Election in Germany: Climate plans of the political parties + At Christmas: Debating with climate deniers + In focus: Saudi Arabia’s climate diplomat

Dear reader,

We’ve almost made it! The year is ending, as is the current German government, and today we’re bringing you the last Climate.Table for 2024. What a year it has been – extreme weather with record heatwaves and wildfires, extreme election results like in the US, record renewables expansion, low points in climate diplomacy in Baku and so much more.

Still, we are not looking back, but concentrating on the present, which will determine the future: Today, we present a detailed breakdown of all climate policy ideas with which Germany’s main political parties are running in the general election. After all, the devil is in the detail. We will be looking at how close or far from reality these demands are in a series of fact checks from January, guaranteed.

As Christmas approaches, we have another service in store: If you come across climate change deniers under the Christmas tree, we have a few tips on how to talk to people who think and feel differently and want to believe their own facts. This could perhaps defuse some situations during the festive season.

We at Table.Briefings have another gift for you: Starting next Saturday, December 21, our new CEO.Table will be published featuring information and stories from the world of business, which will of course include ongoing coverage of the climate crisis. Click here for information about our new offer. And if you do not wish to receive the CEO.Table, you can unsubscribe here.

In any case, we now allow you and ourselves a little break. We are grateful for the inspiration and excitement of the past year and for your time and attention. It has been a wild ride for us at times, but no one can say it was boring. We look forward to continuing at full speed in January. We’ll be back on time on January 2 with the outlook for the climate year 2025.

We hope you have a peaceful Christmas and a safe and healthy New Year

Your
Bernhard Pötter

German election: What the parties have planned for climate action

Criticizing climate policy with fake election posters: Fridays for Future activists in Berlin.

By

Nico Beckert

One of the hotly debated topics in the German parliamentary election campaign will be energy and climate. But unlike the last election in 2019, when Germany was shaped by the “Fridays for Future” demonstrations and the severe weather disaster in the Ahr Valley, there has been little competition for the most ambitious climate policy in the election campaign – instead, in many cases, there has been a rejection of ambitious plans and measures. Under the impact of inflation, economic crisis and populism, some parties even call for a halt or a reversal of the climate policy decisions of recent years.

A comparison of the election manifestos of the CDU/CSU, SPD, Green Party and FDP, as they were available by the editorial deadline, focuses on key climate policy issues. Other parties are not included here because their manifestos are not yet available in detail, they will have little influence on the next government due to a lack of coalition options – or, like the AfD, they simply deny the relevance of the climate crisis.

This overview provides an initial comparison of the respective topics:

Paris Agreement, 1.5 degree limit

CDU/CSU: Committed to “meeting the Paris climate targets,” global warming can “only be solved by the global community working together,” with no mention of 1.5 degrees.
SPD: Commitment to the goals of the Paris Agreement: below two degrees, if possible 1.5 degrees.
Greens: Commitment to the Paris Agreement, Europe must reduce emissions by 90 percent by 2040.
FDP: No mention of 1.5 degrees, reference only to EU climate targets, abolish “further regulations” beyond emissions trading.

Climate Change Act

CDU/CSU: no direct mention. It emphasizes climate change adaptation as a comprehensive task, including “nature-based solutions.”
SPD: no mention of the Climate Change Act.
Green Party: Climate Change Act should be evaluated and “the responsibility of sectors in which climate action is making not enough progress” should be strengthened.
FDP: no demand for further development/change/target.

Net zero

CDU/CSU: It has “climate neutrality by 2045 firmly in its sights” and wants to “absolutely” combine climate action with competitiveness and “social sustainability.” It emphasizes the importance of adaptation measures and wants to clarify “long-term financing” with the municipalities.
SPD: Europe should become the first net zero continent. Reaching net zero is “also a task of public welfare,” and municipalities need more financial leeway.
Green Party: Net zero in Germany by 2045. Europe as the first net zero continent.
FDP: Replacing the German 2045 target with the EU 2050 target.

Emissions trading

CDU/CSU: Expanding emissions trading throughout Europe as a “leading instrument” and “gradually” including all sectors with “energy-related emissions” – so probably not agriculture.
SPD: The German “ETS II” should only serve “as a supplementary instrument.” The CO2 price per tonne of 55 euros in 2025 and a maximum of 65 euros in 2026 already agreed by law applies.
Green Party: Emissions trading as an instrument alongside subsidies for businesses and households and regulatory law.
FDP: Generally the only and leading instrument of EU and German climate policy that is to be expanded internationally. CO2 removal should generate credits for the ETS, the EU climate target should be given a “negative emissions target.”

GEG/Heating Act

CDU/CSU: They want to abolish the Heating Act introduced by the current government – meaning the latest amendment to the existing Buildings Energy Act (GEG). They say that people know best which heating system is right for them. Instead, “open-technology, low-emission heating solutions” are to be promoted, including wood. “Reliable decarbonization in the building sector” is to be achieved through funding, technological openness and social balance.
SPD: It wants to establish “climate-neutral heating grids.” They would be more efficient than individual heat pumps. However, heat pumps should be subsidized for households that cannot afford them otherwise. District heating is to remain affordable thanks to nationwide price regulation. Municipal heat planning is described as a milestone. Municipalities are to receive financial support for the heating transition.
Greens: It wants to stick to the GEG and expand support for “fossil-free heating.” The climate component of the housing benefit is to be further strengthened. Extended funding for the expansion of heating networks. Price supervision for district heating, price increases should be limited.
FDP: Heating Act “must be completely phased out,” “innovative solutions” should be “economical and open to technology.” The guiding principle is carbon credit trading. Costs should be returned through lower energy taxes and a climate dividend, no obligation to connect to district heating.

Transport/Combustion engine ban

CDU/CSU: It wants to “revoke the combustion engine ban,” reverse EU fleet limits and prevent fines. An “anti-car stance” and general speed limits on freeways would contradict the “epitome of freedom” that individual mobility represents.
SPD: The purchase of electric cars, buses, and eco-friendly trucks is to be stimulated – focusing on cars for poorer households: “But then also as much as is needed.” Tax benefits for the purchase of EVs manufactured in Germany. A combustion engine ban is not in the election manifesto. Combustion engines with e-fuels are no solution. Speed limit of 130 km/h on highways. Expansion of railroads. Conversion of aviation tax into EU climate levy, including for non-European airlines.
Green Party: Much work needs to be done in the transport sector: Accelerating rail expansion and switching to electric vehicles. Purchase of “low-consumption EVs” should be supported – for cars produced in Europe. Proposal for a social leasing model for EVs. Retaining the ban on combustion engines for new registrations from 2035, as well as fleet limits. Amending the company car privilege. Expansion of the rail network. E-fuels for shipping and air traffic. Making domestic flights superfluous through better rail travel. Speed limit of 130 km/h on freeways.
FDP: Abolishing the combustion engine ban, instead “we enable alternative fuels.” No speed limit, abolish EU fleet limits, equality of e-mobility, carbon-neutral fuels and hydrogen in “regulation, taxation and funding.”

