The (un)social CO₂ tax, climate money and climate injustice

dossier

“The Union parties justify their rejection of the supposedly anti-social CO2 tax with concern for the little people. Anyone who takes a closer look can see that intelligent CO2 pricing could benefit those on lower incomes.(…) The “calculation” is obviously impressively simple: the tax is added proportionally to the current price for the product or service according to the respective CO2 footprint - as if everything would apply tomorrow (which not even the young activists are demanding). (…) One looks in vain for similar rigor with other taxes that have a much greater impact on distribution, such as those on inheritances and assets. (…) Another idea would be to use the CO2 tax to finance part of the electricity bill for households that are threatened or affected by power cuts - and to switch to green electricity at the same time. Who could object?…”Comment by Jörg Staude from May 6, 2019 to the climate reporters and other comments/concepts:

• Climate justice: private jets and profits of the uber-rich
  "Globally and in Germany, the extremely rich contribute disproportionately to the climate crisis with their private jets and investments. In just two seconds, private jets caused more CO₂ worldwide than a person from the poorest 50 percent of the world's population did in the entire year.
  In the run-up to the upcoming UN climate conference COP31, the new Oxfam report “Disaster Divide” examines how the uber-rich, with their private jets and investments, cause many times more CO₂ than the rest of the population. Nothing symbolizes the climate-damaging lifestyle of the rich more impressively than flights with private jets. In 2025, private jets produced a total of 16 million tons of CO₂ worldwide. A private jet flight emits an average of 3.7 tons of CO₂ - almost as much as a global average person emits in a year. (…) In addition to their private jet flights, the investment behavior of the extremely wealthy contributes significantly to the worsening of the climate crisis. The report examines the investments of 1,000 billionaires in 2025. 71 percent went into particularly climate-damaging sectors such as oil, gas or chemicals. Investment emissions amounted to 486 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalents. This means that, on average, a billionaire causes more CO₂ through investments in just over a minute than a person from the poorer half of humanity does in the entire year. For the 49 Germans among the 1,000 billionaires, investment emissions averaged 704,881 tons of CO₂ equivalents, well above the international average. This means that a German billionaire causes, on average, more CO₂ through company shares alone in just over six minutes than a person from the poorer half of Germany does in the entire year. (…) We demand from the federal government: – to massively reduce overall CO₂ emissions. This includes a consistent move away from fossil fuels and the transformation of sectors that are particularly harmful to the climate and the environment.– Allowing the super-rich and corporations, the main causes of the climate crisis, to make a financial contribution to overcoming it. This includes in particular the fair taxation of high wealth, private jets and excess profits from fossil fuels. – To adequately support economically disadvantaged countries and poorer sections of the population in dealing with the climate crisis. To do this, the federal government must reverse its current cuts in development cooperation and instead gradually expand support. – Implementing the transformation in Germany in a socially just manner. To achieve this, people with lower incomes in particular must be financially relieved, for example through the introduction of socially graded climate money..." Announcement dated October 27, 2026 from Oxfam Germany to the 95-page EnglishDisaster Divide Report and, among other things, the 8-pageSummary in German , see also:
  • On a grand scale. Oxfam: Exploiters ruin people and nature and cause the exploited to bleed. The climate crisis promises billionaires unique business opportunities
    "Munich-Sylt. In just 80 minutes. Long live the private jet! A "Cessna Citation XLS Gen 2" holds up to eight high-performers and costs less than 20 million euros: a bargain - if you can really do without an on-board kitchen. One thing is guaranteed: From the top, the problems down there seem very small. That the flight in question emits about as much CO2 as an average person does in a year, for example. Or that the private jet class alone - around one percent of the world's population - is responsible for almost a fifth of global warming and therefore 1.9 million additional deaths every year due to turbulence. In any case, every smart asset manager recommends insuring yourself against consequential climate damage. In the event of a disaster, it costs less than a million euros to evacuate to a luxury hotel and to have your home protected by private firefighters Neighborhoods, so that their neighboring properties can be purchased and upgraded for ridiculous prices - like in 2025 in California, in 2017 in Puerto Rico or in 2004 in Sri Lanka. Food prices can also be speculated on in the event of real or perceived shortages. In general, climate change is an excellent business. After all, someone has to restore everything that floods, storms or fires destroy The symbiotic interaction has long been recognized: Together, both of them have a stake of more than one trillion euros in at least 200 companies that either make a significant contribution to climate collapse or significantly prepare for it, or cushion its ruinous consequences.The market for aftercare is expected to grow by 10.8 billion euros to around 82.6 billion euros by 2029. Every degree Celsius of global warming promises double dividends. What are you waiting for? Invest! (…) The report suggests that ultimately the power of capital must be broken: Cuba's "socio-economic model" and its "sustained political commitment to equality and social justice" have promoted "the construction of a social and physical infrastructure" that can "cope with hurricanes" and "mitigate the unequal distribution of their effects." Comment by Niki Uhlmann in the young world from October 28, 2026 
  • See also our dossier:Climate class struggle: International debates for a common front against environmental destruction and attacks on labor and human rights
• Oxfam on climate injustice: The richest have already squandered the CO2 budget for 2026. Politicians could take action against this
  "The world is a cake. Everyone gets a piece. Some scoop up larger pieces. Others eat theirs straight away, then help themselves to those sitting next to them and also raid the bakery with the cakes for later. This is how a new calculation by the non-governmental organization Oxfam can be broken down. As a result, by January 10th, the richest percent of the world's population will have already emitted all the greenhouse gases that they are entitled to for the entire year 2026 - i.e. the amount CO2, which can be emitted annually in order to limit global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees on a long-term basis (…) As a result, all further climate emissions that the richest percent of the world emits from now on will be at the expense of the rest of the world's population and the future (…) What is unfair about the emissions inequality is that the poorest are most exposed to the consequences of the climate crisis, says Philipp Lepenies, who heads the Sustainability Research Center at the Free University of Berlin The wealthiest people, who contribute the most to global warming, are also best protected from it. (…) Oxfam calls for a series of measures to reduce global inequality in greenhouse gas emissions. The NGO suggests a tax on high wealth and global taxes on profits from oil, gas and coal companies such as superyachts and private jets should be taxed additionally, Oxfam said in a press release. Article by Tim Feldmann from January 9, 2026 in the taz online 
  • See the EnglishOxfam PM from 9.1.26 : Richest 1% have blown through their fair share of carbon emissions for 2026 in just 10 days, says Oxfam
  • We remind you of:European citizens’ initiative “Tax the Rich”: Tax the rich fairly – shape climate protection socially!
