We are halfway through September, and the climate and sustainability scene is buzzing: The UN General Assembly convenes in New York to address global warming and its consequences. That is why we provide you with the background information: An interview on the interim review of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with a focus on climate action; an overview of the most important events at the summit; a detailed analysis of what precisely the UN Global Stocktake now means.
Meanwhile, the climate movement is taking to the streets again. We provide an overview of where protests are taking place, what they have achieved, and what is to come. We also look at the future of the EU’s Green Deal and the growing questions about Germany’s LNG strategy.
But the global crisis is not happening in air-conditioned offices. That is why we also report on the connection between the heat in the Mediterranean and the deadly rainfalls in Libya. We describe how humankind is increasingly crossing “planetary boundaries” – and how this translates into the wildfires this summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
Ms. Scholz, you and other researchers have taken stock of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on behalf of the UN, two of which have to do with climate: SDG 7 postulates a reliable, clean and affordable energy supply for everyone, and SDG 13 demands that UN member states “take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.” Where has good progress been made?
We do not take an isolated look at the 17 sustainability goals in our report. They are, after all, interdependent. For example, the expansion of wind and solar power and the introduction of resource-conserving production processes both serve climate action. Conversely, the effects of climate change jeopardize the fight against hunger and poverty. Therefore, it does not make sense to develop individual strategies for each goal. It is more effective to take a systemic approach. This is, for example, what the European Union is doing when it combines the transformation of the energy system towards renewable sources with the goal of a circular economy.
Nevertheless, let us ask specifically: In which countries is there particular progress in the expansion of wind and solar energy?
In the Global South, Kenya is one example. The country has been trying to develop its renewable energy potential for a very long time. It decided to go down this path by itself and has remained consistent in its efforts, even though there was also skepticism at the beginning. Today, Kenya draws around 90 percent of its energy from renewable sources, and three-quarters of households are connected to the power grid.
Do you have any other examples?
India has very specifically expanded its solar and wind energy. The country still has large coal capacities, but it discusses how the transformation of the economy can be advanced, especially in states that are economically heavily dependent on coal mining. In countries like China, an enormous expansion of renewable energies is taking place, although the country is also sticking to fossil fuels. We also see in countries of the Global North – including Germany – that the phase-out is not yet progressing fast enough.
You say Kenya has come this far primarily through its determination and perseverance. Is external financial aid secondary?
A transformation requires both: A clear strategy that is maintained over several legislative periods, and financial resources to support the investments and mitigate the social impacts. It costs money to build the infrastructure for a renewable energy supply. The initial investments are often especially high. It is good when international cooperation facilitates things with know-how and money.
But at the moment, the developing countries have a completely different financing problem: Many borrowed money on the private capital market during the Covid pandemic to finance the necessary government support services for their populations. Now, they are facing high interest rates. As a result, many do not even have the opportunity to invest in sustainable transformation, whether in energy or other sectors. This is also why financing issues play such a significant role in the current climate summits.
Where is the money supposed to come from? The developed countries did not even keep their promises in better times. Now, they are in crisis themselves and feel the pressure of rising interest rates.
One key is a carbon price with global redistribution. We also take up this key intervention in our report. There are studies that have calculated this: If countries with high fossil fuel consumption had a carbon price and the revenues from it were not only nationally redistributed, but at least in part globally as well – then the greatest poverty in developing countries could already be tackled very effectively. The Africa Climate Summit recently called for a global carbon tax to transform the energy system and contribute to greater equity and prosperity.
Germany has not even implemented its own climate money yet, and the revenues from the domestic carbon price have already been allocated elsewhere. How is global redistribution supposed to succeed?
My personal impression is that we are currently listening very much to arguments that put the national good at the forefront. It is fatal that this decreases the will for international cooperation in climate action. Furthermore, from a global perspective, income and wealth are very much concentrated in the hands of a few players. This means that only 1.1 percent of the assets of all financing institutions worldwide would be enough to cover the financial needs of developing countries regarding the SDGs! In my view, the obvious thing to do is to tax these assets. But that is very difficult from a political perspective.
Why is that?
Currently, these proposals are made, if at all, mainly from the political left spectrum. This means that they are not considered without bias. They are seen as politically left, as something that aims primarily to punish the wealthy. What does not come through at all is that it is much more about mobilizing resources that are available in abundance to provide solutions for the common good. In addition, there is the traditional counter-argument: If a country taxes wealth, then the wealth will migrate. But this does not have to be the case. Even the wealthy appreciate it when the public sector provides a good infrastructure where they live, and when a sensible social policy promotes peaceful coexistence.
Do Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) help improve the link between climate-friendly and social development?
JETPs are a very interesting innovation. For example, in South Africa, where it was said that transformation cannot only be about reducing emissions from the energy sector. Jobs and the question of more justice are just as important – especially in South Africa with its history of apartheid, this is definitely a sensible approach. How well it will work in practice in specific cases remains to be seen. But I think it is very important that JETPs ask the question of justice with an eye to the future. In other words, the question is not: How can people be compensated for the burdens of transformation? But rather: How can we shape the transformation so that it creates more justice?
How high do you think the chances are of actually achieving SDGs 7 and 13 by 2030?
I think there is no way around renewable energies. But it seems to me that providing everyone with stable, reliable, sustainable access to energy will take longer. And progress will be uneven, of course. The targets will probably be reached fastest in countries with good preconditions or those that are already well on track.
As early as 2019, a first interim report said that the world was moving too slowly towards the SDGs. Then came the pandemic and the Ukraine war. Against this backdrop, how wise is it to stick to the 2030 target date?
Our report proposes key interventions that can simultaneously advance several goals, such as the carbon price and global redistribution. Or the legal and economic equality of women, which simultaneously advances Goals 1, 3 and 4 on poverty reduction, health care and better education. Goals 13 and 16, climate action and conflict prevention, also help combat hunger, i.e., achieving Goal 2. Such interventions can be very effective.
Moreover, the SDGs outline the idea of a shared sustainable future that all nations can agree on. At a time when multilateral cooperation is under so much pressure, it is all the more important to stick to them. Nevertheless, I am very much in favor of starting to think now about how to continue the goals beyond 2030.
Do you expect tangible progress from the SDG Summit in New York?
The final declaration will hopefully include statements about reforming the international financial architecture. We recommend that the developed countries advance debt relief for countries with particularly low incomes and debt restructuring for other countries. Because without the necessary funds, they cannot achieve the climate and development goals – and that harms us all. But in order to make progress, governments must, of course, implement the declaration.
