Are we currently facing the ‘end of reason’?

In his keynote speech at the first RIFS conference, Jürgen Trittin, former Federal German Minister for the Environment and long-standing politician with Alliance 90/The Greens, analysed the development of the climate debate from broad consensus to deep polarisation. He opened with the question of whether there was an "end of reason". He then explained that the climate debate is now dominated by a well-organised minority who deliberately stir up fears and deny facts. This group, supported by the fossil fuel lobby, uses the media, social media algorithms and populist rhetoric to divide the public. 

This blog post is part of a series on the RIFS Conference 2025, "Tough Conversations in Tough Times".

Trittin warned that confidence in science had been shaken by targeted attacks, for example during the Trump administration. Trump's strategy, he said, is to use fossil fuel dominance as a political symbol – quote: "Drill, baby, drill." For example, he is blocking renewable energies, subsidising coal mining and launching massive attacks on scientific freedom. The US and Russia both base their power on fossil fuels – and both have "energy dominance as a national cornerstone". Trump uses lies as a political tool. Similar strategies can be observed in Europe, for example in the German heating debate, where false claims are manipulating public opinion.

To back this up, Trittin used stats that show the change: in 2019, 68 per cent of Germans thought climate protection was "very important," but by 2025, it was only 54 per cent. Eight per cent of the population now deny climate change, while 18 per cent are considered "committed to climate protection". In the ranking, climate protection moved from fourth place (2019) to eighth place (2025). Through a combination of fear, hatred and the identification of a common enemy – from the "left-wing elite" to migrants, LGBTQ people and vegans – the right-wing movement is creating a narrative framework that portrays climate protection as a threat. However, Trittin rejected the use of fear as a tool of climate communication because it creates.

A look at global developments

But there are also positive developments: renewable energy capacities are set to grow by 585 GW (= 92 per cent of new additions) in 2023, while fossil fuels will account for only 7.5 per cent of new additions. Investments in green technologies are mostly outstripping fossil fuel subsidies, especially in China, which now invests more in clean energy than Europe and the US combined. Despite this progress, the political debate in many democratic countries remains backward.

One of Trittin's central arguments was that justice today is no longer based on equal opportunities, but rather that it is perceived as fair when others are worse off. This fuels right-wing populism and leads to a return to nostalgic role models, especially the male breadwinner role. 

Trittin's theories for the future

1. The minority of polarisers determine the discourse; however, they do not have a majority.
2. Values such as ecology are universal, but they are no longer lived collectively.
3. Dystopian scenarios generate resignation instead of the ability to act.
4. The benefits of climate protection lie in new jobs, affordable energy and technical sovereignty.
5. An independent Europe that relies on renewable energies can regain geopolitical autonomy.
6. Scientific freedom must be defended; only in this way can innovation and climate change be effectively addressed.

Trittin concluded with an appeal to abolish the "belief in fire" – the ideological glorification of fossil fuels – and instead pursue a forward-looking, rational climate policy based on facts, social cohesion and technological progress. 

Fishbowl-Discussion

The subsequent discussion focused on the tensions between science, politics and public: On the one hand, participants noted that while it was an attractive image to speak of facts as " the sex of science”, reality showed that facts alone are not sufficient to bring about social change. On the one hand, science is often mistakenly misunderstood as direct guidance for political decisions; on the other hand, increasing polarisation relies on emotional motives such as fear and hatred to strengthen resistance to climate protection.

A central argument was that not only the fossil fuel industry, but above all the communications industry controls the public debate. Information is deliberately manipulated because of the concentration of media companies whose owners are linked to politics through economic interests. The participants in the discussion called for stricter antitrust and platform regulations, especially at the European level, to prevent the monopolisation of information flows. They cited examples from Russia, Hungary and the US, where oligarchs and politicians acquire media companies to silence critical voices.

With regard to climate policy, the panel criticised the excessive focus on individual behavioural changes – such as vegetarian days or consumer "hygiene" – and instead emphasised the crucial importance of structural interventions. These include CO₂ taxes or levies on problematic imported goods such as soy. Proponents of this approach argue that market mechanisms are not inherently antagonistic to climate protection; rather, the German Renewable Energy Sources Act could serve as a model, as it makes renewable technologies competitive through government framework conditions while also mobilising private investment.

Participants also emphasised that while emotions are inevitable, they should not be used exclusively as instruments of fear. Instead of creating resignation through a dystopian vision of the future, positive narratives must be created that focus on the concrete benefits of the transition – new jobs, technological innovations, greater European independence. The idea that a "new religion of fire" (fossil fuels) could be replaced by a "religion of progress" (renewables, AI, digital media) reflects a longing for a value-based but pragmatic future.