Climate protection or a loss of prosperity – a false dilemma?

I’ve written it somewhere here in the forum before: Anyone can help protect the climate—regardless of how large their budget is—but not everyone can do everything. Logically, someone who is short on money won’t be able to afford a heat pump right away, but they don’t necessarily have to eat meat.

That was just an example. Of course, there is much more that can be done—or not done—in between.

Nevertheless, the costs are an important factor. Subsidies are important. But steering people away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy is important too. Sure, the CO₂ price leaves a sour taste in many people’s mouths. For a four-person family with gas heating, that amounts to approximately 240–290 euros per year; with oil heating, it is even more expensive—we’re talking about approximately 300–360 euros per year.

Nevertheless, I consider pricing to be a sensible way of steering everything in the right direction. 0.25 euros per person per day.

Source for the figures: https://www.thermondo.de/info/rat/vergl…-steuer-heizen/

Now let’s move on to the bans. KlartextKai Which bans in the name of climate protection currently exist in Germany?

Aivor What bans are currently in place in Germany in the name of climate protection?

Quote from Micha

Which bans currently exist in Germany in the name of climate protection?

As of August 2026, there are several genuine bans or phase-out rules in Germany with climate-policy objectives. However, much of what is publicly referred to as a “ban” is legally more of an obligation, a limit value, or a financial incentive. There is no general ban on driving, flying, eating meat, or cooking with gas.

The following regulations are the clearest:

Coal-fired power generation: By law, the operation of coal-fired power plants is to end by 2038 at the latest. Many facilities are already subject to specific shutdown dates or tenders for early decommissioning. This is a genuine, gradual phase-out of electricity generation from hard coal and lignite. By contrast, a nationwide legally binding phase-out as early as 2030 is not currently a generally applicable statutory ban; it remains a political goal or depends on further decisions.

Fossil fuels in heating systems from 2045: Starting January 1, 2045, heating boilers may no longer be operated with fossil fuels. This primarily affects natural gas and heating oil. Existing systems may generally continue operating until then, unless they have to be replaced anyway because of age, defects, or other regulations. The rule therefore does not say: “Gas heating systems are banned effective immediately,” but rather: Fossil-fuel heating has a legally established end date.

New heating systems and the 65-percent rule: Anyone installing a new heating system must gradually meet the requirement that it be operated with at least 65 percent renewable energy. This has applied in new development areas since 2024. In existing buildings, the obligation is tied to municipal heating plans; it will apply across the board by mid-2026 at the latest in larger municipalities and by mid-2028 in smaller ones. Gas or oil heating systems may still be installed in transitional cases, but they will then be subject to increasing requirements for renewable fuel shares. This is therefore not an unconditional sales ban on gas and oil heating systems, but it is a significant legal restriction on their new installation.

New passenger cars and light commercial vehicles with combustion engines from 2035: The relevant rule comes from the European Union and therefore also applies in Germany. From 2035, the average CO₂ emissions of newly registered passenger cars and light vans must effectively be zero. In practice, this means that new vehicles running purely on gasoline or diesel will generally no longer be eligible for new registration. Used combustion-engine vehicles may continue to be bought, sold, driven, and repaired. At the EU level, a separate legal pathway is also provided for vehicles powered exclusively by climate-neutral synthetic fuels. Technically, this is also a fleet emissions limit for manufacturers, not a simply worded driving ban for individual citizens. Its effect is nevertheless similar: The new-car market will become largely emissions-free.

Fracking in unconventional deposits: Commercial fracking of shale, clay, marl, and coal-seam rock is generally prohibited in Germany. The main reason is the protection of water and the environment; from a climate-policy perspective, however, the rule is consistent with the goal of not developing new fossil gas sources that are difficult to control. Conventional fracking in certain sandstone deposits is not categorically prohibited in the same way, but it is heavily restricted and requires official approval.