Imme Scholz studied sociology and served from 2019-2023 as co-chair of the Independent Group of Scientists, responsible for providing scientific support to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on behalf of the United Nations. She has served as Co-President of the Heinrich Böll Foundation since 2022 and previously worked as Deputy Director of the German Development Institute (IDOS).
Fridays for Future (FFF) and other parts of the climate movement are mobilizing again for protests and actions around the world tomorrow, Friday, September 15. Activists of the Last Generation want to bring the German capital to a standstill starting Monday. Protests are also planned in other countries and at the UN General Assembly in New York. They are mainly calling for the fossil fuel exit.
The predominantly young activists are dissatisfied with the results of their protests: “The climate movement is going through a difficult phase,” summarizes Greta Waltenberg. She is 21 years old and campaigns for Fridays for Future. For the past five years, young people have been protesting with the movement for climate action. While Fridays for Future brought 1.4 million people onto the streets in Germany in the fall of 2019, the movement only reported 220,000 participants nationwide, even after the last large demonstration in March.
“The core is still there, but we used to have the attention of more people,” says Romie Niedermayer. Among other things, the 21-year-old works with the youth climate movement YOUNGO on international climate policy. With the pandemic, attention for the movement has slumped, and the numbers have not yet recovered.
Yet the movement in Germany has achieved partial successes:
Nevertheless, fewer and fewer people seem to be interested in the protests: “In part, the declining attention is normal for social movements,” explains protest researcher Dieter Rucht. He says that the success of protest is measured in ever-increasing numbers; even stagnation is a kind of defeat. This demotivates some activists – and radicalizes others.
In Germany, the group Last Generation glues itself to the streets, Just Stop Oil or Extinction Rebellion, choose similar methods of civil disobedience in the UK. With consequences: According to data from the NGO Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, the number of police deployed at climate protests has almost doubled worldwide since 2020. Nearly 40 percent of protests now result in police intervention.
But that is not the only change: According to a survey by the non-governmental organization More in Common, support for the climate movement in Germany halved from 68 to 34 percent between 2021 and 2023. A survey by Civey also came to a similar conclusion. These figures are probably one of the reasons why many parts of the climate movement struggle to engage with groups like the Last Generation. While most activists refrain from open criticism, they criticize poor communication and a lack of willingness to cooperate. Nicolò Wojewoda, regional director at the NGO 350.org, criticizes that civil disobedience is “overused.” Protest researcher Rucht is less hesitant in his criticism: Civil disobedience is, in principle, a legitimate means, but the activities of the Last Generation are poorly organized, insufficiently targeted and their symbolism is “far-fetched.”
“The climate movement is currently at a pivotal point,” says Wojewoda. “Climate is now one of the most important issues, and we have reached the limits of what we can achieve with our current methods.” What is needed now are other approaches and solutions that include political and, above all, economic aspects: “We have to show people the positive effects of climate action,” he explains. Especially against the backdrop of rising costs, the climate movement must show that climate action is also financially worthwhile. Climate action must be seen as an intersection with well-being and prosperity, Wojewoda explains. If the climate movement focuses on this, it can achieve greater success.
Scientist Rucht is more pessimistic: “There is no silver bullet for the future,” he says. Although a large part of the population currently perceives the climate as important, fewer and fewer support the methods of the Last Generation, for example. Rucht sees the increasing radicalization as counterproductive. If social support declines, so do the possibilities for political action. He believes that only “external, serious events” that highlight the effects of the climate crisis can ensure that climate protest is taken more seriously again.
Despite everything – many activists hold on to large protests as an important sign and consider global climate strikes important. They could show how many people are behind the protests, says Greta Waltenberg. For Romie Niedermeyer, the protests must show the diversity of the climate movement: “We are so much more than Last Generation and Fridays For Future.”
Not only Europe will see protests in the coming days. Around the world, the climate movement is organizing itself to call for a rapid exit from fossil fuel industries. Among them are the following marches:
It is the first official interim review of global climate efforts, an outlook on developments in the coming years and the basis for one of the most important decisions at COP28. But the Global Stocktake (GST) report published last week has received little public attention so far. Yet UN countries and non-state actors demand in the report decisive action, a disruptive transformation of energy systems, a change in global financial structures and significantly more aid money for the world’s vulnerable regions.
At COP28, the GST is intended as a snapshot of the current situation, looking both back and forward. But the eagerly awaited Synthesis Report on the Technical Dialogue has skipped the media so far: The UN Climate Change Secretariat published it on its website without much fanfare on Friday afternoon. There was no press conference, and a briefing on Tuesday was only held for the UN states. For COP President-elect Sultan al Jaber, it nevertheless provides a “clear direction.” And UNFCCC chief Simon Stiell urges all governments to “carefully study the findings of the report and ultimately understand what it means for them.” The US think tank World Resources Institute (WRI), in turn, called the report a “damning report card for global climate effort.” Island nations consider it “another devastating blow.”
The current report of the working group, co-chaired by Harald Winkler (South Africa) and Farhan Akhtar (USA), will serve as a basis for the final meeting of the UN panel on the GST. The panel will prepare a recommendation for COP28 in Dubai this October. The great urgency that the GST contains is not felt much elsewhere: At the time of its publication, global attention was focused on the G20 summit in New Delhi.
And while the GST warns that emissions trends are “not in line” with the Paris Agreement’s climate change targets and that the window for 1.5 degrees is “closing rapidly,” the G20 countries made little progress on climate action. Although they pledged to triple the expansion of renewables and strive for better climate finance, key issues such as a phase-out of fossil fuels, tangible financial aid or a reorganization of the global financial system remained unresolved. And there is hardly any progress on the hot topic of loss and damage either. Just last week, the preparatory committee put all important points concerning the new loss and damage fund on the back burner.
According to the Paris Agreement, the first Global Stocktake is an interim review of efforts conducted every five years. Since 2021, a panel has gathered events and plans from UN nations, cities, companies, NGOs, and members of civil society. The underlying message quickly became apparent and was foreshadowed by, for instance, the 6th IPCC report: The world is far from its goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees in 2100. Only swift and decisive measures can still achieve this goal.
