Climate researcher:
“Ultimately, the heat will kill us”
For two years now, Austria's most renowned climate researcher, Helga Kromp-Kolb, has been writing in the "Krone" about the greatest threat to humanity. A conversation about deadly heat, incorrigible doubters and why it will no longer work without bans in the future.
Cafe Dommayer in Vienna's Hietzing district, it's 8 o'clock in the morning. Helga Kromp-Kolb has to catch a train in Meidling later, she is traveling to the Salzkammergut for one of her lectures that day. The 72-year-old puts her rucksack and water bottle down on the dark red velvet-covered bench and orders black tea with milk and no sugar. Her long hair is braided into a plait, the researcher is wearing a purple and green flowered dress and a white crocheted vest.
Ms. Kromp-Kolb, your 260th "Krone" column will be published this Sunday. Has it done any good?
Very difficult to judge. I was able to answer many questions and dispel doubts. It's certainly worth it. Sometimes I wish I could say: job done. But as long as I can still be effective, I will try to be.
The latest global climate report has confirmed everything you have been preaching for many years. Can we still manage to stop the climate crisis?
There is no kink in nature where you have to say it's too late now. It's such a gradual transition. But it has become even later. This means that climate protection measures must be even more drastic and must be implemented even faster. From a purely scientific point of view, we can still do it, as the latest IPCC report says. Whether it is still possible from a political, sociological and psychological point of view is another question.
What is the worst-case scenario?
Ultimately, the heat will kill us. We will probably reach a state where the body can no longer keep up. The body has to be able to release the energy and heat released by its activities. If it can no longer do this, then the person dies - from dehydration, organ failure, whatever. And this point is not that far away. It already starts at high 40s and 50s, where you are no longer allowed to move. Ultimately, our civilization is under threat. Not only through climate change, but also through the loss of biodiversity. It is completely unclear what will kill us first.
Ultimately, the heat will kill us. If the body can no longer release the energy and heat released by its activities, then humans will die.
Helga Kromp-Kolb
But what makes you optimistic?
If I only looked at Austria, then nothing. But if you look at it globally, a lot is already happening. However, the following also applies to Austria: there are many individual people, individual companies, individual states and municipalities that are already well on their way. At the federal level, things are just very, very slow, not to say...
Is there a standstill?
Not quite, at least we got the Renewable Energy Act, which is really just a law on subsidies, but at least it's there. However, the conviction that we really need to act quickly now has obviously not yet taken hold in all parties.
I'm sure you don't mean the Greens ...
Exactly, they are also in the minority. I'm not involved in the negotiations on climate protection, but I can imagine that it's quite tedious when the Chancellor talks about technology and innovation immediately after events like those we had in July. We have been developing technology and innovation for decades! It already exists. For 30 years, attempts have been made to combat climate change without any real intervention. Dennis L. Meadows summarized it well in his classic "Limits to Growth": "First they don't believe it, then they think it's a long way off, then they think technology will solve it, then they think the market will solve it, and when none of that works, they say: now we have to adapt." But then it's too late.
So the Chancellor is wrong?
I am very much in favor of further technological progress, but waiting for this progress in a crisis situation is not enough. Such developments take decades, we don't have that much time left.
Have you ever said that to the Federal Chancellor?
I have never met the Chancellor.
Does that disappoint you?
It's not important to me. What is important is that he understands the issue and deals with it properly. It doesn't matter whether he hears it from me or from someone else. I'm completely unpretentious about it. Because it's not about me, it's about the issue and ultimately about future generations. From that point of view, it's also about him, because he's young.
The sad thing about all these horror scenarios is that we could have it so good! More justice could go hand in hand with climate protection.
Helga Kromp-Kolb
Do you have the impression that he understands the drama?
You can't tell from his statements.
For a long time, we talked about climate change, then the climate crisis. Now we're talking about climate catastrophe. Did you suspect it would get this bad?
It's not over yet. Basically, we have already caused further global warming for the next 20 years. This means that even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gases today, it would still take time for this to have a real impact. This was all foreseeable. But what you can never really imagine is the panic and terror when you suddenly find yourself in the middle of a catastrophic situation. Heat, floods, hail. It happens and we can't protect ourselves. You can see it: despite all the progress we've made, we can't control forest fires, we can't control mudslides and floods. We are simply small against nature.
Is nature fighting back?
If you want to give it credit for thinking, then yes. It has been patient long enough anyway. We have deforested it, built on it, destroyed it. How we treat nature will have consequences at some point - including coronavirus. We are taking more and more habitat away from wild animals. This means that the probability of coming into contact with one of the thousands of viruses that these animals carry is increasing.
So have we learned nothing?
Who is "we"? I think a lot of people have learned a lot. Many people have also learned a lot during corona. Nevertheless, "the system", if I can call it that, is trying to convince us that we have to go back to the old way. We don't have to! Nor should we!
What should politicians do now?
What all economists confirm: The most effective thing is socio-ecological tax reform. It is in the government's program and should come into force next year - I hope not in December! -but there doesn't seem to be a consensus proposal on the table yet.
What measures should the state take?
The state should provide guidance and guidance can be provided in various ways, including incentives, of course. But we have been using incentives to promote renewable energy for far too long, and at the same time we are also promoting fossil fuels, which makes no sense. I think we also need to have the courage to simply ban certain things - with transitional periods. This starts with fossil-fuel cars and extends to electrical appliances. Why do we still have to produce and sell appliances that are not energy-efficient? I believe that we also need to intervene in advertising. People should simply no longer be persuaded that they need everything, even things that are completely superfluous. These may sometimes be necessary for individuals or small groups, but bans can be imposed on everyone else.
