On May 20, 2026, the AfD requested a topical debate in the Bundestag to show how the Bundestag was reacting to the withdrawal of the “RCP 8.5 disaster scenario”.

The media coverage following the AfD’s topical debate on May 20, 2026, was very subdued and largely followed the usual polarization pattern. It was therefore quite limited. The AfD had requested this debate because the IPCC/CMIP7 framework no longer uses the extreme emissions scenario RCP 8.5 (or SSP5-8.5) as a plausible worst-case scenario. Scientists (including Detlef van Vuuren et al., as well as Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)) deemed it unrealistic – primarily due to the success of renewable energies (which is completely wrong, see the emissions diagram and the box below) and altered emissions patterns. (Industry goes bankrupt or relocates.)

The topic therefore did not become a major editorial issue but rather received little attention in science and politics sections. It also did not generate a huge wave of editorials or dominate the news for days.

But the supposed success of “renewables” is – as always with the established parties – completely out of touch with reality:

Because only about 2.8% (solar approx. 1.3%, wind approx. 1.5%) of global primary energy was converted into electricity from wind and solar power in 2024. According to the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2025 (new Physical Energy Content method, which measures the actual energy content):

• Wind: 1.5% (9.04 EJ)
• Solar: 1.3% (7.72 EJ)
• Total: approx. 2.8%

What exactly happened?

The core of the debate: The AfD (especially Karsten Hilse) seized the opportunity to label RCP 8.5 “a horror scenario” and “humanity’s greatest fraud,” claiming it had been used for years to spread panic and justify costly measures. They demanded consequences for politicians, the courts (e.g., a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court), and the media. The other parliamentary groups (CDU/CSU, SPD, Greens, and Left Party) saw it primarily as proof of the effectiveness of climate protection : Because renewables were so successful, the worst-case scenario had become unrealistic—therefore, no reason to change policy. (See the example of Mark Helferich, CDU climate spokesperson, at Epoch Times and Apollo, and the box above.)

Here is the example on Apollo.

Other scenarios with significant warming (up to approximately 3–3.5 °C) would, however, remain. In the nearly empty Bundestag – during the heated debate (see image above) – Karsten Hilse (AfD) said that RCP 8.5 was a “horror scenario that was never plausible,” which had served for years to spread panic, justify expensive measures, and was even used for the 2021 Federal Constitutional Court ruling. He spoke of the “end of the greatest deception in human history” and demanded consequences for politics, the media, and the courts. The CDU/CSU should distance itself from “socialists and communists.”

Screenshot Nius

Der Welt-Untergang ist abgesagt. Bitte weiterverbreiten: Die bisherigen Horrorszenarien des Weltklimarates wurden von seinen eigenen Wissenschaftler kassiert (sie werden im Artikel in European Geosciences Union (van Vuuren und 43 andere) als inplausibel…

— Vahrenholt (@FritzVahrenholt) May 13, 2026

The end of the world has been called off. Please spread the word: The previous horror scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been refuted by its own scientists (they are described in the European Geosciences Union article (van Vuuren and 43 others) as implausible …

— Vahrenholt (@FritzVahrenholt) May 13, 2026

Key media reports

• Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) : A detailed report explaining the scientific update (RCP 8.5 is no longer considered plausible). It emphasizes that the new scenario “still looks bleak” and places the AfD debate in the context of Trump and “making waves.” Typical SZ: scientifically sound, but with a clear stance against right-wing instrumentalization.
• Documentation produced by the German Bundestag itself : A neutral summary of the positions, showing how controversial the debate was.
• taz / left-wing media : Emphasize that the removal of the extreme scenario is precisely a success of climate policy (see above). The AfD is portrayed as an “agitator” against climate protection. No all-clear signal, but rather a “ray of hope thanks to renewables.”
• Media close to the AfD / right-wing (e.g. via AfD channels, Telegram etc.): Large celebration as the “end of the fraud”, demand for the abolition of the CO₂ tax etc.
• Public broadcasters (phoenix, ARD Mediathek): There were live streams and summaries of the debate, but no extensive follow-up coverage.
• Only alternative media outlets like Achgut , Apollo , Tichys Einblick or Nius gave the topic ample space.