Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

Yes and no. In the scope that it is supposed to come according to the EU Building Directive, that was certainly not foreseeable. That you have to expect investments in an old house with poor energy efficiency, okay, but the decision-making power over the "when" and "how" was still with the owner. Meanwhile, there are legal deadlines and regulations raining down, and the homeowner is basically just an order recipient who has to dutifully implement everything.

I don't entirely agree with you. The question of how is largely foreseeable. Bringing a house from the 70s with 300 kWh/sqm into the 2020s, what does that mean? That means: new windows, insulating the facade, basement ceilings, and upper floor ceiling. For an inhabited attic, roof insulation usually means insulating on top of the roof and therefore a reroofing, because the old rafters are too thin for insulation between rafters according to today's standards, and rarely does anyone want to lose room height. All of this is clear, even without any concrete regulations. The majority of the costs are caused by the work itself. The regulations then usually only make a difference of a few centimeters in the specific insulation thickness.
The question of when is also clearly visible. Politics sign agreements to reduce from X, which then also have to be implemented in practice. With 40 million residential units and a corresponding share of unrenovated old buildings, it is completely clear that you cannot start in 15 years if you want to achieve any specific goal by 2040, 2045, or 2050.
By the way, the politicians who sign these agreements are democratically elected. Except for the AfD, all parties basically support CO2 reduction, and in all surveys, a majority of the population still speaks out in favor. Only when this approval leads to concrete consequences in everyday life are everyone against it and tell themselves the story of the evil politicians and the order recipients. To me, this is a classic case of cognitive dissonance.

People prefer to buy an expensive car or go on vacation and think they can let their house fall into disrepair for 50 years without renovation.

Well, that certainly happens. But at least with my parents, I also see that even someone who has actually kept their house in pretty good condition is currently struggling with what to do about the heating issue. Parts of the house must be around 100 years old (I’d have to ask again for the exact year of construction), but I say parts deliberately because so much has happened to the house over time that you hardly notice it anymore. Among other things, there used to be a stable that, during my grandparents’ time, was completely gutted and rebuilt inside (that part now has quite thick exterior walls, also interesting to see). Since my parents have owned the house, a lot of energy-related work has also been done: first the facade was insulated and clad with brick slips, then the rest, windows replaced, meanwhile the basement was dug out from the outside once and insulated and waterproofed, solar thermal panels on the roof. Over the last 30 years, a mid six-figure sum has flowed into the house. The house is not neglected. You could have also bought a new building for that money (which probably would have been smaller though. Currently there are 2 tenants living in the house).

And yet it is unclear how to actually tackle the heating issue now. Yes, a lot of insulation was done, but the idea that a low-temperature heating system should be the goal was not foreseeable at the time the insulation was done. Opinions differ widely on whether the current state of insulation is sufficient to operate an at least somewhat efficient heat pump with just a few measures (replacement of a few radiators, renewing insulation in the roof). And the fact that experts are sometimes hard to pin down and sometimes simply disappear after the first two conversations doesn’t help either (last year a heating load calculation was commissioned and at some point nothing more happened and the person responsible didn’t get back in touch... and overall this was not the first one who simply vanished at some point. And because there were other private matters, it hasn’t been pursued further so far – it feels like finding experts and keeping them engaged requires an enormous amount of personal effort. Overall, there seems to be so much demand that projects requiring a bit more brainpower seem to attract little interest). Currently, the status is "we hope the heating holds up a bit longer and continue saving." There also seems to be some more activity currently in the heat pump market, also moving towards medium/higher supply temperatures. So let’s see where that goes. But the point is that what used to be recommended until a few years ago for a house like this (usually gas or pellet heating supported by solar thermal) is already outdated today (or opinions are split about 50/50), and then to blame people saying "that was foreseeable" or "you just shouldn’t let the house fall into disrepair"... well...

I don’t want to deny that there are also cases where little to nothing has been invested in the house. There is a large proportion of buildings with renovation backlog. But even among those lying somewhere between "unrenovated" and "new build standard," the problem is that the target condition has (more or less) changed quite abruptly. Or partly there is still disagreement today as to what the target condition should be and what the best way to get there is...

Well, it surely exists. But at least with my parents, I also see that even someone who has actually kept their house in pretty good condition is currently struggling with what they should actually do about the heating situation. Parts of the house must be around 100 years old (I’d have to ask again for the exact year of construction), but I deliberately say parts, because so much has happened to the house over time that you can hardly tell anymore. Among other things, there used to be a stable, which was completely gutted and rebuilt on the inside during my grandparents’ time (that part now has quite thick exterior walls, also interesting to see). Since my parents have owned the house, a lot has happened energetically as well: first the facade was insulated and clad with bricks, then the rest, windows replaced, meanwhile the basement was dug out from the outside once, insulated and waterproofed, solar thermal panels on the roof. In the last 30 years, mid six-figure sums have gone into the house. The house is not neglected. You could have also gladly bought a new build for that. (which probably would have been smaller though. Currently there are 2 tenants living in the house)