Coal phase-out

CDU/CSU: It “stands by the coal compromise and the agreed coal phase-out.” Without new gas-fired power plants and CHP plants, there can be “no further final shutdown of coal-fired power plants.”
SPD: No mention of the coal phase-out.
Greens: coal phase-out by 2030.
FDP: “An earlier end to lignite mining” before the agreed phase-out in 2038 is rejected. In principle, CCS is “non-discriminatory as a climate action option.”

Expansion of renewables

CDU/CSU: It seeks “targeted further expansion” and “all capacities that are eco-friendly and beneficial to the system.” In addition to wind and solar, emphasis is also placed on geothermal energy, water, bioenergy and wood.
SPD: Wind and solar power should be consistently expanded, partly to reduce electricity prices. No expansion path is mentioned. Grid fees are to be stabilized and then reduced to three cents.
Greens: Expansion of renewables to remain at “a record pace.” Completely carbon-neutral electricity system by 2035.
FDP: “Transfer renewables completely to the market,” no EEG payments for new plants, rejection of “legally prescribed expansion paths for individual technologies” and “state-guaranteed purchase prices.”

CDU/CSU: calls for a “climate bonus”: The “CO2 revenue” is to be used to reduce electricity tax and grid fees, while higher carbon prices should also lead to greater relief.
SPD: When the European carbon price takes effect in 2027 and prices rise, climate money, for example, should “ensure that no one is overburdened.” Heating rental models for poorer households (“social heat pump leasing”) should be introduced.
Green Party: Climate money should be introduced “as quickly as possible.” Support for poorer households that would otherwise not be able to afford new heating systems, thermal insulation, electric cars or energy storage systems. Protect tenants from price hikes due to higher carbon prices. Financing through the abolition of climate-damaging subsidies, among other things.
FDP: Money from emissions trading should flow back to citizens “directly and on a flat-rate per capita basis” as a “climate dividend.”

Industry

CDU/CSU: Electricity tax and grid fees are to be reduced, the term industrial electricity price does not appear, no division of Germany into two electricity bidding zones. Higher grid fees should not burden large industrial consumers.
SPD: It wants to say “without a doubt” where the technologies are headed: Electrification of transport and industry and a hydrogen economy are a clear focus. CO2 avoidance comes before CO2 capture. CO-2 fleet limits should not result in fines for car manufacturers. An investment premium is to promote green investments in the future and replace “bureaucratic subsidy programs.”
Green Party: Broader design of electricity price compensation for energy-intensive industries. Green restructuring of the industrial sector should be supported by market mechanisms such as a carbon price, investment support and regulatory law. The scope of climate action agreements is to be expanded. Green lead markets for cement and steel. CCS for sectors with hard-to-avoid emissions. Rapid expansion of the hydrogen network.
FDP: No mention of the industrial electricity price.

International/Climate Finance

CDU/CSU: Supporting “climate action in other countries” – not explicitly with finances, but with “innovations made in Germany.”
SPD: Germany should contribute its fair share to international climate finance, international support for a billionaires’ tax. The super-rich should contribute more to climate financing. The global financial architecture should become fairer. Debt swaps for climate financing should also be promoted. The JETPs are mentioned as an instrument.
Greens: Germany should make a fair contribution to climate financing. Innovative financial instruments should be developed.
FDP: No mention of international climate financing.

Energy costs

CDU/CSU: Reduce electricity tax and grid fees. Demand for a “technology-open capacity market,” more futures markets. Grid expansion primarily via overhead lines – after the more expensive underground cables were pushed through from 2015, mainly at the instigation of the CSU.
SPD: Combining climate action and competitiveness. The aim is to reduce electricity prices, for example, through reduced grid charges and electricity price compensation.
Green Party: Costs for grid expansion should no longer be passed on, but “funded by other means.” Electricity tax to be reduced to the European minimum. Grid fees should fall.
FDP: Reducing electricity tax to the EU minimum, taxes on heating and fuels should also be “gradually reduced to zero,” carbon price should replace electricity energy tax. Grid fees to be “comprehensively reformed,” digitalization should make grids more flexible, capacity market for new gas-fired power plants necessary.

Energy supply

CDU/CSU: More private capital for grid expansion, smart meters and digitalization. The CDU/CSU favors “pioneer markets” and green gas quotas, “green heating oil” and climate-neutral steel.
SPD: Accelerating wind and solar expansion, no mention of natural gas, LNG or coal.
Greens: Gas production in Germany should be abolished “on land and at sea.”
FDP: Expanding domestic gas production, allow Borkum and fracking

Nuclear power

CDU/CSU: It advocates a “nuclear energy option” without directly committing to new construction or continued operation: Research into fusion, small modular reactors and “fourth and fifth generation nuclear energy.” Next, “we aim to take stock as quickly as possible” of whether it is “still possible to resume operation of German nuclear power plants at a reasonable technical and financial cost.”
SPD: The nuclear exit should be maintained.
Green Party: No return to nuclear power.
FDP: Nuclear fusion and “enabling safe nuclear power plants without subsidies.” Next-generation NPPs, dual fluid, thorium and small modular reactors should “be legally permitted in Germany,” regulating nuclear fusion outside of nuclear law; “Legally permitting the recommissioning of German nuclear power plants and leaving the decision to its operators.”

The EU Green Deal

CDU/CSU: The Green Deal of CDU Commission President von der Leyen is not explicitly mentioned. The central pillar of EU policy is not addressed in the Europe section. It only mentions EU emissions trading, which the party wants to “advance internationally.”
SPD: Green Deal is supported, as are the European Clean Industrial Deal, CBAM and Climate Club.
Greens: Green Deal is supported and should be expanded to include an industrial dimension. “Climate-neutral European innovative strength” to be developed into a competitive advantage. State aid law to be reformed to support industry in the transformation.
FDP: Abolition of taxonomy, guidelines on sustainability reporting, supply chains, circular economy action plan, abolition of reporting obligations from the Green Deal.

Christmas: Seven tips for talking to climate change skeptics

Drought-stricken fir tree in the Thuringian Ministry of the Environment: Every year, unpleasant conversations with climate skeptics happen around the Christmas tree – how to deal with them?