Certain climate-damaging refrigerants: The EU F-Gas Regulation gradually restricts and prohibits the placing on the market of numerous products containing particularly climate-damaging fluorinated greenhouse gases. Depending on the type of device and the date, this affects parts of the market for refrigeration equipment, air conditioners, heat pumps, and switchgear. The decisive point is not that every air conditioner or heat pump would be prohibited. Rather, certain combinations of equipment and refrigerant with high global-warming potential are banned. This is relevant to the climate because some of these gases have an impact thousands of times stronger than CO₂.

Certain inefficient lighting products and devices: Under EU ecodesign and substance regulations, various particularly inefficient or mercury-containing light sources may no longer be sold as new products, including conventional incandescent bulbs and many halogen lamps, which have been affected for years; certain fluorescent lamps are also covered. Here, climate protection, energy efficiency, and hazardous-substance protection overlap. Using existing lamps at home is therefore not prohibited; the focus is primarily on placing new products on the market.

In addition, there are regulations that are often portrayed as climate-protection bans but are actually something else:

Diesel driving bans in individual cities are primarily based on air-quality protection, especially excessively high nitrogen dioxide levels. They are neither nationwide nor primarily part of climate-protection law.

There is no general ban on domestic flights. The government increases the cost of and regulates air travel, among other things, through the air-traffic tax and the European emissions trading system, but does not ban it generally.

There is no nationwide ban on meat, private wood-burning stoves, cruises, single-family homes, vacations, or privately owned passenger vehicles with combustion engines. However, wood-burning and pellet stoves are subject to emissions limits; some older systems must be retrofitted or shut down. This primarily serves to protect against particulate matter and other air pollutants, not climate protection.

There is also no general ban on laying new gas pipelines or using gas stoves. In heating, however, the requirements for new buildings, heating networks, and heating systems effectively make long-term fossil-fuel investments increasingly difficult to justify.

The core of German climate policy therefore consists less of immediate bans in everyday life than of a phase-out framework: coal-fired electricity generation by 2038 at the latest, fossil-fuel heating by 2045, and largely emissions-free new cars from 2035. These are supplemented by product bans on particularly climate-damaging technologies. This is more comparable to the gradual discontinuation of old printer cartridges or incandescent bulbs in stores than to a sudden ban on continuing to use things people already own.

Thanks, Aivor!

So most of the bans are still in the future. Take the story with heating systems, for example. There are politicians today who are convincing their voters to install new gas heating systems. Something's gone wrong there, hasn't it?

The "ban on combustion-engine vehicles" also makes sense. Most German manufacturers simply slept through it, though, or didn't have enough motivation to build sensible, affordable cars. Instead, they send out the lobbying army so they can continue clinging to combustion engines. They also waited forever to take care of the necessary infrastructure. But did they really sleep through it, or was the right incentive simply missing here too?

Coal-fired power generation—yes, obviously we have to stop doing that. We've known that for ages. But you make such good money from it, right? Once again, the lobbying army moves in and takes care of things. New (unneeded) areas are cleared and the ground torn up—that doesn't have to happen.
I myself come from a lignite-mining region. Yes, jobs are being lost. But new ones are also being created. The Ruhr region survived the end of the steel industry too, didn't it? Apart from that, there are hardly any younger workers here anyway. At 50, I'm pretty much the youngest person on construction sites in the area. At least here, that circumstance actually makes the phaseout easier.

The end of the incandescent light bulb—yes, things were a little bumpy at first. Often, replacing the bulb alone isn't enough. Transformers or dimmers might also have had to be replaced. On top of that, the first "LED contraptions" were more reminiscent of a bad joke. But now—a few years later? It works, doesn't it? I had already switched over before the ban—even my bank account thanked me for it. So the ban was more of a nudge in the direction of "Hey, there's really a smarter way to do this!".

Does anyone else remember CFCs? The whole world pulled together on that one and prevented a catastrophe. I don't know why we're having such a hard time today.

Well then ... that's all for now. Before I end up writing a whole novel here ;)