Climate Protests Overdue  [02.07.19]

Young people in the "Fridays for Future" movement have succeeded in doing what climate researchers have failed to do in recent decades: Putting the climate crisis at the top of the political agenda. The renowned Hohenheim climate researcher Prof. Dr. Volker Wulfmeyer considers the "Fridays for Future" movement to be overdue and also sees his own profession as having a duty: "We climate researchers also have to express ourselves much more clearly, develop proposals and call on politicians to act," he explains in an interview with the Online Courier.

Prof. Dr. Wulfmeyer is head of the Institute of Physics and Meteorology at the University of Hohenheim and investigates, among other things, the modelling of regional climate changes, feedback effects of changing vegetation on climate, and the more accurate prediction of extreme weather events.

Interview

Mr. Wulfmeyer, in the beginning some politicians smiled condescendingly at the "Fridays for Future" movement. At the latest since the outcome of the European elections and the enormous popularity that the Greens are currently experiencing, this seems to be changing.

As a climate researcher, what do you think about the movement? Even Hohenheim students regularly take part in the Friday demonstrations...

I'm relieved that something's finally happening. This movement is overdue. Unfortunately, the findings are not new. We climate researchers have been saying for 30 years that we are heading for a man-made catastrophe if we do not act immediately.

I am pleased that Hohenheim students are also taking part in the demonstrations. I myself was one of the first to sign the declaration "Scientists for Future", in which more than 25,000 scientists declare their solidarity with the aims of the movement. We have founded a regional group in Stuttgart and are also in exchange with Stuttgart students of Fridays for Future.

A meeting of the regional group is also planned for Hohenheim in the coming months. I would be delighted if interested students or colleagues could join me.

The young activist Greta Thunberg finds very forceful words in her lectures. She speaks of the greatest crisis humanity has ever seen, wondering why politicians remain so calm in the face of the existential threat. In her opinion, fear would be a more appropriate response. She therefore demands top priority for the topic.

To what extent do you agree? Is it helpful to panic?

One thing's for sure: The climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity. And politics must finally react appropriately. Of course panic won't get anybody anywhere. There would also be no reason to panic if we finally took the issue seriously and acted accordingly.

People by nature tend to think in the short term. You worry about the next few years, a good job, your personal circumstances. And politics seems to be all about winning the next elections. However, we are talking here about an extremely dangerous development, the real effects of which will not be felt until 2050 or 2100. In comparison, the heat waves and extreme weather events of recent years are no more than harmless harbingers.

When Ms. Thunberg's words contribute to awakening us from the prevailing lethargy, they make an important contribution. For there is hope in all of this: the climate crisis is caused by human activity - in other words, we have the power to avert the worst. But we have to do it, too. And fast.

That's easier said than done. Doesn't politics necessarily always have to find compromises and win people over? In Europe we are currently seeing a strengthening of populist forces, some of which are denying climate change...

The Paris climate agreement is already the hard-won international compromise behind which we cannot go any further. Global warming by the end of the century must be limited to a maximum of 2 degrees, better 1.5 degrees. To achieve this, it is necessary for us to achieve climate neutrality by 2050.

However, the German government has now declared that the targets for 2020 will not be met. But we cannot say that we will postpone all this by 10 years or accept 1-2 degrees more global warming. The effects would be devastating. Unfortunately, the climate does not accept any compromises.

A year ago, many politicians were still saying that they had to win people over and therefore needed more time. But today the picture is quite different: People are finally getting up and trying to shake up the politicians and get them to act. That is why politicians can no longer hide behind the alleged will of the voters.

As far as the denial of anthropogenic climate change by populist forces is concerned, from a scientific point of view I can only describe it as completely absurd. Quotations are used that are incorrect, taken out of context, or have been completely refuted.

Are climate researchers united in their assessment of the situation?

There is a rumor circulating in public that climate data can be interpreted in very different ways and that science itself does not agree on this. This is wrong. All serious climate researchers - by this I mean experts who have understood and are researching the Earth system and the atmospheric greenhouse effect - agree on the basic points.

Of course, there are also natural fluctuations in the climate system against which we are powerless. But the current temperature rise is different. It is taking place much more rapidly and in line with the enormous increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere since the beginning of industrialization. It's impossible to wipe that connection off the table.

