Prof Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Release Date: 2009-09-09
Do you have the feeling that you have changed as you evolved from being a dedicated researcher to being an advisor on climate change for government and business?In a sense I feel I have not changed at all. Trained as a mathematician and physicist, I worked in high level institutions both in Germany and the United States, and in the 1970s I became acquainted with chaos science. As the science of complexity, chaos science deals with topics that are very complicated, very unpredictable but relevant in the end, such as the heart beat, the brain, and perhaps the most complicated thing: the Earth itself and its climate system. My interest came from scientific curiosity and the applications of theoretical physics. During my first professorship at the University of Oldenburg we applied, for example, fractal geometry to tidal flat dynamics in the Wadden Sea. I was virtually sliding into this field.
Later, when the wall came down, I was asked to become director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PIK, which was a weird idea at the time because not many researchers believed that climate change would turn out to be a serious problem. Nevertheless, the reunification made a lot of new opportunities available, so why not found an institute for climate impact research to investigate how much there was behind the issue? I found it attractive to do something completely new, too, and thought that Potsdam was an interesting place. Since the position was offered to me jointly with a Chair for Theoretical Physics at the University of Potsdam I actually did not have to leave my field. While we started with a tiny group we are now almost 250 people with 200 researchers from all disciplines. In a sense, the Potsdam Institute is the first and biggest interdisciplinary institute of its kind in the world. It has been a lot of travel, a lot of work, but also a lot of fun to establish it, as you can imagine. Other institutes might employ 1000 researchers, but are not operating as an integrated problem-oriented team focussed on climate change, as we are. Through the scientific credibility and the character of the topics we pursue, politicians and companies became interested. It has been a continuous process: if you give a talk and people happen to listen, there will always be someone who asks you to a give another talk. From 2001 to 2005, I set up the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change in Norwich as Research Director. I became acquainted with Tony Blair and became a Research Fellow of the Royal Society. Subsequently, in 2005, I was editor-in-chief of the Cambridge University book Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change which summarized the scientific and political foundations for the G8 Summit at Gleneagles. When I returned to Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel asked me to do something similar for the German government as I had done for the British government. During Germany’s twin EU Council and G8 Presidency I was Chief Advisor on Climate Change to the Chancellor. Nevertheless, I still spend half of my time on scientific issues, publishing papers with collaborators here at the institute. Up to about 20 percent of my time is spent on giving political advice. But as an active researcher, I wouldn’t feel comfortable in dedicating more time than that of an advisory role. It is also a matter of keeping one’s scientific credibility toward the public – and the colleagues.
Your office is in the same building Einstein did a lot of his groundbreaking work; when did you realize that the challenge was not to understand the functioning of the climate but rather the change in the climate?
Since I founded the institute in 1992 I knew it was an interesting intellectual challenge. In 1995, for the First Congress of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was presided over by then German Federal Minister of the Environment, Angela Merkel, we prepared the report in which we came up with the 2°C target that, for a number of reasons, appeared to be reasonable. We then began to explore how this target could be realized, calculating emissions reductions and renewable energy requirements, which made us realize how dramatic the impact of climate change is and how urgently we need to de-carbonize modern societies.
You begin to feel it is not just a scientific issue; it is really about a world in change and about contributing to this change with modest forces, being a voice in an ocean of voices. Over the last decade I have told people that we have a choice: We either ignore climate change, and this will transform life on this planet. Or we do something to counter it, and this will change the way we operate society. There will be dramatic change either way. So isn’t it better to be proactive and shape our own future?
The discussion always seems to be about how much it will cost to keep the rise in temperature below 2°C to minimize the potentially devastating impact of serious climate change; why do we hear so little talk about the business opportunities presented by international efforts to curb climate change?
For several decades it appeared as if we didn’t know much about climate change, with the media helping to establish this perspective. Whenever somebody came up with a crazy idea about the origins of climate change he would be immediately pushed into the limelight by some magazine; this has forced us into a decade of inactivity regarding climate protection. Also, the debate has been deliberately intoxicated by certain interest groups. There are the so-called climate sceptics, who oppose the mainstream assessment of climate change science in an often scientifically irrelevant way, at best, and a disingenuous manner, at worst. There is some irony about this group if you consider that it is the scientists themselves who are notoriously sceptic about their own results. From the cost perspective, companies that are currently doing well in business are afraid of technological change and innovation, in particular those industries that feel that they will not be part of the new era of technology. Technological giants like Siemens have a portfolio to protect themselves, so that in case one particular sector goes down another sector can still be successful. You can identify the industries that fear nothing more than change. I can understand that companies have to defend their position, but from the point of view of a national economy it is a very short-sighted stance. There are many more opportunities in transforming our society towards sustainability than there are risks; that is absolutely clear. I recall Merkel in 1995 saying, “Professor Schellnhuber, maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong on your account of climate change, but I deeply believe that we have to become independent of fossil fuels anyway. That is a win-win opportunity that we have to pursue”. Yet people still believe there will be miraculously cheap oil forever, which is not true, of course, or that there will be “clean coal”, which may be true but will cost a lot. It is clear that continuing to do business as usual is very costly, whereas change would actually open many profitable ways. Unfortunately, European industries in particular have become inherently conservative. The premises of today’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research were built during what the Germans call the “Gründerzeit”. By the end of the 19th century, many new industries sprang up with pioneers, such as Siemens and Bosch, deploying their ideas. It was a co-evolution of technology, industry and culture, and was probably the golden age of Germany. Something like this could come again if we renewed our energy systems, which are still very inefficient. However, the people who fear they have the most to lose, often the uncompetitive industries, generally exaggerate the costs.
