This Friday, “Fridays for Future” are once again calling for a global climate strike – and this time they have some important allies next to them on the streets in Germany. The German service sector union ver.di is holding its warning strike in six German states on the same day. In this way, climate activists and the union protest for the transition in the transport sector. Because the sector has so far failed completely when it comes to climate action. So every climate strike becomes a warning strike.
Kathrin Henneberger hopes that this will put as much pressure as possible on the German government coalition and its parliamentary groups. The young climate activist has been serving as a member of the Bundestag for the Green Party since October 2021, where she sits on the fence. Against the frustration and for more climate action, she is counting on the resistance against the government, the very same government she serves for.
What is easily forgotten is that protests can accomplish a lot. One of the reasons why U.S. President Joe Biden launched the massive Inflation Reduction Act investment program in the United States was because the younger generation called for it so vehemently during the election campaign. We look at the resistance that is now emerging in the US – and at the climate effect of the nearly 400 billion cash injection. We introduce Johan Rockström, the head of the climate research institute PIK, whose data and analyses are often cited by Fridays for Future. And we let scientists from their environment speak out, who also call for a “Zeitenwende” in energy policy. Amid the current war debates, they want to make the world a safer place with renewables.
Plus, as always, a host of important news from the wide world of climate policy. Lastly, if you like Climate.Table, please feel free to forward us. If this mail was forwarded to you: You can try our briefing free of charge here.
Ms Henneberger, members of the German Bundestag have no right to strike. Will you nevertheless be on the streets on Friday?
Yes, it is session week and I will try to be at the march. I hope the parliamentary business will allow it.
What has changed for you as a climate activist since you joined the Bundestag?
I still go to protests, of course. In my home, the Rhenish lignite mining area, it’s more like a consultation hour for citizens, people know me and talk to me. But when there are acts of civil disobedience or an eviction like the one in Lützerath, I am on the ground as a parliamentary observer to safeguard the rights of the activists.
Are you an activist who sits in the Bundestag or an MP who takes to the streets?
I have also thought about this a lot in the last one and a half years. In the beginning, I put a lot of pressure on myself to be a member of parliament. But I have made up my mind: I am a climate activist who sits in the Bundestag and wants to act from there. It doesn’t do me any good to define myself first and foremost as an MP, if I am supposed to be different in language, dress and attitude than I truly am.
As a member of parliament, you are obliged to serve the German people as a whole. As an activist, only to your cause.
That is not the problem. Because I don’t just make decisions on climate issues for a certain interest group, but for the benefit of every individual and the public. And I base my decisions on scientific data, which is very important. That is not lobbying but is often exactly in contrast to lobbying interests.
Things have become quiet around Fridays for Future. How strong is the climate movement still?
I hope it is strong. I’ve been part of it since I joined the Greenpeace youth work group at the age of 13. I have witnessed the waves: “Ende Gelände” came into being in 2015, then Fridays for Future in 2018. Now there is a new actor with the “Letzte Generation”. The movement remains alive and can always react.
Some say the Fridays have fulfilled their historic purpose: To bring the issue to the streets and kitchen tables. But now it is said that they have outlived their usefulness.
No, the Fridays have not outlived their usefulness. When I, as a member of a government group, see how little climate action we can implement in reality compared to what we should implement, then the Fridays are more important than ever. What I would like to see are huge protests. We Greens in government need million-strong protests for climate action in the streets.
Are the Fridays the auxiliaries of the Green Party in the government?
There are also debates in our party about whether this or that protest is helpful. I always say: Protest is the wind in our sails. If we really want to implement climate action, we have to make unpopular decisions. And we have to stand up to an opponent who is massively influenced by the fossil fuel lobby or is even part of the lobby. For that, we need the pressure on the streets. After all, who will push us if we start to wear down in negotiations? The bigger the protest, which also drives us Greens, the better.
The Fridays are very strong in Germany, less so elsewhere. Do they lack the international aspect of the global climate issue?
I disagree. I was in Uganda recently to support the protests against the EACOP oil pipeline. And many FFF activists in Germany are helping friends from the Global South to come to Bonn for the SBSTA (editor’s note: the semi-annual climate conference – Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice), for example. If the UN climate conferences have achieved anything, it is that the global movements have become well-networked. In almost every region of the world, there are now FFF groups that are achieving a lot because they are also involved in other areas. Strong climate movements exist not only in Europe, they are just often less visible in the European media. Last year, we saw in the elections in Colombia and Brazil that the pressure of young people’s movements for climate justice is working.
What is the climate movement’s biggest demand to the politicians in Germany?
We have to create the framework conditions now so that Germany can get on the 1.5-degree path. For example, by not building any more autobahnen. We must not set the wrong framework conditions and thus stabilize the fossil fuel system in six or seven years. It is also possible that we, the Greens, will no longer be part of the next federal government. What happens if we have not set the course by then?
And the other way around, what is the key demand of politics to the climate movement?
