Associations and NGOs: How Merz can become climate chancellor + IPCC: Science is being thwarted + Bundestag: Where are the climate politicians?

Dear reader,

We are still recovering with difficulty from an election night that got on our nerves. However, it soon became clear that the big issue of the climate crisis hardly played a role in these elections. So today we’re letting the climate scene have its say with its “do’s” and “don’ts”: From the Climate Union and BDI to Fridays for Future, we list the climate demands of the committed and informed to future Chancellor Friedrich Merz. We also provide a list of the climate experts from the potential government parties who have made it into the new Bundestag. And we present an exclusive graphic that shows a worrying trend: That in Germany, too, climate action has now become a task for the left-wing political spectrum – and conservatives want little to do with it.

There are also concerns to report from Hangzhou in China. The IPCC is meeting there and must now finally agree on a timetable for the 7th Assessment Report in 2028/29. A long time away, you might think, but if this is delayed, as some countries want, it could set back possible measures in international climate action – and further damage the role of science in this process.

A word on our own behalf: This 225th issue of Climate.Table marks the end of the tradition of regular editorials. From the next issue, we will be switching to a different layout with a better overview and direct access to the texts. You will then be able to go directly to our news and analyses, without any preliminary remarks. We are looking forward to this step and will of course continue to be there for you – just no longer with introductory words, but in the work on the texts. Please continue to contact us with questions, suggestions and tips!

And even without our traditional “edi” and with a new government: We’ll stay tuned for you!

Your
Bernhard Pötter

The new government’s climate policy: What associations and think tanks are calling for

Friedrich Merz has not yet attracted attention as a climate politician. However, his government must set an important course if Germany is to achieve its climate targets.

By

Redaktion

The next German government faces major challenges in climate action. The coming years will show whether Germany is on track to achieve its ambitious plans for 2030, including a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 65% compared to 1990 and the expansion of renewable energies to 80% of gross electricity consumption.

The next five years are also crucial internationally. According to the IPCC, global emissions must be reduced by around half by 2030 if we are to have any chance of stopping global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100. As the leading economic nation in Europe, Germany must play a central role in this context.

Against the backdrop of these challenges, Table.Briefings asked key stakeholders in German climate policy about their central demands on a new German government. After concentrating on the political parties during the election campaign, the focus was now particularly on think tanks, business associations and NGOs. What are the three most important points that they believe the government must address urgently and quickly – and what mistakes should be avoided at all costs? Here is the overview:

Germanwatch

What should the next government implement as quickly as possible?

Introduction of ETS2 with clear regulatory guidelines, targeted support programs and investments in buildings and transport; enabling people with low and medium incomes to switch to climate-friendly alternatives, including a climate bonus.
Enable investment in a climate-neutral industry, for example through climate protection contracts, green lead markets and a competitive electricity price.
“Release the debt brake” so that the investment backlog can be cleared. Election promises such as a reduction in electricity prices can otherwise only be financed through cuts in other areas.

What should the next government avoid at all costs?

Uncertainty among companies and consumers in the name of a supposed openness to technology. Diversionary tactics such as nuclear power, e-fuels and CCS power plants lead to a reluctance to invest and ultimately to higher costs and dependencies.

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Prepare for the start of ETS 2 in 2027 and social security in the event of an expected rise in CO₂ prices, for example through a climate social plan and climate money.
Promote the introduction of socially staggered subsidies, for example for energy-efficient refurbishment and mobility.
Create greater transparency about the distributional effects of climate policy; social check for every climate policy measure.

Avoid at all costs:

Building Energy Act and planning security, as it protects households from an expensive fossil fuel lock-in with heat planning and socially staggered subsidy programs and enables them to make the transformation towards climate neutrality in heating.

Climate Neutrality Foundation

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Accept that the ETS provides for climate neutrality for industry and energy by 2039 and for transport and buildings by 2043 – and not take political action against it.
Prevent the lower income groups from being overburdened with a socially graduated climate fee.
Focus on lower incomes when renovating buildings with poor energy performance.

Avoid at all costs:

Investment uncertainty in the market, which would be caused by questioning the European climate targets.

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Make the CO₂ price and emissions trading the central climate action instrument, return all revenues to citizens and companies by reducing electricity tax and grid fees.
Dismantling of all technology-specific regulations and subsidies.
Alignment of German and European climate neutrality targets.

Avoid at all costs:

Continuation of detailed regulation and promotion, e.g. in the case of a ban on combustion engines, the EEG levy or a frequently discussed EV premium.

Climate Alliance

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

According to the Climate Protection Act, submit a climate action program no later than twelve calendar months after the start of the new legislative period that reliably meets the climate targets in all sectors every year until 2030.
End the investment backlog, particularly in transportation and buildings, especially in rail, public transport and heating planning. This is necessary: Reform of the debt brake and a special fund for climate action.
Socially just climate policy: Long-term and socially staggered funding programs for climate-neutral, affordable heating, a youth and social ticket for a maximum of EUR 29, the long overdue climate money.

Avoid at all costs:

The expensive purchase of emission certificates (“EU penalty payments“), therefore comply with EU climate action regulations.

Climate Economy Foundation

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Distribute grid expansion costs across generations, incentivize more private investment through super depreciation or premiums.
Secure public investments via a legally secure financial framework, introduce sustainability criteria for public procurement.
Take on a pioneering role in the EU with regard to climate targets, industrial policy, capital market union and energy markets.

Avoid at all costs:

Turn back the heating law: Companies and consumers need planning security.

Federation of German Industries (BDI)

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Reducing the electricity tax for the manufacturing industry to the European minimum, limiting grid fees to around three cents per kilowatt hour, better depreciation conditions and investment premiums, tax reform to reduce the overall burden on companies to a maximum of 25 percent and abolishing the solidarity surcharge, among other things.
Infrastructure offensive of EUR 315 billion for transport infrastructure, education funding and the building sector, expansion of digital infrastructure.
Binding targets for the reduction of bureaucracy and reporting obligations and more trust-based regulation.

