When the FDP and the Greens are in agreement, when the BDI and IG Metall applaud in equal measure, when the chemical industry and Greenpeace can see something positive in the whole thing, then it makes one sit up and take notice. The novel promotion of the green transformation in the industry via so-called climate protection contracts currently seems to be something like the infamous jack of all trades device: Efficient, cost-effective, low-bureaucracy, investment-incentivising. And if things go well, the state even gets money back.

Economics Minister Robert Habeck has had little success in his previous attempts to support energy-intensive companies with the transformation in order to keep them in the country: His proposal for a bridge electricity price from last spring has proven to be without consensus. Parts of the electricity price package from the autumn then fell victim to the budget cuts. With his climate protection contracts, which offer companies in the steel, chemical, paper, cement, and glass industries a form of hedging, the Green politician could have much more success. The contracts awarded after auctions offer long-term price hedging for hydrogen and electricity and, therefore, also important planning security for companies. A paradigm shift in subsidy policy.

The problem is that the state is also taking on financial risks that are currently difficult to assess. Who knows how hydrogen or electricity prices will develop at the end of a 15-year subsidy period? Habeck assumes that there will be a disruptive development in green technologies with corresponding cost and price reductions. Experts are also predicting that all subsidised companies will ultimately pay back (part of) their support. However, these are nothing more than optimistic expectations. Habeck's ministry's own scientific advisory board poured water on the wine last year. It warned of serious problems, distortions of competition, and the risk of over-funding in connection with the climate protection contracts. In promoting the transformation, the advisors favoured so-called green lead markets rather than a more market-based instrument. Will the sceptics or the preachers of the „jack of all trades device“ be proven right in the end? In any case, the investment impetus is now in place.