Toralf Staud is co-author of Wir Klimaretter: so ist die Wende noch zu schaffen (We, Rescuers of the Climate: How Change Can Still Take Place). He has been a journalist in the Berlin office of Die Zeit, primarily covering politics in east Germany, the NPD, and other right-wing groups. He also served as an editor of the Greenpeace Magazine. His first book, Moderne Nazis: Die Neuen Rechten und der Aufstieg der NPD (Kiepenheuer & Witsch), was received with critical acclaim.

By writing Wir Klimaretter, do you see yourself chiefly as a journalist writer or a political activist in writing this book?

I'm not a political activist. I'm a journalist. The book is meant to be a classical example of public education. A main aim of this book was to transfer knowledge from the expert community of the climate campaigns to the broader public. The book makes the facts about climate change and the debates around environmental protection understandable and approachable. We wanted the book to appear some days before the G8 conference so that it would reach a larger audience. It was conceived from the beginning with a public impetus. Still, I am not a political activist, and I don't want to be.

Have you received any negative responses from opponents of environmentalism?

No, not yet. We had some people who asked why their initiatives were not mentioned in the book. But so far we have had no critique. We said at the outset that we are not arguing about climate change. We don't have time or energy for that. The facts have been out there for a long time. If people still don't think we're heading towards a climate crisis, then we said in our introduction that those people should read another book, not this one. If you are not convinced, you should watch the Al Gore movie, or read the books of the German climatologists Stefan Rahmstorf or Mojib Latif. Our work is meant for people who accept that things are going wrong, and want to take a part in changing the situation.

We are not talking about whether change is necessary. We are telling people it is possible, and we show how we can really make it happen in just 13 years. The consensus of climatologists is that the trend of ever increasing carbon dioxide emissions has to be altered by 2020. In the years before 2020, there has to be some correction. If we don't fix it, it will be too late.

Are individuals or larger bodies, such as companies and governments, the main culprits of today's environmental crisis? Will solutions come chiefly through individual action, or do the operations of large-scale organizations have to be changed?


I don't like the word culprits so much. If you need a catch phrase, I would speak of a "huge conspiracy." Everyone is part of the carbon dioxide intensive lifestyle. We are living in a carbon dioxide lifestyle. We're in a cafe now, the doors are open, and the air conditioning is on. I came here by bike, but if I came by car, there wouldn't be an environmentally sustainable car on the market that would allow me to travel in a sound way because companies are not producing such cars, the government is not supporting their production, and people are not prepared to buy them. Somehow everyone is part of the problem, which makes it hard to address, but also makes it easy to address, because there has to be a change on every level. But even if we became angels tomorrow, there would not be change if the structures were to change. Tomorrow we have an energy summit at the Chancellor's Office, where the energy companies are sitting together. There are decisions to be taken about the power plants for the next decades, and if they decide to build more coal power plants, then we can be as energy efficient as we want, and we'll still be generating high CO2 emissions.

We have to change our personal lifestyles, but companies have to change their ways of producing. Governments are there to make frameworks. In Germany we have a saying, "Steuren sind zum Steuern da" (Taxes are to properly steer resources). A government has to be prepared to steer, to really make frameworks. Sure there will be losers in the economy. But there will be lots of winners. In every structural change in human history, you always have winners and losers. In the USA in the nineteenth century, the railway barons were winners and the horse breeders were losers. When cars came on the market, the Detroit industrialists were the winners and the railway barons were the losers.

When the main players of European energy production, such as Vattenfall and Eon, decide to stick to the old technologies, such as nuclear or coal energy, then they are choosing to be tomorrow's losers. Solar and wind energy companies will be the winners. The winners will emerge during the project. The providers of energy using traditional sources are trying to prevent the emerging energy providers from having their voices heard. In such a situation, you need a government that is ready to be brave and ambitious. Decisions need to be made today that will show benefits in 20 to 30 years, and thatŐs where the challenge lies.

How easy, or even how possible, is it to effect a change in "Weltanschauung"? How does one create consciousness about the environmental crisis you describe in the book?

I think it's already happening. I'm not so sure about the American debate. From what I'm reading here about the situation in the United States of America, it seems that far away from Washington, outside the Bush government, a change in "Weltanschauung" is taking place. This past winter was very important here in Germany because we didn't have one. The spring started in January, and summer started in April or May. People really feel there is something really weird going on. Such weather phenomena might not be enough to be scientific proof, but people are feeling the change.

Not only information is needed in order to bring about a shift in perspective, one also needs emotion. People are more willing for change than politicians think. In Germany, you have a majority that wants speed limits. But no politician dares impose them, because there are powerful lobbyists out there who tell them that voters will be upset.

One of the main suggestions you offer in your book relates to the use of contracts and market measures, including taxes, to alter behavior and make it more environmentally sound. Do you think there is enough political will among politicians, and among voters today in order to introduce such policies?

