Enlarge image
Wind farm in front of the RWE Neurath power plant at the Garzweiler opencast mine
Photo: Rupert Oberhäuser / IMAGO
Germany has big plans for the next 20 years.
Of the around 800 million tons of greenhouse gases that are released into the air every year, the bottom line is zero in 2045.
That means climate neutrality - German industrial plants, power plants, animal stables or cars then produce not a gram of CO₂ or methane on a net basis.
The goals are clear.
But the implementation is complex and full of uncertainties.
"No one has a really big master plan," explains climate economist Ottmar Edenhofer in an interview with SPIEGEL.
He is part of the steering committee of the climate protection science platform, which presented its first annual report in Berlin on Friday.
The eight researchers from various disciplines, including environmental law, economics and sociology, advise the government on the way to climate neutrality.
SPIEGEL:
By April, the traffic light coalition is supposed to launch the first immediate measures to speed up climate protection. What is your advice for the federal government in your annual report?
Edenhofer:
That may come as a surprise - but we advise the government not to take any action on climate protection.
Instead of a quick succession of instant programs, she should keep a strategic view of the big picture.
In terms of climate policy, the federal government should not chase after it has failed to meet its targets, but instead look at early indicators.
Politics was always catching up.
But it would make more sense to look at industry, agriculture or transport in good time: Are the necessary future investments being made here, are the sectors actually on the right path?
SPIEGEL:
Emissions are checked every spring - and the government has to make adjustments if necessary.
Is not that enough?
Edenhofer:
We would make a mistake if we only look at the current emissions.
Today's investments determine tomorrow's emissions reductions.
Without a well thought-out overall strategy, we run the risk of exhausting ourselves in hasty immediate programs and being constantly under pressure.
SPIEGEL:
What strategic debates need to be held now?
Edenhofer:
We should urgently talk about justice.
Clever politics must not play off social upheavals against climate policy.
The restructuring of our society will have to happen so quickly in this decade that we now have to worry about credibly relieving the burden on low-income households.
Reimbursement and compensation will play a very prominent role in the CO₂ price.
The first concepts for this are on the table.
SPIEGEL:
So you're warning the government that we'll get conditions like in France, when the "yellow vests" protested for weeks against the increase in fuel prices?
Edenhofer:
We have studies from France that show that people are suspicious.
Even if there is compensation, they are still against carbon pricing.
Many citizens do not believe the promises and therefore do not support the ecological conversion.
It is undisputed that the climate change is initially associated with high costs.
The crucial question is whether there is sufficient willingness to carry them.
But that only happens if people have the feeling that things are reasonably fair.
And you have to show that doing without the conversion would be even more expensive - because of the enormous climate damage.
SPIEGEL:
As a scientific advisory group, you also make specific proposals to the government: what must definitely be decided in April?
Edenhofer:
We need rising CO₂ prices, not in April, but soon - we agree on that in the science platform.
European emissions trading, which must also cover traffic and building heat, is important.
An increased expansion of renewable energies is also urgently needed.
But it's not just about 100 percent renewables, it's about much more.
We need to get down to net zero emissions by 2045.
To do this, however, CO₂ must be extracted from the air.
We advise making some targets a bit more flexible as the power sector and industry will probably have to do more than we think today.
It becomes extremely difficult when it comes to modernizing buildings and converting food production.
Politicians must now begin to address these issues.
SPIEGEL:
Where are there differences in science?
Edenhofer:
We are an interdisciplinary body – there are engineers, legal scholars and also sociologists.
Of course we are all in favor of ambitious climate protection.
But we don't always agree on how to do that.
We discuss which social measures are the right ones and which technologies we need for the conversion.
Take hydrogen, for example: because we don't yet have enough renewable energy to produce green hydrogen, we also need to talk about blue hydrogen.
We were also unable to conclusively answer the question of the extent to which negative emissions are required, i.e. how much CO₂ should be captured and stored underground.
SPIEGEL:
So far, negative emissions have hardly been an issue in politics.
Is this a hot topic that the government will have to address soon?
Edenhofer:
Absolutely.
We see in economic scenarios that it is not possible without negative emissions.
But here, too, it depends on the how.
We as a society should start talking about this now.
It's about extracting CO₂ from the air with direct air capture technologies, through reforestation or the cultivation of energy crops.
All of this has advantages and disadvantages.
We have to weigh them up wisely.
SPIEGEL:
Or with the underground storage of CO₂, which is still banned in Germany...
Edenhofer:
Exactly.
And we need sensible regulation for these technologies.
What should be funded in the future and what shouldn't?
But if we dodge the discussion, we won't solve anything.
SPIEGEL:
Do we need more incentives or more bans in climate policy?
Edenhofer:
That also causes heated discussions in science.
There is consensus that the CO₂ price must play an important role.
But without flanking other political instruments, the CO₂ price cannot make sense either.
Conversely, the other measures without a CO₂ price are also not effective: If the government promotes electric cars but does not burden combustion engines with a high CO₂ price, then emissions in traffic will not fall.
SPIEGEL:
The "Steering Committee of the Science Platform on Climate Protection" was convened by the old government.
But the Merkel years have also contributed to the fact that the time for the climate-friendly conversion is now so short.
Do you think the traffic light coalition can catch up?
Edenhofer:
Something changed in the second half of the last legislature under Angela Merkel's government.
The previous decade was a lost decade.
Everything went much too slowly.
Therefore, the pressure to act is now enormous.
At the speed at which we now have to move in the area of climate protection – we still have a little more than 20 years to go – mistakes will certainly happen.
But we must try to replace chance with error - that is, to organize a learning process in which we set goals and constantly review the means of achieving them.
Nobody has the infallible master plan in their drawer.
And the emergency program of the new government in April will certainly be insufficient.
What is decisive, however, is whether we are now able to put the train on the right track.
Only then can it gain more and more momentum.