Christmas is a time for family. However, this may also lead to conversations around the Christmas tree that are not always pleasant. So how can or should we react when uncles, aunts or other people sing the song of the grand climate conspiracy? Are there ways of successfully defending facts, debunking falsehoods and perhaps even convincing the climate deniers in the family of the extremely unpleasant truth of global warming?

A guide by Klimafakten.de on how to calmly approach climate deniers in the family. Unfortunately, there is no universal recipe. However, you can avoid a few mistakes, be aware of pitfalls and package your replies to relatives more skillfully.

1. Is this really about facts?

We often tend to step into this trap that we set for ourselves: Whenever possible, we like to enthusiastically throw the – in our eyes – ultimate study in the face of our counterpart. However, it may bounce off the other person’s inner barriers, it may not interest them at all, and they might talk about other studies that suit them better.

Many have long believed in the so-called information deficit model: People believe in untruths or resist facts because they simply do not have all the relevant information. However, psychologists have gradually realized that providing people with facts does not significantly influence their opinions. In studies, filling in information deficits hardly changed participants’ views on controversial topics.

Like the migration issue, for example, accurate figures hardly change fears. These are based on feelings, on emotions – not on facts. This means an unease lurks somewhere that remains unaffected by facts and information. The same applies to the climate issue. It is these emotions, this unease, that we are dealing with. As a motivated participant in a debate, you have to tap into these feelings if you want to achieve something.

Conclusion: Simply listing facts will not change the opinion of climate-denying family members. You have to touch their emotions. Nevertheless, facts remain relevant: It is of course essential to be fairly informed yourself, because otherwise your loud uncles and aunts will triumphantly steamroll you and pick apart every knowledge gap with relish.

2. But I want to believe it!

The buffet is almost gone, but two last dishes remain: a green spelt fritter and a fluffy pancake with maple syrup. What do most people reach for? What a question! The fritter is the reasonable choice, but does it taste awful; the sweet pancake is not sensible, but is an absolute delight.

Perhaps it is helpful to think of information in a similar way. There are statements that you want to believe, that are delicious. And then there is information that makes you wonder: Do I really have to believe it? In this case, climate change is the fritter: a truly unpleasant, frightening, terrible truth. The apocalypse is just around the corner, and we have to give up cars, travel, meat and countless other things that make life comfortable and enjoyable.

The counter-narrative, on the other hand, tastes as sweet as a pancake with maple syrup: It’s not true at all! It’s all fearmongering! No reason to be afraid! I can continue as normal! In other words, people often have one motive for denying climate change: their own fear. Denying the existence of a threat takes away the perceived fear, even if only for the moment.

Conclusion: Climate deniers usually have an (unconscious) reason for their stance. You should be aware of this when debating with loud uncles and aunts. Instead of apocalyptic doomsday scenarios, you should try to sell the challenge of climate change as an opportunity – in other words, literally make the bitter truth more palatable with a little sweet sauce.

3. Remain calm and friendly

There is a constant barrage of insults and insinuations on the so-called social networks. As an observer, it is time to ask some clear questions: How many people can you win over by insulting them? How many climate deniers can you convince of the opposite by calling them fools? The answer is crystal clear: Of course, angry shouting will not win anyone over.

If you really want to convince people, you look for common ground. Those who try to establish a basis of trust and emphasize touchingly, for example, that we are all in this together, have similar fears and want to help prevent our boat from sinking. As annoying as the extended family may be, in this scenario they represent a basis on which a fruitful discussion could develop. After all, you are related to each other and share a bond.

It is therefore wise to remain calm and friendly when arguing with climate-denying uncles and aunts at a family party or with friends. At any rate, you can’t argue or convince someone if you can’t stand each other – and there are few things people hate more than moral judgment from others.

Conclusion: Friendship has the power to change opinions. That’s why it’s important to always remain friendly and calm. As difficult as that may be. Shouting, on the other hand, does not achieve anything but distances people and opinions even further from each other.

4. Not true, is not enough

It can be staggering when intelligent people make the wildest claims. Stories about grand conspiracies – which are often heard when it comes to climate change – are usually bizarre ploys. But it is even more difficult to deal with half-truths, which often contain more than a hint of reality. Either way, falsehoods must be named and rejected as such in a discussion.

So far, so banal. But here’s the problem: that’s not enough. It is not enough to identify misinformation as such. Because they are still there, stored on the listener’s internal hard disk, so to speak, and from there, they slowly creep back.

Psychologists have dubbed this phenomenon “belief perseverance.” Scientists have discovered, for example, that people fall back on explanations that they themselves know to be false. The bottom line of these studies is that alternative explanations must be offered in order to combat misinformation in the long term. In order to invalidate a false correlation, the actual correlation must be told so that it can fill the void left by the disproved misinformation – and do so vividly.

Conclusion: Shouting “not true” is not enough. The key is to describe and create a counter-version of things. People love explanations and hate uncertainty. And they still find a false explanation better than no explanation at all.

5. Tell a story

The unit of measurement ppm or the famous two-degree limit: What does it actually mean? How can you feel it? And is it something beautiful? The problem with the debate about climate change and its consequences is that it is so terribly difficult to put all the abstract data, facts and considerations into an engaging story. But this has to happen to reach doubting uncles, aunts and others. Humans are storytellers. Since the dawn of language, our ancestors have explained the world to themselves through fairy tales, stories, songs and histories. This is still true today, and it often gets in the way of rational scientists.

Anecdotes are not data; nothing can be deduced from individual observations, they say. And they are right. But to touch people, you must tell them stories – preferably ones that fit the data. Data must become anecdotes. Let’s tell our uncles and aunts stories of exciting personal fates, daring solutions, great ideas, and shared visions instead of dwelling on things like the two-degree limit or the like.

Every honest debater must be clear about this, too: Their arguments are pitted against stories that are usually easy to digest. This is precisely what most conspiracy theories and the milder variants of denial are. They use one of the oldest and most effective forms of narrative: A villain (the elites, some other sinister force) casts a dark net of lies (climate change story) to subjugate humanity (they want to make money), but only a small minority of particularly cunning people (sure, I’m one of them) figure them out. You can’t fight them with numbers, you need stories.

Conclusion: We should tell stories and focus on anecdotes to win over climate change deniers (and other people too). Ideally, these are stories that fit the data, and have villains as well as heroes and a happy ending.

6. Ask questions

If you have children, you know the why questions that often bring you to the edge of despair. On the one hand, this despair stems from the fact that the questions just don’t stop; but much more painful is that many of these curiosities simply push you to the limit. “Daddy, why is the sky blue?” How do you explain this to a five-year-old and why was it blue again?

