Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

What bothers me about this whole story is the issue of sector targets. Instead of simply creating a large emissions trading system for everything, reducing the quantities according to the plan every year, and letting the economy and society solve it in the most cost-effective and appropriate way, it is planned for each sector which solutions are the right ones.

Hi,

Excuse me, there is a funding program with which I can get support for retrofitting an air conditioning system? What keywords do I have to search for?

Best regards,
Andreas

Yes, for quite some time now. I retrofitted a split air conditioner myself last year, and the subsidy was 30 or 35%. However, the building was not old enough, so I came up empty-handed. Didn’t want to wait.
The important insight is that a split air conditioner is a heat pump ;-)

Check out BAFA – Residential Building Renovation – Systems for Heat Generation (Heating Technology).
There you’ll find heat pumps on the list with 25% funding plus 5% for earth/water/sewage as a heat source (which doesn’t apply) or 5% if a natural refrigerant is used (afaik rare).
You’ll have to read the exact details yourself. As I said, last year it failed because of the building’s age.

By the way, there is currently a bonus of 10% if you, for example, get rid of an oil or gas heating system. That means, in the example of a heat pump (25%) with geothermal energy (5%) and an existing oil/gas burner (10%), you get a total of 40% of the new heating system paid for by the state. Up to €60,000 per residential unit.
And this is only this one funding program; it might be possible to combine it with other programs.
But the West is going down again ...

Is the subsidy also available retroactively?

At least the funding conditions that I have read over the last 6-7 years always had one thing in common: application before the start of the project. So no. Makes sense, too, to reduce carry-over effects.

I absolutely do not consider that contrived. When I look at what was happening with existing properties needing major renovations at the end of 2020 and how much was bid. That was only possible if you had either cooked the renovation numbers or simply ignored them.

I always wonder with these extreme examples whether it is the state's job to protect the harakiri financiers. In my opinion, anyone who finances up to their limit and far beyond without keeping an eye on the renovation is ultimately just to blame themselves. Why should you protect them? They themselves took out the risky financing. But I do see a need for protection for the grandma with a small pension, living in the house for 40 years.

Of course, the state does not have to protect people from themselves in every case, and those who enter into kamikaze financings should also be able to live with the consequences. As an Ordo-liberal, I am in favor of a lot of personal responsibility in life. On the other hand, personal responsibility also requires that the state creates reliable and sensible framework conditions (this is the Ordo) and does not constantly change the rules. It is also easy to forget that until recently gas heating systems were still subsidized. And this 180-degree turnaround is not justifiable on factual grounds; the facts were already on the table beforehand. In addition, there is much more to gain with old buildings if the building envelope is first appropriately upgraded; the energy carrier only plays a subordinate role in terms of environmental friendliness (it is also important to me here not to narrow the discussion only to CO2).