The timing could hardly have been worse: Shortly before COP28, Fridays for Future is making headlines because of Greta Thunberg’s and other activists’ controversial statements on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Leonie Sontheimer analyzes how the non-climate debate on the Middle East conflict is dividing the German and international Fridays groups. Shortly before the most important event of the year, the activists are weakened. This means that the voice of critical youth at the COP risks being significantly weaker than in the past – especially in this crucial phase of the climate process. An insider who led COP negotiations for many years tells us what is happening behind the scenes.
At least the USA and China have gotten back together. The two heavyweights aim to revive their climate partnership. Although there were hardly any new pledges before the Xi-Biden summit, the diplomatic get-together between China and the US is an important sign in the run-up to the climate conference in Dubai. The EU has also sent such a signal. The Commission and Parliament have agreed to regulate methane emissions from imported fossil fuels.
On Wednesday, the German government was dealt a severe blow. The German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that reallocating money from the Covid Fund to the Climate and Transformation Fund is unconstitutional. Malte Kreutzfeldt explains what this decision means for German climate policy.
The German government coalition in Berlin was faced with an almost insoluble conflict from the outset: The Green Party needed many more billions of euros for the climate-neutral restructuring of society. However, the Free Democratic Party (FDP) rejected both tax increases and additional debt. This dilemma was solved with a trick: Right at the beginning, the coalition government transferred the unused 60 billion euros budgeted for the COVID emergency relief fund to the Climate and Transformation Fund (KTF) – a special fund that runs outside the actual budget. This gave Economy Minister Robert Habeck the money he needed. And Finance Minister Christian Lindner did not need to incur any additional debt for the climate in the following years because the entire 60 billion was already booked in 2021.
The German Federal Constitutional Court has now stopped this very trick. The question of whether the Climate Fund would also help solve the economic problems caused by Covid, as the government argued to justify its move, played no role. The judges in Karlsruhe ruled on Wednesday morning that taking out loans for special funds that are used over several years is unlawful. This would circumvent both the debt brake and the principle of annuality in German budgetary law.
The German government was caught off guard by the ruling. Although internal preparations had been made for various scenarios, the worst-case scenario that now occurred was apparently considered so unlikely that no plan had been prepared for it. The statements made by Olaf Scholz, Christian Lindner and Robert Habeck in front of the cameras at midday were brief and sometimes contradictory. What has emerged, however, is bad news for the climate.
Both Scholz and Lindner explained that the actual national budget for 2024 will not be affected by the decision and will be adopted as planned. Conversely, this means that no additional money will be transferred to the KTF, but the 60 billion euros whose transfer was declared unlawful by the court will be unavailable without replacement.
This will likely create a hole of around 20 billion euros next year. After all, the draft KTF financial plan for 2024 envisages spending 58 billion euros. About 19 billion euros will flow into the fund from EU emissions trading and the national carbon price, while another 9 billion euros will be booked as additional global revenue. The remaining 29 billion euros were supposed to be taken from the reserve – but there won’t be that much money left if the 60 billion are cut. In 2025, the financial hole is likely to be even bigger.
Until a new financial plan has been drawn up, spending on the KTF is suspended. Exactly what this suspension applies to remained unclear on Wednesday. Lindner had stated that only “measures to promote energy efficiency and renewable energies in the building sector” were exempt; however, Habeck said “that all commitments made will be fulfilled” and only new commitments would be halted. The Ministry of Finance confirmed Lindner’s statement in the evening, while the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action left a question about the contradiction unanswered.
However, the government will have to explain which projects will receive less or no more money by the time the new financial plan is drawn up at the latest:
Another core climate policy instrument is also affected by the ruling: Climate money, which is supposed to be used to return part of the revenue from the carbon price to German citizens. So far, this has failed due to a lack of funds and a missing disbursement mechanism, for which the Ministry of Finance is currently developing a concept. This is because the carbon revenue is already largely earmarked for at least the next few years. If another 60 billion is now missing from the KTF and no new revenue is raised, this is unlikely to change in the medium term.
Resistance is always foreseeable regardless of where cuts are made in the KTF. Environmental associations already called on Tuesday to slash climate-damaging subsidies in the national budget instead, such as the diesel privilege or the company car tax. It is now up to the Ministry of Finance “to present a new plan on how it intends to fill the gap in the short and medium term,” explained Matthias Kopp from WWF. Nabu President Jörg Andreas Krüger also brought additional debt into play. “After this bitter setback, the federal government must seriously consider whether it wants to stick to the debt brake in its current form and thus jeopardize the country’s future,” he explained. In other words, the coalition will not be running out of disputes any time soon.
Shortly before COP28 in Dubai, the international protest movement “Fridays for Future” (FFF) is caught up in an internal debate about structures and responsibilities. Positions on the Hamas terror attacks on Israel and the Israeli army’s war in the Gaza Strip differ widely. This weakens the movement. Following the debates about anti-Israel calls and comments on the Instagram account of the international “Fridays For Future” and controversial statements by figurehead Greta Thunberg on this issue, the German and international youth movements have drifted apart.
At COP28 in Dubai, youth movement activists want to repair the rift as far as possible. The German FFF chapter says it will seek talks with its international partners.
Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock praised the position of the German FFF chapter in this context: “What makes this generation so strong is its willingness not to back down in the face of the complexity of the climate crisis,” she said in Berlin on Wednesday. In the Middle East crisis, “political circles that claim to think progressively unfortunately do not automatically show this willingness.” Those who spread “supposedly anti-colonialist attempts to justify the violence of Hamas” are justifying terror and barbarism. “There can only be freedom for Palestinians if there is also freedom for Israelis,” said Baerbock. “That’s why it was so important that so many German climate activists took a clear stand against Hamas terror and against overt and covert anti-Semitism.”
It is currently open whether there will be an FFF meeting and a joint declaration at COP28 in Dubai. Other parts of the protest movement are keeping a low profile: The Climate Action Network International, the umbrella organization of the international environmental movement, refused to comment on these issues in response to a question from Table.Media.
The development shows: The structures of FFF International have so far been so decentralized and open that there is no single position on the issue of Palestine policy, for example. The position of the German FFF group does not represent the global movement. But its significance is huge – because it contributes a large proportion of the funding for the protests.
