Political scientist Steurer on the ÖVP's climate policy: security risk for Austria

In the super election year of 2024, scientists from Scientists for Future are analyzing the climate policy of the Austrian parliamentary parties and visiting the party headquarters to make their criticism heard there. The first visit was to the ÖVP, where almost 4 scientists gathered on April 100th. Reinhart Steurer, professor of climate policy at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, had the following to say to the ÖVP:

Party of climate right-wing populism

Once upon a time there was an ÖVP that saw itself as a state-supporting party. She even advocated for high environmental protection standards when Austria benefited from them, such as our exemplary water protection. Thank tourism. This ÖVP also shaped the concept of the eco-social market economy. It was the black ÖVP of one Josef Riegler and one Erhard Busek, held up until the end by Othmar Karas in the EU Parliament. The turquoise ÖVP, which basically began with Schüssel and was completed by Kurz, no longer has anything to do with it. It has long since become a different party, a party of irresponsible right-wing climate populism that to this day does not take the climate crisis seriously, let alone attempt to combat it adequately. There is clear evidence for this diagnosis in at least three areas.

Strategically necessary nonsense

Firstly, the ÖVP, together with the WKO to be responsible for the fact that only a fraction of the agreements in the government program were implemented, even though the ÖVP was also in 2019 Nationalrat recognized the climate emergency. As a result, the climate neutrality 2040 agreed with the Greens in the government program remains a fairy tale. 

Secondly, the coalition started with the announcement that it wanted to be one of the climate pioneers in the EU. This agreement was also broken by the ÖVP, because it has recently been busy sabotaging important environmental policy decisions of the EU (such as an end to combustion engines by 2035).

Thirdly, the ÖVP is turning the already difficult but inevitable change in values ​​towards a more climate-friendly life, especially in the areas of mobility and nutrition, into a divisive culture war. Not only is unhealthy high meat consumption being defended with embarrassing normal videos, but urgently needed changes in all areas of life are also being undermined with technology smoke grenades, which party strategists themselves would probably describe as SNU, i.e. strategically necessary nonsense. This nonsense is always celebrated when urgently needed regulations with references to technological openness, e-fuels, hydrogen or CO2 storage are prevented against the principles of physics. The electric future of the car has long been decided, only the ÖVP and FPÖ do not want to accept it yet - much to the detriment of domestic competitiveness.

The ÖVP then calls this conglomerate of broken promises and denial of reality common sense climate policy. By the way, this is an open declaration of war on science. I am happy to take this up here and now and counter it: What we need more urgently than ever is a climate policy with expertise instead of common sense - for one simple reason: As we have known at least since the pandemic, common sense is a fool when it comes to solving highly complex problems . Climate policy with common sense is like pandemic policy with horse dewormers: for many, deadly charlatanry (in the climate crisis with a long delay, which is why the insult works better here).

Nehammer-ÖVP is a security risk for Austria

And what does common sense scientific expertise say about the ÖVP’s climate policy? Three things:

Firstly, due to its positions and its long-term participation in government, the ÖVP is THE party of false climate protection, of pretending that climate protection is important. It is therefore THE party of climate hypocrisy, characterized by big promises and broken goals. We Scientists for Future will be working on this on September 25.9th. remembered when we blindfolded the Figl monument behind the Chancellery so that the image of the great ÖVP statesman no longer had to witness this tragedy - with video.

Secondly, if a party thinks that it has to poison an already difficult challenge with strategically necessary nonsense, then it does not belong in the government, but at best in the opposition. If we want to get the climate crisis under control, then we need members of the government who read status reports instead of denier literature from the Trump environment. What we need more urgently than ever are fact-based discussions right up to the regulars' tables, instead of anti-science regulars' table chatter in the Chancellery. 

Ultimately, it follows from all of this that not only the Kickl-FPÖ, but also the Nehammer-ÖVP are a security risk for Austria. The ÖVP's climate policy is a security risk because it not only endangers security and prosperity, but ultimately also human lives. Unfortunately.

Expertise instead of “common sense”

This is what the expert says, who dares to call a spade a spade. For a successful climate policy that meets its own goals, we urgently need a state-supporting ÖVP in the spirit of Leopold Figl, an ÖVP for whom climate expertise is not just an object of derision, but the foundation for fact-based politics. Then the Chancellor would finally understand the simplest principle of climate policy, which is: No matter how small a country's share of global emissions is, the climate crisis will only be controllable if all countries give up their emissions as part of the Paris Agreement Delivering on promises – especially the richest countries in the world. If this were successful, we could still stabilize global warming at a tolerable level. With the current ÖVP climate policy, we are breaking our own promises and blindly walking into a catastrophe. 

Of course, climate policy with expertise is more possible if it is demanded by a large majority, especially in elections. If someone is more likely to go to a doctor than a faith healer in the event of a serious illness, it would actually not be asking too much to demand climate policy with expertise rather than common sense. The super election year 2024 offers numerous opportunities for this.