The gas price cap that everyone wants now, from the Chancellor to the Prime Ministers, is a tricky business. There is a risk of justice.
The signal, according to the draft resolution of the conference of prime ministers with the Federal Chancellor, is not for a dispute, but for “national unity”. But how long will the peace last – and are 200 billion “double booms” enough for that?
The state heads of government wanted the gas price cap – now they are getting it. Now the ladies and gentlemen from the state chancellery want to know how this price cap works, and as quickly as possible. So today. You will probably have to be patient, possibly longer than a week. But it is questionable whether the experts who are supposed to put the gas cap on for the federal government will succeed in finding a pragmatic, quick and fair solution.
One of the prime ministers, Lower Saxony’s Stefan Weil (SPD), made the first serve. Now the state, “stormproof and earthy”, as the “Niedersachsenlied” puts it, has chaired the Prime Ministers’ Conference on a rotating basis, and has been doing so since October 1st. Weil has replaced Hendrik Wüst (CDU), which from the perspective of Lower Saxony is more than just a person.
Because Wüst has demonstrated in his state of North Rhine-Westphalia how you can turn this chief office, which actually isn’t one, into an election victory. Wüst, who had barely come to the Düsseldorf government office as Armin Laschet’s successor, suddenly sat regularly as a representative of the federal states in press conferences next to the Chancellor. And if today, according to Lower Saxony’s anthem, “Storms roar over the German fatherland”, Weil stands next to Olaf Scholz, who has recovered from the corona virus.
That might be helpful if you have to face a state election six days later. The MPK date may have been a coincidence – Weil’s foray into the gas price brake was certainly not. This is an astonishing proposal, for a social democrat.
Weil’s “Fifty-Fifty Heat Bonus Model” envisions the state and consumers sharing the difference between what citizens paid for gas last year and the current drastically high price—fifty-fifty.
This proposal is surprising for a social democrat because:
First, the rich will get more money than the poor. Because they live in more square meters, so they consume proportionally more gas than poor people who live more modestly because they have to. Those who are wealthier benefit more from this gas subsidy than someone who has to go to their financial limits for expensive energy. But that’s not enough of the social imbalance, because:
Energy has never been as expensive as it is now. But instead of panicking, you should calmly check potential savings at home. As our guide shows, there are many of them.
Secondly, squanderers should get more money than savers. Those who thought it was important to save energy in the past can now feel punished for their good will towards the climate.
Third, young people will have to subsidize older people. Because the double boom is debt-financed, which means it is not fair to generations. Another social injustice that one could not necessarily have expected from social democrats.
The federal government is already preparing the citizens for the justice debate that will follow. Robert Habeck, for example, answered the pointed question of a Deutschlandfunk moderator, where the traffic light government suddenly found the 200 billion euros for the double boom, with disarming honesty:
“In debt.” And that would have to be repaid again, because, according to the Economics Minister from the Greens: “Of course, the money has to go back in.” With which Habeck reminded that the state has no money of its own, but only redistributes tax money , which for taxpayers only means: From the left to the right pocket.
Further trouble threatens, because the households of the citizens can only be relieved across the board – per connection and not: per person. The state, specifically: the public utilities, do not know how many people hide behind a gas connection. And most importantly, they don’t know how much money these people make.
A dilemma, Habeck knows, because if you tried to count this, the gas cover would become an endless story, an “eternal operation”. The green philosopher then very true to life: “Besides, it changes all the time. People get married, have children, die, move away, split up or start up companies.” (What happens to the price of gas when people “found themselves” remains Habeck’s secret for the time being.)
In addition, energy experts such as Bochum resource economist Andreas Loechel doubt whether people will save gas if it is subsidized, which is the idea behind the gas price cap. And gas still has to be saved considerably, even 200 billion cannot hide that fact. Otherwise, according to the Federal Network Agency, there is a risk of a “shortage” in winter, i.e. a cold booth.
It’s not just the German prime ministers and the German chancellor who are discussing Germany’s double whammy. The Europeans do it too. And some of them have already identified a very special form of the justice gap. Brussels Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton tweeted:
“While Germany can afford to borrow 200 billion euros on the financial markets, other member states cannot.” Both for the EU Commission and for the European Parliament, the German billion bang could be a boost for one of Brussels’ favorite ideas: To create a new Brussels money pot from which the plight of the energy price victims could be alleviated.
Brussels’ super bureaucracy could then prevent “national solo efforts” – especially by the Germans. The manslaughter argument of “national solo efforts” is known from other contexts – from the German tanks, which therefore cannot be delivered to the Ukraine.
These days, everything ends up somehow resembling Vladimir Putin.
