INTERVIEW
A Formula for Germany's Environmental Future Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin describes his forward-looking environmental policy agenda.
ince the September 1998 federal elections, for the first time ever, three Green Party members are serving within the German government at the national level. Among them is Jiirgen Trittin, the new environment minister. His official title is Minister of the Environment, Nature Conservancy, and Safety of Nuclear Power Plants. He is a strong opponent of nuclear power, which regularly causes some tension between him and social democratic economy minister, Werner Miiller, who is more moderate in this regard. The Green Party, to which Trittin belongs, has its roots in nonparliamentary opposition against nuclear power and nuclear arming. Early on, their first ministers serving in German Laender parliaments appeared wearing sneakers and pullovers instead of ties and suits, shocking the establishment. But since then, the party has itself become more and more established and has grown in representation, with members now serving within many local and Laender governments. After the fall of the Berlin wall, the Greens merged with the East German civilrightsmovement, "Coalition 90,"
S
1 9 4 A • MAY 1, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
and since then, the party is officially called "Coalition 90/The Greens." In contrast to new Green foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, Trittin is a member of the party's left wing and is known to start controversial discussions by making provocative statements. Behind closed doors, however, he has proven to be a pragmatic politician who understands well what he can realistically achieve and the value of compromise. Moreover, Trittin already knows what it means to collaborate with social democratic chancellor Gerhard Schroder. Both of them began their political careers in Lower Saxony. From 1990 to 1994, Trittin was minister for European affairs in the Lower Saxony government, while Schroder served there at the same time as prime minister. Subsequently, Trittin served as speaker of the party's federal executive board before assuming his present position. In an interview conducted for ES&Tby Freiburg, Germanybased, freelance science writer Carola Hanisch, Trittin spoke about his goals concerning nuclear power, European integration, green tax reforms, waste recycling, and transportation. © 1999 American Chemical Society
The federal government is committed to reducing CO2 emissions by 25% of the 1990 level. How do you intend to achieve this climate protection target? We believe this target is attainable, but it certainly won't be easy, especially since so little action has been taken on climate protection in recent years. If we are still to meet our commitment, a prerequisite is the phasing out of nuclear energy—a step that we intend to make irreversible. For this step will enable us to make progress on the development of an efficient, decentralized energy structure in Germany. Priority is also being given to energy saving and the rational use of energy. Our ecological tax reform will encourage industry and private households to explore their potential for saving energy. At the same time, we are stepping up efforts to exploit renewable energy sources—wind, biomass, and the sun. It is also essential to make significant cuts in greenhouse gases that are not energy-related, including emissions in the fields of waste management, chemicals, and agriculture. I also see considerable potential for action on heat insulation in buildings, which will help not only to reduce C0 2 but also to create new jobs.
My environmental policy agenda for the Presidency can be summed up as a three-point mission: First, take precautionary action by harmonizing environmental standards at a high level; second, strengthen public involvement, transparency, responsibility, and commitment; and third, ensure tighter integration of environmental protection requirements in other
Do you believe that the Americans will come to accept the EU's demands and fulfill at least half of their CO2-reduction commitments in their own country? The European Union calls for a clear limit on the use of "Kyoto mechanisms," such as emission trading, joint implementation, and clean development mechanisms, because we must ensure that the industrialized countries concentrate on taking domestic measures to meet their climate protection commitments. The logic behind this position is essentially that the industrialized countries are chiefly responsible for the additional greenhouse effect. Measures abroad must not become a substitute for one's own efforts, since in the long run all nations, especially the newly industrialized countries, will be brought into the climate protection process as we endeavor to reverse the underlying trend in greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, with the United States still rejecting any limitation on the use of the flexible Kyoto mechanisms, a great deal of negotiating is needed before we can reach an agreement. Nevertheless, in signing the Kyoto Protocol in Buenos Aires, the United States has signaled its willingness to continue to play an active role in the international climate negotiations. What could the Americans do in their own country? In your view, would such domestic measures entail a major drop in living standards? We know from our own experiences in Germany that there is plenty of scope for reducing C0 2 emissions, especially in relation to buildings, energy, and transport. And these measures cut costs and can create new jobs. The USA hasn't been idle in this field, either. For instance, the Americans have set up a na-