On October 25, the Instagram account of Fridays for Future International, “@fridaysforfuture,” published a post accusing Western media of brainwashing regarding Israel. It was not the first pro-Palestinian post on this account, and Greta Thunberg had also previously posted a photo with a “Stand-with-Gaza” sign. However, the choice of words in this now-deleted post was harsher: It referred to the Israeli government as an “apartheid regime” that was committing “genocide” against the Palestinian population.
The Israeli chapter of FFF, on the other hand, expressed its sympathy for the victims of the violence. Yarden Israeli, spokesperson for the chapter, told Table Media: “There is a lack of coordination between the different branches of FFF after the current war. We have felt this lack because no FFF international representatives have contacted us as the branch whose activists are directly affected. We were deeply disappointed that they did not contact us. And we were deeply disappointed that the October 7 massacres were not publicly condemned.” Because FFF Israel considers COP28 to be mainly greenwashing, it will not send delegates to Dubai.
Unlike in Germany, the Fridays for Future International social media accounts do not have a formal organizational structure. Posts on international accounts can be suggested by individuals and are voted on in chat groups with over 100 people. There is no official contact person for the press. To a certain extent, FFF International is a social media fiction.
Nevertheless, Fridays for Future Germany was also criticized. On the Instagram account “@fridaysforfuture.de,” which has nearly the same name and also uses the same logo as its profile photo, the German organization wrote on Oct. 26: “No, as previously emphasized, the international account does not speak for us. No, the post is not coordinated with us. No, we do not agree with the content.” German prominent activist figurehead Luisa Neubauer also told dpa: “We emphatically distance ourselves from the anti-Semitic posts on international channels.” This was not enough for the President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. He called on local activists to distance themselves from Fridays for Future International and change their name. At the same time, various activists pointed out that, as a climate movement, they did not want to be at the center of the debate on the Middle East conflict.
“Fridays for Future climate activists have already increasingly positioned themselves on the Middle East conflict or transgender issues in recent years,” observes sociologist Sven Hillenkamp. Hillenkamp describes himself as part of the climate movement and provides strategic advice to various civil society actors. He has long warned against speaking out on these issues. “I understand the pull of addition, that climate activists also want to position themselves on other issues. But that always results in losing support.”
Hillenkamp warns that the movement could split: Greta Thunberg has lost the support of Fridays for Future Germany and the sympathy of the Western middle class. Luisa Neubauer, on the other hand, is distancing herself from the Global South and the large left-progressive part of the movement. Both lacked nuance, Hillenkamp believes. One side has remained largely silent on Israeli suffering and Palestinian crimes, while the other side has remained largely silent on Palestinian suffering and Israeli violence. “It would be absurd if Fridays for Future were to split over a non-movement issue.”
However, for one part of the FFF movement, the Israel-Palestine conflict is not unrelated; it goes to the core of its self-image as a climate justice movement. Sven Hillenkamp divides Fridays for Future into two different movements: “One part is simply an environmental movement with a focus on climate change. The other is more or less an autonomous, radical left-wing movement without violence. They claim that if we want to achieve justice, we must change everything. The means of production, the political structures, our lifestyle.” Thunberg also belongs to this part of the movement, which has focused on the perspectives of indigenous people and MAPA activists in recent years. (MAPA stands for Most Affected Peoples and Areas.) For them, Palestinians are indigenous people who are being displaced and exploited by Israel.
Just how polarizing the issue is for the movement became clear again last Sunday: Greta Thunberg caused a stir at a large climate protest in the Netherlands when she once again expressed her solidarity with the Palestinians. “No climate justice on occupied land,” she shouted from the stage into the microphone, which another protester had tried to take away from her shortly beforehand in a scuffle. He objected that this had politicized the event too much, that it was no longer a climate demo.
In this context, “ending the occupation of Palestine” is a matter of climate justice and is also being called for by key figures in the international climate movement, such as the Climate Action Network.
Fridays for Future Germany has also had different positions on the Middle East conflict for some time. Some activists who have taken a more international approach in their work have left the German organization for various reasons. “I tried for a long time to build up more internationalist perspectives and structures, which was repeatedly blocked and led to frustration,” says Line Niedeggen, for example, who helped shape Fridays for Future Germany’s public relations work for a long time.
Niedeggen is now primarily active on an international level and is currently helping prepare for the upcoming World Climate Summit in Dubai. The Fridays for Future International delegation is to consist of 20 MAPA activists. To finance their participation, a crowdfunding campaign has been started in Germany – so far, just over 30,000 euros have been raised. An international fundraising campaign has so far only raised just under £2,100.
Although Fridays for Future International has never received money directly from Fridays for Future Germany, Niedeggen says that many resources are in the hands of German organizations, especially with regard to the COP. “Some activists are now worried that they will receive less support from Germany.”
COP28 organizers are highlighting the perspective of the youth: The conference will have a dedicated youth theme day. As the host, the UAE is awarding scholarships to 100 “Youth Delegates” from the countries of the Global South to Dubai. Two of these youth delegates come from Palestine. However, their influence on the negotiations is minimal. It is unclear whether the official youth delegates will participate in the climate movement protests.
One of the MAPA activists traveling to COP28 on behalf of Fridays for Future is Daffa Praditya. The 19-year-old heads Fridays for Future in Indonesia and lives in Jakarta on a street that will be underwater in 20 to 30 years’ time due to rising sea levels. Although he noticed the controversy over the Instagram post, Germany’s position doesn’t play such a big role internationally: “It’s great that so many people in Germany are aware of the climate crisis and are taking part in the strikes. But that doesn’t make Fridays for Future Germany the center of the international climate movement, it can’t direct what other groups do.”
The planning for the World Climate Summit remains unaffected by the controversy. “Our demands will be similar to last year: We are still demanding money from the Global North that the Global South can use to pay for damage and losses caused by the climate crisis.”
A key focus of Fridays for Future at COP28 is also an “equitable fossil fuel phase-out.” According to Line Niedeggen, this also requires “massive financial commitments from developed countries.”
What options does Norway have to achieve its 2050 climate target? A panel of experts, the “Climate Committee 2050“, has now answered this question after two years of work on behalf of the government. Immediately after its publication, the report triggered controversy, particularly over the future of oil and gas production.
The Norwegian Climate Act specifies a 90 to 95 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 compared to 1990. This corresponds to emissions of 2.5 to 5 million tons of CO2 equivalents. In 2022, 48.9 million tons were emitted. That is only a CO2 reduction of 4.6 percent compared to 1990. By comparison, the oil and gas producer United Kingdom managed to reduce its emissions more than tenfold by 49.7 percent in the same period.
