Adapting to climate change, no one in Germany wanted to talk about it for a long time. And certainly not to act on it. The climate crisis concerned polar bears and poor countries, that was the thinking. And here in Germany, it was about active climate action: emissions trading, the coal phase-out, renewables.
Then, the disaster in the Ahr Valley in 2021 made people aware: The effects of the climate crisis are also clearly felt in Germany: Even before that, there had been dry summers, the forest was suffering, farmers were repeatedly groaning under drought, cities were drowning in heavy rain.
Now, the German government has tackled the issue of adaptation and backed it with money. This week marks the start of the second German “Climate Adaptation Week.” The responsible German Minister for the Environment, Steffi Lemke, speaks here in a detailed interview with Table Media about what she thinks is needed: Taking adaptation into account in all planning processes, a different approach towards natural habitats such as floodplains and peatlands, and “turning a tanker” in agricultural policy. Her position: Doing nothing is more expensive than investing in the transformation now. After all, the problem is not simply going to disappear. On the contrary, it will become more and more pressing.
Ms Lemke, it is only the second time there has been a Climate Adaptation Week in Germany, and since July, there has also been a draft law on the subject. But we have been aware of climate damage for much longer. Why has it taken so long to engage with this issue seriously?
It has been ignored for far too long that the consequences of the climate crisis are also clearly felt in Germany. And many still think that this problem only concerns island nations, where sea levels are rising, or Southern Europe when droughts hit the south of France and Spain. But the climate crisis is also affecting us in Germany. The increasing number of extreme weather events in Germany shows that we must act and prepare for such risks. The German government has now passed the first nationwide climate adaptation law. It creates a binding framework for the federal, state and local governments for the first time.
Public attention to the issue was very high, especially after the flood in the Ahr Valley in 2021. Does it take such a catastrophe first before we act?
The flood disaster in the Ahr Valley in 2021 changed many things. It was a terrible event that claimed many lives and destroyed the property of many families. This disaster is not solely the result of climate change. For decades, we have often built our cities close to the water without keeping the holistic system of a river in mind. The consequences can be dire if a heavy rainfall event occurs in a narrow valley. And this disaster was also an example of how unprepared we are for such events.
Do we need to prepare for the next disaster?
There have been devastating events in various places in Europe and around the world this summer: floods in Slovenia, in Austria, in south-eastern Europe, in Libya; wildfires in Greece or Canada – the list goes on. And we know that the climate will continue to change, that temperatures here are warmer than they used to be – and that they will only get warmer. This summer was the warmest since weather records began. We have had the drought of 2018 and other dry summers in subsequent years. There have been flood disasters heavy rainfall – all events that have been at least massively intensified by the climate crisis. Therefore, We must reduce our carbon emissions to contain the climate crisis. At the same time, however, we must adapt to the climate changes that can no longer be prevented. The latter is only now entering the political and public discourse.
What do we in Germany need to do above all to prepare for climate change?
We will have to simultaneously prepare for too much water and too little water – and for rising temperatures. But what that means will differ significantly across Germany. That is why municipalities need to draw up risk analyses for local conditions. Some municipalities saw this early on and have already implemented it very well. With our climate adaptation law and the climate adaptation strategy, we are now broadening the issue. We need a change of mentality in Germany. Adaptation to the climate crisis must be considered in all areas.
Which industries need to change in particular?
Agriculture is already massively affected, especially by drought events, but also by more frequent and intense hail and heavy rain. But also, the entire urban and municipal planning must be reconsidered entirely in order to better adapt our settlement structure to the climate crisis. That means: protecting against excessive heat, for example, providing shade and fresh air in the municipalities. Then there is the issue of sponge cities: How do we store water when too much falls, how do we use the water in times of drought? How close can we build to rivers and streams without creating hazards? How do we insulate houses against cold, but now also against heat? How do we take care of buildings that house particularly vulnerable people: Daycare centers, hospitals, and nursing homes, where older people, small children or pregnant women are affected? These are complex tasks. But also transport and logistics chains, companies – ultimately, all areas of society are affected.
These are all municipal tasks. What can the federal government do?
Climate adaptation is ultimately a collective task in which the federal government, the states and municipalities, but also the business community and civil society must work together within their respective roles. A lot has to be done at the municipal level. But not everything costs a lot of money. If you do not seal an area, you may even save money.