Don’t let up, become active yourself and get involved: If climate activists were even more active in parliaments, a lot more would be possible.
How big is the rift between the movement and the Greens in the government since the disputes over the eviction of Lützerath?
It was definitely a loss of faith. As rapporteur in the Bundestag, I helped negotiate a resolution in which the parliament called for the preservation of Lützerath. For me, that was a great democratic moment. The SPD and FDP MEPs with whom I negotiated the text also listened when I said that the conflict over Lützerath would be huge and would traumatize people. Everyone knew that we needed a political solution, that we wanted to prevent a second conflict like the one in Hambach Forest. Then I realized a few months later that a resolution by the German Bundestag is not worth much when it comes to what RWE wants and has the legislation, which is unaware of the climate crisis, on its side.
You say the protest is wind in the sails of the Greens. But hasn’t Lützerath weakened the Greens in the government coalition?
All in all, the protests for Lützerath have achieved one thing: We are now taking a more critical look at other issues to see what compromises we can reach when protests like the one at Lützerath loom and people get hurt in the process. The protests have thus not weakened efforts for climate justice – also by people in the Green Party – but strengthened them. Some people in the NRW state government were also surprised by the intensity of the protests. But that’s what the movement has always said. Now the Greens have also been warned: When the movement sets out its red lines, it means it. After Lützerath, many in the party realized they could not make such inadequate compromises again.
It is a construction boom that is unimaginable by Western standards. In 2022, China started building a new coal-fired power plant every week on average: The construction of 50 gigawatts of new power plant capacity has commenced. In total, the authorities approved coal-fired power plants with a capacity of 106 gigawatts last year, about 100 large coal plants. A fourfold increase compared to 2021, according to a new study by the Global Energy Monitor (GEM) and the Centres for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA). In the same period, only 4.1 gigawatts of power plant capacity were decommissioned.
This construction boom sounds like a killing blow to China’s climate goals, and it also puts international efforts in jeopardy. China’s President Xi Jinping promised a decrease in coal consumption starting somewhere between 2026 and 2030. At first glance, this hardly seems possible given the massive expansion of power plant capacity. But the situation is not that simple. “The massive additions of new coal-fired capacity don’t necessarily mean that coal use or CO2 emissions from the power sector will increase in China,” the study’s authors write.
Some factors unique to China speak against a sharp increase in carbon emissions:
Nevertheless, the construction boom does not come without climate risks. More than 100 new coal-fired power plants “will make meeting China’s climate commitments more complicated and costly”, the GMA-CREA study concludes. The coal industry has great political influence. It directly or indirectly provides several million jobs and is one of the largest taxpayers in some provinces.
In the worst case, the new coal power plants will be fully utilized and will slow down the expansion of renewables. This could sharply increase China’s emissions. The political leeway for this does partly exist. Although Xi Jinping has promised to reduce coal use and reach the carbon peak in 2030, the absolute level of carbon emissions has not been defined. At the same time, the leadership is aware, however, that meeting the long-term climate goals will be harder to achieve if emissions continue to rise sharply until 2030.
The new coal-fired power plants, however, do not only function as an economic stimulus program to achieve rapid growth and support the country’s ailing construction sector. Another argument for the construction boom is to secure the energy supply:
In his combative State of the Union address to the US Congress in early February, President Joe Biden praised his Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) – and promised that opposing Republicans would also benefit. “And to my Republican friends who voted against it but still ask to fund projects in their districts,” Biden said, “don’t worry! We’ll fund your projects. And I’ll see you at the ground-breaking.”
Because the stage is set for the decarbonization of US climate and energy policy – at least for now at the national level. But while implementation of President Biden’s climate agenda rife with investment incentives starts in full this year – a three-bill, multi-billion-dollar effort – the tug-of-war over the transition to green energy continues at the state level.
Proposals are being proposed in many state parliaments that promote fossil fuels or hinder clean energy. A key debate is investments in “environmental, social and governance” (ESG). Here, Republicans in many places are pushing to pull state funding from companies that refrain from fossil fuel investments.
Most of these battles are being played out along the red-blue divide between Republicans and Democrats. The picture for the 2023 legislative session is mixed, and the outcome uncertain. It is also unclear how this situation will affect US emissions.
“There’s a fascinating back-and-forth between federal and state energy policy,” Daniel Cohan, an energy and climate policy expert at Rice University in Houston, told Table.Media. “With the IRA, the federal government is only implementing the carrots, not the sticks. This subsidizes every form of clean energy imaginable.” Some states are using this to pave the way for their clean energy goals. Others are trying to undermine the subsidies and promote gas and coal instead.”
Nowhere is the importance and uncertain future of the states’ tug-of-war more apparent than in Texas. The state, number two in the US by area and population, is the nation’s leader in
The Texas legislature and other elective offices in the state have been controlled by pro-fossil fuel Republicans for years. Still, the legislature, which meets only every two years, manages to surprise.