The synthesis report now summarizes the discussions. In detail, it formulates “key findings,” among others:
The potential power of the report is that it will form the basis for the official interim summary of climate efforts at COP28. All countries, as well as businesses, academia and civil society, have agreed on these findings. Thus, the GST can become a reference and a benchmark in the future.
The 47-page includes several key points:
However, the report also notes positive developments:
The consulting firm Climate Analytics calls the report a “wake-up call” for cooperation. It says the 1.5 degree limit can still be maintained if governments work together and increase their targets: By 2030, however, global fossil fuel consumption would have to be cut by 40 percent and renewables would have to account for 70 percent of the energy mix.
The Green Deal remains Europe’s strong answer to climate change. That was certainly the key statement on European climate and environmental policy in Ursula von der Leyen’s State of the EU address. Observers had hoped for such a renewed commitment to the green agenda after von der Leyen’s own party family in the EU Parliament blocked ambitious nature conservation legislation.
The Commission President has therefore not declared the Green Deal to be over, but has affirmed its continuation and announced further measures:
Von der Leyen promised to continue supporting European industry during the transition. It is crucial for Europe’s future competitiveness, she said. According to the EU Commission’s industrial strategy, risks and needs should be considered individually for each industrial ecosystem. The energy transition dialogues will help drive the development of a business model for decarbonization in each sector.
Wind energy can provide exactly what Europe’s industry urgently needs: cheap, green electricity. In this respect, von der Leyen’s announcements on the wind power package are logical. She wants:
However, legislative procedures are already underway at the European level for many of these points. The words of the Commission President should therefore be understood primarily as an appeal to the co-legislators and as a call to the member states to implement adopted rules quickly.
The German-Belgian transmission manufacturer ZF Wind Power takes a similar view. “Many measures will ultimately have to be implemented in the member states, at regional and local level. The decisive factor will be that Europe acts in unison and at all levels“, says CTO Martin Knops.
With the Renewable Energy Directive (RED), for example, the EU is on the verge of relaxing nature conservation and species protection regulations. Therefore, the WindEurope association is not calling for further simplification of planning law at the EU level, but for faster procedures at the national level.
More investor-friendly auction rules of the kind von der Leyen wants are already in the pipeline with the Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA). For the wind industry, the amount of the bids alone should not be the deciding factor; qualitative criteria should also be included – essentially, this means bonus points for criteria such as cyber security and sustainability. This would reduce the cost pressure on the industry and enable European manufacturers to compensate for the financial disadvantages they face compared with their Chinese competitors.
The EU is addressing dependencies in rare earths and copper with the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), and WindEurope wants to add fiberglass fabric to the list of beneficiary materials.
For investments in new factories, the Commission had already recently relaxed the aid framework for transformation technologies. “But it is crucial that the EU puts its own money on the table“, says WindEurope – for example, via the sovereignty and innovation funds. When it comes to financing, the European industry is also bothered by the unequal competition with China. Buyers of Chinese turbines, for example, would only have to pay if or after the wind farm has been actually built.
It is not yet known what the Commission plans to do with the wind power package beyond the legislative proposals already presented. According to von der Leyen, the goal is for Europe to once again become home to the cleantech industry.
Von der Leyen also had something to say about agriculture: The Green Deal preserves nature while ensuring food security, von der Leyen began in German. She thanked farmers and acknowledged their work to secure the “food supply and a high-quality diet”.
But she also called for “more dialogue and less polarization“. She was convinced that agriculture and nature conservation went together. Both are needed, she said, and announced a strategic dialogue on the future of agriculture in the EU. How this should look, she left open. When asked by Table.Media, a spokesperson for the Commission also did not give any details. All details would be announced “in due course”.
It is the right signal to European farmers, commented Daniel Caspary, chairman of the EPP Group in the EU Parliament. The departure of Frans Timmermans offers the opportunity for a new form of “pragmatism and willingness to engage in dialogue in climate policy”. Terry Reintke, co-chair of the Greens in the EU Parliament, also welcomed the announcement of dialogue. “The polarization that the EPP, together with the right-wing parties, has not only brought about but downright fueled is damaging to agriculture, biodiversity and the climate”, she told Table.Media. Her group wants “joint solutions with farmers“, she said.
Specifically, the Commission President did not mention the Nature Restoration Law, the laws on pesticide use reduction (SUR), new genetic engineering, sustainable food systems or animal welfare. The revision of REACH and the laws banning the export of toxic substances banned in the EU also went unmentioned.
Europe’s climate policy efforts at the international level also went unmentioned. At the upcoming World Climate Conference in Dubai (COP28), Europe will have to do an enormous amount of convincing to ensure that other industrialized nations and emerging economies also transform their industries. Particularly in light of this year’s global stocktake – the main tool for raising the ambition of global climate goals – the absence of the topic from the speech is surprising, wrote Linda Kalcher, executive director of the pan-European think tank Strategic Perspectives, on X.
The environmental and development organization Germanwatch complains about a lack of socially just implementation of the Green Deal. “While the Commission President has identified industrial transformation as a key challenge, she should be much more specific about how she intends to further develop the Green Deal as a project in terms of a socially just transformation”, says Christoph Bals, Political Director of Germanwatch.
German Minister of Economy Robert Habeck frequently dismisses criticism of the construction of LNG terminals by pointing out that they will not be used to import fossil natural gas in the future, but “green gases” instead. Contrary to what is often simplified, these are not liquid hydrogen. The latter can and is supposed to be imported via pipeline, as transporting it by ship is too complex to be economically viable.
What will actually end up at the LNG terminals in the future is, in most cases, ammonia (NH3). This compound of hydrogen and nitrogen is either used directly, for example, to produce fertilizer. Alternatively, it is broken down after import to obtain pure hydrogen. The German government is focusing on a different concept in Wilhelmshaven: The LNG terminal will be used to import synthetic methane in the future.
This methane, which is chemically identical to fossil natural gas, is produced from green hydrogen and CO2. After arriving in Germany, it will be broken down back into hydrogen and CO2 – either directly at the import terminal or externally at power plants or industrial facilities. To ensure that the process is actually climate-neutral, the CO2 is to be captured and transported via ship back to the countries of production and reused to produce methane.
Habeck is not the only one enthusiastic about the “green gas terminal” planned in Wilhelmshaven. Lower Saxony’s Minister of the Environment Olaf Lies also promises: “What fossil gas arrives today will very quickly be green gas.”
