In the competition for voters, the political discourse is shifting in the far-right party’s favour. If other parties fail to clearly distance themselves from its positions, this only strengthens the AfD. The party’s disinformation campaigns and its dystopic narratives have to be countered with facts and credible visions for the future. Irrespective of its necessity, a social-ecological transformation offers a significant potential to improve health, prosperity, economic growth, nature conservation, freedom, and fairness for future generations.
What would you say has the government of chancellor Merz got right so far in terms of climate and energy policy?
The government has confirmed its adherence to the national climate targets: to reduce emissions by 65 percent by 2030 and to achieve climate neutrality by 2045. The 2045 target has now also been enshrined in the constitution.
Another positive element is the 100-billion-euro special fund for infrastructure and climate neutrality. This fund was made a prerequisite by the Green Party for its consent ahead of the new government taking office. While special the fund only covers a fraction of the required investments, it strengthens the separate Climate and Transformation Fund (KTF), which is designed to cover climate action measures outside the regular budget.
And where do you see the government falling short?
Despite these commitments, climate action is currently taking a back seat to traditional industrial policy. At the current pace, Germany will miss its 2045 target by a wide margin. This shift in priorities was already evident during the 2025 election campaign, when the previous government’s climate policy was framed as “ideological” and damaging for the economy, prosperity, and individual liberty.
Individual climate action measures have been called into question, and in some cases are withdrawn. At the same time, the concept of “technology openness” is being used to justify both continued reliance on fossil fuel technologies and future solutions that are not yet suitable for large-scale deployment. Instead of focussing on concrete procedures to significantly reduce CO2 emissions, emissions trading is increasingly presented as the primary solution.
As a result, the energy transition is being significantly slowed down, and existing climate targets are being systematically called into question.
In your view, which topics will become relevant in climate and energy policy in 2026.
It will be crucial to ensure that all the money earmarked in the Climate and Transformation Fund [CTF] is actually used to reduce CO2emissions. Using the money instead for industry relief, for financing fossil infrastructure, or for payments for missed climate targets would contradict Germany’s climate interests and come at the expense of implementing concrete measures, for example at the municipal level. Attempts to shift the financing of such measures from the core federal budget to the CTF fund have already been criticised by experts as misappropriation.
What consequences should the government draw from this?
We need to advance ecologic transformation processes with the resources currently available. There is urgent need for action in industry, in agriculture, in sustainable mobility, the heating transition or the expansion of renewable power sources. It would be sensible to earmark part of the funds for social measures and targeted relief to low-income households. If these investments are not made now, society will pay twice – through payments for missed EU targets and through the growing impacts of unchecked climate change.
At present, however, we are seeing a rollback of existing regulation, for example in the heating and mobility sectors. Clinging to combustion engine cars or fossil heating systems reduces planning certainty for companies and consumers. In the medium term, this will push Germany’s climate targets further out of reach and create competitive disadvantages.
Instead, the benefits and enormous potential of a social-ecological transformation need to be addressed and its acceptance strengthened. The necessary changes require social cohesion and democratic consensus. These challenges can be tackled collectively. By contrast, sticking to outdated modes of production and consumption will ultimately lead to a loss of economic strength, prosperity, and liberty.
Looking back, it becomes clear that incentives alone cannot replace regulation. Clear rules provide the planning certainty needed for transformation. Without regulation in the past, we would still have cars without catalytic converters, spray cans emitting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), or buildings containing asbestos. These regulatory interventions have improved life in every respect.