Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

The question is whether the funding made sense. The new construction funding was completely excessive and only drove prices up. It certainly doesn't benefit the environment if you save 5kWh/sqm with a lot of money. That can be better used in renovation. And you have to be aware that the goal is no longer to renovate 0.5% of the existing stock every year. Rather, it is to renovate the old stock significantly within less than 10 years. So the money has to be enough for more houses.

We have a certain comprehensive insurance mentality in Germany. The state should take care that everything runs smoothly. Where the money comes from and what it does in the economic cycle interests very few. Also, how much money goes to some “consultants” in the funding is not questioned.

I only partially agree with you. 1. Yes, new construction does not have to be supported with funding. But then the state should also provide enough affordable housing or at least ensure that these are provided. These are definitely more environmentally friendly than single-family houses. However, if, as in our case, an apartment the size of the new building (or even slightly smaller) costs more than the loan repayment, something is wrong... 2. The government is fully committed to climate protection and as a result, prices/costs for citizens rise. See Renewable Energy Sources Act surcharge or generally increasing energy prices. On the other hand, it does too little to make prices come down again. The best example is the transport of energy from north to south. We produce much more energy than we supply, only because the lines are not built. You should not listen to every citizens’ initiative but sometimes take firm action and implement the plans. If everyone tries to please everyone, nothing happens...

Providing living space is generally not the responsibility of the "state" and a new single-family or semi-detached house has nothing to do with affordable housing.

In point 2, you contradict yourself; the Renewable Energy Act levy has just been abolished and has already significantly reduced electricity costs, at least for existing customers with ongoing contracts.

If everyone tries to please everyone, nothing happens...

that hits the nail on the head

I paid 24 cents per kWh last year, I wouldn’t have put myself through the photovoltaic hassle for that ....

Why not? If I hadn’t had a photovoltaic system last year and had paid 24 cents/kWh (+ monthly base fee?!), I would have paid over €2,000 more. With your assumed €20,000 investment, the system would have paid off after 10 years. If you include the price increases that will come now, even much sooner :P

Providing housing is generally not the task of the "state" and a single-family house or semi-detached new build has nothing to do with affordable housing.

In point 2, you contradict yourself; the Renewable Energy Act surcharge has only recently been removed and has already significantly reduced electricity prices, at least for existing customers with ongoing contracts.

Nevertheless, it has caused electricity prices to rise for years. I am curious how much of the money was actually spent on what it was intended for. Just like the solidarity surcharge. That was also just used to plug holes in other pots...

One should not respond to every citizens' initiative, but sometimes take decisive action and implement the plans.

You hold that opinion until you are to be expropriated for something like that or the route runs through your property/just in front of your house...

If I build on an existing railway line or airport, I know what I am getting into... If the residents were there first, I find criticism quite legitimate...