tional research program on climate protection to promote energy saving and the development of alternative energies. Most of the measures now needed can be implemented—as in Germany—without bringing down living standards. In the long run, however, the industrialized countries will all have to face the challenge of changing lifestyles that waste resources. Indeed, they agreed at the Rio Conference back in 1992, when they accepted the principle of sustainable economic and social activity. Sustainability does not, however, mean sacrificing prosperity but enhancing the quality of life while, at the same time, securing the ecological foundations for future generations. How do you intend to phase out nuclear energy? Will the loss of nuclear generation be offset in the future by building new gas and coal-fired power plants or by importing more electricity from abroad? The agreement on which the government coalition is based sets out a clear timetable for phasing out nuclear power. First of all, an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act will be put before parliament within the new government's first 100 days in office. Its provisions will include the removal of promotion status, the introduction of a safety review of nuclear power plants within a year, clarification of the burden of proof in cases of reasonable suspicion, the restriction of disposal operations to direct final storage, and raising the level of financial security. As a second step, the German government will be holding talks with the energy utilities MAY 1, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 1 9 5 A
on the introduction of a new energy policy, including steps to phase out nuclear energy and resolve its disposal problems, with a view to reaching a consensus on these issues within one year. After that, nuclear energy is to be phased out without compensation by setting deadlines on the duration of operating licenses. As far as scenarios for replacing nuclear electricity are concerned, I see no point in engaging in speculation at the present time on the commissioning of new power plants, let alone coal-fired ones, or electricity imports from abroad. After all, the use of nuclear power in Germany has meant excess capacity over many years, which we have to gradually reduce. In addition, we shall be pushing ahead with energy-saving measures. This approach will secure a forward-looking, environmentally sound, and value-for-money energy supply in Germany.
This trend toward a throw-away society is extremely unfortunate, since eco-audits clearly show the benefits of returnable systems.
How do you want to solve the problem of disposing of nuclear waste?
We will deal with the issue of nuclear waste disposal as part of a national disposal plan that is yet to be drawn up. Transport runs to intermediate storage sites should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary. That is why intermediate storage facilities are to be set up at or near the nuclear power plants to receive spent fuel elements from these plants. As for final storage, a facility for all types of radioactive waste is being created in deep geological formations. To this end, appropriate sites will be examined all over Germany and comparisons made with the existing project in the Gorleben salt mine. We plan to close down the existing final storage site for weak-to-medium radioactive material at Morsleben, a facility that was established by the old GDR regime. But doesn't the objective of climate protection contradict that of phasing out nuclear energy?
On the contrary. Phasing out nuclear power is an essential step toward meeting our climate targets. The use of nuclear energy has been accompanied by the development of large-scale structures under monopolistic conditions—structures that encourage energy wastage, while impeding the establishment of efficient, decentralized structures that facilitate, among other things, the use of renewable energies. Abandoning nuclear energy does not mean climate collapse; rather, the alternative to nuclear energy is energy saving, improved efficiency, and the use of renewable energies. 1 9 6 A • MAY 1, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
Would you say that, in general, the harmonization of European law leads to a deterioration ofenvironmental standards in countries like Germany? No, I wouldn't. The efforts made so far at the European level to proceed with the harmonization of environmental standards do not support this view. After all, we don't agree on the lowest common denominator. Rather, the aim has been to define the common environmental protection standards at a high level, and this will remain the approach under the Germany Presidency. In any case, it's time we jettisoned the notion that Germany is a paradigm for the rest of Europe in all things environmental. This is not the case. There are a number of fields in which we must redouble our efforts if we are to comply with EU requirements. I only have to mention, for instance, implementation of the Habitat Directive, which is designed to protect flora and fauna and natural environments. What about the liberalization of electricity markets? Does it improve the prospects of environmentally friendly power generation or isn't it more of a danger? I'm thinking here of, say, cheap electricity from French nuclear power plants. I think the opportunities that lie in the liberalization of electricity markets basically outweigh the risks. It depends, of course, on having the right framework, including fair access to grids for electricity from renewable energies. I see considerable room for improvement on this