At twelve million tons, oil and gas production accounts for a quarter of Norway’s national emissions. A key message of the expert panel is that the activity and emissions of the petroleum sector must be reduced compared to the expected trend through 2050. In general, energy policy must be brought into line with climate targets. This is followed by a series of recommendations:
The report has met with a mixed response. Environmental organizations and parties that present themselves as particularly green have received it largely positively.
Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre of the social democratic Labor Party (Ap), on the other hand, immediately rejected the idea of an exit strategy. He is also against pausing the search for new deposits, as the commission demands. The petroleum sector should be “developed, not wound up,” a formula that Støre and other Ap politicians have been repeating for years. The leading conservative opposition party, Høyre, shares this approach.
A (further) development means, among other things, continuing the production of crude oil and natural gas. At the same time, technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), offshore wind and the production of blue hydrogen from natural gas are to be developed.
The expert group’s analysis of oil production for 2050 is based on forecasts by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (Oljedirektoratet). One main scenario expects production to fall by 65 percent between 2020 and 2050. However, the report states that this is not enough to achieve the climate targets: Norway would have to reduce the volume of petroleum production towards 2050 more than previous plans and forecasts envisage.
The experts also look at the issue of labor shortages: They believe that continued exploration of oil and gas fields also means that the oil and gas sector uses expertise and labor needed in other economic sectors.
In a newspaper article, economics professor and panel member, Ola Kvaløy, formulates the government’s challenge: “Either we have to change Norway’s petroleum policy or we have to abandon the ambitions in the Climate Act.”
The experts believe that now is the right time for a “reflection pause” in politics regarding fossil fuels and to develop a strategy for the phase-out: Oil and gas investments are at an all-time high and will remain strong in the coming years. This means that European energy security will not be jeopardized by pausing new decisions on exploration, according to the report.
The experts note that the period up to 2050 will be characterized by resource scarcity. Therefore, solutions that reduce the consumption of scarce resources such as electricity, land and minerals should be prioritized. This argument also applies to the fossil fuel industry. Today, offshore oil and gas installations are increasingly fed with renewable electricity from the mainland. The power cables are replacing gas-fired power plants, previously the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector. As a result, emissions from the fossil fuel industry are decreasing.
But this is where the experts see a problem: If additional and future oil and gas platforms receive electricity from the mainland, this electricity will not be available for other purposes – such as emission-free industrial production. One of the experts’ recommendations is that the scarce electricity from the mainland should, therefore, not be used to reduce emissions from the oil and gas industry in this way.
According to international rules, only emissions that occur on Norwegian territory are included in Norway’s emissions footprint. However, the report points out that emissions from combustion by end customers are much higher than those from production. Every year, Norway exports oil and gas with an emission effect of around 500 million tons of CO2 equivalents, ten times as much as the territorial emissions. Olav A. Øvrebø, Bergen
Mr Perrez, you look back on 13 busy years as one of the leading climate negotiators. When you started after the Copenhagen summit, climate diplomacy was in ruins. Where does it stand today?
Franz Perrez: Even though we have taken a significant step forward with the Paris Agreement, we are not yet where we should be. In Copenhagen in 2009, the attempt to hold all countries with high emissions to account failed. In 2015, the Paris Agreement then succeeded in involving all countries in principle: All countries must formulate climate targets. These targets now need to be raised further. However, large emitters such as China and Saudi Arabia are hiding behind their status as developing countries.
What do you mean?
As long as they refuse to accept that they are now also responsible for a large part of the problem – historically and above all with their current and future emissions – the climate problem cannot be solved. The traditional OECD countries now only account for 43 percent of historical emissions. China alone is responsible for 13 percent of historical emissions. But above all: Today, six of the ten largest absolute emitters are so-called developing countries, and nine of the top ten per capita emitters are so-called developing countries. These countries also bear a great deal of responsibility.
These countries, in turn, criticize the Global North for breaking its financing promises.
Indeed, financing expectations are not being met either. You can’t sugarcoat it. Support for developing countries in the climate sector has increased massively in recent years – but the goal of mobilizing 100 billion US dollars annually has not been achieved. This target must be achieved this year.
Even if the 100 billion were to flow – the existing sources of money are not sufficient.
This is the second point where we are stuck: If we only focus on public funding from industrialized countries, we won’t get anywhere. Wealthy emerging economies such as the oil states and China must recognize that they also need to participate in the financing because of their capacity – and their historical responsibility, particularly for loss and damage. Furthermore, all funds, including private ones, must support the climate goals. But the emerging economies refuse to discuss this. They are also preventing any progress on mitigation, as recently became clear again at the conference in Bonn [Bonn Climate Conference SB58].
Many say there are negotiations over negotiations, but nothing happens. Emissions still keep on rising.
It’s not true that nothing is happening. When I started in Cancun in 2010, predictions said we would end up with a warming of 4 degrees or more in 2100. Today, depending on the calculation, it’s around 2 degrees. That’s not enough. But we have made tremendous progress.
Climate diplomacy is often accused of revolving around itself. It saves the process, but not the climate.
I know this accusation: ‘All you do is argue, and you’re not fast enough.’ Yes, climate policy is too slow and not ambitious enough, but it’s not true that nothing is happening. Take Switzerland: We have now tightened climate legislation and a lot has actually been achieved in the EU and the USA. But that’s not enough. Everyone is still not doing enough. No country can solve the problem alone. Everyone must do more, especially the countries with the highest emissions and the highest capacity, regardless of whether they were defined as developing countries in the last millennium.
Would it be easier if voting was based on a majority instead of a consensus?
A difficult question. If we were to introduce the majority principle, we would perhaps lose the big emitters such as China, India, Saudi Arabia and the USA. We can see this in other UN processes, such as the debate on chemicals or a plastics agreement: These countries fiercely oppose majority decisions.
Climate decisions could be made in the small group responsible for 80 percent of emissions: The G20. What do you think? Your Switzerland would not be included.
We need both procedures, in the entire UN and at the G20. After all, all countries are in economic competition. Why should a G20 country take costly measures when a competitor that is not a G20 member does not? We need more than just the G20.
In your experience, who is really holding back the process? The developed countries point to the emerging economies around China, which in turn claim that the rich don’t pay the money. Both seem to be correct.