But then also forego business tax revenues …
There are widely differing effects. To me, it is important that not all climate adaptation measures cost money and that we have to deal with this problem. The federal government supports pilot projects for adaptation, such as providing shade for daycare centers or insulation for primary schools. We also support climate adaptation managers in the municipalities and established the Centre for Climate Adaptation, which offers counseling, competence building, as well as the exchange of experience and networking. Integrating the issue into the regular day-to-day work of public authorities is also incredibly important. We then support nature storing carbon dioxide with the Action Plan on Nature-based Solutions for Climate and Biodiversity. Healthy peatlands, floodplains or forests are much better at absorbing water, which helps against heat and floods and keeps water in the soil.
But so far, climate adaptation is often a luxury in financially weak municipalities that they cannot afford. Should climate adaptation be anchored as a mandatory municipal task?
This is what we have basically initiated with the climate adaptation law. Our law mandates the federal states to ensure systematic and comprehensive climate adaptation strategies in the federal states and climate adaptation concepts for the regions of the municipalities and districts. However, the federal states are free to decide at what scale a municipality is required to do that.
You say: With the adaptation strategy, we do nature conservation, climate protection and adaptation all in one. That sounds like a nice win-win-win option. But naturally, there is still opposition. Where is this resistance strongest?
That’s right, it’s about creating win-win situations. We have to conserve nature so that it preserves us humans and that we can continue utilizing it in the future. At the international level, this approach is called “nature-based solutions.” We have worked against nature for centuries: moors have been drained, rivers have been turned into waterways. Such a long development, which has also created a lot of wealth, cannot be changed with a short, quick stop. It requires persuasion and convincing concepts, especially for those who earn their living using the old models, for example because they have a farm on a drained moor. For that, we need funding, which we now have under the Action Plan on Nature-based Solutions. But, it should be incorporated into European agricultural financing in the medium term.
Still, construction is partly happening again in the old areas along riverbanks. And this is also financially supported, for example, through insurance.
We need modern and holistic flood protection in combination with nature conservation. The climate crisis, the species extinction crisis and the need to protect the population are forcing us to take a systems-based view. This systems-based approach is gaining strong momentum. We are talking about systems that have been practiced for centuries and, as I said, have also produced a lot of wealth. I think this has to be understood and accepted. A change of course will not happen overnight. There will always be floods, we have to be aware of this danger and the resulting risks.
But there will be some losers, for example, when areas are wetted. Do compensation payments have to be increased, like for waterlogged peatlands?
We will have to understand that no climate effort and no nature conservation will create significantly more losers. Inaction could be so expensive that it would overburden the state to compensate for all the consequences. That is why it is right that we tackle these measures now and take precautions. A farmer whose drained peatland is to be wetted will receive support from the action plan. We are developing alternative economic models for this, with reed farming or water buffaloes. This also requires redirecting the EU’s agricultural subsidies, which is better than pure area subsidies.
There is already talk in the forestry sector about compensating the carbon sink capacity with money. Should there also be a premium for carbon storage in peat soils?
Such permanent funding must be taken into account by the EU agricultural subsidy. So far, payments are made per hectare, regardless of dry or waterlogged soils. Such a change of course has already begun in the EU, with a view to strengthening nature conservation and environmental protection. I think it is right to spend public money on public services.
Are we getting used to the severe consequences of climate change? A few years ago, a wildfire in Germany was considered a disaster, but today, it’s just how it is.
Public attention has become extremely short-lived. But for those affected, for instance, the forest owner who no longer has a forest or the farmer whose harvest was destroyed by hail, the damage remains real. A society cannot get used to this, it must react and take precautions.
More and more people are fighting against climate action, for example, regarding the carbon price or the heating law. Is it different with adaptation?
Many people have already taken steps, both at home and in the municipalities. People realize this is not a quick turnaround, but rather the reversal of a tanker heading in the same wrong direction for a long time. There are already so many initiatives on natural climate conservation, on sponge cities. In private, people are considering how to protect themselves against UV radiation, how the trees in their street are doing, and so on. But there is also the expectation that the federal states and the government should act. And we are taking action in this federal government, and together with the construction ministry, for example, we are providing a lot of money for this. The groundwork has been laid.
Unlike climate action, where you can make money with renewable energies, for example, adaptation is not a business model, but an additional business. How do you escape this pitfall?
Cities and municipalities are faced with the question of whether they want to invest in sealed surfaces – with all the risks of climate damage that can follow – or, for instance, in sponge cities that can reduce damage from climate risks. Studies show that precaution definitely pays off. It’s not just about hard numbers, but also about more beautiful and liveable cities: more green, less concrete, that’s the city of the future. And: unfortunately, climatic conditions change very quickly. The effects can be seen all the way to fisheries, which suffer as herring stocks change due to the warming of the ocean. The old income models no longer work, they have to look for alternatives. We will have to adapt, it is no longer a decision we can make entirely voluntarily.