With simple calculations and climate models, we can prove that the main cause of the rise in temperature in recent decades is the greenhouse effect caused by humans. This is also part of our teaching at the University of Hohenheim. All factors that are repeatedly listed as alternative causes of temperature fluctuations are negligible and uncorrelated, such as changes in solar radiation, changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, or a shift in the Earth's axis. These processes are, of course, already taken into account by the climate models.

Nevertheless, there are obviously still many open questions - otherwise you would be unemployed as a climate researcher, wouldn't you?

As scientists, we deal with many exciting research questions about the climate system, such as the development and predictability of extreme events and the influence of land surface vegetation on climate. That's why we'll never be unemployed. But we have to deal with the climate crisis because it is the biggest challenge facing humanity.

There are different estimations especially concerning whether the whole development is 10 years faster or slower, or half a degree milder or more extreme, etc.. In addition, climate change can have very different impacts in specific regions. Another controversial question is whether and how we can still limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius if measures are introduced quickly.

What is not yet sufficiently taken into account in current climate models, for example, are further feedback effects. If, for example, permafrost soils melt in Arctic regions, methane is released, which in turn accelerates the further rise in temperature.

Personally, I am concerned with the feedback process of a changing land surface. If, for example, the vegetation changes as a result of climate change, this change in turn also has an effect on the climate. In the DFG research group "Regional Climate Change", we try to model the effects of climate change for certain model regions as precisely as possible and also include such complex feedback effects.

Unfortunately, there is every indication that all these feedback effects will further accelerate climate change in general and not mitigate it.

If there's such a great deal of agreement about the gravity of the situation: Why did it take a student movement to put the issue at the top of the political agenda? Doesn't your profession have to be critical of itself here?

You're addressing an important issue. I have personally presented the causes and consequences of the climate crisis to the public in many lectures since I started working at the university in 2001. Almost two years ago, I myself wrote a manifesto that had almost the same content as the call to "Scientists for Future". I circulated this among the climate researchers and asked for their support. However, the success was very limited.

In recent decades, many climate researchers have retreated to the view that science and politics must remain separate. According to the motto: We deliver the knowledge - others have to act. On the other hand, I am convinced that a scientist has the obligation to become socially active when a crisis threatens.

Of course, the scientific knowledge process itself must not be political. Results must be obtained solely according to neutral scientific standards. However, when knowledge is available and politicians fail to draw the necessary conclusions in the face of an impending crisis, scientists also have a social responsibility. The fact that young people are now taking the floor is a great development and gives cause for hope again.

What do you think should happen in concrete terms?

In the regional group "Scientists for Future" we are currently working on a concrete catalogue of measures for state and federal policy. 

The most important point: The CO2 charge must be introduced. CO2 savings must be rewarded, CO2 emissions must become more expensive. There is no other way to achieve such a far-reaching change in behavior. Socially acceptable solutions can also be found. The income can be redistributed accordingly so that the socially disadvantaged receive compensation. In some countries this is already being done successfully.

In addition, the development of renewable energy must be massively promoted and innovations must be better supported. The Renewable Energy Sources Act was originally one of the most successful laws in the world, but has since been reformed in such a way that small and medium-sized enterprises are virtually unable to participate at all in tenders for new wind turbines. That needs to be corrected urgently.

My colleagues from the economic sciences have also shown that it is not the energy revolution that is expensive, but rather missing it.

In our last article about the Scientists for Future statement, there was a lot of discussion in the comment column. Are national measures not rather a drop in the bucket in Germany? Shouldn't global developments such as the growing world population be given the greatest attention?

It is not a question of whether we should promote either national or global action. Rather, action at national level is a crucial step towards achieving effective results at global level. The growing world population brings with it many problems and can also accelerate climate change. This is not necessarily the case, however, but ultimately depends on which reforms take place in the individual countries and how they reduce CO2 emissions.

The Federal Republic of Germany is the sixth largest CO2 emitter in the world. So if we act, it's going to do a lot of good. As a rich industrial country and the main polluter, we also have a special responsibility and a role model function. Most of the CO2 that is now additionally in the air was not caused by China, but by the EU and the USA. If a country like Germany does not manage to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement, who will?

 

We'll report. Thank you so much for the interview.

Interview: Leonhardmair; Translation: Neudorfer