Everyone loses everything if we continue to be deceived. Because without changes we are threatened with climate collapse.
It's all a shame. We can see how serious the situation is, we have solutions ready and we have people who want to do the right thing. We have to do something, because without changes we are threatened with climate collapse. But we have an inert mass that continues to support those who they just put, are lying. Because the promises and speeches of politicians and corporate executives are nothing else when they once again avoid tackling the matter. And stir up fear of change and stigmatize positive change as severe restrictions.
And to top it all, these people also claim that the long overdue measures for the transport and energy transition will hit people with low incomes particularly hard. These people are silent about the fact that climate change is one of the greatest social injustices. They consciously raise the mood against concrete climate protection measures and simply fight for power. But not about the power to achieve something positive for everyone, but about a self-satisfied, vain, meaningless power. There are egocentrics in the egocentric system. Without a sense of responsibility and without morals.
A symbol of what politics and industry have offered us so far. Mock solutions. Doing the right thing on the one hand, but doing exactly the wrong on the other. This double standard. which has determined our society for a long time, is now our undoing. The masses do not yet understand that things cannot go on like this and those in power do everything to ensure that it stays that way.
Here is an article from Der Spiegel, also a few weeks old, but more up-to-date every day. Because right now in the time of the election campaign, many parties and politicians outdo each other in telling people that they have all problems under control and that you only have to give them the vote and then we will continue to live as fine as before and the economy, Industry and politics solve this with the climate. YOU'RE WELCOME. How can it be that anyone still believes that. Without changes, we are threatened with climate collapse. And rightly so.
| SPIEGEL climate report Friday, May 21, 2021 - this text is for subscribers, we have inserted it here so that even more people can participate and ideally also subscribe to Spiegel, because nothing is more important at a time like now than free ones Reporting. |
| Kurt Stukenberg, Deputy Head of Science, writes: Dear reader, |
| When the climate crisis is discussed, there are some classics that politicians and the public are particularly fond of talking about. The speed limit is part of it, the drama about meat consumption and the debate about flying. After the Green Chancellor candidate Annalena Baerbock demanded at the weekend in “Bild am Sonntag” that “short-haul flights should no longer exist” and the 29-euro dumping -Tickets to Mallorca also not, the roles were quickly distributed: The Greens had to play the ban party according to the will of the others, CDU Chancellor candidate Armin Laschet acted as the lawyer for low-wage earners, in the FDP you could even see the joy in life at riskAn expected spectacle, but from which a few conclusions can be drawn. The big changes in the future will be difficult if even the smallest restrictions in the present lead to resistance. The close temporal connection between the short-haul debate and the amendment to the Climate Protection Act a few days earlier points to a problem that will occupy climate policy in the coming years: a majority In parliament and the population is reportedly in agreement with stricter climate protection, but as soon as it becomes concrete today, there are reservations Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court When the German emission targets were tightened in an urgent procedure, there was hardly any major contradiction; the most critical voices still belonged to those who had wished for more. The Union and SPD decided within a few days, among other things, the target year for the country's climate neutrality to be brought forward by five years.What that means? An additional saving of around one billion tons of CO₂. For comparison: The per capita emissions of German citizens are currently at around nine tons per year - so you can perhaps imagine the scope of these resolutions. However, they did not generate a broad social debate about whether and how, but the old demand to make short-haul flights so expensive that people switch to the train has hardly been provoked by political competition. It should be noted that Baerbock was not interested in banning vacation travel by plane in general - which would be a really interesting debate. Only distances that can be covered comfortably and quickly by rail should, in her opinion, be overcome without jet engines in the future. The high level of excitement about a marginal restriction now and the low interest in a major but distant change is all too human. It is still a long time until 2045, until an ecological tax reform under the Chancellorship of Annalena Baerbock may only be four months. II. We are very angry about symbolic politics - we should argue about the important issues You have to start somewhere and anyone who as a country does not want to emit any more greenhouse gases net in 24 years will have to deal with all areas sooner or later, including flying. The question of slightly higher ticket prices only on short routes can, however, confidently be described as symbolic politics. If you look at the total emissions of greenhouse gases in Germany, for example, the particularly controversial domestic flights do only a small proportion. They were for only two of the 2018 million tons of CO in 8662-Equivalents responsible. Is it worth a potentially emotional flight debate in the middle of the election campaign as long as coal-fired power plants are still running in this country? Probably not. It would be even more important to deal with the consequences of international air traffic. A single long-haul flight emits several tons of greenhouse gases per capita. On the Frankfurt-New York route, the Federal Environment Agency has calculated that it is 3,8 tonnes for a return flight. Two flights to the USA are enough to emit almost as much greenhouse gas as other Germans in a whole year. And of course one could talk about the climate impact of the entire aviation industry and that the climate-damaging effect of contrailswhich is left out if you only look at the pure emissions, or you dare to approach the really relevant chunks in the election campaign: the most important sector for decarbonisation for the time being is the energy industry. In order to replace fossils, renewable energies must be expanded much faster. Around 2000 new wind turbines would have to be installed each year in order to achieve the climate targets. is it [called - but in 2020 there were only 770 new buildings