Luisa Neubauer is a climate activist and key organizer of Germany's “Fridays for Future” movement, which has showcased the power of youth-led activism and pushed for the European Green Deal. Neubauer has mobilized millions for mass protests, leading to Germany's coal exit and the first national climate law. In 2021, Luisa was the lead plaintiff in the landmark Neubauer vs. Germany case; the court ruled that insufficient emissions reduction violates the liberties of young people, marking a pivotal moment for civil rights in climate policy. Her advocacy has brought her into discussions with leaders such as Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Ursula von der Leyen, and the Pope. TIME listed her in the TIME100 Next 2022, and Neubauer has published four best-selling books on justice and climate.
A 2020 study found that the Global North is responsible for 90 percent of excess carbon emissions; however, the Global South is disproportionately affected by the climate crisis. What kinds of support does the Global North owe the South, if any? How should the Global North balance mitigation efforts domestically with adaptation projects in the Global South?
The numbers show that one big assumption about the climate crisis—that it is quote, unquote “man-made”—is quite incorrect. “Man-made” climate change implies it's human nature to wreck the climate. When we look at what's happening across the planet, we find [it’s] not quite human nature, but it's [the] Western way of living and exploiting that has caused all [the] detrimental effect[s] we see around the world, in particular, on those front lines [in the Global South]. What we need now [are] three things.
First, the Global North needs to pay up. It needs to take responsibility for its own mess. Yet, what we see is that Global North government[s] find excuses for their inaction through hiding behind the Global South [and] saying, “Who are we to tell someone else what to do and what not to do?” In places like Germany [and] the U.S., we hear governments claiming that if [they] don't do it right, other countries will follow a wrong track, and so on. So first of all, clearing up what we caused.
Second, we [don’t] just speak of support for the so-called Global South. We speak of reparations, climate reparations, that have to start with canceling a lot of debt within the Global South [that is] causing a lot of countries to be trapped in financial disasters. It has to go further, and we need to talk about the appropriate amount of money that has to flow to Global South countries to [allow them to] adapt where needed, to move forward where possible, and [to] move towards a clean energy, sustainable future.
Number three—something that is easily overlooked—is that the so-called Global North needs to stop funding and fueling fossil fuel expansion around the world. What we see in the continent of Africa is quite symbolic. Funding institutions, bank investors, but also insurance [companies]—a majority of them coming from the Global North—are fueling a new wave of fossil fuel expansions, most of which are taking place in the so-called Global South. That is neither just, nor is it honest, nor is it equitable, and nor is it leading to climate justice.
You have argued that we must understand the cultural embeddedness of toxic consumption—particularly the ubiquitous usage of fossil fuels—to address the climate crisis. How do we begin collectively reconceptualizing a Western “way of life” that is more compatible with climate goals, and what role could education play in these cultural shifts?
The climate crisis is often portrayed as two things: [first], it's an accident of human history, and second, it's this bad guy club of [the] fossil fuel industry that sneaks into our lives and [that we] now have to battle in a David-[and]-Goliath situation. Both of those portraits are not quite right because the climate crisis is a result of [the] collective political, cultural, and financial plans of Western governments, who after the Second World War [in particular] did everything—tweaked tax systems, created legal systems, rebuilt our infrastructure and cities—to please fossil fuel consumption. There was a time when fossil fuels, cars, flights, ships, and houses were the guarantee that societies [would] do well and leave [the] disasters of the Second World War behind.
There was this collective understanding that the more we burn, the further we get. This [belief] has created a culture of hegemony around fossil fuels that is not just out there but also within us. It is what we dream of, what we long for, what we think that we deserve, how we treat ourselves after a long day, and a lot of that has to do with some kind of fossil fuel. Is it that car that we really want after we've gotten that particular job? Is it that cruise that we treat ourselves to with the whole family? All these things are everything but rational decisions; [they are] part of a wider ideology. The first thing to change that [ideology] is to acknowledge it and to consider fossil fuels not just [as] a matter of energy, but a matter of culture, identity, [and] belonging. That's number one: acknowledgment.
Second, there's wisdom out there that tells us a lot. We don't need to invent the wheel anew. We just need to listen to our friends from Indigenous communities, from frontline communities, from places where [the] life that we are living was never an option. There is a lot of literature, studies, and data showing us that real happiness, fulfill[ment], and safety rarely come from that kind of fossil-fueled life that we are living. And I say that with a sense of curiosity about how much there is yet to find out for us. I say that [while] also acknowledging that—in some parts of the world—fossil fuels were part of huge accelerations that brought a lot of positive so-called developments in medicine and so on. I find it holistically fascinating, the idea to move away from something that has caused such detrimental chaos, but that is also—for quite a few good reasons—associated with development, so-called development.