Avoid at all costs:

Losing further time to tackle the structural reforms.

Climate Union

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

The path to a fossil-free energy supply remains in place, but all parameters such as grid expansion and offshore wind connections need to be readjusted in order to save billions.
Develop a strategy for restructuring logistics and private transportation.
Develop a realistic foreign climate policy.

Avoid at all costs:

Destabilizing emissions trading through ad-hoc interventions in the ETS and neglecting social compensation.

Strategic Perspectives

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Investment package for achieving climate targets and strengthening competitiveness to support industry: (digital) infrastructure, electricity storage and support for low-carbon production.
Holistic German industrial strategy that focuses primarily on the sectors in which US tariffs and Chinese competition are strongest: Automotive, steel, batteries, heat pumps and renewable energies.
Actionable positions for the EU, there are three landmark discussions at European level in the coming months that require a clear German position: Clean Industrial Deal, Multiannual Financial Framework and 2040 climate targets.

Avoid at all costs:

A further weakening of EU laws – unless the weakening supports households and makes clean technologies more affordable. A zigzag course only leads to uncertainty in companies and risks even less investment flowing into Germany.

Carla Reemtsma, Fridays for Future

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Expansion of renewables instead of new gas dependency, plan for gas phase-out.
Social heat and mobility guarantee: Expansion of local public transport in rural areas, promotion of heat pumps, urban-financed district heating expansion.
Financing disaster relief and transformation through levies on the super-rich and fossil fuel companies and credit-financed investments.

Avoid at all costs:

Presenting climate action as “anti-social“ or “uneconomical“, i.e.: return CO₂ revenues such as ETS to citizens and invest in social support.

Epico ClimateInnovation

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Reorient the electricity market towards a market economy, relieve the burden on industry and households. Not only reduce grid fees by means of subsidies, but also reform them structurally and make the expansion of renewables more market-based.
Accelerate hydrogen ramp-up through pragmatic regulation.
Introduce comprehensible social compensation to complement ETS2 and ensure acceptance.

Avoid at all costs:

A debate about postponing the climate neutrality target. It undermines investment security and acceptance and distracts from necessary reforms in the here and now.

E3G

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Implementation of the Green Deal and the further development of the Clean Industrial Deal.
Substantial increase in investments.
Clear commitment to net-zero targets in 2040 (90 percent according to the current proposal) and 2050.

Avoid at all costs:

No longer play a leading role in international climate negotiations – among other things by reducing Germany’s contributions to climate financing.

Agora Think Tank

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Rapid agreement on sufficient and reliable funding for socially balanced climate protection and a modernization offensive for the economy and infrastructure.
Present a climate protection program with the necessary measures to meet the 2030 climate targets within the first year.
Creating reliable framework conditions in the areas of: Expansion of renewable energies, grids and storage, reduction of electricity prices through relief on grid fees and electricity tax as well as the creation of green lead markets.

Avoid at all costs:

not specified

German Trade Union Confederation (DGB)

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Ensure affordable and reliable energy prices: Limit grid expansion costs through subsidies and a federal share in the transmission grids, reduce electricity tax for all consumer groups to the European minimum, expand electricity price compensation.
Massive investment offensive for the transformation: reform the debt brake, set up a transformation fund.
Socially just climate policy, linking public funds to social and economic conditions: linking ecological subsidies to clear criteria such as site preservation and adherence to collective bargaining agreements.

Avoid at all costs:

That CO₂ prices rise uncontrollably so as not to jeopardize the social acceptance of climate policy and the competitiveness of companies.

Bernhard Pötter, Nico Beckert, Alexandra Endres, Lukas Knigge

IPCC plenary session: How the climate process obstructionists are attacking science

Jim Skea, Vorsitzender des IPCC, mit Klimaministern vor der COP29. — Jim Skea, Chairman of the IPCC, with climate ministers before COP29.

By

Bernhard Pötter

The role of science in international climate policy is coming under increasing pressure. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the central liaison body between politics and science, is threatened with a loss of importance and influence. The plenary session, which will take place from Feb. 24 to 28 in Hangzhou, China, is the last chance to adopt a timetable that will enable the IPCC to continue to provide political decision-makers with relevant information in good time.

No agreement was reached at the two previous plenary sessions. The AOSIS states and the LDC countries are now pushing for an agreement, as is the “High Ambition Coalition” of progressive industrialized and developing countries. For them, the “availability of the latest science to inform the global stocktake is a fundamental element of the Paris Agreement. If it were lost, it would undermine the credibility and integrity of the agreement.”

Around this technical issue of the timeframe, conflicts of interest among the delegations and pressure from “holdout countries” are threatening the reputation of the panel. In addition, the new US administration has launched massive attacks on the work and funding of the committee. Shortly before the meeting, the Trump administration banned the US delegation from traveling to the conference and withdrew support for the office of its working group (TSU).

Packed program at the plenum

Delegations from 195 IPCC countries are meeting in Hangzhou for a five-day meeting with an extremely full program to prepare the Seventh Assessment Report (AR7). According to current plans, this is due to be published in 2028/29. The Hangzhou plenary session is to decide the following matters:

Themes and structure for the three volumes of AR7,
the templates for a method report on CO₂ removal from the atmosphere (Carbon Dioxide Removal – CDR), CCS and CCU,
as well as the schedules and budgets for this work.

The timetable for the adoption of the reports from WG I (May 2028), WG II (June 2028) and WG III (July 2028) is particularly controversial. The politically controversial report from WG III (mitigation) in particular would therefore come just a few months before COP33, which is likely to take place in India in November 2028. At this COP, the second Global Stocktake (GST) will take stock of global climate action efforts and decide on measures to fulfill the Paris Agreement. In particular, the conclusions of WG III on concrete measures to mitigate climate change (such as the expansion of renewables, phasing out fossil fuels or technical solutions such as CCS) will shape the expected tough political debates at COP33.

Explosive timetable: Too late to inform politicians?