However, this optimism conflicts with the results of a recent study by the Technical University of Hamburg for the Agora Energie think tank and provided to Table.Media in advance. The “How hydrogen can be imported to Germany” study compares the various processes. It sees particularly high risks for synthetic natural gas (SNG) with a closed carbon cycle:
Agora Industry Director Frank Peter is, therefore, skeptical about the optimism of politicians. “If hydrogen derivatives are to be imported into Germany, it must be ensured that they are competitive in terms of price in the near future and that they are actually climate-neutral,” he told Table.Media. “This will require, in some cases, significant technological advances in the components that will ensure a reduction in CO2 emissions.” This is essential to prevent a fossil lock-in. “It remains to be seen whether these advances can be made in due time,” Peter warns. “At the same time, this cannot delay the transition away from fossil energy.”
In contrast, Tree Energy Solutions, the company responsible for planning the SNG import to Wilhelmshaven, remains optimistic. “The infrastructure for CO2 return transport will be ready by 2030,” says CEO Marco Alverà in response to a question. However, the figures cited by the TES CEO also show that the realization of the plans is more difficult than initially expected: At the time of the project’s announcement, it was said that 75 terawatt hours of SNG would already be imported into Wilhelmshaven in 2030. Currently, only 15 terawatt hours are planned for this date; according to Alverà, this corresponds to around 10 percent of the total volume that is expected to arrive at the LNG terminal in 2030.
In light of the new findings, the German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK) sounds less euphoric. While the BMWK still announced the plans of operator TES for the arrival of “green gas” in Wilhelmshaven as fact in a press release last year, Robert Habeck’s ministry now sounds much more distanced. “The TES concept is known in the BMWK and was presented by the company on various occasions,” a spokeswoman told Table.Media. “A final technical evaluation or positioning of the BMWK is not yet available.”
Where will the cheapest climate-neutral energy sources for decarbonizing German industry come from? And what will that cost? The Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE) has now compiled an overview of this on behalf of the H2Global Foundation. The project examined 39 regions in 12 countries and calculated the costs for the production of these “Power To X” fuels plus transport to Germany in each case for the year 2030.
The findings: Brazil, Colombia and Australia are the cheapest import countries for ammonia, methanol and kerosene from renewable energies. The substances would then have to be transported via ship. The most cost-effective option for green hydrogen is transport via pipeline. If these were built, Southern Europe or Northern Africa would be the best import countries. Import from Mexico, Southern Africa or India would thus become significantly more expensive.
Graphic
According to the ISE calculations, Germany will need power-to-X energy sources in the “at least single-digit terawatt-hour range” in 2030, both domestically generated and imported. The major advantage of the importing countries is the combination of large potentials for wind and solar energy and the potential high capacity utilization of the investment-intensive plants. However, the development of a domestic economy based on renewables in exporting countries must also be taken into account. bpo
Friederike Otto will use a small portion of the prize money for her garden. She wants to turn “into something bees, butterflies and I’ll be happy in,” the attribution researcher replied to questions from Table.Media. The bulk of the money, however, will go toward research. “I’ll use it to extend the contracts of my fantastic team here at the Grantham Institute,” Otto writes, “and give myself a little bit of a break and freedom from trying to find money.”
Otto, a physicist and philosopher who is currently researching at the Grantham Institute of Imperial College London, is this year’s recipient of the German Environmental Award of the German Federal Environmental Foundation (DBU). The award, which comes with prize money of 500,000 euros, is awarded to individuals who have made a “decisive and exemplary commitment” to environmental protection. Among those honored so far are prominent figures such as former German Minister for the Environment Klaus Töpfer, climate scientist and Nobel Prize winner Klaus Hasselmann, and the late Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands Tony de Brum.
Otto shares her award with Dagmar Fritz-Kramer, managing director of the family-owned company Bau-Fritz. The two women are pioneers in their field: Bau-Fritz specializes in ecological prefabricated wooden houses. In recognition of this, the company has received several awards – as has its 52-year-old boss Fritz-Kramer herself.
In 2015, 41-year-old Otto founded the World Weather Attribution (WWA) initiative together with her Dutch colleague Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, who has since passed away. In so doing, the two made a significant contribution to the development of attribution research. They achieved what climate science had repeatedly failed to do before: Quickly determining whether individual extreme weather events – heavy rainfall, heat waves, storms and droughts – were actually related to global warming. In this way, they made climate change tangible.
To do this, WWA uses computer models to compare actual events with hypothetical weather conditions on a planet without climate change. Since the results are intended to be published as early as possible, they do not undergo a time-consuming peer review process. However, the methods used by WWA are established and peer-reviewed. This allows the initiative to present valid results quickly.
The question of what conclusions can be drawn from scientific studies about reality has accompanied Otto for a long time. In her doctoral dissertation in philosophy, she examined the epistemological question of what can be learned from climate models – and what cannot. To this day, this theme permeates her scientific work.
Attribution research is well established by now. In the most recent assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which Otto was a lead author, this research branch played an important role. Otto herself has become one of the most prominent faces of climate science. The more the climate crisis progresses, the more frequently extreme weather events occur – and the more frequently the media asks her to classify the events.
Ottmar Edenhofer, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), has received the 2020 Environmental Award. He calls Otto a “great laureate” in an interview with Table.Media. Otto herself said about her award: “It’s a very nice recognition that not only the science I’ve been doing is good and important, but also that it matters outside of the scientific world and makes a difference to what we understand and what we can do about the impacts of extreme weather. It’s sad, though, that Geert Jan is not here anymore to share the prize.”
Otto wants to conduct research that helps policymakers make the right decisions. So when the WWA presents its findings, it very often includes suggestions for effective adaptation measures. For example, Otto says, there is an “incredible demand” for heat action plans, “especially in light of increasing vulnerability due to an aging society and increased inequality in society.” To repair acute climate damage in the Global South and better prepare against the impacts of climate change in the long term, she says, more money needs to flow to the affected regions rather than less – but it is also important to use the funds appropriately.
The pursuit of more justice drives her. “Those who pay the price for climate change are those who have caused the least emissions,” she says. “Those who are most vulnerable – not only in the Global South, but also in Germany and Europe. But that’s not a society I want to live in.” So she aims to change that.
