display
Judgments are not always balanced.
Some are not even fair.
But the judgment of a supreme court should have at least one quality: it should be clear.
The climate decision of the Federal Constitutional Court last Thursday was not.
Serious economic consequences threaten.
The judges had criticized only one thing of the Federal Climate Protection Act as unconstitutional: that it does not make any regulations for the period after 2030. But thanks to imprecise formulations and terminology, politicians and climate lobbyists believed they could read from the verdict that something else was actually required: immediate tightening on all fronts of climate protection. If these “nuances” were ignored in the judgment, the Constitutional Court would “be compelled to apply the developed standards more directly in the future”, warned the well-known Environmental Energy Law Foundation unequivocally: the assumption of the legislature by an omniscient judiciary is already accepted in climate protection .
In politics, however, the judgment had the effect of a hawk cry on a heap of chickens.
Affordable energy, competitiveness, international agreements, everything is up for grabs.
CSU boss Söder wants to spend even more money on an even earlier coal exit - just as if emissions trading had not long since regulated the same for free.
Green electricity?
80 percent by 2030, at least: Who cares that storage and networks are missing?
display
Climate protection only in a convoy, that was once upon a time: Now one wants to rush ahead of the EU again with national special destinations, however senseless that may be. Doubling the CO2 price on gasoline: No problem, the taxpayer will compensate the commuters. The government-affiliated think tank Agora Energiewende even sees the time come to empower “climate councils”. Public investments are to be made more difficult with a high “shadow price” for CO2.
With their recourse to the questionable concept of a “CO2 budget” and a static concept of “intergenerational equity”, the constitutional judges triggered an outbid competition between the climate radicals in the middle of the super election year. There seem to be no more barriers. The prospect of efficient climate protection is dwindling. It is still open who will settle the bill: Karlsruhe has not yet regulated this part of intergenerational equity.