Even if an agreement on the timetable were to be reached in Hangzhou, many experts see a danger: If there are only minor delays, the discussion of the traditionally controversial WG III results could be postponed to such an extent that they no longer influence the GST debates at COP33. This would reduce the pressure to reach tougher resolutions at COP33, for example on reducing greenhouse gas emissions or phasing out fossil fuels – something that has always been controversial between pioneering delegations and traditional holdouts.

This means that the tug-of-war over more or less ambitious climate resolutions has finally reached the IPCC panel of experts. This is where scientists and government delegations from UN member states normally agree on the basic facts of the climate crisis. The internal debates in the IPCC can be traced from the minutes of the negotiations and reports from participants. Over the last few years, they have shown an increasingly clear polarization between “pioneers” such as the EU and other Europeans, Caribbean and Latin American and some African countries, and “brakemen” such as India, China, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Kenya and Egypt – and more recently, under Trump, the USA.

What has long been apparent on the political stage of the COPs is now also reaching the IPCC to a lesser extent. And unlike at the COPs, the IPCC lacks public attention to a large extent, for example when countries that put the brakes on prevent certain scientific facts from being included in documents. When asked by Table.Briefings before the conference, IPCC Chairman Jim Skea and the Secretariat did not want to comment on these debates.

Attack on science also in the UNFCCC process

In the specific debate on the AR7 timeframe, delegations from countries such as India, China, Saudi Arabia and South Africa argue that “science should not be compromised.” A tight schedule would put developing countries at a disadvantage: They would not have enough time for scientific publications, selection of authors, additional meetings of scientists and feedback from governments. These countries always make similar arguments at the UNFCCC negotiations. In Baku, for example, they sometimes questioned the role of the IPCC in the climate process or suggested that decisions should also be based on “non-IPCC sources” – which many experts see as a fundamental attack on science.

In contrast, the “pioneers” in the IPCC are pushing for the issues to be dealt with quickly. The amount of scientific literature is growing so quickly that an assessment is becoming difficult. This makes it all the more important to take the latest warnings from the scientific community into account in the GST. A letter from 40 IPCC negotiators from developing countries from last year, for example, urges that the work be completed before the GST in order to maintain “the integrity of international climate cooperation.” The lack of inclusion of voices from developing countries could be ensured through direct aid rather than delay. If the AR7 report came too late for the GST, “important southern perspectives would be missing” and there would be a “risk that the IPCC would become irrelevant for the GST.”

IPCC reports have changed climate policy

So far, the IPCC reports have been highly relevant for central decisions of the COPs. For example:

Only the IPCC Special Report on 1.5 degrees 2018 made this temperature target the generally recognized guideline for global climate policy;
The call to “halve global emissions by 2030,” which has always been reiterated by all UN member states, is based on IPCC information and
the IPCC special reports on oceans, ice sheets and land use have made the understanding of the extensive changes to the Earth’s system in the climate crisis more concrete.

USA cuts a third of the IPCC budget

This important role of the IPCC is now coming under greater pressure, particularly from the Trump administration. In addition to the announced withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the cuts across all US authorities in the area of climate action and in international climate financing, the anti-climate protection policy has now also reached the scientific community: According to internal information, the US delegation received a “stop working” order at the end of last week. NASA chief scientist Katherine Calvin, co-chair of WG III of the AR7, therefore did not travel to the conference. The work of the Secretariat (TSU) for its WG III, whose funding of around 1.5 million US dollars has been cut, has also come to a standstill. Overall, the IPCC is missing around a third of its 2024 budget due to the withdrawal of the USA.

Climate in numbers: Polarization in climate policy is increasing

The tough and often polemical debates surrounding the energy transition and climate protection during the election campaign and in other political debates are clearly leaving their mark: The population in Germany is also increasingly divided along fundamental political lines when it comes to the question of more or less climate action. Supporters of the Greens, SPD and Left Party are clearly in favor of a more ambitious climate policy, while voters of the CDU/CSU, FDP, AfD and BSW are more critical of climate action measures.

This is the result of a survey conducted by the opinion research institute Civey on behalf of the EON Foundation. The results show that “the struggle for climate action is increasingly hardening along ideological lines,” says Stephan Muschick, Managing Director of the EON Foundation.

Last year, a study by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation also came to the conclusion that polarization is increasing when it comes to issues such as the climate. This means that developments in Germany are following the same trend as in other countries, such as the USA. There, environmental and climate action are seen less as challenges for society as a whole and more as left-wing party political projects. This increases the risk of them being caught between the fronts of politically instrumentalized “culture wars.” kul

Bundestag: Who could negotiate future climate policy

Until now, the issues of climate, energy and the environment in German politics were clearly linked to the Greens. However, as they are unlikely to be part of the new federal government, the focus is now shifting to the climate politicians from the CDU/CSU and SPD. Officially, the parties are keeping quiet about who will be responsible for which issue in possible coalition negotiations. However, as the parties’ personnel roster for this topic is not exactly lavish, it is obvious who is likely to appear in the exploratory talks and negotiations on this topic.

The CDU/CSU parliamentary group has lost a high-profile climate politician in Thomas Heilmann: The chairman of the Climate Union, who forced a postponement of the decision on the Building Energy Act with his constitutional complaint, did not run for the Bundestag again. The party deputy leader Andreas Jung, who once again won his constituency in Konstanz directly, will remain in the parliamentary group as a climate expert. Also continuing to represent the CDU in the Bundestag are:

Mark Helfrich, Deputy Chairman of the Climate Union and previously the group’s energy policy spokesperson,
Thomas Gebhart, the Union’s current chairman of the Committee on Climate and Energy,
storage expert Maria-Lena Weiss,
as well as Anja Weisgerber and Andreas Lenz for the CSU.
CDU Climate Union member Sascha van Beek was newly elected to the Bundestag.

The number of climate politicians in the SPD is also small:

Matthias Miersch, who used to be in charge of this topic, is now responsible for a much broader range of topics as Secretary General.
Nina Scheer, the parliamentary group’s current spokesperson for climate protection and energy, will continue to be represented in the Bundestag as an expert,
and Bengt Bergt, previously deputy spokesperson for these topics.
Verena Hubbertz has also recently spoken out more frequently on climate issues at deputy group chairwoman level; she is also still represented in the Bundestag.