Adapting to climate change, no one in Germany wanted to talk about it for a long time. And certainly not to act on it. The climate crisis concerned polar bears and poor countries, that was the thinking. And here in Germany, it was about active climate action: emissions trading, the coal phase-out, renewables.
Then, the disaster in the Ahr Valley in 2021 made people aware: The effects of the climate crisis are also clearly felt in Germany: Even before that, there had been dry summers, the forest was suffering, farmers were repeatedly groaning under drought, cities were drowning in heavy rain.
Now, the German government has tackled the issue of adaptation and backed it with money. This week marks the start of the second German “Climate Adaptation Week.” The responsible German Minister for the Environment, Steffi Lemke, speaks here in a detailed interview with Table Media about what she thinks is needed: Taking adaptation into account in all planning processes, a different approach towards natural habitats such as floodplains and peatlands, and “turning a tanker” in agricultural policy. Her position: Doing nothing is more expensive than investing in the transformation now. After all, the problem is not simply going to disappear. On the contrary, it will become more and more pressing.
Ms Lemke, it is only the second time there has been a Climate Adaptation Week in Germany, and since July, there has also been a draft law on the subject. But we have been aware of climate damage for much longer. Why has it taken so long to engage with this issue seriously?
It has been ignored for far too long that the consequences of the climate crisis are also clearly felt in Germany. And many still think that this problem only concerns island nations, where sea levels are rising, or Southern Europe when droughts hit the south of France and Spain. But the climate crisis is also affecting us in Germany. The increasing number of extreme weather events in Germany shows that we must act and prepare for such risks. The German government has now passed the first nationwide climate adaptation law. It creates a binding framework for the federal, state and local governments for the first time.
Public attention to the issue was very high, especially after the flood in the Ahr Valley in 2021. Does it take such a catastrophe first before we act?
The flood disaster in the Ahr Valley in 2021 changed many things. It was a terrible event that claimed many lives and destroyed the property of many families. This disaster is not solely the result of climate change. For decades, we have often built our cities close to the water without keeping the holistic system of a river in mind. The consequences can be dire if a heavy rainfall event occurs in a narrow valley. And this disaster was also an example of how unprepared we are for such events.
Do we need to prepare for the next disaster?
There have been devastating events in various places in Europe and around the world this summer: floods in Slovenia, in Austria, in south-eastern Europe, in Libya; wildfires in Greece or Canada – the list goes on. And we know that the climate will continue to change, that temperatures here are warmer than they used to be – and that they will only get warmer. This summer was the warmest since weather records began. We have had the drought of 2018 and other dry summers in subsequent years. There have been flood disasters heavy rainfall – all events that have been at least massively intensified by the climate crisis. Therefore, We must reduce our carbon emissions to contain the climate crisis. At the same time, however, we must adapt to the climate changes that can no longer be prevented. The latter is only now entering the political and public discourse.
What do we in Germany need to do above all to prepare for climate change?
We will have to simultaneously prepare for too much water and too little water – and for rising temperatures. But what that means will differ significantly across Germany. That is why municipalities need to draw up risk analyses for local conditions. Some municipalities saw this early on and have already implemented it very well. With our climate adaptation law and the climate adaptation strategy, we are now broadening the issue. We need a change of mentality in Germany. Adaptation to the climate crisis must be considered in all areas.
Which industries need to change in particular?
Agriculture is already massively affected, especially by drought events, but also by more frequent and intense hail and heavy rain. But also, the entire urban and municipal planning must be reconsidered entirely in order to better adapt our settlement structure to the climate crisis. That means: protecting against excessive heat, for example, providing shade and fresh air in the municipalities. Then there is the issue of sponge cities: How do we store water when too much falls, how do we use the water in times of drought? How close can we build to rivers and streams without creating hazards? How do we insulate houses against cold, but now also against heat? How do we take care of buildings that house particularly vulnerable people: Daycare centers, hospitals, and nursing homes, where older people, small children or pregnant women are affected? These are complex tasks. But also transport and logistics chains, companies – ultimately, all areas of society are affected.
These are all municipal tasks. What can the federal government do?
Climate adaptation is ultimately a collective task in which the federal government, the states and municipalities, but also the business community and civil society must work together within their respective roles. A lot has to be done at the municipal level. But not everything costs a lot of money. If you do not seal an area, you may even save money.
