What do you think of when you hear the words "Wind of Change"? Of the Scorpions and the fall of the Berlin Wall? The wind of change, that could also be wind energy in very concrete terms. Renewable energies will be an essential factor in protecting the climate. After all, the heat of last summer and the lack of rainfall, which led to forest fires, dried-up streams and high crop losses, show: Climate change is here, and we are feeling it. And while climate protection seems to be important to Germans in general, are they really willing to do something about it? Environmental psychologist Prof. Ellen Matthies addresses the question of how people as individuals and society as a whole can respond appropriately to climate change. How can the transformation in people's minds towards more climate protection succeed? She talks about this in this new episode of "Knowledge when you want it".

Today's guest:

Ellen Matthies has been a professor of environmental psychology at Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg for 12 years. Her research interests include the field of human-environment interaction with a focus on environmentally relevant behaviors and decisions. From May 2013 to October 2020, the environmental psychologist was a member of the Advisory Council of the German Federal Government on Global Environmental Change and received the 2022 Research Award of the University of Magdeburg.

*the audio file is only available in German

The Podcast to Read

Intro voiceover: Knowledge when you want it. The podcast about research at the University of Magdeburg.

Lisa Baaske: When I hear the words "Wind of Change," I, and perhaps many other people, think of the Scorpions and perhaps associated with that, the fall of the Berlin Wall. Change, however, is also becoming increasingly important at the present time, especially with regard to the climate and the environment. The wind of change, that could also be wind energy in very concrete terms. Renewable energies will be an essential factor in protecting the climate. After all, the heat of last summer and the lack of rainfall, which led to forest fires, dried-up streams and high crop losses, show: Climate change is here, and we are feeling it. Nevertheless, the referendum in Berlin on climate neutrality by 2030, for example, failed. In other respects, too, climate protection seems to be important to Germans in general, but are they really prepared to do something about it? Environmental psychologist Prof. Ellen Matthies addresses the question of how people as individuals and society as a whole can respond appropriately to climate change. How can the transformation in people's minds towards more climate protection succeed? This is what we will be looking at in more detail today. A warm welcome to you!

Prof. Ellen Matthies: Hello!

Lisa Baaske: I've used the word a lot in my introduction. But what exactly is climate protection?

Prof. Ellen Matthies: Climate protection is a task for humankind, it is a global problem, so it has to be solved globally. And science and civil society have been dealing with this for more than 30 years. There are these IPCC reports, written by scientists for the UN, and for years they have been listing concrete measures that can be taken to limit climate change. I would call that climate protection, on a very global level.

But ultimately, we can all contribute to the success of global climate protection as individuals, and in very different ways. So many may think of acting in everyday life, think of limiting air travel, eating differently. And so on. We can do things like install heat insulation, heat pumps, or connect to heat energy. But we can also act politically. We are also citizens. That means we can go out on the streets, we can demand a better climate policy, we can support and promote in our environment that if open-space PV plants are planned somewhere here in the villages around Magdeburg, that people say: Well, it's important. That is our energy supply of the future, it has to be.

Lisa Baaske: Absolutely. As you've already mentioned, people are also thinking: What can I myself do for climate protection? What do you yourself do for climate protection?

Prof. Ellen Matthies: I'm quite happy, because I've been working for three years now to get a PV system and a heat pump for my house. And it has failed again and again because of various different things. And this summer, however, it's actually supposed to happen. I'm really excited about that. It's actually supposed to happen at the end of August. That has to do with the fact that I'm very interested in technology. If you take a close look at climate change and climate protection on a global scale, you know that the great potential lies in technological solutions. There's no changing that. That means wind power, PV systems and, if possible, on every roof. Heating from renewable energies is immensely important, because it has a huge impact. Air travel or a change in diet also have a big impact. And I simply take the time to work on these big things. And then I don't have to think about it every moment of every day.

Lisa Baaske: I understand. I'll definitely keep my fingers crossed that it finally works with the heat pump. It's obviously been a long road.

Prof. Ellen Matthies: Yes, it is not easy.

Lisa Baaske: Actually, sad that it's not easy, but okay.

