One of the special features of my job is that you occasionally find yourself in premises that most people are only familiar with from television. This Friday, at the end of a crazy week, I found myself in Bellevue Palace, the official residence of the Federal President. Frank-Walter Steinmeier had invited to the “Forum Bellevue”, where a manageable group should discuss how climate neutrality can actually be achieved by 2045. After all the heating heckling of the past few days, weeks and months, there was once again a light at the end of the tunnel.
Annekathrin Hoppe, for example, was there, the mayor of Schwedt. This is the Brandenburg city on the Oder whose refinery was still running on Russian oil until last year – and where half the city suddenly became afraid of the future because this business model collapsed. The refinery is still running, now with different oil – but absorbing all the fears of transporting it cost them a lot of talks, reports Hoppe. Not only with the workers, but also with pensioners, whose heating ran with waste heat from the refinery. Or with retailers in the city center who suddenly had to worry about their customers.
Your descriptions seem to me like a mirror of the past months. With a single law, that on the future of German heating systems, climate policy incarnate had penetrated into people’s homes. The farewell to fossil energy was no longer abstract, but very concrete; an effort that could partly be quantified in euros and cents, partly led to vague fears. And finally in defense.
It has become clear once again in recent months that there can be light years between abstract commitments and concrete action. This gap can only be bridged with a clean derivation, with patience and – above all – with discussions. Fears arise from uncertainty. The climate economist Ottmar Edenhofer was also a guest of the Federal President, he says: “We should have talked about social balance first” – with the emphasis not only on compensation, but also on talking.
The feeling that the dangers of the climate crisis are now generally understood easily leads to the impression that the answers to this crisis are too. This spring has shown that this impression is misleading. The climate-friendly restructuring of the economy and society constantly needs new legitimation. And that can only be found by those who don’t ignore fears, but embrace them.
In this respect, the end of this week is logical: the objection of the Federal Constitutional Court. With the result that the heating law will not be decided at the last minute, but only after the summer break. Irrespective of who within the coalition is to blame for the delay (and the FDP was certainly not innocent): A law whose creation was viewed with distrust by so many people, but which at the same time was supposed to clear the last hurdles at breakneck speed, no one would have blessings can lie. The summer break at least gives you time to take a deep breath.
After that, however, the conversation must continue, because beyond the heaters there are a lot of other construction sites lurking. “We are living in something like a transition period,” said Frank-Walter Steinmeier in Bellevue. On the threshold of something new, however, some are always afraid, while others are curious or hopeful. Fear often prevails. “We have to reawaken something like fascination for the future in this society,” says Steinmeier. He is right. But this can only succeed if you talk about the paths into this future before you stake them out. If you stay in touch.
My colleague Henrike Roßbach (SZ Plus) explained why the arguments about the heating law are unfortunately not pointing in the right direction. Her recommendation: a little more serenity – and seriously respect being different and thinking differently.
With this in mind: Here’s to a good future.
(This text is from the weekly Newsletter climate friday you here for free can order.)