumers in full, and the housing benefit would have to be increased.
The commitment to a fundamental reform of private old-age provision is correct – but the path taken is contradicting itself: A test contract for a public offer for private provision is not enough. “The attempt to save the failed Riester pension by lowering the guarantee would be wrong,” explained Müller. To this end, low-wage earners would have to be better protected through the statutory pension.