• VdK calls for relief from CO₂ pricing: People with low incomes are more burdened - climate protection must not become a poverty trap
  “From January 1, 2026, there will be a CO in Germany₂-Price corridor between 55 and 65 euros per ton of CO₂introduced. (…) VdK President Verena Bentele criticizes the consequences for people with low incomes: “While households with higher incomes are facing increasing CO₂Prices are comparatively easier to bear or compensate for by switching to climate-friendly alternatives, the burden hits small incomes much harder. People with few financial resources in particular often do not have the necessary means to switch to an energy-efficient heat pump or an electric car, for example. Our members regularly reflect this to us. For them, there is no alternative to a long-term commitment to fossil energy sources and technologies without good support, for example when converting the heating system. (���)
  The VdK is calling for a socially fair climate package so that climate protection does not primarily burden people with low and middle incomes. This includes targeted promotion of e-mobility, which supports lower income groups in switching to e-cars through a purchase bonus or social leasing models. The current drafts do not go far enough to provide targeted support for people with low incomes. At the same time, the automotive industry is in demand: Instead of continuing to build combustion engines, it should finally bring affordable models in the lower price segment to the public and thus enable e-mobility for the broader society. We also need barrier-free and reliable local public transport, a stable-price Germany ticket and a nationwide social ticket for social participation and as a real alternative to owning a car. Energy expenditure should also be reduced when it comes to living. The best way to do this is through socially staggered funding for the renovation of buildings or the expansion of heating networks in municipalities. In order to cover the additional costs caused by the CO₂In order to reduce prices for financially burdened households, we call for consideration to be given to socially graded climate money to be resumed. This should be paid out as direct financial relief to low-income households, who would otherwise be disproportionately burdened by rising energy prices.” VdK press release from December 30, 2025 
  • See also the dossier:[Consequences of deregulation in EU countries] The price of energy
• Oxfam report “Climate Plunder” on the climate gap: How the rich are polluting the climate
  “A person from the richest 0.1 percent causes over 800 kilograms of CO a day₂emissions, as much as one person in the poorest half of the world's population in the entire year
  The report “Climate Plunder” reveals the drastic differences between rich and poorer sections of the population in global CO₂ emissions (…) The upcoming COP30 world climate conference marks the tenth anniversary of the Paris Agreement, which set a limit on global warming to 1.5 C. In these ten years, the richest one percent of the world has consumed more than twice as much of the CO₂ budget as the entire poorer half of humanity. If every person produced as much CO₂ as the richest 0.1 percent of the world, the global carbon budget would be depleted in less than three weeks. (…) Above all, billionaires are responsible for enormous amounts of CO₂ emissions through their investments in companies: 308 billionaires are responsible for more emissions than 118 countries combined. On average, they produce 1.9 million tons of CO₂ annually through investments alone - around 346,000 times more than the average person. Almost 60 percent of their investments go into climate-damaging sectors such as oil and gas. (…)
  The gap is also enormous in Germany:
  – A person from the richest 0.1 percent causes 307 tons of CO₂ annually – 840 kilograms per day. That is 52 times more than a person from the poorest 50 percent in Germany.
  – The poorest 50 percent, with annual per capita emissions of 5.9 tons of CO₂, are comparatively close to the 1.5 degree compatible limit of 2.1 tons of CO₂. (…) The federal government must ensure that:
  – CO₂ emissions will be massively reduced overall and Germany will achieve climate neutrality before 2045. This requires a move away from fossil fuels and a transformation of our economic system towards an economy oriented towards the common good within planetary boundaries.
  - In particular, rich sections of the population and the super-rich stop burning the planet further and, as the main cause of the climate crisis, make a financial contribution to overcoming it. A first step would be the minimum tax of two percent for multimillionaires and billionaires discussed within the G20. Economically disadvantaged countries and poorer sections of the population must be adequately supported in dealing with the climate crisis. To do this, the federal government must reverse its current cuts in development cooperation and implement the transformation in a socially equitable manner in Germany, starting with the introduction of socially staggered climate money.” OXFAM press release from October 29, 2025 with link to the German summary and the English-language overall report
• Emissions trading: The CO2 market is blind and a wrong approach to climate change
  "How do you get rid of a harmful substance that, if the concentration is too high, makes the planet uninhabitable? Normal would be to ban the substance and develop an exit plan. First for the areas where the substance can be easily replaced, later for the difficult cases. And those who cannot do without are well controlled. This is how it works with ozone-damaging CFCs, this is how it should work with plastic waste. But if there is a belief that the market can regulate anything and everything, you come up with the idea of trading in the harmful substance Those who handle the substance are allocated a quota that decreases over time. Depending on how high the so-called avoidance costs are, those who have cheaper alternatives will take action later. This is the basic idea of the European emissions trading system for climate-damaging CO2. It should provide the ultimate proof that the free market can protect the climate In the first 15 years, not much happened in emissions trading. We didn't really know that until well into the 2010s. There were three climate skeptics for every climate activist. So, more emissions quotas were distributed than the affected companies actually emitted Climate protection. Nevertheless, CO2 emissions fell: in Germany by around 100 million tons from 2005 to 2020.But not because of emissions trading, but because of the renewable energies supported by law and later through the statutory coal phase-out. To date, there is no study known that explains how emissions trading actually contributed to CO2 reduction. (…)
  Suddenly many companies are panicking, as is the case with the head of the Essen chemical company Evonik. It turns out: For the last 20 years, they have taken no precautions to get rid of the harmful substance. It was just a cost center in the calculation. As ever, profits were privatized and environmental costs socialized. Climate protection was largely limited to greenwashing. Of course, climate change can no longer be denied. The company boards and consultants are adapting: the economic damage caused by CO2 trading is now said to be greater than the damage caused by climate change. So politics can still be blackmailed. Conclusion: Anyone who trades in a harmful substance does not get rid of it, but prolongs its existence. The market is the wrong instrument for a climate-neutral transformation anyway. He is blind to this task.” Comment by Jörg Staude from October 29, 2025 in New Germany online 
• Strengthen CO₂ pricing, introduce climate money, reduce adjustment costs - economists for fair climate money: enough for the poor, nothing for the rich
  • Economists for fair climate money: Enough for the poor, nothing for the rich
    “The CO2 price will rise. Economists at the German Institute for Economic Research are calling for climate money to compensate for rising energy costs.
