Under the title “Is climate justice electable – an election program analysis”, the Konzeptwerk Neue Ökonomie the election manifestos of the five major democratic parties from a climate justice perspective examined. The analysis is no recommendation to vote for a particular party, although it can of course be used to make your own voting decision. Instead, we want show which political measures are needed for a climate-friendly Society would be necessary and how big the difference to what is in Germany as “Climate policy” discussed is.
Is climate justice electable in a super election year?
Our analysis concludes: Climate justice is not electable – climate destruction, however, is! Climate justice is not something that parties can simply implement with the right measures. A climate-just society requires the commitment of everyone – not just as voters, but as people who are wholeheartedly committed to a democratic, social, and ecological society in many different areas of society. But although the parties could pave the way to a just and ecological future for all through laws and measures, a sufficient and sustainable climate policy is not up for election. From a perspective that a) takes climate science and emissions budgets seriously, b) is guided by the standard of global climate justice, and c) accordingly considers a very comprehensive socio-ecological transformation of society necessary, it becomes clear: Even the election manifestos that are most far-reaching from a climate justice perspective (Greens and Left) have ambitious goals in some areas, but also numerous gaps regarding the necessary measures to achieve them.
Does it then make any difference at all which party is elected?
Yes, the climate policy differences between the programs are significant, and therefore, the next federal government's leadership is relevant for the climate. On the one hand, there are the FDP and CDU/CSU, who are clinging to the status quo and want to achieve climate protection almost incidentally with a few market adjustments. On the other hand, there are the Greens and the Left, who take climate destruction seriously as a key challenge and propose appropriate policies. The former within the framework of ecological modernization, the latter through a fundamental reorientation of the economy. Voting for these more progressive parties at least offers the hope that effective climate policy will be implemented and that the government will not accept the climate crisis with a broader view and subordinate it to growth goals.
Are there any similarities between the programs?
An analysis of the programs makes it quite clear what the climate policy mainstream looks like. With the exception of the Left, the plan of all parties is primarily to reconcile climate and economy through technology. This means, for example, promoting and expanding electric cars, electrification, and hydrogen in line with market conditions and thus asserting themselves in international competition – the promise of green growth where everyone wins. In doing so, scientific analyses of the incompatibility of growth and effective climate policy and the outsourcing of the social and ecological costs of “green growth” to the global South are completely ignored. What is missing are measures that aim to achieve “less” – be it the dismantling of the automotive industry or consumption. This requires profound social change and measures that may even be implemented against economic interests. Instead, climate policy should remain a feel-good program.
What would a climate-friendly election program look like?
A climate-friendly program would have to be based on the budget that Germany still has left to make a fair contribution to complying with the 1,5°C limit. This budget is now so small that we will have used it up by 2023, or 2026 at the latest, if we continue to emit at our current levels. Furthermore, the program would have to make clear that environmental problems and social issues cannot be solved in isolation, but that fundamental social and economic change is needed that goes far beyond technical solutions. Such a program would have to set ambitious goals and spell out the corresponding measures as specifically as possible. We have identified some key goals and possible measures for the energy, industry, transport, and agriculture sectors as criteria against which we then assessed the programs.
CO2 budgets in comparison: On the one hand, remaining budgets according to the SRU (green), on the other hand, the budgets that the parties envisage in their election manifestos until complete decarbonization.
But aren't the measures you describe far too drastic for people?
There is much to be gained from a socio-ecological transformation, not least the ability to mitigate the climate crisis and the associated dramatic environmental changes and extreme social upheavals. But the democratization of society, a reduction in paid working hours, a greater appreciation of care work, better material security, and fairer trade rules would also noticeably benefit people worldwide. The climate crisis forces us to fundamentally question the way we do business. And this is based not only on the exploitation of the environment, but also of people. We firmly believe that if we work together as politicians and not just as consumers or voters for a better society, we can expand the scope of what is possible.
Short conclusion of the election program analysis
The programs of CDU/CSU and FDP They do not foresee any significant changes and rely on market forces and an "unfettered" economy. The climate crisis and social problems are to be solved incidentally through market mechanisms and technology.
The green They are committed to green growth with a socio-ecological market economy, with some clear ideas about the necessary measures and the inclusion of social concerns. However, the program does not go beyond classic ideas of ecological modernization and ultimately relies on the illusory promises of "green" capitalism.
The SPD essentially clings to the status quo – there is no openness, for example, to general reductions in working hours and the redistribution of labor, even though these could be core social democratic positions for the 21st century. Furthermore, there are many non-binding declarations of intent for important changes, but the measures are insufficient and vague.
Die Linke calls for a fundamental change in growth- and profit-oriented social structures. In many places, the program incorporates calls for global climate justice, but sometimes lacks sufficiently concrete measures. Furthermore, it fails to resolve the dilemma between the desired preservation of all industrial jobs and the necessary industrial dismantling.
