The voices of experts, journalists and activists – The professionals have their say (Part 5)
12. Studio Q – „+3 degrees by 2050? New climate report: Will everything get EVEN worse?“
This video discusses new climate model results.1+3 degrees by 2050? New climate report: Will everything get EVEN worse? | Studio Q 🌐 https://youtu.be/VmQSlIYOIQE .
The message:
- Current climate models show that we are heading for a 2.8–3.0 degree rise in temperature (not 2.0–2.4 as previously assumed).
- This has disastrous implications.
- We are already at +1.5 degrees warming on a 12-month average.
- The models no longer apply – reality is worse than the worst-case forecasts.
„The black line? That's the average temperatures over the last few decades. The last two years have exceeded forecasts – the Mediterranean was so warm this summer that the observation stations ran out of colour. This data also formed the basis for yesterday's new report: the German Meteorological and Physical Society says that the Earth is warming faster than previously thought. The Paris targets – to stay between 1.5 and 2° – are becoming increasingly unrealistic. +3° could already be exceeded by 2050.“3+3 degrees by 2050? New climate report: Will everything get EVEN worse? – Verbatim quotes from my memory log | Studio Q 🌐 https://youtu.be/VmQSlIYOIQE
Implication for COP30:
At this very moment, COP30 decided practically nothing new. Science is sounding the alarm bells – politicians are responding with minimal compromises.
„We are now at around 425 ppm CO₂ in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is drifting towards a stable system at around 3.5°. These are stored in the climate system – and because we only want to become climate neutral by 2045 (some of us, at least), CO₂ particles are still being added... so we are heading for almost 5° by 2100.“
And Frank Böttcher (German Meteorological Society) adds: „We really can no longer rule out the possibility of global warming reaching 3°C by 2050.“
I can and would like to recommend this Quarks report without reservation. It is exciting, lively and, despite the serious subject matter, entertaining and enjoyable. The half hour is time well spent. This is especially true for those who are not interested in the topic and for climate sceptics. Winking smiley.
„Even today, thousands of people die every year as a result of heat (2018: 8,500 deaths). If you think this only affects the elderly, just think 25 years ahead. Children, young people and people with pre-existing conditions are also affected. Medicines suddenly have a different effect. Allergies are on the rise. Heat puts a strain on the psyche, makes people more aggressive, and increases the number of suicides and illnesses.“
„We have to be honest: this topic makes us, as editors, feel sad, hopeless and desperate. It's impossible to really imagine +3°C – those are hostile conditions. Our infrastructure cannot withstand it, and life in hot regions of the world will become impossible.“
13. Terra X Lesch & Co – Harald Lesch: „The unfair truth behind global warming“
The well-known science journalist Harald Lesch – another of my top favourites – analyses the injustice of the climate crisis.7The unfair truth behind global warming | Harald Lesch | Terra X Lesch & Co 🌐 https://youtu.be/Kpvd4QdetOs .
I would also love to throw this video in the face of our wannabe climate chancellor Friedrich Merz the next time he claims that Germany is only responsible for 2% of emissions in the atmosphere. That may be the case today, but where, Mr Merz, have you hidden our emissions from the past 100 years? They are still in the Earth's atmosphere, yesterday as today, tomorrow as the day after tomorrow. The complete breakdown of CO2 by natural means (weathering and rock formation) takes at least tens of thousands to 100,000 years.9Deutschlandfunk: The long-term impact of CO2 🌐 https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/1-jahrtausend-der-lange-atem-des-co-100.html . In the meantime, we have even overtaken the United Kingdom, which is not only my mother's homeland, but also the country that epitomises industrialisation. There is no denying that. It is simply physics, Mr Merz. It is even simple physics, Mr Merz.
Lesch comments: „Germany has been one of the wealthiest countries in the world for several decades. One reason for this is that it has experienced several economic miracles. And that is why Germany is one of the countries responsible for the planet. Responsible for the large amount of carbon dioxide that has accumulated in the atmosphere. The accumulated It is the amount of carbon dioxide, because that stuff up there doesn't disappear, that contributes to the rise in temperature.“
To be fair, we would also have to add to our emissions all those emissions that, although generated in others countries, but were only created to ours To satisfy needs.