I think it's a multi-strategy solution. Everyone can change their lifestyle. If you change to green energy, you show your old energy provider that you're fed up with the way energy is provided. You can organize in groups, church organizations or other such bodies. You can write to your member of parliament. You can become politically active to tell your politicians you want change. I think these grass root strategies are a great solution. With a coordinated climate campaign in Germany I think there could really be big change.

Do Germans have a false perception that they are already the leaders of environmental protection?

The false perception is already there. The Germans think they are the masters of climate change, which they are not. The main reason why the German CO2 balance is so good is because East German industry broke down in 1990. Germany has had something like an 18.5% reduction in CO2. About 11% came out of the East German economic downturn. Something like 5% resulted from the boom of alternative energy sources like wind or solar power. That means that only 2.5% came out of real achievement in energy efficiency. Germany is above the European average in terms of CO2 production per capita. In fact, it is the largest carbon dioxide emitter in Europe. The first step to really becoming a climate rescuer is to become aware that there is a need for change in Germany. The second step is to see past all the advertising and marketing gimmicks that make it seem that a large number of companies are already green. Vattenfall is one of the examples I give in the book. Vattenfall is one of the main producers of brown coal energy, yet they already put up billboards where they say their mines are CO2 free. It's a public relations stunt. They are doing almost nothing today, and even in the future you simply can't have a CO2-free brown coal power plant. What I am trying to say is that the first step involves the need for awareness, and the second one is the need to see past the marketing claims.

What do you think of Al Gore and the Live Earth Concerts?

The work of Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth" is something of an icon. It's the reference point. You can't take part in the public debate on climate change without mentioning this movie.

In terms of the Live Earth Concerts, they were a big show event, but I didn't see too much content. On the other hand, it probably didn't do anything bad. Even if it raised the awareness of just a couple of people, it did some good. Something I noticed that was a bit of a concern was the list of sponsors who presented themselves as climate savers. Philips is promoting its new energy saving light bulbs, but they still sell the old ones too.

Is there a difference in the way American and European activists are going about raising awareness and building political will for major policy and behavioral changes related to the environment?

It's no coincidence that the Live Earth Concerts were an American idea. Americans tend to use optimistic language. Another example is an initiative called Apollo Alliance. ItŐs a wide alliance of liberal politicians, environmental groups and trade unions. And if you take a look at their internet page, you see that they stress that 3 million new jobs can be created by environmental efficiency. They speak of our "Oil Addiction" and our need for freedom from foreign oil. Their mission statement is 120% American. They refer to how Americans put a man on the moon, and can be leaders of environmental action in the 21st century. It is frontier language. Another difference is that Americans tend of focus on solutions through technology, instead of through changed behavior. The idea that we really have to change our lifestyle is more of a European thing.

I'm not deep enough in the American debate to say whether the Apollo Alliance has given away their edge in confrontation with their optimistic tack. But it's certainly a risk. If you are always trying to be positive, then you can't address the crusial points. For example, in our book we certainly considered the positive side of matter throughout many of chapters. We always tried to find positive solutions, positive visions for a new lifestyle. But in the aviation chapter, we didn't have a solution because there isn't a solution Đ if you really want to save the climate, you have to cut back air traffic, or at least cut back its incredible growth rates. You can't be optimistic, and talk about the positive attempts of the aviation industry. It has the hardest impact on environment per kilometer. There's simply no feel good approach here.

In an era without ideologies, or at least with belief systems that are increasingly endangered, does individual interest and libertarianism become the major driving force in social life? You speak about capitalism in your opening chapter. If capitalism continues to be ascendant, and individualism continues to inform people's choices, are we doomed to suffer environmental catastrophe?

I suppose the lives of ideologies operates through boom and bust. You have booms and busts of libertarianism. At the moment, it's a bit on the down turn. Due to the terrorism threat, government are more involved, and people are prepared to give up a lot of their freedom.

I don't know if we are really doomed to a catastrophe. But what is for sure is, if capitalism at least doesn't change, there will be a kind of disaster. But as we wrote, capitalism has been so adaptable in the last 200 years. For example, there was recently a meeting in Geneva of the Global Compact Initiative, which consists of 150 of the largest multinational companies. The group signed a Declaration of Geneva, asking governments to establish new frameworks that would allow companies to take care of the environment, while also remaining profitable.

Open-minded managers already know that there has to be a framework set in place. Without this framework, they argue, individual companies canŐt afford to be environmentally sensible. The push for a reform of capitalism is coming out of the business world itself.

If the USA would take on the responsibility of being a leader and advocate for international environmental protection policies instead of being a critic and opponent of such measures, do you think the situation would change greatly?


Sure, it would change. At the moment, you have a lot of players on the international scene, who are hiding behind the back of the US. As long as they can say they are just doing what the US is doing, it is easier for other countries to block climate protection policies. If you talk to scientists or politicians, theyŐll tell you that nothing in the United States will change until the end of 2008. ItŐs a waste of time to argue with this current government, since itŐs resistant to discussion.