In less than two weeks, Donald Trump will again be sworn in as US President. Many climate activists anticipate the next four years with barely contained horror. Our colleague Umair Irfan from Washington has dug deeper for us and written down in detail what we can expect from the men who will shape climate, environmental and energy policy in Trump’s cabinet over the next few years.
Back in Germany, we also keep a very close eye on things. As always, on a colorful bouquet of topics, but above all, the climate policy ideas and proposals floated during the election campaign. As some of these ideas can be quite outlandish and the facts can lag behind, we will be taking a closer look at the most important proposals from key players over the coming weeks. Expect a few surprises: The climate fact check series kicks off today with the proposal to postpone Germany’s net zero target from 2045 to 2050.
Stay tuned. Things are only getting more exciting!
The staff selection for the next US administration clearly shows the strategies of the new President-elect Donald Trump in energy and climate policy. His main aim is to repeal environmental regulations and boost the production of fossil fuels. Conventional climate action policy, on the other hand, will hardly be a priority; many rules and regulations are to be curtailed or rolled back. It can be expected that the US will continue to reduce emissions but will miss its climate targets.
However, a closer look also reveals the potential cracks in this strategy. This is because many changes cannot be implemented quickly. Tensions between protectionists and supporters of free trade in Trump’s MAGA movement are already apparent. Trump’s first term in office has also shown that these people are no guarantee of a particular policy – and that many of them will not remain in office for long.
Trump has set a record for staff turnover during his first term in the White House: Many senior advisers and cabinet secretaries were fired or resigned in less than four years, including the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of State. Some angered Trump, others defied him, and some were under investigation for misconduct. Many appointments from the private sector found working in a government agency too tedious due to red tape, financial, political and legal constraints. So it is unlikely that the new department heads will be able to make drastic policy changes quickly.
Still, the new team will set Trump’s agenda for his first days in office, especially while Republicans still have the majority in Congress and can pass legislation. Conservative think tanks have also drawn up plans such as Project 2025 to keep the new Trump administration on track. Trump also wants to turn merit-based hiring into a new class of federal employees so he can fire employees across agencies and replace them with people loyal to him. Litigation will be less of a risk than in the first term because more judges in the federal courts are now sympathetic to Trump, and he has a 6:3 majority on the Supreme Court.
The following appointments will shape Trump’s decisions on climate change and the environment:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – New York congressman Lee Zeldin has been selected to lead the nation’s highest environmental agency. He has long been known to vote against environmental legislation. After his nomination, he said the EPA was hurting businesses with its regulations and that the U.S. was seeking “energy dominance.” However, he also maintained that protecting the environment was a top priority.
The EPA controls national environmental regulations, including regulations for cars, power plants, air and water pollution. Trump tried to weaken these regulations in his last term, but the courts prevented him from doing so. The Republicans are likely to try again.
Department of Energy – Trump appointed Chris Wright, the CEO of Liberty Energy, one of the world’s largest fracking companies, to head the Department of Energy. He once drank fracking fluid on camera to show that it was safe. He believes climate change is a real phenomenon and supports some forms of clean energy, such as geothermal energy. However, he also believes that the US benefits from fossil fuel extraction.
Despite its name, the Ministry of Energy does not primarily dictate energy policy. Around two-thirds of its budget is used for nuclear weapons and the disposal of nuclear waste. Most of the remaining budget goes to basic energy research, funding for new energy companies and major projects. Wright could change the agency’s research priorities, cut clean energy budgets and reduce staff. The Department of Energy also authorizes fossil fuel exports. US President Biden has halted new gas exports to review. The department recently concluded that these exports would exacerbate climate change and drive up domestic gas prices. However, it is unlikely that these findings will be relevant to the next administration.
Department of the Interior – North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum will lead the Department of the Interior and the new National Energy Council. He previously worked as a venture capitalist and invested in software companies. During his tenure, he has set a goal of making North Dakota carbon-neutral by 2030, but he has also promoted oil and gas development.
The Department of the Interior administers around 263 million hectares of land and coastal waters in the United States. That’s 30 percent of the total US land area under federal ownership. It includes national parks, wildlife refuges and Native American reservations, mostly in the western United States. The department is also responsible for approving mining and drilling in these regions. Trump and Burgum plan to expand fossil fuel development in federal areas.