A new iPhone every two years (I've been told that nowadays people actually buy a new mobile phone every year, no comment) accounts for a whopping 74 kg CO₂e (e.g. iPhone 16 Pro Max), for which someone has to take responsibility. Why should the Southeast Asian rice farmer, whose island is already sinking due to climate change, also shoulder the costs and ecological footprint of our Black Friday electronic waste from the Far East?
And continuing in this context: „We have a clear correlation between the cumulative amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the temperature. This means that all the pub discussions about what could be to blame – here is the answer, namely the cumulative amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which correlates directly with the global mean temperature. This renders all discussions superfluous.“
Lesch's central thesis:
- The climate crisis is fundamentally unfair.
- The Global North has industrialised extensively, destroying the planet in the process.
- The Global South is hardest hit, even though it has contributed the least.
- Historical emissions: The West accounts for 79% of excess emissions since 1850.
- Today: China and India produce a lot of CO₂, but per capita, the West is still the leader.
I don't understand what the comparisons in absolute figures that critics keep bringing up are supposed to explain. Woohoo, a big nominal number. The Chinese, with their ecological footprint of around 13,260,000,000,000 kg CO₂e, compared to only around 4,682,000,000,000 kg CO₂e for the USA.12 USA: Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per capita 🌐https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/USA/Carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita 13 China: Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per capita 🌐https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/China/Carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita/ [/ footnote]. It's obvious that the Chinese are to blame for climate change. We're out. Not. 13 Carbon dioxide emissions of the most polluting countries worldwide in 2010 and 2023 🌐 https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-selected-countries/ [/ footnote] Figure: Carbon dioxide emissions of the most polluting countries worldwide in 2010 and 2024 (in million metric tonnes). Available online at https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-selected-countries/ Retrieved on 20 December 2025 for editorial use. 14 Carbon dioxide emissions of the most polluting countries worldwide in 2010 and 2023 🌐https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-selected-countries/ [/ footnote] – Courtesy of Statista
Find more statistics at Statista
And to make it roughly comparable: per capita, the Chinese emit around 9,400 kg CO₂e, compared to around 13,900 kg CO₂e for Americans.15 USA: Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per capita 🌐 https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/USA/Carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita . Who's wearing the trousers now?
Lesch's criticism of COP30:
- Without genuine compensation from the Global North, there can be no talk of justice.
- The agreed 300 billion US dollars is an insult to the requirement of 400+ billion.
- It is a system that punishes the poor and spares the rich.
Lesch's key question:
„Why should poor countries limit their development when rich countries are not prepared to reduce their overproduction?“
14. „Geld für die Welt“ Maurice Höfgen zu Fossil-Lobby-Strategien
It's time to introduce you to someone else who usually deals with economics, money and politics. I have occasionally quoted him on political issues. Maurice Höfgen is an economist, independent journalist and YouTuber. His videos tackle even difficult topics with a certain sublime lightness, which makes them enjoyable to watch.
A video analyses how the fossil fuel lobby is now conducting its attacks against climate protection.17This is how the fossil fuel lobby is now attacking climate protection! 🌐https://youtu.be/TBF9fWkOsRY . The fossil fuel lobby is simply an overpowering final boss. They will milk the earth dry. Why not? The money keeps rolling in. Definitely, still. Winking smiley.
The same could be said of CO₂ certificate trading. Maurice criticises the way emissions trading is handled. The fossil fuel lobby is delighted.