With the WWA initiative, Otto is investigating recent floods in Spain, Greece and Bulgaria. In addition, the researchers are analyzing this summer’s wildfires in Europe. The results on the floods are expected to be ready by Friday. Analyzing the fires will likely take a bit longer. Alexandra Endres
We are halfway through September, and the climate and sustainability scene is buzzing: The UN General Assembly convenes in New York to address global warming and its consequences. That is why we provide you with the background information: An interview on the interim review of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with a focus on climate action; an overview of the most important events at the summit; a detailed analysis of what precisely the UN Global Stocktake now means.
Meanwhile, the climate movement is taking to the streets again. We provide an overview of where protests are taking place, what they have achieved, and what is to come. We also look at the future of the EU’s Green Deal and the growing questions about Germany’s LNG strategy.
But the global crisis is not happening in air-conditioned offices. That is why we also report on the connection between the heat in the Mediterranean and the deadly rainfalls in Libya. We describe how humankind is increasingly crossing “planetary boundaries” – and how this translates into the wildfires this summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
Ms. Scholz, you and other researchers have taken stock of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on behalf of the UN, two of which have to do with climate: SDG 7 postulates a reliable, clean and affordable energy supply for everyone, and SDG 13 demands that UN member states “take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.” Where has good progress been made?
We do not take an isolated look at the 17 sustainability goals in our report. They are, after all, interdependent. For example, the expansion of wind and solar power and the introduction of resource-conserving production processes both serve climate action. Conversely, the effects of climate change jeopardize the fight against hunger and poverty. Therefore, it does not make sense to develop individual strategies for each goal. It is more effective to take a systemic approach. This is, for example, what the European Union is doing when it combines the transformation of the energy system towards renewable sources with the goal of a circular economy.
Nevertheless, let us ask specifically: In which countries is there particular progress in the expansion of wind and solar energy?
In the Global South, Kenya is one example. The country has been trying to develop its renewable energy potential for a very long time. It decided to go down this path by itself and has remained consistent in its efforts, even though there was also skepticism at the beginning. Today, Kenya draws around 90 percent of its energy from renewable sources, and three-quarters of households are connected to the power grid.
Do you have any other examples?
India has very specifically expanded its solar and wind energy. The country still has large coal capacities, but it discusses how the transformation of the economy can be advanced, especially in states that are economically heavily dependent on coal mining. In countries like China, an enormous expansion of renewable energies is taking place, although the country is also sticking to fossil fuels. We also see in countries of the Global North – including Germany – that the phase-out is not yet progressing fast enough.
You say Kenya has come this far primarily through its determination and perseverance. Is external financial aid secondary?
A transformation requires both: A clear strategy that is maintained over several legislative periods, and financial resources to support the investments and mitigate the social impacts. It costs money to build the infrastructure for a renewable energy supply. The initial investments are often especially high. It is good when international cooperation facilitates things with know-how and money.
But at the moment, the developing countries have a completely different financing problem: Many borrowed money on the private capital market during the Covid pandemic to finance the necessary government support services for their populations. Now, they are facing high interest rates. As a result, many do not even have the opportunity to invest in sustainable transformation, whether in energy or other sectors. This is also why financing issues play such a significant role in the current climate summits.
Where is the money supposed to come from? The developed countries did not even keep their promises in better times. Now, they are in crisis themselves and feel the pressure of rising interest rates.
One key is a carbon price with global redistribution. We also take up this key intervention in our report. There are studies that have calculated this: If countries with high fossil fuel consumption had a carbon price and the revenues from it were not only nationally redistributed, but at least in part globally as well – then the greatest poverty in developing countries could already be tackled very effectively. The Africa Climate Summit recently called for a global carbon tax to transform the energy system and contribute to greater equity and prosperity.
Germany has not even implemented its own climate money yet, and the revenues from the domestic carbon price have already been allocated elsewhere. How is global redistribution supposed to succeed?
My personal impression is that we are currently listening very much to arguments that put the national good at the forefront. It is fatal that this decreases the will for international cooperation in climate action. Furthermore, from a global perspective, income and wealth are very much concentrated in the hands of a few players. This means that only 1.1 percent of the assets of all financing institutions worldwide would be enough to cover the financial needs of developing countries regarding the SDGs! In my view, the obvious thing to do is to tax these assets. But that is very difficult from a political perspective.
Why is that?
Currently, these proposals are made, if at all, mainly from the political left spectrum. This means that they are not considered without bias. They are seen as politically left, as something that aims primarily to punish the wealthy. What does not come through at all is that it is much more about mobilizing resources that are available in abundance to provide solutions for the common good. In addition, there is the traditional counter-argument: If a country taxes wealth, then the wealth will migrate. But this does not have to be the case. Even the wealthy appreciate it when the public sector provides a good infrastructure where they live, and when a sensible social policy promotes peaceful coexistence.
Do Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) help improve the link between climate-friendly and social development?
JETPs are a very interesting innovation. For example, in South Africa, where it was said that transformation cannot only be about reducing emissions from the energy sector. Jobs and the question of more justice are just as important – especially in South Africa with its history of apartheid, this is definitely a sensible approach. How well it will work in practice in specific cases remains to be seen. But I think it is very important that JETPs ask the question of justice with an eye to the future. In other words, the question is not: How can people be compensated for the burdens of transformation? But rather: How can we shape the transformation so that it creates more justice?
How high do you think the chances are of actually achieving SDGs 7 and 13 by 2030?
I think there is no way around renewable energies. But it seems to me that providing everyone with stable, reliable, sustainable access to energy will take longer. And progress will be uneven, of course. The targets will probably be reached fastest in countries with good preconditions or those that are already well on track.
As early as 2019, a first interim report said that the world was moving too slowly towards the SDGs. Then came the pandemic and the Ukraine war. Against this backdrop, how wise is it to stick to the 2030 target date?
Our report proposes key interventions that can simultaneously advance several goals, such as the carbon price and global redistribution. Or the legal and economic equality of women, which simultaneously advances Goals 1, 3 and 4 on poverty reduction, health care and better education. Goals 13 and 16, climate action and conflict prevention, also help combat hunger, i.e., achieving Goal 2. Such interventions can be very effective.
Moreover, the SDGs outline the idea of a shared sustainable future that all nations can agree on. At a time when multilateral cooperation is under so much pressure, it is all the more important to stick to them. Nevertheless, I am very much in favor of starting to think now about how to continue the goals beyond 2030.
Do you expect tangible progress from the SDG Summit in New York?
The final declaration will hopefully include statements about reforming the international financial architecture. We recommend that the developed countries advance debt relief for countries with particularly low incomes and debt restructuring for other countries. Because without the necessary funds, they cannot achieve the climate and development goals – and that harms us all. But in order to make progress, governments must, of course, implement the declaration.