State Department – Florida Senator Marco Rubio will be Trump’s top diplomat. Representing a state facing disasters from global warming and rising sea levels, Rubio has declared that Florida must confront climate change. He introduced a bill to restore coral reefs, which earned him the support of a group of senators worried about climate change. However, he has long argued that the US needs to focus on adapting to the effects of climate change rather than reducing emissions overall. He criticized legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gases as “reactionary.” He also introduced a bill to prevent clean energy funds under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) from going to Chinese suppliers.
Rubio also said that the US joining the Paris climate agreement was “ridiculous” and “all for show.” It’s unclear whether the next Trump administration will make withdrawing from the agreement a high priority, but Rubio appears to be a willing partner in getting this done. He is also likely to support efforts to impose tariffs on Chinese goods, including batteries and solar cells.
Department of Commerce – Howard Lutnick, CEO of financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald, will lead the Department of Commerce and the Office of the US Trade Representative. He has been a vocal and visible supporter of Trump, promising to “unleash our full economic potential.” However, Lutnick has barely expressed his own views on climate change.
The Department of Commerce is another government agency with a strange name. It collects economic data and works to create conditions to promote US businesses. But half of its budget, 6.6 billion US dollars, goes to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA is the most important federal agency for researching the skies and oceans. It operates the National Weather Service and conducts climate change research utilizing a fleet of aircraft, ships and satellites. NOAA was the focus of political interference during Trump’s first term when Trump disagreed with NOAA scientists and used a marker to distort a hurricane forecast. The department is also the target of Project 2025, which proposes to disband NOAA and hand over weather forecasting data to private companies.
Department of Government Efficiency – this new department aims to reduce wasteful government spending. It will be headed by Tesla CEO Elon Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. It remains unclear what exactly they consider to be wasteful.
The IRA, the largest US investment in history to combat climate change, would be a worthwhile target. While it includes hundreds of billions of dollars for initiatives such as battery manufacturing, electric car charging stations and tax credits for energy-efficient appliances, much of that money has yet to be spent. Musk and Ramaswamy will have trouble reclaiming funds already spent, but they could slow down the remaining funds or redirect them to programs favored by Trump.
Trump’s cabinet picks reveal an emerging tension in the MAGA movement between those who want to reduce regulations and open markets and those who want tariffs and subsidies to promote the US economy. Musk has positioned himself in favor of free trade, which benefits his companies that rely on hardware such as batteries and solar cells imported from China. Musk has even proposed eliminating tax credits for electric vehicles, which would likely hurt Tesla’s competitors more and ultimately work in its favor. His companies have already seen huge increases in value.
However, Trump is a strong advocate of protectionism. He promised to impose a 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods and a 20 percent tariff on goods from other countries. Lutnick will be responsible for implementing this vision, and he is getting a head start from Biden, who imposed even more tariffs on solar components in his last days in office. Trump also outlined a plan to eliminate tax credits on electric vehicles, but it seems less likely that he will cut incentives for wind and solar energy. In his first term, he largely eliminated clean energy subsidies, and they have only grown since then, especially in Republican states. Texas is now the largest producer of wind energy in the US and a leader in new solar installations.
All in all, it is clear that climate change will be a low priority at best for the US over the next four years. However, there appears to be less ideological opposition to environmental protection in Trump’s second term and more of an emphasis on promoting US economic interests. This could include clean energy – one of the fastest growing sectors of the US economy.
At the same time, the US is the largest producer of oil and gas in the world, and production is likely to increase further. Coal power continues to lose ground, renewables are the cheapest source of new electricity, and some old nuclear power plants may soon be brought back online.
The bottom line is that US greenhouse gas emissions will still fall in the coming years, but at a much slower rate, meaning that the US will likely miss its climate targets. And if the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter veers off course, other countries could start to miss their targets, too.
According to the Climate Change Act (KSG), the legal date for a net zero Germany is 2045. According to the views of the Free Democratic Party (FDP), this date should be pushed back. In its election manifesto, the party wants to postpone it to match the EU target of 2050. There have also been calls and hints from parts of the economy and the CDU/CSU to delay the climate target. However, the CDU/CSU election manifesto states that “we have our sights firmly set on climate neutrality by 2045.”
