(© GKNY)

Interview with Mr. Reinhard Bütikofer

Question: 
Mr. Bütikofer, The dominant topic in recent weeks and months has been the financial crisis. Now we begin to see the impact of that crisis on the real economy. Do you think the economic crisis jeopardizes further steps towards addressing climate change or do you see it as a chance to make investments in energy efficiency, thus curbing CO-2 emissions? What are your environmental priorities?  

Reinhard Bütikofer:
We are currently in a very difficult economic environment. And I am afraid that the worst is yet to come. The financial crisis alone is bad, with an estimated damage of 1.4 trillion euros. The economic crisis will most certainly be worse. But behind all that is the climate crisis, the dimensions of with are incomparable with all that. Within the framework of the project “The Economics of Environment and Diversity”, scientists and economist have estimated that the yearly damage caused by environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity is in the region of five billion euros worldwide. Even now, before the effects of climate change have become more acute, which they most probably will.  Therefore, we think it would be wise to pursue an aggressive strategy that recognizes the crisis as a chance to realize a new “industrial revolution”, a revolution of energy efficiency, away from fossil fuels as the primary base of our economic system. The opportunities are immense. And there are very good reasons to believe that this would also be economically profitable in the short term.  The EU intends to increase energy efficiency by 20 percent by the year 2020. Assuming that goal is met, the EU would save approximately 1 percent of its gross domestic product just by saving energy that today is unnecessarily wasted. That would also mean that the EU would decrease it energy dependence. It would need to import only 53 percent of its energy demand, down from 64 percent today. 

Q.:
The automobile industry in particular is under pressure. In the United States there is a heated debate about whether the “Big Three” carmakers should be bailed out and what conditions should be imposed with regard to the development of more fuel efficient cars. In Germany, carmakers have also pleaded for government help. What is your position? 

A.: 
I think it is wise to tie a bailout for the automobile industry to certain conditions. Politicians should be impressed more by the imaginations of the engineers than by the arguments of the automobile lobbyists. Without doubt, the carmakers have the technological possibilities to develop vehicles of much greater energy efficiency.  

Q.: 
Yesterday, at the political salon at German House New York, you talked about transatlantic climate and energy cooperation. What could that cooperation look like? What would be the German contribution? 

A.:
The German Foreign Ministry has already given an important impulse: the transatlantic climate bridge. This is based on the correct assumption that on the most important issues we have to work together. But cooperation only between Germany and the U.S. is not enough, there has to be cooperation between the entire EU and the U.S. To be more precise, both sides could, for example, appoint a special representative to the upcoming negotiations for the climate conference in Copenhagen in December 2009. Those negotiations won’t be easy. President-elect Obama has still to appoint his team. In less than a year, we want to achieve some results. By 2020, the developed countries have to reduce their CO-2 emissions by 25 percent compared to 1990. That means the U.S., which has not achieved any reduction so far, would have to reduce its emissions by 45 percent within a period of only 12 years, between now and 2020. So there are difficult negotiations ahead of us.  

Q.: 
How could Europeans and Americans develop a common strategy? 

A.:
We have to make some additional efforts. Transparency is important. For example, we could invite observers from the emerging market economies and engage them in the negotiations. First, we should carefully analyze the situation and the risks together to develop a common narrative. Will we see the challenge as a threat or as an opportunity? Will we entrench ourselves and hope for the other to take the first step forward, or will we proceed together with determination and optimism? We can go as far as setting common standards. For instance, we have the Transatlantic Economic Council. We should use it for the necessary cooperation. We also have to talk about building bridges for the developing countries, for their justified demands for financing when it comes to their ecological adjustments and for technology transfer. For example, can we expect the Brazilians to protect their rainforests against their own economic interests without offering them some form of financial compensation? In the end, we all profit from the protection of the rainforest. A common approach of Europeans and Americans here would be extremely important and would be seen positively all around the globe.  

Q.: 
President-elect Barack Obama also seems to be very interested in green technology and ecologic issues. Do you expect the U.S. to lead again in the fight against climate change? 

A.: 
I hope so, because without the Americans there cannot be any progress in the climate debate. We need a constructive U.S. in climate diplomacy. I put great hopes on the newly elected president in respect to him making environment policy and energy efficiency a central issue of his term. Not only would the entire world benefit from the ensuing competition to develop the most advanced environmental technologies, it would also drive German companies to develop new ideas and to think innovatively and to remain creative.  I am also convinced that it is up to the most technologically advanced countries to prove that it is possible to be economically successful and to act responsibly ecologically at the same time. How is the world supposed to find that way if not even those countries with the best conditions for this type of change, those with the best universities, the engineering capacities, the necessary capital, can get there?  

Q.: 
Do you think the energy and environmental proposals of president-elect Barack Obama go far enough? 

A.: 
I don’t want to overrate Barack Obama’s proposals. If he says he wants to invest 15 billion dollars in green technologies, one has to know that every year Germany invests five billion euros in renewable energies alone, and we have done that for several years already. In that regard, the figure Barack Obama announced is not exceedingly high. But he sets the right tone. He sets the right tone because he says that there is an opportunity in environmental technologies, not a risk. And that kind of new thinking can be very productive.  

Q.: 
How do you see the role of China and India? 

A.: 
Both countries are extremely important. Both belong to the five biggest polluters worldwide. In my opinion, at the moment it is easier to involve China than India. China, has, earlier than India, enacted a national climate strategy. China intends to investigate scientifically the ecologic effects of its economic development, to investigate what effects climate change has on China and which actions have to be taken. That is a clear sign that China is taking this issue seriously. I have the impression that the Chinese authorities are aware that an ecological disaster would imperil the stability of their country. That doesn’t mean that they have found all the solutions yet, but I observe a change in rhetoric and I take that seriously. It is obvious that China intends to put this development on a more scientific, more harmonious track. That also means accepting that so far economic development has come at ecological costs that were too high. Also, the population has recently become more aware of that.  

Q.: 
According to projections, 9 billion people will live on our planet by 2050. Given their demands for food, water and other resources, as well as the rising standard of living in many parts of the world, are the climate protection targets realistic?

A.: 
We will only be able to reach our targets if we achieve great technological advancements in environmental technology and renewable energies. A motorization of China with internal combustion engines would be ecologically catastrophic. A motorization with electric energy derived from renewable energy would be a lot less damaging to the climate. We have to decarbonize the economy and develop into a “low carbon economy”. In many cases, the technological know-how is there. However, it is not yet applied sufficiently. One example that comes to my mind is insulation of buildings. We have the so-called “passive house”, which compared to conventional buildings, consumes up to 95 percent less energy.  Today, for every German there are approximately ten tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year, four tons for each Chinese, 19 tons for each American. To effectively fight the threat of climate change, we have to decrease emissions to not much more than one ton per capita globally until 2050. To achieve that, we have to implement fundamental changes. I think it is possible to cover Europe’s electricity demands to 100 percent from renewable energies by 2050. But you will have to invest in energy infrastructure as well, for example for a more intelligent grid, a so- called “super grid” consisting of high-capacity lines combining the decentralized energy feeds and transporting energy over long distances without loss. Then we can reach that target.

Thank you, Mr. Bütikofer