The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Gas price brake: The clumsy Scholz announcement is dangerous

2022-09-29T16:36:12.488Z


The Chancellor is mobilizing 200 billion euros for social relief in the energy crisis. That's good and right. Unfortunately, he communicates the aid so wrongly that there is a risk of a gas shortage later in the winter.


Enlarge image

Minister Habeck, Chancellor Schulz, Minister Lindner

Photo: Filip Singer / EPA

He's already had "thumps" before, which is why he's now talking about "double thumps": Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced the federal government's new energy rescue package verbally with a bang.

The traffic light wants to mobilize up to 200 billion euros by spring 2024 to protect citizens and companies from the consequences of the energy price crisis.

In addition, there is a temporary VAT reduction for gas.

And then there are the earlier relief packages worth around 100 billion euros.

A lot of money against social hardship.

And that's a good thing.

Hopefully it will alleviate the suffering of millions of people, save thousands of companies from bankruptcy and prevent Italian conditions with triumphant right-wing populists.

Unfortunately, the SPD politician has linked his new rescue package with a highly problematic message.

"The prices have to go down," said Scholz in the afternoon.

That was pretty clumsy.

And it fits a crisis communication dangerously astray.

Because what really needs to be avoided is social hardship.

And these can

not be

avoided if you now clumsily push prices down.

Then hardly anyone should heat less - and the gas should hardly last until the end of winter.

In the worst case, there is even a threat of forced rationing for companies.

Even with a rescue package, the German gas supply is as safe as Norbert Blüm's pension was: not at all.

It would be important to say that clearly to the citizens.

And to encourage them to save energy more urgently.

Even if it's unsexy and uncomfortable.

Carefree heating with the »Double-Wumms«?

So far, the citizens seem to be doing too little.

According to the Federal Network Agency, gas consumption by households and businesses last week was 14.5 percent above the average of previous years.

This was mainly due to the cold weather.

But even if you factor out the special effect, the previous savings efforts are not enough.

According to the network agency, consumption would have to drop by at least 20 percent if we want to get through the winter well.

There are two central levers to get citizens to save gas.

One works through economic incentives.

If gas keeps getting more expensive, as it has in the past, people simply use less.

But the government wants to take the price pressure out right now.

Which is first of all correct.

Because the pressure is too great at the moment.

However, it is important to design the relief now in such a way that everyone does not blindly start heating up afterwards.

Various models are circulating in a government expert commission for precisely this purpose.

Basically they all work the same way: they want to cap gas prices for end customers – but only in part.

For the rest, people should continue to pay the horrendous market prices.

So you want to persuade them to consume less.

Whether this works for all customers is questionable.

Especially people from the middle and upper classes could become more carefree thanks to Scholz' "double boom".

You could take the state benefits with you - and care less about the remaining expensive kilowatt hours.

They would never have really gotten into financial trouble anyway.

There will be people like that.

It's unavoidable.

However, the government must be careful that there are not too many.

The precise design of the gas price cap is extremely important.

On top of that, the question arises as to whether concrete financial incentives to save are also needed.

For example, a premium for everyone who reduces their consumption significantly.

The economist Verokina Grimm, who also heads the gas commission, advocates such a gas bonus.

"Attack, attack - heating is shit"

The second lever that could be used is a social propaganda campaign similar to that of flight shame in the summer of 2019.

"Attack, attack - flying sucks," shouted "Fridays for Future" activists at German airports at the time.

Also no less clumsy than the chancellor's "double boom."

But in doing so, they initiated a public discourse that is still having an impact today.

Since then, at least lavish jet-setter flying has been out in many social circles (except for Kylian Mbappe).

Now - in the Russian economic war against Europe, which is mainly fought over gas prices - one could well imagine a similar momentum.

Moods could be deliberately steered so that people can at least feel proud sitting in a cooler, darker apartment at home.

And at least secretly feel a little ashamed when the heating bangs on level five with the windows open.

»Gas saving against Putin« could be a slogan.

"Saving gas for the climate" anyway.

If necessary, also »Attack, attack - too much heating is really shit right now«.

But there is little to be heard from politics in this direction.

The highest feelings are still stories from politicians that they now take shorter showers.

The unpopular topic doesn't get much more »boom«.

Hardly any attempt is made to get the citizens involved.

To make it clear to them that, out of self-interest, they should reduce consumption now – so that things don't get really uncomfortable in a few months.

They prefer to hide behind Klaus Müller, the head of the Federal Network Agency, who seems to issue such warnings every day.

Only that hardly anyone listens to him.

Why should it, with so little support from the government?

And with messages like today's from Olaf Scholz. for a long time

Source: spiegel

All business articles on 2022-09-29

You may like

News/Politics 2024-02-28T11:07:02.602Z

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.