The KSG can be amended by a simple majority in the Bundestag. Postponing the goal of net-zero emissions after 2050 would probably also mean reversing the tightening of the emissions reduction for 2030 from minus 55 to minus 65 percent, which went hand in hand with the decision for 2045. However, the entire endeavor would lead to practical problems with EU law.
Parliament would revoke an amendment to the KSG that was a direct consequence of the Federal Constitutional Court’s landmark climate ruling in 2021. At the time, Germany’s highest court complained that the KSG lacked “sufficient measures” for climate action after 2031. It argued that as an “intertemporal safeguard of freedom,” politicians must ensure that a large part of the emissions reduction is not postponed to the future. However, it is precisely this shift into the future that would be threatened if the timeframe were postponed – unless significantly more negative emissions were planned at the same time. But there is no mention of this. And such an extension of the German climate targets would almost certainly be challenged in court. The Constitutional Court would then have to decide again whether a watering down of the climate target would also be compatible with its requirements under the Climate Agreement.
It is also unclear what effect such a change to the timetable would have on German federal states, some of which aim to achieve net zero by 2040. States such as Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria would then have to bring their emissions down to zero ten years before the federal government.
Above all, however, extending the target would conflict with all EU legislation relating to climate and the Green Deal. This is because overriding EU law stipulates that the emission allowances in ETS I for industry and the electricity sector expire in 2039. ETS II for buildings and transport, on the other hand, expires in 2043. After that, the EU will no longer issue allowances for CO2 emissions in these sectors. “Germany is bound by this EU law and cannot simply ignore it,” says Rainer Baake, Managing Director of the Climate Neutrality Foundation. He calls it a “sham debate, but one that is politically damaging because it sends the wrong signals and spreads uncertainty in the economy.”
Simon Müller, Director Germany at the think tank Agora Energiewende, also believes postponing the target to 2050 would change little about climate policy and current decisions. These are largely determined by the EU framework. “The German climate targets are already aligned with the EU climate targets. Such a postponement only creates uncertainty and does nothing to change our obligation to meet the EU climate targets,” says Müller, for example, with regard to the upcoming higher prices for emissions trading, transport and buildings and the EU fleet limits for cars. However, he believes there is a risk that the entire EU climate action architecture could be shaken by such a change: “If Germany, as the largest EU economic power, stretches its contribution to climate protection efforts over time, there could be a domino effect, with other countries also showing less ambition.”
Internationally, such a step would probably be received as a very negative signal – in a year crucial for the climate, as all countries have to submit their new and more ambitious climate plans (NDC) for 2035 to the UN in February 2025. If Germany, which is an important international pioneer and driver of climate action, were to soften its targets, this could also discourage other countries and provide good arguments for those trying to slow down progress to show less ambition.
Such a decision would not have any direct consequences for public budgets. Still, such a change to the KSG could potentially cause major disruption to public and private investment, such as in hydrogen infrastructure. However, the EU framework already determines the green transformation of the industrial, energy and private household sectors.
A government formed by the CDU/CSU and SPD or the CDU/CSU and Greens would not pursue the project according to their election manifestos. Even if the FDP were to be part of the government, the issue would hardly be central.
Postponing the date for net zero from 2045 to 2050 is unrealistic. After all, EU regulations stipulate this development anyway. The German parliament could amend the Climate Change Act, which would be highly controversial both legally and politically, but would have little practical impact. It would also hurt Germany’s reputation and position on the international stage.
Innovation is the key to fighting the climate crisis. This is something Beena Sharma is certain of. “At least 50 percent of the technology we need for net zero emissions has not yet been invented,” she says. Sharma is CEO and co-founder of CCU International, a company founded in 2022 that works on technology for capturing and reusing carbon. She is also an advocate for women’s representation in the renewable energy sector through the “Women in New Energy” initiative.
The 47-year-old lives with her two children in Aberdeen, Scotland. “But I’m almost always on the move,” she adds. “My carbon footprint must be terrible. It’s a good thing I’m working on capturing the carbon again.” A psychology graduate, she started her career in the oil and gas industry. She has worked at LNG terminals in Nigeria and Norway – not in the technical process, however, but on issues such as safety, behavioral change and the environment. At some point, she wanted to change direction and focus more on environmental aspects. Sharma became fascinated by climate technology because she sees particularly strong future potential there.