Imme Scholz studied sociology and served from 2019-2023 as co-chair of the Independent Group of Scientists, responsible for providing scientific support to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on behalf of the United Nations. She has served as Co-President of the Heinrich Böll Foundation since 2022 and previously worked as Deputy Director of the German Development Institute (IDOS).
Fridays for Future (FFF) and other parts of the climate movement are mobilizing again for protests and actions around the world tomorrow, Friday, September 15. Activists of the Last Generation want to bring the German capital to a standstill starting Monday. Protests are also planned in other countries and at the UN General Assembly in New York. They are mainly calling for the fossil fuel exit.
The predominantly young activists are dissatisfied with the results of their protests: “The climate movement is going through a difficult phase,” summarizes Greta Waltenberg. She is 21 years old and campaigns for Fridays for Future. For the past five years, young people have been protesting with the movement for climate action. While Fridays for Future brought 1.4 million people onto the streets in Germany in the fall of 2019, the movement only reported 220,000 participants nationwide, even after the last large demonstration in March.
“The core is still there, but we used to have the attention of more people,” says Romie Niedermayer. Among other things, the 21-year-old works with the youth climate movement YOUNGO on international climate policy. With the pandemic, attention for the movement has slumped, and the numbers have not yet recovered.
Yet the movement in Germany has achieved partial successes:
Nevertheless, fewer and fewer people seem to be interested in the protests: “In part, the declining attention is normal for social movements,” explains protest researcher Dieter Rucht. He says that the success of protest is measured in ever-increasing numbers; even stagnation is a kind of defeat. This demotivates some activists – and radicalizes others.
In Germany, the group Last Generation glues itself to the streets, Just Stop Oil or Extinction Rebellion, choose similar methods of civil disobedience in the UK. With consequences: According to data from the NGO Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, the number of police deployed at climate protests has almost doubled worldwide since 2020. Nearly 40 percent of protests now result in police intervention.
But that is not the only change: According to a survey by the non-governmental organization More in Common, support for the climate movement in Germany halved from 68 to 34 percent between 2021 and 2023. A survey by Civey also came to a similar conclusion. These figures are probably one of the reasons why many parts of the climate movement struggle to engage with groups like the Last Generation. While most activists refrain from open criticism, they criticize poor communication and a lack of willingness to cooperate. Nicolò Wojewoda, regional director at the NGO 350.org, criticizes that civil disobedience is “overused.” Protest researcher Rucht is less hesitant in his criticism: Civil disobedience is, in principle, a legitimate means, but the activities of the Last Generation are poorly organized, insufficiently targeted and their symbolism is “far-fetched.”
“The climate movement is currently at a pivotal point,” says Wojewoda. “Climate is now one of the most important issues, and we have reached the limits of what we can achieve with our current methods.” What is needed now are other approaches and solutions that include political and, above all, economic aspects: “We have to show people the positive effects of climate action,” he explains. Especially against the backdrop of rising costs, the climate movement must show that climate action is also financially worthwhile. Climate action must be seen as an intersection with well-being and prosperity, Wojewoda explains. If the climate movement focuses on this, it can achieve greater success.
Scientist Rucht is more pessimistic: “There is no silver bullet for the future,” he says. Although a large part of the population currently perceives the climate as important, fewer and fewer support the methods of the Last Generation, for example. Rucht sees the increasing radicalization as counterproductive. If social support declines, so do the possibilities for political action. He believes that only “external, serious events” that highlight the effects of the climate crisis can ensure that climate protest is taken more seriously again.
Despite everything – many activists hold on to large protests as an important sign and consider global climate strikes important. They could show how many people are behind the protests, says Greta Waltenberg. For Romie Niedermeyer, the protests must show the diversity of the climate movement: “We are so much more than Last Generation and Fridays For Future.”
Not only Europe will see protests in the coming days. Around the world, the climate movement is organizing itself to call for a rapid exit from fossil fuel industries. Among them are the following marches:
It is the first official interim review of global climate efforts, an outlook on developments in the coming years and the basis for one of the most important decisions at COP28. But the Global Stocktake (GST) report published last week has received little public attention so far. Yet UN countries and non-state actors demand in the report decisive action, a disruptive transformation of energy systems, a change in global financial structures and significantly more aid money for the world’s vulnerable regions.
At COP28, the GST is intended as a snapshot of the current situation, looking both back and forward. But the eagerly awaited Synthesis Report on the Technical Dialogue has skipped the media so far: The UN Climate Change Secretariat published it on its website without much fanfare on Friday afternoon. There was no press conference, and a briefing on Tuesday was only held for the UN states. For COP President-elect Sultan al Jaber, it nevertheless provides a “clear direction.” And UNFCCC chief Simon Stiell urges all governments to “carefully study the findings of the report and ultimately understand what it means for them.” The US think tank World Resources Institute (WRI), in turn, called the report a “damning report card for global climate effort.” Island nations consider it “another devastating blow.”
The current report of the working group, co-chaired by Harald Winkler (South Africa) and Farhan Akhtar (USA), will serve as a basis for the final meeting of the UN panel on the GST. The panel will prepare a recommendation for COP28 in Dubai this October. The great urgency that the GST contains is not felt much elsewhere: At the time of its publication, global attention was focused on the G20 summit in New Delhi.
And while the GST warns that emissions trends are “not in line” with the Paris Agreement’s climate change targets and that the window for 1.5 degrees is “closing rapidly,” the G20 countries made little progress on climate action. Although they pledged to triple the expansion of renewables and strive for better climate finance, key issues such as a phase-out of fossil fuels, tangible financial aid or a reorganization of the global financial system remained unresolved. And there is hardly any progress on the hot topic of loss and damage either. Just last week, the preparatory committee put all important points concerning the new loss and damage fund on the back burner.
According to the Paris Agreement, the first Global Stocktake is an interim review of efforts conducted every five years. Since 2021, a panel has gathered events and plans from UN nations, cities, companies, NGOs, and members of civil society. The underlying message quickly became apparent and was foreshadowed by, for instance, the 6th IPCC report: The world is far from its goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees in 2100. Only swift and decisive measures can still achieve this goal.
