It is an uncommon occurrence for unions and environmental organisations to join forces in representing a common position.
And yet, on Thursday, several social representatives did just that, as the Independent Luxembourg Trade Union Confederation (OGBL), the Luxembourg Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (LCGB), the Chamber of Employees, and the Mouvement Ecologique (Mouveco) published an open letter containing their reaction to the so-called social climate plan.
The plan, which was adopted by the Government Council a month ago, was deemed to be ambitious, yet failing to sufficiently address essential points. The signatories also place the plan in a broader geopolitical context, pointing to the wars in Ukraine and Iran and the risks linked to continued dependence on fossil fuel imports.
The authors of the letter welcomed the fact that Luxembourg was planning to go beyond the measures set out by European legislation, with the government involving vital stakeholders in drafting the plan. They also acknowledged positive elements such as the planned monitoring of implementation and the involvement of public institutions.
But the document focusing on how to support low-earning households through the energy transition is said to have "major gaps".
The unions, the Chamber of Employees, and Mouveco pointed out the State's spending plans had not been clearly defined, nor did the plan envisage when changes should take place and how quickly they should be implemented. Above all, the document does not go into detail on who will qualify for additional support to make the switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
They further criticised that the definition of "vulnerable households" remains too limited and does not sufficiently take into account those unable to actively participate in the energy transition, for example by investing in new technologies.
They stressed that this must be improved and supported with detailed statistical data, as should the compensation measures for the CO2 tax or other mechanisms. In addition, the current tax credit for socially vulnerable households could no longer offset the impact of this tax.
The signatories argue that more substantial adjustments, including a potential increase and better indexation of the tax credit, may be required.
The organisations also criticised the absence of clear budgetary commitments, noting that beyond minimum EU requirements, no concrete level of public investment has been specified, nor how available funds would be prioritised across the wide range of measures.
Some measures, they noted, remain dependent on further studies or have already been announced in other policy frameworks, casting doubt on how quickly they can be put into practice.
They also highlighted specific areas where progress remains limited, including support for tenants exposed to energy poverty and long-delayed mechanisms such as the prefinancing of climate-related subsidies.