Katrin Zschau, the previous Chair of the Climate and Energy Committee, and energy politician Robin Masarosch, who had recently attracted attention with sharp attacks on the CDU/CSU’s nuclear policy, were not re-elected.

With Svenja Schulze, the SPD has a former environment minister in the parliamentary group; however, she was most recently Minister for Economic Cooperation and is more likely to be responsible for this topic in the coalition negotiations. Her State Secretary Jochen Flasbarth is also widely recognized as a climate expert, but he has no parliamentary mandate and no power within the party. The same applies to DNR President Kai Niebert, who is well-connected in the climate and environmental scene and, as an SPD member, regularly advises his party on these issues. mkr

CBAM: EU Commission wants to postpone financial levies by one year

The levies of the European carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) are not to be introduced until February 2027 instead of early 2026 as originally planned, according to the EU Commission’s draft revision of the CBAM, which is available to Table.Briefings and will be presented on Wednesday (Feb. 26).

The test phase of the CBAM is currently underway, in which importers of products subject to CBAM must report the emissions during production but do not yet have to pay a levy. The Commission wants to reduce the bureaucratic burden on small and medium-sized companies in particular and is therefore proposing numerous changes to the CBAM.

Higher CBAM bagatelle limits

The draft provides for:

Small importers are to be exempt from CBAM levies: Companies whose imported products subject to CBAM emit less than 100 tons of CO₂ equivalent or whose total weight is less than 50 tons are to be exempt. According to the Commission, the vast majority of importers would be exempt from reporting obligations, while 99% of emissions would continue to be recorded.
Importers subject to CBAM can delegate reporting to third parties, but retain legal responsibility for submitting the documents. For example, management consultancies could be commissioned with the reporting.
The use of default values is to be expanded: If companies are unable to collect reliable information on the emissions intensity of imported products, they may use default values. These values are defined for each exporting country and for each product.
Extended consideration of CO₂ levies already paid: For a CO₂ price already paid in the country of origin, a corresponding discount is provided for in the CBAM. In the future, companies will also be able to claim CO₂ levies paid in third countries for the CBAM rebate. The Commission provides the basis for calculating this.
Adjustment in the calculation of emissions from steel and aluminum products: Some downstream goods and manufacturing processes that are not covered by European emissions trading are also to be excluded from CBAM.

CBAM extension until 2026 under review

To give companies sufficient time to implement the changes, the mandatory purchase of CBAM certificates for imports into the EU internal market is to be postponed by one year. The EU Parliament and Council still have to approve the proposals. The regular review and potential extension of the CBAM to other sectors should continue to take place as planned in 2026. luk

Great Britain: Green economy records strong growth

The green economy in the UK is growing three times faster than the rest of the economy, according to a new report from the Confederation of British Industry. The study, commissioned by the Confederation of British Industry, shows that the UK’s net-zero economy grew by ten percent last year. In the previous year, growth was still at nine percent, as reported by the Guardian. The authors of the study examined the following sectors: renewable energies, EVs, heat pumps, energy storage, green financial investments, and waste management and recycling.

In these green sectors of the economy:

Almost one million people are employed full-time;
people earn 5,600 pounds more per year than the national average and
growth is more fairly distributed geographically. According to the report, structurally weak regions would also benefit from green growth.

Louise Hellem, Chief Economist at the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), says of the results: “It is clear that there can be no growth without climate action – 2025 is the year when it really matters.” nib

COP16: World Conference on Nature to reach delayed agreement on money

After a failure last year, the World Conference on Nature is going into extra time: Four months after the failure in Colombia, representatives from almost 200 countries are meeting again in Rome on Tuesday. In November, the 16th UN Conference on Biological Diversity (COP16) was unable to reach an agreement. In particular, the financing and implementation of previous resolutions remained a point of contention until the very end.

The delegates now have until Thursday evening – three days – to make a new attempt. The meeting in the Colombian city of Cali also failed after two weeks because not enough delegates were present to pass a resolution after an extension: Many had already made their way home. Environmentalists spoke of a “disgrace.”

USA not present at the meeting

Germany is also among the participants in Rome – but the USA is one of the few UN member states that is not. Even before Donald Trump’s return to the White House as President, it was only represented in Colombia as an observer, as it did not accede to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Its members had agreed in principle in 2021 on a “global nature treaty” with goals to be achieved by 2030. For example, it was agreed that at least 30 percent of the world’s land and marine areas should be protected.

In addition, the industrialized countries involved should already be providing USD 20 billion (around EUR 19 billion) every year for the protection of biodiversity. By 2030, this figure should be USD 30 billion. However, the concrete implementation has not yet been clarified. So nothing has changed in terms of UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ call: “Your task at this COP is to turn words into action.” From the perspective of the environmental protection organization Greenpeace, however, the rifts between industrialized countries and significantly less developed countries have become deeper.

The meeting will be chaired by Colombia’s Environment Minister Susana Muhamad, who recently handed in her resignation as minister but is still in office for the time being. The “Living Planet Report 2024” by the environmental foundation WWF and the Zoological Society of London recently showed just how great the need for action is. According to the report, the populations of a total of 35,000 wild animal species worldwide have declined by an average of 73% over the past half-century. The WWF warned of another failure of the conference. dpa

CO₂ emissions: Climate damage due to Ukraine war reaches new record

According to a study, the climate damage caused by the war in Ukraine has reached new highs. In the past twelve months, CO₂ emissions have risen by 31% – a total of 230 million tons of CO₂ equivalents have been emitted in the past three years of war as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This corresponds to the annual emissions of Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia combined. This is the conclusion of the biannual study “Climate Damage Caused by Russia’s War in Ukraine” by the non-profit international research group “Initiative on GHG Accounting of War.”