Questions often carry more power than answers – and we use this for discussions with our now well-known annoying relatives. Instead of just arguing with them, we dig deeper, ask for details, ask for explanations. For example, if someone starts talking about how the media is all controlled and paid to spread the climate change myth, we ask. How does it work? Who gives the order? Who decides exactly how the message is formulated? Who pays whom, where does the money come from, and where do you apply for this money as a journalist? How do you actually organize a worldwide conspiracy so that the whole world believes in it and virtually no one is left out?

The concept of a barrage of childish “why” questions has even been scientifically tested: When subjects expressed strong opinions, for example, on tax systems or other miserably complicated matters, and described themselves as very knowledgeable when questioned, their certainty could be shaken by having them explain the tax system, etc. in detail. They then suddenly realized how little they actually knew. But there’s also a catch: The constant questioning affects their mood, especially when they are pushed to the limits of their knowledge. In other words, the uncles and aunts will become quite angry at some point.

Conclusion: Wild assertions require persistent questions. The more confidently someone expresses an opinion on a complex context, the more persistent we are in asking for details. But be careful: Maybe it’s best to wait until the end of the evening, because it won’t be good for the mood.

7. Who are we really talking to?

Can you convince pig-headed people? Is it possible to reach conspiracy theorists like vegan chef Attila Hildmann, who spread a mixture of anti-Semitic conspiracies, radio wave panic, anti-vaccination stories and other downright bizarre stuff during the Covid pandemic? A clear no. But the point is to take the audience away from such characters. To ensure that doubters and the undecided don’t slip over to his side and entrench themselves in conspiracy thinking.

This also applies to our hypothetical family dinner: let’s say Uncle Ludwig and Aunt Elisabeth are beyond hope; everyone knows that’s how they tick and think. Nothing can shake them. And yet, getting into the argumentative ring with them is important.

Why? Because it’s not about them at all, but about everyone else sitting at the table and listening. So if you’re arguing with stubborn hardliners at a family event, you’re not trying to convince them. That would be too ambitious. Rather, you are fighting to ensure that the blockheads do not win over even more people at the table to their side. It is about countering the seductive power of climate denial so as not to lose the uncertain minds.

Conclusion: If you are dealing with stubborn pillboxes, you will nevertheless debate, even if you will never convince them of your version of the truth. In reality, you are addressing all those listeners who are still undecided and may be susceptible to falsehoods. Anyone who communicates should always ask themselves: with whom or for whom?

Author: Sebastian Herrmann. The text is a shortened and translated version of an article first published on the website klimafakten.de.

Climate in Numbers: Where foundation money goes

How much taxpayers’ money and private investment flows into the energy transition and climate action: That was the big question in 2024. What is also interesting here is the development of private donations from foundations and private individuals. In its fifth report, “Climate change mitigation philanthropy,” the think tank Climateworks lists these financial flows: A total of between 9.3 and 15.8 billion US dollars in charitable donations flowed into carbon reduction measures in 2023 – 20 percent more than in the previous year.

This sum represents around two percent of all charitable donations worldwide, which totaled 885 billion US dollars. Of this climate money, 4.8 billion came from foundations, while just between five and eleven billion came from individual donations, which are more difficult to track.

Since 2019, foundations’ climate spending has almost tripled from 1.7 to 4.8 billion. The chart shows how the total foundation funds of around 16 billion US dollars have been distributed across the regions and sectors over the past five years. The analysis reveals that most of this money has been invested in clean energy, forests and agriculture/food. Many resources are also invested in improving the climate action framework conditions, for example, through lobbying, better diplomacy and governance as well as sustainable finance. Much attention was also paid to the fight against certain greenhouse gases, such as methane.

However, a similar trend can be seen in foundation investments as in private sector investments: Although foundation funding for Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America roughly doubled on average, these regions are relatively left behind. Together, they only receive around 20 percent of funding – while 60 percent went to the USA and Europe. And even in the core funding of climate activities, middle and low-income countries received significantly less funding (14 percent) than activities in the rich countries of Europe or the USA (around one-third). bpo

IPBES report: How much the climate is behind species extinction

In a new report, the World Biodiversity Council IPBES calls for far-reaching changes to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. Sustainable approaches could generate ten trillion US dollars worldwide by 2030 and secure 395 million jobs, according to a “summary for policymakers” published at the IPBES General Assembly on Monday. According to the report, around 15 percent of global gross domestic product depends directly on nature – and is therefore at risk.

For Solveig Richter, Professor of International Relations and Transnational Politics at the University of Leipzig, the report “very clearly emphasizes the connection and mutual reinforcement of the various environmental conservation crises, in particular climate change and biodiversity loss.” The transformative change called for is therefore only possible “if this linkage is also reflected in comprehensive and holistic political measures.”

To this end, the IPBES report proposes five key strategies, which primarily focus on the transformation of agriculture, fisheries, forestry, infrastructure and urban development:

The protection and restoration of places that are valuable for people and nature.
Systemic change in the above-mentioned sectors that are most responsible for biodiversity loss.
The transformation of economic systems in favor of nature and justice.
The transformation of policy towards “integrated, inclusive, accountable and adaptive” systems.
Strengthening awareness of the connection between people and nature.

It also emphasizes the 30×30 target of the COP15 biodiversity conference, according to which around 30 percent of the world’s land, water and marine areas must be protected by 2030. For the report, over one hundred leading scientists from 42 countries evaluated around 7,000 studies over a period of three years. However, experts criticize the report for largely failing to address causal mechanisms and concrete global solutions. lb

Environmental Council: Poland rejects 90 percent CO2 reduction by 2040

A 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gases compared to 1990, as proposed by the EU Commission as a climate target for 2040, is “difficult to accept” for Poland. Poland’s Climate and Environment Minister Paulina Hennig-Kloska made this clear before the start of the Environment Council in Brussels. “We have different starting points and historical circumstances, we have different per capita incomes – all of this should be taken into account when setting targets on the path to climate neutrality.”

Poland will take over the Presidency of the Council in January and will be largely responsible for negotiating the position of the member states. Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra once again made it clear to the environment ministers that he will present a corresponding amendment to the EU Climate Law as soon as possible next year. This will include an emissions reduction target of 90 percent.

Numerous countries support the Commission’s proposal but are demanding that Brussels establish a strong link between industrial and climate policy. Italy, for example, links its support to the fact that the effects of the new climate target on industry and the social situation of the people must first be reviewed. Germany does not yet have a unified position.

Focus on ETS 2 and fleet regulation

Two issues that had long since been decided became the focus of discussions at the last Environment Council of the year at short notice. The Czech Republic, supported by other countries, is demanding a postponement of emissions trading for transport fuels and heating (ETS 2) by one year to 2028. In addition, ETS 2 is to be supplemented by further protective mechanisms against price spikes. Czech Environment Minister Petr Hladík criticized that it is not clear how the price is to be kept at a maximum of €45 per ton. This is also likely to fall on sympathetic ears in Poland – Warsaw fears additional social burdens as a result of the extended CO2 price.