In 2021, lawmakers passed one of the nation’s first laws restricting the application of ESG rules in investment. It banned the investment of state funds in companies that “boycott” fossil fuel companies. At the same time, however, lawmakers rejected proposals to subsidize new gas-fired power plants. Another attempt of this sort is expected this year.
In the current legislative session, which began in January 2023, several bills have been proposed that either hinder renewables or promote them. Some examples:
At the end of the legislative session, it could come to a stalemate. “I think all of these bills have a hard time, even the anti-renewable ones,” said Colin Leyden, Texas Political Director for the Environmental Defense Fund.
A big reason is that “many Republicans, particularly in rural areas west of Austin, have seen incredible economic benefits from wind and solar – and now batteries – in their districts.”
The Texas ESG law of 2021 led regulators to declare that ten financial firms and nearly 350 investment funds “boycott” fossil fuels and therefore cannot hold state funds.
Other states are following this example:
In a nationwide overview, law firm Morgan Lewis predicted in February that ESG will be “a hot-button issue” in many states this year. Draft legislation has already been filed on the subject in at least 26 states, it said.
But there is also a counter-movement: Instead of propping up fossil fuels, other states are backing Biden’s agenda with initiatives for faster emissions reductions:
Will states that favor fossil fuels refuse to spend money from Biden’s massive climate legislation in this tug-of-war? Probably not. Even in gasoline-loving Texas, federal funds from the bipartisan “infrastructure bill” will be used to build 50 new EV charging stations. And a Guardian report says that several Republican-led states experience “a boom in renewables investment that has been accelerated by Joe Biden’s climate agenda”. Bill Dawson, Houston
The US government calls the law the “largest investment in energy and climate in American history“. For the Economist magazine, it is an “epoch-making political gamble” for the US and the “most ambitious and dirigiste industrial policy for many decades”, Together with the “Infrastructure Bill” (1.2 trillion dollars investment in roads, bridges and airports) and the “Chips Act” (280 billion), the IRA is intended to modernize the US economy.
The Inflation Reduction Act comprises tax credits and grants. The US Congress passed it in August 2022. The planned spending in the federal budget is thus fixed as a budget law. The dispute over the debt ceiling of the US government could cripple the current administration – but not the commitments under the IRA.
Specifically, the IRA funds are to be distributed via tax rebates, primarily for:
For example, the IRA provides direct grants for:
Precisely how much money will flow over the envisaged ten years and how exactly these funds will reduce emissions is hard to say. Unlike the European Green Deal or EU subsidies, the US system has no budget that can be exhausted – how much money will flow via tax breaks depends on demand. The IRA’s estimated 369 billion dollars is therefore only a prediction. It could also be significantly more or less.
This is why the effect on climate targets can only be roughly estimated. Calculations assume that the IRA will reduce US emissions by 32 to 42 percent by 2030 compared to 2005, depending on the development of the economy. Without the IRA, this would have been only a minus of 24 to 35 percent. The IRA thus brings a significant improvement but is still not enough to reach the declared US goal of minus 50 percent by 2030.
According to a study by the REPEAT project, the IRA will cut emissions by about one billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2030. This means about 500 million tonnes are still short of the targeted climate goal. They are to be provided by programs of US federal states and counties and cities. The World Resources Institute (WRI) expert Christina DeConcini is optimistic. “This is an extremely robust bill. The tax breaks will spur even more momentum. Our expectations are always lower than what we actually do.”
Another reason why the calculation is vague is that the US has no fixed emissions cap. Unlike in the EU, where emissions trading caps emissions from the industrial and electricity sectors and will soon also apply to households and buildings, US policy focuses primarily on technological progress and investment.
Direct CO2 regulation of power plants (“Clean Power Act”, “Affordable Clean Energy Rule“) has been a politically heated topic in the USA for years. It is not regulated by taxes, but directly by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through air pollution standards. A new regulation is expected in the spring.
In detail, the main purpose of the IRA’s investments is to
One detail of the regulations appears crucial to cutting greenhouse gases under the IRA: The rapid expansion of interstate power lines. So far, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) powers do not cover the national power grid. Without a rapid expansion of power lines, emissions would only be cut by 200 million tonnes instead of the envisaged one billion tonnes, a study warns.
“Climate change is not letting up“. This is the conclusion of the German Weather Service (DWD) regarding the winter of 2022/23, which ended meteorologically at the end of February. The supposedly cold season was this time 2.7 degrees Celsius above the average of the years 1961-1990. For the twelfth consecutive time, the winter was thus significantly warmer than the average, which serves as a benchmark for climate change. Compared to the period 1990-2020, in which global warming was already evident, last winter was still 1.5 degrees above average.
German-wide, Bavaria was the land of extremes: With minus 19 degrees in December, the federal state experienced a record cold, and with 20 degrees plus on New Year’s Eve, the record warmth of this winter. In the lowlands, on the other hand, winter was practically absent this time. And nationwide, the season was a little too dry. bpo
The Russian Federation’s war of aggression against Ukraine threatens to detract from anthropogenic global warming and from shaping a climate-just future. A consistent transition of the European Union (EU) to a decentralized, renewable energy supply is not only necessary to protect the climate, but also for security reasons. Such a “Zeitenwende” can provide a decisive contribution to a sustainable and resilient security and peace regime.
