In an interview with the Handelsblatt, Greens pioneer Jürgen Trittin warns against postponing the energy transition. “We have to get out of nuclear and out of coal. Thinking that you can somehow hold on to the old technologies only prolongs dependence on Russian oil, gas and coal,” he says.
Against the background of the Ukraine war, however, the new federal government and thus also the Greens would have to say goodbye to old certainties. This includes, among other things, being able to comply with the debt brake again soon. “I believe that in view of the burdens we are facing, we will not be able to avoid suspending the debt brake again.”
Mr. Trittin, a war is raging in Eastern Europe. Within days, Germany had to vacate positions in security policy that had been in place for decades. Does the situation remind you of the Kosovo war in the late 1990s, when the red-green government took part in the NATO mission?
One attempts such historical analogies, and then they are not correct. Federal Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said it: We are confronted with a new situation that wants to roll back 1990. You have to find new answers. We have to say goodbye to many old certainties.
Top jobs of the day
Find the best jobs now and
be notified by email.
For example?
This is primarily due to the fact that we are now talking more about alliance defense again. But security in Europe does not only have a military aspect. We also have to phase out fossil fuels more quickly if we want to become more independent of Russia. And we need additional investments in our energy security. At the same time, we have to absorb rising energy prices. And it also needs to be strengthened in development cooperation. I’m also looking at countries like Moldova, which might be the Kremlin’s next target.
How should the federal government finance these challenges?
I believe that in view of the burdens we are facing, we will not be able to avoid suspending the debt brake again.
Special assets for the Bundeswehr
Federal Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP) wants a special fund for the Bundeswehr in the Basic Law. Would that then be the wrong approach?
The Bundestag decides on the exact structure of the special fund. Forgoing an amendment to the Basic Law would have the great advantage for Mr. Lindner that he would not have to beg the Union for it.
There must be a big hole somewhere in the Bundeswehr’s procurement system.
(Photo: imago images / Björn Trotsky)
Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck (Greens) knew nothing about the scope of the special fund until the speech by Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD). Don’t you feel left out?
The sum is a symbolic number, beautiful and easy to remember. Exactly how much it will be in which year remains to be seen. The money will be used to improve the soldiers’ equipment, co-finance a European combat aircraft and armed drones. We Greens have said before that this will not be available for free. Incidentally, the projects can also be found in the coalition agreement.
One also gets the impression that Scholz is trying to sell other people’s ideas as his own. We’re thinking of Nord Stream 2, the capping of which actually prompted Habeck. Do you have to put up with that? And are the Greens still united behind the decisions?
Olaf Scholz is the chancellor, and the coalition does a lot of good things that often end up going home with the chancellor. You have to accept that confidently and be proud of what we have achieved together. By whining like the SPD showed during Merkel’s time, you make yourself look smaller than you are.
As a Green, do you regret not having insisted on better equipment for the Bundeswehr?
No policy is free from error. This also applies to green politics. However, we have never argued so flatly that no money is necessary. In almost every mission in the past, we have pointed out that the Bundeswehr is poorly equipped. What is new now is that the Bundeswehr will have to concentrate on two tasks in the future: foreign missions and self-defence. And that will be more expensive.
Procurement reform
A reform of the Bundeswehr’s procurement system is to be linked to the increase in funds. Many defense ministers have failed at this. Why should it work now?
Because it has to work now. Germany is already spending almost as much money as Russia, but is not even able to properly equip the 900 soldiers that we are sending to Lithuania as a deterrent. There must be a big hole somewhere. This kind of money burning has to end.
Are the Greens tying the approval of the 100 billion more for the Bundeswehr to more money for the energy transition?
I am not a friend of mutual hostage-taking, but of course the need to secure our energy supply is great. We need to take away people’s concerns about possibly sitting out in the cold next winter. To do this, we have to fill up the gas storage facilities, buy new coal and gas contracts at high prices and thus promote our independence. Does that cost 50 billion? 150? We do not know that.
Will Russian President Vladimir Putin turn off gas in backlash against sanctions?
In any case, he will not supply the gas for free. And the more and harder we take sanctions, the more likely it becomes that he will go that route.
Do we also need nuclear power beyond 2022 and a farewell to the earlier phase-out of coal?
The three East German Prime Ministers, who would now like to continue mining lignite, remind me of a well-known drinker who wants to stop drinking next week, but until then is really giving himself up. No, we have to get out of nuclear and out of coal. Believing that one can somehow hold on to the old technologies only prolongs dependence on Russian oil, gas and coal.
More: The 100 billion euro question – are the Greens and SPD going along with it?