    No climate money for the rich – that is the message of a study by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) Berlin. If the state pays financial compensation for rising energy costs, then it should focus on lower income groups, said DIW economists in a study published on Wednesday.In view of the high burden caused by rising energy costs for households with little money, the scientists are calling for the introduction of climate money. However, the highest-income 30 percent of citizens should not receive it. In this way, enough funds should be available for those for whom rising energy costs lead to particular hardship and for whom climate money does not compensate for the additional burden.
    The background: A central instrument of climate policy is the CO2 price. It is currently 45 euros per ton of carbon dioxide emitted. The federal government has decided to increase the price to 55 euros in 2025. In 2026 it should be 65 euros. As a result, the costs of fossil fuels will rise, and heat and fuel will become more expensive. From 2027, the CO2 price is to be set at European level. Experts then expect a sharp increase, which could be up to 200 euros. “Without relief for citizens, the rising CO2 price will lead to more unequal income distribution,” warns DIW economist Stefan Bach. Poorer people spend a higher proportion of their income on energy and mobility. (…) Such relief – called climate money or climate bonus – has been discussed for years. It should be paid out unbureaucratically. “This would also reach those who do not apply for social benefits even though they are entitled to them,” says Bach. These are the so-called “working poor” – those who are poor despite working. Or poor pensioners who often do not take advantage of basic security in old age. The climate money could be financed from the income from the CO2 price. According to the coalition agreement, the traffic light wants to introduce it, but has not yet provided any money for it. (…)
    Many models for climate money provide for an equal contribution for everyone. The idea is that because high earners use more fuel and heat due to their higher consumption, those with little money have more left over. But: The CO2 price does not affect rich and poor alike. “Households with good and very high earnings are less affected by CO2 pricing in relation to their income,” says Bach. “If you have a lot of money, you can have your house renovated to make it more energy efficient or buy an electric car, which is also generously subsidized by the state.” Anyone who lives in an unrenovated rental apartment can hardly do anything about it. That's why most high and high earners don't need climate money, he says. At the same time, it is not enough for some poor people who have high energy consumption.(…) There are numerous cases of hardship in the lowest-income groups, which would be heavily burdened despite climate money. Citizens with little money in particular are often unable to change their energy needs, for example because they cannot afford new energy-efficient electrical appliances. According to the scientists, if only citizens with low and middle incomes received the climate money, enough funds would be freed up for targeted funding measures for hardening agents. Because an income check when paying out climate money is too complicated, the economists suggest that the state recover the amount from the wealthy through income tax…”Article by Anja Krüger from October 16, 2024 in the taz online to:
  • Transport and heating transition: CO₂-Strengthen pricing, introduce climate money, reduce adjustment costs
    “The distributional effects of long-term increases in the prices of fossil fuels, including CO, are examined₂-Pricing, for private households; High energy prices place a greater burden on poorer households; a uniform climate change can counteract this; Special assistance is necessary for hardship cases with high energy consumption; Increasing CO₂-Price could reach up to 150 euros per tonne in the long term₂-Reduce private household emissions by up to 33 percent;  Reducing adaptation costs reduces the burden on households and strengthens emissions savings…”DIW Weekly Report 23/2023 by Stefan Bach, Hermann Buslei, Lars Felder and Peter Haan 
• CO2 price increase in 2024: criticism from all sides
  "... The planned increase in the CO2 price without social compensation is criticized by opposition parties, social associations, business people and large parts of the climate movement. There is also opposition from two junior organizations of the traffic light parties. (...) In total, the additional costs for a family of four for gas alone would amount to 317 euros. (...) "People with low and middle incomes will pay more," is not the only critic of Left Party leader Janine Wissler. Without compensating climate money, a “social imbalance” would arise, said Juso boss Philipp Türmer in an interview with Deutschlandfunk on Friday morning. This would put a relatively greater burden on low-income earners. (…) Similarsaid the social association VdK : Only through climate money can it be prevented “that the fight against climate change is carried out on the backs of people with little income through ever-increasing CO2 prices,” explained its president Verena Bentele. The German section of the climate protection network Fridays for Future also made it clear after the budget agreement that CO2 pricing would be without social compensationnot his demands corresponds. The former federal spokeswoman for the Green Youth, Sarah-Lee Heinrich, joined in. The criticism was even harsher in a statement from the climate initiative "Last Generation": "Is it better to raise the CO2 price and make life even more expensive for the poor and the middle of society without the rich feeling any consequences? Dear government, who are you doing politics for?" (…) The right-wing opposition in the form of the AfD, which generally considers climate protection to be unnecessary, is trying to capitalize on the frustration over the inflation plans of the “traffic light failures” and is calling for new elections…” Contribution by Claudia Wangerin from December 15, 2023 in Telepolis 
• Sustainability researcher on climate policy: “The CO₂-Price cannot be a guiding instrument”
  “Even CO2 prices of up to 100 euros per ton have so far hardly triggered any investments and promoted the energy transition, criticizes Johan Lilliestam, energy expert at the Institute for Transformative Sustainability Research IASS in Potsdam. What is crucial for him is a targeted policy mix that also takes “soft” factors into account. (…) At a certain price the order changes: When CO2 prices are low, coal-fired electricity is cheaper than gas-fired electricity. But at some point there comes a point when things turn around. This is probably what has happened in the European electricity sector in recent years and partly explains the decline of coal power, for example in Great Britain and Germany. The process shows that CO2 prices can have an important effect: They can help to push CO2-intensive technologies that are no longer desired out of the system. However, the prerequisite for this is that an alternative is available to fill the gap. This was and is the case in the electricity sector: the coal-fired electricity that is no longer available is replaced by electricity from renewable sources and gas from existing plants. However, our study could not confirm that CO2 prices trigger investments in CO2-free technologies. (…) There is no empirical evidence that a carbon price alone or, as often suggested, as a “lead instrument” can solve the problem. Instead, there needs to be a sector-specific mix of measures that specifically targets the actual obstacles. Barriers other than costs often stand in the way of system change. In the mobility sector, for example, it is not just the costs of electric cars that are hindering the transport transition, but also the lack of charging stations.This cannot be remedied by a CO2 tax, but it can be remedied by income from the CO2 tax if it is invested correctly. As we know, prices have a limited effect, especially in the car sector: an SUV is certainly not the most cost-effective means of transport - but this segment is still growing strongly…”Interview by Jörg Staude from January 22, 2021 with climate reporters 