For the first time in three years, combat operations accounted for the largest share of the war’s measured climate-relevant emissions at 82 million tons of CO₂ equivalents – surpassing emissions from the reconstruction of damaged buildings and infrastructure (62.2 million tons). The year 2024 was also characterized by forest fires caused by the war. Twice as much forest burned as in previous years. The total resulting emissions amounted to 48.7 million tons of CO₂ equivalents. Increased attacks on energy infrastructure, particularly oil facilities, led to a 16% increase in emissions in this category last year (19 million tons).

The authors of the study call for Russia to be held liable for these emissions and the damage caused by climate change. If the “social cost of CO₂” of USD 185 per ton of CO₂ equivalent is applied, Russia’s liability after three years of war would amount to over USD 42 billion. Not only Russia’s climate crimes, but also its environmental crimes are significant. Since February 2022, the Ukrainian civil society organization Ecoaction has documented a total of 2,026 environmental crimes. In 2024, there were a total of 450 cases. asc

Süddeutsche: Pointless certificates. Airlines use CO₂ certificates to cultivate an environmentally friendly image. However, programs such as TREES do not lead to any significant reduction – they literally do not save a single ton of CO₂. Experts also estimate that certificates from Guyana only achieve around 16 percent of the promised CO₂ savings. To the article

SPIEGEL: Fighting climate change in cruise ships. For the first time, a COP is being held on the edge of a tropical rainforest – an area of enormous importance for the Earth’s climate. The waterfront city of Belém acts as a gateway to the Amazon, one of the largest and most biodiverse rainforest areas in the world. However, the Brazilian government’s proposal to use luxury cruise ships as accommodation during the conference in order to provide as many visitors as possible with comfortable accommodation contradicts the aims of the meeting. Read the article

Climate Home News: Deforestation in Colombia is on the rise again. Despite the increase in deforestation, Colombian Environment Minister Susana Muhamad emphasized that 2024 had the second-lowest deforestation rate in the last two decades. Last year, deforestation stood at 1,070 square kilometers, having fallen from around 1,235 square kilometers in 2022 to just over 792 square kilometers in 2023. To the article

NZZ: The disadvantages of geoengineering. Artificially dimming the sun to cool the climate is a controversial project. Due to the high risks involved, this technology is only seen as a last resort in climate protection. British geographer Duncan McLaren also emphasizes that reducing emissions brings additional positive effects that solar geoengineering cannot offer – such as a reduction in deaths caused by air pollution. To the article

Deutsche Welle: Religious festival causes environmental problems. The Maha Kumbh Mela, the most important festival for Hindus in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, is one of the largest religious events in the world. Around a third of the more than 1.4 billion Indians take part in the six-week celebration on the banks of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers. However, an event of this magnitude brings with it considerable environmental problems. The massive influx of millions of pilgrims puts a strain on local water resources and ecosystems and leads to the generation of large quantities of waste, including non-biodegradable materials. Read the article

CLIMATE.TABLE EDITORIAL OFFICE

Bernhard
Pötter

Alexandra
Endres

Christiane
Kühl

Lisa
Kuner

Lukas
Knigge

Malte
Kreutzfeldt

Nico
Beckert

Dear reader,

We are still recovering with difficulty from an election night that got on our nerves. However, it soon became clear that the big issue of the climate crisis hardly played a role in these elections. So today we’re letting the climate scene have its say with its “do’s” and “don’ts”: From the Climate Union and BDI to Fridays for Future, we list the climate demands of the committed and informed to future Chancellor Friedrich Merz. We also provide a list of the climate experts from the potential government parties who have made it into the new Bundestag. And we present an exclusive graphic that shows a worrying trend: That in Germany, too, climate action has now become a task for the left-wing political spectrum – and conservatives want little to do with it.

There are also concerns to report from Hangzhou in China. The IPCC is meeting there and must now finally agree on a timetable for the 7th Assessment Report in 2028/29. A long time away, you might think, but if this is delayed, as some countries want, it could set back possible measures in international climate action – and further damage the role of science in this process.

A word on our own behalf: This 225th issue of Climate.Table marks the end of the tradition of regular editorials. From the next issue, we will be switching to a different layout with a better overview and direct access to the texts. You will then be able to go directly to our news and analyses, without any preliminary remarks. We are looking forward to this step and will of course continue to be there for you – just no longer with introductory words, but in the work on the texts. Please continue to contact us with questions, suggestions and tips!

And even without our traditional “edi” and with a new government: We’ll stay tuned for you!

Your
Bernhard Pötter

The new government’s climate policy: What associations and think tanks are calling for

By

Redaktion

The next German government faces major challenges in climate action. The coming years will show whether Germany is on track to achieve its ambitious plans for 2030, including a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 65% compared to 1990 and the expansion of renewable energies to 80% of gross electricity consumption.

The next five years are also crucial internationally. According to the IPCC, global emissions must be reduced by around half by 2030 if we are to have any chance of stopping global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100. As the leading economic nation in Europe, Germany must play a central role in this context.

Against the backdrop of these challenges, Table.Briefings asked key stakeholders in German climate policy about their central demands on a new German government. After concentrating on the political parties during the election campaign, the focus was now particularly on think tanks, business associations and NGOs. What are the three most important points that they believe the government must address urgently and quickly – and what mistakes should be avoided at all costs? Here is the overview:

Germanwatch

What should the next government implement as quickly as possible?

Introduction of ETS2 with clear regulatory guidelines, targeted support programs and investments in buildings and transport; enabling people with low and medium incomes to switch to climate-friendly alternatives, including a climate bonus.
Enable investment in a climate-neutral industry, for example through climate protection contracts, green lead markets and a competitive electricity price.
“Release the debt brake” so that the investment backlog can be cleared. Election promises such as a reduction in electricity prices can otherwise only be financed through cuts in other areas.

What should the next government avoid at all costs?

Uncertainty among companies and consumers in the name of a supposed openness to technology. Diversionary tactics such as nuclear power, e-fuels and CCS power plants lead to a reluctance to invest and ultimately to higher costs and dependencies.

