{"id":11914,"date":"2025-03-27T23:02:00","date_gmt":"2025-03-27T22:02:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/paddys.de\/?p=11914"},"modified":"2025-04-16T01:18:41","modified_gmt":"2025-04-15T23:18:41","slug":"gute-nacht-umweltschutz-teil-3-das-mit-der-zusaetzlichkeit-ist-so-eine-sache","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/paddys.de\/en\/gute-nacht-umweltschutz-teil-3-das-mit-der-zusaetzlichkeit-ist-so-eine-sache\/","title":{"rendered":"Additional does not mean more money"},"content":{"rendered":"Reading time<\/span> 5<\/span> Minutes<\/span><\/span>\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Photo: <\/em>Envato \/ Symbolic image, editorial use<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Good night, environmental protection - Part 3\/4 - \"Additionality\" is one of those things<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Germany has voted - and opted for a coalition that takes climate protection as seriously as a CSU regulars' table after the third pint of beer. Anyone who has listened to the statements made by Markus S\u00f6der and Friedrich Merz over the last few days will be left shaking their heads. 1<\/a><\/sup> Background on the formation of the coalition (CDU, CSU, SPD): CDU.de - Agreement for the future of our country https:\/\/www.cdu.de\/aktuelles\/cdu-deutschlands\/einigung-fuer-die-zukunft-unseres-landes<\/a> <\/span> 2<\/a><\/sup> Criticism of the climate policy orientation: Tagesschau.de - Conclusion of the exploratory talks: Criticism of climate targets https:\/\/www.tagesschau.de\/inland\/innenpolitik\/abschluss-sondierungen-hintergrund-100.html<\/a> <\/span> 3<\/a><\/sup> S\u00f6der & Merz publicly on climate policy (Analysis): Spiegel.de - Climate protection and debt package: How the money is distributed https:\/\/www.spiegel.de\/wissenschaft\/klimaschutz-und-schuldenpaket-so-wird-das-geld-sinnvoll-verteilt-a-0dc88004-eaf9-40c1-9433-4f03b78f9e2c<\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now for the icing on the cake: All climate protection in the new government is only an optional provision. Yes, that's right. Before the Greens got involved, climate protection was not even included in the investment package. Now at least the budget funds have been made available. Whether and for what purpose they will be used, however, is still up in the air, because the new Bundestag will then discuss the adoption of the individual laws for concrete implementation - at some point - and in the new Bundestag, the Greens are in opposition and have relatively little or nothing to say. We are facing dark times for environmental protection. 4<\/a><\/sup> Infrastructure special assets https:\/\/de.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sonderverm%C3%B6gen_Infrastruktur<\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While there is talk everywhere of an alleged \"historic agreement\", the CDU and CSU have done nothing other than write climate protection into the Basic Law as a \"possible use\" of funds. So you don't have to do it - but you can if you get bored.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The new governing coalition of the CDU\/CSU and SPD has adopted a comprehensive investment package totalling 500 billion euros, of which 100 billion euros are explicitly earmarked for the Climate and Transformation Fund (KTF). This special fund is intended to help make Germany climate-neutral by 2045. 5<\/a><\/sup> Reactions to the exploratory paper - \"Poison for our country\" - Greens dissatisfied, question approval of special funds https:\/\/www.welt.de\/255643158<\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, there are concerns regarding the specific use of these funds. The Greens, now in opposition, have questioned their approval of this debt-financed special fund. They criticise the fact that the planned investments are not sufficiently aimed at actual improvements in climate protection and accuse the governing coalition of not adequately addressing structural problems. 6<\/a><\/sup> Reactions to the exploratory paper - \"Poison for our country\" - Greens dissatisfied, question approval of special funds https:\/\/www.welt.de\/255643158<\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was also proposed in the coalition negotiations to abolish the existing Heating Act and replace it with a new law focussing on long-term emission efficiency. This decision has led to further discussions as it could potentially have an impact on Germany's climate targets for 2030. 7<\/a><\/sup> CDU\/CSU and SPD - Coalition negotiators want to abolish heating law - Dr\u00f6ge warns of chaos https:\/\/www.welt.de\/politik\/deutschland\/article255780392\/Koalitions-Unterhaendler-wollen-Heizungsgesetz-abschaffen-Droege-warnt-vor-Chaos.html<\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