• The side effects of CO2 pricing
  "There has been an additional price on fossil heating and fuels since January 1st, 2021. The additional costs increase the pressure on your wallet without more investment. Improvements need to be made here. (...). The DGB had already pointed out in 2019 that social compensation should be taken into account when the CO2 price is higher. The DGB has also spoken out in favor of a massive investment program in order to create the necessary climate-friendly alternatives. Because all of them are market-oriented Incentives and regulatory measures will fail to have a steering effect if no climate-friendly alternatives are available. Whether alternatives are created usually does not depend on the individual consumer. Tenants, for example, have no influence on which heating system is installed in their house or apartment and whether energy-saving building renovation measures are carried out or not Apartments. The federal government has decided to increase housing benefit in order to compensate for social hardships caused by the increased heating costs. However, only around three percent of tenant households benefit from this. A possible relief for tenants could be that landlords bear the additional costs or that the costs would go to those who make the investment decision for climate-friendly alternatives.Although the CO2 price has already been introduced, politicians have not yet decided on a concept to protect tenants from additional burdens. Stefan Körzell from the DGB says: "Rental costs have exploded in recent years without corresponding wage increases being able to compensate for this. The additional heating and travel costs increase the pressure on the wallet without more investment following. Only a few employees with low or middle incomes are sufficiently relieved. The CO2 tax neither helps the climate nor creates confidence in the fair implementation of the transformation." DGB criticism from January 21, 2021 
• CO2 pricing is being expanded – and this is not just a climate policy issue, but also a distribution policy issue 
  "Private individuals and companies will pay a total of around 6 billion euros more for gasoline, gas and heating oil in 2021. The costs will not be distributed fairly," says Hannes Koch in his article Heating and refueling are becoming more expensive. The 6 billion euros mentioned are the approximate price that private households and companies will soon pay additionally per year for climate protection - because Germany will start its emissions trading for transport and heating energy on January 1, 2021. Initially “Every ton of carbon dioxide from car engines and building heating systems will cost 25 euros,” explained Christoph Kühleis, acting department head at the Federal Environment Agency, who is putting the new trade into practice with his employees. At this price, oil companies and other energy traders have to buy pollution certificates, the costs of which they are likely to pass on to their customers. (…) However, charging consumers and companies with the resulting costs was a political decision by the Union and the SPD. You have to know: “The coalition rejected other models in which citizens would have received back the additional costs during the negotiations on the climate package a year ago. Suggestions to relieve the burden on people with low incomes in particular were also ignored.« (…) But there is not just a higher burden in general: certain “population groups and also individual consumers can benefit”. Like that? »On the one hand, the higher travel allowance is noticeable, which reduces the tax burden. On the other hand, the emissions trading surcharge on gasoline costs, for example, can be avoided by purchasing an electric car.Another variant: “If you take public transport, you can still take advantage of the commuter allowance and get more out of it than you pay for.” (…) “Nevertheless, the social component is neglected. People with low incomes will often pay extra because they don't have enough money to replace their old diesel with an expensive electric car," says Hannes Koch in his article. And that doesn't have to be the case, because: In principle, the social imbalance can be alleviated or eliminated by refunding the income from emissions trading in such a way that all citizens receive the same amount. The consequence of such a design: Wealthy heavy consumers would then pay more, while poorer light consumers would benefit. Such a model was proposed by the economist Ottmar Edenhofer, head of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). His calculations showed that it is possible to relieve the burden on low-earners and middle-class families, while wealthy people would ultimately have to bear higher energy costs. But the grand coalition didn't want that. (…) In view of the not only general, but in the truest sense of the word existential importance of living, this final passage is of particular interest: When it comes to heating costs, however, the passing on of costs is controversial. »The SPD-led federal ministries of finance, environment and justice have proposed that the additional heating costs be divided equally between tenants and landlords. The German Tenants’ Association demands that the CO2 price be borne entirely by landlords.”“ Post by Stefan Sell from January 3, 2021 on his homepage 
• Dirty compromise: Federal and state governments agree on details of the CO2 tax - DGB: “Observe social compensation for higher CO2 prices” 