Prof. Ellen Matthies: I have to say that, too. And then people tell me: With your low power consumption, it's not worth it. (laughs)

Lisa Baaske: If you google the acceptance of climate protection in Germany, it shows that climate protection is important to many Germans. As I mentioned, however, this referendum in Berlin, which was about Berlin becoming climate-neutral by 2030 rather than 2045, failed. What is the reason for this discrepancy? Was it simply that the wrong things were demanded in Berlin?

Prof. Ellen Matthies: Well, I would say that at the moment, apart from the major institutes that can do the study, no one can imagine exactly how climate protection can be achieved step by step. Comprehensive climate protection, in other words, climate neutrality. How to achieve that. Talking about this is relatively new. There have always been groups that have vehemently demanded comprehensive climate protection. But what does this mean in concrete terms? A de-fossilization of motorized individual transport, which must then be displaced. Complete conversion, insulating houses, heating houses differently, and so on. I think for many people this is still a project with many question marks. And if you don't know so much about it, and most people don't know so much about it, then it's easy to create fears and then people say in case of doubt they'd rather not. But as you say, awareness of the problem is extremely high among the German population. So, I wonder why politically not much more has happened in recent years. I mean, now we have the situation where massive changes have to be implemented under time pressure. How much nicer would it have been if climate protection had been started 20 years ago? Then we would have had the heating networks ten years ago and could actually decide today: Will I finally be connected to the heating network, or will I use renewable technology for my heating? That wouldn't be such a hot topic.

Lisa Baaske: Yes, I understand that very well in any case. Above all, you now get the feeling, and I think many people are saying the same thing, that maybe it's just the right time. Corona is just over, there is war, is it perhaps also simply the problem that many people just have other problems and therefore do not realize?

Prof. Ellen Matthies: You can question that. We did a study ourselves at the beginning of the Corona crisis in the spring of 2020. The entire climate protection movement and the institutions were very concerned. They said: Oh, now the issue of climate protection will be pushed aside. And that sentiment was very strong. In 2019, this was really the most important topic in the minds of many people. And they thought, now it will be displaced by this new topic. But that's not the case. And this idea of "I can only ever focus on one or maybe two problems," that's a false idea I think by the journalists. They actually have a capacity problem because there's only one editorial. That's where I have to make a decision. But with people, it's not such a permanent topic, it's not suppressed, in that there's a new, current topic or then also a new, temporary permanent topic. People's willingness to support climate protection and their awareness of the climate issue have not changed as a result of the Corona crisis.

Lisa Baaske: Very interesting. On the other hand, what would motivate people to do more for climate protection? Well, one gets the impression of the prospect of the earth warming up further and further and that we will experience more and more hot summers. So even partial "fear" doesn't seem to be a motivation.

Prof. Ellen Matthies: That varies. People tick differently. And there are certainly those who are affected by strong experiences such as the first summer of drought, which I think we had in 2017, or now the fires in Canada. Canada is a country with high CO2 emissions, that has also partially suspended the Kyoto Protocol again for political reasons and is now so massively confronted with climate change impacts. That helps with the political process in Canada, insofar also fears or such threatening experiences help. But in general, people don't react positively to their fears by taking action, but rather by repressing them. So, in this respect fear is not the decisive issue at all, but the decisive issue is: If I have a concern, I also have the expectation that I can contribute to averting the problem, the danger, through certain actions. And here, especially in climate protection, these collective expectations of effectiveness are important. If I know what I can do myself, if I trust that others will also make their contribution, that is a task for the common good. A lot depends on what I expect others will do.

Lisa Baaske: Okay, interesting. And what would perhaps also get people to do more for climate protection? So, do we need tougher laws, more regulation? Does climate protection need to be made more suitable for everyday life or communicated better?