I see it differently. We need to learn how the brakes really work in this process and who is stepping on them. Countries like China or Saudi Arabia, which blocked everything in Bonn, are not concerned with finance. They made a financing proposal, which conflicted with the Paris Agreement, just to prevent the mitigation proposals. The small and vulnerable developing countries then noticed this – because the big players were quickly willing to give up their finance bargaining chip if mitigation was not to be negotiated either. They are interested in something else: They do not want to be obliged to reduce their emissions more than they had planned at any cost. They do not want to be put under this pressure. Typically, these are countries without a strong civil society, which would also put them under internal pressure. The biggest polluters are shirking their responsibility. This imbalance is the real drag on the process.
Have there been situations in the 13 years when you thought out of frustration: That’s it, I’m not doing this anymore.
Yes, there have been, and more often in recently. Especially when you realize that, like now in Bonn, it’s not about the cause at all, but only about stalling, deflecting and delaying. And when you know that the other negotiators themselves don’t believe what they are saying over the microphone. However, there is always an unofficial process parallel to the official one. Before the Paris Agreement, for example, we had a very intensive process involving the 20 most important people and countries. Solutions were considered and discussed informally that were branded unacceptable over the microphone in the official process. When I told my delegation this, my colleagues thought I had it wrong. But in this process, we were able to work out the core elements of the Paris Agreement.
What will be most important in the near future?
The pressure must increase to achieve progress on two goals of the Paris Agreement: mitigation and the redirection of financial flows. And the public must understand that historical responsibility is no longer attributed to the traditional developed countries. This sole responsibility of developed countries is a phantom that no longer matches reality. However, the point is not to let them off the hook, but to hold the other large emitters responsible as well.
What about funding for adaptation and loss and damage? This is crucial for developing countries.
This is part of redirecting financial flows: All funds must help to achieve the goals relating to mitigation and adaptation. We must ensure that financial resources no longer flow into fossil fuels but into sustainable energy sectors, into adaptation, and yes, also into loss and damage. And that solidarity means that all polluters and all those with capacity contribute. In other words, the emerging economies, which have so far been excluded from everything, also participate in the financing in accordance with their emissions and economic strength, and private investments also flow properly. I am particularly concerned about loss and damage: The solution to this huge problem threatens to be reduced to a new fund. Such a fund can be very important to target gaps in the system. But a new fund alone is not enough to solve the immense challenges of climate loss and damage. It can only succeed if the entire UN system and the entire global community help.
Frank Perrez was Switzerland’s ambassador for the environment and head of the delegation at international environmental and climate negotiations from 2010 to 2023. Since July 2023, the 56-year-old lawyer has worked as Director of the Directorate of International Law for the Swiss Foreign Ministry.
Many people worldwide consider the fight against global warming one of our time’s most pressing challenges. However, opinions differ on the question of who should bear particular responsibility. This is revealed in a survey conducted by the market research institute Ipsos in 29 countries at the end of April on Earth Day 2023.
In many countries, significant parts of the population feel that their country is expected to sacrifice too much in the fight against the climate crisis. The proportion is particularly high in India and Indonesia and exceptionally low in Argentina.
At the same time, 61 percent of respondents from all countries said that if governments do not deal with the climate crisis now, they are letting their citizens down. So, climate change is perceived as a threat.
Only 31 percent of respondents believe that their own country is a climate action frontrunner – agreement with this statement is particularly high in India at 71 percent, particularly low in Hungary at 10 percent, while Germany is in the upper midfield at 32 percent alongside Switzerland, the UK and the USA. Overall, two-thirds of respondents believe their country should do more for the climate. ae/nib
Mike Johnson actually always wanted to become chief of the local fire brigade. The 51-year-old comes from Shreveport, Louisiana, where his father already worked in this honorable position. But things turned out differently: Johnson studied law, went into politics and was elected to the US House of Representatives for the Republicans. Johnson questions man-made climate change and intends to cut funds from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
In late October, he was surprisingly elected as the new Speaker of the US House of Representatives. This is the chamber of Congress that the far-right wing of the deeply divided Republican Party has recently symbolically set on fire. First, the hardliner group chased their own party colleague, Kevin McCarthy, out of the office of Speaker, and then they failed to come up with a successor capable of winning a majority for a long time.
After three failed candidates and three weeks of chaos, Johnson, a backbencher, has managed to be elected to the third-highest office in the economic superpower. His biggest advantage may have been that few people knew him, even within his own party. “A friend to all and an enemy to none” was how Johnson’s party colleague Elise Stefanik described him. Johnson was only known as a Trump supporter and had even supported the ex-president in his conspiracy narrative about the supposedly rigged 2020 election.
As little-known as the man from US southern states was, his politics are obvious – as demonstrated by the first bill that the Republicans introduced in the House of Representatives under his leadership. It aims to cut billions in funding from the IRA – US President Joe Biden’s massive subsidy program to promote green technologies. After the IRA was passed, Johnson described it as “green energy slush funds.”
It is unlikely that the bill will be passed. The White House has already threatened to veto it. But the signal counts. The lawyer drew attention early on with statements questioning man-made climate change. At a town hall meeting in his hometown in 2017, he said: “The climate is changing, but the question is, is it being caused by natural cycles over the span of the Earth’s history? Or is it changing because we drive SUVs?” He certainly doesn’t believe in the latter.
Instead, Mike Johnson places a different faith at the heart of his actions. “The word of God is, of course, the ultimate source of all truth,” the evangelical fundamentalist recently said in his podcast. He strongly opposes abortion and once described homosexuality as “unnatural” and “dangerous.” According to the US media, he is also said to be close to the so-called Young Earth Creationists. They adhere to a religious belief that God created Earth, including humans and living beings, just around 6,000 years ago.
The father of four lives with his wife Kelly, in a so-called covenant marriage, which can only be divorced on more limited grounds, such as domestic violence. The Speaker of the House of Representatives at least passed his political baptism by fire on Tuesday. The chamber passed Johnson’s proposal for an interim budget. The government shutdown feared over the weekend has thus been averted for the time being. However, not all of his fellow representatives voted in favor of the compromise, meaning that Johnson had to rely on the help of the Democrats. And so the new man in office still has to show whether he truly is the firefighter the Republicans had hoped for or if he is just adding fuel to the fire. Laurin Meyer
The timing could hardly have been worse: Shortly before COP28, Fridays for Future is making headlines because of Greta Thunberg’s and other activists’ controversial statements on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Leonie Sontheimer analyzes how the non-climate debate on the Middle East conflict is dividing the German and international Fridays groups. Shortly before the most important event of the year, the activists are weakened. This means that the voice of critical youth at the COP risks being significantly weaker than in the past – especially in this crucial phase of the climate process. An insider who led COP negotiations for many years tells us what is happening behind the scenes.
