No, it is not irrelevant what Germany does for the climate

I hear these arguments again and again, including in response to my previous guest articles: the entire climate debate is pointless because Germany is so unimportant. Far more important, they say, are large players like China and the USA, where the environmental situation is catastrophic. The whole effort to move away from fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal is therefore futile – it aims at climate protection, but Germany and even the EU can't advance that anyway if others continue to emit so irresponsibly.

But are these assessments even accurate?

Despair and distraction

What's initially confusing is that the China argument has various motives. Some seem to want to express their despair at the climate crisis – which is even understandable. China and the USA alone are currently responsible for around 45 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. If these two countries continue unabated indefinitely, humanity would indeed face a very serious problem.

Many, however, also seem to be looking for reasons to avoid taking action themselves and to dismiss the entire climate debate as nonsensical. That the same things are said for opposing reasons is quite typical of today's political situation: increasingly, the only point of agreement is that current policies are somehow worthy of criticism, except that this view is then motivated from completely different directions, namely for and against climate protection.

However, there are reasons that show neither despair nor excuses are helpful. First of all, Germany's share of global emissions is currently around two percent. If you look at the emissions of the past 200 years, which are still impacting the climate, it's even five percent. Because Germany imports many energy-intensive goods and emissions are measured at the manufacturer's site, not at the consumer's, the statistics are even significantly skewed in Germany's favour.

So, what Germany does matters. And the alternatives aren't simply "total climate salvation" or "total destruction." Every emission saved reduces the likelihood of drastic natural disasters, economic devastation, and other consequences of climate change.

Moreover, China also produces for the Western market. Germany, through its demand, can therefore at least somewhat influence the emissions generated there. It's certainly true that China's overall emissions are far too high, and its per capita emissions are approaching the high levels seen in Europe. However, the country also plays a central role in the global expansion of renewable energies and electromobility. And it's doubtful whether Donald Trump's current "oil first" policy in the US will last. After all, wind and solar power are now often simply cheaper than fossil fuels.

One could argue that climate protection is irrelevant in Germany anyway, because the world is currently going up in flames. All that matters now is weapons and somehow staying afloat economically.

The move away from fossil fuels is also extremely important for Germany and Europe from an economic and security policy perspective. How clinging to fossil-based models ruins the economy—and not the other way around—can currently be seen in the German automotive industry. It has missed the boat on phasing out combustion engines, a process that has long been underway in other EU countries and China. And if heating is to remain affordable in the long term, an even faster energy transition is essential. The recent developments surrounding the war in Iran should have made that abundantly clear. Furthermore, the expansion of renewable energy and improved thermal insulation will create more jobs and generate more added value than fossil fuels can (PDF). Even more importantly, the consequences of climate change will be five, ten, or more times more expensive than the investments made in phasing out fossil fuels.

Some might argue that it's still cheaper and therefore better to shut down coal-fired power plants in China rather than in Germany. But that argument is flawed. China's prosperity has been rising for a long time, which partially negates the cost differences. Moreover, phasing out fossil fuels makes economic sense for Germany and the EU. And there are agreements in place: the world simply has no more emissions budget left to meet the legally binding 1.5-degree temperature limit. All governments must therefore drastically and promptly reduce CO₂ emissions instead of merely urging each other to do so.

Independent from authoritarian regimes

The supposed alternative – climate or economy and security – simply doesn't exist. Furthermore, renewable energies free us from dependence on gas supplies from authoritarian states – which may one day include the USA. And if Germany and the EU continue to purchase gas and oil from the Russian state, sometimes indirectly, we could, in the worst-case scenario, be directly financing the undermining of peace and democracy.

Germany and the EU are therefore not indifferent when it comes to climate protection. But why then are China and Donald Trump repeatedly at the centre of discussions? We know from behavioural research that factual knowledge and values have only a very limited influence on human behaviour. A frequently influential emotional factor is scapegoating – as well as human denial, laziness, and aversion to criticism. The Chinese, the Americans, politicians, the rich, the military are to blame for climate change – that simply sounds more convenient than having to do something myself. Selfish desires for a comfortable, pleasant, and lavish life with lots of travel, large apartments, and daily car journeys, even in cities, may also play a role.

If Europe expands emissions trading rather than dismantles it, as is currently being discussed, it will achieve a timely post-fossil fuel transition most effectively and cost-efficiently. Furthermore, if it implements the recently introduced EU eco-tariffs for climate-damaging products—the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism—more quickly, it will prevent emissions from shifting from the EU to other parts of the world. At the same time, this will create an incentive for non-European countries to phase out fossil fuels. Yes, the global situation is difficult, even desperate. But portraying itself as even more powerless than it actually is will not save Germany.

This article is also published on Die Zeit. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the opinions of leading Sustainability Thought Leaders, their views do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

The world needs sustainability knowledge. At illuminem, no interest group or shareholder can influence our work. Thank you for supporting our mission to make high-quality and independent sustainability information free for all. Every contribution helps. Thank you for donating today.