According to the Federal Environment Agency (UBA), a future traffic light coalition could gain financial leeway in the double-digit billions by reducing environmentally harmful subsidies.
In a study published on Thursday, the agency calculated that the reductions for diesel, advantages in the company car tax or exemptions from energy taxes for the industry totaled around 65 billion euros.
The amount is probably even higher if you take into account aid from municipalities and states.
Almost half of the subsidies went to the transport sector.
This is followed by the energy area.
"It is paradoxical when the state promotes climate protection with many billions and at the same time subsidizes climate-damaging production and behavior," said UBA President Dirk Messner.
The negotiators from the SPD, Greens and FDP are looking for financial leeway to finance the necessary climate protection instruments in a government.
They also looked at subsidies in their exploratory paper: "We want to gain additional budgetary leeway by checking the budget for superfluous, ineffective and environmentally and climate-damaging subsidies and expenditures."
UBA President Messner called for quick action: “As you know, we are running out of time when it comes to climate protection. It is therefore important to move forward quickly with the dismantling of environmentally harmful subsidies ”. These inhibited the development of environmentally friendly products and endangered environmental and climate targets. "Currently, economic incentives are being set in opposite directions - sometimes for, sometimes against environmental and climate protection," criticized Messner. "One example of this is the nonsensical juxtaposition of the diesel privilege for combustion engines and purchase premiums for electric cars."
The UBA admitted that it would hardly be possible to cut subsidies in one fell swoop.
Tax benefits for kerosene and airline tickets alone accounted for twelve billion euros.
That can only be changed at EU level.
Hardship for poor people should also be avoided.
In addition, the amount of the subsidy reduction is not identical to the financial leeway gained.
A change of course would lead to more climate-friendly behavior, but on the other hand it could also cost the state revenue.