For example, Sharma has been working with CCU International on a project that aims to capture and reuse between 15 and 20 million tons of CO2 in the UK – for example, in dishwasher tabs or the beverage industry. “We need to decarbonize the supply chains,” says Sharma. The technology behind this is called Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU). It is often mentioned in the same breath as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). For Sharma, it is important to differentiate here: While carbon tends to be seen as an expensive waste product when stored, she is working on reusing the CO2. The aim is to create a circular carbon economy. “It’s not as expensive as CCS and also helps to keep more fossil fuels in the ground,” she explains. She believes CCS is also necessary in the long term, but the solutions are currently too expensive and not fully developed. The reuse and recycling of captured carbon, on the other hand, is one way to save CO2 more cost-effectively right now.
This concept is not uncontroversial: For CCU, carbon is captured either in industrial processes or from the atmosphere. It is then processed either directly or in liquefied form for use in the beverage or chemical industry, for example. In any case, the technology requires a lot of energy. Critics therefore repeatedly describe CCU as a “sham solution” that distracts from the actual task of phasing out fossil fuels. Both Germany and the EU are currently working on plans to ensure that CCS and CCU are only used in areas where complete decarbonization is hardly or not at all possible. The EU plans to capture up to 450 million CO2 per year by 2050 to achieve its climate targets.
Beena Sharma is aware of all this criticism. Naturally, she agrees that it would be best to stop subsidizing fossil fuels immediately. Realistically, however, this will not happen. There is no perfect solution to the climate crisis, “but we are making a contribution,” she says of CCU International.
Around the world, much hope is being placed in technologies such as CCU. Sharma’s expertise is in demand. However, she still finds capacity for one issue close to her heart: She campaigns for more diversity, particularly, representation of women. For far too long and far too often, decisions in the energy sector have been made mainly by men with very similar perspectives. Sharma wants to be a role model for young women in the industry and create networking opportunities. To this end, she has launched the “Women in New Energy” platform, for example. However, Sharma does not see diversity as an end in itself: She believes that a lot of innovation is needed quickly in the field of renewables. This is much more likely to happen if new perspectives are included. kul
In less than two weeks, Donald Trump will again be sworn in as US President. Many climate activists anticipate the next four years with barely contained horror. Our colleague Umair Irfan from Washington has dug deeper for us and written down in detail what we can expect from the men who will shape climate, environmental and energy policy in Trump’s cabinet over the next few years.
Back in Germany, we also keep a very close eye on things. As always, on a colorful bouquet of topics, but above all, the climate policy ideas and proposals floated during the election campaign. As some of these ideas can be quite outlandish and the facts can lag behind, we will be taking a closer look at the most important proposals from key players over the coming weeks. Expect a few surprises: The climate fact check series kicks off today with the proposal to postpone Germany’s net zero target from 2045 to 2050.
Stay tuned. Things are only getting more exciting!
The staff selection for the next US administration clearly shows the strategies of the new President-elect Donald Trump in energy and climate policy. His main aim is to repeal environmental regulations and boost the production of fossil fuels. Conventional climate action policy, on the other hand, will hardly be a priority; many rules and regulations are to be curtailed or rolled back. It can be expected that the US will continue to reduce emissions but will miss its climate targets.
However, a closer look also reveals the potential cracks in this strategy. This is because many changes cannot be implemented quickly. Tensions between protectionists and supporters of free trade in Trump’s MAGA movement are already apparent. Trump’s first term in office has also shown that these people are no guarantee of a particular policy – and that many of them will not remain in office for long.
Trump has set a record for staff turnover during his first term in the White House: Many senior advisers and cabinet secretaries were fired or resigned in less than four years, including the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of State. Some angered Trump, others defied him, and some were under investigation for misconduct. Many appointments from the private sector found working in a government agency too tedious due to red tape, financial, political and legal constraints. So it is unlikely that the new department heads will be able to make drastic policy changes quickly.
Still, the new team will set Trump’s agenda for his first days in office, especially while Republicans still have the majority in Congress and can pass legislation. Conservative think tanks have also drawn up plans such as Project 2025 to keep the new Trump administration on track. Trump also wants to turn merit-based hiring into a new class of federal employees so he can fire employees across agencies and replace them with people loyal to him. Litigation will be less of a risk than in the first term because more judges in the federal courts are now sympathetic to Trump, and he has a 6:3 majority on the Supreme Court.