  “A compromise on the CO2 tax was reached in the mediation committee of the Bundestag and Bundesrat on Monday night. This is included in the federal government's climate package, which the Bundestag passed in mid-November with the coalition's votes against those of the opposition. However, the package also contains tax policy measures in which the states have a say. They, in turn, did not agree with the planned distribution of tax revenue - and activated the mediation committee. The agreement reached on the CO2 tax, called the CO2 price for political reasons, stipulates that from 2021 the emission of one ton of the greenhouse gas should cost not ten, but 25 euros extra. By 2025, the price should rise to 55 euros instead of 35 as previously planned. In return, the higher income should be used to reduce the EEG levy to promote renewable energy sources more than previously planned. And the commuter allowance from the 21st kilometer onwards should increase by eight instead of five cents. These measures are likely to largely neutralize their impact on global warming. (…) the federal government's pricing concept plays off ecological and social concerns against each other. A low price is ecologically useless because it does not change consumer behavior. A high price is socially unfair because commuters who cannot afford to live in the city or tenants in poorly insulated old buildings are asked to pay particularly heavily. However, when Die Linke proposed replacing the CO2 price with a mix of support measures and regulatory law during negotiations in the Bundestag in November, the SPD also voted against it.A CO2 price could even be designed in such a way that it does not further deepen social divisions. This is suggested by three reports commissioned by Environment Minister Svenja Schulze (SPD) and presented in July. A suitable measure would be to combine the price with a per capita climate bonus. Since rich households blow more CO2 into the air on average, the CO2 price for them would exceed the premium, so they would pay more. Poorer households, on the other hand, would be spared and would even benefit financially if they reduced their pollutant emissions. However, such ideas were quickly taken off the table during negotiations within the coalition…”Comment by Steffen Stierle in the Junge Welt from December 17, 2019 – see the DGB:
  • DGB on the climate package: “Consider social compensation in the event of a higher CO2 price”
    “The federal and state governments have agreed on changes to the climate package in the mediation committee - including a higher entry price for CO2 emissions trading. These plans require “stronger social balance,” says DGB board member Stefan Körzell. “The plans for a higher entry price for CO2 emissions trading require greater social compensation,” said Körzell. "Politicians have the responsibility to ensure a fair distribution of the costs of climate protection. In order for emissions trading to have its steering effect, the public sector must invest significantly more money from the federal budget in climate-friendly alternatives. The funds promised so far are far from sufficient." The mediation committee has created clarity about the reduction in VAT on rail journeys and the tax incentives for building renovations - that is “a good result,” continued Körzell. “Not only does this make rail much more attractive as an environmentally friendly alternative to roads, the agreement is also a good stimulus for increasing the renovation rate.""Press release from December 16, 2019 
• The blind spots of the CO2 tax 
  "The political battles over the CO2 tax obscure the view of the essential questions. Combating the climate crisis is not primarily about the level of a CO2 tax, but rather about the necessary adaptation investments in ecological alternatives - public and private. As part of a comprehensive package of measures, one will also have to deal with targeted CO2 pricing. However, because of the distribution policy problems, it is questionable whether the CO2 tax represents the optimal solution here. Targeted pricing measures appear to be more efficient Public transport bonus for commuters. The incentive effects can keep up with a CO2 tax, but the social distortions are zero (…) The scientific discussion about the steering effects of a CO2 tax on heating and fuels takes place in a simplistic textbook economy in which the capital stock is constant and the actors only react to the prices However, the investments (which are neglected in the models) are crucial for the steering effect, because without investments there are no alternatives, and without alternatives there are no steering effects. The steering effect of a CO2 tax does not come from families suddenly stopping heating the children's room, but from the fact that they install a new, more CO2-efficient heating system (public transport) to commute, etc.Science likes to cheat around these questions, which is why we can't say much in detail about the steering effects of a CO2 tax. (…) The distribution effects are politically decisive. Macron's yellow vest disaster has left deep scars here. And so the supporters of the CO2 tax always try to emphasize the social balance of the measure. Here too, the static textbook perspective dominates. One looks at the distribution effects for a given CO2 emission. What is crucial is the so-called eco-bonus, a (partial) refund of tax revenue to the population. Like any consumption tax, the CO2 tax is inherently regressive. Small and medium incomes are relatively more burdened because they spend a larger portion of their income on consumption. The eco-bonus is intended to compensate for this and thus ensure that the CO2 tax is not only ecologically effective but also socially fair. (…) The misery of distribution policy becomes particularly clear when viewed dynamically, i.e. taking the necessary adaptation investments into account. It is relatively clear that higher earners can finance the necessary adaptation investments more easily and quickly than low and middle earners. (…) The political battles over the “CO2 tax” or the “eco-social tax reform” obscure the view of the essential questions. Combating the climate crisis is not primarily about the level of the tax rate of a CO2 tax, the volume of an eco-social tax reform or how these tax revenues are used. It’s about defining problem areas and developing targeted solutions…” Post by Dominik Bernhofer from December 6, 2019 on the A&W blog 
• Experts: Climate package disadvantages low earners 
  “Several studies on the climate package come to the conclusion that the climate package places a greater burden on lower income groups than on higher earners. A CO₂-Pricing would therefore be both better for the climate and fairer for low earners…”Article by Michael Bauchmüller and Christian Endt from November 7, 2019 in the Süddeutsche Zeitung online

• The Groko leaves us with €1 trillion in climate debt. 5 reasons why the carbon price of the climate package is a bad joke 
  “The federal government has presented its climate package and a Co2 price of €10 per ton through certificate trading from 2021. It will be almost ineffective and will leave our generation with around €1 trillion (!) in climate debt by 2050. Here are five facts that show why this Co2 price is pointless. (…) A certificate trade, which already takes much longer than a Co2 levy to have an effect, which only starts in 2021 and then only starts at €10/ton, is actually ineffective. Initially this only leads to an increase in the price of petrol by 3 cents per liter, and in the end it only increases by 9 cents. These are fluctuations that are noticeable from day to day and from gas station to gas station. There should be no noticeable savings. Experts are calling for at least a Co2 price of €35-€50 to get started. And compared to the Co2 price that the Federal Environment Agency demands – €180/ton – €10 is a drop in the ocean. That is also the price that FridaysForFuture demand. Even the US oil industry demands a price of €36. Most EU countries have also had significantly higher Co2 prices for years and some are planning to increase them further. (…) With the actually necessary annual reduction of 6%, we should theoretically not emit any more emissions from 2035. By the way, the Federal Environment Ministry has confirmed this calculation. (Source) The later we start reducing, the more expensive the reduction will be in the future. It is a gigantic mountain of debt that will be left to the next generation. And the consequences for the climate, weather, economy and agriculture are not even taken into account…”Analysis by Thomas Laschyk from September 21, 2019 at Volksverpetzer – and it gets even worse:
  • Bill: Government weakens climate protection goals
    "The federal government wants to pass its climate protection law next Wednesday. A draft that SPIEGEL has seen falls well behind the previous plans. (...) In the paper that SPIEGEL has seen, contrary to what was initially planned, no national goal for CO2 savings is defined for the year 2040. The promise that the Federal Republic will achieve greenhouse neutrality by 2050 has also been weakened; this goal should now only be "pursued," it says clearly more non-binding in the draft. All that remains is the goal of reducing Germany's CO2 emissions by 55 percent by 2030 compared to 1990. The control mechanisms for compliance with climate targets have also been weakened: Contrary to what was initially planned, the so-called Climate Council, an expert committee set up by the government, will no longer produce an annual main report in which the effectiveness of the planned climate protection measures will be checked. He should also no longer be allowed to make suggestions as to how the responsible ministries can readjust if CO2 savings targets are in danger of being missed in individual sectors of the economy...” Article by Stefan Schultz from October 6, 2019 at Spiegel online

• License to kill climate. Why belief in the CO2 tax is illusionary and why there can be no “ecological market economy”. 
  “To say that the CO2 tax does not have the promised effects is a trivialization. Viewed as a whole, it will neither bring about a significant reduction in climate-damaging emissions nor initiate an “ecological transformation” of the market economy, but is rather a license that society is giving itself in order to be able to continue as before. It doesn't take much imagination to understand this. A little experience is enough. Even if the tax may bring about certain savings in CO2 emissions here and there, it is entirely foreseeable that these will be counteracted by increased consumption of resources elsewhere. This mechanism has long been known and has been widely discussed in the post-growth literature. For example, relative savings in energy consumption (e.g. more efficient engines) are overcompensated by an increase in absolute consumption (e.g. larger cars and higher quantities). This is the so-called material rebound effect. Furthermore, political measures with an ecological veneer provide the legitimacy to maintain the existing production and way of life and to further stimulate economic growth; After all, a relevant contribution to the preservation of nature and the environment has apparently already been made. This is called the political rebound effect. A typical example of this was the introduction of exhaust catalytic converters in the 1980s, which was intended to make cars “environmentally friendly”, but in fact only provided an alibi for further expanding car traffic (since then it has doubled in Germany).And finally, there is also the psychological rebound effect, which consists in giving consumers a clear conscience so that they continue to buy the mass-produced junk without inhibitions. If any evidence were needed that the CO2 tax will work in exactly this way, the ongoing debate provides it freely. All politically responsible people across the entire party spectrum literally fall over themselves in praising the expected savings effects, only to then immediately add that the tax should of course not place an undue burden on society. The most absurd are the proposals to immediately distribute the revenue from the new tax back to the population. (…) If the CO2 tax actually has a significant ecological effect, it would have to be high enough to massively restrict the consumption of all energy-intensive goods and services. However, this would then affect almost the entire range of consumption, from car traffic and heating to air traffic and most industrial and agricultural products. Of course that won't happen. And not simply because the industry and business interest groups are trying to prevent this by all possible means (of course they are doing that). But because no relevant political party will sin against the internal logic of an economic and social system that is essentially based on the imperative of endless economic growth.(…) A consistent and timely change in the energetic basis would be such a serious change that it could not be implemented, especially in the capitalist centers, without the most serious economic, social and political upheavals. (…) So when the opponents of the CO2 tax brand it as “anti-social”, then they certainly have strong arguments on their side. Of course, these are mostly people who otherwise don't care at all about the “social question” and who are only exploiting it here for transparent political and ideological motives. Nevertheless, they point to a problem that must be taken seriously. The already existing social and regional disparities would undoubtedly increase significantly, and thus the social distribution conflicts would also intensify, as has already become clear in the yellow vest protests. In addition, the dispute over climate policy has long been ideologically and identity-politically charged and is polarizing society. It is no coincidence that the denial or total relativization of climate change is part of the core of right-wing populist ideology. Because this essentially represents a regressive form of reaction to the experience that Western white supremacy in the world is reaching its limits. That is why the right-wing populist following hates with particular fervor all those who remind them of the loss of their supposedly self-evident privileges. In addition to the refugees, these are not least the climate protectors who are opposed to passing on the costs of the lifestyle in the capitalist centers to the rest of the world and future generations.This tense political and social situation explains why the political discourse, under pressure from the Fridays for Future movement, took up the demand for a CO2 tax, but only to immediately scale it back down to a homeopathic level. (…) If anything, within the capitalist logic it is always only those direct state requirements that can achieve a certain effect. On the other hand, trying to start with the price mechanism always means taking a detour that at best produces minimal effects and always negative side effects. This applies to the CO2 tax and emissions certificates as well as to the idea that the mode of production can be changed through a change in individual consumer behavior brought about by moral pressure. (…) Basically, the idea of ​​an “ecological market economy” is nothing more than a soap bubble. (…) So are we at a dead end? Is the destruction of the natural foundations of life inevitable? Yes, but only if we accept the logic of the capitalist system as irrefutable…”Article by Norbert Trenkle from September 1st, 2019 at krisis

• Environmental protection – yes! Mass tax – no! 