But electric cars aren't any more environmentally friendly ...
But it's not about replacing petrol cars one for one. Unfortunately, this is discussed far too little, although it is perfectly clear to every climate activist. It's about the fact that we mainly walk, cycle and use public transport. And that the cars that are available are shared. And that means electric cars. But I also believe that lithium batteries will soon be replaced. Research is being carried out worldwide in this area. And by then it will be possible to ensure that lithium is mined in a more environmentally and people-friendly way.
Public transport is all well and good, but if you can fly to Copenhagen or Amsterdam for 50 euros while the train costs three times as much, not to mention the time, why should people give up flying?
It is up to politicians to ensure that flying is not cheaper and more convenient. And there are things that should no longer be done out of a sense of responsibility for future generations.
Going on vacation in Greece, for example?
For me, that's a question of personal responsibility. Greece is a borderline case. I wouldn't do it again. If my grandchildren ever ask me what I did to save the climate, I don't want to answer: "I really wanted to go on vacation in Greece." But of course, you won't be sailing or swimming to America any more.
If my grandchildren ever ask me what I did to save the climate, I don't want to answer: "I really wanted to go on vacation in Greece."
Helga Kromp-Kolb
Doesn't that take away a sense of life? It's wonderful to see the world, to be cosmopolitan ...
Is that really what we are when we sit in some luxury hotel and only get to know the local population as servants? There's a lot of romanticizing involved. And yes, the attitude to life changes. It can also be wonderful at Lake Neusiedl. You don't have to eat meat every day either.
Do you still eat meat at all?
Yes, that's not a question of faith for me. I eat meat, but not much. Eating meat should remain the exception. Something special that you look forward to. The great thing is that many things that are sensible for climate protection reasons are also healthier and make life better. Simply because it's right to live in harmony with nature so that future generations can still benefit from it.
Are you sometimes hopeless?
Yes. The sad thing about all these horror scenarios is that we could have it so good! That we could still change everything for the better. More justice could go hand in hand with climate protection. The quality of life could improve, the enormous time and performance pressure could be reduced to an acceptable level - and not just for us, but for everyone.
Can we talk about climate protection without mentioning the population explosion in many parts of the world?
No, of course that is a factor. But the truth is that the world is divided into two parts. There is the part where the population is exploding, and that has to be brought under control. But these people usually have a very, very small ecological footprint. And there is the part that has a huge footprint, but relatively few people. So we have to take care of our footprint instead of talking about what Africa or India should do.
We have to take care of our footprint instead of discussing what Africa or India should do.
Helga Kromp-Kolb
What do you say to those who claim that Austria is too small to make a difference, that individuals can't do anything at all?
If you need a rescue lane on the highway and an individual doesn't cooperate, then the rescue car won't get through. I think that's a nice image. Because it's not about everyone looking in the rear-view mirror to see if everyone behind them is doing something. It's about being a good example yourself.
Are you a good example?
I try to be. But I'm only human... Wherever possible, I always act in a climate-friendly way. In other words, I cycle or use public transport as much as possible. And I don't need much for myself. The taxpayer pays my pension and that's more than enough.
Would you ever like to meet Greta Thunberg?
I think the girl has enough to do - laughs. - I like her, but basically it's not about who she is, it's about what she stands for. Even if she were to disappear from the scene without a trace, the Fridays for Future movement would be unstoppable. But Thunberg is a figure of identification.
And Arnold Schwarzenegger?
I have mixed feelings about him. He travels to the climate conference by private jet and rides his bike the last part of the way. These are things I don't like. I have the feeling that there's a lot of showmanship involved. But he is a showman. And in that respect, it's authentic again, if you like. And he probably reaches people who would otherwise have no interest in the topic.
Has corona helped or hurt the climate issue?
Emissions have continued to rise, and the pandemic has not helped in this respect. Perhaps the good thing about coronavirus is that everyone now knows what exponential development is. At a certain point, things start to accelerate uncontrollably. We already have this development with the climate.
Where do you see yourself in ten years' time?
As long as I feel that I am needed, I will continue my work. Although there are already many people who are following in my footsteps and taking on a lot of responsibility. That's why in ten years' time I might no longer be talking to politicians, but only to young people and encouraging them.
TIRELESS FIGHTER
Born on November 14, 1948, the meteorologist and climate researcher specializing in climate change headed the Institute of Meteorology and the Center for Global Change and Sustainability at BOKU Vienna for many years. She has been retired since 2017. Helga Kromp-Kolb was named "Scientist of the Year" in 2005. A keen cyclist, public transport and train rider, she is married to physicist and risk researcher Wolfgang Kromp. The tireless campaigner for sustainability is the author of the "Krone" column "Climate crisis - questions and answers".
This article has been automatically translated,
read the original article here.
Kommentare
Da dieser Artikel älter als 18 Monate ist, ist zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt kein Kommentieren mehr möglich.
Wir laden Sie ein, bei einer aktuelleren themenrelevanten Story mitzudiskutieren: Themenübersicht.
Bei Fragen können Sie sich gern an das Community-Team per Mail an forum@krone.at wenden.