The war has more than highlighted the EU’s dependence on the import of fossil raw materials from the “Strategic Ellipse”: An area stretching from the Arabian Peninsula to the Arctic Ocean coast, where two-thirds of conventional oil and natural gas reserves are located. With this dependence comes a fundamental risk of blackmail and threat. To mitigate it, it is essential to reduce the EU’s primary energy consumption as quickly as possible through efficiency and sufficiency to such an extent that the remaining energy demand can be covered by regenerative energies produced as locally as possible. This is the only way to end the dependence on energy imports in a few years.
By ending fossil energy imports, less money would flow from the EU to the countries of the “strategic ellipse,” which would result in pressure on the existing balance of power there. The consequences are hard to predict in the short term. But in the long term, positive effects can be expected, as renewables have a lower conflict potential than fossil-nuclear energy sources, since they can usually be produced in sufficient quantities close to the consumer and thus are not unevenly distributed globally, as is the case with oil and natural gas.
This brings with it the hope of more peaceful relations between nations. Apart from this, the energy transition increases the strategic as well as tactical resilience of the EU: An infrastructure based on renewables can be designed in a more decentralized and localized way than the existing fossil-nuclear energy infrastructures. Coal, gas, and nuclear power plants, gas and oil pipelines, LNG terminals, and nuclear waste storage facilities are much more prone to the barely calculable dangers of natural disasters, sabotage, and terrorist and military attacks.
As part of this energy policy “Zeitenwende,” seven fields of action emerge:
Heiko Brendel is a military historian and political scientist. He is a member of staff at the University of Tübingen and a lecturer at the University of Mainz. This text is a translated, abridged and revised version of a working paper by Scientists for Future, which Brendel wrote in collaboration with other authors:
Brendel, Heiko, Bohn, Friedrich J., Crombach, Anselm, Lukas, Stefan, Scheffran, Jürgen, Baumann, Franz, Elverfeldt, Kirsten von, Finckh-Krämer, Ute, Hagedorn, Gregor, Hardt,Judith, Kroll, Stefan, Linow, Sven, & Stelzer, Volker. (2023). Die Energiewende als Beitrag zur Resilienzstärkung und Friedenssicherung in Europa (1.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7657957
Johan Rockström is convinced that climate frustration can also be positive: The hesitation of politicians to act can spur their critics into action, he says. For him, one example of this is the Fridays for Future movement, which once again called for a global climate strike on March 3.
From the very beginning, “Listen to the Science” has been one of the core FFF battle cries. And Rockström is one of the most important voices in climate science. He provides analysis and data; he developed the planetary boundaries model, which makes climate change and other threats tangible. To share his findings with the world, he talks to schoolchildren as well as CEOs and ministers.
Rockström is a quiet person. And whenever he attends the World Economic Forum in Davos, he always has his cross-country skis with him. Before the start of the numerous meetings and events, he enjoys the “little quiet moments in nature” early in the morning, he says. They are also the reason why he likes to be in Switzerland.
The Swedish scientist has been one of the two directors of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research since 2018. He previously founded the Stockholm Resilience Center and served as Executive Director at the Stockholm Environment Institute. His scientific portfolio ranges from land and water management to global sustainability. Alongside his research, he lectures at the University of Potsdam and Stockholm University. Although he has published more than 200 scientific reports and studies, Rockström says he is always excited about a new publication. “I’m a science nerd, and I enjoy being an academic.” That, he says, is a big driver of his work.
Rockström’s second drive stems from his sense of responsibility and the feeling of being privileged. His expertise allows him to speak regularly with decision-makers from around the world. Before COP27, for example, he spoke on the phone with John Kerry, the US president’s special climate envoy.
Rockström is a great communicator. He gives numerous talks at climate conferences, and he already gave three Ted Talks. Rockström can also be found on Netflix. In the documentary “Breaking Boundaries,” he joins nature filmmaker David Attenborough in providing insight into the Earth’s ecological stress limits and solutions for staying within planetary boundaries. Shooting the documentary was a positive but very demanding experience, the scientist says. To show one sentence in the documentary, up to 40 takes were recorded, he says. He said he watched that entire work from 2021 at a recent event in Berlin. “I don’t like seeing myself on screen. I think it’s normal.”
The 57-year-old believes that politicians have the important task of finally taking the climate crisis seriously. In doing so, they must also communicate that there are many tools available to overcome climate challenges. Rockström himself also says that he is often left frustrated. Especially because he and his team’s research has shown that the world is getting closer and closer to so-called tipping points. These tipping points mark conditions in nature and the climate, which, once crossed, cause irreversible damage. He also tends to be an impatient guy, he said. “I don’t sit around passively, I want to tackle things and find solutions.” That’s also something that drives him. Kim Fischer
This Friday, “Fridays for Future” are once again calling for a global climate strike – and this time they have some important allies next to them on the streets in Germany. The German service sector union ver.di is holding its warning strike in six German states on the same day. In this way, climate activists and the union protest for the transition in the transport sector. Because the sector has so far failed completely when it comes to climate action. So every climate strike becomes a warning strike.
