opinion
Can we stop Putin’s war if we all turn down the heat a little? Why political appeals to “Freeze for Peace” are now out of place – and what needs to happen instead when it comes to energy prices.
EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen called on citizens on breakfast television to save energy because of the war. Ex-Federal President Joachim Gauck said on Wednesday evening “Maischberger”: “We can also freeze for freedom for once.” And Economics Minister Robert Habeck recommended a few days ago: “Anyone who wants to harm Putin saves energy.”
The politicians’ message to the people: Everyone can do their bit to reduce dependence on Russian oil and gas. To put pressure on Putin’s brutal regime and show solidarity with the brave Ukrainians. Because an impressive number of people in Germany show solidarity and would like to do something within the scope of their possibilities. This is reflected in the demonstrations and the willingness to donate (). But is it really a smart idea to call people to freeze for peace and freedom?
Of course, saving energy wherever possible is a good thing. This is true for climate protection reasons alone. And even more so in times when energy is becoming the political weapon of aggressive autocratic rulers. It is also more than mere symbolism. If we collectively turned down the heating a little, that would actually have an effect that should not be underestimated, as the scientific think tank Agora Energiewende confirms. “We assume that with optimized heating behavior, i.e. lowering the room temperature by 1-2 degrees and optimized heating settings, the energy requirements of households can be reduced by at least 10-15 percent”said Agora Germany Director Simon Müller of the DPA.
The wrong tone in the Ukraine crisis
Nevertheless, the sayings about freezing for peace and freedom set the wrong tone in the debate. And for several reasons.
First: Politicians are shifting the responsibility for solving the energy crisis to a certain extent to the individual. That was a big mistake in the entire climate debate, when for many years there was more talk about moral individual renunciation than about effective political measures such as a CO2 price. The fact that Germany is now dependent on Russian oil and gas is not the fault of consumers, but the result of failed energy policies. The expansion of renewable energies is not as far as it should be and when relying on gas as a bridging technology, people failed to strengthen sources of supply other than Russia.
Secondly: The calls to save energy may be meant as an act of self-empowerment (you can do something!), but they are likely to frighten many people. When the time comes that we have to turn down the heating to ensure the supply, panic is not far away. Broad support for tough economic measures against Russia could then quickly crumble. But this is important, because it will be more expensive for consumers in many corners and ends in the near future anyway.
Third: The demands that one can get out of one’s comfortable zone of prosperity for those who have to save anyway sound downright cynical. Anyone who is already having problems paying their gas bill, or who is already cutting back on heating because prices have skyrocketed in the last year, has long since left the cozy corner. Appeals for further waivers are inappropriate.
Which helps now
Instead of telling people that, unfortunately, they must now suffer in order to defend peace and freedom, it is better to emphasize that nobody has to freeze. Even if Russia were no longer to supply and there was a real energy shortage, private households would be given preferential treatment. Industrial companies were initially left behind.
In addition, politicians should make a plan to support low-income households that really can no longer afford the energy prices, which are likely to continue to rise. Consumer advocates and welfare organizations do not believe that the heating cost subsidy that has been passed for housing benefit recipients is remotely sufficient to compensate for the exploding costs. It would have to increase significantly in the short term, if necessary even be extended to other groups of people. In the medium term, faster replacement of oil and gas heating systems with modern heat pumps and strong financial support for thermal insulation for more energy efficiency will help. The expansion of renewable energies in particular will help in the long term.
More social solutions are also needed when it comes to fuel prices. Here the government has increased the commuter allowance for long-distance commuters of more than 21 kilometers to compensate for the increased burden. However, the commuter allowance is not considered a social instrument, since high earners benefit more from it than low earners. In order to cushion hardship for the socially disadvantaged, politicians must consider other means. The traffic light coalition still owes us the climate money promised in the coalition agreement – as a social compensation mechanism for CO2 taxes and higher energy prices.
You can also read about this: Consumers could be relieved when heating and refueling
Source: Stern
Jane Stock is a technology author, who has written for 24 Hours World. She writes about the latest in technology news and trends, and is always on the lookout for new and innovative ways to improve his audience’s experience.
