Climate activist Jakob Blasel: "What I'm not happy with is the CO₂ price"

Enlarge image

Greens chairmen Habeck and Baerbock: The party leader himself held the counter-speech

Photo: Kay Nietfeld / dpa

SPIEGEL

: Mr. Blasel, you wanted to bring a higher CO₂ price to the Greens' election manifesto: 80 euros from 2022 instead of 60 euros from 2023, plus 15 euros more per year.

There was a vote, you lost.

So how bad is the program for climate protection?

Blasel

: We have a climate program that is impressive.

I'm satisfied or very satisfied with everything - the only thing I'm not happy with is the CO₂ price.

Otherwise I would not have voted.

But social moods got in the way.

SPIEGEL

: You mean you would have won this application, had it not been for the excitement about fuel prices a few weeks ago?

Blasel

: The chances would have been better.

Such social debates naturally change a party congress.

SPIEGEL

: Wouldn't that have just got your party into an even more heated discussion in the election campaign?

Blasel

: I doubt that it makes a difference for the climate-hypocritical and anti-science campaign by the Union and the SPD whether the price is a few euros higher or lower.

That mustn't drive us too crazy either.

The point is to decide what is necessary for the climate.

SPIEGEL

: Have the past few weeks, including the disappointing Greens result in Saxony-Anhalt, shown that climate protection still cannot mobilize people?

Blasel

: It definitely shows that you can still mobilize against climate protection.

The SPD in particular disappointed me with its climate hypocrisy.

First she decided on measures and then talked her down.

We have to show that you can't get away with it today.

SPIEGEL

: You argue that your proposal is based on science.

In other words: a higher CO₂ price would be necessary.

Have the Greens given up on the 1.5 degree target for fear of criticism?

Blasel

: We have the best, the most ambitious climate protection program with which a party has ever gone into a federal election.

Two years ago it would have been hard to imagine.

But it is also clear that we as climate politicians must continue to check whether improvements are necessary.

SPIEGEL

: Is it enough for 1.5 degrees or not?

Blasel

: Hopefully it will be enough for 1.5 degrees globally.

SPIEGEL

: Robert Habeck said in his reply that "science" does not exist.

Isn't he falling back on an argument put forward by the climate change deniers?

Blasel

: No, he just had to argue against tightening up an instrument that he basically thinks as good as I do.

Something like that is always difficult, I think he did it very confidently and well.

SPIEGEL

: The fact that he made the counter-speech also meant that if your application had won, it would have been his defeat.

Weren't you scrupulous about getting your party into a mess?

Blasel

: It wasn't my decision that he should do that.

So it wasn't my decision to take this risk, it was the decision of the board of directors.

That they accepted it shows me how important the discussion is.

SPIEGEL

: You have argued that a higher CO₂ price also means higher energy money - in other words, a per capita repayment to the people.

The poor in particular would benefit from this.

So did the more anti-social application win?

Blasel

: No, but the more social proposal didn't win either.

The energy money is important so that the CO₂ price does not create new hardships.

But above all, social policy has to be done by other means: a higher minimum wage, sanction-free security instead of Hartz IV.

SPIEGEL

: Among other things, you applied for a construction freeze on new motorways.

It was not voted on, you agreed beforehand.

There will be no stop.

Are you satisfied with it?

Blasel

: Absolutely, it is now a clear commitment to a turnaround in the state transport infrastructure.

The aim is not to rebuild as much as possible and not to create irreversible facts.

Most of the money is to be used to expand other forms of transport.

SPIEGEL

: You also

tabled

a number of other amendments.

You have also reached an agreement with the application committee.

What did you get through?

Blasel

: A really great success is that we are now setting ourselves a clear CO₂ budget of 6.3 gigatons.

I'm very happy about it.

We have drawn on a number of studies and are now clearly formulating how much is still possible.

I am very satisfied with the goal of 100 percent renewable energies by 2035 and with the fact that no more new liquid gas terminals are to be built through which only dirty natural gas from the USA comes to Germany.

SPIEGEL

: Can you confidently defend the program from the climate protection movement?

Blasel

: Yes, I can. I have also received a lot of recognition for defending what is scientifically justified and necessary. It is an electoral program that can be seen. With a gap, unfortunately. But there is no shame in losing a democratic vote.