The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Desperate - DER SPIEGEL

2020-08-23T15:19:15.744Z


When Greta Thunberg met Angela Merkel this week, lobbyists got nervous. The industry's new strategy was quickly applied to prevent cuts: sow suspicion. Just in a new way.


Icon: enlarge

Open-air photovoltaic system

Photo: Nikada / iStockphoto / Getty Images

Please answer the following question quickly in your head without thinking for a long time:

Where would German industry like to be in a global comparison with a central technical development - 1. at the top, 2. somewhere in the middle, or 3. as far back as possible?

The intuitive answer would be, at least that's my guess: 1. But you're wrong.

The statements of the Deputy General Manager of the Federation of German Industries (BDI) can hardly be interpreted otherwise. Holger Lösch told the "Rheinische Post": "There is a great danger that the difference in climate policy ambitions between Europe and other regions of the world will continue to grow. This is an ever greater challenge for domestic industry."

Better to squeeze a few more euros from obsolete technology

So German industry does not want to go too far on the path that the whole world inevitably has to take if the planet is to remain habitable. Better to make sales for a few more quarters with obsolete technology.

Christian Stöcker, arrow to the right

Photo: SPIEGEL ONLINE

Born 1973, is a cognitive psychologist and has been a professor at the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences (HAW) since autumn 2016. There he is responsible for the "Digital Communication" course. Before that he was head of the Netzwelt department at SPIEGEL ONLINE.

Lösch spoke to the "Rheinische Post" about Greta Thunberg, of course. Because the Swede and her colleagues were allowed to visit the Chancellor on Thursday. The German industry is concerned that the absolutely justified demands of Fridays for Future might find their way into political decisions.

The paradox as the central argument

In fact, industrial associations and, above all, the energy and automotive sectors have been trying successfully for years to postpone real changes for as long as possible. Often with an obviously paradoxical argument: For many industry representatives, the same measures are on the one hand proof that real climate policy is of little use anyway - and that they are already doing so much for climate protection.

In 2019, for example, the lobby organization "Initiative New Social Market Economy" (INSM), which has been bitterly fighting the energy transition, published a paper called "12 Facts on Climate Policy" - cautiously worded "controversial".

On the one hand, it contains this sentence (in "fact 4"): "The hope that billions in funding of regenerative energy would lead to the goal of reducing CO₂ emissions has not been fulfilled." So it was stupid about the energy transition. In addition, photovoltaics and wind energy are far too expensive ("fact 5"), which is why it is better to trade with emission certificates. That is much cheaper (true, but therefore does not help much).

Green electricity is great, green electricity is stupid

The paper also says ("fact 8"): "In the past few years, the targets for the expansion of renewable energies have been exceeded again and again." Germany already has "over a third share of green electricity". Nice, is not it?

These two positions - the promotion of renewable energies has unfortunately not brought the desired success, at the same time what has been achieved is a great success that one would like to pin on one's lapel - really stand side by side so harmoniously.

The paper as a whole makes the current strategy of German industry in terms of climate very clear, if you read carefully. It goes something like this: You have to accept man-made climate change as a fact and recognize it as a problem. Spreading open doubts about climate change now seems embarrassing.

So you have to slow down the necessary change differently. For example, by sowing doubts about countermeasures.

Clever use of the psychology of doubt

Doubt is an important psychological tool if you want to change as little as possible at first: people are less willing to change their behavior the further away the assumed consequences of inaction seem to be, in terms of both time and space. This effect becomes even worse if there is even a hint of uncertainty about the expected consequences. This has been proven empirically many times.

The lobby associations of the industry, which want to continue to produce CO₂ and sell CO₂-producing technology, have therefore shifted the doubt to a new level: Now it should appear questionable whether climate protection measures will bring anything at all. Pay attention, this is the attitude you come across all the time.

Do e-cars really bring anything? Naaa?

For example, if you listen to the retired economist Hans-Werner Sinn, who is always very industry-friendly. Sinn claimed on Markus Lanz's talk show this week that it would be of no use if electric cars were to drive around in Germany instead of petrol and diesel. The economist referred to a "study" by the ADAC, which had shown that an e-car only has a better CO₂ balance than a comparable diesel after driving more than 200,000 kilometers. Keyword: "sow doubt".

In the ADAC "study" cited by Sinn, however, there is this sentence: "Only when using renewable energy sources does the electric car show the best greenhouse gas balance." Yes: If you charge an electric car with electricity from coal, it doesn't do quite as much. But we have to stop generating electricity from coal anyway .

We can be role models, that has long been proven

It is also economically worthwhile, because wind and solar power are sensationally cheap (unless you own a mountain of lignite that you definitely want to burn). Don't believe me, believe the International Agency for Renewable energies (IRENA): "In 56% of all newly commissioned large-scale plants for regenerative power generation, the costs for 2019 were below the cheapest alternative with fossil fuels." According to the INSM paper cited above, on the other hand, photovoltaics is the most expensive method of all to save CO₂. Who are you more likely to trust?

more on the subject

  • Climate summits and conferences: Smash the cartel of inactionBy Christian Stöcker

  • Icon: Spiegel PlusLobby-Übermacht: The bosses and their servants StateA contribution to the debate by Martin Hesse

In fact, electricity from wind and sun is becoming cheaper and cheaper. According to Irena, "the electricity production costs for photovoltaics have fallen by 82 percent since 2010". This has largely to do with the Renewable Energy Sources Act, which the INSM fought so bitterly: The promotion of photovoltaics in Germany has significantly driven the global expansion of capacities for the production of PV modules. With its energy policy, Germany has long since changed the world, for the better. Germany and Europe can and should not just be role models - we have long since shown that it actually works. Only German industry does not want to admit it.

Wrongly lied in his own pocket

Hans-Werner Sinn also acts as if the electricity mix and mobility are a chicken and egg problem. It is correct: we have to stop burning fossil fuels everywhere , as widely as possible and as quickly as possible. The miserably functioning emissions trading system is a cumbersome method of lying in your pocket. We need solar and wind power just as urgently as we need electric vehicles, which are then charged with them. Both, not neither. In the face of an impending global catastrophe of historically unparalleled proportions, "At the moment, action is of no use" is a rather bizarre position.

Incidentally, there are a number of countries that have already specifically announced that they will ban internal combustion engines. In France, for example, there is even a law on this. German industry is constantly pretending that we are the only ones who have gotten to know about climate change. And use that of all things as an argument not to continue doing anything for the time being.

Hens staring at eggs

Hans-Werner Sinn does roughly the same thing: He refers to the status quo as an argument for the fact that nothing needs to be changed in the status quo. Because we are currently converting coal into electricity, electric cars are not worthwhile. You can continue to drive diesel there. The other countries are not doing any climate protection either. We don't have to do any. It's always the same pattern.

Interesting too

Icon: Spiegel PlusIcon: Spiegel PlusThe Anti-Tesla: Why Toyota is single-handedly using hydrogen by Christian Wüst

For the German brake on climate policy, the whole country is full of hens and eggs staring at each other, paralyzed by mutual dependency, unable to move.

Not only does the world have to change, it will, inevitably.

The German industry would obviously prefer not to participate in this for the time being. Like a pilot who prefers to continue flying with a hole in the tank than finally changing course.

Icon: The mirror

Source: spiegel

All tech articles on 2020-08-23

You may like

Life/Entertain 2024-02-18T17:01:31.846Z
Life/Entertain 2024-02-18T17:13:00.968Z

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.