Goodbye combustion engines, goodbye gas heating: the climate is to be saved with bans. At the same time, the state subsidizes heat pumps and electric cars. But how useful is this strategy?
The Federal Ministry of Economics has also been responsible for the climate since the beginning of the legislature; it is now officially called the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection (BMWK). At first, that triggered something like enthusiasm in me, because it seemed possible to combine the topics of climate friendliness and economic efficiency.
To put it another way: there was hope that German climate policy would now lose its ideological blinders and become a successful model because it would be pursued with a sense of proportion and economic policy expertise. Market-based climate protection seemed within reach.
Unfortunately, this thought has remained a mere wish. Instead of making climate protection a business model and stimulating investments in a wide range of technologies to replace the use of fossil fuels for heat and electricity generation and for mobility, the federal government, driven by the BMWK, is committed to very few technologies and wants to ban everything else. According to his ideas, combustion engines should no longer be sold and gas heating should no longer be installed. Heat pumps and electromobility are apparently the only permissible technologies.
All in all, the green part of the federal government, like the European Commission, relies on electrification and seems to demonize all other technologies.
Unfortunately, two things are blatantly confused here, namely a goal and the way to get there. One gets the impression that the goal for those involved in the BMWK is electrification. The (sole) goal must be climate neutrality. Every means of achieving this important goal must be tried, nothing must be ruled out from the outset. No minister should want to dictate how to reach the goal, because he knows no more than the assembled engineers. Here someone is assuming knowledge that he (or she, because the Minister for the Environment is also involved) does not have. This peculiar narrowing of perspectives has significant negative consequences – namely for prosperity and the climate!
- Bans create negative incentives and send the wrong signals. Anyone who relies on it signals that climate protection is only possible with sacrifice and strict conditions; people have to suffer. This will not be politically sustainable. Refraining from fully using the creativity and entrepreneurial spirit of the population for climate protection is likely to make climate protection more expensive and also endanger the international competitiveness of the German and European economy. Very intensive research on synthetic fuels is already being carried out worldwide. If internal combustion engines are banned in this country, there will be fewer and fewer incentives for German automotive suppliers and research institutes to take part in this research.
- If, starting next year, the failure of a gas boiler means high costs for owners of old buildings, for example, who not only have to buy a heat pump and replace the entire heating system, but also have to buy a lot more, very expensive electricity than before to operate the pump, they will either become poor, or they do everything they can to keep their old systems alive. This then damages the climate, especially since new solutions are more difficult to obtain in view of the de facto research ban on other technologies (see above).
- Since neither heat pumps and accessories nor charging stations for millions of electric vehicles are sufficiently available, excessive prices for these technologies must be expected. After all, these ensure that there is a corresponding supply in the long term, but also mean an enormous redistribution from tenants and homeowners to the manufacturers. Not all of this can be offset by social policy measures.
- In addition, if these particularly invasive interventions such as bans and prescribed technologies lead to or contribute to economic losses in Germany, this will presumably reduce the willingness in other parts of the world to pursue climate policy. Climate policy that makes poor is not a role model.
- The ministry’s response to such problems, which are already evident, has so far been high subsidies for heat pumps and associated heating systems, which in turn increases the tax burden and threatens the competitiveness of other industries. In addition, announcements of subsidies ensure deadweight effects and waiting, so that climate protection is further slowed down.
One recognizes that a superficially plausible measure (ban on “dirty slingers and climate killers”) creates a series of unintended problems that only those who do not approach the problem of climate change rationally will accept. With this stubbornness, the federal government is also endangering the domestic climate target, because it is clear that no climate policy is possible against large parts of the population – unless democracy is abolished with prosperity at the same time. There is no need to accuse the federal government of having thoughts in this direction.
However, this kind of patronizing, ineffective and at the same time much too expensive climate policy does not protect the social climate. Against this background, one can only appeal to the government to take the broad findings from technical and social science climate research into account in politics. Bans harm the climate!
A notice: The post appeared on March 10, 2023 in the online edition of Wirtschaftswoche.
Blog posts in the “Ordnungspolitiker Unfug” series
Norbert Berthold: Energy price crisis, excess profits and aid packages. “New” (debt-financed) distribution policy with the watering can?
Norbert Berthold: “Junk prices”, inflation and market economy. Minimum prices and price controls do not solve the problem, they only cover up
Norbert Berthold: Demography, stop lines and federal grants. It’s time to end the camouflage
Norbert Berthold: The long shadow of the old. Demography, inter-generational distribution conflicts and catch-up factor
Norbert Berthold: Better or cheaper. Minimum wages in times of Corona
Norbert Berthold: Minimum prices for groceries. Robert Habeck errs (also) in agricultural policy
Norbert Berthold: When the donkey gets too comfortable. Minimum wages with subsidies
Norbert Berthold: Peterchens (industrial policy) moon journey. You become competitive in competition
Norbert Berthold: Germany will suffer. Current account balances and structural change
Norbert Berthold: Rent control and “social housing”. Mistakes in housing policy
Norbert Berthold: Even more tax money for the pension. Has the SPD finally given up?