The CO2 fleet limits for cars were also discussed again. Some countries called for penalties to be suspended if the 2025 limits were not met. However, the picture was mixed. France argued that the manufacturers lacked the money for the transformation. Sweden countered that a suspension would be a distortion of competition, as it would penalize those who met the targets.

General direction for fewer microplastics

On Tuesday, the European environment ministers also adopted a general approach to a regulation on the prevention of the release of plastic pellets. The law aims to reduce the release into the environment by up to 74 percent. “Far too often, microplastics end up in our food via our fields and thus on our plates,” criticizes Federal Environment Minister Steffi Lemke (Greens). The regulation is intended to close a source of microplastics without “leading to more paperwork for companies and effort for authorities,” says Lemke.

The Council has added specific obligations to the Commission proposal for the transportation of plastic granulate by sea, for example in freight containers. However, this does include new reporting obligations, cargo-related and other technical information. However, the obligations for maritime transport are only to be introduced one year later than for the other transport sectors (18 months after the law comes into force). The trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament are due to begin next year. luk

IEA: Why coal consumption could rise until 2027

According to estimates by the International Energy Agency (IEA), global coal demand this year has been higher than ever before. It increased by one percent to 8.77 billion tons. According to the IEA, demand for coal will plateau in the next three years and reach around 8.87 billion tons in 2027.

The IEA reports continued significant differences in coal demand trends between developed and emerging countries. While demand in the EU has fallen by twelve percent this year and by five percent in the USA, it has increased by one percent in China and five percent in India. Coal consumption is also rising sharply in Vietnam and Indonesia. In China, which consumes 30 percent more coal than the rest of the world combined, the expansion of renewable energies and the construction of nuclear power plants will help limit the rise in coal consumption until 2027.

However, the IEA admits that there are considerable uncertainties in the forecasts. In China alone, coal consumption in 2027 could be up to 140 million tons above or below the estimate because the weather cannot be estimated precisely and has an immense impact on electricity production from solar, wind and hydropower.

Although the price of coal has fallen again since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it is still around 50 percent above the level from 2017 to 2019. “Coal exporters are making solid profits overall,” says the IEA. dpa/nib

Renewables: Japan’s new plans show little ambition

Japan aims to generate 40 to 50 percent of its electricity mix from renewable energies and 20 percent from nuclear energy by 2040. This is according to a draft from the Ministry of Industry on the revision of energy policy. Last year, the share of renewables was 22.9 percent and the share of nuclear power was 8.5 percent. According to a current plan, 36 to 38 percent renewables are planned for 2030.

Thermal energy, particularly from inefficient coal-fired power plants, is set to fall from 68.6 percent in 2023 to between 30 and 40 percent in 2040. However, the draft energy policy does not specify the share of coal, gas and oil. Unlike the current energy plan up to 2030, the new plan does not contain any target figures for the co-firing of new fuels such as hydrogen or ammonia.

1.5-degree target out of reach despite new plan

However, the new energy plan is still incompatible with the 1.5-degree target. According to an analysis by Climate Analytics, the share of unabated coal and gas would have to be between zero and two percent in 2040 for Japan to meet its share of the 1.5-degree limit. Renewables would then have to contribute around 80 percent to the electricity mix.

Several proponents of renewable energy have criticized the draft and pointed to the lack of a roadmap for phasing out coal-fired power generation. Mika Ohbayashi, Director of the Renewable Energy Institute, also highlighted the low target share for wind energy, which is between four and eight percent, compared to 20 percent for nuclear power. The energy plan is expected to be finalized and approved by the cabinet early next year. nib/rtr

Power Plant Safety Act: Why a delayed coal phase-out could be expensive for Germany

The recent failure of the Power Plant Safety Act could significantly delay the coal phase-out if the next German government does not quickly pass a new version of the law. This is what Philipp Godron, Head of the Electricity Program at the Agora Energiewende think tank, fears: “If the coal phase-out is to be implemented by 2030, this means that the next federal government will have to create a corresponding legal basis within the first few months of taking office,” Godron told Table.Briefings.

Economy Minister Robert Habeck withdrew the bill last week as he did not expect a majority in the German parliament. Among other things, the draft contained financing regulations for new gas-fired power plants that would later be converted to “green” hydrogen. According to the Ministry of Economic Affairs, such power plants are needed to reliably guarantee the renewable electricity supply even during periods of low wind and sunshine. To date, this task has largely been performed by CO2-intensive coal-fired power plants.

After withdrawing the bill, Habeck expressed doubts that the coal phase-out in 2030 could still be achieved without risking the energy supply. The coalition government had planned to end coal-fired power generation “ideally” in 2030.

Association calls for decentralized backup power plants

According to Godron, a delay would be costly: “This would not only lead to higher electricity costs,” says the energy expert, “but also higher carbon emissions” from the coal-fired power plants. The price of these emissions is expected to rise sharply in the coming years due to European carbon trading. In addition, there would be state subsidies for maintaining power plant reserves.

The German Renewable Energy Federation (BEE) proposes a different approach. Instead of a new version of the Power Plant Security Act, a “flexibility package” is needed in the next legislative period. Instead of large centralized power plants, incentives for flexible electricity consumption and decentralized electricity storage should help. Smaller power plants – such as biogas plants – could take over the necessary safeguarding of a further expanded wind and solar power supply. The smaller plants are “not only much cheaper, but also climate-friendly and decentralized,” says BEE President Simone Peter. av

Solar power: Growth slows down

According to industry figures, the growth of photovoltaics in the EU has slowed this year and needs further political support in order to safely achieve the European expansion targets. SolarPower Europe expects 65.5 gigawatts of newly installed PV capacity by the end of the year, compared to 62.8 GW in the previous year and around 41 GW in 2022. According to the new market report for 2024-2028, growth has thus fallen from 53% to just over 4%. According to the association, this means that special effects caused by high energy prices during the energy crisis have come to a standstill.

SolarPower Europe still considers the REPowerEU target of 750 GW of installed capacity by the end of the decade to be achievable. “However, if we have to lower our forecasts as quickly as we did recently, we could miss the target for 2030 by around 100 gigawatts,” said the association’s data expert, Michael Schmela. “We can’t just rely on market forces for the energy transition. We need a suitable political framework,” said Dries Acke, Head of Policy.

