display

Bavaria's Prime Minister Markus Söder is right.

"Who succeeds best in combining ecology and economy?" That will indeed be one, perhaps even

the

core question in the federal election in September.

Whoever manages a triple jump there has the greatest chance of political support.

In the first step, ecological sustainability must be respected - this has just been demanded by the Federal Constitutional Court.

The legislature was obliged to “regulate the continuation of the reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions for periods after 2030 ... in more detail”.

Second, economic efficiency must be satisfied.

If industry is driven out of Germany, not only local jobs will be lost.

The environment is not helped, but harmed.

Then more will be produced elsewhere - under significantly more environmentally harmful conditions than in this country.

display

With the third jump it is important to consider the social dimension.

With all due respect for the common sense of the electorate: When the crosses are placed in the anonymity of the voting booth, self-interests probably play the greatest role.

Anyone who demands a lot from many will therefore feel more headwind than who promises everything to everyone - no matter how cloudy and uncertain the promises.

So far, the greens seem to jump the farthest.

They are ahead in many polls.

Somehow the population is caught up in a policy that relies on dirigism and paternalism - that is, on prohibitions and commands that are supposed to force people to a happiness that is judged by know-it-alls as right, desirable and desirable.

Market economy policy is in a difficult position here. Even the CSU boss is tough on the Liberals: "The FDP is primarily focused on radical market interests, without giving greater consideration to sustainability."

display

It is a shame and unnecessary that the Bavarian Prime Minister is throwing out the baby with the bath water with his saddle, which he pampers just like the liberals.

Because Markus Söder also wants “a market-based CO2 price without a cap, but instead a lowering of the electricity tax to the European minimum and an extensive abolition of the EEG surcharge for companies”.

What he identifies as “radical market interest” in these economically sound demands is his secret.

Obviously, accurate, and remains, that the market economy is quite capable of "ecological" and "economic" purposes to an eco

-

merge logical symbiosis that better than all the alternatives for Germany the triple jump of sustainability, economic viability and social dimension is able to master.

It has really become a rush that the ecological problem is a problem of a lack of real cost.

The costs (and thus the prices) do not include all the actual long-term consequences of environmental pollution, global warming, climate change and the extinction of species.

display

Much is used too cheaply today.

A more or less larger share of the costs is passed on to the children's children.

But that is not the fault of the market economy or the result of a market failure.

It's a policy failure.

Obviously, the majority of MPs and the government they support are unwilling to do what the market economy demands - namely, to rely on market forces.

It gives off a strong smell of hypocrisy, first to resolve the pure opposite of more efficient market-based incentives with a renewable energy surcharge (EEG surcharge) and then blame the market economy of all things for the failure of an energy policy based on permanent subsidies for green electricity.

Relying on market forces does not in any way mean foregoing market intervention.

But on the contrary.

Whoever pollutes the environment should pay for it.

It was precisely the cardinal mistake that liberals have also committed that they believed for too long that the laws of the environment were different from those of the rest of the economy.

There would be no scarcity problems.

Air, water or atmosphere could be used free of charge.

Today it is not only widely accepted knowledge that the long-term costs of global warming, climate change and species extinction are considerable.

There is also social consensus and, since last week, the newly confirmed legal basis that environmental and climate targets are economically binding.

However, this is exactly what can be wonderfully achieved with market economy measures.

In order to economically implement an ecological cost truth, it is completely sufficient for politics to set the goals.

You can then confidently leave the implementation to the market economy.

It is politically mandatory to determine the amount of climate and environmental pollution, i.e. by when and which upper limits are to be reached for pollution.

Greens boss Habeck on the corona situation and climate judgment

After the committee meeting of the Greens, Federal Chairman Robert Habeck comments on the current pandemic situation and the Karlsruhe ruling on the Climate Protection Act.

See his press conference here.

Source: WORLD

It is also easy to plan for a dynamic of the meltdown, i.e. that the quantities of permitted emissions are reduced by a certain percentage year after year.

This and nothing else (or even additional) is also required by the Federal Constitutional Court in its judgment.

display

When setting goals, honesty is also part of the cost truth.

There is no economically sensible reason to favor individual forms of energy over others on the way to the goal or to treat individual economic sectors differently from all others.

Everyone should and must stick to the same goal.

Whether the economy reacts to production or the population to heating or traffic to new technologies, the exhaustion of savings potential or changes in behavior, politics, legislators or the constitutional court can make absolutely no difference: the only thing that counts is the achievement of goals.

Instead of quantity control, ecological goals can be achieved through steering taxes

If the quantity targets are in place, a trade in government-issued pollution rights fixed in quantity will do everything else automatically.

Market economy is as simple as it is effective.

Pollution rights and avoidance costs are the twins of an environmentally and economically successful environmental and climate policy.

If you first have to buy a pollution right in order to manufacture goods or heat apartments, everyone involved will have their own interests in going the ecologically sensible route.

Instead of quantity control, ecological goals can be achieved through steering taxes.

This is slightly more difficult to implement in practice.

Because in an approximation process, the tax rates that lead to the politically targeted volume reductions must first be determined.

But here, too, the market economy will ensure that environmental and climate targets can be met easily and effectively via the automatic steering effect of costs and prices.

Karlsruhe climate judgment condemns politics to detention

A groundbreaking ruling from Karlsruhe puts climate protection politicians under pressure.

The Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the federal government must also protect the civil liberties of younger generations when it comes to climate protection.

Source: WORLD / Marcus Tychsen

What remains is self-interest as the last leap in a successful eco-policy.

Whether the state is auctioning pollution rights or introducing steering taxes, both act like an increase in indirect taxes.

In order to avoid an additional tax burden on the population through the back door, there are many arguments in favor of relieving taxes on society elsewhere.

The easiest way to win the favor of voters is by lowering income taxes.

Those who want to score particularly well could promise an increase in the tax-free allowance.

Many would benefit from that.

This was how the greatest electoral successes could be achieved in the triple jump.

Thomas Straubhaar is professor of economics, especially international economic relations, at the University of Hamburg

“Everything on stocks” is the daily stock market shot from the WELT business editorial team.

Every morning from 7 a.m. with the financial journalists from WELT.

For stock market experts and beginners.

Subscribe to the podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcast, Amazon Music and Deezer.

Or directly via RSS feed.