And yet it is unclear how to actually tackle the heating issue now. Yes, a lot of insulation has been done, but at the time when it was done, it was not foreseeable that a low-temperature heating system should possibly be the goal. Opinions differ widely as to whether the current insulation status is enough to operate a somewhat efficient heat pump with a few measures (replacing a few radiators, renewing insulation in the roof). And the fact that experts are partly hard to reach and sometimes just disappear after the first two conversations doesn’t help either (last year a heat load calculation was commissioned and at some point nothing happened anymore and the person in charge stopped responding… and overall that wasn’t the first one who simply disappeared at some point. And since there were other personal matters, it hasn’t been pursued further so far – it feels like finding and keeping experts on track also requires an enormous amount of one’s own effort. Overall, it seems there is so much demand that there appears to be little interest in projects that might require a bit more brainwork). Currently, the status is “we hope the heating system will last a little longer and keep saving.” It also seems that something more is happening in the heat pump market right now, also towards medium/higher flow temperatures. So let’s see where this journey goes. But the point is that what was recommended until a few years ago for such a house (usually gas or pellet heating with solar thermal support) is already outdated today (or opinions are split about 50/50) and then to blame anyone with “that was foreseeable” or “you just can’t let the house fall into disrepair”… well…

I don’t want to deny that there are cases where little to nothing has been invested into the house. There is a large share of buildings with renovation backlog. But even among those that lie somewhere between “unrenovated” and “new build standard,” the problem is that the target state has changed rather abruptly recently. Or partly there is still disagreement today about what the target state should be and what the best way to get there is…

Exactly how it is. It’s not black or white. Since 2017 we have had our house from 1921 and have already invested a lot in renovation and energy-related renovation. And not everyone has 7000€ monthly income or whatever you often read here, or an inheritance or whatever. Since 2017 we have invested about 90-100,000€. Since the 60s (at least) something has always been done on the house. Nobody has lived here who didn’t invest. The alternative would have been to keep renting and pay off the landlord’s condominium. You can’t blame anyone for that. We currently have a facade from 1993 that already has insulation and is still perfectly fine. Of course, today you would insulate much more and in regard to the heat pump, we will still do that. But the money doesn’t just pile up in the basement with us and we can only do what the budget allows. Little by little. And where will it be different for those who now live in a new building, because in 30 years or less it will already need renovation and then I want to see how much those people care about what they have to do and how they pull one or two years’ salaries out of their sleeves without batting an eye. Then I wish everyone here that no one ever becomes unemployed or sick or otherwise struck by fate and that you have always built up reserves.

I don't fully agree with you. The question of how is largely foreseeable, bringing a house from the 70s with 300 kWh/sqm into the 2020s, what does that mean? It means: new windows, insulating the façade, basement ceilings and upper floor ceiling. For an inhabited attic, roof insulation usually means external roof insulation and thus a new roof covering, since the old rafters are too thin for insulation between rafters according to today's standards, and rarely does anyone want to lose ceiling height. All of that is clear, even without any concrete regulations. The majority of the costs are caused by the work itself. The regulations usually only make a difference of a few centimeters in the actual insulation thickness.

Anyone who buys a house from the 70s and wants to bring it energetically up to par with today's energy-efficient houses is even told by the energy consultant between the lines that they can do this for their green conscience, but financially and despite subsidies it will not pay off. The average residential buildings in Germany have a demand of about 150 kWh/(m2a) and are in class E (source: Verbraucherzentrale). That can perhaps still be expected as a standard from the buyer of an existing property, but certainly not the leap from an energy guzzler to energetic modernity.

The question of when is equally clearly visible. Politics signs agreements to reduce from X, and that then has to be implemented in practice. With 40 million housing units and a corresponding share of unrenovated old buildings, it is perfectly clear that you cannot start only in 15 years if you want to reach a certain target by 2040, 2045, or 2050. The politics that signs these agreements, by the way, is democratically elected. Except for the AfD, all parties basically support CO2 reduction, and in all polls still a majority of the population speak out in favor. Only when this approval results in concrete consequences for everyday life, everyone is against it and tells themselves the tale of evil politics and the order taker. To me, that is a classic case of cognitive dissonance.

So far, energy transition policy has been rather nebulous. Hardly anyone knew what the best solution for their house was, nor what the measures would cost in total. Only now, as the fog is clearing and people are gaining an overview of legal requirements, the market, and technical possibilities, talking with craftsmen, getting offers, etc., it dawns on them that they will not get off with just a few thousand euros. Accordingly, the anger is great, as you can very clearly see in the current surveys. Saying “It’s all democratically elected” is too simplistic. As a buyer of an existing property, you almost have to feel stupid that because of your past decision for an old town center and against sealing ground on the outskirts, you are now being held on a short leash and required to have the settlement house play energetically at the top within the next 10 years. Especially in regions with already low real estate prices, banks will not provide endless amounts of money for that. Nothing against climate protection, but reason and proportionality must always be maintained.

That's exactly it. Political guidelines change every year, but you only install a heating system every 20 years. I'm seeing this right now in the neighborhood. The young family has their prefab house from the '80s, which they bought about 8 years ago and have been renovating every year. But they haven't done a complete renovation. They have painted, installed new bathrooms and new windows, but the insulation isn't good. And making such a house suitable for heat pumps for €50,000 is now definitely unaffordable for this middle-class family. Even with 30% subsidies. And they didn't know that 8 years ago. That's why I am very skeptical and believe you shouldn't treat people's life's work like that. They are panicking now, anyway. And honestly: There is no heat pump mandate yet, but besides expensive pellets, there isn't much else left. And with district heating, politics only think about their own Berlin-Mitte faction with rental apartments and financially strong investors. It's not feasible or affordable in rural areas. The heating law will lead to many social tensions in the future. And whether we achieve climate neutrality in Germany by 2045 is at least uncertain.

And only one thing about democratic decisions. A large part of the Germans reject the Building Energy Act (76%). We have to limit global warming in Germany, but distributed socially fairly and economically sensibly. This is now clearly seen with heat pumps. As soon as there should be a 50% subsidy for almost everyone, prices suddenly rise by 50% as well. The heating lobby pockets the subsidies. Incentives instead of bans are the means of choice here.