Enlarge image
Traffic light coalition Baerbock, Habeck, Scholz, Lindner: "The drama of the situation not realized"
Photo:
Michael Kappeler / dpa
SPIEGEL:
With a view to the coalition agreement, the Youth Council speaks of “betraying young people”.
Where does this dramatic criticism come from?
Zurhake:
In the most important aspects of intergenerational
justice,
the coalition agreement shows that there is
no
perspective.
The climate policy of the coming traffic light coalition is miles past the 1.5 degree target, which is necessary to protect the livelihoods of future generations.
The desired climate neutrality by 2045 comes years too late.
SPIEGEL:
The traffic light parties are sticking to the 1.5-degree path, even if experts doubt that the measures will be sufficient.
But these experts also say: Climate protection is going in the right direction: renewables are being expanded, the coal phase-out comes earlier.
Is that nothing?
Zurhake:
Yes,
those
are good intentions, but that doesn't help us much if the measures ultimately aren't enough.
The big problem with the climate crisis is that once the 1.5 degree limit has been exceeded, a chain of tipping points is set in motion.
This then leads to further drastic global warming, which we can hardly stop.
If the traffic light coalition now uses vague formulations such as an exit from coal by "ideally 2030", it still does not seem to have realized the drama of the situation.
That stunned me.
SPIEGEL:
You speak of the lack of prospects for intergenerational justice.
What is bothering you specifically?
Zurhake:
The concept of the traffic light parties for securing pensions leads the generation contract to absurdity.
Even the scientific advisory board of the Ministry of Economic Affairs warns of shock-like financing problems for the pension from 2025. However, there are no proposals for long-term financing of the statutory pension in the coalition agreement.
The traffic light simply evaded this task.
What kind of “future coalition” is that supposed to be if it can only guarantee the security of pensions until 2025?
By then, for example, I had only just finished my studies.
For us young people it is completely unclear whether we even have a chance of a pension.
SPIEGEL:
What would you have wished for?
Zurhake:
As I said, there are no proposals for long-term financing of the statutory pension.
The traffic light coalition is foregoing cuts and raising the entry age - at the expense of our generation.
So the system will collapse.
In addition, from our point of view, it cannot work as long as it is only a system for the financially weakest.
The strong have withdrawn from it - none of the MPs, state officials or self-employed pays in.
Only when everyone finances the pot do I see a chance of maintaining the pension system.
SPIEGEL:
The traffic light wants to be a coalition of progress.
Where do you see the progress?
Zurhake:
In the area of queer politics in particular, the coalition agreement is a big, long overdue step forward. The new government is finally abolishing the stigmatizing legislation against trans people. We also welcome the deletion of paragraph 219a. In addition, the fact that Robert Habeck now has to think and bring the economy and the climate together is a real step forward. So far, these have always been Poles who were considered incompatible. We hope that he succeeds, because therein lies an important key to solving the climate catastrophe.
SPIEGEL:
Nevertheless, your conclusion is devastating. In your open letter to the party leaders of the traffic light parties, you write about the contract: "It is the starting signal for a government that is more than indifferent to young people." Bafög?
Zurhake:
No, we think these points are good - we also support the fact that there should be improvements in the minimum wage. But all in all, the coalition agreement is not the departure promised in the election campaign. But this is urgently needed in a country that does not have sufficient climate targets and in which the gap between rich and poor is wider than it has been for a long time. Overdue investments in digitization, climate and education are being dragged on. The coalition agreement simply does not do justice to the major problems that are decisive for the future.
SPIEGEL:
You are calling on the parties' youth organizations not to agree to the contract in its current form.
Despite criticism of some aspects, they see it differently: The young liberals speak of a "future coalition as the young generation has wished for";
the Juso boss says "You can work with it!"
Even the Green Youth are signaling their approval.
Zurhake:
It is no wonder that the party organs are not immediately
condemning the contract
that has just been negotiated.
However, it is important to us that when voting, everyone involved is aware of what this coalition agreement means for us young people.
And that they also think about the consequences for future generations.
SPIEGEL:
The letter also says that the treaty is forcing young people to "become even more radical."
What do you mean by that?
Zurhake:
We have to get louder, disrupt political processes and interrupt politicians so that they can't help but listen to us.
SPIEGEL:
What if they don't listen to you?
Zurhake:
Talking has never been enough when it comes to the interests of young people.
The nuclear phase-out was not achieved through pleasant conversations, and the 40-hour week was not achieved through a friendly phone call.
SPIEGEL:
Tadzio Müller, co-founder of the “Endegebiet” protest movement, recently warned in a SPIEGEL interview about a “green RAF” that could fight underground for more climate protection.
A strange idea?
Zurhake:
That is not our way in the Generations Foundation.
What we are observing, however, is that the younger generation is hardly being listened to in the political debate and frustration is actually growing.
For years, young people like us have been fighting for more intergenerational equity in politics.
We start petitions, speak to members of parliament, demonstrate, strike and raise our voices - and yet we are still ignored.
We fear for our future and need to apply even more pressure to ensure that our interests are taken into account.