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Prepare for the start of ETS 2 in 2027 and social security in the event of an expected rise in CO₂ prices, for example through a climate social plan and climate money.
Promote the introduction of socially staggered subsidies, for example for energy-efficient refurbishment and mobility.
Create greater transparency about the distributional effects of climate policy; social check for every climate policy measure.

Avoid at all costs:

Building Energy Act and planning security, as it protects households from an expensive fossil fuel lock-in with heat planning and socially staggered subsidy programs and enables them to make the transformation towards climate neutrality in heating.

Climate Neutrality Foundation

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Accept that the ETS provides for climate neutrality for industry and energy by 2039 and for transport and buildings by 2043 – and not take political action against it.
Prevent the lower income groups from being overburdened with a socially graduated climate fee.
Focus on lower incomes when renovating buildings with poor energy performance.

Avoid at all costs:

Investment uncertainty in the market, which would be caused by questioning the European climate targets.

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Make the CO₂ price and emissions trading the central climate action instrument, return all revenues to citizens and companies by reducing electricity tax and grid fees.
Dismantling of all technology-specific regulations and subsidies.
Alignment of German and European climate neutrality targets.

Avoid at all costs:

Continuation of detailed regulation and promotion, e.g. in the case of a ban on combustion engines, the EEG levy or a frequently discussed EV premium.

Climate Alliance

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

According to the Climate Protection Act, submit a climate action program no later than twelve calendar months after the start of the new legislative period that reliably meets the climate targets in all sectors every year until 2030.
End the investment backlog, particularly in transportation and buildings, especially in rail, public transport and heating planning. This is necessary: Reform of the debt brake and a special fund for climate action.
Socially just climate policy: Long-term and socially staggered funding programs for climate-neutral, affordable heating, a youth and social ticket for a maximum of EUR 29, the long overdue climate money.

Avoid at all costs:

The expensive purchase of emission certificates (“EU penalty payments“), therefore comply with EU climate action regulations.

Climate Economy Foundation

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Distribute grid expansion costs across generations, incentivize more private investment through super depreciation or premiums.
Secure public investments via a legally secure financial framework, introduce sustainability criteria for public procurement.
Take on a pioneering role in the EU with regard to climate targets, industrial policy, capital market union and energy markets.

Avoid at all costs:

Turn back the heating law: Companies and consumers need planning security.

Federation of German Industries (BDI)

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Reducing the electricity tax for the manufacturing industry to the European minimum, limiting grid fees to around three cents per kilowatt hour, better depreciation conditions and investment premiums, tax reform to reduce the overall burden on companies to a maximum of 25 percent and abolishing the solidarity surcharge, among other things.
Infrastructure offensive of EUR 315 billion for transport infrastructure, education funding and the building sector, expansion of digital infrastructure.
Binding targets for the reduction of bureaucracy and reporting obligations and more trust-based regulation.

Avoid at all costs:

Losing further time to tackle the structural reforms.

Climate Union

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

The path to a fossil-free energy supply remains in place, but all parameters such as grid expansion and offshore wind connections need to be readjusted in order to save billions.
Develop a strategy for restructuring logistics and private transportation.
Develop a realistic foreign climate policy.

Avoid at all costs:

Destabilizing emissions trading through ad-hoc interventions in the ETS and neglecting social compensation.

Strategic Perspectives

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Investment package for achieving climate targets and strengthening competitiveness to support industry: (digital) infrastructure, electricity storage and support for low-carbon production.
Holistic German industrial strategy that focuses primarily on the sectors in which US tariffs and Chinese competition are strongest: Automotive, steel, batteries, heat pumps and renewable energies.
Actionable positions for the EU, there are three landmark discussions at European level in the coming months that require a clear German position: Clean Industrial Deal, Multiannual Financial Framework and 2040 climate targets.

Avoid at all costs:

A further weakening of EU laws – unless the weakening supports households and makes clean technologies more affordable. A zigzag course only leads to uncertainty in companies and risks even less investment flowing into Germany.

Carla Reemtsma, Fridays for Future

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Expansion of renewables instead of new gas dependency, plan for gas phase-out.
Social heat and mobility guarantee: Expansion of local public transport in rural areas, promotion of heat pumps, urban-financed district heating expansion.
Financing disaster relief and transformation through levies on the super-rich and fossil fuel companies and credit-financed investments.

Avoid at all costs:

Presenting climate action as “anti-social“ or “uneconomical“, i.e.: return CO₂ revenues such as ETS to citizens and invest in social support.

Epico ClimateInnovation

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Reorient the electricity market towards a market economy, relieve the burden on industry and households. Not only reduce grid fees by means of subsidies, but also reform them structurally and make the expansion of renewables more market-based.
Accelerate hydrogen ramp-up through pragmatic regulation.
Introduce comprehensible social compensation to complement ETS2 and ensure acceptance.

Avoid at all costs:

A debate about postponing the climate neutrality target. It undermines investment security and acceptance and distracts from necessary reforms in the here and now.

E3G

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Implementation of the Green Deal and the further development of the Clean Industrial Deal.
Substantial increase in investments.
Clear commitment to net-zero targets in 2040 (90 percent according to the current proposal) and 2050.

Avoid at all costs:

No longer play a leading role in international climate negotiations – among other things by reducing Germany’s contributions to climate financing.

Agora Think Tank

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Rapid agreement on sufficient and reliable funding for socially balanced climate protection and a modernization offensive for the economy and infrastructure.
Present a climate protection program with the necessary measures to meet the 2030 climate targets within the first year.
Creating reliable framework conditions in the areas of: Expansion of renewable energies, grids and storage, reduction of electricity prices through relief on grid fees and electricity tax as well as the creation of green lead markets.

Avoid at all costs:

not specified

German Trade Union Confederation (DGB)

What should be implemented as quickly as possible?

Ensure affordable and reliable energy prices: Limit grid expansion costs through subsidies and a federal share in the transmission grids, reduce electricity tax for all consumer groups to the European minimum, expand electricity price compensation.
Massive investment offensive for the transformation: reform the debt brake, set up a transformation fund.
Socially just climate policy, linking public funds to social and economic conditions: linking ecological subsidies to clear criteria such as site preservation and adherence to collective bargaining agreements.

