There is currently no movement in the negotiations – an agreement is unlikely, the climate protection spokesman for the governing parties confirmed on Monday in the Ö1 morning journal. Green climate protection spokesman Lukas Hammer criticized that there was very little coming from the ÖVP. Current crises would be used as justification for putting off the climate protection law. At the same time, one can currently see “that we finally have to take climate protection as seriously as science says,” says Hammer.
His ÖVP counterpart Johannes Schmuckenschlager also confirmed that there is no progress: The climate protection law is “a basic noise, but not the most important thing” and “not the top priority”. One wants to create the framework with other laws, such as the Renewable Energy Expansion Act on the expansion of energy from renewable sources and a faster environmental impact assessment (EIA).
ÖVP against liability and sanctions
With the actual climate protection law, the main focus is on the binding nature. The Greens want to enshrine the climate protection goals in the constitution and decide on fines – also for the federal and state governments. The ÖVP goes too far, they want a climate protection law with business-friendly measures. “The fact that we are on the side of business has always been the case and will always remain so. I don’t see that as a mistake either,” said Schmuckenschlager. Rather, one should ask oneself: “How can we also bring this energy transition together with the economy? Because otherwise it is not feasible.”
For the Greens, this attitude is a red rag: The fact that a climate protection law without sanctions and liability remains toothless was already shown with the old climate protection law. “A climate protection law that is not binding and has no consequences and only applies to the federal government is ineffective because it is simply ignored. I’d rather not have a climate protection law,” says Hammer. In any case, he no longer believes that the ideal law will be passed. According to Schmuckenschlager, a law will come – “I just can’t say when”.
Lots of protestations, little movement
In recent months, Leonore Gewessler’s (Greens) Ministry of the Environment has repeatedly asserted that work is being done “at high pressure” on the climate protection law, that the talks are “well advanced” and that the draft will “be evaluated promptly”. Most recently, however, Greens boss Werner Kogler also admitted in the ORF “summer talk” that there was “resistance” to the project specified in the government program.
There are many brakes, including the Federation of Industrialists (IV), the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Labour. In view of the energy crisis and inflation, the negotiations are unlikely to have become any easier.
Last draft from April 2021
Most recently, in the spring of last year, a draft for the new law was leaked, with which Austria should finally achieve its EU climate goals. The aim was to make the republic climate-neutral by 2040, with maximum emissions for each year.
Net emissions should be halved by 2030, and ten years later the aim was to reach net zero. It is about sectors such as transport, agriculture, buildings, waste, but also parts of energy production that are not covered by the EU emissions trading system. The draft also included “climate checks” for new laws, the establishment of a climate cabinet and a scientific advisory board. Furthermore, the anchoring of the goals in constitutional status was considered.
Above all, the draft would have provided for an automatic increase in taxes on petrol, natural gas and diesel if the climate targets were missed. Direct and fierce criticism came from the opposition, the Chamber of Labor and Commerce and from motorist clubs. The Chamber of Commerce vehemently rejected a planned anchoring in the constitution, as this would narrow the political scope. The IV also called this “a red line”.
Emissions go up
In any case, the government recently had to report that greenhouse gas emissions in Austria are going up again after a “pandemic break”. According to preliminary calculations by the Federal Environment Agency, there was an increase in emissions of around 4.8 percent in Germany in 2021.
According to preliminary figures, 77.1 million tons of greenhouse gases were emitted last year. Since 2015 – with the exception of 2020 – there has been a continuous increase in emissions. The government attributes this primarily to the good economy, but also to the lack of implementation of new, effective climate protection measures.
opposition with criticism
SPÖ environment and climate spokeswoman Julia Herr reacted with sharp criticism to the government’s inaction. “The Austrian federal government acts as if there is no climate crisis while half the country is drowning in floods. The people who suffer from this complete self-abandonment by the federal government are the population, who are left alone with the heat, drought, severe weather events and horrendous costs.”
NEOS was also outraged. “The fact that the ÖVP and the Greens have not been able to agree on a climate protection law for 600 days is simply unacceptable. Across the country, extreme weather events are showing us almost every day how important it is that we finally make meters in climate protection – and do it properly. The climate crisis is here now, the government must wake up now and finally implement real and sustainable measures,” demanded NEOS climate and environment spokesman Michael Bernhard.
“bogus climate policy”
Criticism also comes from experts. Reinhard Steurer, professor of climate policy at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna, spoke in the Ö1-Mittagsjournal on Monday about a “sham climate policy”. “The Climate Protection Act is a very central component of a climate policy that takes its own goals seriously,” says Steurer. If you say that the climate protection law is not a top priority, you could just as well say that climate protection is not the top priority.
“Now one could say that in view of the gas crisis that is also understandable. We actually have other crises that are very urgent, but that’s the only way you can see that these two crises are related,” says Steurer. Binding goals and penalties are needed if these requirements are not met, because without consequences there is simply not enough incentive to do what is necessary, according to Steurer. The government would currently operate a “sham climate policy”. Other laws could not replace the Climate Protection Act either.