Is the German approach to climate policy fit for purpose?

...and what does this mean for the economy and society?

Germany has defined ambitious_{CO2 reduction} targets to avert/reduce the damage caused by climate change and the politicians involved never tire of calling for and implementing new tightening measures and projects. In the meantime, it is legitimate to ask whether we are really being effective with our contribution and what this means for the economy and our society.

The good conscience of the model pupil Germany is not slowing down climate change and is too expensive.

In 2009, the participating countries at the World Climate Conference in Copenhagen agreed on a self-assessment/commitment of their_{CO2 emissions}(Copenhagen Accord), which was intended to limit global warming by 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels. 15 years later, experts from University College London and Tingshua University Beijing have now drawn up a preliminary assessment. According to their findings, 19 of the 34 signatory states have not achieved the targets. In order to eliminate development-related distortions, both the countries' activities and the emissions from imported goods were taken into account as criteria. There are roughly three groups: Countries that have achieved less than 30% of their targets (missed), those that have remained below 5% of their targets (achieved halfway) and those that have been successful.

It is noticeable in the compilation that many important countries are missing as they did not take part in the 2009 conference. The global surveys for_CO2 emissions for 2021 show that China accounts for 30.9 %, the USA 13.5 %, India 7.3 %, Russia 4.7 %, Japan 3.2 % and the European Union (27) 9.5 %. Germany accounts for just under 2 %. The figures make it clear that the decisive effect for climate change cannot come from Germany - whatever we do. The data shows that the climate is being shaped by the continuing global rise in_CO2 emissions in China, the USA and increasingly certainly India. In absolute terms, China is the leader in renewable energy production, but continues to generate 60% of its energy from fossil fuels with an increasing number of new coal-fired power plants.

In absolute terms, China is the leader in the production of renewable energy, but continues to generate 60% of its energy from fossil fuels

Germany's further targets to achieve_CO2 neutrality are basically correct, but when we achieve them will have no noticeable effect globally. Of course, Germany is forced to implement many of the EU's demands in this regard, even with its excessive bureaucracy. However, it cannot be said that Germany has used its weighty voice in the EU in accordance with the facts at hand. Our economy, and therefore also surface technology, which is relevant for all industrial sectors, is suffering considerable damage as a result. It is the variety of requirements from the chemicals side, the energy issue,_{CO2 pricing}, the supply chain law, etc., that is the main reason for this. Most of these points have no effect outside the EU and therefore lead to the well-known distortions in global trade and not only potentially to deindustrialization through industrial migration. For our economy, this has led to the current stagnation, in addition to the contraction in global trade as a result of geopolitical events. This is disastrous for our society, as it also requires high expenditure on the expenditure side due to constantly growing social spending, massive military investment to secure peace and high expenditure on integration. All of this can only succeed if, in addition to a critical review of the expenditure side, the economy is massively supported and the unjustified, because globally ineffective, time pressure of many measures from the climate sector is alleviated. The good conscience of the model pupil Germany is not slowing down climate change and is too expensive for that.