Copenhagen had set itself the goal of being climate neutral by 2025. Although the Danish capital has reduced its CO2 emissions by around 80 percent compared to 2005, it was not enough to achieve its own goal. When Hamburg's Environment Senator Katharina Fegebank (Greens) wanted to know how this failure was being dealt with during a visit to the Danish capital a few weeks ago, she received an answer that was unusual for German conditions.
In Hamburg, the Green politician told the Citizens' Current Hour on Wednesday, in such a situation it quickly becomes: "Goals missed, set, six." In Copenhagen, however, the missed goal has a more motivating effect. “I would like to see more of this spirit and this mindset in Hamburg,” said Fegebank.
It was one of the few moments of the 90-minute climate debate in which the focus was not on who had neglected, prevented or done something wrong. Instead, Fegebank tried to spread a spirit of optimism and to counter the many mutual accusations with confidence.
The Greens had registered the current hour on the occasion of the World Climate Conference in Antalya. But it quickly became less about the global negotiations than about Hamburg's balance sheet: increased CO2 emissions last year, lack of electricity connections, higher district heating prices, the phase-out of coal and the costs of restructuring energy supply and mobility.
The roles were clearly assigned. The Greens and SPD pointed out what Hamburg has already achieved in expanding renewable energies, district heating, electromobility and local public transport. The CDU countered that climate targets alone did not result in a functioning energy supply. The left asked who would pay for the renovation. And the AfD repeatedly spoke of “climate hysteria,” “climate ideologues” and policies that unnecessarily deindustrialize Germany to the detriment of the population and economy.
Fegebank tried to extricate himself from this predictable exchange. Since the future decision in October 2025, Hamburg has been obliged to become climate neutral as early as 2040. "The task is huge. It is enormous," said Fegebank. But now “hitting the sack”, distancing yourself from the goals or slowing down the pace is “not an option”.
For Fegebank, the Copenhagen story is more than just a travel anecdote: for her, a missed goal is no reason to lower her standards. This is not a comfortable message. Unlike Copenhagen, Hamburg has not only formulated its goal for 2040 politically. The future decision made it binding. While the Senate has to adapt the climate plan and the climate protection law, it is already becoming apparent where Hamburg's accelerated energy transition is reaching its limits.
The city needs significantly more electricity to convert industry, port, heat supply and transport. However, the municipal network operator Hamburger Energienetze cannot currently provide any additional connections for new large electricity consumers such as industrial companies or data centers. Connections with an output of 1.5 megavolt amperes or more are affected. The reason is a lack of capacity at the transitions from the supra-regional high-voltage grid to the Hamburg power grid. This means that companies should electrify their production, but cannot be sure when they will receive a powerful connection.
Fegebank took up a demand from the Hamburg economy. At the start of discussions about the new climate plan, the general manager of the Chamber of Commerce, Malte Heynen, summarized what the city needed: “Electricity, electricity, electricity.” In 3G mode: “green, base load capable, cheap”.
That's exactly what's wrong. There is a kind of “traffic jam” at the state borders, the senator told the citizens. The green electricity does not find its way to where Hamburg needs it to convert industry and the port in sufficient quantities. Fegebank therefore called for changes to the regulation, more flexible networks, reliable connection prospects and a new prioritization for business, industry and the port. In Berlin, Hamburg has not yet been heard as much as it should be.
Fegebank himself identified a central problem of Hamburg's energy transition. For Sandro Kappe, environmental and climate policy spokesman for the CDU parliamentary group, this shows the contradiction between the red-green climate goals and their practical implementation.
The CDU also worked on the solar equipment of municipal buildings, the continued use of oil and gas heating systems and the increased district heating prices. Climate protection must “work, be affordable and reach people,” said Kappe. His parliamentary group colleague Markus Kranig also explained energy policy as economic and social policy: There is a world of difference between the promise of cheap energy and the reality of the red-green Senate.
The SPD and the Greens, on the other hand, continued the old contrasts between renewable and fossil energies. Wind and solar power can already be generated cheaply today. Energy is becoming more expensive due to gas, coal, the expansion of the networks and the rules of the German electricity market.
Alexander Mohrenberg, specialist spokesman for the SPD parliamentary group for the environment, climate and energy, resisted declaring the high electricity prices as evidence of a failed energy transition. Wind energy generates electricity particularly cheaply. If this still costs customers many times more, the problem lies in the way the electricity market works, in particular the high network fees and the principle that the most expensive power plant still needed always determines the entire exchange price.
Transport policy also received its expected appearance. The SPD referred to the Deutschlandticket, new subway and S-Bahn routes and the growing number of electric buses. The Greens named new cycle paths and charging stations for electric vehicles. The CDU and AfD opposed this with traffic jams, unreliable trains and the costs of the mobility transition.
Even nuclear energy returned as a seemingly inevitable part of such a debate. The AfD called for a “new beginning with nuclear power,” while CDU man Philipp Heißner accused the Greens of saying their decades-long fight against nuclear energy had increased CO2 emissions. The Greens, in turn, pointed to high government costs for nuclear waste and the subsidies for French nuclear power plants.
The more fundamental objection came from the left. Stephan Jersch, specialist spokesman for the Left Party for Energy, Climate and Environment, took up Fegebank's key words. For him, the Hamburg “spirit” and the Hamburg “mindset” have so far consisted of end customers paying for the energy and heating transition. “That’s not socially fair,” said Jersch.
He referred to rising district heating prices, high network fees, modernization costs for tenants and the risk that financially weak households would remain on the gas network for the longest time. The fewer customers there are connected, the higher the fees could be for those who remain. The city must therefore invest more money itself and provide social security for the transformation. The promise that green energy will become cheap at some point is of little help to those whose refrigerators are already empty at the end of the month.
Fegebank still stuck to the direction. She referred to the Hafen energy park and the Tiefstack energy park, to the planned hydrogen network, charging stations, heat pumps and the expansion of the heating networks. Billions are already being invested by the city, public companies and Hamburg's economy and industry. “We don’t talk about it, we make it concrete here,” she said.