The following appointments will shape Trump’s decisions on climate change and the environment:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – New York congressman Lee Zeldin has been selected to lead the nation’s highest environmental agency. He has long been known to vote against environmental legislation. After his nomination, he said the EPA was hurting businesses with its regulations and that the U.S. was seeking “energy dominance.” However, he also maintained that protecting the environment was a top priority.
The EPA controls national environmental regulations, including regulations for cars, power plants, air and water pollution. Trump tried to weaken these regulations in his last term, but the courts prevented him from doing so. The Republicans are likely to try again.
Department of Energy – Trump appointed Chris Wright, the CEO of Liberty Energy, one of the world’s largest fracking companies, to head the Department of Energy. He once drank fracking fluid on camera to show that it was safe. He believes climate change is a real phenomenon and supports some forms of clean energy, such as geothermal energy. However, he also believes that the US benefits from fossil fuel extraction.
Despite its name, the Ministry of Energy does not primarily dictate energy policy. Around two-thirds of its budget is used for nuclear weapons and the disposal of nuclear waste. Most of the remaining budget goes to basic energy research, funding for new energy companies and major projects. Wright could change the agency’s research priorities, cut clean energy budgets and reduce staff. The Department of Energy also authorizes fossil fuel exports. US President Biden has halted new gas exports to review. The department recently concluded that these exports would exacerbate climate change and drive up domestic gas prices. However, it is unlikely that these findings will be relevant to the next administration.
Department of the Interior – North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum will lead the Department of the Interior and the new National Energy Council. He previously worked as a venture capitalist and invested in software companies. During his tenure, he has set a goal of making North Dakota carbon-neutral by 2030, but he has also promoted oil and gas development.
The Department of the Interior administers around 263 million hectares of land and coastal waters in the United States. That’s 30 percent of the total US land area under federal ownership. It includes national parks, wildlife refuges and Native American reservations, mostly in the western United States. The department is also responsible for approving mining and drilling in these regions. Trump and Burgum plan to expand fossil fuel development in federal areas.
State Department – Florida Senator Marco Rubio will be Trump’s top diplomat. Representing a state facing disasters from global warming and rising sea levels, Rubio has declared that Florida must confront climate change. He introduced a bill to restore coral reefs, which earned him the support of a group of senators worried about climate change. However, he has long argued that the US needs to focus on adapting to the effects of climate change rather than reducing emissions overall. He criticized legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gases as “reactionary.” He also introduced a bill to prevent clean energy funds under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) from going to Chinese suppliers.
Rubio also said that the US joining the Paris climate agreement was “ridiculous” and “all for show.” It’s unclear whether the next Trump administration will make withdrawing from the agreement a high priority, but Rubio appears to be a willing partner in getting this done. He is also likely to support efforts to impose tariffs on Chinese goods, including batteries and solar cells.
Department of Commerce – Howard Lutnick, CEO of financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald, will lead the Department of Commerce and the Office of the US Trade Representative. He has been a vocal and visible supporter of Trump, promising to “unleash our full economic potential.” However, Lutnick has barely expressed his own views on climate change.
The Department of Commerce is another government agency with a strange name. It collects economic data and works to create conditions to promote US businesses. But half of its budget, 6.6 billion US dollars, goes to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA is the most important federal agency for researching the skies and oceans. It operates the National Weather Service and conducts climate change research utilizing a fleet of aircraft, ships and satellites. NOAA was the focus of political interference during Trump’s first term when Trump disagreed with NOAA scientists and used a marker to distort a hurricane forecast. The department is also the target of Project 2025, which proposes to disband NOAA and hand over weather forecasting data to private companies.
Department of Government Efficiency – this new department aims to reduce wasteful government spending. It will be headed by Tesla CEO Elon Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. It remains unclear what exactly they consider to be wasteful.
The IRA, the largest US investment in history to combat climate change, would be a worthwhile target. While it includes hundreds of billions of dollars for initiatives such as battery manufacturing, electric car charging stations and tax credits for energy-efficient appliances, much of that money has yet to be spent. Musk and Ramaswamy will have trouble reclaiming funds already spent, but they could slow down the remaining funds or redirect them to programs favored by Trump.
