Mr Edenhofer, Mr Lilliestam, how we should heat in the future is where ideas are coming thick and fast at the moment. A CO₂ cap with emissions trading is already on the way. Then comes Minister Habeck with plans for an additional heating ban, and now the EU also wants to introduce an insulation obligation. That doesn't seem to be made of one piece, does it?

Patrick Bernau

Editor responsible for economy and "value" of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung.

  • Follow I follow

Edenhofer: Of course, these ideas are not coordinated. This is also due to the fact that the instruments of climate protection are currently being discussed in principle: Do we need bans? Subsidies? Or a CO₂ price? There is a veritable attack on the CO₂ price that says: We don't need that now, we need regulatory law and a new industrial policy paradigm.

Lilliestam: That's exactly what I think is absolutely right. These are all different measures that combat different problems. Of course, you have to see if they fit together. I can't say that now, because I can't see through this mess yet. But the individual measures are very relevant to me.

Edenhofer: No, the CO₂ price must be the central element of climate policy.

So a tax or an emissions cap with a certain amount of CO₂ certificates that can be bought and sold. Why?

Edenhofer: The CO₂ price leads to a sustainable reduction in emissions. This has already happened where it has been introduced . . .

.­ . . in Europe, for example, in power generation and industry, where the climate goals of politics are achieved.

Edenhofer: Climate protection is also cheaper with a CO₂ price than with government technology requirements or even bans.

Lilliestam: We have lost too much time, climate protection is now so urgent – now it must be about reducing emissions quickly, and at the same time the system transformation towards zero emissions really gets going. What this costs must now be secondary.

Edenhofer: The CO₂ price achieves the climate targets if it is high enough. But the task ahead of us is so difficult – which is precisely why we have to pay attention to the costs, because otherwise we will lose acceptance for climate policy. If we had a CO₂ price that is expected to rise in the long term, then oil heating systems would no longer be profitable, and people would almost do without them on their own. The problem is that this long-term expected price does not yet exist, and that is why additional instruments are needed.

From the FDP now comes the proposal to tighten the CO₂ price for heating and cars. It is to rise faster by introducing an upper limit on emissions earlier. Would that be a substitute for a ban on oil heating?

Edenhofer: If the FDP does not want a ban on combustion engines and oil heating, then the CO₂ price must rise faster. In the FDP proposal, it remains open whether there should be a price cap. This slows down the incentive to save emissions. If politicians do not dare to let the price rise, a ban on oil heating for new buildings can still make some sense. The same applies to the ban on combustion engines: if we had a rapidly rising CO₂ price at European level, the ban on combustion engines would indeed not be necessary. Then e-fuels for cars would no longer be profitable . . .