The current debate surrounding climate issues has now reached the Federal Constitutional Court. The focus of the ruling, handed down on April 29, is on questions of intergenerational justice: To what extent could the previous approach to climate protection lead to future restrictions on freedoms and rights for the younger generation, simply because the older generation today is unwilling to contribute sufficiently to climate protection?

The Federal Constitutional Court declared the Federal Government’s Climate Protection Act partially unconstitutional, primarily because it lacks intermediate targets for the period after 2030. The climate protection targets set for 2030, however, were deemed unproblematic. The law is now to be revised by the end of 2022.

Prof. Dr. Dr. Dr. h.c. Radermacher offers a critical commentary on the ruling: According to him, the Court’s position is not convincing from a logical or scientific standpoint, as it ignores important aspects of the climate debate. This includes the fact that achieving an average temperature rise of only 1.5°C is not solely within the power of German policy but is a global goal that requires global action. Moreover, it is questionable whether Germany’s existing climate protection measures are even correct. The professor cites examples of how CO₂ emissions are managed in China and Nigeria, arguing that a purely national approach to the budget cannot be effective.

The ruling has been “stylized as an epochal event” in the media, which, according to him, it is not. In fact, the judges’ demands of policymakers are relatively modest. What the ruling does imply in terms of consequences, what challenges lie ahead beyond climate issues, and what climate measures would be effective, can be read here.

Image source: Udo Pohlmann (Pixabay)