Union blocks heat protection in the Basic Law: Frei names the reasons

Federal competences as the main argument

The Greens and parts of the SPD have been pushing for months to anchor heat protection in the Basic Law. The background is recurring heatwaves in Germany, which, according to assessments by health authorities, endanger older people, children, and those in need of care in particular. Advocates point to annually rising temperatures, the need for municipal adaptation measures, as well as insufficient funds in many cities and municipalities.

Thorsten Frei pointed to federal competences in his reasoning. States and municipalities are responsible for the concrete implementation of protective measures, such as setting up cooling rooms, greening public spaces, or adapting buildings. According to the Union's view, a new joint task would complicate the existing financial distribution and create additional bureaucracy.

At the same time, Frei emphasized that the Union does not want to stand in the way of a substantive strengthening of heat protection. Instead of a constitutional amendment, it proposes other instruments, such as the further development of the Climate Protection Act or targeted federal funding programs. This is intended to increase the pressure on states and municipalities to act, without intervening in the constitution.

Connection to the pension reform

In terms of content, the discussion ties in with an earlier initiative by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, which had prepared a corresponding draft law together with the Federal Ministry of the Interior. However, the proposal had not been put to a vote in the federal cabinet in this legislative period. The Union parliamentary group sees its position confirmed by the absence of a cabinet deliberation.

Political observers also interpret the dispute as a signal for the ongoing coalition negotiations on the pension reform. Thorsten Frei is simultaneously insisting on the coalition's timetable. He stated that the pension reform should be pushed through by the end of the year, as reported from negotiation circles. Both issues are considered a litmus test for the government's ability to function.

The SPD signaled willingness to make compromises on the pension reform, but insists on its own priorities. SPD ministers emphasized that securing the pension level and stabilizing the contribution rate must be treated as equal priorities. Should the Union give way on pensions, coalition partners expect movement on climate policy initiatives in return.

Criticism from the Greens and municipalities

The Greens parliamentary group leader, Brantner, criticized the Union's stance as irresponsible. Given growing health risks from heat, constitutional safeguards are necessary, she argued. Without a joint Federation-state-municipality task, heat protection remains dependent on the political will of individual municipalities.

In several major cities, including Berlin, Cologne, and Munich, municipal administrations have developed heat protection plans in recent years. These include, among other things, warning systems, the establishment of drinking water stations, and the adaptation of schools and care facilities. Many cities report, however, that financial resources for comprehensive expansion are insufficient.

The German Association of Cities (Deutscher Städtetag) had previously spoken out in favor of a constitutional amendment, arguing that this is the only way to ensure reliable financing. The Union counters that sufficient funds could be made available even without a constitutional amendment, provided there is the political will.

On the sidelines of the debate, Thorsten Frei announced that the Union will present its own proposals on heat protection in the coming weeks. These are to focus on concrete funding measures and the strengthening of existing programs. A date for the presentation of the plans has not yet been set, according to parliamentary group circles.