Trump’s cabinet picks reveal an emerging tension in the MAGA movement between those who want to reduce regulations and open markets and those who want tariffs and subsidies to promote the US economy. Musk has positioned himself in favor of free trade, which benefits his companies that rely on hardware such as batteries and solar cells imported from China. Musk has even proposed eliminating tax credits for electric vehicles, which would likely hurt Tesla’s competitors more and ultimately work in its favor. His companies have already seen huge increases in value.
However, Trump is a strong advocate of protectionism. He promised to impose a 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods and a 20 percent tariff on goods from other countries. Lutnick will be responsible for implementing this vision, and he is getting a head start from Biden, who imposed even more tariffs on solar components in his last days in office. Trump also outlined a plan to eliminate tax credits on electric vehicles, but it seems less likely that he will cut incentives for wind and solar energy. In his first term, he largely eliminated clean energy subsidies, and they have only grown since then, especially in Republican states. Texas is now the largest producer of wind energy in the US and a leader in new solar installations.
All in all, it is clear that climate change will be a low priority at best for the US over the next four years. However, there appears to be less ideological opposition to environmental protection in Trump’s second term and more of an emphasis on promoting US economic interests. This could include clean energy – one of the fastest growing sectors of the US economy.
At the same time, the US is the largest producer of oil and gas in the world, and production is likely to increase further. Coal power continues to lose ground, renewables are the cheapest source of new electricity, and some old nuclear power plants may soon be brought back online.
The bottom line is that US greenhouse gas emissions will still fall in the coming years, but at a much slower rate, meaning that the US will likely miss its climate targets. And if the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter veers off course, other countries could start to miss their targets, too.
According to the Climate Change Act (KSG), the legal date for a net zero Germany is 2045. According to the views of the Free Democratic Party (FDP), this date should be pushed back. In its election manifesto, the party wants to postpone it to match the EU target of 2050. There have also been calls and hints from parts of the economy and the CDU/CSU to delay the climate target. However, the CDU/CSU election manifesto states that “we have our sights firmly set on climate neutrality by 2045.”
The KSG can be amended by a simple majority in the Bundestag. Postponing the goal of net-zero emissions after 2050 would probably also mean reversing the tightening of the emissions reduction for 2030 from minus 55 to minus 65 percent, which went hand in hand with the decision for 2045. However, the entire endeavor would lead to practical problems with EU law.
Parliament would revoke an amendment to the KSG that was a direct consequence of the Federal Constitutional Court’s landmark climate ruling in 2021. At the time, Germany’s highest court complained that the KSG lacked “sufficient measures” for climate action after 2031. It argued that as an “intertemporal safeguard of freedom,” politicians must ensure that a large part of the emissions reduction is not postponed to the future. However, it is precisely this shift into the future that would be threatened if the timeframe were postponed – unless significantly more negative emissions were planned at the same time. But there is no mention of this. And such an extension of the German climate targets would almost certainly be challenged in court. The Constitutional Court would then have to decide again whether a watering down of the climate target would also be compatible with its requirements under the Climate Agreement.
It is also unclear what effect such a change to the timetable would have on German federal states, some of which aim to achieve net zero by 2040. States such as Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria would then have to bring their emissions down to zero ten years before the federal government.
Above all, however, extending the target would conflict with all EU legislation relating to climate and the Green Deal. This is because overriding EU law stipulates that the emission allowances in ETS I for industry and the electricity sector expire in 2039. ETS II for buildings and transport, on the other hand, expires in 2043. After that, the EU will no longer issue allowances for CO2 emissions in these sectors. “Germany is bound by this EU law and cannot simply ignore it,” says Rainer Baake, Managing Director of the Climate Neutrality Foundation. He calls it a “sham debate, but one that is politically damaging because it sends the wrong signals and spreads uncertainty in the economy.”
Simon Müller, Director Germany at the think tank Agora Energiewende, also believes postponing the target to 2050 would change little about climate policy and current decisions. These are largely determined by the EU framework. “The German climate targets are already aligned with the EU climate targets. Such a postponement only creates uncertainty and does nothing to change our obligation to meet the EU climate targets,” says Müller, for example, with regard to the upcoming higher prices for emissions trading, transport and buildings and the EU fleet limits for cars. However, he believes there is a risk that the entire EU climate action architecture could be shaken by such a change: “If Germany, as the largest EU economic power, stretches its contribution to climate protection efforts over time, there could be a domino effect, with other countries also showing less ambition.”
