How Populists Undermined the Building Energy Act

“In light of the slow pace of sustainability transitions and growing conflicts around environmental and climate policy measures, research is increasingly focussing on incumbent and right-wing populist actors.  In our study, we argue that the concept of ‘climate obstruction’ – in other words, efforts to hinder ambitious climate policy – is helpful for better understanding the delay of climate policies. In our analysis, we identify five discursive strands used by opponents to prevent the law’s adoption,” explains lead author Tobias Haas, a research associate with the Research Institute for Sustainability (RIFS) at the GFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geoscience. The researchers analysed documents from ministries and state parliaments, press contributions, and statements by politicians from various parties.

Emotional debate

In their analysis, the researchers identify five discursive strands. Several politicians and media representatives criticised the Building Energy Act as tantamount to expropriation, arguing that it impinges on the right of homeowners to freely dispose of their property. An article in the magazine Focus referred to the Act as "expropriation through the back door", and the far-right AfD party made a similar argument in a campaign titled "Stop the heating hammer!". 

A second criticism posits that the Building Energy Act represents a form of disenfranchisement. This is based on the assumption that people themselves know best what is good for them and that the Act is a patronising form of regulation. For example, the CSU published a picture of Minister Habeck peering through a window in a social media campaign under the slogan "No to state heating espionage". Moritz Voigt, chairman of the CDU in Thuringia, even accused Habeck of wanting to establish an “energy Stasi”. It is striking how little the tone and narrative of the CDU/CSU differ from those of the AfD. These accusations are rooted in a libertarian understanding of freedom that seeks to protect the individual from state paternalism.

Thirdly, the far right in particular claimed that the Greens’ heating policy was ideologically driven and would jeopardise Germany's prosperity. A frequently voiced argument was the call for ‘technological openness’, which was also intended to counteract efforts to prioritise climate action. 

The fourth strand portrayed the policy as an example of Green cronyism. For example, the AfD wrote: “The main culprits assign each other the most lucrative positions and reinforce each other in their ideological delusion.” Networks of contacts developed over many years attracted accusations of nepotism – a narrative that was fuelled by the so-called 'Best Man Affair'. The underlying assumption is that a green elite despises the “common people” and only seeks to enrich themselves.  

In the fifth discursive strand, the elements of the four strands converge in the demand that climate policy must take everyone along. Critics of the Act argued that the law faced broad resistance and allegedly risked fundamentally delegitimizing climate policy. 

Focus on opportunities and fairness

“A common denominator of these criticisms is that they follow a classic populist logic: they construct a dichotomy between the will of the common people and an elite that  disregards it in pursuit of self-interest or climate policy agendas,” explains co-author Franziska Mey, who leads the RIFS research group "Democratic Governance and Agency". Such polarisation is also evident in other transformation-related conflicts. Policymakers and the media must be prepared for populist tactics and misinformation, which often distort public discourse and undermine legislative proposals.

The authors conclude that effective communication is crucial: Proponents of a given proposal should clearly communicate its opportunities. To build public trust, they must also develop solutions that will ensure a socially just transition. “Tackling social and economic disparities such as energy poverty is key to avoiding pushback, which often stems from real or perceived injustices, and to advancing a just transition,” says Tobias Haas.

Further research on sustainability transformations is needed to better understand the delays in implementing climate policy. This includes research on the various types of climate policy obstruction and the role of incumbent actors and networks.

Haas, T., Sander, H., Fünfgeld, A., & Mey, F. (2025). Climate obstruction at work: Right-wing populism and the German heating law. Energy research and social science, 123: 104034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2025.104034.