The plans for a “greener” orientation of the European Central Bank (ECB) are well advanced.

Christine Lagarde presented nine points at the beginning of July with which the ECB President wants to help politicians in the fight against climate protection.

Among other things, climate-friendly companies are to be given preference in future for bond purchases.

Niklas Záboji

Editor in business.

  • Follow I follow

However, the “green” turnaround in monetary policy is met with broad rejection among economists.

This is shown by the results of the latest economists panel, a regular survey by the Ifo Institute and the FAZ among economics professors at German-speaking universities.

This time 171 took part.

A majority of professors are therefore against expanding the ECB's mandate, which has so far primarily been aimed at monetary stability, to include the EU goal of achieving climate neutrality by the middle of the century.

14 percent vote for such an extension of the mandate, against 80 percent, the rest are undecided.

A similar picture emerges with regard to the purchase of securities within the scope of the existing ECB program CSPP.

Here, 70 percent are against the plans of the central bankers to buy more bonds from low-emission companies in order to support the EU's climate policy goals.

23 percent voted in favor, 7 percent are undecided.

Annual sector targets are rejected

A majority of the panelists by no means reject the pursuit of greenhouse gas neutrality in Europe as quickly as possible. On the contrary: when asked how the EU's reaction to climate change should be assessed, 41 percent called for even greater efforts than previously planned. 27 percent answered this question with “appropriate”, 20 percent with “less should be done” and 12 percent with “don't know”. But all the efforts made must be efficient and targeted, it is often said in the comment field - what the purchase of "green" labeled bonds by the central bank is not or only partially.

Instead, most economists in the survey consider a comprehensive and uniform pricing of greenhouse gas emissions to be decisive.

With the EU-wide trading in emissions certificates, there is a system that leaves market participants the choice of alternative technologies themselves, and has been for many years.

However, with electricity generation and parts of industry and aviation, trade only covers around two fifths of emissions in the EU.

The other two large sectors of heating and transport are regulated at national level or through regulatory measures such as fleet limit values ​​- and according to the new plans from Brussels, they are initially to be priced in a separate system.

68 percent of the panelists disagree on this point and demand “immediately” comprehensive and uniform pricing of carbon dioxide across all sectors.

Only a minority of 17 percent is in favor of the planned temporary construction of a parallel system for heat and transport.

"The climate policy of the federal government and the European Union should strive to achieve more emission reductions with fewer instruments," writes Timo Goeschl from Heidelberg in the comments section.

The principle "more helps more" is a bad advisor here.

Last but not least, this should relate to the annual CO2 reduction targets for individual sectors, as provided for in the German Climate Protection Act passed in June.

These are to be set for the period from 2031 to 2040 as early as 2024.

60 percent of economists reject such annual sector targets.

30 percent are in favor, the remaining 10 percent are undecided.

"The federal government has revised the German climate protection law without waiting for the new EU climate and energy package," criticizes Ifo economist Karen Pittel, who was involved in the survey.

"The continued logic of the sector-specific goals makes little sense, especially when introducing a second EU emissions trading system."

"A uniform emissions trading system makes sense"

The economists' sentiment is not clear when it comes to the question of what should be done best with the income from CO2 pricing on energy sources such as gasoline. 50 percent vote for a reimbursement as a per capita lump sum, 37 percent for a reduction or abolition of the EEG surcharge and 32 percent for the promotion of climate-friendly technologies; Multiple answers were possible in this case.

The position on the climate tariff, with which Brussels intends to flank the more ambitious climate protection in the EU, is somewhat clearer. In this way, imports from less ambitious third countries are to be made more expensive and the previously free allocation of emission certificates to European industrial companies is to expire. 49 percent of economists support these plans of the EU Commission, many also in the hope of being able to motivate other countries to participate. Only 9 percent do not want to replace the previous system of free certificate allocation. 8 percent call for alternative measures to protect against "carbon leakage", 7 percent reject such measures as a matter of principle.

"A uniform emissions trading system makes sense, sector targets and detailed control are not," sums up Alexander Dilger from Münster. “The system should be expanded beyond the EU, as it cannot significantly influence the global climate in itself.” Gabriel Felbermayr from Kiel argues similarly. “It is good that the EU has recognized the gravity of the situation. But many are not yet clear enough that unilateral measures are not enough, ”he says. Climate diplomacy had to become even more important, and at the same time price incentives had to play a central role.