At least the USA and China have gotten back together. The two heavyweights aim to revive their climate partnership. Although there were hardly any new pledges before the Xi-Biden summit, the diplomatic get-together between China and the US is an important sign in the run-up to the climate conference in Dubai. The EU has also sent such a signal. The Commission and Parliament have agreed to regulate methane emissions from imported fossil fuels.
On Wednesday, the German government was dealt a severe blow. The German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that reallocating money from the Covid Fund to the Climate and Transformation Fund is unconstitutional. Malte Kreutzfeldt explains what this decision means for German climate policy.
The German government coalition in Berlin was faced with an almost insoluble conflict from the outset: The Green Party needed many more billions of euros for the climate-neutral restructuring of society. However, the Free Democratic Party (FDP) rejected both tax increases and additional debt. This dilemma was solved with a trick: Right at the beginning, the coalition government transferred the unused 60 billion euros budgeted for the COVID emergency relief fund to the Climate and Transformation Fund (KTF) – a special fund that runs outside the actual budget. This gave Economy Minister Robert Habeck the money he needed. And Finance Minister Christian Lindner did not need to incur any additional debt for the climate in the following years because the entire 60 billion was already booked in 2021.
The German Federal Constitutional Court has now stopped this very trick. The question of whether the Climate Fund would also help solve the economic problems caused by Covid, as the government argued to justify its move, played no role. The judges in Karlsruhe ruled on Wednesday morning that taking out loans for special funds that are used over several years is unlawful. This would circumvent both the debt brake and the principle of annuality in German budgetary law.
The German government was caught off guard by the ruling. Although internal preparations had been made for various scenarios, the worst-case scenario that now occurred was apparently considered so unlikely that no plan had been prepared for it. The statements made by Olaf Scholz, Christian Lindner and Robert Habeck in front of the cameras at midday were brief and sometimes contradictory. What has emerged, however, is bad news for the climate.
Both Scholz and Lindner explained that the actual national budget for 2024 will not be affected by the decision and will be adopted as planned. Conversely, this means that no additional money will be transferred to the KTF, but the 60 billion euros whose transfer was declared unlawful by the court will be unavailable without replacement.
This will likely create a hole of around 20 billion euros next year. After all, the draft KTF financial plan for 2024 envisages spending 58 billion euros. About 19 billion euros will flow into the fund from EU emissions trading and the national carbon price, while another 9 billion euros will be booked as additional global revenue. The remaining 29 billion euros were supposed to be taken from the reserve – but there won’t be that much money left if the 60 billion are cut. In 2025, the financial hole is likely to be even bigger.
Until a new financial plan has been drawn up, spending on the KTF is suspended. Exactly what this suspension applies to remained unclear on Wednesday. Lindner had stated that only “measures to promote energy efficiency and renewable energies in the building sector” were exempt; however, Habeck said “that all commitments made will be fulfilled” and only new commitments would be halted. The Ministry of Finance confirmed Lindner’s statement in the evening, while the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action left a question about the contradiction unanswered.
However, the government will have to explain which projects will receive less or no more money by the time the new financial plan is drawn up at the latest:
Another core climate policy instrument is also affected by the ruling: Climate money, which is supposed to be used to return part of the revenue from the carbon price to German citizens. So far, this has failed due to a lack of funds and a missing disbursement mechanism, for which the Ministry of Finance is currently developing a concept. This is because the carbon revenue is already largely earmarked for at least the next few years. If another 60 billion is now missing from the KTF and no new revenue is raised, this is unlikely to change in the medium term.
Resistance is always foreseeable regardless of where cuts are made in the KTF. Environmental associations already called on Tuesday to slash climate-damaging subsidies in the national budget instead, such as the diesel privilege or the company car tax. It is now up to the Ministry of Finance “to present a new plan on how it intends to fill the gap in the short and medium term,” explained Matthias Kopp from WWF. Nabu President Jörg Andreas Krüger also brought additional debt into play. “After this bitter setback, the federal government must seriously consider whether it wants to stick to the debt brake in its current form and thus jeopardize the country’s future,” he explained. In other words, the coalition will not be running out of disputes any time soon.
Shortly before COP28 in Dubai, the international protest movement “Fridays for Future” (FFF) is caught up in an internal debate about structures and responsibilities. Positions on the Hamas terror attacks on Israel and the Israeli army’s war in the Gaza Strip differ widely. This weakens the movement. Following the debates about anti-Israel calls and comments on the Instagram account of the international “Fridays For Future” and controversial statements by figurehead Greta Thunberg on this issue, the German and international youth movements have drifted apart.
At COP28 in Dubai, youth movement activists want to repair the rift as far as possible. The German FFF chapter says it will seek talks with its international partners.
Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock praised the position of the German FFF chapter in this context: “What makes this generation so strong is its willingness not to back down in the face of the complexity of the climate crisis,” she said in Berlin on Wednesday. In the Middle East crisis, “political circles that claim to think progressively unfortunately do not automatically show this willingness.” Those who spread “supposedly anti-colonialist attempts to justify the violence of Hamas” are justifying terror and barbarism. “There can only be freedom for Palestinians if there is also freedom for Israelis,” said Baerbock. “That’s why it was so important that so many German climate activists took a clear stand against Hamas terror and against overt and covert anti-Semitism.”
It is currently open whether there will be an FFF meeting and a joint declaration at COP28 in Dubai. Other parts of the protest movement are keeping a low profile: The Climate Action Network International, the umbrella organization of the international environmental movement, refused to comment on these issues in response to a question from Table.Media.
The development shows: The structures of FFF International have so far been so decentralized and open that there is no single position on the issue of Palestine policy, for example. The position of the German FFF group does not represent the global movement. But its significance is huge – because it contributes a large proportion of the funding for the protests.
