Disclaimer
The following article is an opinion piece by the respective author and does not necessarily reflect the position of the FOKUS. party. We stand for diversity of discussion and therefore consider it important to give other opinions the space they deserve.
Could we please pause for a moment and talk honestly about what we actually expect from the state?
Fuel prices are rising, and reflexively demands are being made again: The state should intervene, cap prices, provide relief. As immediately as possible, as comprehensively as possible. Sounds caring. But on closer inspection, it is one thing above all: short-sighted.
Let’s take a look at the reality.
What is the actual impact on consumers?
On January 1, 2026, fuel prices in Luxembourg were €1.41 per liter of Super 95, €1.54 for Super Plus and €1.39 for diesel. Today, on April 1, 2026, we are at €1.76 per liter for Super 95, €1.86 for Super 98 and €2.01 for diesel. Sure, the percentage increase in price is enormous. But let’s take a look at the absolute figures.
In Luxembourg, the average distance to work for employees living in Luxembourg is 16.7 km, for employees living abroad it is between 44.7 km(France), 48 km(Germany) and 53.9 km(Belgium). Calculated over all employees, the average is 30.6 km (source: ACL).
On average, Luxembourg’s employees(or at least those who do not want to or cannot switch to public transportation) drive around 60 km per day to and from work. With an average consumption of around 7 liters and a 5-day week, this results in a fuel consumption of around 90 liters per month(mind you, only for the journey to work).
This in turn results in an additional burden of around €30 to €100 per month compared to January 1, 2026(depending on the type of fuel and the distance to the place of work).
Low earners must be relieved, but the watering can is not needed
Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg; there are other consequences of higher energy prices, for example on heating costs and food prices. And so the situation for low earners is anything but trivial.
But this social cushioning has long been a reality in Luxembourg. In addition to the indexation system, which automatically adjusts salaries to inflation, there is also an inflation allowance and an energy premium for low-income households(an online tool is available here at the FNS). In addition, there is a minimum wage, which is adjusted if necessary and currently stands at €3,244.48 for skilled workers and €2,703.74 for unskilled workers and is set to rise by 3.8% on January 1, 2027(source: wort.lu).
To call for the big watering can and demand a cap on fuel costs from the state now seems at least a little exaggerated. This would not only relieve the households that really need it, but also the(probably much larger) majority who can afford the additional costs much more easily. And it would also relieve the burden on those who fill up with gas in this country but do not work.
The real challenge is therefore to target support where it is really needed rather than distributing it widely. Big words don’t change anything, the reality remains the same. Perhaps all those who are now calling for state intervention should pause at this point and reflect on the principle of solidarity.
Should the state make all-round carefree offers?
It is not the role of the state to relieve its citizens of all their worries and risks. Of course, a state based on the principle of solidarity should and must cushion social hardship. But it should not circle over the heads of its citizens in the style of helicopter parents and overprotectively relieve them of every burden in life.
A state that does this encourages a long-term attitude in which responsibility is increasingly outsourced. In difficult times in particular, however, we need the exact opposite, namely responsible and resilient citizens who are able to take personal responsibility and address their problems themselves, especially in times of crisis.
Incidentally, an example from the much-vaunted “good old days” that populists like to glorify would be the first oil crisis in the 1970s. Back then, the state responded with driving bans, speed limits and calls to use less heating. Financial aid was only available for a few people in need. Later, the requirements for heating efficiency and building insulation were tightened.
Since then, the political perspective has obviously shifted, politicians are driven by the fear of having to impose something on citizens, and populists are exploiting this to the full and driving governments into ever new cycles of regulation with ever new demands. It is high time for more honesty in politics and in society.
We will have to accept that political conflicts cannot be defused with more and more money. Because we simply no longer have the money to do so.
We cannot solve all problems
Governments will have to get used to expecting more truth from their citizens. And the energy crisis triggered by the Iran war could well provide a blueprint for this.
The truth is that everything that burns fossil fuels will become more expensive. Even without geopolitical crises. Biogases and e-fuels will never become so cheap that it makes financial sense to continue buying combustion cars and gas heaters now. No matter what lobbyists say.
This does not mean that nobody should buy large combustion engines and similar gadgets any more. But we have to say goodbye to the idea that the state will step in as fully comprehensive insurance if things don’t go as planned.
The government must expect this much truth from its citizens.