Acke believes that an EU action plan for batteries, as called for by the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs at the Energy Council on Monday, is of key importance. Batteries are still at a disadvantage in tenders for system services, for example. The association sees the electrification plan announced by the Commission as another means of preventing forced shutdowns. However, the Deputy Director General for Energy, Mechthild Wörsdörfer, dampened hopes. No new legislative proposals are needed for technologies such as storage and load management for the time being. ber

Mayotte Islands: How climate change amplified tropical storm ‘Chido’

Current global warming has made the tropical storm “Chido,” which devastated the French archipelago of Mayotte over the weekend, more than 40 times more likely to occur and made it a category four storm – without climate change, it would only have reached category 3. According to a rapid analysis by Imperial College London, the main reason is increased ocean temperatures.

Another rapid analysis by Climate Central on the unusually warm ocean temperatures confirms the results: It found that climate change actually made the storm more than 50 times more likely because the waters from which the storm draws its energy were 1.1 degrees warmer than they would have been without climate change. In recent years, three out of four extreme weather events have become more intense and more likely due to human-induced global warming, a recent analysis by Carbon Brief showed.

Poverty and climate change increase risk

Storm Chido, which swept across the French overseas department near Madagascar on Sunday, reached speeds of up to 225 kilometers per hour, eleven more than without climate change. Around 300,000 people live in the affected area. The exact death toll is not expected until the next few days; hundreds of people are feared dead. “The victims of poverty on Mayotte have become victims of climate change,” said Friederike Otto, co-founder of the World Weather Attribution initiative at Imperial College London.

In early October, a study in the journal Nature warned of the “indirect victims” of tropical cyclones. While the authorities report an average of around 24 deaths shortly after a cyclone occurs, 7,000 to 11,000 people die in the following years as a result of a cyclone – mainly due to suicide, sudden infant death syndrome, diabetes or due to cardiovascular and stress-related illnesses. lb

DeSmog: Trump’s supporters from the fossil fuel lobby. Since his election victory, US President-elect Donald Trump has filled his cabinet with conservative ideologues who could set back progress in the fight against climate change and the transition to cleaner forms of energy by decades. Many of Trump’s candidates are backed by individuals and organizations that oppose effective climate action. These include fracking billionaires and powerful conservative organizations like the America First Policy Institute and the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship. Read the article

New York Times: Trees on farmland can trigger cascading effects. Many biodiversity conservation and climate action measures lack a holistic approach, as the problems are viewed and tackled in isolation. A report by the World Biodiversity Council IPBES emphasizes the importance of measures that could trigger cascading effects. For example, a well-considered arrangement of trees on farmland contributes to improving biodiversity, human well-being and climate action at the same time. To the article

Euractiv: Czech Republic wants to postpone the start of ETS-2. The Czech Republic will work to postpone the expansion of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS-2) until at least 2028. According to current plans, the system, which extends carbon credit trading to road transport and building heating, will be applied from 2027. The Czech government plans to use the postponement to adapt the system so that it offers greater protection against rising energy prices. To the article

Adel al-Jubeir – career diplomat and Saudi climate envoy

Adel al-Jubeir, Saudi Arabia’s climate envoy.

As the world’s second-largest oil producer, Saudi Arabia often causes conflicts in climate negotiations. Extremely diplomatic in its approach, in climate negotiations, Saudi Arabia uses complicated and less known rules of the process, raising objections on seemingly trivial issues and rules of procedure, and presenting proposals they know will not be acceptable to slow down and eventually block negotiations. Moves that frustrate other countries, developed and developing.

As climate envoy, Al Jubeir is part of the Saudi negotiating team, but does not lead it. As a career diplomat and Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, al-Jubeir could bring some new perspectives to Saudi Arabia’s negotiation team, which is overwhelmingly staffed by the Ministry of Energy, which also has the negotiating mandate.

Adel Al-Jubeir is soft-spoken, polite and patient. When asked about the COP28 decision to move away from fossil fuels, he talks about the needs of developing countries and finite nature of fossil fuel resources but is silent on the central role of oil and gas in the Saudi economy: “We have argued since the 1980s that the world needs to find alternative sources of energy because oil is a finite resource. There’s only so much that exists, and you can only produce so much. Meanwhile, the world’s demand for energy is going to increase as countries develop, as countries seek to improve their standard of living, and you can’t deny countries the opportunity to grow.”

Press al-Jubeir for a straight answer on whether Saudi Arabia is walking away from the UAE Consensus forged in Dubai in 2023, he smoothly defers the question “Ask the Minister for Energy” before adding “of course Dubai stands.” Leaving everyone ever so mystified, is Saudi Arabia in or out? It is easy to understand why the House of Saud chose this man as the kingdom’s climate envoy.

Ideally equipped for a diplomatic career

With an education that has taken him from Saudi Arabia to Germany and the USA (he has a Master’s degree in International Relations from Georgetown University), al Jubeir is ideally equipped to be the highest diplomat. He joined the Saudi diplomatic service in 1987 and was stationed in the USA for a long time. Initially as assistant to the Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan. In 2007, al-Jubeir became ambassador to the USA until he was appointed Foreign Minister by King Salman in 2015. This made him only the second person to hold this office who did not come from the House of Saud.

After the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was gruesomely murdered in 2018, al-Jubeir was dismissed as foreign minister. A move that was widely seen as a demotion. However, this view proved to be exaggerated. Those familiar with Saudi politics say that al-Jubeir’s reappointment as Minister of State for Foreign Affairs did not impact his influence.

Skilled at mastering difficult situations

In 2022, al-Jubeir was appointed climate envoy by royal decree. Climate policy has become a key component of Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy. Even though Saudi Arabia’s negotiating team is overwhelmingly staffed by the Ministry of Energy, climate envoy al-Jubeir is Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and therefore still part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

With his experience and his ability to master turbulent and difficult situations, al-Jubeir is a suitable choice as climate envoy. This is not the first time he has been confronted with difficult issues. After the September 11 attacks, it was al-Jubeir who was appointed to deal with questions about and criticism of Saudi Arabia. In countless television appearances, interviews, lectures at universities and in discussions with civil society organizations and companies, he responded to questions such as why so many of the attackers came from Saudi Arabia.

Adel Al-Jubeir is an integral part of the Saudi Kingdom’s international engagement, particularly with the US. He was instrumental in establishing the strategic dialogue between the US and Saudi Arabia, as well as in many groundbreaking diplomatic efforts and initiatives – for example, Operation Restore Hope, the multilateral arms control talks and the Madrid Peace Conference. He has close relationships with lawmakers in key countries, the media and think tanks that Saudi Arabia relies on to negotiate in the controversial arena of multilateral environmental regulation. Urmi Goswami

CLIMATE.TABLE EDITORIAL OFFICE

Bernhard
Pötter

Alexandra
Endres

Christiane
Kühl

Lisa
Kuner

Lukas
Knigge

Malte
Kreutzfeldt

Nico
Beckert

Dear reader,

We’ve almost made it! The year is ending, as is the current German government, and today we’re bringing you the last Climate.Table for 2024. What a year it has been – extreme weather with record heatwaves and wildfires, extreme election results like in the US, record renewables expansion, low points in climate diplomacy in Baku and so much more.

