Long view

On the eve of his trip to Durban, South Africa, to engage in the high level segment of climate negotiations, Germany's Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen spoke to Deutsche Welle about what he hopes to achieve and what he intends to demand.

Deutsche Welle: Carbon emissions reached a higher level this year than ever before. Is the trip to Durban really worth it for you?

Norbert Röttgen: It's certainly indefensible not to go. We don't know what success or failure awaits, but it would be putting the cart before the horse not to attend: Precisely because the trends between CO2 emissions and what needs to be done to mitigate them are so divergent. It's absolutely vital that we work toward a global solution to this global challenge. There is no alternative, as tedious as negotiations currently are.

Many observers who have been following climate negotiations for years say all that will come out of Durban is hot air – again. Do you have a clear goal for your trip to South Africa?

The international community may not have found an adequate answer to climate change yet, but it is wrong to say talks have only produced hot air. In Cancun [in 2010] we agreed to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

There are a range of national measures that have been initiated, not just in Germany and Europe for example, but also in China, African countries and other continents. Things are moving. We have agreed to a climate fund – there's "fast start" finance up until 2012, there are programs to protect forests and there are technologies. We are working on methods to improve verification and transparency. Everything is happening.

Yet it appears there is a race against time that politics can't win.

That's not yet clear. Sometime, in a decade at the latest, we will have crossed a threshold for acting preventatively. There's a kind of peak point after which it is no longer possible to control global warming. It is still possible, but it is a race against time. Emissions are rising, yet countries' capacity to act is stagnating.

For various reasons, countries like the United States, China and India oppose concrete commitments. Is it possible to overcome at least a little of the resistance in these countries?

When it comes to the question of international agreements, in the short term, no. But what we aim to achieve in Durban is that these two countries [China and the USA], which are responsible for 50 percent of the world's emissions, open themselves to a timetable for committing to binding, and appropriate, rules.

From our point of view, they should be open to that. And I think that's the core of what the talks boil down to now – whether this kind of timetable will materialize. We are working hard towards it.

The Chinese – if they wish – can make radical changes from the top down. But America's politics seem totally paralyzed. Do you think Washington can change?

It isn't so much that the American administration has such a different understanding of the problem compared to Germany or the European Union; it's that the American administration doesn't have a domestic mandate. Or maybe another way of saying it would be, you can't win elections on this, but you can certainly lose them. Among Republicans, it's a non-issue. Even among many Democrats, too. In any event it's not seen as a winning or important issue and that reflects the view of a broad segment of society there.

In the end, this is what the absence of American initiative really comes down to. It's a problem for the world, but also for America. Because there's no doubt that this is an important area of international relations, international trade, also with respect to developing and emerging nations. It threatens to become an area in which the erosion of American power becomes obvious to all, something no one in the West should be pleased about.

Germany sees itself, perhaps rightly so, as a pioneer of green technology and ecological awareness generally. Is Germany especially listened to at a conference like Durban?

We are paid a lot of attention and I think we enjoy a good reputation. Germany's word carries weight because we are doing more domestically than we demand of our partners internationally; because we have a strong economy and technological know-how. And also because these ideas of technological innovation and ecological awareness are anchored in the mainstream in our society. These values survive changes in government and this continuity is a strength.

Germany is one of the first leading industrialized nations to exit nuclear power. Is that going to harm or help climate protection goals?

It's clearly an opportunity because the nuclear exit is coupled with gains in energy efficiency and a rollout of renewables that are to supply 80 percent of our electricity by 2050.

We have a European cap for CO2 emissions in the energy sector as of 2013. It can't be exceeded and it's a shrinking cap. So, our nuclear exit won't have any impact on the balance of Europe's emissions. But it will also increase the pressure to invest in renewables. The signal to investors, which is already there, will become clearer and government will push renewables and ensure that the infrastructure to support them is put in place. With time it will become obvious and verifiable: Germany's energy transition will reduce CO2 emissions and be better for the climate.

In Copenhagen, at a conference so full of hope that ended in such disarray, the idea of a 100-billion-dollar-a-year fund for developing nations as of 2020 was broached. Is that realistic at a time when the world is reeling from a financial crisis?

I think yes, because the financial crisis is an alarm in response to the same problems: A lack of sustainability; shortsightedness; short-term thinking; and excess. It is a way of life, an economic model and a form of politics that behaves as if there's no tomorrow. That applies to the financial markets and it applies to the ecological conditions for growth. We will not have continuous growth without preserving the environmental basis that supports it, or if we don't develop climate-neutral industrial and economic processes. That's why both go together. It's not a contradiction, it's a warning that we see in financial markets and sovereign debt – living off credit leads to collapse. This is perhaps the cultural challenge that awaits us beyond the economic or energy one: to stop living at the expense of future generations.

Does that mean that irrespective of what happens in Durban, you want to see a completely different, sustainable form of industry?

Yes, that's what it's ultimately all about. It's not about renouncing growth or industry. It's about developing a way of life and an economy that embraces progress without damaging the economic foundations of future generations. It's a paradox of modernity that the economic success for which we strive today will make us poorer in the future because it steals from tomorrow's fundamentals. We need a new paradigm for economic development and growth.

Sustainable development that doesn't undermine the future, that preserves it instead. This is the only path in the long run for all countries. The question: 'How are we to have growth, how are we to live without burdening the next generation?' That's the question we face today.

Interview: Alexander Kudascheff / nw
Editor: Sabine Faber