The federal government fears widespread resentment among the population in autumn and winter.
But she does not do everything to prevent such a danger.
A non-ideological openness in energy policy and a less hectic economic and social policy would be urgently needed.
Nobody has a lifelong right to the integrity of their individual political and intellectual capital, which has often been built up over decades.
During the upheavals of 1989, long-cherished political and ideological illusions were shattered for millions of people in Germany.
With the outbreak of the Russian war against the Ukraine six months ago, naïve ideas about the course of the world ended, and not only for the Bonn Hofgarten Society in 1982.
Even the self-confident former residents of the "Free Republic of Wendland" in 1980 have to state today that the formerly cozy campfires of the opponents of nuclear power in Brokdorf and Gorleben are no longer warming in a world of greatly reduced Russian gas supplies.
The complaint that one cannot change sides after decades of political struggle not only does not stand up to history.
It also lacks the necessary respect for the challenges that arise from a historical upheaval.
Especially in a situation of great uncertainty and sharply rising prices for electricity and gas, the government must keep as many energy policy options open as possible.
For this reason, the resistance of the Greens in particular to the continued operation of the three nuclear power plants must not endure for the policy of the federal government.
In view of today's technologies, there is also a need for an impartial assessment of the production of larger quantities of domestic gas.
ranting about fracking
Although this project does not promise any relief in the current situation, Germany (and Europe) will probably need gas in the long term.
Is it sincerity to slander fracking and demonize domestic production while buying gas produced by fracking in distant countries?
These topics, which are unpleasant for many people, cannot be avoided with the appeal that if only renewable energies were expanded quickly enough and people otherwise lived more economically, one would not have to deal with unpleasant energies for much longer.
The expansion of renewables and the infrastructure required to transport these energies is not taking place so quickly.
The federal government gives the impression of disagreement not only in energy policy;
Supporters of the SPD and the Greens believe that the FDP behaves like a troublemaker.
However, if the current government collapses, the Greens and FDP could also form a coalition with the Union.
Therefore, the SPD needs the FDP to provide the chancellor and remain capable of governing.
The fact that the FDP wants to use this dependency is part of the political business.
On the other hand, the influence of the FDP, as the smallest coalition partner, is necessarily limited.
It will probably get the inflation-related, economically sensible adjustment to the income tax rate - but it will have to pay a price for it.
This price will consist of the approval of further aid programs to cushion the sharply rising energy prices.
From a regulatory point of view, it would be right not to cap energy prices by the state, but to trust in the economic steering effects of rising prices.
Keeping prices artificially low creates no incentive to save energy.
Of course, the rising prices are an annoyance for most people, but they are an expression of a loss of economic prosperity that a Germany, long bound to a failed energy policy, has to pay for because of the Russian aggression.
Otherwise, it made itself the useful idiot of the nefarious Moscow warlord.
Even liberals do not deny the need for the state to give direct financial help to people who are in need because of the high prices.
In this respect, however, a calmer and more considered hand could be wished for from the government.
The hectic stringing together of aid packages and individual measures that are not always well coordinated does not create security, but the exact opposite.