When Angela Merkel was inaugurated as Chancellor she was referred to as ‘Green Chancellor’. This image seems to have faded over time; was there real change in Germany’s position or is this simply a trend in public opinion?
The alleged change in position exists only in the perception of certain media. Chancellor Merkel is actually one of the few people in the German cabinet who fully understands the climate problem. In fact, she played a pivotal role in L’Aquila supporting the 2°C target, which is absolutely instrumental to avoid dangerous climate change. Merkel and President Obama were both key in getting this target through. Now, even China supports this target, which is fantastic progress. Once the negotiating nations have accepted the 2°C line, everything else can be derived from sheer physics, such as the remaining “carbon budget” available to the world. Merkel was also the driving force behind the 20/20/20 targets in the EU. At the same time, she is a very shrewd person. I recall a meeting three years ago where all automobile leaders were sitting in the front row and both Merkel and myself gave a talk. I said frankly that in two decades individual mobility will probably be only electric cars, particularly in urban areas. This statement appeared to shock the automotive industry executives. Merkel knew that the car industry was not ready to be tackled in such a direct way. Many people misinterpret Merkel; she will follow a certain strategy for a long time and ,while she will detour from time to time, she will not go astray. For Chancellor Merkel the challenge is to find the right balance between strategy and tactics.
The economic crisis caused both global CO2 emissions to go down, creating fewer incentives to invest in green emission reduction, while it also seems the world that emerges from this crisis will be greener. In which ways has the crisis affected the international focus on climate change?
Initially, Germany was against inflated rescue packages, but in the end Chancellor Merkel had to make a compromise with other leaders. A lot of money was spent, and it is becoming clear that the real growth areas are renewable energy, infrastructure, sustainable food production, clean water and environmental services. I recently spoke with people from the telecommunications industry in Germany. They see a great future for a whole new set of gadgets. But ultimately the real money will come from something like intelligent energy systems.
Yes, the world is going to become greener. The idea of sustainability, which previously was only given lip service, has taken on a completely new meaning through the financial crisis - too many people were dealing with completely insubstantial things which have snowballed. It has become clear that the real economy has to be built on real services and resources - and the global environment is a central part of it. We have recently seen that China, South Korea and other countries are investing in their competitive advantages in these niches, and I’m sure this will wake Europe up. I really don’t see any other huge markets. The reinvention of modern industrial society has to be based on sustainability since we will eventually run out of oil and gas. This is a huge opportunity that should be exciting for everybody because, after all, who wouldn’t like to have bluer skies, cleaner water, and energy that isn’t controlled by incalculable despots.
I know a little bit about the Chinese leadership and my impression is that they are very rational people. They want to control their wealth in the right way while not giving away too much power. They know they have to bring about the transformation to sustainability - otherwise the Chinese people will punish them.
How can Germany cooperate with China on the issue of climate change in order to not lose its international political and economic standing in the longer term?
Germany is not a huge power in military terms, but when it comes to innovation and technology it is a significant player. We are still the world champion of exports. Germany certainly is instrumental in the reinvention of modern society in a more sustainability way. In Eastern Asia particularly, Germany has a very good reputation when it comes to innovation and new concepts that are feasible in practice. The Chinese are really pragmatic people who will ask, “How can I break it down into something that can be implemented in my suburbs or rural areas?” This is where I think Germany will be an extremely valued partner together with other European countries such as The Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, or Italy. I’m not worried that Germany will become marginalized in this process. And don’t forget Germany is a leading actor in the European Union which, compared with other leading powers such as France and the UK, has not lost track of its manufacturing.