Avoid at all costs:

That CO₂ prices rise uncontrollably so as not to jeopardize the social acceptance of climate policy and the competitiveness of companies.

Bernhard Pötter, Nico Beckert, Alexandra Endres, Lukas Knigge

IPCC plenary session: How the climate process obstructionists are attacking science

By

Bernhard Pötter

The role of science in international climate policy is coming under increasing pressure. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the central liaison body between politics and science, is threatened with a loss of importance and influence. The plenary session, which will take place from Feb. 24 to 28 in Hangzhou, China, is the last chance to adopt a timetable that will enable the IPCC to continue to provide political decision-makers with relevant information in good time.

No agreement was reached at the two previous plenary sessions. The AOSIS states and the LDC countries are now pushing for an agreement, as is the “High Ambition Coalition” of progressive industrialized and developing countries. For them, the “availability of the latest science to inform the global stocktake is a fundamental element of the Paris Agreement. If it were lost, it would undermine the credibility and integrity of the agreement.”

Around this technical issue of the timeframe, conflicts of interest among the delegations and pressure from “holdout countries” are threatening the reputation of the panel. In addition, the new US administration has launched massive attacks on the work and funding of the committee. Shortly before the meeting, the Trump administration banned the US delegation from traveling to the conference and withdrew support for the office of its working group (TSU).

Packed program at the plenum

Delegations from 195 IPCC countries are meeting in Hangzhou for a five-day meeting with an extremely full program to prepare the Seventh Assessment Report (AR7). According to current plans, this is due to be published in 2028/29. The Hangzhou plenary session is to decide the following matters:

Themes and structure for the three volumes of AR7,
the templates for a method report on CO₂ removal from the atmosphere (Carbon Dioxide Removal – CDR), CCS and CCU,
as well as the schedules and budgets for this work.

The timetable for the adoption of the reports from WG I (May 2028), WG II (June 2028) and WG III (July 2028) is particularly controversial. The politically controversial report from WG III (mitigation) in particular would therefore come just a few months before COP33, which is likely to take place in India in November 2028. At this COP, the second Global Stocktake (GST) will take stock of global climate action efforts and decide on measures to fulfill the Paris Agreement. In particular, the conclusions of WG III on concrete measures to mitigate climate change (such as the expansion of renewables, phasing out fossil fuels or technical solutions such as CCS) will shape the expected tough political debates at COP33.

Explosive timetable: Too late to inform politicians?

Even if an agreement on the timetable were to be reached in Hangzhou, many experts see a danger: If there are only minor delays, the discussion of the traditionally controversial WG III results could be postponed to such an extent that they no longer influence the GST debates at COP33. This would reduce the pressure to reach tougher resolutions at COP33, for example on reducing greenhouse gas emissions or phasing out fossil fuels – something that has always been controversial between pioneering delegations and traditional holdouts.

This means that the tug-of-war over more or less ambitious climate resolutions has finally reached the IPCC panel of experts. This is where scientists and government delegations from UN member states normally agree on the basic facts of the climate crisis. The internal debates in the IPCC can be traced from the minutes of the negotiations and reports from participants. Over the last few years, they have shown an increasingly clear polarization between “pioneers” such as the EU and other Europeans, Caribbean and Latin American and some African countries, and “brakemen” such as India, China, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Kenya and Egypt – and more recently, under Trump, the USA.

What has long been apparent on the political stage of the COPs is now also reaching the IPCC to a lesser extent. And unlike at the COPs, the IPCC lacks public attention to a large extent, for example when countries that put the brakes on prevent certain scientific facts from being included in documents. When asked by Table.Briefings before the conference, IPCC Chairman Jim Skea and the Secretariat did not want to comment on these debates.

Attack on science also in the UNFCCC process

In the specific debate on the AR7 timeframe, delegations from countries such as India, China, Saudi Arabia and South Africa argue that “science should not be compromised.” A tight schedule would put developing countries at a disadvantage: They would not have enough time for scientific publications, selection of authors, additional meetings of scientists and feedback from governments. These countries always make similar arguments at the UNFCCC negotiations. In Baku, for example, they sometimes questioned the role of the IPCC in the climate process or suggested that decisions should also be based on “non-IPCC sources” – which many experts see as a fundamental attack on science.

In contrast, the “pioneers” in the IPCC are pushing for the issues to be dealt with quickly. The amount of scientific literature is growing so quickly that an assessment is becoming difficult. This makes it all the more important to take the latest warnings from the scientific community into account in the GST. A letter from 40 IPCC negotiators from developing countries from last year, for example, urges that the work be completed before the GST in order to maintain “the integrity of international climate cooperation.” The lack of inclusion of voices from developing countries could be ensured through direct aid rather than delay. If the AR7 report came too late for the GST, “important southern perspectives would be missing” and there would be a “risk that the IPCC would become irrelevant for the GST.”

IPCC reports have changed climate policy

So far, the IPCC reports have been highly relevant for central decisions of the COPs. For example:

Only the IPCC Special Report on 1.5 degrees 2018 made this temperature target the generally recognized guideline for global climate policy;
The call to “halve global emissions by 2030,” which has always been reiterated by all UN member states, is based on IPCC information and
the IPCC special reports on oceans, ice sheets and land use have made the understanding of the extensive changes to the Earth’s system in the climate crisis more concrete.

USA cuts a third of the IPCC budget

This important role of the IPCC is now coming under greater pressure, particularly from the Trump administration. In addition to the announced withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the cuts across all US authorities in the area of climate action and in international climate financing, the anti-climate protection policy has now also reached the scientific community: According to internal information, the US delegation received a “stop working” order at the end of last week. NASA chief scientist Katherine Calvin, co-chair of WG III of the AR7, therefore did not travel to the conference. The work of the Secretariat (TSU) for its WG III, whose funding of around 1.5 million US dollars has been cut, has also come to a standstill. Overall, the IPCC is missing around a third of its 2024 budget due to the withdrawal of the USA.