The synthesis report now summarizes the discussions. In detail, it formulates “key findings,” among others:
The potential power of the report is that it will form the basis for the official interim summary of climate efforts at COP28. All countries, as well as businesses, academia and civil society, have agreed on these findings. Thus, the GST can become a reference and a benchmark in the future.
The 47-page includes several key points:
However, the report also notes positive developments:
The consulting firm Climate Analytics calls the report a “wake-up call” for cooperation. It says the 1.5 degree limit can still be maintained if governments work together and increase their targets: By 2030, however, global fossil fuel consumption would have to be cut by 40 percent and renewables would have to account for 70 percent of the energy mix.
The Green Deal remains Europe’s strong answer to climate change. That was certainly the key statement on European climate and environmental policy in Ursula von der Leyen’s State of the EU address. Observers had hoped for such a renewed commitment to the green agenda after von der Leyen’s own party family in the EU Parliament blocked ambitious nature conservation legislation.
The Commission President has therefore not declared the Green Deal to be over, but has affirmed its continuation and announced further measures:
Von der Leyen promised to continue supporting European industry during the transition. It is crucial for Europe’s future competitiveness, she said. According to the EU Commission’s industrial strategy, risks and needs should be considered individually for each industrial ecosystem. The energy transition dialogues will help drive the development of a business model for decarbonization in each sector.
Wind energy can provide exactly what Europe’s industry urgently needs: cheap, green electricity. In this respect, von der Leyen’s announcements on the wind power package are logical. She wants:
However, legislative procedures are already underway at the European level for many of these points. The words of the Commission President should therefore be understood primarily as an appeal to the co-legislators and as a call to the member states to implement adopted rules quickly.
The German-Belgian transmission manufacturer ZF Wind Power takes a similar view. “Many measures will ultimately have to be implemented in the member states, at regional and local level. The decisive factor will be that Europe acts in unison and at all levels“, says CTO Martin Knops.
With the Renewable Energy Directive (RED), for example, the EU is on the verge of relaxing nature conservation and species protection regulations. Therefore, the WindEurope association is not calling for further simplification of planning law at the EU level, but for faster procedures at the national level.
More investor-friendly auction rules of the kind von der Leyen wants are already in the pipeline with the Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA). For the wind industry, the amount of the bids alone should not be the deciding factor; qualitative criteria should also be included – essentially, this means bonus points for criteria such as cyber security and sustainability. This would reduce the cost pressure on the industry and enable European manufacturers to compensate for the financial disadvantages they face compared with their Chinese competitors.
The EU is addressing dependencies in rare earths and copper with the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), and WindEurope wants to add fiberglass fabric to the list of beneficiary materials.
For investments in new factories, the Commission had already recently relaxed the aid framework for transformation technologies. “But it is crucial that the EU puts its own money on the table“, says WindEurope – for example, via the sovereignty and innovation funds. When it comes to financing, the European industry is also bothered by the unequal competition with China. Buyers of Chinese turbines, for example, would only have to pay if or after the wind farm has been actually built.
It is not yet known what the Commission plans to do with the wind power package beyond the legislative proposals already presented. According to von der Leyen, the goal is for Europe to once again become home to the cleantech industry.
Von der Leyen also had something to say about agriculture: The Green Deal preserves nature while ensuring food security, von der Leyen began in German. She thanked farmers and acknowledged their work to secure the “food supply and a high-quality diet”.
But she also called for “more dialogue and less polarization“. She was convinced that agriculture and nature conservation went together. Both are needed, she said, and announced a strategic dialogue on the future of agriculture in the EU. How this should look, she left open. When asked by Table.Media, a spokesperson for the Commission also did not give any details. All details would be announced “in due course”.
It is the right signal to European farmers, commented Daniel Caspary, chairman of the EPP Group in the EU Parliament. The departure of Frans Timmermans offers the opportunity for a new form of “pragmatism and willingness to engage in dialogue in climate policy”. Terry Reintke, co-chair of the Greens in the EU Parliament, also welcomed the announcement of dialogue. “The polarization that the EPP, together with the right-wing parties, has not only brought about but downright fueled is damaging to agriculture, biodiversity and the climate”, she told Table.Media. Her group wants “joint solutions with farmers“, she said.
Specifically, the Commission President did not mention the Nature Restoration Law, the laws on pesticide use reduction (SUR), new genetic engineering, sustainable food systems or animal welfare. The revision of REACH and the laws banning the export of toxic substances banned in the EU also went unmentioned.
Europe’s climate policy efforts at the international level also went unmentioned. At the upcoming World Climate Conference in Dubai (COP28), Europe will have to do an enormous amount of convincing to ensure that other industrialized nations and emerging economies also transform their industries. Particularly in light of this year’s global stocktake – the main tool for raising the ambition of global climate goals – the absence of the topic from the speech is surprising, wrote Linda Kalcher, executive director of the pan-European think tank Strategic Perspectives, on X.
The environmental and development organization Germanwatch complains about a lack of socially just implementation of the Green Deal. “While the Commission President has identified industrial transformation as a key challenge, she should be much more specific about how she intends to further develop the Green Deal as a project in terms of a socially just transformation”, says Christoph Bals, Political Director of Germanwatch.
German Minister of Economy Robert Habeck frequently dismisses criticism of the construction of LNG terminals by pointing out that they will not be used to import fossil natural gas in the future, but “green gases” instead. Contrary to what is often simplified, these are not liquid hydrogen. The latter can and is supposed to be imported via pipeline, as transporting it by ship is too complex to be economically viable.
What will actually end up at the LNG terminals in the future is, in most cases, ammonia (NH3). This compound of hydrogen and nitrogen is either used directly, for example, to produce fertilizer. Alternatively, it is broken down after import to obtain pure hydrogen. The German government is focusing on a different concept in Wilhelmshaven: The LNG terminal will be used to import synthetic methane in the future.
This methane, which is chemically identical to fossil natural gas, is produced from green hydrogen and CO2. After arriving in Germany, it will be broken down back into hydrogen and CO2 – either directly at the import terminal or externally at power plants or industrial facilities. To ensure that the process is actually climate-neutral, the CO2 is to be captured and transported via ship back to the countries of production and reused to produce methane.
Habeck is not the only one enthusiastic about the “green gas terminal” planned in Wilhelmshaven. Lower Saxony’s Minister of the Environment Olaf Lies also promises: “What fossil gas arrives today will very quickly be green gas.”
