Climate Protection and Sustainability at the HfK Bremen

Dr Ulrich Wischnath (born 1967) studied environmental physics and oceanography at the University of Bremen, where he completed his PhD in 2001. Starting in 2004, he gradually developed his expertise in renewable energy, climate protection and resource conservation in the building sector through his work in energy and semiconductor research. He has been working as a climate protection manager at the HfK Bremen since 2025. 

Dear Uli, Germany only just managed to meet its 2025 climate targets; emissions have fallen only slightly, particularly in the transport and buildings sectors. Since around 2020, the climate debate has shifted significantly – away from voluntary sustainability projects towards mandatory targets with fixed deadlines. Could you briefly explain this shift?

Exactly. The key difference is that climate protection is now regulated by law, whereas sustainability is often still based on voluntary measures. The Climate Protection Act was passed in 2019 and came into force in 2020. It set out binding targets for the first time.

Sustainability, on the other hand, often remains at the level of declarations of intent: there is a desire to act more sustainably, but without specific legal obligations. The situation is different when it comes to climate protection. Following the 2021 ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court, the law was further amended to set out more ambitious reduction targets.

Germany has also committed itself under international law through the Paris Climate Agreement. In this respect, climate protection is now a legally binding framework, whilst sustainability remains more of a normative concept.

Many universities have now set climate targets. Where does the HfK Bremen currently stand in terms of the gap between vision and implementation? What specific changes have taken place over the past year?

The starting point was a climate protection plan drawn up in 2017 for the University of the Arts. At that time, an emissions inventory was first compiled based on 2015 data, and measures were then defined.

We have now updated the climate protection plan using data from 2023. In the areas where comparable data has been recorded, we are now at around 30% lower emissions. This is partly due to measures taken by the university, and partly because the German electricity mix has become lower in emissions thanks to more renewable energy.

A major step forward was taken back in 2016 with the construction of a combined heat and power plant. Although it runs on fossil natural gas, it uses combined heat and power and is therefore more efficient than the standard electricity mix. Further measures include the ongoing conversion to LED lighting, the replacement of heating pumps, the expansion of cycling infrastructure, the establishment of a DIY bicycle repair workshop, and the purchase of electric cargo bikes for transport. Emissions from business trips, excursions and university vehicles have even fallen by around 50%. Whether this is due to fewer trips abroad or changes in travel patterns would need to be analysed in more detail.

Climate protection often means changes to everyday life. Where do conflicts of interest arise at the university between sustainability, artistic freedom and university operations?

One example is the canteen: it now serves exclusively vegetarian and vegan options. From a climate protection perspective, this makes sense, but some see it as a restriction on freedom of choice.

Conflicts can also arise in the artistic sphere. For instance, if materials are to be avoided for environmental reasons, this can limit design freedom. At the same time, it also gives rise to new creative challenges. During the University Days, for example, there was a project on the reuse of wind turbine components. This shows that ecological requirements can also generate new ideas.

There is currently a lot of talk about district heating, for example in relation to public buildings in Bremen city centre. What role do district heating, energy efficiency and renewable energies play in the HfK’s future energy supply?

The HfK is already connected to the district heating network via Speicher XI A and Dechanatstraße. The advantage of district heating is that renewable energy can be fed into the system centrally, rather than installing individual systems in every building.

At present, the district heating for the HfK is still partly based on fossil fuels and waste incineration. The latter is viewed in different ways: from a market-based perspective, it is considered climate-neutral; from a location-based perspective, however, it continues to generate fossil CO₂ emissions.

However, the connection of Storage Facility XI is currently delayed due to the discovery of asbestos in the road area. In the long term, it would make sense to integrate additional renewable heat sources, such as river water heat pumps like those on the Überseeinsel. Solutions already exist in Bremen.

Rising energy prices and tight public budgets are increasing the pressure on institutions. Is climate protection seen more as a cost factor or as a strategic investment?

In the long term, climate protection is clearly a worthwhile investment in many cases. Renewable energies and energy-efficient technologies are now often cheaper in the long run, but there is a classic investment dilemma: the initial costs are high, whilst the savings only materialise later.

In the public sector in particular, it is often more difficult to justify investment than to cover running costs, meaning that despite lower costs over the life cycle, it is sometimes difficult to implement economically viable measures.

However, in addition to economic viability, we also have climate protection and energy efficiency targets set out in the agreement with our supervisory authority; we are subject to the Energy Efficiency Act and must save around 2% of energy annually. This does help to get the measures implemented after all.

Climate protection is rarely achieved through technology alone. Where can students and staff make a concrete difference – and where do the limits of individual responsibility lie?

When it comes to heating, for example, our behaviour really does make a difference. Lowering the temperature in rooms by just one degree saves 6% in energy. Both choosing to wear a thick jumper in winter and turning the heating down at the end of the working day make a tangible contribution to climate protection.

Mobility also plays a role. In our carbon footprint, commuting falls under so-called Scope 3 emissions – these do not arise directly on campus, but are linked to the university. Here, everyone can consider whether cycling, public transport or e-bikes are viable alternatives.

There are limits where structural changes are necessary; for instance, travelling by public transport is naturally difficult if I live in a place where nothing runs apart from the school bus. At the same time, policymakers respond to whether there is perceived public support for climate protection. 

Universities are regarded as ‘real-world laboratories’ for social transformation. Beyond energy savings, what role can the HfK play in the climate debate?

Universities are places for thinking and experimentation. This is where new ideas can emerge and be tested. Projects such as cargo bike initiatives or design experiments demonstrate how practical solutions can be developed and trialled.

If we look ahead to the year 2038 – how would you recognise that the HfK has successfully managed the transition?

Of course, a carbon footprint with significantly lower emissions would be a clear sign. But just as important would be a shift in awareness: that climate impacts are automatically taken into account when making decisions.

Some universities are already trying to link expenditure to climate impacts. If we can ensure that everyone always thinks about the associated emissions when spending money, we would be a big step further.

To ensure this doesn’t become overwhelming, we should remain pragmatic – following the Pareto principle. Focus on the big levers first: renewable energy, energy-efficient buildings, less fossil-fuel-based transport, and a more plant-based diet. But without dogmatic perfectionism – rather, in a way that is effective and achievable. Then, in the best-case scenario, it won’t be a chore, but rather the positive feeling of protecting the climate will prevail.

Thank you very much for the interview.

You’re very welcome.