Prof. Ellen Matthies: So, when you say that climate protection is not suitable for everyday life, you are actually putting your finger directly into the wound. So how can it be that a society for whose people climate protection is so important and where climate protection is also so important at the international, multilateral level? How can it be that climate protection is not always the obvious thing to do in everyday life? Well, mistakes have been made in the past few decades and this must now be rebuilt. And against this background: I think Ottmar Edenhofer emphasizes again and again that CO2 pricing is the guiding instrument for a transformation, and he is right. And basically, now the debate we had about the building energy law. And is it permissible to force people, so to speak, to switch away from fossil fuels to renewables for their next heating system? Yes, this question would actually be superfluous when it is quite clear that what has happened now with the high energy prices in the last year. In five years, we will have such high energy prices again. Simply because the CO2 emissions, that is, the actual costs that we cause through our lifestyle, will then have a stronger actual impact on the courses of action that cause these costs, that is, the environmental impact. And that can go through a sharply rising CO2 price, and now that the EU is also expanding emissions trading, I think we will have that. And then hopefully people will know early on through an appropriate communication policy: I would be pretty stupid if I continue to rely on the old technology. At some point, that's going to come back to haunt me. So, I believe that CO2 pricing as a guiding instrument is very important, and what is also important is more knowledge about the impact, i.e., the climate impact of individual behaviors in our everyday lives. In other words, we need to be more aware of the consequences of our decisions.

Lisa Baaske: It's exciting that you mention the CO2 price, because I was actually involved in another research project where CO2 pricing was being investigated, so to speak. And in fact, I was one of the people who didn't even know that there was a CO2 price, which is actually the case for many people, because it is still so incredibly low that you don't really notice it.

Prof. Ellen Matthies: Well, the increase was suspended because of the gas and energy crisis and anyway because of the rising prices, but it will come, and it will rise quickly. And there we are talking about emission prices of 300 to 400€ per ton of CO2 and now I think it's still at 20€. It is supposed to rise to 40€ soon and then it will rise massively. And whoever still heats with gas in ten years will have a problem.

Lisa Baaske: In line with this, Germany has committed itself to becoming climate-neutral by 2045. This also means a rapid and comprehensive expansion of solar and wind power. Somehow, however, I have the impression that this doesn’t really progress at all. What barriers or problems are standing in the way of this expansion? Or is my impression simply wrong?

Prof. Ellen Matthies: Well, first of all, it has to be said that PV expansion is progressing relatively quickly. In the case of wind power, it is now picking up speed again. But it was slowed down for 10 to 15 years, especially in the last few years. There has been a sharp increase in expansion and then it actually stagnated. And that had to do with the fact that there was a lot of regulation that deterred investors, like the 10H regulation, the 1000-meter spacing regulation. And these are regulations that are actually not scientifically justifiable. So, the distance to a wind turbine has something to do with noise emissions only insofar as the noise emissions vary with distance, of course. But it can be shown that at a distance of less than 1000 meters, noise emissions only become relevant for a part of the population. Or, to put it another way, studies can show that the proximity to the wind turbine is not the decisive factor at all for the experience of annoyance and satisfaction with the situation, but what is important is how the procedure, i.e., the planning and construction of the wind turbine was experienced. Was the process experienced as fair? That is ultimately decisive as well for the harassment experience, not the distance to the wind turbine. I think that's really impressive psychologically, because it shows people that change processes cost energy, and change processes can be designed well or poorly. And if you design them badly, then you really lose the people, and they actually suffer. But if you design them well, then it is hardly the objective changes that burden people even more, but people come to terms with them. We come to terms with the changes we have everywhere. I come to terms with the fact that for weeks now the PV system has been installed on Building 22 and that always involves noise and closures. And also here on campus, where can you even walk anymore? That annoys us all, that burdens us. First of all, you can get along with it over the summer. So, I definitely notice that, that I come to terms with it. And I can also say, it's for a good cause after all. Finally, we're getting PV systems or finally we're getting a new heat and energy system here at our university. That's why they're remodeling everything, so I can come to terms with it, and that's how it will be with the energy transition. And studies also show that this is the case. People who live near wind turbines have a positive attitude toward wind turbines and do not report feeling more burdened than people who do not have a wind turbine near them. That's really impressive.

Lisa Baaske: Yes, definitely. You wouldn't have thought so. I definitely found that surprising. But how high is the general acceptance towards renewable energies within the population? Has acceptance changed in recent years as well?

