Professor Schellnhuber, after sometimes dramatic debates, the most recent UN climate change conference in Cancún, Mexico, came to a conciliatory conclusion. How do you assess the negotiations?
It was a feelgood event whose value will become clear at the next UN climate change conference at the end of the year in Durban, South Africa. Then people must not only talk, but make decisions. After the disappointing climate change conference in Copenhagen, the participating governments in Cancún agreed to enable further negotiations under the United Nations umbrella. Multilateralism was saved. However, the most arduous task was not yet begun at Cancún: there is still no internationally binding climate protection agreement. The goal of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial times is absolutely correct, but what is needed is a timetable for achieving this target – a plan that says how CO2 emissions should be reduced.
At least the goal of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius was formally recognized for the first time in the final document at Cancún.
That is indeed one positive aspect that I do not wish to play down, although it is by no means a binding target under international law. The fact that a figure was named as a concrete target is an enormous step forward. The public finally has a yardstick against which policy can be measured. Copenhagen failed because the negotiating parties were forced for the first time to put their cards on the table. The history of climate talks is a history of moving responsibility further into the future. In Copenhagen, however, it was no longer possible to avoid deciding whether climate protection would also affect national interests. I know that Federal Chancellor Merkel strongly supported climate protection. Ultimately, however, national interests took priority.
Is it at all realistic to expect big solutions from global climate summits with 194 participating countries?
I consider it a myth that the large number of negotiating partners is a problem. The USA and China should show the way forward, then countless smaller countries would follow. I think, however, that there should be a shift away from the principle of unanimity. The conference of the parties to the convention could decide to do that through its rules of procedure. Instead, unfortunately, the participants in the negotiations constantly show self-restraint. That’s also why I believe that subglobal alliances are currently our only chance: that Europe will join with individual industrialized nations like Japan and one or two important emerging countries to form a coalition of the willing. Not only to protect our climate, but also because people want to form a coalition for the new industrial age that manages resources more carefully, that uses them in cycles and, above all, works far more efficiently than in the past.
Where do you see the beginnings of these kinds of new partnerships?
Why shouldn’t China or India join a “fitness club” of this kind? Indians are justifiably proud of their culture of frugality. A reciprocal emissions trade between the EU and India is a conceivable approach. China is already planning a national emissions trading scheme. In terms of its own future prospects, in my opinion, an extremely powerful economy like the one in China has a particularly great interest in securing for itself a pioneering role in this new industrial age.
The Federal Government’s energy strategy has made energy efficiency a key area and is depending on the expansion of renewable energies. Additionally, Germany is pursuing the ambitious goal of achieving a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions compared to 1990 levels by the year 2020. What role can Germany play in the future?
Germany also has a good chance of playing a pioneering role. That is not only due to a strong tradition of technological expertise, engineering and technical higher education, but also thanks to the environmental consciousness of its population. Without appropriate policy framework conditions, however, there can be no shift towards sustainability. Government must take an active formative role. The Federal Government is attempting to do that with its energy strategy. I think the greatest opportunities lie in technological innovation. That’s why our Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) is also among the initiators of the new European Institute of Innovation and Technology, which intends to accelerate innovation processes for climate-friendly technologies in collaboration with companies like Bayer and Solar Valley.
PIK does not only act as a collaborative partner for business, but also as a policy consultant.
We primarily see ourselves as a service provider, also outside Germany. The government of Pakistan recently sought our help on the development of a scientific infrastructure to analyze climate change. Not long ago, Uruguay’s agricultural minister visited us because of a drought in his country. We also make our climate development models available to various countries free of charge. As a publicly funded institute, we also want to give something back to society.
Interview: Johannes Göbel