On October 25, the Instagram account of Fridays for Future International, “@fridaysforfuture,” published a post accusing Western media of brainwashing regarding Israel. It was not the first pro-Palestinian post on this account, and Greta Thunberg had also previously posted a photo with a “Stand-with-Gaza” sign. However, the choice of words in this now-deleted post was harsher: It referred to the Israeli government as an “apartheid regime” that was committing “genocide” against the Palestinian population.
The Israeli chapter of FFF, on the other hand, expressed its sympathy for the victims of the violence. Yarden Israeli, spokesperson for the chapter, told Table Media: “There is a lack of coordination between the different branches of FFF after the current war. We have felt this lack because no FFF international representatives have contacted us as the branch whose activists are directly affected. We were deeply disappointed that they did not contact us. And we were deeply disappointed that the October 7 massacres were not publicly condemned.” Because FFF Israel considers COP28 to be mainly greenwashing, it will not send delegates to Dubai.
Unlike in Germany, the Fridays for Future International social media accounts do not have a formal organizational structure. Posts on international accounts can be suggested by individuals and are voted on in chat groups with over 100 people. There is no official contact person for the press. To a certain extent, FFF International is a social media fiction.
Nevertheless, Fridays for Future Germany was also criticized. On the Instagram account “@fridaysforfuture.de,” which has nearly the same name and also uses the same logo as its profile photo, the German organization wrote on Oct. 26: “No, as previously emphasized, the international account does not speak for us. No, the post is not coordinated with us. No, we do not agree with the content.” German prominent activist figurehead Luisa Neubauer also told dpa: “We emphatically distance ourselves from the anti-Semitic posts on international channels.” This was not enough for the President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. He called on local activists to distance themselves from Fridays for Future International and change their name. At the same time, various activists pointed out that, as a climate movement, they did not want to be at the center of the debate on the Middle East conflict.
“Fridays for Future climate activists have already increasingly positioned themselves on the Middle East conflict or transgender issues in recent years,” observes sociologist Sven Hillenkamp. Hillenkamp describes himself as part of the climate movement and provides strategic advice to various civil society actors. He has long warned against speaking out on these issues. “I understand the pull of addition, that climate activists also want to position themselves on other issues. But that always results in losing support.”
Hillenkamp warns that the movement could split: Greta Thunberg has lost the support of Fridays for Future Germany and the sympathy of the Western middle class. Luisa Neubauer, on the other hand, is distancing herself from the Global South and the large left-progressive part of the movement. Both lacked nuance, Hillenkamp believes. One side has remained largely silent on Israeli suffering and Palestinian crimes, while the other side has remained largely silent on Palestinian suffering and Israeli violence. “It would be absurd if Fridays for Future were to split over a non-movement issue.”
However, for one part of the FFF movement, the Israel-Palestine conflict is not unrelated; it goes to the core of its self-image as a climate justice movement. Sven Hillenkamp divides Fridays for Future into two different movements: “One part is simply an environmental movement with a focus on climate change. The other is more or less an autonomous, radical left-wing movement without violence. They claim that if we want to achieve justice, we must change everything. The means of production, the political structures, our lifestyle.” Thunberg also belongs to this part of the movement, which has focused on the perspectives of indigenous people and MAPA activists in recent years. (MAPA stands for Most Affected Peoples and Areas.) For them, Palestinians are indigenous people who are being displaced and exploited by Israel.
Just how polarizing the issue is for the movement became clear again last Sunday: Greta Thunberg caused a stir at a large climate protest in the Netherlands when she once again expressed her solidarity with the Palestinians. “No climate justice on occupied land,” she shouted from the stage into the microphone, which another protester had tried to take away from her shortly beforehand in a scuffle. He objected that this had politicized the event too much, that it was no longer a climate demo.
In this context, “ending the occupation of Palestine” is a matter of climate justice and is also being called for by key figures in the international climate movement, such as the Climate Action Network.
Fridays for Future Germany has also had different positions on the Middle East conflict for some time. Some activists who have taken a more international approach in their work have left the German organization for various reasons. “I tried for a long time to build up more internationalist perspectives and structures, which was repeatedly blocked and led to frustration,” says Line Niedeggen, for example, who helped shape Fridays for Future Germany’s public relations work for a long time.
Niedeggen is now primarily active on an international level and is currently helping prepare for the upcoming World Climate Summit in Dubai. The Fridays for Future International delegation is to consist of 20 MAPA activists. To finance their participation, a crowdfunding campaign has been started in Germany – so far, just over 30,000 euros have been raised. An international fundraising campaign has so far only raised just under £2,100.
Although Fridays for Future International has never received money directly from Fridays for Future Germany, Niedeggen says that many resources are in the hands of German organizations, especially with regard to the COP. “Some activists are now worried that they will receive less support from Germany.”
COP28 organizers are highlighting the perspective of the youth: The conference will have a dedicated youth theme day. As the host, the UAE is awarding scholarships to 100 “Youth Delegates” from the countries of the Global South to Dubai. Two of these youth delegates come from Palestine. However, their influence on the negotiations is minimal. It is unclear whether the official youth delegates will participate in the climate movement protests.
One of the MAPA activists traveling to COP28 on behalf of Fridays for Future is Daffa Praditya. The 19-year-old heads Fridays for Future in Indonesia and lives in Jakarta on a street that will be underwater in 20 to 30 years’ time due to rising sea levels. Although he noticed the controversy over the Instagram post, Germany’s position doesn’t play such a big role internationally: “It’s great that so many people in Germany are aware of the climate crisis and are taking part in the strikes. But that doesn’t make Fridays for Future Germany the center of the international climate movement, it can’t direct what other groups do.”
The planning for the World Climate Summit remains unaffected by the controversy. “Our demands will be similar to last year: We are still demanding money from the Global North that the Global South can use to pay for damage and losses caused by the climate crisis.”
A key focus of Fridays for Future at COP28 is also an “equitable fossil fuel phase-out.” According to Line Niedeggen, this also requires “massive financial commitments from developed countries.”
What options does Norway have to achieve its 2050 climate target? A panel of experts, the “Climate Committee 2050“, has now answered this question after two years of work on behalf of the government. Immediately after its publication, the report triggered controversy, particularly over the future of oil and gas production.
The Norwegian Climate Act specifies a 90 to 95 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 compared to 1990. This corresponds to emissions of 2.5 to 5 million tons of CO2 equivalents. In 2022, 48.9 million tons were emitted. That is only a CO2 reduction of 4.6 percent compared to 1990. By comparison, the oil and gas producer United Kingdom managed to reduce its emissions more than tenfold by 49.7 percent in the same period.