In view of these developments, there is concern that the implementation of concrete climate protection measures will be delayed or weakened. The Greens, although in opposition, have announced that they will continue to advocate ambitious climate protection policies and critically support the government in this regard. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n


It remains to be seen how the political momentum will develop and what specific measures will ultimately be implemented to drive forward climate protection in Germany.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

All this would only be half as bad if the additionality so often spoken of these days meant what citizens are generally supposed to understand by \"additional\".\u00f6<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is by no means additional money for the climate that does not crowd out other urgently needed investments. It would have been such an important signal to show that climate protection does not have to be a burden on tight budgets. 8<\/a><\/sup> taz +++ Agreement on financial package +++: Greens get 100 billion for climate - but there is criticism, \"Agreement lacks social balance, criticises the Left\" https:\/\/taz.de\/-Einigung-zu-Finanzpaket-\/%216075711\/<\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, in terms of budgetary policy, additionality means that in addition to investments and consumer spending from the current budget, which includes the electoral gifts of the maternity pension and commuter allowance, additional <\/em>500 billion special fund is formed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With the new agreement with the Greens, it is therefore no longer possible to pay for the Union's election gifts, which were not counter-financed, from the special fund, as would originally have been possible. That is good. The CDU\/CSU had already been \"advised\" by several renovated economic institutes before the election that the costs of their election gifts could not be financed from the current budget. 9<\/a><\/sup> zdf heute, financing criticism on \"Lanz\": Economist: Union programme \"is built on sand\" https:\/\/www.zdf.de\/nachrichten\/politik\/deutschland\/lanz-wahlprogramm-union-kritik-100.html<\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, there was criticism that the CDU\/CSU could use the cash injection to secretly put its unfunded budget in order. Yes, that is no longer possible because it is now an extra pot. And yes, that's good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be precise, additionality means that all expenditure that exceeds 10% of investment means that with around 500 billion for the federal budget, anything over 50 billion is considered additional. Last year in 2024, the budget amounted to 80 billion, with 20 billion from the equity pension, the so-called generation capital, not falling under the debt brake as a financial transaction; so strictly speaking, the possible coalition of CDU, CSU and SPD has 60 billion for 2024 minus 50 billion for 2025, which equals 10 billion euros in the \"marshalling yard\" for the CDU\/CSU's election gifts: restaurant discounts, withdrawal of the agricultural diesel tax, commuter allowance. None of this is forward-looking. It was a crude way of \"buying\" votes to become chancellor. 10<\/a><\/sup> Young & naive, climate report, financial package, parental allowance | WIRTSCHAFTSBRIEFING | 24 March 2025 | With Jens Brodersen https:\/\/youtu.be\/hQ9LZ_BK4QY?list=TLPQMjQwMzIwMjVL_ilOxNSP7Q&t=1653 <\/a><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Despite all the criticism of the CDU\/CSU, that was the least of my worries. And if so, who cares about single-digit billions for what is essentially a mothers' pension? What about the additional 50 and then 100 billion euros for the climate?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

The 100 billion in special funds for the climate will be provided via the additional Climate Transformation Fund (KTF). Its new funds come from the special fund for infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A kind of pot within a pot alongside the actual pot. And if we add the new pot for the defence capability of our country and Europe, which is uncapped at over 1% of GDP, this would symbolically be the pot without a bottom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Forgive me for not using pots to explain things properly; I think it makes it easier to understand and my economics degree was twenty years ago.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

By this point at the latest, most people will have dropped out and, to be honest, so will I. Either I have fundamentally misunderstood something or the Greens themselves have not realised that the success of the negotiations is not that great.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Apart from the fact that, for example, measures previously referred to as \"public infrastructure measures to manage the energy transition\", such as the renewal of roads and the rail network, can now simply be renamed \"environmental protection measures to phase out fossil fuels\" - i.e. for the purpose of achieving climate neutrality by 2045 and are therefore included in the KTF instead of the infrastructure package - nothing has been gained from this - not a single cent has been added in monetary terms as a result of the Green Party's negotiations. I don't think many people realise that. What did you think the talk about \"additionality\" meant? Did you realise that?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And what climate neutrality actually means would have to be defined first anyway. At least it will be in the Basic Law. That's better than if it wasn't.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

List of sources<\/h3>