Kathrin Henneberger hopes that this will put as much pressure as possible on the German government coalition and its parliamentary groups. The young climate activist has been serving as a member of the Bundestag for the Green Party since October 2021, where she sits on the fence. Against the frustration and for more climate action, she is counting on the resistance against the government, the very same government she serves for.
What is easily forgotten is that protests can accomplish a lot. One of the reasons why U.S. President Joe Biden launched the massive Inflation Reduction Act investment program in the United States was because the younger generation called for it so vehemently during the election campaign. We look at the resistance that is now emerging in the US – and at the climate effect of the nearly 400 billion cash injection. We introduce Johan Rockström, the head of the climate research institute PIK, whose data and analyses are often cited by Fridays for Future. And we let scientists from their environment speak out, who also call for a “Zeitenwende” in energy policy. Amid the current war debates, they want to make the world a safer place with renewables.
Plus, as always, a host of important news from the wide world of climate policy. Lastly, if you like Climate.Table, please feel free to forward us. If this mail was forwarded to you: You can try our briefing free of charge here.
Ms Henneberger, members of the German Bundestag have no right to strike. Will you nevertheless be on the streets on Friday?
Yes, it is session week and I will try to be at the march. I hope the parliamentary business will allow it.
What has changed for you as a climate activist since you joined the Bundestag?
I still go to protests, of course. In my home, the Rhenish lignite mining area, it’s more like a consultation hour for citizens, people know me and talk to me. But when there are acts of civil disobedience or an eviction like the one in Lützerath, I am on the ground as a parliamentary observer to safeguard the rights of the activists.
Are you an activist who sits in the Bundestag or an MP who takes to the streets?
I have also thought about this a lot in the last one and a half years. In the beginning, I put a lot of pressure on myself to be a member of parliament. But I have made up my mind: I am a climate activist who sits in the Bundestag and wants to act from there. It doesn’t do me any good to define myself first and foremost as an MP, if I am supposed to be different in language, dress and attitude than I truly am.
As a member of parliament, you are obliged to serve the German people as a whole. As an activist, only to your cause.
That is not the problem. Because I don’t just make decisions on climate issues for a certain interest group, but for the benefit of every individual and the public. And I base my decisions on scientific data, which is very important. That is not lobbying but is often exactly in contrast to lobbying interests.
Things have become quiet around Fridays for Future. How strong is the climate movement still?
I hope it is strong. I’ve been part of it since I joined the Greenpeace youth work group at the age of 13. I have witnessed the waves: “Ende Gelände” came into being in 2015, then Fridays for Future in 2018. Now there is a new actor with the “Letzte Generation”. The movement remains alive and can always react.
Some say the Fridays have fulfilled their historic purpose: To bring the issue to the streets and kitchen tables. But now it is said that they have outlived their usefulness.
No, the Fridays have not outlived their usefulness. When I, as a member of a government group, see how little climate action we can implement in reality compared to what we should implement, then the Fridays are more important than ever. What I would like to see are huge protests. We Greens in government need million-strong protests for climate action in the streets.
Are the Fridays the auxiliaries of the Green Party in the government?
There are also debates in our party about whether this or that protest is helpful. I always say: Protest is the wind in our sails. If we really want to implement climate action, we have to make unpopular decisions. And we have to stand up to an opponent who is massively influenced by the fossil fuel lobby or is even part of the lobby. For that, we need the pressure on the streets. After all, who will push us if we start to wear down in negotiations? The bigger the protest, which also drives us Greens, the better.
The Fridays are very strong in Germany, less so elsewhere. Do they lack the international aspect of the global climate issue?
I disagree. I was in Uganda recently to support the protests against the EACOP oil pipeline. And many FFF activists in Germany are helping friends from the Global South to come to Bonn for the SBSTA (editor’s note: the semi-annual climate conference – Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice), for example. If the UN climate conferences have achieved anything, it is that the global movements have become well-networked. In almost every region of the world, there are now FFF groups that are achieving a lot because they are also involved in other areas. Strong climate movements exist not only in Europe, they are just often less visible in the European media. Last year, we saw in the elections in Colombia and Brazil that the pressure of young people’s movements for climate justice is working.
What is the climate movement’s biggest demand to the politicians in Germany?
We have to create the framework conditions now so that Germany can get on the 1.5-degree path. For example, by not building any more autobahnen. We must not set the wrong framework conditions and thus stabilize the fossil fuel system in six or seven years. It is also possible that we, the Greens, will no longer be part of the next federal government. What happens if we have not set the course by then?
And the other way around, what is the key demand of politics to the climate movement?