Still, we are not looking back, but concentrating on the present, which will determine the future: Today, we present a detailed breakdown of all climate policy ideas with which Germany’s main political parties are running in the general election. After all, the devil is in the detail. We will be looking at how close or far from reality these demands are in a series of fact checks from January, guaranteed.

As Christmas approaches, we have another service in store: If you come across climate change deniers under the Christmas tree, we have a few tips on how to talk to people who think and feel differently and want to believe their own facts. This could perhaps defuse some situations during the festive season.

We at Table.Briefings have another gift for you: Starting next Saturday, December 21, our new CEO.Table will be published featuring information and stories from the world of business, which will of course include ongoing coverage of the climate crisis. Click here for information about our new offer. And if you do not wish to receive the CEO.Table, you can unsubscribe here.

In any case, we now allow you and ourselves a little break. We are grateful for the inspiration and excitement of the past year and for your time and attention. It has been a wild ride for us at times, but no one can say it was boring. We look forward to continuing at full speed in January. We’ll be back on time on January 2 with the outlook for the climate year 2025.

We hope you have a peaceful Christmas and a safe and healthy New Year

Your
Bernhard Pötter

German election: What the parties have planned for climate action

By

Nico Beckert

One of the hotly debated topics in the German parliamentary election campaign will be energy and climate. But unlike the last election in 2019, when Germany was shaped by the “Fridays for Future” demonstrations and the severe weather disaster in the Ahr Valley, there has been little competition for the most ambitious climate policy in the election campaign – instead, in many cases, there has been a rejection of ambitious plans and measures. Under the impact of inflation, economic crisis and populism, some parties even call for a halt or a reversal of the climate policy decisions of recent years.

A comparison of the election manifestos of the CDU/CSU, SPD, Green Party and FDP, as they were available by the editorial deadline, focuses on key climate policy issues. Other parties are not included here because their manifestos are not yet available in detail, they will have little influence on the next government due to a lack of coalition options – or, like the AfD, they simply deny the relevance of the climate crisis.

This overview provides an initial comparison of the respective topics:

Paris Agreement, 1.5 degree limit

CDU/CSU: Committed to “meeting the Paris climate targets,” global warming can “only be solved by the global community working together,” with no mention of 1.5 degrees.
SPD: Commitment to the goals of the Paris Agreement: below two degrees, if possible 1.5 degrees.
Greens: Commitment to the Paris Agreement, Europe must reduce emissions by 90 percent by 2040.
FDP: No mention of 1.5 degrees, reference only to EU climate targets, abolish “further regulations” beyond emissions trading.

Climate Change Act

CDU/CSU: no direct mention. It emphasizes climate change adaptation as a comprehensive task, including “nature-based solutions.”
SPD: no mention of the Climate Change Act.
Green Party: Climate Change Act should be evaluated and “the responsibility of sectors in which climate action is making not enough progress” should be strengthened.
FDP: no demand for further development/change/target.

Net zero

CDU/CSU: It has “climate neutrality by 2045 firmly in its sights” and wants to “absolutely” combine climate action with competitiveness and “social sustainability.” It emphasizes the importance of adaptation measures and wants to clarify “long-term financing” with the municipalities.
SPD: Europe should become the first net zero continent. Reaching net zero is “also a task of public welfare,” and municipalities need more financial leeway.
Green Party: Net zero in Germany by 2045. Europe as the first net zero continent.
FDP: Replacing the German 2045 target with the EU 2050 target.

Emissions trading

CDU/CSU: Expanding emissions trading throughout Europe as a “leading instrument” and “gradually” including all sectors with “energy-related emissions” – so probably not agriculture.
SPD: The German “ETS II” should only serve “as a supplementary instrument.” The CO2 price per tonne of 55 euros in 2025 and a maximum of 65 euros in 2026 already agreed by law applies.
Green Party: Emissions trading as an instrument alongside subsidies for businesses and households and regulatory law.
FDP: Generally the only and leading instrument of EU and German climate policy that is to be expanded internationally. CO2 removal should generate credits for the ETS, the EU climate target should be given a “negative emissions target.”

GEG/Heating Act

CDU/CSU: They want to abolish the Heating Act introduced by the current government – meaning the latest amendment to the existing Buildings Energy Act (GEG). They say that people know best which heating system is right for them. Instead, “open-technology, low-emission heating solutions” are to be promoted, including wood. “Reliable decarbonization in the building sector” is to be achieved through funding, technological openness and social balance.
SPD: It wants to establish “climate-neutral heating grids.” They would be more efficient than individual heat pumps. However, heat pumps should be subsidized for households that cannot afford them otherwise. District heating is to remain affordable thanks to nationwide price regulation. Municipal heat planning is described as a milestone. Municipalities are to receive financial support for the heating transition.
Greens: It wants to stick to the GEG and expand support for “fossil-free heating.” The climate component of the housing benefit is to be further strengthened. Extended funding for the expansion of heating networks. Price supervision for district heating, price increases should be limited.
FDP: Heating Act “must be completely phased out,” “innovative solutions” should be “economical and open to technology.” The guiding principle is carbon credit trading. Costs should be returned through lower energy taxes and a climate dividend, no obligation to connect to district heating.

Transport/Combustion engine ban

CDU/CSU: It wants to “revoke the combustion engine ban,” reverse EU fleet limits and prevent fines. An “anti-car stance” and general speed limits on freeways would contradict the “epitome of freedom” that individual mobility represents.
SPD: The purchase of electric cars, buses, and eco-friendly trucks is to be stimulated – focusing on cars for poorer households: “But then also as much as is needed.” Tax benefits for the purchase of EVs manufactured in Germany. A combustion engine ban is not in the election manifesto. Combustion engines with e-fuels are no solution. Speed limit of 130 km/h on highways. Expansion of railroads. Conversion of aviation tax into EU climate levy, including for non-European airlines.
Green Party: Much work needs to be done in the transport sector: Accelerating rail expansion and switching to electric vehicles. Purchase of “low-consumption EVs” should be supported – for cars produced in Europe. Proposal for a social leasing model for EVs. Retaining the ban on combustion engines for new registrations from 2035, as well as fleet limits. Amending the company car privilege. Expansion of the rail network. E-fuels for shipping and air traffic. Making domestic flights superfluous through better rail travel. Speed limit of 130 km/h on freeways.
FDP: Abolishing the combustion engine ban, instead “we enable alternative fuels.” No speed limit, abolish EU fleet limits, equality of e-mobility, carbon-neutral fuels and hydrogen in “regulation, taxation and funding.”

