Professor Schellnhuber,
Lord Stern,
Mr Molina,
State Secretary Schütte,
Fellow Members of the German Bundestag,
And above all you, ladies and gentlemen, who are the guests here today,

The title of this symposium – and this is 20 years after Rio – is Towards Low-Carbon Prosperity. It’s a topic that is regrettably still not obsolete. We could even say that it’s more up to date that ever. Granted, there has been some movement over the last 20 years on all those issues relating to exploitation of resources and climate change – movement towards solving those problems. However, things have been moving too slowly compared to the speed of the changes we find ourselves faced with. Global CO2 emissions have continued to rise. We therefore need to keep pushing to make sure that our goal of limiting the temperature increase to two degrees is not forgotten.

As Lord Stern has demonstrated, doing nothing has a high price. We have to be constantly reminding ourselves that things will not get any better if we avoid taking action. It may seem like the path of least resistance, but it will prove to be just the opposite in the long term. Finding a sensible way to deal with our finite resources as well as climate change has become a completely global issue. The last twenty years have made it clear that the issue is no longer something for the industrialized countries to address alone. Even if they did go it alone and take all the right action, we would still have a climate change problem; global warming would still continue. Nowadays, the responsibility lies with other countries too. That said, what we agreed in the Framework Convention on Climate Change still holds true: we have common but differentiated responsibilities. The industrialized countries have a prominent role to play wherever they can, in particular when it comes to developing and testing technology as well as taking the lead in new policies.

When I talk about these issues, I always pair climate change with efficient resource management or the problem of finite resources. That’s my way of avoiding the discussion that the sceptics always raise, about whether or not climate change is really going to be as severe as people say. Even those who don’t believe in climate change are forced to acknowledge that there is a problem when faced with the fact that the world population in heading towards the 9-billion mark. Don’t misunderstand me. Personally, I believe that something is happening to our climate. But just to avoid wasting time talking about whether or not that is the case, I will say this: those people who don’t want to believe it, who are always spreading doubts and concentrating on the things we can’t know for sure – they should simply recall that 9-billion mark and take a look at the speed at which we are using up our mineral resources. They will then reach the same conclusion as someone who does acknowledge climate change, i.e. that we are better off if we can dissolve our dependence on conventionally generated energy. The two crucial elements of the answer must therefore be changing our energy supplies, by switching to renewables, and dealing more efficiently with energy and the resources we have.

Looking at the way commodities prices develop, fluctuations notwithstanding, the trend is clear. In the vast majority of cases, scarcity results in price rises and competition for stockpiles. Even though some are now experiencing a degree of relief thanks to shale gas, that relief cannot be so extensive and lasting as to allow us to forget everything we have said about energy efficiency and renewable energy. The German Advisory Council on Global Change has brought these issues to the fore time and again since it was established twenty years ago. Let me take this opportunity to thank all the people who have been dedicating their energies to that work over the last two decades.

I think we can all agree that we need a follow-up agreement to the Kyoto Protocol – a new climate change agreement. From time to time we have reason to be hopeful, and sometimes – I’m just going to say it – things do get frustrating. But then, just when you’re thinking that there is no hope at all, we do see a bit of progress. The impression is that progress is always too slow, but it’s progress nonetheless. It was meaningful, for example, that we agreed in Durban to keep going, to keep working towards a climate change agreement.

It is also important that we not take our eye off the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Germany is very keen to forge ahead here and reduce its emissions by 40% of 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% by 2050. We are pressing for ambitious policies at the European level too. We have some scope for action right now. That is obvious in the prices of certificates, which don’t give the impression that scarcity has reached desperate levels. There will therefore be more said on the matter. Among other things, the funding for all the essential measures we are planning is very closely connected to revenue from the trade in certificates.

It needs to be acknowledged that the EU did reduce its annual greenhouse gas emissions by more than 15% between 1990 and 2010. Germany contributed not a little to that success. We shouldn’t harp on about it, but we also shouldn’t be under any illusions either – Germany was responsible for a very large proportion of that reduction. However, it isn’t likely that we will be able to play quite such a prominent part in future reductions, as Germany’s reunification is not something we can repeat. We are now on the same playing field as everyone else.

