By Anja Floetenmeyer-Woltmann: The debate about the German Building Energy Act (Gebäudeenergiegesetz or GEG) and the associated media campaign against heat pumps has not only slowed down the expansion of renewable heating technologies, but has also massive financial consequences.

An estimate by Anja Floetenmeyer-Woltmann and Jens Clausen from the Borderstep Institute, shows that the delayed switch to heat pumps could bring gas suppliers additional sales of around 24 billion euros – at the expense of climate protection and consumers.

Numbers

The so-called heating hammer (Heizhammer) campaign, was orchestrated by influential media and interest groups, and resulted in significant uncertainty among consumers and investors.

By 2035, 1.47 million fewer heat pumps are expected to be installed than originally forecast. This gap will largely be filled by fossil gas heating systems that are newly installed or run for too long. This has far-reaching consequences:

• Additional gas consumption: 485 terawatt hours over 20 years
• Additional sales for gas suppliers: approx. 24 billion euros
• Additional CO_₂ emissions: at least 98 million tons

Campaign mechanism

The campaign centered on media from the Springer Group, which includes publications such as BILD, Welt, Politico, and Business Insider. During the heated debate about the GEG, up to 20 articles a day appeared, including about the German Federal Minister of Economics Robert Habeck (Green Party) and about the planned heating reform.

This concerted media offensive had a noticeable impact on public opinion, social division, election results, and the political decision-making processes.

Interestingly, in this context is the role of the US investment fund KKR or Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., which acquired 45.1 percent of Springer shares for 2.9 billion euros in 2019.

KKR is considered one of the largest private financiers of fossil fuel companies worldwide. Against this background, the connection between fossil fuel interests and anti-heat pump reporting seems at least worthy of a discussion, or is it a coincidence? I have serious doubts.

Long-term consequences for climate protection and the labor market

The effects of the campaign go far beyond financial aspects. The delayed switch to climate-friendly heating technologies not only means additional CO_₂ emissions, but also missed opportunities for the domestic economy.

Thousands of jobs in the heat pump industry were first created and then quickly cut again, and private investments in renewables are lacking. Instead, the money flows into the coffers of foreign gas suppliers and cements fossil dependence for a few more years.

Sabotaging the future

The analysis of the Heizhammer campaign reveals the enormous hidden costs that arise from targeted disinformation and interest-driven reporting. The experiences from the GEG debate should serve as a lesson: transparency, scientific foundations and appropriate media reporting without false balance talk show guests and shouting culture are crucial to mastering the complex challenges of the energy transition and creating broad social acceptance.

The calculations presented here are naturally based on a hypothetical scenario. From mid-2026, the GEG (Building Energy Act) introduces in part a 65 percent rule for renewable energies for heating systems.

The German CDU party plans to overturn this rule and on EU level, conservatives are working to water down this “Green Deal”. At the same time, economists have already calculated double-digit gross domestic product losses due to climate change. We have already thrown significantly more money at much smaller risks – such as the banking crash in 2008 – in order to stabilize our economy.

Follow the money

This calculation is only intended to show the magnitude of the possible financial impacts; climate damage was not included in the calculation and the CO₂ emissions from natural gas were estimated without taking into account methane leakage or the complex transport of LNG by tankers.

Figures therefore, are much higher. Delaying the change to clean heating by just five years could lead to double-digit billions in additional sales for gas suppliers. This increases their profits and reduces income from electricity in Germany by a similar amount. The economic climate damage and the damage to our society due to the divisive effect are also added to this.

Who benefits?

This analysis reveals who benefits from the delay in the energy transition. It is not the German citizens.