“Individual companies have pushed Germany to the economic abyss”

FOCUS online Earth: Ms. Kemfert, in your book “Shockwaves” you describe how, as an economics expert, you advised the federal government on energy, climate and transport policy decisions for years and warned against Russia’s dependence on gas. Nevertheless, the country has long been dependent on Russian gas and is now caught in the middle of an energy crisis. How do you feel as a scientist who warned against this so urgently?

Claudia Kemfert: I’m shocked, very shocked. Because, on the one hand, we have deliberately slipped into overdependence on Russia despite sighted knowledge and despite massive warnings – not only from science. But also because we still learn too little from the past. Dependence on Russia could have been avoided if scientific knowledge had not simply been thrown to the wind. In my new book, I explain exactly what went wrong.

Despite scientific warnings, why were the decisions made anyway?

Kemfert: One reason for this Russian gas dependency lies in the close connection between politics and business. The economic masterminds in politics play an enormous role in this. Ignoring science and the influence of business – that’s what got us into this misery. Our dependence on Russian energy supplies is an expensive energy drama for the citizens.

Nevertheless, the cheaper energy in Germany was certainly an economic location advantage for several years. Numerous companies benefited from the cheap energy from Russia and with it the economy. Against this background, do you not understand the government’s decisions?

Kemfert: Only with difficulty because it was not in line with scientific knowledge to obtain so much gas from Russia and all warnings from the USA and Eastern Europe were ignored. And one thing has to be clear: It was only supposedly cheap gas, which was cheap for certain branches of industry, but was bought at an incredibly high price for the entire economy. Individual companies have exercised enormous influence on politics and thus pushed Germany to the economic abyss. The Chancellor still owes us a few explanations for all these decisions.

Which companies do you think are to blame?

Kemfert: I name a few in the book, the most important are certainly BASF, Eon and RWE. The big energy companies only wanted these Russian gas contracts for their own economic benefit. However, the task of the government is to keep an eye on the entire economic dependency, which is associated with all the risks and side effects. And the corporations have brazenly exploited the government’s inaction – regardless of the losses. It has such a dimensionality, it’s almost historical. RWE, Eon and BASF have brought Germany’s economy to the brink of existence. And afterwards they try to convince us that the energy transition is to blame. This is unheard of.

So Germany is now suffering from immense costs in the energy crisis because the old federal government let itself be influenced by business rather than listening to science. How frustrated does that make you?

Kemfert: Less frustrating than enormously shocking! The bad thing is not only the twisting of facts, ignoring or ridiculing of scientific knowledge. The bad thing is: everything goes on as before. As if nothing had happened and we’re still in the endless circular debates. Politics makes the same mistakes again. Whether LNG terminals, coal mining, Lützerath, nuclear debate. This has all been discussed umpteen times. And again and again new fossil dependencies were created and every time it was wrong. Although I see at least further development in the traffic light government, for example when it comes to the expansion of renewable energies, but people still don’t learn from old mistakes, but run straight into the next dependency.

What do you mean exactly?

Kemfert: I mean the completely oversized expansion of the LNG terminals, which will again chain us to fossil natural gas for more than 20 years. This expansion of gas capacities is not compatible with the climate targets for 2045. That many liquid gas terminals are not needed, as was transparently revealed in a study commissioned by the federal government. I understand that the federal government and Robert Habeck were under pressure to supply the country with gas in the short term. But a few floating LNG terminals would have sufficed for a few years. The fixed LNG terminals now have to be used for 20 to 30 years, which is not compatible with the climate targets.

It is often argued that the LNG terminals can then be converted for green hydrogen, which is particularly needed in industry to become climate-neutral.

Kemfert: It is a myth that the LNG terminals can simply be converted. A recently published study made it clear that it is technically very demanding and the terminals cannot simply be used for green hydrogen. Hydrogen has completely different properties than liquid gas, so it needs its own infrastructure with its own pipelines and tanks.

So how do you explain the fact that so many LNG terminals were built at such a fast pace, despite the study situation?

Kemfert: I can only explain it by saying that the oversized alleged demand forecasts gave the impression that we needed very many gas capacities, which the industry wants because of the high profits, but which will maneuver us socially into the next expensive dead end. This is understandable for the companies, but the government should not simply give in to this without further ado. And all of this at a speed that one would wish for in the expansion of renewable energies. LNG terminals will be approved and built in four months. In contrast, it takes up to seven years for a wind turbine to stand. All of this can’t be true!

So you, like many others, are calling for the expansion of renewable energies to be accelerated?

Kemfert: Absolutely, the tempo needs to be tripled or even quadrupled. Approval procedures must be accelerated and simplified. Somewhat better general conditions have now been created, in which the federal states are obliged, for example, to designate areas for wind energy. The guidelines for species protection have also been simplified. Nevertheless, wind and solar energy need a booster program for the energy transition. It’s really a drama: If we hadn’t slowed down the energy transition and thus destroyed more than 150,000 valuable industrial jobs and deprived companies of the market basis, we would not only have sufficient skilled workers and systems today, but also a share of renewable energies of over 80%. Now everything has to happen in the shortest possible time.

Is there any development in renewable energies that gives you hope?

Kemfert: Absolutely! There were and still are many regions, companies and players who, despite all the obstacles, have made their way towards a real energy transition with renewable energies. Today you can smile wearily at the exploding fossil energy prices. The MacGyvers of the energy transition. A prime example is the SolAhr Valley, where solar cells are built over agricultural land. In the Ahr Valley, lessons were learned from the catastrophe and reliance was placed on renewable energies. There are some cities or regions that have switched to renewable energy. Who, for example, produce electricity and heat from sustainable biomass or hospital waste and use it themselves. The solutions are on the table, but a lot more of these MacGyver solutions are needed nationwide.

Part 2 of the interview with Claudia Kemfert will appear on FOCUS online Earth on Friday

Claudia Kemfert, “Shockwaves – Last Chance for Safe Energies and Peace”, Campus Verlag, 310 pages