Prof. Ellen Matthies: Not really, it has always been high. Since 2011 when there was this energy transition decision, since then the acceptance for the expansion of renewables has been very high, over 80 percent. PV plants are even more attractive, and wind plants are less attractive, therefore supported less. Biomass plants are really far behind in terms of acceptance, and then there's coal and brown coal, which have been completely left behind.

Lisa Baaske: I had prepared for the podcast, of course, and read around a bit on the Internet and found a Forsa survey that said only 10 percent of Germans still believe that Germany's energy needs can be met completely and solely by renewable energies. Why is it that so few people have confidence in renewable energies?

Prof. Ellen Matthies: Well, the only way I can explain it is this. The topic is complex. There are studies that looked at this 10 years ago and said that it is possible - both technologically and in terms of infrastructure. It can be implemented. But we don't read studies, we trust our intuition. And if you had told us this 20 years ago, you might have asked yourself whether it was even possible. Because we have been shaped by this, we have grown up taking it for granted that fossil energy sources are what we need in any case. And we have long been concerned with the question of whether cars can be driven electrically at all, because they have to be plugged in and the batteries were not as efficient, so that at least the issues I was concerned with many years ago can now be swept away, and in the meantime we can also sweep away the range anxiety, because we know that somehow the third generation of electric cars has no range problems at all. So, I think you first have to experience the technological changes before you can get the impression that they are working well: Yes, this works well. And I think part of the reason for this uncertainty is the strong discourse about the expansion of wind power and the strong doubts that this is palatable to the population. So, this notion of “nimby” - “not in my backyard” - basically on the one hand people want it, but on the other hand when it does in fact happen, they don't want it anymore. Then there's resistance. That's been a narrative, that's dominated the media for years and has probably driven politicians to establish such nonsense as these 1000-meter distance limits. They've been guided by that myth. These are my explanations for the fact that people cannot imagine this, that they do not have sufficient technical understanding. In addition, the complexity of the situation or the complexity of the task among many possibilities, this is probably presented in a simplified way. Then you ask yourself, if the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, that is, these dark lulls, then you're up the creek, then we have nothing. We have been researching storage capacities for years. There are many different ways to bridge these dark periods, and we are now looking at what is the most efficient and cost-effective energy. And as far as I understand the studies now, it's probably hydrogen power plants. Although hydrogen is very expensive, but because they can be ramped up quickly and then only have to be used in these short phases when there really are dark periods, they can compensate wonderfully. But electricity from Norway can also be a solution, with hydro power. If you take a close look at this, you will see that not only the problems but also the solutions to the problem have long been well thought out. But if you only take a rough superficial look at it, I have no desire to buy an electric car, nor does my neighbor, who is actually quite willing to innovate, and then it won't work.

Lisa Baaske: It's interesting because I don't necessarily catch myself thinking like this, but the people around me. These thoughts like: If there's no wind, then it won't work, or the electric cars can't go as far. It's really likely that people have the problems in their heads, but not the solutions. But you still assume that you have the knowledge and then somehow you don't allow yourself to be taught or don't deal with it.

Prof. Ellen Matthies: As a psychologist, you know that. The topic motivates cognition. Then I can draw on the topics and the information that reinforce my position so that I can maintain it and I don't have to relearn. We are a bit comfortable there, not all of us, but some.

Lisa Baaske: But on the other hand, how can trust possibly be restored? By communicating the solutions more, presenting them more?

Prof. Ellen Matthies: Well, I'm a big fan of interactive offers of information because the topic is complex, and because it encompasses so much. If this is going to be expanded faster, or once this is expanded faster, the coal phase-out is moved forward and so on. What are the implications of that and how can it all work together? And there are wonderful models where you can vary the input variables and say, in five years, I assume that this will be expanded even more, and then we are presented with the challenge again, and how can we solve it? Well, there are already interactive offers of information about this topic on the Internet. This is for those who really want to deal with it in a very differentiated way, who also have an idea of the complexity. And to be honest, I think this is actually a general education topic. We have known since the 1990s that climate change exists, and we know that the global community must react to it. And yet, in schools today, people have not yet learned how this can work. Or also at the university here. We are a technical university. So that can't really be the case. In any case, we need a general course of study in the area of sustainability and sustainable management and transformation. And what does that mean for technological solutions? After all, we have a degree program in sustainable energy systems. So, I could also imagine that large events would be held here at the university to deal with this topic in a differentiated way. And it concerns us all, so even environmental psychologists are interested in understanding more precisely how this can work.

