Nallinger: “This back and forth is a pure gift for the economy” – Economy

SZ: Ms. Nallinger, die Climate policy has seen better times. German industry points out that the climate goals are “not set in stone”, and similar things are heard from the FDP and the Union. Was that it? Climate protection?

Sabine Nallinger: No. We didn’t set our climate goals out of whim. It’s about nothing less than survival on this planet, about good living conditions. And in the companies I talk to, it sounds completely different. Almost all of them set out, developed strategies and invested. What they need most now is reliability. But yes, times have become difficult.

But are they perhaps too difficult to invest in climate protection now?

Of course times are challenging. But there are many reasons for that. Energy prices are high, as are additional wage costs. The warehouses of many products are full, which is driving down prices. And there are simply many products that others now produce just as well as we do. And on top of that comes the transformation, the climate-friendly conversion. That doesn’t make things any easier.

But it sounds as if such a transformation would only be possible if the economy is doing well.

No, quite the opposite. If we want to continue to be a thriving business location, then we have to invest in future markets. Also in green steel, green cement, renewable energies or electric cars. The majority of companies have already internalized exactly this.

Instead, the Union demanded that the planned departure from the internal combustion engine be overturned.

This back and forth is a pure gift for the economy. Companies need reliability, but instead things are constantly being questioned. I find that irresponsible. We actually need something like a long-term consensus, outside of legislative periods. The transformation we are facing does not run in four-year cycles. Otherwise there will be a turnaround every few years.

How do you explain that the issue has fallen behind under the traffic lights, which were also promoting more climate protection?

The balance sheet is actually not that bad. Renewables were massively expanded, there were the first steps in a hydrogen economy, and climate protection agreements were created to force green restructuring in companies. It’s all ok. But the debate about the heating law looms over everything. That was fatal. Politically ill-prepared, publicly exploited. If things had been done better, we would have been spared a lot. Above all, a lot of trust in politics has been lost.

Is it just because of bad politics?

No, it’s a mixture of many things. We have invested too long in traditional, conventional industries and not enough in the future. That’s also why we’re struggling so much.

We are almost at the beginning of 2025 and we want to be climate neutral by 2045 – that’s only a good 20 years. Can this still be achieved without making cuts?

Politicians have to be honest about this. We are facing a major structural change. But it is not driven by technology, but by politics. With the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, almost all countries committed to climate protection, and we have set deadlines. This means that the current generation must invest for the next two or three generations. This is only possible if we create financial leeway, for example through a fund for climate protection. This also demands the state.

And what if other countries don’t follow suit?

The problem is that we are globalizing everything possible, supply chains, financial markets, even climate goals – but of course not politics and their legislation. That’s why it’s so important that we find international allies and stick to international climate policy.

At the same time, traditional industries such as cars and steel are coming under pressure in Germany. Doesn’t that make climate policy even more difficult?

It would be fatal if the wheel were turned back because of this. But the problems are also different. Above all, the steel industry needs protection from aggressive competition, for example from China. But something like a climate tariff could also help so that the industry can survive with green steel. That works.

But if the auto industry goes under, there will no longer be demand for green steel.

But it is not certain that it will sink. The fact is: the problems are homemade. German manufacturers could have known for a long time that the future lay in electric cars. The climate goals didn’t just exist yesterday. Instead, the industry has distributed too much profits and invested too little in old technology. And where are the small, inexpensive German-made electric cars? There are people who say it’s not too late, there are still five years left. If the auto industry pulls the lever now, it will still make it. But that also depends to a certain extent on the next federal government.

Much of what is considered future technology now also comes from China.

We gave up a lot of things, that’s true. But there are other fields: hydrogen technology, for example – everything related to production and use. We still have the chance to be ahead, also because of the German research landscape.

Which industries will go under?

We will have difficulties with energy-intensive industries that do not have a very deep level of added value. This affects, for example, parts of the value chain in the steel or chemical industries, such as ammonia. But we will also have to think about which production we want to keep here with an active industrial policy, because we don’t want to do without it.

What do you mean?

On the one hand, we don’t want to become dependent on some industries – we need steelworks in Europe because of the strategic importance of the arms industry. And then Germany as a location always created clusters in which many companies were located that depended on each other. The spatial proximity was important for this. We should not break these value chains. And the good news is: we’re not starting from scratch.

But that doesn’t sound like much change.

Yes, yes. In the automotive industry, for example, a lot of focus will only be on the production of battery storage devices. This proximity can also play a big role here. Recycling will play an increasingly important role because we have so few raw materials. It will need electrolysers to produce hydrogen. For me, these are all future technologies. But if you don’t want this change, you also have to ask yourself for which market it is still being produced. The global community has decided that the world wants to become climate neutral. The question is: Do we still play a role as a location or will we go under?

But in the end, might growth itself also be a problem? Because even in a climate-friendly world everyone wants to go higher and further?

That depends entirely on how efficiently we operate, how energy efficient. We were definitely better in Germany. We can use our resources better. And with 100 percent renewable energy, we would no longer have a large footprint there either. But of course this question concerns me. Ultimately, each individual must make their contribution if we want to achieve our goal. And the same applies: Less is often more.

You mean: people have to do without?

We need a model for how we can achieve climate neutrality, and for this consumption patterns must also change. People want to be part of the solution. But we can’t just lead these debates in a negative way by constantly talking about bans. For example, we can only make aviation climate-neutral if we now rely entirely on green fuels. If some say it’s too much for us, while others feel forced to do without, we won’t get anywhere. Of course we can do it.