Green politician Tobias Goldschmidt, 42, has been Minister for Energy Transition, Climate Protection, Environment and Nature in Schleswig-Holstein since June 2022. The political scientist previously worked as a communications consultant and research assistant in the Bundestag.

WELT: Mr. Goldschmidt, about six months ago a storm surge almost swept over parts of the Baltic coast, causing severe damage. What can the states and municipalities in southern Germany currently affected by flooding learn from your experiences at the time?

Tobias Goldschmidt: Of course it is important that we join hands, show solidarity and work together to repair the damage that has been caused. But what is crucial is that after the storm surge in the north, after the Christmas floods in Lower Saxony, the severe floods in Saarland and now in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg, we finally realise that we need to develop a new awareness of the dangers posed by climate change. Instead of a flood of the century, we are now clearly dealing with a century of floods.

WELT: What does that mean specifically?

Goldschmidt: We now need a consistent rethink. Every new infrastructure project will have to ask itself whether it is really so important that more land is sealed for it. Our rivers must be brought back to their natural course, areas in former floodplains must be designated as flood polders to protect people. We must re-wet moors, improve the sewerage systems and green up the cities.

The most important thing is that we do not let up on climate protection – it is much more cost-effective than adapting to increasingly severe climate change. And it is precisely when it comes to climate protection that we need a new, positive approach. Climate protection is not a problem, but ultimately means making and shaping a future worth living for everyone possible.

WELT: The reality is that many in society perceive climate protection as a threat. In the current European election campaign, no one except the Greens is promoting the once celebrated “Green Deal” – and the Greens’ poll data is mediocre. How do you deal with this trend?

Goldschmidt: It is actually a question of whether we as a society decide to bury our heads in the sand and only see the problems and challenges that come with climate protection. Or whether we manage to see climate protection as an opportunity and implement the Green Deal, because that is also a huge project for the future, also for the economy. In that respect, the European elections are a decisive election.

The whole world is currently making a move, deciding at climate conferences to turn away from fossil fuels – and at the same time Friedrich Merz is blathering on about whether the ban on fossil fuels planned for 2035 can be called into question. In any case, I cannot understand how one can complain about the floods on the one hand and then, on the other hand, want to rely on fossil fuels again. It just doesn’t fit.

WELT: To finance the climate adaptation measures you are calling for, you will probably want to loosen the debt brake. Or do you have another idea?

Goldschmidt: In my view, it is absolutely appropriate to talk about an exception to the debt brake on this issue. Climate adaptation and climate protection do benefit the current generation. But above all, they are investments in the future. In the security and prosperity of our children.

But it is also true that we need higher CO₂ pricing to ensure adequate climate protection. The corresponding revenues should then be used to finance climate protection measures that would ultimately benefit everyone. My suggestion would also be that we change the Basic Law so that climate adaptation is declared a joint task of the federal and state governments.

WELT: What advantage would that have?

Goldschmidt: Climate adaptation measures are often lengthy and require local support. The actors who implement them locally need planning security, that the necessary funds are available. With a change to the constitution, the federal and state governments would declare climate adaptation a joint task and jointly fund it. This is already the case with agricultural structures and coastal protection, for example – so why not with climate protection and climate adaptation? The challenges are just as great.

WELT: Regardless of what sums can ultimately be mobilized for climate adaptation measures and climate protection – shouldn’t politicians also make it clear to people that it will not be possible to protect them from all the consequences of climate change?

Goldschmidt: Basically, it is and remains the state’s responsibility to protect its citizens, their property and infrastructure as best as possible, and that is what we will do. But yes, we will become a different country as a result of the climate crisis. Agriculture is already struggling with droughts and overly wet areas.

It will not be possible to protect every square meter of land. Since the Baltic Sea storm surge, we have known that our coast is not fit for the climate crisis and will change dramatically in the future. We already spend around 80 million euros per year on coastal protection, and this will have to increase – and this will mean that funds will be lacking elsewhere.

WELT: In plain language: It will not be possible to protect every square meter of land. Right?

Goldschmidt: There will have to be a debate about whether every coastal lowland can really be maintained. The sea level has already risen by 20 centimetres in the past 100 years. By the end of the century it is expected to rise by 75 centimetres. And unfortunately there is a fear that this will continue. We will of course counteract this with coastal protection measures when it comes to settlements and important infrastructure. But that will not be the case everywhere. It is a thought that takes some getting used to, but we will also have to talk about potential flood areas.