Italy declares a state of emergency in the north due to drought, around 811 million people are suffering from hunger worldwide, forest fires are destroying a million hectares of land in the USA, the Amazon is losing its resilience – climate change is producing above all horror reports and “suffocating our planet”. But why should we participate in the energy transition, give up flying and driving and reduce our meat consumption when the world is dying anyway? Because that won’t happen even if we miss the 1.5 degree target – this is the message Kalina Oroschakoff and the “Neue Zürcher Zeitung” want to spread with the “Planet A” newsletter. “Because the energy transition also brings a lot of positive things with it,” says the journalist in ntv’s “Climate Laboratory”.
ntv.de: “Planet A” is intended to inform curious, sober, but without apocalyptic about climate change. Why this emphasis on the apocalypse?
Kalina Oroschakoff: That is the challenge. Climate change is currently being experienced by many people and is not only a threat in Germany. Scary things are happening all over the world. At the same time, a lot is happening in the fight against climate change. That’s where we wanted to start: deal with this topic without focusing exclusively on the negative.
At the end of the world?
Yes. We wondered if the world was going to end. I say no. Many others say no. I think that’s important because a lot has changed in recent years. That is why we are concentrating on this conversion to a climate-neutral or climate-friendly economy. That doesn’t mean that no one should or can write about the apocalypse anymore. We just want to focus on solutions and changes.
And do you think that we may miss individual goals, but that we will successfully master climate change overall?
As part of the Paris climate agreement, we committed ourselves to limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees. If possible, even to 1.5 degrees. This has been the political focus in recent years. Also because the IPCC reports make it clear what damage there is to many regions if we don’t reach them – economically, humanely and socially. Unfortunately, the data shows that we as a global community are not yet on course. How do I handle this? Do we take the 1.5 degree mark as a rough guide and push for further effort even if we miss it? Or shall we say we can give up?
We are lost.
Exactly. This is a political risk that needs to be debated and discussed, because voters, people, old and young can understand that goals give direction, but of course they need to be moved.
Even if we miss the target, the world doesn’t end automatically – is that the message?
Yes, that doesn’t make the endeavor any less valuable or right.
With this approach, the reproach resonates that in the media one finds above all the apocalyptic catastrophe reporting on climate change.
I wouldn’t call that an accusation. But I previously wrote for an American outlet in Europe. And from a distance you can already see that in Germany there is sometimes a tendency to stylize the end of the world.
At the same time, however, there are accusations that the climate crisis is being played down if, for example, you report on great heat and use pictures from the outdoor pool or people enjoying the sun.
I always ask myself: Which photos convey this story? Do you choose the burning forest, the calm lake district or a drought to make the whole thing tangible? However, I hope that in the near future not only climate, environmental or science journalists will follow climate change, but also colleagues from politics and business. You can tell. Then you would have multiple and diverse coverage of the many aspects that climate change and rising temperatures bring with them.
Pictures are one thing, but there is also the choice of words. Do you say climate change or climate crisis? Would you rather report on the change because the new world might be better than the old one? On the other hand, it is also a crisis that needs to be addressed.
By “transition” is meant that the EU has committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2050. That’s a huge task. This transformation brings a lot of positive things with it. Environmental activists, politicians, economists and companies also say that switching from fossil fuels to renewable and climate-friendly alternatives can bring benefits.
Otherwise, one should call individual events a crisis. Extreme weather events, for example, which are increasing. When it comes to heat waves, scientists say very clearly: There is no longer any question that climate change has made them more intense and more likely. Certain events are almost war journalism because you drive to destroyed regions. In Germany you have experienced this in the Ahr Valley. These are catastrophes that one describes. However, climate change itself is a long process that does not end and is expressed over many decades with uncertainties and ambiguities. So I would make that distinction.
Does climate change have no fixed starting point and no fixed end?
It will accompany and occupy us throughout our lives.
Is this type of reporting accepted?
There have been more and more readers in recent months, which makes us very happy. At first we only wrote for the German audience, now also for Switzerland. So there are also Swiss readers and Swiss topics. This broader view is of course exciting because you can compare what is happening in Germany and other countries. The reactions of the readers are also increasing. This sometimes takes on entertaining, but also critical forms.
Do you have an example?
Of course, there are still stubborn groups in Germany who believe that climate change is not man-made.
So you read “Planet A” and then write that that’s not true?
Apparently. But I find it interesting that these people are also obviously concerned with the issues and are committed. There are also many who are confused. They write, so to speak, that this or that technology was presented to them as a solution ten years ago and are now asking why that is no longer true.
Hydrogen as a drive option, for example? We’ve been waiting for this for many years. Or nuclear fusion.
Yes. And then they ask, so to speak, in relation to their own lives: What am I going to do now? People aren’t stupid or blind. They understand that the world is changing, but they also expect politicians and society to send clear signals. This is also an exciting topic: Which government expects which society to send which signals? What is happening in Germany? What are the EU’s goals? What are France and Finland doing?
Are there recognizable differences between the EU, Germany and Switzerland?
The nice thing about the EU is that 27 perspectives and 27 arguments come together and you can watch 27 fights. Germany in particular has struggled a lot in recent years because the media has always presented itself as the great climate world champion. But of course that’s not true. This is nonsense.
Who is world champion? Or European champion?
Finland maybe? That has set itself the most ambitious goal, the Finns want to be carbon neutral by 2035. That’s in 13 years. Austria and Germany are also doing relatively well with 2040 and 2045. But Germany in particular hesitated for quite a long time at EU level before climate neutrality by 2050 was approved. You get that in Brussels when you sit around in front of the negotiation rooms for many years and wait until a result is finally announced at 4 a.m. But when politicians are tired, they are often a little more honest and talk nonsense. Then you learn how many different ways Germany has blocked regulations.
As with the combustion engine off?
Yes totally. There are simply people who want to be pioneers, drive change and help shape it. And there are others, and I would include Germany among them, who are more cautious and anxious and want to wait and see what happens and prefer to brake. In the EU structure, of course, you can observe this all the time. Personally, I think fear is a bad advisor – economically, politically and personally. But it will be exciting to see how the showdown unfolds within the traffic light coalition and in the broader political landscape.
And on a global level? Is there a development that surprised you positively?
I found the election in Australia very exciting, because Australia has long been a brake on the international level among the industrialized countries. In May, Scott Morrison’s conservative coalition was voted out of office. A major issue in this election was climate change, as many voters have been hit by incredible floods in recent years.
Also from forest fires or bush fires.
Exactly. The pictures have gone around the world. But many people were left with the impression that the Australian government is doing nothing. There were no plans. Instead, the brakes were applied to protect interests. For example from the coal industry. And then the old Conservatives were also voted out in the affluent areas of Sydney and Melbourne.
But then the driver of the deselection was the view of the apocalyptic conditions, right? Not the positive change…
I’ve talked about this with investors, scientists, energy company representatives, and many others. You always gave both arguments. But it was primarily an economic question: Australia’s major sales markets are in China, South Korea and elsewhere in Asia. At some point, however, the commodities that Australia sits on will not be as relevant and lucrative as they are now. That is why there was pressure from business associations to commit to climate neutrality. You don’t want to miss the chance to make money from renewable energy, green steel or hydrogen.
You didn’t want to be the last?
Exactly, nobody wants to lose the global race for new markets. Someone will determine, dominate and be a technological pioneer.
Clara Pfeffer and Christian Herrmann spoke to Kalina Oroschakoff. The conversation has been shortened and smoothed for better understanding.