At twelve million tons, oil and gas production accounts for a quarter of Norway’s national emissions. A key message of the expert panel is that the activity and emissions of the petroleum sector must be reduced compared to the expected trend through 2050. In general, energy policy must be brought into line with climate targets. This is followed by a series of recommendations:
The report has met with a mixed response. Environmental organizations and parties that present themselves as particularly green have received it largely positively.
Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre of the social democratic Labor Party (Ap), on the other hand, immediately rejected the idea of an exit strategy. He is also against pausing the search for new deposits, as the commission demands. The petroleum sector should be “developed, not wound up,” a formula that Støre and other Ap politicians have been repeating for years. The leading conservative opposition party, Høyre, shares this approach.
A (further) development means, among other things, continuing the production of crude oil and natural gas. At the same time, technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), offshore wind and the production of blue hydrogen from natural gas are to be developed.
The expert group’s analysis of oil production for 2050 is based on forecasts by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (Oljedirektoratet). One main scenario expects production to fall by 65 percent between 2020 and 2050. However, the report states that this is not enough to achieve the climate targets: Norway would have to reduce the volume of petroleum production towards 2050 more than previous plans and forecasts envisage.
The experts also look at the issue of labor shortages: They believe that continued exploration of oil and gas fields also means that the oil and gas sector uses expertise and labor needed in other economic sectors.
In a newspaper article, economics professor and panel member, Ola Kvaløy, formulates the government’s challenge: “Either we have to change Norway’s petroleum policy or we have to abandon the ambitions in the Climate Act.”
The experts believe that now is the right time for a “reflection pause” in politics regarding fossil fuels and to develop a strategy for the phase-out: Oil and gas investments are at an all-time high and will remain strong in the coming years. This means that European energy security will not be jeopardized by pausing new decisions on exploration, according to the report.
The experts note that the period up to 2050 will be characterized by resource scarcity. Therefore, solutions that reduce the consumption of scarce resources such as electricity, land and minerals should be prioritized. This argument also applies to the fossil fuel industry. Today, offshore oil and gas installations are increasingly fed with renewable electricity from the mainland. The power cables are replacing gas-fired power plants, previously the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector. As a result, emissions from the fossil fuel industry are decreasing.
But this is where the experts see a problem: If additional and future oil and gas platforms receive electricity from the mainland, this electricity will not be available for other purposes – such as emission-free industrial production. One of the experts’ recommendations is that the scarce electricity from the mainland should, therefore, not be used to reduce emissions from the oil and gas industry in this way.
According to international rules, only emissions that occur on Norwegian territory are included in Norway’s emissions footprint. However, the report points out that emissions from combustion by end customers are much higher than those from production. Every year, Norway exports oil and gas with an emission effect of around 500 million tons of CO2 equivalents, ten times as much as the territorial emissions. Olav A. Øvrebø, Bergen
Mr Perrez, you look back on 13 busy years as one of the leading climate negotiators. When you started after the Copenhagen summit, climate diplomacy was in ruins. Where does it stand today?
Franz Perrez: Even though we have taken a significant step forward with the Paris Agreement, we are not yet where we should be. In Copenhagen in 2009, the attempt to hold all countries with high emissions to account failed. In 2015, the Paris Agreement then succeeded in involving all countries in principle: All countries must formulate climate targets. These targets now need to be raised further. However, large emitters such as China and Saudi Arabia are hiding behind their status as developing countries.
What do you mean?
As long as they refuse to accept that they are now also responsible for a large part of the problem – historically and above all with their current and future emissions – the climate problem cannot be solved. The traditional OECD countries now only account for 43 percent of historical emissions. China alone is responsible for 13 percent of historical emissions. But above all: Today, six of the ten largest absolute emitters are so-called developing countries, and nine of the top ten per capita emitters are so-called developing countries. These countries also bear a great deal of responsibility.
These countries, in turn, criticize the Global North for breaking its financing promises.
Indeed, financing expectations are not being met either. You can’t sugarcoat it. Support for developing countries in the climate sector has increased massively in recent years – but the goal of mobilizing 100 billion US dollars annually has not been achieved. This target must be achieved this year.
Even if the 100 billion were to flow – the existing sources of money are not sufficient.
This is the second point where we are stuck: If we only focus on public funding from industrialized countries, we won’t get anywhere. Wealthy emerging economies such as the oil states and China must recognize that they also need to participate in the financing because of their capacity – and their historical responsibility, particularly for loss and damage. Furthermore, all funds, including private ones, must support the climate goals. But the emerging economies refuse to discuss this. They are also preventing any progress on mitigation, as recently became clear again at the conference in Bonn [Bonn Climate Conference SB58].
Many say there are negotiations over negotiations, but nothing happens. Emissions still keep on rising.
It’s not true that nothing is happening. When I started in Cancun in 2010, predictions said we would end up with a warming of 4 degrees or more in 2100. Today, depending on the calculation, it’s around 2 degrees. That’s not enough. But we have made tremendous progress.
Climate diplomacy is often accused of revolving around itself. It saves the process, but not the climate.
I know this accusation: ‘All you do is argue, and you’re not fast enough.’ Yes, climate policy is too slow and not ambitious enough, but it’s not true that nothing is happening. Take Switzerland: We have now tightened climate legislation and a lot has actually been achieved in the EU and the USA. But that’s not enough. Everyone is still not doing enough. No country can solve the problem alone. Everyone must do more, especially the countries with the highest emissions and the highest capacity, regardless of whether they were defined as developing countries in the last millennium.
Would it be easier if voting was based on a majority instead of a consensus?
A difficult question. If we were to introduce the majority principle, we would perhaps lose the big emitters such as China, India, Saudi Arabia and the USA. We can see this in other UN processes, such as the debate on chemicals or a plastics agreement: These countries fiercely oppose majority decisions.
Climate decisions could be made in the small group responsible for 80 percent of emissions: The G20. What do you think? Your Switzerland would not be included.
We need both procedures, in the entire UN and at the G20. After all, all countries are in economic competition. Why should a G20 country take costly measures when a competitor that is not a G20 member does not? We need more than just the G20.
In your experience, who is really holding back the process? The developed countries point to the emerging economies around China, which in turn claim that the rich don’t pay the money. Both seem to be correct.