Since the 2016 Paris Agreement, only 57 companies have been responsible for 80 percent of fossil fuel emissions. How would you respond to arguments that climate progress will be achieved through corporation-level changes, not changes in individuals’ behavior?
We need to quickly uncover or unpack where this “individual behavior” thing came from: a lot of things have gone wrong on that end. A few decades ago, the fossil fuel industry came up with the idea that individual tracking of CO2 would be an appropriate answer to the climate crisis, meaning people should get obsessed about how much CO2 the dishwasher consume[s] and worry less about oil spills and fossil fuel exploitation by industries. This is, of course, a completely mislead[ing] idea. However, [recognizing this] has come [at] a cost: people now believ[e] that individual action is useless, and this is not right. [People think of] a very specific kind of individual action that focuses on this can of Coke, instead of what we as human beings are capable of doing if we really want to.
When we speak of big industrial change, who runs industries? It's a bunch of individuals who will have to change something in their function as CEOs and as marketing heads and as whatever they do. The only thing we have in our hands is individual action; it’s just that we need to be very precise [about] what kind of individual action we speak about and what part of our human capacity is needed. [For example], reducing CO2 through less coffee consumption is part of our human capacity that is needed but to a much lesser degree than how we work [and] where we work.
One of the most important things we must do as individual[s] is [to] consider [ourselves] to be part of a collective and really think about collective energy and collective power. Because there is such an inherent power imbalance within the climate crisis, a lot of us are needed and asked to organize against [fossil fuel] industries as part of our individual human part of change-making.
You have cited that it is “a stupid mistake, the idea that the presence of all that science would be our best argument for changing something.” In your opinion, why is science not enough? What forms of climate messaging could appeal to conservatives who disregard climate change as a partisan issue?
I do identify as a scientist. I'm a geographer, so I am deeply convinced that we need the best available science to fuel our understanding of the world and what is before us. There is just a quite confused idea that presenting people with scientific facts will convince them to leave behind a life that they have long dreamed of, wished for, and worked toward. That is the very irrational side of the climate crisis that is made out of dreams, feelings, and grievances much more than of confrontation with the best available science. If we really intend to stop some of the worst disaster[s] we can still prevent, we're quite well-advised to reflect on our convincing mechanisms.
People have been led into the climate crisis with very good marketing [and] storytelling, [as well as] collective dreams. It just felt so good. You wanted to be part of that. As the ecolog[ists], what is our alternative offer? What are the dreams that we offer? What are the longings, the feeling[s], the collective ideas that are so strong, powerful, beautiful, wholesome, and intuitive that people feel like: wow, that's something I want to be part of?
And, climate as a partisan issue: by now, if you run as a political party in 2024 and you believe that it is not your job to provide reliable answers to the worst and most detrimental crisis of human existence, I’m not sure if you should run as a political party. I don’t know—open up a candy store and start a community club for your specific issues, but don't pretend that you want to talk about world politics as you ignore a vast part of the world's realities. We see it in the US election campaign [right now]. If you pretend to do world politics while you ignore [a] vast part of the world[’s] realities, you're not doing global politics, you're doing fairy tale politics, and we don't have time for that.
Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 10.1 percent from 2022 to 2023, with emissions the lowest they had been since the 1950s. However, in May, Deutsche Umwelthilfe (Environmental Action Germany) won a case against the German government, arguing that Germany’s emissions policies are still inadequate to meet binding targets. To what extent are you satisfied with the environmental policies in Germany and in the European Union more broadly?
There has been data coming out—our emissions are [the lowest] they've been in a long time. And for our American friends, [who have been] very obsessed with German nuclear policies—our emissions are lower than they’ve ever been, [including] during our time that we ran on nuclear energy as well. I've heard lots of concerned voices saying that we are driving up our emissions because we aren't accessing nuclear [energy], and I can soothe that worry.
But it's not fast enough. Our emissions are decreasing in our energy sector, but they're not decreasing at all in our transport sector, [and] Germany [is] a car-intense country—that is a big problem. [Emissions are] not decreasing in agriculture enough. So there are quite low-hanging fruits. Germany is doing quite well in picking what is available and [has been] very slow when it comes to deep and just transformation, like many countries in the Global North.