Internationally, such a step would probably be received as a very negative signal – in a year crucial for the climate, as all countries have to submit their new and more ambitious climate plans (NDC) for 2035 to the UN in February 2025. If Germany, which is an important international pioneer and driver of climate action, were to soften its targets, this could also discourage other countries and provide good arguments for those trying to slow down progress to show less ambition.
Such a decision would not have any direct consequences for public budgets. Still, such a change to the KSG could potentially cause major disruption to public and private investment, such as in hydrogen infrastructure. However, the EU framework already determines the green transformation of the industrial, energy and private household sectors.
A government formed by the CDU/CSU and SPD or the CDU/CSU and Greens would not pursue the project according to their election manifestos. Even if the FDP were to be part of the government, the issue would hardly be central.
Postponing the date for net zero from 2045 to 2050 is unrealistic. After all, EU regulations stipulate this development anyway. The German parliament could amend the Climate Change Act, which would be highly controversial both legally and politically, but would have little practical impact. It would also hurt Germany’s reputation and position on the international stage.
Innovation is the key to fighting the climate crisis. This is something Beena Sharma is certain of. “At least 50 percent of the technology we need for net zero emissions has not yet been invented,” she says. Sharma is CEO and co-founder of CCU International, a company founded in 2022 that works on technology for capturing and reusing carbon. She is also an advocate for women’s representation in the renewable energy sector through the “Women in New Energy” initiative.
The 47-year-old lives with her two children in Aberdeen, Scotland. “But I’m almost always on the move,” she adds. “My carbon footprint must be terrible. It’s a good thing I’m working on capturing the carbon again.” A psychology graduate, she started her career in the oil and gas industry. She has worked at LNG terminals in Nigeria and Norway – not in the technical process, however, but on issues such as safety, behavioral change and the environment. At some point, she wanted to change direction and focus more on environmental aspects. Sharma became fascinated by climate technology because she sees particularly strong future potential there.
For example, Sharma has been working with CCU International on a project that aims to capture and reuse between 15 and 20 million tons of CO2 in the UK – for example, in dishwasher tabs or the beverage industry. “We need to decarbonize the supply chains,” says Sharma. The technology behind this is called Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU). It is often mentioned in the same breath as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). For Sharma, it is important to differentiate here: While carbon tends to be seen as an expensive waste product when stored, she is working on reusing the CO2. The aim is to create a circular carbon economy. “It’s not as expensive as CCS and also helps to keep more fossil fuels in the ground,” she explains. She believes CCS is also necessary in the long term, but the solutions are currently too expensive and not fully developed. The reuse and recycling of captured carbon, on the other hand, is one way to save CO2 more cost-effectively right now.
This concept is not uncontroversial: For CCU, carbon is captured either in industrial processes or from the atmosphere. It is then processed either directly or in liquefied form for use in the beverage or chemical industry, for example. In any case, the technology requires a lot of energy. Critics therefore repeatedly describe CCU as a “sham solution” that distracts from the actual task of phasing out fossil fuels. Both Germany and the EU are currently working on plans to ensure that CCS and CCU are only used in areas where complete decarbonization is hardly or not at all possible. The EU plans to capture up to 450 million CO2 per year by 2050 to achieve its climate targets.
Beena Sharma is aware of all this criticism. Naturally, she agrees that it would be best to stop subsidizing fossil fuels immediately. Realistically, however, this will not happen. There is no perfect solution to the climate crisis, “but we are making a contribution,” she says of CCU International.
Around the world, much hope is being placed in technologies such as CCU. Sharma’s expertise is in demand. However, she still finds capacity for one issue close to her heart: She campaigns for more diversity, particularly, representation of women. For far too long and far too often, decisions in the energy sector have been made mainly by men with very similar perspectives. Sharma wants to be a role model for young women in the industry and create networking opportunities. To this end, she has launched the “Women in New Energy” platform, for example. However, Sharma does not see diversity as an end in itself: She believes that a lot of innovation is needed quickly in the field of renewables. This is much more likely to happen if new perspectives are included. kul