point. Liberalization generally requires that the new energy structure that will emerge with the phasing out of nuclear energy be competitive. The federal government will do what it can to foster competitiveness, including setting up a development program to assist photovoltaic, biomass, and geothermic generation. Germany holds the EU Presidency for the first half of this year, and you will be chairing the meetings of the Council ofEnvironment Ministers. What objectives have you set yourself for this period? The German EU Presidency is mainly preoccupied with internal reforms to prepare for the eastward enlargement of the European Union. The forthcoming amendments to both the structural fund regulations and common agricultural policy are another step toward reforming the EU. They will, I hope, put us in a position, first, to channel more money directly into environmental protection, nature conservation, and species preservation and second, to ensure greater consideration of the ecological aspects and environmental standards when allocating EU funds, while also improving the monitoring of compliance. My environmental policy agenda for the Presidency can be summed up as a three-point mission: First, take precautionary action by harmonizing environmental standards at a high level; second, strengthen public involvement, transparency, responsibility, and commitment; and third, ensure tighter integration of environmental protection requirements in other Community policies. Specific
measures will include harmonizing environmental standards in the areas of water law, waste incineration, emissions reduction for large firing installations and heavy goods vehicles. We also want to see an amendment to the EC EMAS (Environmental Management and Audit Scheme) Regulation on ecoaudits. Moreover, in recent years the EU has repeatedly acted as a pacemaker in international environmental policy, and we shall continue this role in such fora as the Special Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to Adopt the Biosafety Protocol or the climate change talks in June in Bonn. Germany's term of Presidency will also see the preparation of negotiations with EU-accession candidates on the environmental provisions of the accession treaties. I would like to achieve agreement on the complete adoption of Community environmental law and western standards in the field of nuclear safety, along with their implementation as rapidly and as comprehensively as possible.
they won't place an unbearable burden on anyone but will give clear signals in favor of greater energy savings. It is true that we don't want to tax renewable energy. However, under European and GATT rules, it is not possible to make an exception here. Our intention is, therefore, to allocate the full amount of money collected through the taxation of electricity from regenerative sources to an assistance program for renewable energies. The most important goal of the new federal government is to reduce unemployment. Isn't the scale of the ecological tax reform simply too small to generate more jobs?
The bill to introduce the ecological tax reform that we have put before parliament will be followed by further steps over the coming years. It is our declared aim to bring social insurance contributions down below 40% and thus make Will you be arguingfor the EU-wide eco-tax? Con- labor cheaper. At the same One of the key sidering that plans far such a tax have been around time, the ecological tax resince the early 1990s, do you think it is a realistic form will directly stimuaims of our late employment because, possibility? by making energy more Presidency One of the key aims of our Presidency is to achieve, at expensive, investments in long last, a breakthrough in the harmonization of en- energy saving will pay off is to achieve, ergy taxes in Europe. This is important because we want more quickly in the futo move ahead with the project of ecological modern- ture. Moreover, ecologiat long last, ization in Europe. The model of ecological tax re- cal tax reform is by no form, as initiated nationally by the federal govern- means the only measure a breakthrough in ment and as already successfully applied by several of with which the new govour neighbors, now needs to be placed on a Euro- ernment intends to imthe harmonization pean footing. Discussions on a European employ- prove the framework for ment pact must embrace the idea of providing tax re- job creation. I'm referof energy taxes lief for the work factor, while placing a greater fiscal ring here above all to the burden on the consumption of natural resources. At the "Alliance for Jobs," which in Europe. same time, the harmonized EU-wide system of en- the Federal Chancellor has ergy taxation is a key element of the European cli- invited industry associamate protection strategy. This includes abolishing tax tions and trade unions to exemptions for aviation and marine fuels. join. Another positive measure is the lowering of corporThe first stage of ecological tax reform in Ger- ate tax, which will provide further relief to businesses. many seems very timid and many of the Greens' demands have failed to become government policy— In Germany, the returnables quota for beverage for instance, tax exemption for renewable energy or packaging continues to decline. How do you exthe idea of rewarding highly efficient power plants plain this trend and what do you intend to do with lower tax rates and penalizing inefficient plants. about it? Moreover, the 6-pfennig rise in the price of petrol is so small that it won't provide an incentive for any- Indeed, the proportion of refillable bottles sank to one to leave their car at home. Will