Germany’s Contested Heat Transition and the Campaign Against the Building Energy Act

By Tobias Haas (RIFS), Hendrik Sander (Bauhaus-Universität Weimar), Anna Fünfgeld (Hamburg University) und Franziska Mey (RIFS)

Germany’s Climate Protection Act established the legally binding goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2045. In other words, any greenhouse gas emissions must be balanced by removing the same amount from the atmosphere. Since it remains highly uncertain how effectively CO₂ can be removed at scale, there is no alternative to drastically reducing emissions. One sector that is drawing increasing attention in this context is the heating sector.

What is the current state of the heat supply?

While slightly more than half of consumption in the electricity sector is based on renewable energies, the share of renewable energy sources in the heating sector is less than 20 per cent – and much of this relies on less sustainable biogenic fuels.

Heating in Germany is still predominantly supplied by gas and oil, resulting in around 100 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions annually. The Council of Experts on Climate Change, which was established under the Climate Protection Act, has repeatedly criticised the building sector for its lack of progress in reducing emissions.

Germany’s dependence on energy imports became starkly apparent in 2022 following Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Although a gas shortage was ultimately avoided through significant reductions in consumption, rising energy prices fuelled inflation and created widespread uncertainty, especially in financially vulnerable households.
 

The amendment of the Buildings Energy Act (GEG)

At first glance, the situation appeared to offer an ideal starting point for an ambitious amendment to the Building Energy Act (GEG). In reality, it was anything but. When the then Vice Chancellor and Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action Robert Habeck (Greens) introduced a draft of the so-called “Heating Act” in early 2023 – proposing a near-term ban on new fossil-fuel heating systems – it sparked a fierce public backlash.

In a short article for the journal Energy Research & Social Science, we analysed the typical arguments deployed by opponents of the GEG from the conservative to far-right spectrum. We identified five discursive strategies. We will limit ourselves here to the contributions of the CDU/CSU and the AfD.
 

Five discursive strategies deployed against the GEG

Expropriation: One of the main criticisms of the new GEG was that it amounted to a form of expropriation, as many homeowners could not afford to replace their heating systems. Jens Spahn (CDU), for instance, claimed in an interview with the daily newspaper Tagesspiegel that the governing coalition was pursuing “expropriation through the back door” with the proposed amendment. The AfD echoed this in a campaign titled “Stop the Heating Hammer!”.

Disenfranchisement: A second criticism posits that the Building Energy Act represents a form of disenfranchisement and state over-reach. There was also no shying away from comparisons to East Germany’s Stasi secret police. For example, the CSU posted a picture of Robert Habeck peering through a window. The caption: "No to state spying on heating systems". Mario Voigt (CDU), now Minister President of Thuringia, accused the coalition of wanting to set up an "energy Stasi".

Ideology: Opponents also claimed that the GEG was ideologically driven. The CDU/CSU, for example, called for the adoption of a so-called “technology open" approach. In plain language, this means that overpriced energy sources such as hydrogen could also be used for heating. The AfD criticised the GEG as being driven by an "abstruse climate ideology," which they claimed was an attack on Germany’s prosperity.

Cronyism: Fourthly, some critics claimed that a “green elite network” behind the GEG was chiefly concerned with serving its own interests. The AfD stated in its ‘Stop the Heating Hammer!’ campaign: “The supporters of this green network claim to care about the climate and the future of the planet. In reality, they care about themselves. The main culprits assign each other the most lucrative positions and reinforce each other in their ideological delusion”.

"Take everyone along" These four strands of discourse are brought together in a fifth strand, namely the demand to include everyone. For example, the CDU launched a ‘Fair Heating’ campaign, advocating for an inclusive heating transition and insisting that climate policies should not be imposed against the interests of the people. 

Conclusion: “The People" versus “The Elites"

Opponents of the new GEG drew a sharp contrast between the alleged interests of the general population and those of the so-called (green) elites. They argued that the ideologically driven Heating Act would lead to the expropriation and disenfranchisement of homeowners (and tenants), serving only the interests of these elites.

In this respect, the opposition to the GEG exhibited a populist undertone: at its core, populism frames a conflict between “the common people” and “the elites” who supposedly act against their interests. Unfortunately, this has sidelined a constructive debate on the GEG, one that acknowledges the realities of global warming and focuses on meaningful legislative development.

A watered-down version of the law was passed in autumn 2023, and municipal heating plans are now being developed in many areas. However, there is little cause for optimism that the next review report by the Council of Experts on Climate Change will find sufficient progress in the building and heating sectors – especially given that the new government does not appear to prioritize climate protection.

This article was first published on June 25, 2025, on the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s “Transforming Economies” blog.