That hasn’t stopped us enacting lots of legislation to become one of the most energy-efficient and environmentally friendly economies in the world, especially when it comes to industrial production. We are still lagging far behind that level in the sphere of private consumption, such as in the heating market. There is still a lot that we can do there.

We have decided to raise the proportion of renewables in our overall energy consumption to 60% by 2050. For electricity consumption, that figure is to be 80%. That means we need to be establishing the right conditions now. My Government adapted our energy policy once again in view of what happened in Fukushima last year. That led to a consensus across German society on phasing out certain forms of energy, like nuclear power. The same level of consensus has not yet been reached with regard to the changes and infrastructure that will be necessary to make that a reality. We still have a long way to go yet, as it is clear that switching to the era of renewable energy implies a massive qualitative adjustment for energy supplies and the economy concerned.

Our legislation incentivizing renewables development has to be integrated with the decreasing but still essential use of classic usually fossil fuels that provide base-load power. That will be the key task of the next few years. We are going to need some radical new thinking to make sure that fossil-fuel energy production – which has always been profitable – remains economical without at the same time giving up on incentives to boost the renewables sector. This is going to involve capacity markets. We just need to watch that we don’t end up only producing subsidized energy but keep things cost effective too.

When we speak about sustainability, one thing has always been clear to us, namely the three-part principle of being environmentally friendly, socially just and cost effective. We are going to have to think about that in quite a radically new way now. For example, if the renewable energy has priority flowing into the grid, as it does in Germany, that doesn’t automatically chime with the running of a newly built coal-power plant and its base-load hours.

To make it work, two things are essential. The first is that we adapt the grids, as they are going to have very different tasks to rise to than they did before. There is a lot of work being done in that regard, particularly in terms of the requisite technology. The second aspect of the transition is that we need to find ways of storing power. The search for electricity storage is one of the major challenges of times and calls for innovative solutions. That is why so much research is being undertaken in that field.

Research is the key if our switch to renewables is to succeed. The German Government, thanks to the Research Minister’s High-Tech Strategy, has found a way of speaking honestly about what research areas we are world leaders in and what areas still need work. Energy is a particularly significant field of research. However, we are nonetheless aware that other countries have high ambitions in that area too. In other words, if we want to remain innovative, we are going to have to really work at it.

This isn’t just about a storage facility here or a section of the grid there, nor even about the technology we will need; it is also about the whole of society working together. I’m talking, for example, about the carbon-free city, smart grids and completely altered consumer behaviour. Consumers have to think for themselves about the factors that make something attractive or otherwise. That will mean a change in behaviour across society, the argument for which is still to be won. We can think ourselves lucky to have discovered the blessings of IT, the internet and all the possibilities of data sharing at just the right time. If it weren’t for them, it would be impossible to manage all the interconnected logistics necessary to switch to a completely different sort of economy. As we can see, humanity always comes up with some¬thing useful to help us manage the changes we undertake.

The people of Germany are not always as willing to change as we might wish. But we have to see that the only way we will maintain our prosperity in the coming decades is by staying innovative. As our average age rises and our horizons tend to shrink as we age, our society is very much at risk of resting too complacently on its laurels. We need to be doing all we can to use life-long learning to encourage people to look beyond their horizons and maintain our ability to innovate, which our progress is grounded in. There are emerging economic powers doing exactly that extremely well.

Our efforts involve many small elements, such as pilot projects for carbon-free cities, smart grids and for an extremely energy-efficient house. A few months ago, I joined Urban Development Minister Peter Ramsauer to open the Efficiency House Plus; a four-person family has moved in and will report on what it’s like to live in. As you can tell, our capabilities are growing in many areas. Over the coming years, we need to connect them up.

It goes without saying that international agreements and cooperation are tremendously helpful. Here, too, there has been a whole series of successes, and I’m not just talking about the timetable developed at Durban, nor just about the new cooperative constellations in world politics.

A country like China knows it can no longer play the same role in energy supply and climate change policy as it did 20 years ago, and that basically has two reasons. Firstly, its own energy needs and use of natural resources are higher than ever before. Secondly though, it is just not as easy nowadays to form the partnerships with developing countries that one may wish to.