Coal phase-out

CDU/CSU: It “stands by the coal compromise and the agreed coal phase-out.” Without new gas-fired power plants and CHP plants, there can be “no further final shutdown of coal-fired power plants.”
SPD: No mention of the coal phase-out.
Greens: coal phase-out by 2030.
FDP: “An earlier end to lignite mining” before the agreed phase-out in 2038 is rejected. In principle, CCS is “non-discriminatory as a climate action option.”

Expansion of renewables

CDU/CSU: It seeks “targeted further expansion” and “all capacities that are eco-friendly and beneficial to the system.” In addition to wind and solar, emphasis is also placed on geothermal energy, water, bioenergy and wood.
SPD: Wind and solar power should be consistently expanded, partly to reduce electricity prices. No expansion path is mentioned. Grid fees are to be stabilized and then reduced to three cents.
Greens: Expansion of renewables to remain at “a record pace.” Completely carbon-neutral electricity system by 2035.
FDP: “Transfer renewables completely to the market,” no EEG payments for new plants, rejection of “legally prescribed expansion paths for individual technologies” and “state-guaranteed purchase prices.”

CDU/CSU: calls for a “climate bonus”: The “CO2 revenue” is to be used to reduce electricity tax and grid fees, while higher carbon prices should also lead to greater relief.
SPD: When the European carbon price takes effect in 2027 and prices rise, climate money, for example, should “ensure that no one is overburdened.” Heating rental models for poorer households (“social heat pump leasing”) should be introduced.
Green Party: Climate money should be introduced “as quickly as possible.” Support for poorer households that would otherwise not be able to afford new heating systems, thermal insulation, electric cars or energy storage systems. Protect tenants from price hikes due to higher carbon prices. Financing through the abolition of climate-damaging subsidies, among other things.
FDP: Money from emissions trading should flow back to citizens “directly and on a flat-rate per capita basis” as a “climate dividend.”

Industry

CDU/CSU: Electricity tax and grid fees are to be reduced, the term industrial electricity price does not appear, no division of Germany into two electricity bidding zones. Higher grid fees should not burden large industrial consumers.
SPD: It wants to say “without a doubt” where the technologies are headed: Electrification of transport and industry and a hydrogen economy are a clear focus. CO2 avoidance comes before CO2 capture. CO-2 fleet limits should not result in fines for car manufacturers. An investment premium is to promote green investments in the future and replace “bureaucratic subsidy programs.”
Green Party: Broader design of electricity price compensation for energy-intensive industries. Green restructuring of the industrial sector should be supported by market mechanisms such as a carbon price, investment support and regulatory law. The scope of climate action agreements is to be expanded. Green lead markets for cement and steel. CCS for sectors with hard-to-avoid emissions. Rapid expansion of the hydrogen network.
FDP: No mention of the industrial electricity price.

International/Climate Finance

CDU/CSU: Supporting “climate action in other countries” – not explicitly with finances, but with “innovations made in Germany.”
SPD: Germany should contribute its fair share to international climate finance, international support for a billionaires’ tax. The super-rich should contribute more to climate financing. The global financial architecture should become fairer. Debt swaps for climate financing should also be promoted. The JETPs are mentioned as an instrument.
Greens: Germany should make a fair contribution to climate financing. Innovative financial instruments should be developed.
FDP: No mention of international climate financing.

Energy costs

CDU/CSU: Reduce electricity tax and grid fees. Demand for a “technology-open capacity market,” more futures markets. Grid expansion primarily via overhead lines – after the more expensive underground cables were pushed through from 2015, mainly at the instigation of the CSU.
SPD: Combining climate action and competitiveness. The aim is to reduce electricity prices, for example, through reduced grid charges and electricity price compensation.
Green Party: Costs for grid expansion should no longer be passed on, but “funded by other means.” Electricity tax to be reduced to the European minimum. Grid fees should fall.
FDP: Reducing electricity tax to the EU minimum, taxes on heating and fuels should also be “gradually reduced to zero,” carbon price should replace electricity energy tax. Grid fees to be “comprehensively reformed,” digitalization should make grids more flexible, capacity market for new gas-fired power plants necessary.

Energy supply

CDU/CSU: More private capital for grid expansion, smart meters and digitalization. The CDU/CSU favors “pioneer markets” and green gas quotas, “green heating oil” and climate-neutral steel.
SPD: Accelerating wind and solar expansion, no mention of natural gas, LNG or coal.
Greens: Gas production in Germany should be abolished “on land and at sea.”
FDP: Expanding domestic gas production, allow Borkum and fracking

Nuclear power

CDU/CSU: It advocates a “nuclear energy option” without directly committing to new construction or continued operation: Research into fusion, small modular reactors and “fourth and fifth generation nuclear energy.” Next, “we aim to take stock as quickly as possible” of whether it is “still possible to resume operation of German nuclear power plants at a reasonable technical and financial cost.”
SPD: The nuclear exit should be maintained.
Green Party: No return to nuclear power.
FDP: Nuclear fusion and “enabling safe nuclear power plants without subsidies.” Next-generation NPPs, dual fluid, thorium and small modular reactors should “be legally permitted in Germany,” regulating nuclear fusion outside of nuclear law; “Legally permitting the recommissioning of German nuclear power plants and leaving the decision to its operators.”

The EU Green Deal

CDU/CSU: The Green Deal of CDU Commission President von der Leyen is not explicitly mentioned. The central pillar of EU policy is not addressed in the Europe section. It only mentions EU emissions trading, which the party wants to “advance internationally.”
SPD: Green Deal is supported, as are the European Clean Industrial Deal, CBAM and Climate Club.
Greens: Green Deal is supported and should be expanded to include an industrial dimension. “Climate-neutral European innovative strength” to be developed into a competitive advantage. State aid law to be reformed to support industry in the transformation.
FDP: Abolition of taxonomy, guidelines on sustainability reporting, supply chains, circular economy action plan, abolition of reporting obligations from the Green Deal.

Christmas: Seven tips for talking to climate change skeptics

Christmas is a time for family. However, this may also lead to conversations around the Christmas tree that are not always pleasant. So how can or should we react when uncles, aunts or other people sing the song of the grand climate conspiracy? Are there ways of successfully defending facts, debunking falsehoods and perhaps even convincing the climate deniers in the family of the extremely unpleasant truth of global warming?

A guide by Klimafakten.de on how to calmly approach climate deniers in the family. Unfortunately, there is no universal recipe. However, you can avoid a few mistakes, be aware of pitfalls and package your replies to relatives more skillfully.