this tax have any 71.35% of drinks-sector packaging in 1997, which regulatory impact? Or does it primarily serve as a means it has fallen for the first time below the 72% source of revenue to finance a slight reduction in non- mark stipulated in the Packaging Ordinance. A downwage labor costs? ward trend has been registered since 1995.1 believe In initiating our ecological tax reform, we are com- the main reasons for this decline lie in the advance of new types of beverages, such as ice tea or sport bining a predictable levy on energy consumption, which will be introduced in several phases of fixed drinks, almost all of which have been marketed in duration, with an urgendy needed reduction in so- throw-away containers. But even in the case of beer, cial insurance contributions. In the fierce discus- we find a clear trend toward cans. Both consumer besions triggered by our plans, there are both voices crit- havior and the strategies of manufacturers and reicizing the taxation of energy consumption as tailers obviously play a role in their preference for disinadequate and others saying it imposes unreason- posable containers. This trend toward a throwable burdens. I believe that the price increases in en- away society is extremely unfortunate, since ecoergy consumption are staggered in such a way that audits clearly show the benefits of returnable systems. MAY 1, 1999/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY/NEWS « 1 9 7 A
But we won't just sit back and watch it happen. I would above all appeal to the consumer to go back to buying returnable bottles. There is still a chance that we won't be forced to impose a compulsory deposit on nonreturnables. That decision will depend on the result of a review to be carried out this year. The EU Commission has criticized Germany because of its packaging ordinance, saying that it obstructs the free movement of goods and constitutes inadmissible discrimination against foreign products. Does the Commission have the power to wreck Germany's efforts to uphold returnable systems? The 1994 EC Packaging Directive expressly permits the promotion of returnable systems. While the Commission is obviously aware of this, it is sticking to its view that the free movement of goods within the single European market is impeded by German regulations on returnables. We do not share this view. For our part, we have conducted the necessary life-cycle analysis of beverage packaging and conclude that the returnable system, which avoids substantial quantities of waste, has ecological advantages over disposable solutions. If the Commission perseveres with its view, men the European Court of Justice will have the final word at some time in the future.
I continue to hold fundamental criticisms of the Green Dot project.
Do you think that the Dual System, with its Green Dot label and yellow refuse bins for packaging, has proved its worth? What do you want to do to improve the recycling quota? Despite some undoubtedly positive effects that have been created by the Dual System, such as the decline in the use of packaging and the larger volumes of material being collected and recycled, I continue to hold fundamental criticisms of the Green Dot project. These center on the insufficient incentive for people to make a genuine contribution to waste avoidance, the monopoly position of the operator,
1 9 8 A • MAY 1, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
DSD (Duales System Deutschland GmbH), and the related problem of the excessive costs that the consumer is forced to shoulder. That is why the coalition agreement provides for sensible ecological and economic restructuring of the Dual System and its legal framework, the Packaging Ordinance. Before this can be done, however, we first need to carry out a thorough examination of all the conceivable collection and recycling alternatives. This issue demands careful consideration, not least because the Federal Environment Ministry is committed to ensuring secure legal arrangements and investment conditions. I don't, by the way, regard a further increase in the recycling quota as a matter of priority. Our recycling standards are now already very high compared with the rest of Europe. It is more important to ensure that in the future the processes used are of the highest possible quality and more is done on waste avoidance. German Rail is expensive and, for many people, doesn't offer an attractive alternative to the car, especially in rural regions. How do you intend to change this situation? Instead of ploughing billions into prestige projects like the Transrapid, wouldn't it be more sensible to upgrade the "normal" routes and optimize connections with local public transport services? I agree with what you're saying. In the past, a series of decisions were taken that ran counter to a modern, environmentally sound approach to mobility. That is why the new government has resolved in its coalition agreement to create fair and equal conditions of competition for all transport providers and to remove the existing disadvantages faced by the railways. The public transport systems must be made more reliable, faster, and more attractive. The federal government therefore attaches highest priority to upgrading the rail network and improving public transport. As for the Transrapid, no more federal funds will be made available for this project beyond the allocations for costs already agreed [upon]. Moreover, by putting up the tax rate on oil, the ecological tax reform will also create incentives for people to switch from car use to public transport. Although I would concede that, realistically, this will have little effect in the first stage.
