Enlarge image
The acting Federal Environment Minister Svenja Schulze (SPD) in Glasgow: Compared to other countries, Germany was not very visible
Photo: Christoph Soeder / dpa
Negotiating at world climate conferences has never been easy. Hardly anyone knows this as well as Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary in the Federal Environment Ministry. Representatives from around 200 nations are struggling to find a compromise. If something comes out of it, the German negotiator has to coordinate it with the Federal Government in Berlin, the Chancellery, the Ministry of Economics, Transport and Finance.
Flasbarth is a diplomatically shrewd civil servant: "Nobody should feel taken by surprise with what is being voted on here," he says. But at this world climate conference in Glasgow everything is a bit more complicated than usual. The government at home is only executive in the service, and an unwritten law obliges him to consult with the possible future coalition. "Fortunately, I know the people who are negotiating the coalition in Berlin very well," says Flasbarth.
But a few phone calls with the heads of the SPD, Greens and FDP are not enough.
Germany does not play the role it usually plays in Glasgow: the country that takes the initiative, that steps in when there is a hitch between the countries of the north and the south.
That, in case of doubt, can throw euros into the ring again so that an agreement can be reached.
It was not uncommon for Germany to say: stay out of it
Germany is paralyzed, at least partially, at the 26th World Climate Conference.
This became particularly clear in the many initiatives, some of which were initiated by the British Presidency, that were decided in Glasgow: to phase out coal, to promote fossil fuels, to burners.
All of these initiatives forced negotiator Flasbarth to make a decision: to participate or not to participate.
And not infrequently it was then: keep out.
On Tuesday, for example, it was the initiative for completely emission-free cars, so it was about the end of the internal combustion engine.
24 states and six major automakers, including Mercedes-Benz, have committed to selling only zero-emission cars from 2035.
Not included: Germany.
Although Secretary of State for the Environment Flasbarth would have liked to have signed, as he hardly admits.
But not only the old government in the person of Federal Transport Minister Andreas Scheuer (CSU) vetoed.
It was clear to Flasbarth that by agreeing to the Glasgow initiative he would have burdened the coalition negotiations, in which his own minister Svenja Schulze is also present.
A footnote in the decision text was to blame.
"At first I didn't even notice them," admits Flasbarth.
However, it specifies that cars are not allowed to emit any emissions, and that would also prohibit cars that have a classic internal combustion engine but are fueled with synthetic fuel made from green electricity (e-fuels).
Many environmental organizations consider this technology to be the wrong approach, as does the Federal Environment Ministry.
The traffic light casts a long shadow over Glasgow
But Flasbarth knows that e-fuels are not off the table in the traffic light coalition either. The liberals around FDP leader Christian Lindner are promoting it, and even some Greens have spoken out in favor. The issue is not unified among the traffic light coalitionists. Flasbarth was frustrated and tried to negotiate away the footnote so that he could perhaps agree. But the Secretary of State could not dissuade the British from leaving the footnote in the declaration text. He couldn't sign.
The traffic light from Berlin casts a long shadow over Glasgow. It also did this on an initiative by Denmark to stop issuing licenses for the development of oil and gas fields. It would actually be easy for Germany to give its approval: there is less and less domestic funding. But the signature did not materialize - for many observers it was a wrong signal that Germany, the supposed climatic primus, sends out. "Actually, Germany should have started this initiative together with Denmark," said climate economist Reimund Schwarze from the Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research in Leipzig to SPIEGEL.
Another initiative, with which states committed themselves not to support coal production in other countries, went well again. Flasbarth and the German delegation could not initially agree. It wasn't until a day later that the Germans in Glasgow had the green light from Berlin, from the federal government in liquidation and from the probably new one. Flasbarth submitted the signature for Germany.
In the climate negotiations themselves, something other than a heavy mortgage works: the Ministry of the Environment had not succeeded in the run-up to organize the promised climate aid of one hundred billion dollars for the developing countries.
More than ten years ago, the industrialized countries promised to continuously increase climate aid for poorer countries and to reach an annual total of 100 billion dollars by 2020.
A German-Canadian proposal wanted to appease the developing countries by ensuring that the sum will flow in any case from 2023.
However, this did not convince the developing countries: They wanted a guarantee that the promised 500 billion - spread over five years - would actually be in place by 2025.
They also pushed for climate aid to be increased after 2025.
Complaints about "lazy" compromises
At the summit, the Secretary of State for the Environment tried to sell the compromise as a success at the beginning: "There is no reason to be angry," said Flasbarth.
The affected countries saw things differently.
They were "not amused" about the consolation - not very enthusiastic.
"We are very disappointed," said an Indian negotiator at a general assembly of states this week.
African states also complained at the meetings about what they considered to be a "lazy" compromise.
In the second week of negotiations, Jochen Flasbarth then declared, noticeably perturbed, that it was a »fairy tale« that the climate targets depend on the finances - and tried to take away the importance of the topic. However, climate aid is not a minor matter, it is crucial for the negotiations. 130 developing countries alone belong to the G77 group. Many of their climate targets are "conditional", that is, tied to financial commitments. If there is no money, these countries hardly want to and can hardly push ahead with climate protection. The money pledges also have to do with trust. When the poorer countries feel held back by the industrialized countries, they block the process on other issues as well.
This is exactly what happened at the end of the second week - shortly before the end of the conference.
The poorer countries declared in almost all verbal contributions that they needed more support - and not just empty promises.
For the climate expert Schwarze, the German appearance shortly before the end of the climate conference therefore left a stale impression.
"Compared to other countries, such as the Nordic countries of Europe, Germany was not very visible," he criticizes, and he is also sure why that is: "It is a bad coincidence that there is still no new government in Berlin gives."