But then also forego business tax revenues …
There are widely differing effects. To me, it is important that not all climate adaptation measures cost money and that we have to deal with this problem. The federal government supports pilot projects for adaptation, such as providing shade for daycare centers or insulation for primary schools. We also support climate adaptation managers in the municipalities and established the Centre for Climate Adaptation, which offers counseling, competence building, as well as the exchange of experience and networking. Integrating the issue into the regular day-to-day work of public authorities is also incredibly important. We then support nature storing carbon dioxide with the Action Plan on Nature-based Solutions for Climate and Biodiversity. Healthy peatlands, floodplains or forests are much better at absorbing water, which helps against heat and floods and keeps water in the soil.
But so far, climate adaptation is often a luxury in financially weak municipalities that they cannot afford. Should climate adaptation be anchored as a mandatory municipal task?
This is what we have basically initiated with the climate adaptation law. Our law mandates the federal states to ensure systematic and comprehensive climate adaptation strategies in the federal states and climate adaptation concepts for the regions of the municipalities and districts. However, the federal states are free to decide at what scale a municipality is required to do that.
You say: With the adaptation strategy, we do nature conservation, climate protection and adaptation all in one. That sounds like a nice win-win-win option. But naturally, there is still opposition. Where is this resistance strongest?
That’s right, it’s about creating win-win situations. We have to conserve nature so that it preserves us humans and that we can continue utilizing it in the future. At the international level, this approach is called “nature-based solutions.” We have worked against nature for centuries: moors have been drained, rivers have been turned into waterways. Such a long development, which has also created a lot of wealth, cannot be changed with a short, quick stop. It requires persuasion and convincing concepts, especially for those who earn their living using the old models, for example because they have a farm on a drained moor. For that, we need funding, which we now have under the Action Plan on Nature-based Solutions. But, it should be incorporated into European agricultural financing in the medium term.
Still, construction is partly happening again in the old areas along riverbanks. And this is also financially supported, for example, through insurance.
We need modern and holistic flood protection in combination with nature conservation. The climate crisis, the species extinction crisis and the need to protect the population are forcing us to take a systems-based view. This systems-based approach is gaining strong momentum. We are talking about systems that have been practiced for centuries and, as I said, have also produced a lot of wealth. I think this has to be understood and accepted. A change of course will not happen overnight. There will always be floods, we have to be aware of this danger and the resulting risks.
But there will be some losers, for example, when areas are wetted. Do compensation payments have to be increased, like for waterlogged peatlands?
We will have to understand that no climate effort and no nature conservation will create significantly more losers. Inaction could be so expensive that it would overburden the state to compensate for all the consequences. That is why it is right that we tackle these measures now and take precautions. A farmer whose drained peatland is to be wetted will receive support from the action plan. We are developing alternative economic models for this, with reed farming or water buffaloes. This also requires redirecting the EU’s agricultural subsidies, which is better than pure area subsidies.
There is already talk in the forestry sector about compensating the carbon sink capacity with money. Should there also be a premium for carbon storage in peat soils?
Such permanent funding must be taken into account by the EU agricultural subsidy. So far, payments are made per hectare, regardless of dry or waterlogged soils. Such a change of course has already begun in the EU, with a view to strengthening nature conservation and environmental protection. I think it is right to spend public money on public services.
Are we getting used to the severe consequences of climate change? A few years ago, a wildfire in Germany was considered a disaster, but today, it’s just how it is.
Public attention has become extremely short-lived. But for those affected, for instance, the forest owner who no longer has a forest or the farmer whose harvest was destroyed by hail, the damage remains real. A society cannot get used to this, it must react and take precautions.
More and more people are fighting against climate action, for example, regarding the carbon price or the heating law. Is it different with adaptation?
Many people have already taken steps, both at home and in the municipalities. People realize this is not a quick turnaround, but rather the reversal of a tanker heading in the same wrong direction for a long time. There are already so many initiatives on natural climate conservation, on sponge cities. In private, people are considering how to protect themselves against UV radiation, how the trees in their street are doing, and so on. But there is also the expectation that the federal states and the government should act. And we are taking action in this federal government, and together with the construction ministry, for example, we are providing a lot of money for this. The groundwork has been laid.
Unlike climate action, where you can make money with renewable energies, for example, adaptation is not a business model, but an additional business. How do you escape this pitfall?
Cities and municipalities are faced with the question of whether they want to invest in sealed surfaces – with all the risks of climate damage that can follow – or, for instance, in sponge cities that can reduce damage from climate risks. Studies show that precaution definitely pays off. It’s not just about hard numbers, but also about more beautiful and liveable cities: more green, less concrete, that’s the city of the future. And: unfortunately, climatic conditions change very quickly. The effects can be seen all the way to fisheries, which suffer as herring stocks change due to the warming of the ocean. The old income models no longer work, they have to look for alternatives. We will have to adapt, it is no longer a decision we can make entirely voluntarily.
