Reform of the Climate Protection Act: Kemfert sees climate targets by 2030 in danger

The Bundestag has passed the reform of the Climate Protection Act. The opposition sees the change as a softening. The economist Kemfert also speaks in an interview with the daily topics Criticism.

Ingo Zamperoni: The biggest point in the reform of the Climate Protection Act is the abolition of enforceable sector targets. Doesn’t the traffic light make a point when it says that the climate doesn’t care where CO2 emissions are saved, as long as they are saved?

Claudia Kemfert: Yes, that’s basically the case. In fact, it doesn’t matter where they are saved. But what is important is that they are saved. And that is the big danger behind it: if you no longer have the sector targets, there are no longer any direct responsibilities of the ministries and you run the risk of not achieving the emissions reduction targets by 2030. Because now there is no such thing as an automatism and there is no longer an immediate program where the ministries actually have to make adjustments.

Zamperoni: But who will step in? Who takes responsibility then? Who says we’re not on track here and you now have to save the following quotas? Who does this – the Chancellor?

Kemfert: Yes, actually it is the federal government as a whole. The Chancellor, of course, but also all the ministries together. But it’s important to see: Who can actually overcompensate if, for example, the Ministry of Transport doesn’t deliver? And that’s what it looks like at the moment. Then other sectors would actually have to do more, especially the energy sector of industry, which is already doing a lot. Renewable energies are being expanded and the share of coal is decreasing. But of course that’s not enough to completely overcompensate for all of this. And then you run the risk, if the individual sectors don’t deliver, that you won’t end up where you want to be.

Zamperoni: Does that mean you think it can’t work? Which sectors would be able to step in if there is still enough buffer? Where is it not so bad that the transport sector, which has hardly changed since the beginning of the 90s, is failing to achieve its goals?

Kemfert: Exactly, if it continues to tear, it won’t open properly. And then you will actually not be able to achieve the climate goals by 2030 if you don’t find a mechanism to correct them. Now we want to look ahead with these projection reports and the Expert Council also looks at it every two years to make sure that we also make adjustments and we also have to fulfill corresponding obligations at the European level. But in fact, if we no longer have this automatism or this mechanism in place, then there is a great risk that it will not be achieved.

Valuable instrument given away

Zamperoni: So you’re rather pessimistic about the calculations there?

Kemfert: I am very pessimistic and criticize it very, very clearly. Because there is a very high risk that we will not achieve it and that with this valuable sector mechanism that we had in the past we are giving away a very valuable instrument and so run the risk of not achieving the climate goals.

Zamperoni: Of course, it is an important aspect that we are actually doing quite well at the moment and are on track, so to speak. But we still come out of a pandemic with after-effects. And we have an economy that is relatively in shambles. That should change, it should pick up speed again, then it will be even more difficult?

Kemfert: It will be even more difficult. And to a certain extent, the federal government is counting on the climate targets, because there are projection reports that say we will achieve them. But 80 percent of this target achievement is exactly what you describe: the economy is not going well, or it is assumed that it will not grow again so quickly and electricity consumption is not that high and only then can the climate goals be achieved. But we have to have climate protection measures and it’s not enough that we just expand renewable energies and don’t do enough in the transport sector.

There is a risk of possible fines from the EU

Zamperoni: What role does the fact that the EU still has sector goals play? If the federal government now lifts the obligation, then there will be a risk of fines – will the government then simply accept them?

Kemfert: Yes, obviously. If we don’t achieve the goals, we actually accept the penalties. But that can be really expensive. We don’t know how much, but we have to see who is still selling us certificates in Europe? And the price can be very high. And if we don’t achieve the sector goals, especially buildings and transport, then you have to buy additional certificates and that can be very, very expensive.

Zamperoni: But could this at least be a lever in a certain way to exert even more pressure here?

Kemfert: Yes, definitely. This is also a lever to exert more pressure. But of course it is always ex post, so you react first. But actually we need measures now. This is an immediate program that has now been given away, where we say: Please, Ministry of Transport, you have to do this and this and this. There are so many instruments to help us meet the climate goals – speed limits, company car privileges, all of which can be given up, even in a very short space of time. Then we would be able to achieve a large part of the emissions that we need to achieve in the transport sector.

Zamperoni: There is also a timing aspect to the law: only when it becomes apparent in two consecutive years that the federal government is not on track does it have to make adjustments overall. Isn’t that far too generous a time window?

Kemfert: Yes, it’s too generous. And it’s basically the case that a federal government that is starting over now has to write into the specifications what should actually happen. Then you check again every two years, but you can no longer correct as much. And in the end you end up exactly where I fear we won’t be able to achieve the climate goals.

Zamperoni: You have a lot of criticism of this reform. But are there also aspects where you say: Well, these are at least positive steps, something has improved there?

Kemfert: Yes, in principle it is always good that we have a climate protection law and that we also have corresponding obligations to show the world that we are still doing climate protection. But overall, I currently see this amendment as a step backwards. Although you can say, as the federal government does, the amount of emissions is capped – you won’t be able to go further than that. But there is a great danger that we will not be able to achieve it.

Zamperoni: Ms. Kemfert, thank you for your visit and your assessments.