There would be a big energy saving lever. But no one dares to break this taboo

The energy crisis has long been closer to us than the war that triggered it. The federal government has long since spent more money on security of supply and energy relief than on the defense of Europe.

Funding programs for restructuring programs have already devoured billions before that. With the gas price brake, we are finally taking on those EU member states that cannot give their citizens that much money to burn.

However, a particularly large lever is simply forgotten or rather: It seems sacred and untouchable even in an energy crisis. The living space. One of the epitomes of prosperity, the increase of which does not necessarily mean more well-being. Nevertheless, even the Greens no longer dare to criticize living space.

The lever here is particularly large. After all, every inhabited square meter has to be heated, illuminated and even vacuumed.

You don't have to live with your mother on 44 square meters like I did for 13 years when I was at school and have your office in the connecting children's room. Then you have only 800 kilowatt hours of electricity and heat for 450 euros a year. However, this is not desirable either.

According to the Federal Statistical Office, is the living space per capita 48 square meters? For every German, including elementary school students, students, trainees and residents of old people's homes, all of whom live on average significantly less?

Then how much must others use to lift the cut? Especially families, where the living space is still divided. Father, mother, 3 children would have to call their home an average of 240 square meters. Then 48 square meters seem quite a lot.

And the area is increasing every year. Slower recently, but the pandemic was another driver when many turned their backs on the city. Probably exactly the wrong decision - for more energy-guzzling living space.

It's not about telling someone to sell their house, which their grandparents may have lived in. There also does not have to be a limit on living space, as is sometimes practiced by housing cooperatives in Switzerland.

But it's about visualization and questioning: Rational anyway and even more so in an energy crisis, it's just nonsense when older people live alone and for more or less good reasons in a single-family house from which the children have long since moved out. Because they built it, because they grew up there, out of convenience, because the alternative apartment is also quite expensive and so on.

In this way, old teddy bears, Beatles or Backstreet Boys posters, youth beds, party rooms and oversized guest rooms are kept warm that nobody will ever need again (watch out for mold!).

It's definitely an emotional trap, you have to get out of it. But maybe the economic argument of energy costs will even help. Selling and moving can certainly be liberating for some. Financially in any case.

A corresponding relocation subsidy for couples moving in together would perhaps be a wiser measure than the next watering can that reduces incentives to save. Organizational support would be conceivable for pensioners. The living space would decrease, as would the energy costs.

"Everything on shares - Academy" is the summer special of the daily stock market shots from the WELT business editorial team. Then again daily from August 9, every morning from 5 a.m. For stock market experts and beginners. Subscribe to the podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcast, Amazon Music and Deezer. Or directly via RSS feed.