Lisa Baaske: We have the sustainability certificate, which may sound strange at first. But you look at the topic from different perspectives and show - because it is well received, too - that it is also important for the generation and that it is really put to use. I think that's great.

Now, of course, there are also arguments from critics - and there are quite a few of them - that there's no point in Germany investing in renewable energies and becoming climate-neutral if other countries continue to pollute the environment. That's how you answer them.

Prof. Ellen Matthies: First of all, I would ask back: Do you even know where Germany stands in terms of CO2 emissions? Is Germany at the forefront of a CO2 emissions reduction movement or at the very back? In fact, I think Germany is in 10th or 11th place, behind China, in per capita emissions, so in a negative sense. We are among the worst. We have the worst CO2 emissions balance in Europe. So, to get rid of that, to say that we always do so much, let the others do it first. That's not true. We have to do a lot if we want to reach the level of the civilized nations in Europe. The USA, China and Russia are still ahead of us, so to speak. These are the larger CO2 emitters, and of course Saudi Arabia, etc., which is to be expected. So, we are not in such a good position after all. And if you say, and it's true, that this is a global problem, it has to be dealt with globally. Then we have to ask ourselves what strategies we can use to support such global processes of change. And certainly not by setting an example, as an industrialized country, that we are trying to avoid climate protection, but on the contrary, by setting an example that we are one of the major industrialized nations. And the large industrialized nations have higher CO2 emissions, but we can show that it is also possible to be climate-neutral in a large high-tech and industrialized country. Then we've actually made a good contribution to global climate protection.

Lisa Baaske: Are we as a society and as politicians simply reacting too hesitantly to climate change? What specific transformation processes need to take place then in the near future?

Prof. Ellen Matthies: A CO2 price is indeed the guiding instrument, in order to set appropriate framework conditions not only for industrial processes, but also for private decisions. Reducing subsidies, and that's regulation, that's state intervention, that has to be there. That has to be there for the reason that we've thought for far too long that there's climate change, and that's a danger, but it can’t be that bad because otherwise politicians would take much more dramatic measures. So basically, a clear, ambitious policy also sends a signal to people: It's serious. It really is very serious. So, in this respect, I would hope for appropriate regulation and clear guidelines here. And that clearly includes a CO2 price.

Lisa Baaske: There are actually already many proposals to stop climate change. In other words, a climate-neutral circular economy, renewable energies, a change in agriculture. Many people are enthusiastic about this. For others, it is more likely to trigger resentment and rejection. But how do you get people on board with such transformative processes?

Prof. Ellen Matthies: Well, first of all, it really has to be said that we have these high numbers of support. And if you take a look: We also have support for very differentiated, ambitious measures, they are there in the population. At the same time, we have little confidence in our fellow citizens. There is a very exciting study done by psychologists in the USA. They were able to show that U.S. climate policy is supported by over 60% of the population. But that it is exactly the same people who say, "I support this," and when you ask them, “What do you think, what percentage in the U.S. supports this policy?”, who have estimated the level of support to be only half that. It's called "pluralistic ignorance." So, that I actually live in a society that always pretends that we don't want what we actually have to do. And that, I think, is quite an exciting idea, that we actually lack confidence in the willingness of others to change. We're sitting here and we're fully aware that climate policy is important, that climate change exists, and that politics has to intervene, and that there will be a transformative process, that there's no getting around it. And at the same time, we think: But there are people out there who don't want that. And that's maybe a completely incorrect assessment. I think that's really worth thinking about. How do I come to have more confidence and courage within this transformative process?

Lisa Baaske: A very interesting perspective. I wonder how this could be solved. Well, there are already studies that say the Germans are ready for climate protection and all that. Nevertheless, there are doubts about this. But it's also a question of how to get people to say, "Okay, it's important to me, and to the others, too.”