Don’t let up, become active yourself and get involved: If climate activists were even more active in parliaments, a lot more would be possible.
How big is the rift between the movement and the Greens in the government since the disputes over the eviction of Lützerath?
It was definitely a loss of faith. As rapporteur in the Bundestag, I helped negotiate a resolution in which the parliament called for the preservation of Lützerath. For me, that was a great democratic moment. The SPD and FDP MEPs with whom I negotiated the text also listened when I said that the conflict over Lützerath would be huge and would traumatize people. Everyone knew that we needed a political solution, that we wanted to prevent a second conflict like the one in Hambach Forest. Then I realized a few months later that a resolution by the German Bundestag is not worth much when it comes to what RWE wants and has the legislation, which is unaware of the climate crisis, on its side.
You say the protest is wind in the sails of the Greens. But hasn’t Lützerath weakened the Greens in the government coalition?
All in all, the protests for Lützerath have achieved one thing: We are now taking a more critical look at other issues to see what compromises we can reach when protests like the one at Lützerath loom and people get hurt in the process. The protests have thus not weakened efforts for climate justice – also by people in the Green Party – but strengthened them. Some people in the NRW state government were also surprised by the intensity of the protests. But that’s what the movement has always said. Now the Greens have also been warned: When the movement sets out its red lines, it means it. After Lützerath, many in the party realized they could not make such inadequate compromises again.
It is a construction boom that is unimaginable by Western standards. In 2022, China started building a new coal-fired power plant every week on average: The construction of 50 gigawatts of new power plant capacity has commenced. In total, the authorities approved coal-fired power plants with a capacity of 106 gigawatts last year, about 100 large coal plants. A fourfold increase compared to 2021, according to a new study by the Global Energy Monitor (GEM) and the Centres for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA). In the same period, only 4.1 gigawatts of power plant capacity were decommissioned.
This construction boom sounds like a killing blow to China’s climate goals, and it also puts international efforts in jeopardy. China’s President Xi Jinping promised a decrease in coal consumption starting somewhere between 2026 and 2030. At first glance, this hardly seems possible given the massive expansion of power plant capacity. But the situation is not that simple. “The massive additions of new coal-fired capacity don’t necessarily mean that coal use or CO2 emissions from the power sector will increase in China,” the study’s authors write.
Some factors unique to China speak against a sharp increase in carbon emissions:
Nevertheless, the construction boom does not come without climate risks. More than 100 new coal-fired power plants “will make meeting China’s climate commitments more complicated and costly”, the GMA-CREA study concludes. The coal industry has great political influence. It directly or indirectly provides several million jobs and is one of the largest taxpayers in some provinces.
In the worst case, the new coal power plants will be fully utilized and will slow down the expansion of renewables. This could sharply increase China’s emissions. The political leeway for this does partly exist. Although Xi Jinping has promised to reduce coal use and reach the carbon peak in 2030, the absolute level of carbon emissions has not been defined. At the same time, the leadership is aware, however, that meeting the long-term climate goals will be harder to achieve if emissions continue to rise sharply until 2030.
The new coal-fired power plants, however, do not only function as an economic stimulus program to achieve rapid growth and support the country’s ailing construction sector. Another argument for the construction boom is to secure the energy supply:
In his combative State of the Union address to the US Congress in early February, President Joe Biden praised his Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) – and promised that opposing Republicans would also benefit. “And to my Republican friends who voted against it but still ask to fund projects in their districts,” Biden said, “don’t worry! We’ll fund your projects. And I’ll see you at the ground-breaking.”
Because the stage is set for the decarbonization of US climate and energy policy – at least for now at the national level. But while implementation of President Biden’s climate agenda rife with investment incentives starts in full this year – a three-bill, multi-billion-dollar effort – the tug-of-war over the transition to green energy continues at the state level.
Proposals are being proposed in many state parliaments that promote fossil fuels or hinder clean energy. A key debate is investments in “environmental, social and governance” (ESG). Here, Republicans in many places are pushing to pull state funding from companies that refrain from fossil fuel investments.
Most of these battles are being played out along the red-blue divide between Republicans and Democrats. The picture for the 2023 legislative session is mixed, and the outcome uncertain. It is also unclear how this situation will affect US emissions.
“There’s a fascinating back-and-forth between federal and state energy policy,” Daniel Cohan, an energy and climate policy expert at Rice University in Houston, told Table.Media. “With the IRA, the federal government is only implementing the carrots, not the sticks. This subsidizes every form of clean energy imaginable.” Some states are using this to pave the way for their clean energy goals. Others are trying to undermine the subsidies and promote gas and coal instead.”
Nowhere is the importance and uncertain future of the states’ tug-of-war more apparent than in Texas. The state, number two in the US by area and population, is the nation’s leader in
The Texas legislature and other elective offices in the state have been controlled by pro-fossil fuel Republicans for years. Still, the legislature, which meets only every two years, manages to surprise.