We have fought hard in the last six years as a climate movement to bring Germany to this very point, and we find that activism works. Activism doesn't mean [that] everything is going to be fine just because you really want it—that, again, is the candy store experience, not the activism experience. But activism also challenges us to accept and acknowledge that progress can be made, and we made progress. As I'm saying this, [though], I'm also one of the plaintiffs suing our government again over problematic climate laws and plans to water [climate laws] down even more, so it's always a two-sided story, and it requires us to tell both sides.
When it comes to Europe, the movements have fought successfully for the European Green Deal, which is the strongest climate legislation we've ever had on the continent. It's a huge success, but now it comes down to preventing industries from lobbying the hell out of this piece of legislation. It is about mak[ing] sure that the implementation is happening. Europe is right now in this very difficult spot [of] having to decide how much we want to rely on natural gas—so-called natural gas, very unnatural gas—in the future. The lobbies are strong, wanting to trick Europe on a pathway towards more fossil fuel exploitation. These are decisive years, but we've done quite a good job in the past, and I'm sure we'll continue that fight.
Alternative for Germany (AfD) campaigns against the Greens have raised fears of a “greenlash” against environmental policies from the far right in Germany. To what extent are you worried about far-right backlash, and how should environmentalists respond?
It's no coincidence that the extreme right is targeting everything that has to do with climate: that is what the extreme right does. They target women, minorities, and nature. That is what they want to control and oppress. We see that in the U.S., [and] we see that in Germany, as a single story of fascism and oppression. It is no surprise—and still a disaster—that more and more people are supporting them. It is, however, a phase of parity. We know what we are up against, [and] they're showing their real faces more and more. This highlights this new front line of today's world, which is about defending democracies and livelihoods in the same political momentum.
Sustainable and just climate transformation can develop a huge support system for democracy because people who are protected from catastrophes—who are safer, who have time to breathe, who are not losing everything again and again—tend to be more resilient and able to support a resilient democracy. The climate crisis is a huge threat [to] democracy because democracies need time to breathe and time to grow, and the climate crisis is taking everything from us, including our time to breathe and our moments to grow. It's a strategic imperative to connect the dots between defending democracies and defending livelihoods and not getting tricked into false compromise[s]. There is this belief in Germany and Europe that if we just compromise on our rights to a clean climate and allow some environmental degradation to happen, it will calm down the extreme right. This is not how the extreme right is working. They're taking more and more, as much as they can get.
As a member of the Greens, do you plan on channeling your actions into more political channels? To what extent are you interested in running for public office?
My work is quite political as it is, but I'm convinced that in times [when] people are increasingly losing trust in governments and party politics, we need an incredibly strong civil society holding people together, creating visions and hope and actionable answers to crises. I'm quite worried that people are forgetting about the necessity of [a] healthy civil society over this linear pathway into politics. Right now, I see that we are needed on the streets, that we can make a difference on the streets. As long as I see that, I'm good where I am.
Fridays for Future as an international movement has faced internal schisms and controversy since Hamas’ attack on October 7th, 2023. You have distanced yourself from statements made by the international channels of Fridays for Future and expressed in an interview that “the loss of trust is immense.” Does Fridays for Future have a responsibility to take a stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict, or should the movement stick strictly to climate activism?
You will find that most climate justice activists, including me, feel the need and the responsibility to speak out about injustices related to that war. I expressed immediately, as many have, shock about the Hamas attacks, and I have ever since been continuously highlighting the unbearable crimes that have followed. I do that not necessarily as a climate justice activist; I do this first and foremost as a human being [who] looks into this world with despair.
You can draw connections between climate justice and the situation in Gaza, and many are doing that. I think there's a reason to do that, but I don't find you have to be a climate justice activist to be in despair about what is happening. It's enough to just be human, and we are all humans in this. The climate justice movement derives from the idea that we are aware and sensible to what is happening in the world, that we have some moral understanding about climate injustice, and I don’t know why that would end [with just climate]. Climate justice activism is effectively the consequence of looking closely into the world, so it's no surprise to me that many climate justice activists are looking closely into the world in different contexts as well.
Esposito spoke with Neubauer on October 15, 2024. This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity. Italics have been added for emphasis.
The views expressed in this piece are the interviewee’s own and are not reflective of the views of the HIR.
