Climate Policy – Does It Live Up to Its Name?What to do now

18 March 2026, by Gerstenberg/Red.

Photo: privat

The University of Hamburg is the scientific home to more than 6,200 researchers. Every 2 weeks, we offer a glimpse into their work as part of the “Research and Understanding” series in the Hamburger Abendblatt. In this edition, Dr. Anne Gerstenberg explains why the general public also has a role to play in climate policy.

It should all be clear, really. The European Union aims to be climate-neutral by 2055, and Germany by 2045; the country has enacted a Climate Act, and relevant regulations are in place. This is how greenhouse gas emissions are being reduced step by step and climate protection implemented. However, when you add up how much CO₂ will be reduced through the measures that have been adopted, it is not enough to meet the targets.

I asked myself: Why doesn’t a goal lead to measures that can actually achieve it? At the CLICCS Cluster of Excellence for Climate Research at the University of Hamburg, I wanted to shed more light on this process. I interviewed people who are directly involved in shaping such instruments. These included, for example, employees in ministries and parliaments in Germany and the EU, as well as experts in business and environmental associations.

Using the example of the CO₂ price

In lengthy conversations, I learned what they hope to achieve and which measures they consider appropriate. I used the example of a rather complex climate policy instrument: the CO₂ price. In short, this is intended to make climate-damaging production more expensive and thus provide an incentive to switch to climate-friendly production. Such a price can be structured in various ways. One variant is the EU Emissions Trading System, which is already in effect for power plants and industry.

It quickly became clear: There is no single correct roadmap for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. After all, CO₂ affects nearly every aspect of our daily lives. And there are many answers to the question of how we can successfully avert climate change. But there is no scientific proof of which is the “best way” to do so.

When it comes to the CO₂ price, for example, it’s about striking a balance between the market and the state. While one side wants to let supply and demand alone determine the outcome, another would like to subsidize companies due to higher production costs, and a third would like to cushion the financial hardship for the population. So how much should the state intervene? For example, the current CO₂ price is making coal-fired power plants unprofitable and will eventually shut them down. Good for the climate! But people in the region may lose their jobs and thus their livelihoods. How can former employees and their families make ends meet? Should the government provide structural support here and, for example, finance retraining? Heating with gas and oil will also become more expensive in the future due to an upcoming CO₂ price. So, is a climate allowance necessary? And if so, for everyone—or should high earners be excluded? Who benefits or loses out is the subject of political conflict: the measures themselves are politics.

Worldview plays a role

My analysis also shows that how politicians design a measure depends heavily on their political stance and mindset. Their worldview helps determine which scientific findings they consider credible and how they use them to advance their plans.

There are also actors who help shape policy under a “false flag.” For example, some use their influence over emissions trading to specifically protect industries with high CO₂ emissions, while outwardly proclaiming climate protection. Sometimes, therefore, a measure does not deliver what it promises. Thus, every measure is the result of a negotiation involving differing visions of the future—and often reflects invisible power dynamics. There is no such thing as a neutral instrument. Conventional theories of political processes have so far underestimated this factor.

What can be done? In the future, climate protection instruments should be viewed more as strategies influenced by values. This means, for example, that negotiations regarding these measures must in turn be strategically monitored and supported. And: An ambitious climate policy will only exist if the public makes it clear that this is what they want.

(This content has been translated automatically)