“Hard but fair” started a bit strange on Monday evening: Suddenly moderator Louis Klamroth was having a one-on-one conversation with writer Frank Schätzing and asked him about the failures in climate protection. After only two minutes, Klamroth declared the dialogue over and Schätzing was allowed to join the rest of the group. It was the first sign of a show that was to be erratic for the rest of the evening.
“Eco conversion with a crowbar?” was the key question. Klamroth was primarily referring to the bill proposed by Economics Minister Robert Habeck (Greens), which envisages a ban on oil and gas heating systems from 2024. However, Klamroth’s questions kept jumping from topic to topic. Where an interesting debate could have arisen at many points, the moderator repeatedly intervened.
The invited guests promised a well-balanced round: There was the Vice President of the German Bundestag, Katrin Göring-Eckardt (Greens), the Deputy Federal Chairman of the FDP, Johannes Vogel, and the MEP Monika Hohlmeier (CSU). The deputy WELT editor-in-chief, Robin Alexander, and bestselling author Frank Schätzing also discussed.
Johannes Vogel opened the round aggressively. And Green politician Katrin Göring-Eckardt was also in attack mode. She repeatedly emphasized that climate protection was particularly urgent and spoke of “devastated cities” in which diseases and water shortages would prevail – if one did not act now.
Habeck’s proposed legislation is initially only a draft, she said, of which she does not know how much money it would cost, but which she welcomes: “If there is another possibility, then we should be happy to talk about it. I just don’t see how we’re going to be able to do that at the speed we have to be at,” she said.
The MEP of the CSU, Monika Hohlmeier, spoke up: “The costs will be around one trillion,” she said and started to say another sentence, but Göring-Eckardt had already interrupted her. “We have to change the system of how we consume energy in a short time,” said the Green politician. Then she suddenly burst out: “And why do we have to do it in such a short time? Because you and your party screwed it up – screwed it up!” Just when things got heated, Klamroth changed the subject again.
It shouldn’t be the last row of the show. When writer Schätzing suggested setting up a special fund of 100 billion euros for climate measures, Alexander and Hohlmeier started laughing. Göring-Eckardt came back to this a little later: “Ms. Hohlmeier, I just don’t find it funny at all to laugh about a special fund. I think it’s urgent that we think about how we’re going to finance it so that people don’t end up bearing the costs.”
“We laughed at the word ‘special assets’ because it’s debt that you build up,” replied Hohlmeier – but Klamroth was back on the ball and went on to the next clip. It shouldn’t be the last abrupt change of topic of the evening: In the meantime, it was about the speed limit; at the same time one had just spoken of the burning of coal. Nevertheless, the guests got involved: “To be honest, I don’t care about the speed limit at all,” said FDP man Vogel. “I’ve been driving electric for three years and never exceed 120 km/h. But my understanding of politics is not that I extend my life to others.”
Göring-Eckardt attacked again: “Everyone knows it saves CO₂. Everyone knows it costs nothing. It’s crazy not to take the simplest, most cost-free, most sensible measure!” And again the debate promised to get heated: “Five times as much as a speed limit brings, dear Katrin Göring-Eckardt, is that we’re not in one shut down three nuclear power plants every month,” countered Vogel. But suddenly Klamroth was standing in front of them: he didn’t want to have a nuclear discussion now.
World journalist Robin Alexander was increasingly annoyed by the course of the show. He appealed for the debate to be held at a “higher level” and not to constantly sink into “doomsday rhetoric”. “We all have great cause for concern,” he said. “But I don’t think it’s going to do any good to keep throwing that out when the discussion gets a bit controversial.”
Above all, he criticized how Habeck’s proposed legislation was communicated: “If people get the message – ‘We’re forbidding you something. And yes, we are also making a plan on how to cushion this socially. But we’re still thinking about that and then you have to ask Mr. Lindner if he’ll pay for it’ – that’s not wise.”
In addition, the top SPD politicians would get involved in a kind of “Hau-den-Habeck game”, said Alexander, drawing a comparison with the criticism of the gas levy. But he also held the opposition responsible: They shouldn’t counter Habeck’s proposals, they would want to save the oil heating: “Actually, four politicians should be sitting here, all saying: My plan for climate protection is better,” said the journalist.
Vogel caused amusement in the audience when he then wanted to make a concession to Göring-Eckardt: “You are right about one thing, Ms. Göring-Eckardt,” he said. “The prerequisites are clean electricity and clean energy – and what we found is indeed catastrophic.” The CSU politician Hohlmeier suddenly wanted to agree. But then the FDP man turned around: “No, what we found through the Union federal government!”
In principle, Vogel and Hohlmeier were in agreement in their criticism of Habeck’s draft law. Hohlmeier called for more ideas competition: “You have to allow diversity and not determine from above: ‘We know who has to do what and where,'” she said. “I think you need to trust people a little more.”