I see it differently. We need to learn how the brakes really work in this process and who is stepping on them. Countries like China or Saudi Arabia, which blocked everything in Bonn, are not concerned with finance. They made a financing proposal, which conflicted with the Paris Agreement, just to prevent the mitigation proposals. The small and vulnerable developing countries then noticed this – because the big players were quickly willing to give up their finance bargaining chip if mitigation was not to be negotiated either. They are interested in something else: They do not want to be obliged to reduce their emissions more than they had planned at any cost. They do not want to be put under this pressure. Typically, these are countries without a strong civil society, which would also put them under internal pressure. The biggest polluters are shirking their responsibility. This imbalance is the real drag on the process.
Have there been situations in the 13 years when you thought out of frustration: That’s it, I’m not doing this anymore.
Yes, there have been, and more often in recently. Especially when you realize that, like now in Bonn, it’s not about the cause at all, but only about stalling, deflecting and delaying. And when you know that the other negotiators themselves don’t believe what they are saying over the microphone. However, there is always an unofficial process parallel to the official one. Before the Paris Agreement, for example, we had a very intensive process involving the 20 most important people and countries. Solutions were considered and discussed informally that were branded unacceptable over the microphone in the official process. When I told my delegation this, my colleagues thought I had it wrong. But in this process, we were able to work out the core elements of the Paris Agreement.
What will be most important in the near future?
The pressure must increase to achieve progress on two goals of the Paris Agreement: mitigation and the redirection of financial flows. And the public must understand that historical responsibility is no longer attributed to the traditional developed countries. This sole responsibility of developed countries is a phantom that no longer matches reality. However, the point is not to let them off the hook, but to hold the other large emitters responsible as well.
What about funding for adaptation and loss and damage? This is crucial for developing countries.
This is part of redirecting financial flows: All funds must help to achieve the goals relating to mitigation and adaptation. We must ensure that financial resources no longer flow into fossil fuels but into sustainable energy sectors, into adaptation, and yes, also into loss and damage. And that solidarity means that all polluters and all those with capacity contribute. In other words, the emerging economies, which have so far been excluded from everything, also participate in the financing in accordance with their emissions and economic strength, and private investments also flow properly. I am particularly concerned about loss and damage: The solution to this huge problem threatens to be reduced to a new fund. Such a fund can be very important to target gaps in the system. But a new fund alone is not enough to solve the immense challenges of climate loss and damage. It can only succeed if the entire UN system and the entire global community help.
Frank Perrez was Switzerland’s ambassador for the environment and head of the delegation at international environmental and climate negotiations from 2010 to 2023. Since July 2023, the 56-year-old lawyer has worked as Director of the Directorate of International Law for the Swiss Foreign Ministry.
Many people worldwide consider the fight against global warming one of our time’s most pressing challenges. However, opinions differ on the question of who should bear particular responsibility. This is revealed in a survey conducted by the market research institute Ipsos in 29 countries at the end of April on Earth Day 2023.
In many countries, significant parts of the population feel that their country is expected to sacrifice too much in the fight against the climate crisis. The proportion is particularly high in India and Indonesia and exceptionally low in Argentina.
At the same time, 61 percent of respondents from all countries said that if governments do not deal with the climate crisis now, they are letting their citizens down. So, climate change is perceived as a threat.
Only 31 percent of respondents believe that their own country is a climate action frontrunner – agreement with this statement is particularly high in India at 71 percent, particularly low in Hungary at 10 percent, while Germany is in the upper midfield at 32 percent alongside Switzerland, the UK and the USA. Overall, two-thirds of respondents believe their country should do more for the climate. ae/nib
Mike Johnson actually always wanted to become chief of the local fire brigade. The 51-year-old comes from Shreveport, Louisiana, where his father already worked in this honorable position. But things turned out differently: Johnson studied law, went into politics and was elected to the US House of Representatives for the Republicans. Johnson questions man-made climate change and intends to cut funds from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
In late October, he was surprisingly elected as the new Speaker of the US House of Representatives. This is the chamber of Congress that the far-right wing of the deeply divided Republican Party has recently symbolically set on fire. First, the hardliner group chased their own party colleague, Kevin McCarthy, out of the office of Speaker, and then they failed to come up with a successor capable of winning a majority for a long time.
After three failed candidates and three weeks of chaos, Johnson, a backbencher, has managed to be elected to the third-highest office in the economic superpower. His biggest advantage may have been that few people knew him, even within his own party. “A friend to all and an enemy to none” was how Johnson’s party colleague Elise Stefanik described him. Johnson was only known as a Trump supporter and had even supported the ex-president in his conspiracy narrative about the supposedly rigged 2020 election.
As little-known as the man from US southern states was, his politics are obvious – as demonstrated by the first bill that the Republicans introduced in the House of Representatives under his leadership. It aims to cut billions in funding from the IRA – US President Joe Biden’s massive subsidy program to promote green technologies. After the IRA was passed, Johnson described it as “green energy slush funds.”
It is unlikely that the bill will be passed. The White House has already threatened to veto it. But the signal counts. The lawyer drew attention early on with statements questioning man-made climate change. At a town hall meeting in his hometown in 2017, he said: “The climate is changing, but the question is, is it being caused by natural cycles over the span of the Earth’s history? Or is it changing because we drive SUVs?” He certainly doesn’t believe in the latter.
Instead, Mike Johnson places a different faith at the heart of his actions. “The word of God is, of course, the ultimate source of all truth,” the evangelical fundamentalist recently said in his podcast. He strongly opposes abortion and once described homosexuality as “unnatural” and “dangerous.” According to the US media, he is also said to be close to the so-called Young Earth Creationists. They adhere to a religious belief that God created Earth, including humans and living beings, just around 6,000 years ago.
The father of four lives with his wife Kelly, in a so-called covenant marriage, which can only be divorced on more limited grounds, such as domestic violence. The Speaker of the House of Representatives at least passed his political baptism by fire on Tuesday. The chamber passed Johnson’s proposal for an interim budget. The government shutdown feared over the weekend has thus been averted for the time being. However, not all of his fellow representatives voted in favor of the compromise, meaning that Johnson had to rely on the help of the Democrats. And so the new man in office still has to show whether he truly is the firefighter the Republicans had hoped for or if he is just adding fuel to the fire. Laurin Meyer