Climate in numbers: Polarization in climate policy is increasing

The tough and often polemical debates surrounding the energy transition and climate protection during the election campaign and in other political debates are clearly leaving their mark: The population in Germany is also increasingly divided along fundamental political lines when it comes to the question of more or less climate action. Supporters of the Greens, SPD and Left Party are clearly in favor of a more ambitious climate policy, while voters of the CDU/CSU, FDP, AfD and BSW are more critical of climate action measures.

This is the result of a survey conducted by the opinion research institute Civey on behalf of the EON Foundation. The results show that “the struggle for climate action is increasingly hardening along ideological lines,” says Stephan Muschick, Managing Director of the EON Foundation.

Last year, a study by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation also came to the conclusion that polarization is increasing when it comes to issues such as the climate. This means that developments in Germany are following the same trend as in other countries, such as the USA. There, environmental and climate action are seen less as challenges for society as a whole and more as left-wing party political projects. This increases the risk of them being caught between the fronts of politically instrumentalized “culture wars.” kul

Bundestag: Who could negotiate future climate policy

Until now, the issues of climate, energy and the environment in German politics were clearly linked to the Greens. However, as they are unlikely to be part of the new federal government, the focus is now shifting to the climate politicians from the CDU/CSU and SPD. Officially, the parties are keeping quiet about who will be responsible for which issue in possible coalition negotiations. However, as the parties’ personnel roster for this topic is not exactly lavish, it is obvious who is likely to appear in the exploratory talks and negotiations on this topic.

The CDU/CSU parliamentary group has lost a high-profile climate politician in Thomas Heilmann: The chairman of the Climate Union, who forced a postponement of the decision on the Building Energy Act with his constitutional complaint, did not run for the Bundestag again. The party deputy leader Andreas Jung, who once again won his constituency in Konstanz directly, will remain in the parliamentary group as a climate expert. Also continuing to represent the CDU in the Bundestag are:

Mark Helfrich, Deputy Chairman of the Climate Union and previously the group’s energy policy spokesperson,
Thomas Gebhart, the Union’s current chairman of the Committee on Climate and Energy,
storage expert Maria-Lena Weiss,
as well as Anja Weisgerber and Andreas Lenz for the CSU.
CDU Climate Union member Sascha van Beek was newly elected to the Bundestag.

The number of climate politicians in the SPD is also small:

Matthias Miersch, who used to be in charge of this topic, is now responsible for a much broader range of topics as Secretary General.
Nina Scheer, the parliamentary group’s current spokesperson for climate protection and energy, will continue to be represented in the Bundestag as an expert,
and Bengt Bergt, previously deputy spokesperson for these topics.
Verena Hubbertz has also recently spoken out more frequently on climate issues at deputy group chairwoman level; she is also still represented in the Bundestag.

Katrin Zschau, the previous Chair of the Climate and Energy Committee, and energy politician Robin Masarosch, who had recently attracted attention with sharp attacks on the CDU/CSU’s nuclear policy, were not re-elected.

With Svenja Schulze, the SPD has a former environment minister in the parliamentary group; however, she was most recently Minister for Economic Cooperation and is more likely to be responsible for this topic in the coalition negotiations. Her State Secretary Jochen Flasbarth is also widely recognized as a climate expert, but he has no parliamentary mandate and no power within the party. The same applies to DNR President Kai Niebert, who is well-connected in the climate and environmental scene and, as an SPD member, regularly advises his party on these issues. mkr

CBAM: EU Commission wants to postpone financial levies by one year

The levies of the European carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) are not to be introduced until February 2027 instead of early 2026 as originally planned, according to the EU Commission’s draft revision of the CBAM, which is available to Table.Briefings and will be presented on Wednesday (Feb. 26).

The test phase of the CBAM is currently underway, in which importers of products subject to CBAM must report the emissions during production but do not yet have to pay a levy. The Commission wants to reduce the bureaucratic burden on small and medium-sized companies in particular and is therefore proposing numerous changes to the CBAM.

Higher CBAM bagatelle limits

The draft provides for:

Small importers are to be exempt from CBAM levies: Companies whose imported products subject to CBAM emit less than 100 tons of CO₂ equivalent or whose total weight is less than 50 tons are to be exempt. According to the Commission, the vast majority of importers would be exempt from reporting obligations, while 99% of emissions would continue to be recorded.
Importers subject to CBAM can delegate reporting to third parties, but retain legal responsibility for submitting the documents. For example, management consultancies could be commissioned with the reporting.
The use of default values is to be expanded: If companies are unable to collect reliable information on the emissions intensity of imported products, they may use default values. These values are defined for each exporting country and for each product.
Extended consideration of CO₂ levies already paid: For a CO₂ price already paid in the country of origin, a corresponding discount is provided for in the CBAM. In the future, companies will also be able to claim CO₂ levies paid in third countries for the CBAM rebate. The Commission provides the basis for calculating this.
Adjustment in the calculation of emissions from steel and aluminum products: Some downstream goods and manufacturing processes that are not covered by European emissions trading are also to be excluded from CBAM.

CBAM extension until 2026 under review

To give companies sufficient time to implement the changes, the mandatory purchase of CBAM certificates for imports into the EU internal market is to be postponed by one year. The EU Parliament and Council still have to approve the proposals. The regular review and potential extension of the CBAM to other sectors should continue to take place as planned in 2026. luk

Great Britain: Green economy records strong growth

The green economy in the UK is growing three times faster than the rest of the economy, according to a new report from the Confederation of British Industry. The study, commissioned by the Confederation of British Industry, shows that the UK’s net-zero economy grew by ten percent last year. In the previous year, growth was still at nine percent, as reported by the Guardian. The authors of the study examined the following sectors: renewable energies, EVs, heat pumps, energy storage, green financial investments, and waste management and recycling.

In these green sectors of the economy:

Almost one million people are employed full-time;
people earn 5,600 pounds more per year than the national average and
growth is more fairly distributed geographically. According to the report, structurally weak regions would also benefit from green growth.