Climate protection currently seems to provide explosives like no other topic. On the one hand there are activists who fight for car-free inner cities, on the other hand people with "Fuck you Greta" stickers. Why does the topic polarize so?
Claudia Kemfert: Don't be fooled. The split is far less pronounced than it seems. For example, according to the latest environmental awareness study by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, only 14 percent think that the government is doing enough to address the environmental problems. The supposed polarization is rather spread by interested parties on social networks. There, a minority is stylized to an alleged majority. This has little to do with the real mood.
Who do you mean by "interested site"?
Parties like the AfD or lobby groups, for example from the fossil industry. They specifically scatter fake news and myths that climate protection is unnecessary and far too expensive and that it is not desired by a large part of the population. In the past 20 years, this has resulted in us being stuck with sustainable solutions; politics was put under pressure by these lobby groups. But now she is also getting pressure from the other side because young people are taking to the streets and protesting that life is at the expense of the environment, health and future generations.
One result of this protest is the federal government's climate package. You and other experts criticize it very much, partly because you don't find it socially just. But will climate protection not always burden some groups more than others – for example people who cannot afford expensive organic meat or who are dependent on their own car because of poor bus and train connections?
It doesn't have to be that way. Because a smart climate protection policy always has an eye on the common good. In order to relieve social weakness, for example, the CO2 tax, which is part of the climate package, could have been coupled with a "climate premium". If someone then consumed less CO2 than he paid in taxes – for example because he only had a small apartment and therefore had to heat less – he would get the money back from the bonus. Unfortunately, the federal government has not implemented this idea.
Instead, the commuter allowance was increased.
Yes, and that relieves above all long-distance commuters with higher incomes and counteracts the climate goals. A flat-rate mobility allowance per capita that is paid regardless of income would be more socially just. This would also relieve people with low incomes and give every incentive to drive less.
If a bus drives only once a day in my village, it still doesn't help me much.
Politicians have actually created complete false incentives for local public transport in recent decades. That is why we now need a transition period, as suggested by the Ministry of the Environment: initially the CO2 price is low, but it increases over the years. In the meantime, public transport and rail have to be massively expanded. This would make the alternatives to the car attractive. A sustainable transport system would even strengthen social equality in this way.
How can you convince skeptics of this?
We should tell people clearly how much climate-damaging behavior actually costs. If oil, nuclear and coal were as expensive as they actually are, if one takes into account their consequential damage to the community, then people would probably be much more willing to switch to wind, water, sun and biothermal energy, to electromobility and climate-friendly drives to wish. I am therefore in favor of a route-dependent climate toll that takes into account all damage caused by driving. We would also need them for airfares.
Do you share the approach of the avenue movement that we should all no longer fly?
It's more about awareness of when a flight is necessary. I also have to fly for work sometimes. I compensate for the emission by investing in climate protection projects. However, this should not be done on a voluntary basis. The damage caused by flying should automatically be included in the airfare. In the same way, politicians have so far failed to oblige the aviation industry to use climate-friendly fuels step by step. Climate-friendly engagement often arises from the fact that climate-damaging activities are unattractive.
Or vice versa: by making climate-friendly behavior attractive …
I agree. When I moved to Berlin, I immediately sold my car because you can easily ride the S-Bahn or bicycle there. In Denmark and Norway, this strategy was used to ban car traffic from the cities. The people there didn't want changes in their everyday life any more than we did. So the city centers were temporarily blocked for cars and buses. And because the quality of life increased noticeably, nobody wanted to undo it later.
Claudia Kemfert, 50, heads the Department of Energy, Transport and Environment at the German Institute for Economic Research and is professor of energy economics and sustainability at the Hertie School of Governance. She has been a member of the Federal Government's Environment Council since 2016.
Would you like to read more about the topic and exchange ideas with other women? Then check out the "Science and Environmental Protection Forum" BRIGITTE community past!
Get the BRIGITTE as a subscription – with many advantages. Here you can order them directly.