As early as October, hundreds of thousands of consumers in Germany will have to dig deeper into their pockets because of the gas surcharge. This causes resentment – among entrepreneurs, unions, politicians and ethicists. Even the Green Youth is now stabbing Habeck in the back.
Economics Minister Robert Habeck (Greens) is caught in the crossfire. Because of the gas surcharge that his department introduced and that most consumers will have to pay from October.
The fee is 2.4 cents net per kilowatt hour of gas and is intended – according to the idea – to save ailing gas suppliers. However, this is increasingly being met with criticism. Not only among ordinary citizens, but also among politicians, entrepreneurs and ethicists.
Now save articles for later in “Pocket”.
For example, there is the CDU, which would like to abolish the gas surcharge altogether. Secretary General Mario Czaja described the project as “extremely badly done technically”, Jens Spahn spoke of a “chaos levy” and CDU man Thomas Heilmann of a “wrong way”.
What is more surprising, however, is the criticism that Habeck has received from his own ranks. “The government should focus on the well-being of the people and not the right to profits,” said the federal spokeswoman for the Green Youth, Sarah-Lee Heinrich, to the magazine “Der Spiegel”.
With a view to her Economics Minister’s idea, she added: “The gas levy was the wrong way from the start.” It cannot be “that society should now bear the losses while many companies have made excess profits in this crisis”.
“You can’t explain that to people who don’t know how to get through the winter,” said Heinrich. Instead, she calls for the introduction of an excess profit tax and a gas price cap.
And SPD leader Saskia Esken also told the “Rheinische Post” that the climate minister had to “ensure that services from the gas levy do justice to the overall economic situation of the corporations”. Companies that “earn good money” in other areas would have to help themselves.
In addition, some entrepreneurs and associations have expressed their dissatisfaction with the gas levy. The CEO of the Leverkusen-based plastics group Covestro, Klaus Schäfer, told the “Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger” on Wednesday: “The levy is highly immature and completely unfair. Costs and benefits are not balanced.”
Depending on the further development of energy prices, Schäfer expects high additional costs for his company. “Competitors will have to subsidize each other later,” he criticized.
In addition, some gas importers have already declared that they can waive the surcharge. “That doesn’t speak to the precision of this instrument.” As an alternative, the manager suggested a gas tax “that would be spread across the country.”
From the point of view of the German Tenants’ Association, the federal government’s plan for a gas surcharge with a simultaneous reduction in VAT on natural gas is incomprehensible. “I don’t understand the whole gas surcharge at all,” said association president Lukas Siebenkotten a few days ago in Berlin.
The levy is ultimately about saving companies. This could be done directly, just like in the 2008 banking crisis, said the boss of the tenants’ association. “You don’t have to take this strange detour via the consumers and then tell them afterwards, “but we’re going to reduce the VAT for it now,” added Siebenkotten.
According to the Verdi trade union, many people with low incomes could also face existential difficulties as a result of the gas surcharge. “The federal government is called upon to launch another relief package that protects people from energy poverty,” said the chairman, Frank Werneke, in mid-August. He called for a gas price cap for normal consumption.
According to the Lower Saxony consumer advice center, many people are becoming increasingly angry about the planned gas surcharge. “We are receiving more and more inquiries from consumers who are very upset about the introduction of the gas levy,” said Julia Schröder, energy law expert at the consumer center, on Thursday.
Those affected were concerned about the need to survive, but also a lack of understanding about the distribution of costs. The consumer advice center called for another relief package for consumers with lower and middle incomes and a so-called excess profit tax for high-earning energy companies.
In view of the rising prices for food and energy, many people could not understand that private individuals should be asked to pay and that energy companies, which make good money from the high prices, should receive financial aid, explained Schröder. For many, everyday life is already difficult to cope with financially.
The philosopher Arnd Pollmann, who works as a professor for ethics and social philosophy at the Alice Salomon University in Berlin, also considers the gas surcharge to be absurd.
“You should help these unfortunate providers, who are involved in Russian companies, so that they can then really fleece consumers,” he said recently in an interview with FOCUS online. He always had a different understanding of the principle of the “free market”, in which competition prevailed.
Federal Minister of Economics Robert Habeck defended the concept in any case. On Wednesday in Berlin, he made it clear that the surcharge serves to ensure security of supply. It is undisputed that “this is a painful operation and involves unreasonable demands”.
The socio-political “imbalances” would have to be compensated for by other measures. Those who cannot afford the high energy costs and the levy must be financially supported in such a way that energy does not push them into poverty.
Despite all the criticism, there are also people who think the gas levy makes sense and who support Habeck. Federal Network Agency President Klaus Müller told the “Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung” (NOZ): “I can understand the anger, but only a small part of the levy goes to companies that don’t really need it to avert bankruptcy.”
However, he is certain that future amendments to the law will ensure greater transparency. “I think the surcharge is more targeted than its reputation, even if it hasn’t been openly understood so far.”
As a result, importers, primarily Uniper, are forced to procure very expensive replacements on the markets. At the same time, they should not have passed on the costs to consumers – and would have been threatened with bankruptcy.