Maurice ordnet die jüngsten EU‑Beschlüsse zu den Klimazielen in den Kontext der kommenden Weltklimakonferenz ein, bei der festgelegt werden soll, mit welchen Zielvorgaben Europa in die Verhandlungen geht. Er verweist darauf, dass in der Nacht von Dienstag auf Mittwoch ein entscheidender Kompromiss gefunden wurde: Künftig sollen die Klimaziele auch dadurch erreicht werden können, dass EU‑Staaten ausländische Klimazertifikate zukaufen – ein Instrument, das man etwa von Airlines kennt, die trotz hoher Emissionen ihre Klimabilanz durch den Kauf von Zertifikaten für angebliche Aufforstungs‑ oder Waldschutzprojekte in anderen Weltregionen „schönrechnen“. Zugleich erinnert er an die zahlreichen Berichte über die starke Korruptionsanfälligkeit vieler dieser Projekte und daran, dass es sich in der Vergangenheit oft um zweifelhafte oder sogar gänzlich fingierte Vorhaben gehandelt habe, die primär der Geldmacherei dienten.
Using the practical example of a Tagesschau interview with Evonik CEO Kullmann, Maurice vividly demonstrates the methods used here. Markus Söder and Julian Reichelt also rail against emissions trading. They claim it would lead to deindustrialisation, cost prosperity and is not market-based. A lie! Quote from Maurice.
In seinem Kommentar zeichnet Maurice ein äußerst kritisches Bild des Evonik-Chefs Christian Kullmann und beschreibt ihn als personifizierte Verkörperung all dessen, was er an der fossilen Lobby ablehnt. In seiner Darstellung steht Kullmann für eine Mischung aus pseudo‑sachlichen Argumenten, herablassendem Lobbyistengequatsche und der Haltung eines „alten weißen Mannes“, der erkennbar keine Lust habe, sich kritischen Fragen zu stellen, und stattdessen mit wenig stichhaltigen Positionen argumentiere.
„Unternehmen planen nicht in Wahlzyklen, sondern in Jahrzehnten.“
Maurice Höfgen, Ökonom. 18 Geld für die Welt — Maurice Höfgen YouTube presence„SO greift die Fossil-Lobby jetzt Klimaschutz an!„Available online at https://youtu.be/TBF9fWkOsRY abgerufen am 30.11.2025. Redaktionelle Nutzung. 🌐 https://youtu.be/TBF9fWkOsRY
Zugleich betont Höfgen, dass Kullmann in diesem Auftreten nicht isoliert sei, sondern sich im Rücken auf ein Netzwerk aus anderen Industriebossen, Lobbyakteuren, politischen Unterstützern wie Markus Söder sowie eine ihm gewogene rechte Medienlandschaft stützen könne.
Beobachtete Strategien der Fossil-Lobby, das „Playbook“ sozusagen:
- greenwashingOil companies present themselves as climate saviours (Shell, Exxon Mobil with „energy transition“)
- Political lobbying: Finanzierung von Politikern, die Klimaskepsis schüren, wie beispielsweise Markus Söder
- Media campaigns: Zweifel am Klimawandel säen (trotz 99,9 % wissenschaftlichem Konsens), insbesondere in der rechten Presse
- delaying tactics„We will have solutions in 10 years“ – perpetually postponed
- Political deadlock at COPs: Oil states as presidents/blockers (such as the UAE at COP28, Azerbaijan at COP29)
Implication for COP30:
The lobby was also present in Belém – lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry sat in the negotiating rooms. This is a conflict of interest that is fundamentally inappropriate.
Und wie sehr sich sogar der ach so starke bayerische Ministerpräsident und seine CSU von der Fossil-Lobby einlullen lassen und welche Auswirkungen das schon heute auf uns Bürgerinnen und Bürger hat, darüber habe ich im folgenden leicht satirischen Beitrag geschrieben: Anti-social right-wing politics in favour of the richest19 Asozial rechte Politik zugunsten der Reichsten 🌐 https://paddys.de/gute-nacht-umweltschutz-teil-1-warum-der-gruene-kompromiss-asozial-rechte-politik-zugunsten-der-reichsten-bedeutet/
15. Der Trump-Effekt auf die COP30
The auslandsjournal podcast format, which I always listen to with interest and enjoyment, analysed how Trump's behaviour influenced COP30.21COP without Trump: What does this mean for the climate? | The Trump Effect #32 | auslandsjournal – the podcast 🌐 https://youtu.be/4VOKxGcFszc .