However, this optimism conflicts with the results of a recent study by the Technical University of Hamburg for the Agora Energie think tank and provided to Table.Media in advance. The “How hydrogen can be imported to Germany” study compares the various processes. It sees particularly high risks for synthetic natural gas (SNG) with a closed carbon cycle:
Agora Industry Director Frank Peter is, therefore, skeptical about the optimism of politicians. “If hydrogen derivatives are to be imported into Germany, it must be ensured that they are competitive in terms of price in the near future and that they are actually climate-neutral,” he told Table.Media. “This will require, in some cases, significant technological advances in the components that will ensure a reduction in CO2 emissions.” This is essential to prevent a fossil lock-in. “It remains to be seen whether these advances can be made in due time,” Peter warns. “At the same time, this cannot delay the transition away from fossil energy.”
In contrast, Tree Energy Solutions, the company responsible for planning the SNG import to Wilhelmshaven, remains optimistic. “The infrastructure for CO2 return transport will be ready by 2030,” says CEO Marco Alverà in response to a question. However, the figures cited by the TES CEO also show that the realization of the plans is more difficult than initially expected: At the time of the project’s announcement, it was said that 75 terawatt hours of SNG would already be imported into Wilhelmshaven in 2030. Currently, only 15 terawatt hours are planned for this date; according to Alverà, this corresponds to around 10 percent of the total volume that is expected to arrive at the LNG terminal in 2030.
In light of the new findings, the German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK) sounds less euphoric. While the BMWK still announced the plans of operator TES for the arrival of “green gas” in Wilhelmshaven as fact in a press release last year, Robert Habeck’s ministry now sounds much more distanced. “The TES concept is known in the BMWK and was presented by the company on various occasions,” a spokeswoman told Table.Media. “A final technical evaluation or positioning of the BMWK is not yet available.”
Where will the cheapest climate-neutral energy sources for decarbonizing German industry come from? And what will that cost? The Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE) has now compiled an overview of this on behalf of the H2Global Foundation. The project examined 39 regions in 12 countries and calculated the costs for the production of these “Power To X” fuels plus transport to Germany in each case for the year 2030.
The findings: Brazil, Colombia and Australia are the cheapest import countries for ammonia, methanol and kerosene from renewable energies. The substances would then have to be transported via ship. The most cost-effective option for green hydrogen is transport via pipeline. If these were built, Southern Europe or Northern Africa would be the best import countries. Import from Mexico, Southern Africa or India would thus become significantly more expensive.
Graphic
According to the ISE calculations, Germany will need power-to-X energy sources in the “at least single-digit terawatt-hour range” in 2030, both domestically generated and imported. The major advantage of the importing countries is the combination of large potentials for wind and solar energy and the potential high capacity utilization of the investment-intensive plants. However, the development of a domestic economy based on renewables in exporting countries must also be taken into account. bpo
Friederike Otto will use a small portion of the prize money for her garden. She wants to turn “into something bees, butterflies and I’ll be happy in,” the attribution researcher replied to questions from Table.Media. The bulk of the money, however, will go toward research. “I’ll use it to extend the contracts of my fantastic team here at the Grantham Institute,” Otto writes, “and give myself a little bit of a break and freedom from trying to find money.”
Otto, a physicist and philosopher who is currently researching at the Grantham Institute of Imperial College London, is this year’s recipient of the German Environmental Award of the German Federal Environmental Foundation (DBU). The award, which comes with prize money of 500,000 euros, is awarded to individuals who have made a “decisive and exemplary commitment” to environmental protection. Among those honored so far are prominent figures such as former German Minister for the Environment Klaus Töpfer, climate scientist and Nobel Prize winner Klaus Hasselmann, and the late Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands Tony de Brum.
Otto shares her award with Dagmar Fritz-Kramer, managing director of the family-owned company Bau-Fritz. The two women are pioneers in their field: Bau-Fritz specializes in ecological prefabricated wooden houses. In recognition of this, the company has received several awards – as has its 52-year-old boss Fritz-Kramer herself.
In 2015, 41-year-old Otto founded the World Weather Attribution (WWA) initiative together with her Dutch colleague Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, who has since passed away. In so doing, the two made a significant contribution to the development of attribution research. They achieved what climate science had repeatedly failed to do before: Quickly determining whether individual extreme weather events – heavy rainfall, heat waves, storms and droughts – were actually related to global warming. In this way, they made climate change tangible.
To do this, WWA uses computer models to compare actual events with hypothetical weather conditions on a planet without climate change. Since the results are intended to be published as early as possible, they do not undergo a time-consuming peer review process. However, the methods used by WWA are established and peer-reviewed. This allows the initiative to present valid results quickly.
The question of what conclusions can be drawn from scientific studies about reality has accompanied Otto for a long time. In her doctoral dissertation in philosophy, she examined the epistemological question of what can be learned from climate models – and what cannot. To this day, this theme permeates her scientific work.
Attribution research is well established by now. In the most recent assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which Otto was a lead author, this research branch played an important role. Otto herself has become one of the most prominent faces of climate science. The more the climate crisis progresses, the more frequently extreme weather events occur – and the more frequently the media asks her to classify the events.
Ottmar Edenhofer, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), has received the 2020 Environmental Award. He calls Otto a “great laureate” in an interview with Table.Media. Otto herself said about her award: “It’s a very nice recognition that not only the science I’ve been doing is good and important, but also that it matters outside of the scientific world and makes a difference to what we understand and what we can do about the impacts of extreme weather. It’s sad, though, that Geert Jan is not here anymore to share the prize.”
Otto wants to conduct research that helps policymakers make the right decisions. So when the WWA presents its findings, it very often includes suggestions for effective adaptation measures. For example, Otto says, there is an “incredible demand” for heat action plans, “especially in light of increasing vulnerability due to an aging society and increased inequality in society.” To repair acute climate damage in the Global South and better prepare against the impacts of climate change in the long term, she says, more money needs to flow to the affected regions rather than less – but it is also important to use the funds appropriately.
The pursuit of more justice drives her. “Those who pay the price for climate change are those who have caused the least emissions,” she says. “Those who are most vulnerable – not only in the Global South, but also in Germany and Europe. But that’s not a society I want to live in.” So she aims to change that.
With the WWA initiative, Otto is investigating recent floods in Spain, Greece and Bulgaria. In addition, the researchers are analyzing this summer’s wildfires in Europe. The results on the floods are expected to be ready by Friday. Analyzing the fires will likely take a bit longer. Alexandra Endres