We all remember when the G77 plus China was an immutable formation, back when we negotiated the Kyoto Protocol. Things aren’t that simple anymore. Suddenly the G77 are aligning themselves more with Europe, while China, we could almost say, is having to work on keeping its old partners. The balance of power does shift and change, and it brings new alliances when it does so. Durban could not have been successful without close collaboration between developing countries and states within Europe.

Let me say very clearly that my vision of Germany and Europe taking a leading role also has an ethical dimension. Of course, taking that role is partly about safeguarding our own standard of living. But it is also our moral duty to conduct test phases, to learn how best to deal with the complex of new energy supplies, resource efficiency and efficient technology, and to subsidize progress. After all, while other countries did not yet have the wherewithal to pursue the same prosperity as we enjoyed, we spent many years and decades overexploiting the world’s resources. With that in mind, we have a duty to redress the balance somewhat. I feel that we should step up to that duty and, what’s more, turn it to our advantage.

That means using our Energy and Climate Fund for the agreed projects and the developing countries. It’s therefore very important that we really are able to mobilize the resources we have promised, because a large number of countries have based their hopes of taking essential measures on the availability of those resources. The Green Economy Roadmap is of key importance, and we need to consolidate it at the United Nations with more detailed substance and timeframes. Managing that will be particularly significant in the run-up to Rio.

One long-running problem that is still outstanding and is sadly not going to be resolved in Rio is the fact that the UN still doesn’t have an institution focused on sustainability and protecting the environment – an institution which I feel it needs in view of how significant those topics are. The key areas it would address would be of course climate change but also biodiversity and many other topics that require attention. As I have said before, I am also not going to object to the high probability that the organization would be based in Africa. I think that’s a good thing. The UNEP there stands as a useful foundation. But it is a sad indictment of the pace at which the international community works to note that we have reached the 20th anniversary of Rio without making any progress on this point.

You are all here representing various branches of science, and I want to say one thing to you: stay stubborn. And, to put it bluntly, don’t be afraid to get on politicians’ nerves from time to time. If you have good arguments, we will listen, and we won’t be able to wriggle out of them. That communication is happening all over the place. Keep working to increase the community within our society of people who say yes, we need fundamental change.

The last 20 years have seen a major shift in thinking, on the part of industry as well as many ordinary people, but all the progress we make will be in vain if the change comes too late. That’s why I am always urging people to look at what will happen if we do nothing – and it’s a harsh prospect. Even if the changes we are experiencing would have happened without industrialization – to come back to the doubters for a moment – that doesn’t change the fact that there are seven billion of us on this planet and there’ll be eight billion before long, with the majority living in completely different parts of the world than hundreds of years ago. That fact alone is going to have consequences capable of triggering conflicts across our civilization which will cost us dear.

I can tell you that this is why the German Government has committed itself to the Council for Sustainable Development, and to the German Advisory Council on Global Change, as organizations that will scrutinize what we do and force us to think differently. We are well aware that we still have a lot of work to do in many areas, from demographic sustainability, to budgetary sustainability, to resource sustainability, to environmental sustainability.

I would also like to ask the environmental community for a little support when it comes to budgetary sustainability. We are currently caught up in a discussion which sometimes seems utterly bizarre to me. People are saying that we do nothing but save these days. I must point out that what we are actually discussing is whether to spend ten percent more than we have per year or only five percent, or perhaps three. Almost nowhere is the discussion about actually paying anything back, and almost nowhere are we talking about only spending what we earn in any one year. There are a few Scandinavian countries setting an example in this regard, but in all other cases, when people say “austerity” they actually mean running a deficit of three to six percent. I cannot see this doing us a lot of good in the long run. Sustainability needs to become a central tenet in every area of our lives. Sound growth and well-founded prosperity cannot be built on debt, greater use of resources and other such wasteful practices.

Since I know that you all already know that, I will simply say this: let us stand firm together, all courageously doing our bit, to make the change we need happen. Convincing the majority is not always easy, but I believe it is our duty to do so. I wish you all the very best of discussions. It has been a privilege to speak to you – thank you very much indeed.