The German tourism industry is escalating its lobbying efforts for a reduction in aviation tax, highlighting a growing tension between climate commitments and the nation’s economic interests. Reinhard Meyer, president of the German Tourism Association, has publicly stated that a competitive aviation sector is crucial for maintaining Germany’s international accessibility and the viability of numerous tourism regions. He insists on the implementation of a planned tax reduction, originally stipulated in the governing coalition’s agreement.
This pressure arises against a backdrop of increasingly strained budgetary priorities. While Environment Minister Carsten Schneider (SPD) is pushing for a €3 billion subsidy program for electric vehicles, the Transport and Finance Ministries are struggling to reconcile the promised aviation tax reduction with anticipated revenue losses of €350 million. Transport Minister Patrick Schnieder (CDU) has reportedly denied the existence of budgetary leeway to offset these losses, effectively putting the aviation tax cut in jeopardy.
The impasse underscores a deeper systemic problem: Germany’s consistent failure to meet the CO2 emission reduction targets outlined in the Federal Climate Protection Act. Preliminary calculations from Agora Energiewende indicate that, alarmingly, CO2 emissions in the transportation sector actually increased in 2025. This shortfall carries significant legal repercussions.
Following a ruling by the International Court of Justice in July, Germany and other nations, are now demonstrably obligated under international law to align their emissions with the 1.5-degree Celsius target. Non-compliance could trigger substantial financial penalties. The prioritization of electric vehicle subsidies over a reduction in aviation tax, while superficially aligning with green initiatives, reveals a potentially counterproductive approach. Analysts argue that it risks further undermining Germany’s climate commitments while disproportionately benefiting the aviation industry, exposing the government to legal challenges and reputational damage. The current situation raises serious questions about the government’s commitment to binding its climate targets with concrete and actionable economic policies and whether symbolic gestures of green investment are masking a deeper inability to address the root causes of emissions.