Heating is to become climate-neutral, that much is now clear to everyone. But as far as the measures are concerned, you can gradually lose track.
Patrick Bernau
Editor responsible for the economy and "value" of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung.
- Follow I follow
Marcus Theurer
Editor in the economy of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung.
- Follow I follow
So let's take it one step at a time: The EU has decided on an emissions cap for heating and transport, which is expected to come into force in 2027. The permitted amount of CO2 emissions may be traded by certificates – from 2040 onwards, no new ones will be issued. At the same time, Economics Minister Robert Habeck is working on a ban that is primarily intended to prevent even more gas and oil heating systems from being installed. Many houses will need better insulation. But this will not be escaped, because the EU is also preparing a corresponding obligation for the other houses. And now Habeck also wants to collect data on the heating systems of the Germans.
There are very different methods for climate protection mixed up: on the one hand, a market-based solution through emissions trading, which is intended to make climate-damaging heating with oil and gas much more expensive and thus create incentives for change. The other method is to ban certain heaters and to establish precise legal requirements that the appliances must meet in the future – so-called "regulatory law". At first glance, the situation looks quite clear: If emissions trading exists, then additional bans do not provide more climate protection, says economic theory.
Is emissions trading not enough?
After all, the total CO2 emissions are determined by the emissions cap. Regulatory law does not bring about any further avoidance, but only a shift in emissions.
In this respect, the state would not have to interfere whether a 78-year-old seriously ill person still has to install a heat pump or whether an 85-year-old does it because oil and gas will become more and more expensive in the coming years. The federal government would not have to lay down detailed regulations for the event of an accident, which always seem a bit unfair. The most difficult cases, in which a heat pump hardly works, could stay with gas for a few more years and would have to pay for it. In such a situation, the state would only say: Be careful, CO2 emissions will become more expensive in the future, you should switch to climate-friendly heating systems at the next opportunity.
Economists such as Veronika Grimm and Ottmar Edenhofer, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, are therefore proposing the following approach: to tighten emissions trading even further and then let people largely decide for themselves how to achieve CO2 reduction. In order for people to know what to expect, perhaps the state should also set targets for the price of emission certificates.
What laws are needed?
But there is also another side. The people who say that emissions trading is not enough. And they are right. Veronika Grimm and Ottmar Edenhofer would not disagree. In detail, however, there is some dispute about which additional laws are really necessary. Fortunately, economics also has a lot to say about this.