At our university, there is now a brand new research project called “Klimaplan Real”, in which you are also involved. The aim is to develop ideas on how universities in Saxony-Anhalt can become climate-neutral. University climate councils based on the model of citizens councils are being used for this purpose. What exactly do you expect from this? And is this a strategy that would work for the whole of Germany as well?

Prof. Ellen Matthies: Actually, this follows from the question I just asked, because when it comes to trust or confidence that others will work with me to solve a problem, when it comes to wanting to establish that, then a method like a citizens council or university climate council is a good strategy, because I can then experience when we work together on solutions, I get a sense of it: Does someone perhaps have reservations? But he or she is nevertheless of good will and perhaps lacks information. If I explain to them in more detail why this is important to me, then I can work with them and develop good ideas. That's what happened in the climate citizens council. I was able to observe and advise on that. Of course, the measures that are developed are perhaps more ambitious than what the average German population might want. But they are still very well accepted because they are formulated in such a way that they take into account side effects. And even what the Building Energy Act actually wanted to implement in the short term was already thought out in advance. But they also considered very strongly that this has to be gradual, of course, so that it is proportionate. The oldest buildings must be insulated first. Then you have to support and subsidize them accordingly. They have formulated the measures in such a way that they are supported by over 50 percent of the German population. There are regular demoscopic studies and there is also a study, PACE, from the University of Erfurt, which is carried out by a colleague, a psychologist, who also has the proposals from the citizens climate council evaluated regularly by the German population. And the approval ratings are still over 50 percent. There also isn’t this “nimby” phenomenon, that we all want something in the abstract and when it becomes concrete and affects us, we suddenly don't want it anymore. So, there is still a high level of willingness to support. Perhaps it is actually this doubt in the good will of my fellow human beings, this unfounded doubt, where we get caught up again and again in discussions and are so easily disrupted. If someone has a very specific interest in stifling certain discourse and discrediting certain political parties, then this succeeds too quickly. I would also like to see more responsible journalism that basically does not always focus on these negative emotional issues. I don't want to, but when push comes to shove, it blows up in your face and so on. Those are, after all, the issues that seem to find their way into these editorials so quickly. But that's not helpful. It's not actually a form of journalism where we can learn. I think it's actually a form of free expression of opinion, because in some cases it also goes hand in hand with disinformation. So, I stand there shaking my head. I wouldn't want to be that kind of journalist, and I wouldn't want to be that kind of politician who suddenly claims that you need €70,000 to heat your house in a climate-neutral way.

Lisa Baaske: I definitely understand. But sure, you read that and think: Okay, so that's how it is. For God's sake, there's no way I can afford that. And then you no longer research whether the information was correct, for example. And that is certainly the problem.

Prof. Ellen Matthies: You don't find well-researched reports in some print media at all. It's all about serving certain prejudices. And the fact that we all don't actually want climate protection after all, I think, is such a prejudice. You can refer to it quite easily, even though it doesn't help the cause and is also wrong in essence.

Lisa Baaske: I think the conversation has now shown: We are facing a major challenge and also long processes, of course. What is your impression? Will Germany achieve climate neutrality by 2045? And above all, will there really be a change in people's minds?

Prof. Ellen Matthies: It's pointless to think about whether I can do it or not. Instead, I know that ambitious goals are achievable. I know that it is technologically possible, and I have confidence in my fellow human beings. So, I assume that we will make it. As far as changing people's minds is concerned, I don't think it's so much a matter of getting people to realize that climate protection is important, because we all know that, but rather it's a matter of getting people to realize that we actually all want it, and also showing how many good examples there are, how many good ideas, good initiatives. I would like to see more goodwill rather than enthusiasm, and actually empathy, that is, compassion for this great project. And that's going to take all of us and there's no way around it. We're doing this now and we're getting it done.

Lisa Baaske: I think that was a very good closing statement. Thank you very much for being here. It's actually already over. I found it super interesting, and I think it also opened up new perspectives. Maybe it will also make you think again. To the listeners: Thank you very much for being with us. Stay healthy and hopefully you'll tune in again next time.

Outro voice: Knowledge when you want it. The podcast about research at the University of Magdeburg.