Germany can and must do more for international climate protection

In 2024, two major international conferences took place. They raised high hopes – that the international community would pay more attention to climate and species protection and that it would recognise the urgency of these issues. Instead, the results of the UN Climate Change Conference in Baku in November and of the UN Biodiversity Conference in Cali in October lead me to doubt the future viability of our societies. Both events failed to achieve their goal of gaining a consensus on international financing in their specific areas. The poorer countries of Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East stated what they considered to be a fair and appropriate contribution from the richer countries of Europe, North America, and the Indo-Pacific region. But the latter were not prepared to pledge these sums. 

At COP29 in Baku, the international community agreed to provide funds totalling 300 billion US dollars per year by 2035 – significantly less than the 1.3 trillion the so-called developing countries consider necessary. The countries of the Global South will need between 455 and 584 billion annually by 2030 just to implement their national climate plans. At the biodiversity conference, negotiations broke down without any agreement on the issue of financing; there will, however, be another meeting in February 2025.

The destructive “sound” of the 21st century

At the same time, Donald Trump has been elected US president on the back of a programme that focuses on “borders, isolation, control” in line with the “sound” of the 21st century, in the words of political scientist Herfried Münkler. This includes both the announced withdrawal of the US from international climate protection instruments and the continued use of fossil fuels and related technologies. Oil-producing countries, whether rich or poor, are unwilling to give up their still-lucrative extraction incomes. Even Brazil, the host of next year’s climate conference, is keen to develop the oil reserves situated near the mouth of the Amazon River – while at the same time negotiating a climate financing solution. All of this massively reduces our ability to counteract the destruction of the natural world.

In Germany, too, spending on climate protection and international cooperation is increasingly being called into question in the face of dwindling public funds. The traffic light coalition had agreed on an ambitious plan to restructure the German economy and the country’s energy infrastructure in the name of climate protection, but this ultimately failed due to a lack of funding. In addition, the budgets for development cooperation and humanitarian aid have undergone significant cuts. 

Crises cannot be solved single-handedly

The crises of our time cannot be solved without international cooperation. Spending less money in this area will also ultimately harm us, as explained in my February column. The same applies to international climate protection. 

In poorer countries, the funding gap is even greater. However, Germany's contribution to international climate financing is not a question of charity but rather a legal obligation that is primarily derived from the polluter pays principle. Industrialised countries are responsible for the majority of emissions, the consequences of which disproportionately affect the countries of the Global South. It is for this reason that the former committed to making payments to the latter under the Paris Agreement – in order to enable the climate-friendly restructuring of their economies and infrastructure and foster climate-change adaptation measures. Without financial contributions from polluter countries, these costs cannot be borne by the countries of the Global South, with catastrophic consequences for millions of people.

Germany must not use the debt brake to shirk its responsibilities

Climate change is a global phenomenon that can only be combated via international cooperation. In an unequal world, this necessarily includes financial transfers from rich to poor. Despite all the budget shortfalls, Germany is still one of the richest countries on the planet and cannot shirk responsibility by shifting blame to the debt brake and the need to economise. So what is needed in this situation? What must Germany do to remain a reliable international partner and assume its responsibility for securing a future worth living? 

Germany could generate significantly more financing

The next federal government must find ways and means to ensure that Germany can fulfil its international obligations to protect the climate and biodiversity without this being at the expense of humanitarian aid and social and economic development cooperation.

There are various possibilities here. These include: 

1. Unlock more financial resources

Firstly, Germany needs to generate more revenue. One conceivable option is to tax very large fortunes. A proposal for a globally standardised minimum tax on billionaires has been on the G20 negotiating table since 2024 (this was also discussed at a Heinrich Böll Foundation event held in September 2024). According to a study by Netzwerk Steuergerechtigkeit and Oxfam, a wealth tax based on the Swiss model would generate additional revenue of 73 billion euros a year in Germany. 

The Bundestag could also introduce a higher inheritance tax for large private estates or the fair taxation of capital assets. This would both raise funds and close some of the fairness gaps in the current tax system. The Green parliamentary group in the Bundestag has already put forward reform proposals in this area.

A study commissioned by Klima-Allianz Deutschland, Germanwatch, WWF Germany, and Global Citizen analysed 24 different sources of financing – including taxes and levies on fossil fuel companies and emissions trading revenues – to determine their possible contribution to climate financing. The result: Germany could unlock as much as 18 billion euros in additional public funds as early as 2025, at least 36 billion euros annually from 2026, and up to 96 billion euros annually in subsequent years. In the area of climate financing through private funds, the potential lies at around 100 billion euros per year. 

2. Strengthen budgetary resources for international cooperation

Secondly, the reform of the debt brake – and any other measures to secure investments in the climate-friendly restructuring of Germany’s economy and infrastructure (for example through special funds) – should always be tied to increasing financing for international cooperation. Within the traffic-light coalition agreement, it was agreed to link the budgets for defence and development cooperation (this was discarded after Russia's attack on Ukraine). A similar agreement would also be conceivable under the next government. 

3. Debt cancellation for poor countries

Thirdly, Germany must advocate for international debt cancellation to re-empower and return agency to  the poorest countries. Every year, developing and emerging countries are three trillion US dollars short of the funds needed to achieve international climate and development goals. At the same time, they are groaning under the weight of an unmanageable debt burden (this issue was the focus of my April 2024 column). Overall, more money currently flows back to private creditors from African, Asian, and Latin American countries than these countries receive from them, as demonstrated in the World Bank’s latest report on international debt. It is time to face reality, writes World Bank chief economist Indermit Gill: “[T]he poorest countries facing debt distress need debt relief if they are to have a shot at sustained economic growth and lasting prosperity.”

A large proportion of the climate financing provided by industrialised countries also consists of loans. South African president Cyril Ramaphosa has made the topic of “debt resilience” a priority of his G20 presidency in 2025 and has also put debt relief on the agenda. The next German government should do all it can to support this. Together with international partners, the Heinrich Böll Foundation has developed detailed proposals on this issue. In addition, a sovereign insolvency law would be an important instrument to better manage future crises of this kind.

These measures would be effective in preventing isolationism and strengthening international solidarity and cooperation. Germany’s ability to act at an international level and its credibility would be strengthened, while improving the financial resources available for future proofing at home.

böll.column

Get involved! There’s no other way to be real – thus the message of Heinrich Böll, and, to this day, his encouragement is inspiring us. With this column the Presidents of the Foundation involve themselves in current social and political debates. This column will appear each month, authored, in turn, by Jan Philipp Albrecht and Imme Scholz.