Critics warn moving climate from German environment to economy ministry could backfire
Tageszeitung (taz) / Der Tagesspiegel
The novel climate and economy ministry in the new German government has the potential to become a 鈥渟uper ministry鈥� that combines two crucial aspects by which the government鈥檚 success will ultimately be measured, but it is yet to be seen if the ministry led by Green politician Robert Habeck can deliver on high expectations, Malte Kreutzfeldt聽聽in newspaper Tageszeitung (taz). Habeck has been quick to fill key positions in the new ministry, for example the state secretary job with Patrick Graichen, former head of energy policy think tank Agora Energiewende. But the decision to remove climate from the environment ministry (BMU) and combine the key environmental topic with the department responsible for business and growth could also backfire, observers warn. 鈥淭ransferring responsibility for climate action to the economy ministry is a risky move,鈥� Christoph Bals of NGO Germanwatch told taz. If Habeck succeeds in balancing contradicting interests in his own ministry, 鈥渢his could be very efficient,鈥� Bals said. 鈥淏ut from now on there will be no environment ministry anymore that provides support,鈥� he added.
In a聽聽for newspaper Tagesspiegel, former BMU spokesman Michael Schroeren criticised the decision to reduce the ministry鈥檚 sphere of influence, arguing the Green Party of all parties would effectively 鈥渞ip out the core鈥� of a ministry that for the most part has been a key partner for their political goals in the past. 鈥淚t鈥檚 prudent to remain sceptical鈥� of the new 鈥渟uper ministry,鈥� as combining huge tasks under one roof has not always produced enviable results in German politics, Schroeren warned. The environment ministry under new Green minister Steffi Lemke will now lose billions of euros of its budget and climate policy will no longer be embedded in the comprehensive environmental expertise of the BMU, he added. Moving climate to the economy ministry is 鈥減erhaps (a) reckless experiment鈥� that could have been avoided by doing the exact opposite and giving the BMU more influence in the government鈥檚 workings, Schroeren concluded.