In 2021, lawmakers passed one of the nation’s first laws restricting the application of ESG rules in investment. It banned the investment of state funds in companies that “boycott” fossil fuel companies. At the same time, however, lawmakers rejected proposals to subsidize new gas-fired power plants. Another attempt of this sort is expected this year.
In the current legislative session, which began in January 2023, several bills have been proposed that either hinder renewables or promote them. Some examples:
At the end of the legislative session, it could come to a stalemate. “I think all of these bills have a hard time, even the anti-renewable ones,” said Colin Leyden, Texas Political Director for the Environmental Defense Fund.
A big reason is that “many Republicans, particularly in rural areas west of Austin, have seen incredible economic benefits from wind and solar – and now batteries – in their districts.”
The Texas ESG law of 2021 led regulators to declare that ten financial firms and nearly 350 investment funds “boycott” fossil fuels and therefore cannot hold state funds.
Other states are following this example:
In a nationwide overview, law firm Morgan Lewis predicted in February that ESG will be “a hot-button issue” in many states this year. Draft legislation has already been filed on the subject in at least 26 states, it said.
But there is also a counter-movement: Instead of propping up fossil fuels, other states are backing Biden’s agenda with initiatives for faster emissions reductions:
Will states that favor fossil fuels refuse to spend money from Biden’s massive climate legislation in this tug-of-war? Probably not. Even in gasoline-loving Texas, federal funds from the bipartisan “infrastructure bill” will be used to build 50 new EV charging stations. And a Guardian report says that several Republican-led states experience “a boom in renewables investment that has been accelerated by Joe Biden’s climate agenda”. Bill Dawson, Houston
The US government calls the law the “largest investment in energy and climate in American history“. For the Economist magazine, it is an “epoch-making political gamble” for the US and the “most ambitious and dirigiste industrial policy for many decades”, Together with the “Infrastructure Bill” (1.2 trillion dollars investment in roads, bridges and airports) and the “Chips Act” (280 billion), the IRA is intended to modernize the US economy.
The Inflation Reduction Act comprises tax credits and grants. The US Congress passed it in August 2022. The planned spending in the federal budget is thus fixed as a budget law. The dispute over the debt ceiling of the US government could cripple the current administration – but not the commitments under the IRA.
Specifically, the IRA funds are to be distributed via tax rebates, primarily for:
For example, the IRA provides direct grants for:
Precisely how much money will flow over the envisaged ten years and how exactly these funds will reduce emissions is hard to say. Unlike the European Green Deal or EU subsidies, the US system has no budget that can be exhausted – how much money will flow via tax breaks depends on demand. The IRA’s estimated 369 billion dollars is therefore only a prediction. It could also be significantly more or less.
This is why the effect on climate targets can only be roughly estimated. Calculations assume that the IRA will reduce US emissions by 32 to 42 percent by 2030 compared to 2005, depending on the development of the economy. Without the IRA, this would have been only a minus of 24 to 35 percent. The IRA thus brings a significant improvement but is still not enough to reach the declared US goal of minus 50 percent by 2030.
According to a study by the REPEAT project, the IRA will cut emissions by about one billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2030. This means about 500 million tonnes are still short of the targeted climate goal. They are to be provided by programs of US federal states and counties and cities. The World Resources Institute (WRI) expert Christina DeConcini is optimistic. “This is an extremely robust bill. The tax breaks will spur even more momentum. Our expectations are always lower than what we actually do.”
Another reason why the calculation is vague is that the US has no fixed emissions cap. Unlike in the EU, where emissions trading caps emissions from the industrial and electricity sectors and will soon also apply to households and buildings, US policy focuses primarily on technological progress and investment.
Direct CO2 regulation of power plants (“Clean Power Act”, “Affordable Clean Energy Rule“) has been a politically heated topic in the USA for years. It is not regulated by taxes, but directly by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through air pollution standards. A new regulation is expected in the spring.
In detail, the main purpose of the IRA’s investments is to
One detail of the regulations appears crucial to cutting greenhouse gases under the IRA: The rapid expansion of interstate power lines. So far, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) powers do not cover the national power grid. Without a rapid expansion of power lines, emissions would only be cut by 200 million tonnes instead of the envisaged one billion tonnes, a study warns.
“Climate change is not letting up“. This is the conclusion of the German Weather Service (DWD) regarding the winter of 2022/23, which ended meteorologically at the end of February. The supposedly cold season was this time 2.7 degrees Celsius above the average of the years 1961-1990. For the twelfth consecutive time, the winter was thus significantly warmer than the average, which serves as a benchmark for climate change. Compared to the period 1990-2020, in which global warming was already evident, last winter was still 1.5 degrees above average.
German-wide, Bavaria was the land of extremes: With minus 19 degrees in December, the federal state experienced a record cold, and with 20 degrees plus on New Year’s Eve, the record warmth of this winter. In the lowlands, on the other hand, winter was practically absent this time. And nationwide, the season was a little too dry. bpo
The Russian Federation’s war of aggression against Ukraine threatens to detract from anthropogenic global warming and from shaping a climate-just future. A consistent transition of the European Union (EU) to a decentralized, renewable energy supply is not only necessary to protect the climate, but also for security reasons. Such a “Zeitenwende” can provide a decisive contribution to a sustainable and resilient security and peace regime.
