Felix Ekardt researches the politics, law and ethics of sustainability as head of the Leipzig Research Center for Sustainability and Climate Policy and as a professor at the University of Rostock. Because of his often very controversial positions, he seeks discussion with the readers of ZEIT ONLINE. This time too, he responds to reader comments directly below the article. Join the discussion!
I hear these arguments again and again, including among my own previous guest posts: The whole climate debate is nonsensical because Germany is so unimportant. Big actors like this are much more important China and the USA, and everything there is ecologically catastrophic. The whole effort to move away from fossil fuels oil, gas and coal is therefore pointless – it is aimed at climate protection, but Germany and even the EU cannot advance this anyway if others continue to emit emissions so irresponsibly.
But are the assessments actually correct?
Despair and distraction
What is initially confusing is that the China argument has different motives. Some people want to express their desperation that the climate is going south – which is understandable. Only China and them USA are now responsible for around 45 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. If one assumes that these two countries continue undeterred in the long term, humanity would have a very big problem.
However, many also seem to be looking for reasons not to take action themselves and to expose the entire climate debate as nonsensical. The fact that the same things are said for opposite reasons is quite typical of today’s political situation: increasingly there is only agreement that current politics is somehow worthy of criticism, only that this view is motivated from completely different directions, pro and con Climate protection.
But there are reasons that show that neither despair nor excuses make sense. First of all, the German share of global emissions is currently around two percent. If you look at the emissions from the past 200 years that still have an impact on the climate, the figure is even five percent. Because Germany imports many energy-intensive goods and the emissions are measured at the manufacturer and not at the user, the statistics are significantly skewed in Germany’s favor.
So it doesn’t matter what Germany does. And there are not only the alternatives “total climate rescue” or “total ruin”. Every emission saved reduces the chances of drastic natural disasters, economic devastation and other climate change consequences.
China also produces for the Western market. With its demand, Germany can at least influence the emissions generated there. Of course, it is true that China, for example, has emissions that are far too high overall and that per capita emissions are also approaching the high European values. But at the same time the country is playing a central role in the global spread of renewable energies and electromobility. And it is doubtful whether Donald Trump’s current oil-first policy in the USA will last. Because wind and sun are now often cheaper than fossil fuels.
One could argue that climate protection doesn’t matter in Germany because the world is blowing up right now. The only thing that matters is weapons and somehow staying afloat economically.
The move away from fossil fuels is also extremely important for Germany and Europe in terms of economic and security policy. How sticking to fossil-based models ruins the economy – and not the other way around – can currently be seen in the German auto industry. They missed the farewell to the combustion engine, which has long since been completed in the other EU countries and China. And if you want to keep heating affordable in the long term, an even faster energy transition makes sense. That should be the latest the current development of the Iran war have taught. In addition, the expansion of renewables and thermal insulation creates more jobs and more added value overall, than fossils can (PDF). Even more important: the consequences of climate change will be five, ten or more times more expensive than the investments in phasing out fossil fuels.
Some may argue that it is still cheaper and therefore better to shut down coal-fired power plants in China instead of in Germany. But the objection is wrong. Prosperity has been increasing in China for a long time, which also partly offsets the different costs. In addition, the phase-out of fossils is important for Germany and the… EU makes sense for economic reasons. And there are agreements: the world simply has no emissions budget left for the 1.5 degree temperature limit that is binding under international law. All governments must therefore massively and promptly reduce CO₂ emissions instead of asking each other to reduce.
More independent from authoritarian regimes
The alleged alternative – climate or economy and security – does not exist at all. In addition, renewable energies free you from dependence on gas supplies from authoritarian states – which may also have to include the USA in the future. And if Germany and the EU buy gas and oil from the Russian state, sometimes in a roundabout way, then in the worst case scenario we are directly financing the undermining of peace and democracy.
Germany and the EU are not indifferent when it comes to climate protection. But why are China and Donald Trump always the focus of discussions? We know from behavioral research that factual knowledge and values only have a very limited influence on human behavior. A frequently influential emotional factor is scapegoating – as well as human tendency to repression, complacency and aversion to criticism. The Chinese, Americans, politicians, the rich, the military are to blame for climate change – that just sounds more convenient than if I had to do something myself. Selfish desires for a comfortable, pleasant, lavish life with lots of travel, large apartments and daily car journeys, even in cities, may also be added.
If Europe expands emissions trading and does not reduce it, as is currently being discussed, it will achieve timely post-fossilization most effectively and at the same time most cost-effectively. If it’s the EU eco-tariffs that have just been introduced for climate-damaging products – the Carbon border adjustment mechanism – introduced more quickly, it also prevents emissions from the EU from moving to other parts of the world. At the same time, it creates an incentive for non-European countries to phase out fossil fuels. Yes, the world situation is difficult to the point of desperate. But portraying yourself as even more powerless than you actually are will not save Germany.