  “A comment on the discussion about the introduction of new “green environmental taxes”. In whose interest are these and why do we have to resolutely oppose them? Both the discussion about a CO² tax and a so-called meat tax, with which our consumer behavior is intended to be controlled by the state, are smokescreens that the government is throwing up to distract from those who are really responsible for environmental destruction. (…) Politicians from the Greens to the CDU, however, are trying to direct the focus on us as consumers in the search for those responsible with discussions about the introduction of new “green mass taxes”. A CO² tax would only mean that we workers would have to pay more for practically everything, while the largest companies could easily absorb the additional costs resulting from such a tax or pass them on to us as end consumers. The same applies to a so-called higher meat tax, i.e. increasing the VAT to 19% for meat products. The poorest people would be hit again. At the same time, there is nothing to suggest that such a tax would actually lead to lower meat production - far more meat is already produced in Germany than is consumed here. Large parts of the production are exported all over the world. (…) The environment is not primarily destroyed by our consumption, but by the capitalist mode of production. Effective measures to save the environment must begin here. However, this is actually only possible if the fight to preserve the environment is combined with the fight against capitalism as an exploitative and destructive economic and social system…”Comment by Clara Bunke from August 24, 2019 at Perspective Online

• [tiered VAT] CO2 tax? Tax on meat? A flexible solution proposal 
  "... So how should the CO2 tax be implemented? (...) The goal is and remains to use a tax to control the energy industry and consumption in such a way that the earth's atmosphere and the environment are better off and that producers and consumers behave more consciously and disciplined because they are financially burdened. But there is a better model to achieve this goal: a tax that is not something that has to be created anew and is difficult to define. How about a tax that already exists and then the production and emissions of CO2 as a special case. In plain language: The tried and tested VAT can be expanded as a general consumption tax in such a way that it makes a separate CO2 tax unnecessary and achieves the desired environmental protection goals not only by charging CO2, but in a very diverse way. This flexible consumption tax is a graduated VAT (...) It would be easier than constructing a new CO2 tax to include the taxation of CO2 as a special case This is possible through a staggered system, so that the VAT is higher or lower for different products that cause more or less CO2 emissions (…) The staggered VAT is a flexible tool, similar to a flex. Such a flex can also cause disaster if it falls into the wrong hands.In the hands of the wrong politicians, the graduated VAT can tempt people to increase tax revenue at will and, what is particularly disadvantageous, the very idea can lead to politicians getting tangled up in debates about goods, product groups and services, so that a decision for the graduated VAT cannot even be reached. Unfortunately, this is the norm in today's political world, especially when experts from business (lobbyists) are called in, such as the manufacturers of socially incompatible vehicles (SUVs) from the automobile industry. However, this latter problem will equally affect the CO2 tax, which is now on many lips. The targeted CO2 tax must somehow be staggered depending on the amount of CO2 gas released for a product and distributed as fairly as possible among the end customers (not just the consumers!). With a clear and transparent system of simple numbers, this is particularly easy and clear…” Post by Rob Kenius from August 9, 2019 at Telepolis – The principle of staggered VAT comes from the paperback “Living in Abundance of Money. Environment and Politics in the Grip of the Financial World” by Rob Kenius (192 pages, price 9.99 euros).

• The dangerous distributional effects of climate policy 
  "The planned repayment of CO² taxes through a climate bonus will also lead to social upheaval. Germany is threatened with a climate revolt like in neighboring countries, from which the AfD in particular will benefit. For left-wing parties, the social and political polarization caused by the planned intensification of climate protection through increases in CO² prices represents a major problem. While the Greens can live very well with rallying the population groups that are better off socioeconomically or in terms of formal education behind their position, The SPD and the Left Party are burdened by the conflict between their academic circles of officials with a strong preference for a more decisive fight against climate change on the one hand and their classic voter potential of workers and the lower middle class on the other. The latter are skeptical about a significantly intensified fight against climate change via CO² taxes or climate certificates and have very well understood that they will most likely be the ones who will be disproportionately burdened by these measures (…) The political scientist René Cuperus speaks by example The last elections in the Netherlands even spoke of a “climate revolt” among the lower classes, which was expressed primarily in the election of a new right-wing populist party (Forum for Democracy) and had very unfavorable consequences for social democrats and especially socialists. Such a revolt is also easy to imagine in Germany – if it hasn’t already started.” Article by Andreas Nölke from August 6, 2019 at Makroskop – That’s why no climate policy because it strengthens the right??? It is not climate policy that has a dangerous distributional effect (as the headline suggests), but rather the lack of fight against the global capitalist defense of values ​​that essentially led to the need for a significantly different climate policy. Andreas Nölke's “left” nationalism may have problems with this. But maybe he should check his nationalism instead. It is no coincidence that a left-wing climate policy is something that is obviously unthinkable for Nölke. Above all, another revolt “started”: the climate strike – see our dossier:“Fridays for Future”: School strikes for more climate protection

• The CO2 tax doesn't save us - a tax to save us from evil climate change? In this way, the environmental crisis is presented as an enemy from outside. Our system creates them 
  "... Now the climate policy debate is largely limited to the demand for a CO₂ tax - which is being inflated into a panacea. It is intended to make climate-damaging production and consumption expensive and ensure that industry and citizens reduce carbon dioxide on their own, while bans on short-haul flights or SUVs, the radical restructuring of the transport and energy sector or agriculture are considered non-negotiable. In addition, the CO₂ tax is intended to act as a redistribution mechanism: While the assets and privileges of the... Rich people are left untouched, poorer people are supposed to benefit from the CO2 tax through a kind of trickle-down effect by paying out the tax again. A strange idea of justice, after all, the CO2 footprint of the rich is more than 130 tons per person per year and emits as much as 400 Bangladeshis per year. The restriction on the market instrument CO2 tax starts at the end of a long chain of destruction Depoliticization, as described by Belgian geographer Erik Swyngedouw: Climate change is portrayed as an external enemy that threatens capitalism. “The problems therefore do not appear to be the result of the system, an imbalance of power, influential networks of control, rampant injustice or the fatal flaws inherent in this system – instead, an outsider is blamed.” This invader can only be fought from within, using the means of capitalism.“In other words: we need to change radically, but within the existing circumstances, so that nothing really needs to change,” writes Swyngedouw…” Contribution by Kathrin Hartmann from July 17, 2019 from Friday 26/2019

• CO2 pricing: fig leaf or panacea in the fight against climate change? 
