In the DIHK Newsroom, you’ll find the latest press releases, statements, studies, and background information on the German economy—presented in a concise, well-organized, and always up-to-date...
Position Paper
Translated from German with AI assistance
Does the Energy Transition Need a New Direction?
A "Pro and Contra" on the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s climate policy position.
Expensive, inefficient, overregulated – the current energy policy in Germany is pushing many companies to their limits. This is why the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry (IHK) advocates for a new direction in the energy transition that enables climate neutrality and is economically sustainable.
On the basis of the study "New Pathways for the Energy Transition", the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry (IHK) has redefined its position on climate policy with two position papers in November 2025 (PDF, 206 KB) and March 2026 (PDF, 117 KB). Key demands include stronger international coordination of climate goals, CO₂ budgets instead of rigid annual targets, and a clear focus on emissions trading as a steering instrument.
However, hardly any topic is as hotly debated in Germany as the right path to climate neutrality. Even among companies, there are different perspectives. Two of these will be presented here.
Susanne Szczesny-Oßing, President of the IHK Koblenz, considers the climate policy position of the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DIHK) to be correct:
"Industry is under significant pressure. High electricity prices, rising CO₂ costs, increasing regulatory density, and uncertainties in the expansion of energy and infrastructure are burdening the competitiveness of many companies. For many businesses, the current transformation path is economically challenging, even though they want to contribute to climate neutrality.
Whether 'faster or slower energy transition' – the expansion of renewable energies, power grids, and necessary infrastructure is both climate-politically and economically meaningful and necessary to reduce our dependency on fossil energy imports. It is crucial that generation, grid expansion, storage, and flexibilities as well as the electrification of industrial processes are coordinated in terms of time and economics.
Whether efficient power grids, hydrogen infrastructure, or CO₂ transport pipelines are available on time largely depends on the state and grid operators. Infrastructure should ideally precede additional demand and not only arise after companies are mandated to adapt their processes.
In terms of electricity costs, companies' options for action are also limited. Self-supply often meets technical and economic boundaries, while costs for using the power grids remain significant. It's not just the price per kilowatt-hour that matters but the total costs of a reliable power supply.
So long as climate-neutral alternatives are not sufficiently available, natural gas will continue to play a role, especially in industrial high-temperature processes, but only as a transition. Recent years' experiences have shown that dependence on fossil energy imports entails considerable price and geopolitical risks. Therefore, a rapid expansion of domestic renewable energies and the necessary infrastructure can be both industry-, energy-, and security-politically meaningful.
In certain cases, high-quality international climate projects can also make a contribution, especially if emissions can be avoided elsewhere at much lower costs than the last remaining tons of CO₂ domestically.
All this demonstrates that we must think about alternative and economically viable paths to climate neutrality, as outlined, for example, by the DIHK together with Frontier Economics. Measures such as CO₂ pricing already provide important incentives. Additional government interventions should always be evaluated to ensure that their benefits justify the resulting burdens. Regulation should therefore be used where it enables investments or removes market barriers.
Ultimately, a successful energy transition should not only be measured by installed capacities and achieved emissions reductions but also by whether industrial value creation and investments are maintained or newly created during this transformation. What matters is that we achieve the climate targets without endangering the industrial base of our country. After all, only a strong industry will be able to finance and implement the transformation in the future."
"Regardless of whether it is a contra-argument or not, I do agree with some of the energy and climate policies of the DIHK. A predictably increasing CO₂ price is the right key control mechanism for climate protection. I also fully support the call for a faster electrification of Germany's energy system.
However, there are clear differences: firstly, regarding the abolition of renewable energy targets requested by the DIHK—expanding wind and solar energy still requires a clear regulatory framework from the state, otherwise far too little investment will be made in the transformation. Secondly, about the issue of Germany’s climate neutrality target and thus the deadline of 2045, which must be strictly maintained—not just for climate protection reasons, but also for economic and resilience purposes.
First of all, I find it unsettling that a public corporation would so openly oppose the previous consensus on the societal challenge of climate protection—and that it does so on behalf of companies that are compulsory members of the organisation, who were never consulted about this and often hold fundamentally different views. Yes, every company has an opportunity to contribute via its regional IHK and thus indirectly influence DIHK’s position. However, the effort required is unmanageable for many small and medium-sized companies, so I do not consider the current legitimisation mechanisms sufficient for such a crucial issue.
Quite apart from the process, I also find the repositioning wrong in substance.
Firstly, shifting the 2045 target year would undermine Germany’s credibility in Europe vis-à-vis its European partners, as they rely on Germany’s contribution to the agreed European climate protection targets—especially as Germany is the largest CO₂ emitter within Europe.
Secondly, there are significant self-serving economic reasons against it. The DIHK is rightly calling for a reliable and predictable framework for the CO₂ price without constant political interference. This principle applies equally to climate protection as a whole. Yes, the 2045 target is ambitious, but as the stagnation of recent years has clearly shown, the German economic model, which relied on cheap Russian gas and exports primarily to China, desperately needs an update—and an ambitious energy transition would provide exactly such a necessary stimulus. I, therefore, do not see the 2045 climate neutrality goal as an economic burden but as a driver of investment and innovation. In my opinion, the DIHK should rather use its strong position to advocate for strong political support for knowledge-based and domestic future-oriented technologies instead of framing them as cost burdens.
Furthermore, I do not agree with the argument of allegedly excessive costs. In a peaceful world, one might still argue this way, but the wars in Ukraine and Iran have shown in recent years how significantly fossil energy prices rise in times of crisis and how vulnerable Germany remains due to its reliance on fossil energy imports. Sadly, I am convinced that more international crises will occur in the coming years. The only viable protection against such energy price surges and for greater resilience is renewable energy.
The answer to the expensive energy prices of recent years is not a slower expansion of renewable energies, but a faster one!”
This English version is provided for convenience only. It has been translated with the assistance of AI. No guarantee is made as to the accuracy or completeness of the translation.