The introductory remarks by Elmar Theveßen and a quote from UN Secretary-General António Guterres convey the prevailing mood well:
„Every Tenth of a degree more Erderwärmung bedeutet mehr Hunger, mehr Vertreibung, mehr Verlust. And with current global climate policy, we are heading for 2.8° by the end of the century.“ UN Secretary-General António Guterres
Elmar adds:
„The 1.5° target is becoming increasingly distant, say the United Nations, warning of climate collapse.“ Elmar Theveßen
Or also correct and important:
„Good climate change policy is ultimately a good migration policy, weil Was passiert denn, wenn Hunger und Armut am Ende dafür sorgen, dass das, was wir in den letzten Jahren an Migration erlebt haben, eigentlich nur das Vorspiel war?“ Elmar Theveßen
ZDF correspondent Winnie Heescher reports directly from the COP in Brazil and does not mince her words, openly addressing the fundamental problems of this very special COP:
„One also wonders: Is it right that so many people are travelling and generating all these air miles, and we've all been given a water bottle? You get one at every UN conference, and I found that particularly absurd because there are no water dispensers more, and we have good reasons for this. cans get, of which you do about 5 to 10 a day, Produced in Germany." ZDF correspondent Winnie Heescher
„First of all, there is a sad aspect to this conference, because the Accommodation so expensive have become, can be completely many countries only send small delegations send, if they can send any at all. And of course, this also applies to civil society and NGOs.“ ZDF correspondent Winnie Heescher
Dieses Argument hat in der öffentlichen Debatte zu wenig Raum gefunden. Denn einerseits wird eigentlich immer argumentiert, die COP sei der einzige Ort, an dem alle aus der ganzen Welt zusammen. Schön und gut. Wenn aber gerade die ärmsten Länder, die am wenigsten zum Klimawandel beigetragen haben, aber am meisten unter den Folgen ebendieses Klimawandels leiden, nicht vertreten sind, dann läuft irgendwas falsch.
Influence:
- The US under Biden was back in the climate process (after Trump I)
- But: Everyone knew that Trump could return.
- With Trump II (2025-2029), the US is effectively out of the climate process.
- This weakens the system massively – because the US is still a superpower.
- China must fill the gap somehow, but it also has its own interests.
Strategic implication:
COP30 was therefore also an attempt to work with the knowledge that the US might no longer be involved. This led to less ambitious targets and blockades from others.
Elmar Theveßen verweist darauf, dass China bei zentralen Zukunftstechnologien eine dominante Rolle einnimmt: Rund 88 Prozent der weltweiten Produktion von Solartechnik und Batterien sowie etwa 72 Prozent der Windenergieanlagen stammten aus der Volksrepublik, zudem liege Chinas Anteil an der globalen Wasserstofftechnologie bei mehr als der Hälfte. Gleichzeitig bleibe das Land aber auch der größte Verursacher von Treibhausgasemissionen: Für das Jahr 2024 nennt er Emissionen von etwa 13 Milliarden Tonnen CO₂, was bei weltweit rund 39 Milliarden Tonnen etwa einem Drittel der globalen CO₂‑Belastung entspreche.
Ulf Röller ist Leiter des ZDF‑Studios in Brüssel und damit zuständiger Auslandschef‑Korrespondent für die Berichterstattung über EU, NATO und die Benelux‑Staaten. Er warnt in diesem Zusammenhang vor den politischen Folgen eines massiven Wohlstandsverlustes in Europa: Die Wahlen 2027 in Polen und Frankreich seien Schicksalswahlen, bei denen nach Einschätzung vieler Vertreter der politischen Mitte ein Machtgewinn rechtspopulistischer Kräfte – etwa der PiS in Polen oder von Marine Le Pen in Frankreich – dazu führen könnte, dass die Europäische Union in ihrer jetzigen Form nicht mehr fortbesteht.
To sweeten the wait until the next episode, click here to go directly to the podcast: https://youtu.be/4VOKxGcFszc
