• KISSmyOS@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No worries, we’ll solve the issue by cutting the budget for bicycle infrastructure in half, saving 300 million.
    While spending a record amount of 13 billion on Autobahn projects, citing “overwhelming public interest” (which removes the requirement for an environmental impact assessment).

    This will predictably lead to the traffic sector missing its CO2 budget target, but we’re fixing that by getting rid of binding sector-specific CO2 targets altogether.

    https://www.manager-magazin.de/politik/deutschland/verkehr-und-klima-im-bundeshaushalt-milliarden-fuer-autobahnen-sparkurs-fuers-fahrrad-a-e00d288e-29b6-41ea-9c69-58e8b723c333

    • quatschkopf34@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I agree with the sentiment behind your comment, every big infrastructure project has to have an EIA and so do Autobahn projects. Very simply put, the argument „overwhelming public opinion“ can be used to build a project in spite of its negative environmental consequences.

  • sergih@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    My question is why is the climate crisis not considered a crisis big enough to break the debt limit whereas the covid crisis was, this has been the hottest summer ever, by a lot, let’s see next year’s, when it’s too late.

    • doeknius_gloek@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      this has been the hottest summer ever

      I hope you enjoyed it, it might have been the coolest summer for the rest of our lives!

    • Janiboy2010@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because in the eyes of the constitutional court it’s not an unforeseeable, acute crisis, but something that is known since decades :(

    • Blaubarschmann@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Probably because one is an immediate, temporary crisis and the other is a general, long-lasting, global-scale crisis, where increasing the federal budget doesn’t seem to have a short-term effect to mitigate the negative effects

    • Anamana@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because it’s a ‘frog in the hot water’ kind of crisis vs a ‘frog in the fire’ kind of crisis.

    • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not the point here.

      This decision of the court didn’t try to make any political point or find a solution, it was only asked to decide, whether moving funds (or more precisely: grants to take on loans) was legal or not.

      Now politics kicks in and they’re supposed to find a solution that’s actually legal for a change.

      German politics is an absolute shit show right now.

    • dumdum666@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Legally: because it didn’t happen suddenly and the law only allows exceptions if a crisis happens suddenly.

      • _s10e@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Much simpler: The reason was A. You cannot use A-excpetion to fund B

        A=covid

        B=climate, industry, future, …

    • PositiveNoise@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Indeed. This article is nonsense. Germany should declare the climate crises an emergency. And if they don’t like the debt limit rule they passed a few years ago, they can change it. Calling it a ‘budget crisis’ is overblown. It seems that the main problem is that their political parties are currently not working together well. That is not exactly some existential problem at this point. The German economy is way too large to consider a 60 billion euro problem a ‘crisis’.

      • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Our social democrats, had the incredible intelligence to pass it into the constitution, requiring a 2/3 majority, when they were junior partner to the conservative (now reactionary) party. As with many things they passed back then, they claimed to have tummy aches, but to pass it because responsibility or whatever.

        This is entirely self made by the now government leading social democrats, who are more of a conservative party and recently tried to jump on the right-populism train. Because that worked soooo well before…

      • Janiboy2010@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        And if they don’t like the debt limit rule they passed a few years ago, they can change it.

        But only a minority of the parliament doesn’t like it, that’s the problem. You need 2/3 of the Bundestag, but even our current governing coalition is composed of parties that are in favour of this strict austerity/debt limit (FDP) or are ambiguous or just slightly against it (SPD)

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Whether for more efficient heating, expanded rail, or subsidizing energy costs, virtually none of the climate-friendly projects the government had envisioned can be funded as currently planned.

    In his reaction to the ruling, Party Leader Lars Klingbeil stopped short of explicitly demanding tax hikes.

    “We know that right-wing parties in particular are constantly mobilizing people’s social concerns and fears,” she told public broadcaster ZDF.

    With the debt brake staying in place and tax hikes likely doomed to fail against the resistance of the FDP and opposition CDU-CSU, the only option remaining is tight-fisted austerity.

    If the Greens’ core issue, climate change mitigation, loses its financial backing, the party could soon be asking what point there is in staying in the coalition.

    Chancellor Olaf Scholz attempted to put on a brave face telling the parliament, the Bundestag “am convinced that the governing coalition will succeed in making all the right suggestions.”


    The original article contains 887 words, the summary contains 150 words. Saved 83%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!