The rebirth, if you will, of Eastern Germany would not have been possible without the investment in the solar and wind industries. The Potsdam Institute, together with another institution, conducted a study to demonstrate how many green jobs could be created over the next years with a certain investment. This study proved that it really is the most elastic sector of all, meaning it has the highest job pay off per euro invested. For example, Frankfurt (Oder) was economically dead as a city, and but now has attracted a lot of companies operating in the solar industry. Of course, they are dealing with the crisis but they have the potential at the very least to become key players in the reinvention of German industry. I am convinced that Germany has a number of interesting examples to show. The same is probably true in the chemical industry where Germany is a world leader. In public, their management tends to be very conservative, but I know behind the scenes that they are really trying to catch up. Things that, in the beginning, people considered too costly are emerging as transformative innovations that form the basis for the systems solutions we need.
Will this be the domain of Germany’s large multinationals such as Siemens, or do you see an important role for medium sized enterprises to contribute to these developments?
Large companies can deliver through R&D investment, but more and more there will be consortia of large, medium sized and small enterprises that deliver system solutions together. DESERTEC is an example of this trend. Also, the Hi-Tech Strategy of the Federal Ministry for Education and Research, headed by Minister Annette Schavan, is not just cheap talk.
Is it a missed opportunity that consortia like DESERTEC are solely made up of European companies? What could be the potential impact of companies from China or India that would be invited to participate in the experience and that could in turn enable consortia to duplicate projects in their home markets?
German companies are fairly active in China, but cooperation for environmental opportunities has not taken place on a large scale. A decent climate agreement in Copenhagen should have a strong focus on emissions trading and technology transfer. This would automatically create an international framework with opportunities for cooperation with India and China. My guess is that this would generate many bilateral agreements and a new dynamics.
Who should have the strongest voice in the process of finding climate change solutions: the politicians who create the framework, scientists who create scenarios and recommendations or businesses that drive the implementation of solutions?
I’m convinced that these three parties will not be singing equally with all of our voices. We scientists will have to do our job by looking at the facts. It is our responsibility to make ourselves audible and visible when we see heavy risks arising. We cannot just say, “by the way, the world will go under in 10 years”; we have to sound the alarm in a considerate way. I happen to have a one year old son and of course I care for his future. Business will do its part of the job: they will always jump on the opportunities once they are clear to them. I deeply believe that it is political leadership that will make the difference. But I doubt that huge conferences like the one in Copenhagen will automatically do the job. These are often dreary events; there is nothing more exhausting and boring.
In the end, there will be a few politicians, like Obama and Merkel, who can change the game. If you are the leader of a country you have the chance to make two or three unpopular decisions. Great leaders pick the right topics for their unpopular decisions, while weaker leaders pick topics that are in their self-interest. I think that right now some politicians have the calibre to make the right decisions - and that will make all the difference. As a historical metaphor I sometimes use the abolishment of slavery. When you read Bury the Chains you will see how three or four people in the end brought about the abolition of slavery in the UK through Parliament, which took some 40 years. Sometimes it needs people to make a stand and decide what is good for the future of humanity. It turned out that the right people were on the right side. If those people at the time hadn’t said, “Yes, we will do this, this is our historical responsibility”, then it could have taken another 50 years, or maybe the US never would have succeeded in the same way that Abraham Lincoln had, to follow up on this. I think that a few other great personalities, such as Nelson Mandela or Prince Charles, can inspire the political players. In the end, the decisions are in the hands of our political leaders. That’s why we elect them and entrust them with our and our children’s future.
Do you believe that China’s leadership can make the difference at COP 15 at the end of the year?
Of course, China is the dark horse in the race. If you had asked me a few years ago I would have been very sceptical because China simply did not seem to move in any way on the topic. But this has changed. Last year, I went to China with the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, where we met with the Climate Advisory Board of the country’s Prime Minister. For the first time I heard Chinese ministers say that climate change is the biggest threat to humanity in this century. In an immediate reaction, I thought the interpreter may have gotten it wrong but it turned out to be correct. China’s leadership is very aware that their nation is highly vulnerable to climate change. Just think of the coastline, which faces more tropical cyclones than the Gulf of Mexico, and the melting glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau. I compare the global warming problem with the arms race; both are prisoners’ dilemmas. Individually, the players act highly rational in their quest for competitive advantage. Collectively, we all lose in the end. We know from history that such a dilemma can only be broken up by trust, by someone who is a pioneer and moves first. The EU has already moved but we are not that important. If Obama goes to Copenhagen backed by Congress and says he is willing to move first because there is a historic responsibility to act, then this will force China to move as well as they can no longer hide behind the United States’ inaction. The Chinese have been waiting for a reasonable offer to come from the US. But over the last 8 years nothing reasonable has been presented because of who was sitting in the White House. As part of the German delegation in the UN climate negotiations I had to deal with people representing the Bush administration, and I had the impression that they were not always at the same intellectual level as many people from other countries. Obama, on the contrary, has picked the smartest people in his country from places like Harvard, Stanford, and MIT. My hope is that he goes to Copenhagen and does not give China any reason to hide behind a laggard US.
| Company: | Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) |
| Position: | Director |
| Country: | Germany |