During her talk with the Minister of Economic Affairs, Caren Miosga spends a lot of time looking back and bantering - easy work for the green world explainer.
Olaf Scholz and Friedrich Merz were already there, yesterday Caren Miosga offered a stage to the next applicant for the office of German head of government: “Before the new elections – how green will the future be?” was the headline of her program with Economics Minister Robert Habeck. First, the moderator wanted to clarify how she should address her guest: as a top candidate, candidate for chancellor or – alluding to Habeck’s own formulation at the Green Party conference a week ago – as a “candidate for the people”?
“Mr. Habeck is really great,” replied the Economics Minister dryly. “Why so modest?” Caren Miosga continued. Because you first have to earn back lost trust, Habeck explained with reference to the failed traffic light coalition – and added: “I don’t even know whether modesty is a reproach.”
It wasn’t far from lost trust to the “damned heating law,” as Miosga called it. The minister said his “biggest mistake” in this context was “not immediately publishing the social support I had planned.” This had already been “calculated” but was not wanted by both coalition partners, and ”surprisingly” not by the SPD either.
Nevertheless, Habeck remained convinced that he could win over the population for climate protection “if we do it smartly”. He referred to the Union’s announcements that it would stop funding the heating transition or at least halve it, and warned of the consequences: ”The only consequence of that is that people either have to pay for it themselves – that’s an expensive cup of tea – or You give up on climate protection goals. That will be a much more expensive cup of tea.”
“How intimate, honest and authentic can that be?” said the moderator, skeptically. “How honest is it here?” countered Habeck. However, Miosga didn’t want to accept the argument (“‘sorry, we’re professionals”) – only to then ask her guest “kitchen table questions.”
When she wanted to know from the Minister of Economic Affairs whether, if he had exactly one wish in a “magic kitchen”, he would rather become Chancellor or a Nobel Prize winner in Literature, Habeck, who appeared to be extremely gentle and reserved, became briefly annoyed: “Peace in Europe” he wishes, and the question is “nonsense, sorry.” Incidentally, “Federal Chancellor is not a dream or a wish, but a job that you shouldn’t even want if you look at it sensibly,” as demanding and hard as he is. But that didn’t end the block with so-called soft questions. It was still about spaghetti Bolognese and worn-out jogging shoes.
Miosga stuck to her humane course and looked back. She wanted to know whether, from Habeck’s perspective, FDP leader Christian Lindner was really the sole culprit in the breakup of the traffic light coalition and how poisoned the climate was between the coalition members. Habeck made it clear that the decisive point for the traffic lights being turned off was the budget ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court in November 2023, and no, his relationship was not poisoned. Whether former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s recent statement that her spontaneous thought about the arguments between Olaf Scholz and Christian Lindner was “Men!” Caren Miosga wanted to know next that he had “hit the mark”. “Into the gray,” Habeck replied shortly. The Green politician admitted that women occasionally communicated differently and perhaps better, but in this case he did not see a problem with male egos that were too large.
How can public trust be rebuilt to support effective climate policy initiatives?
Interviewer: Welcome to Time.news! Today, we have a very special guest, the renowned expert on climate policy and economic reform, Dr. Anna Fischer. Dr. Fischer, it’s great to have you with us.
Dr. Fischer: Thank you for having me! I’m excited to discuss these critical issues.
Interviewer: Recently, during a conversation between Caren Miosga and German Economics Minister Robert Habeck, they delved into some fascinating topics regarding trust in government and climate policy. Habeck emphasized the importance of winning back public trust. How critical do you think public trust is in implementing climate initiatives?
Dr. Fischer: Public trust is absolutely essential. Without it, any policy aimed at climate protection may face significant pushback. People need to believe that their leaders have their best interests at heart, especially when it comes to something as impactful as climate change. If the public perceives a disconnect or a lack of authenticity, it can undermine even the most well-intentioned policies.
Interviewer: That makes perfect sense. Miosga mentioned the “damned heating law” and how Habeck acknowledged his “biggest mistake” was not communicating planned social support. What are your thoughts on the importance of communication in crafting effective climate policy?
Dr. Fischer: Communication is key. When policies seem technical or complicated, it’s vital for leaders to break them down into relatable terms. If people understand how a policy affects their daily lives—and particularly if they see that support is available to them—they are more likely to engage positively with the initiative. Transparently discussing setbacks and planning for social support can help in regaining the lost trust we see in current political conversations.
Interviewer: Interestingly, Habeck pointed out that there’s a cost to stopping funding for the heating transition. He said people will either have to pay for it themselves or compromise on climate goals, implying a choice between immediate expense versus a more significant future cost. How do you interpret this dilemma?
Dr. Fischer: It reflects the classic tension in policy-making: short-term versus long-term benefits. If we invest in sustainable solutions now, we can mitigate much larger costs—both financial and environmental—down the line. However, without clear communication and incentives, individuals and businesses may feel overwhelmed by the upfront costs. It underscores the need for governments to present comprehensive strategies that outline not just the costs but the long-term savings and benefits of transitioning to greener solutions.
Interviewer: Absolutely. In a moment of skepticism, Miosga challenged how “intimate, honest and authentic” discussions around climate policies can be. In your opinion, how can leaders ensure their conversations about climate initiatives remain authentic and relatable to the public?
Dr. Fischer: Authenticity comes from transparency and humanizing the discussion. Leaders should share personal narratives and real stories from the communities they serve. Rather than getting lost in technical jargon, they should clearly articulate the real-world implications of climate policies. Engaging the public in dialog and taking their concerns seriously can help bridge the gap and foster a more trusting environment.
Interviewer: Those are powerful insights. As we look ahead to the future of climate policy in Germany and beyond, what do you believe will be the most significant factors influencing public support for green initiatives?
Dr. Fischer: I think the most significant factors will be economic considerations, education, and social equity. If people can see tangible benefits—such as job creation in green technologies, lower energy costs, and a healthier environment—they are more likely to support such initiatives. Additionally, addressing the social aspect and ensuring that no one is left behind in the transition will be vital. Public education campaigns can also play a crucial role in increasing awareness, understanding, and thus, support for climate action.
Interviewer: Dr. Anna Fischer, thank you for your enlightening perspectives on these pressing matters. Your insights into the intersection of public trust, communication, and climate policy are invaluable.
Dr. Fischer: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these vital issues. It’s been a pleasure!