It has been five years since Germany’s supreme court – with the rather unpronounceable name of Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) – issued a decisive climate decision. Five years on, many wonder if there is still a reason to celebrate and a reason to act.

Five years after the historic climate decision of Germany’s constitutional court, it is time to take stock. While a constitutional application to the court stated that this is about “the future”, over 54,000 people rallied for improvements to the environment.

Meanwhile, Germany’s new climate protection programme might well be on track to be effective. Five years ago – on 24 March 2021 – Germany’s supreme court handed down its historic decision. It ruled that Germany’s “Basic Law” – the Grundgesetz or constitution – commits the state to climate protection.

This was a request to Germany’s federal government not to postpone necessary measures. The court stated that the government must act today in order to protect the rights and freedoms of Germany’s young people and of future generations.

It showed impact. Germany’s government cranked up its climate protection act in record time. It also improved what are called its “climate goals“.

Yet, five years after all this, the legitimate question is: Where does Germany stand today? At that time, two organisations – germanwatch and Greenpeace – requested a ruling by the court. Germany’s government must present a climate protection programme showing how its climate targets for 2030 and 2040 are to achieve its goal. Germany must be climate-neutral by the year 2045.

The decision that brought all this about has the rather technical insignia “BVerfGE 157, 30″, reflecting the constitutional demand of Article 20a GG – the Grundgesetz or constitution.

It is commonly known as “the climate decision“, detailing the provisions of Germany’s Climate Protection Act (KSG). To this day, this decision is understood as the most important judicial decision in German climate protection law.

The court said that climate protection is a constitutional demand that impacts the rights and freedoms of younger generations.

For example, the court explained that Germany’s emissions reduction law at that time was to the detriment of the younger generation. To limit global warming, more far-reaching measures have to be introduced. It should not be that Germany’s younger generation will face a much diminished life and a comprehensive loss of freedom because the costs of climate protection are offloaded onto the future.

The legislature – Germany’s parliament – has to make arrangements to mitigate such an offloading onto future generations. The court instructed the legislature to regulate this by the end of 2022. The court also pointed out that Germany could not evade its responsibility by pointing to greenhouse gas emissions in other states.

The court highlighted guiding principles for the benefit of future generations. The government has a duty to take special care of future generations. Germany’s government must take into account the serious and irreversible adverse effects of global warming.

In terms of the global environment and climate change, the court stated that the state has a duty to provide climate protection within the framework of international agreements on climate protection.

The court left it to Germany’s parliament to decide on the necessary measures. Legally, the court broke new ground. The state must take effective measures for climate protection in order to leave future generations a liveable environment.

The government at the time quickly responded with an amendment to strengthen its Climate Protection Act. It took effect in August 2021. Climate goals for 2030 were tightened. Compared to 1990 levels, greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 need to fall by 65% instead of the previous 55%. More importantly, by 2040 there is to be a decrease of 88%, and the country must be climate-neutral by the year 2045 – not 2050.

German environmental groups spoke of a landmark ruling and a breakthrough for climate protection. Yet, there is strong evidence that Germany might not achieve climate neutrality by 2045. One reason is that the previous social-democratic-green-neoliberal government weakened Germany’s climate protection law in 2024.

For sectors such as energy, transport and construction, there are no longer binding targets. Instead, total emissions are considered. Currently, Germany’s energy sector is doing rather well when it comes to reducing emissions. This, so the argument goes, “compensates”, for example, for the “stagnation” in Germany’s transport sector and the failures of Germany’s construction sector. The hopeless faith is that one good outcome makes up for two bad ones – it does not work that way.

Germany would have had a good chance of achieving climate neutrality if all of these areas had shown improvements. By 2030, Germany will have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 65% compared to 1990. With the current measures, achieving this goal is “difficult” – in reality, next to impossible.

Worse, the Wuppertal Institute (Wuppertal Institut für Klima) has assessed the government’s plans to water down the rules for climate-friendly heating systems in Germany’s construction sector, as well as reductions in the promotion of solar energy systems. The watering down of both has led to higher greenhouse gas emissions. What opens up is a “climate protection gap” that will only worsen by 2030, reaching a rather substantial level.

This is because the current conservative-social-democratic government wilfully eliminated a provision introduced by the previous minister for the economy and climate – Robert Habeck. Perhaps the conservative-led government acted because of a sustained hate campaign orchestrated by Germany’s reactionary tabloids against Habeck, leading to personal attacks. Germany’s klimareporter.de called the hate campaign “the media power of the heating hammer“.

Going against Germany’s supreme court by watering down environmental provisions contradicts the court’s demand to significantly crank up its ambition to protect the environment.

Meanwhile, the original applicants to Germany’s supreme court – Greenpeace and germanwatch – have gathered over 50,000 applications to the court. They are directed against the inadequate, weakened, and diluted reform (a backward move) of Germany’s Climate Protection Act. They also call for concrete environmental measures, particularly in Germany’s transport sector. Both organisations argue that if Germany’s court rejects their request for radical climate action, it will have far-reaching consequences for the environment, Germany, and the original court decision.

Currently, Germany’s court is examining a new climate constitutional application (zukunftsklage.de), which is supported by Greenpeace. Yet, it appears as if Germany’s conservative government is likely to allow more CO₂ emissions. In its judgment, Germany’s court demanded that, to safeguard the freedoms and opportunities of future generations, Germany’s government must act to protect the environment.

It gets worse. The current climate policy of Germany’s conservative government reduces freedom to money. However, by freedom Germany’s supreme court meant the freedom to live an environmentally safe life that is not impaired by the offloading of costs onto future generations. Yet, this is precisely what the current government is seeking to do. And this from a political party – Merz’s CDU – that prides itself on representing law and order and on standing on constitutional grounds.

In other words, Merz’s CDU emphasises the alleged unaffordability of, for example, a heat pump or an electric car, despite rising energy costs. The USA’s attack on Iran and rising energy costs did not get Merz to rethink its increasing unsustainable position. Meanwhile, Merz’s government continues to offloads the damage done to the environment onto future generations. This directly contradicts what Germany’s supreme court ruled in 2021.Email