The war has more than highlighted the EU’s dependence on the import of fossil raw materials from the “Strategic Ellipse”: An area stretching from the Arabian Peninsula to the Arctic Ocean coast, where two-thirds of conventional oil and natural gas reserves are located. With this dependence comes a fundamental risk of blackmail and threat. To mitigate it, it is essential to reduce the EU’s primary energy consumption as quickly as possible through efficiency and sufficiency to such an extent that the remaining energy demand can be covered by regenerative energies produced as locally as possible. This is the only way to end the dependence on energy imports in a few years.
By ending fossil energy imports, less money would flow from the EU to the countries of the “strategic ellipse,” which would result in pressure on the existing balance of power there. The consequences are hard to predict in the short term. But in the long term, positive effects can be expected, as renewables have a lower conflict potential than fossil-nuclear energy sources, since they can usually be produced in sufficient quantities close to the consumer and thus are not unevenly distributed globally, as is the case with oil and natural gas.
This brings with it the hope of more peaceful relations between nations. Apart from this, the energy transition increases the strategic as well as tactical resilience of the EU: An infrastructure based on renewables can be designed in a more decentralized and localized way than the existing fossil-nuclear energy infrastructures. Coal, gas, and nuclear power plants, gas and oil pipelines, LNG terminals, and nuclear waste storage facilities are much more prone to the barely calculable dangers of natural disasters, sabotage, and terrorist and military attacks.
As part of this energy policy “Zeitenwende,” seven fields of action emerge:
Heiko Brendel is a military historian and political scientist. He is a member of staff at the University of Tübingen and a lecturer at the University of Mainz. This text is a translated, abridged and revised version of a working paper by Scientists for Future, which Brendel wrote in collaboration with other authors:
Brendel, Heiko, Bohn, Friedrich J., Crombach, Anselm, Lukas, Stefan, Scheffran, Jürgen, Baumann, Franz, Elverfeldt, Kirsten von, Finckh-Krämer, Ute, Hagedorn, Gregor, Hardt,Judith, Kroll, Stefan, Linow, Sven, & Stelzer, Volker. (2023). Die Energiewende als Beitrag zur Resilienzstärkung und Friedenssicherung in Europa (1.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7657957
Johan Rockström is convinced that climate frustration can also be positive: The hesitation of politicians to act can spur their critics into action, he says. For him, one example of this is the Fridays for Future movement, which once again called for a global climate strike on March 3.
From the very beginning, “Listen to the Science” has been one of the core FFF battle cries. And Rockström is one of the most important voices in climate science. He provides analysis and data; he developed the planetary boundaries model, which makes climate change and other threats tangible. To share his findings with the world, he talks to schoolchildren as well as CEOs and ministers.
Rockström is a quiet person. And whenever he attends the World Economic Forum in Davos, he always has his cross-country skis with him. Before the start of the numerous meetings and events, he enjoys the “little quiet moments in nature” early in the morning, he says. They are also the reason why he likes to be in Switzerland.
The Swedish scientist has been one of the two directors of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research since 2018. He previously founded the Stockholm Resilience Center and served as Executive Director at the Stockholm Environment Institute. His scientific portfolio ranges from land and water management to global sustainability. Alongside his research, he lectures at the University of Potsdam and Stockholm University. Although he has published more than 200 scientific reports and studies, Rockström says he is always excited about a new publication. “I’m a science nerd, and I enjoy being an academic.” That, he says, is a big driver of his work.
Rockström’s second drive stems from his sense of responsibility and the feeling of being privileged. His expertise allows him to speak regularly with decision-makers from around the world. Before COP27, for example, he spoke on the phone with John Kerry, the US president’s special climate envoy.
Rockström is a great communicator. He gives numerous talks at climate conferences, and he already gave three Ted Talks. Rockström can also be found on Netflix. In the documentary “Breaking Boundaries,” he joins nature filmmaker David Attenborough in providing insight into the Earth’s ecological stress limits and solutions for staying within planetary boundaries. Shooting the documentary was a positive but very demanding experience, the scientist says. To show one sentence in the documentary, up to 40 takes were recorded, he says. He said he watched that entire work from 2021 at a recent event in Berlin. “I don’t like seeing myself on screen. I think it’s normal.”
The 57-year-old believes that politicians have the important task of finally taking the climate crisis seriously. In doing so, they must also communicate that there are many tools available to overcome climate challenges. Rockström himself also says that he is often left frustrated. Especially because he and his team’s research has shown that the world is getting closer and closer to so-called tipping points. These tipping points mark conditions in nature and the climate, which, once crossed, cause irreversible damage. He also tends to be an impatient guy, he said. “I don’t sit around passively, I want to tackle things and find solutions.” That’s also something that drives him. Kim Fischer