  "... If you talk to economists about climate change, the term "externality" will certainly come up within a few minutes. Externalities are costs (or benefits) that arise not from the producers and consumers of a particular good, but from outsiders. If, for example, a chemical company disposes of its toxic waste inexpensively in the nearest bathing lake, it can offer its products cheaper and both the company and its customers are happy. The costs are borne by the bathers at the lake, who now risk damage to their health when swimming. Because that If the chemical company does not have to compensate them, this does not play a role in its commercial decisions. One way to reduce externalities (which one does not want to ban completely) is to put a price on them: For example, one could ask the chemical company to pay for the cleaning of the lake. This would make the elimination of the negative side effect (the polluted lake water) part of the chemical company's commercial calculation “Internalization of externalities” is an impressively elegant concept in theory: CO2 pricing could make climate protection, which is otherwise based on altruistic sacrifice, individually rational. Social control or government intervention in individual consumption decisions would be unnecessary. At the same time, a uniform price for CO2 would guarantee that savings take place where they cost the least.(…) Politically, however, the issue remains problematic: even if a reform of CO2 pricing does not lead to any additional burden on citizens, it will be inevitable that individual households will be better or worse off as a result. The current system of explicit and implicit CO2 pricing is hardly socially fair: long-distance flights, which are undoubtedly used more by wealthy citizens, are not subject to implicit CO2 taxation, but Deutsche Bahn is. Those who can afford a modern car or a new heater pay less than those who keep having their old heater repaired because there is no capital for the replacement investment. A well-thought-out reform of CO2 pricing in Germany therefore does not address climate issues without context, but rather takes into account the other objectives of our economic order... " Contribution by Johanna Schiele and Hanns Koenig from July 18, 2019 at Blickpunkt WiSo

• Tenants’ Association: “Don’t pass on CO2 pricing to tenants” 
  "... After the economists' recommendation to make heating in buildings more expensive with CO2 pricing, the German Tenants' Association warns of higher burdens for tenants. Tenants' Association President Lukas Siebenkotten told the newspapers of the Funke media group that the resulting costs should not be passed on to the tenants. Tenants have "no influence on how their apartment is heated". This was decided by the landlords, which is why they should also pay the additional costs of a CO2 tax in the heating sector. In order to encourage apartment owners to switch to climate-friendly heating, Siebenkotten suggested “substantial investment cost subsidies”. (…) The owners' association Haus und Grund also called for tax incentives for energy-saving building renovations. Without the participation of tenants, the costs of the energy transition could not be financed, said association president Kai Warnecke. “Finding a solution here with a sense of proportion will be the most important thing when CO2 pricing comes.” It is certain that in the event of CO2 pricing, living in Germany will become more expensive. The head of the Federal Association of Consumer Organizations, Klaus Müller, emphasized that the social design of CO2 pricing is important for consumers. “The income from CO2 pricing must flow completely back to the group of private households,” he told the “Rheinische Post”…” Report from July 13, 2019 at tagesschau.de

• The radical truth in prices – thanks to the climate bonus, social and fair CO2 pricing is possible, says DIW economist Claudia Kemfert 
  "...[Climate protection] doesn't cost us any more. On the contrary. We just urgently need the radical price truth mentioned above - and a fair burden on the real polluters. The truth? Climate damage doesn't only cost when we impose a CO2 price. Climate change has always cost us. We are constantly spending millions in taxpayers' money because we do not say goodbye to the main driver of climate change, fossil fuels. (...) But to this day those responsible refuse to speak this truth; it is Damn inconvenient. Because those who contribute the least to climate damage pay the price. People with low incomes, whether they are nurses, hairdressers or pensioners, usually have a comparatively small carbon footprint. And yet they pay for the emissions without knowing it: the higher earners with generously sized single-family homes, with first and second cars and with vacation trips to distant countries From now on, people have to pay for the damage they cause. Imagine if the climate pollutants such as kerosene, diesel, gasoline and heating oil, which are currently tax-exempt, were realistically paid for the resulting costs of climate change. And on the same day you would start giving people back the money that has been secretly taken out of their pockets for decades - as a climate bonus or climate bonus. What would happen then? Yes, exactly: poor people would suddenly have more money in their pockets.The rich, on the other hand, would have to pay significantly more in the future for their reckless flying, driving and heating behavior or adopt a different lifestyle..." Contribution by Claudia Kemfert to Neues Deutschland from July 10, 2019

• Join forces with the student demonstrations. The CO2 tax would be a common demand if it were high enough 
  “Will CO2 emissions finally have a price? One ton of what is by far the most important greenhouse gas from human activity causes damage to the earth