in Germany, so how about a broad social discussion about land use? If local residents understandably find it ugly when a new rotor reduces the view in the garden, where should they be? Is the potential of offshore energy sufficient, what price are we willing to pay for it, and how disruptive do we find large power lines from north to south? I would like to see a talk show exchange of blows. III. The tense situation of the poorer population is used as an argument against climate protection "In case of doubt, a flight price increase of 50 to 60 euros affects a low-income earner who takes such a vacation trip once a year," said Armin Laschet during the debate this week to considerSome time ago, my colleague Christian Stöcker wrote in a column geschriebenthat, interestingly, the term »antisocial« in connection with climate policy issues is also used intensively by people who have not been so interested in the social so far. Politicians in particular, who liked to condemn redistribution as “equalization,” suddenly referred to “social justice.” That was not only the case in the short-haul debate this week, but will certainly be with us in the future as well. This is problematic for a number of reasons because it obscures realities. Baerbock had introduced her demand with this Interview So: »I don't think it's fair that all of our tax money is subsidizing kerosene, while long-distance train journeys are expensive, especially at peak times. If you travel as a family by train, you should pay less than for the short distance by plane. «The Green politician is speaking here Liberation of kerosene from energy tax on - which in fact resembles a subsidy. So one could also ask how fair it is that all citizens make flying a few cheaper with their taxes Message The British organization “Possible” in March showed that the 20 percent of Germans with the lowest incomes already fly so little, if at all, that it is practically negligible. The 20 percent with the highest income, on the other hand, fly the most. So whether higher ticket prices really hit the poor is not as clear as it initially seems. If you broaden your view a little beyond Germany and include the consequences of flying, the question of the burdens on the rich and poor arises once again in a completely different way. In January, the annual published Climate Risk Index, which is based on a database of the reinsurer Munich Re and information from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that poorer countries in particular are particularly at risk from extreme weather conditions. From a historical perspective, however, they contribute very little to global warming. According to this, Puerto Rico, Myanmar and Haiti were at the top of the countries that had to struggle the hardest with heat waves, droughts and storms - that is a truly unsocial imbalance. The social component of airfares: Politicians in particular, like redistribution as »equalization "Condemned, suddenly referred to" social justice ".guvendemir / Getty ImagesThe Topics of the WeekIEA Zero Emissions Report: In five-year steps into the future The International Energy Agency IEA has presented a step-by-step plan as to how the 1,5 degree target can be achieved by 2050. What does the path look like in concrete terms? What are the requirements? And: how realistic is the plan?Legal expert on "ecocide" as a crime: German company bosses could also land before the criminal court In a few weeks' time, a group of experts will present a new definition of environmental crimes before the International Criminal Court. If the term "ecocide" were adopted, the consequences could be far-reaching.Antarctica: The world's largest iceberg has come loose The colossus is bigger than Mallorca: a huge iceberg crashed into the sea in Antarctica. Researchers discovered it from space.Climate change: Federal Office warns of drinking water shortages in Germany Sinking groundwater and consumption in agriculture could endanger the supply of drinking water in the medium term: According to the Federal Office for Civil Protection, precautions must be taken now.Earth system researcher warns of new hot times: "Then the whole planet will slide" There are ten years left for mankind to save the earth, says climate scientist Johan Rockström. He calls for a concrete timetable. Germany plays a central role in this.Wind power blockade in Bavaria: Environment Minister Schulze criticizes Söder as a »ordinary seaman« of climate protection Bavaria's Prime Minister likes to be climate-conscious and environmentally active - but the blockade of new wind turbines does not go well with that, says Environment Minister Svenja Schulze.Internal calculations: How Altmaier inflated the compensation for coal companies The lignite companies receive 4,35 billion euros for the coal phase-out. How this sum came about has been kept secret by the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Internal papers suggest questionable calculations.Expensive amendments to the Climate Protection Act: Who pays to save the world? The fight against global warming is becoming a financial feat. A team of SPIEGEL editors has calculated what costs will now be incurred by whom.New calculations: Germany will incur climate debts from 2030, warn environmentalists The government's new climate law prescribes higher goals. According to environmentalists, Germany will still use almost its entire CO₂ budget by 2030. But that also depends on how you do the math, so stay confidentYour Kurt Stukenberg |
Everyone must contribute to change and everyone must be clear that the climate and the environment now have the highest priority. And nothing else. Because without changes we are threatened with climate collapse.
The mirror writes about that for a few days Ex Formula 1 world champion, Sebastian Vettelwho will vote for the Greens. And also lives and thinks much more sustainably than one would expect in his job. This is the way we all have to go. Because except for a few, we are all completely entangled in the system that is destroying us. Everyone joins in somehow and cannot put it aside from one day to the next due to all the existing dependencies and necessities.
Now or never - invest all reserves in sustainable change.
So now we have to use all our reserves and strength to start the new beginning on a small scale. It must become our hobby to think and act sustainably. Actually a matter of course, but we have lost it over time and the system now has such infinite access to our understanding of values and our values that it is becoming increasingly difficult to think normally. That is fatal, because we now need changes that, by the way, also bring a lot of good things with them and not only mean restrictions, because otherwise we are threatened with climate collapse.
What is important is exactly what Sebastian Vettel, makes. A personal, first contribution, a reorientation and a position that enables change. Even with those who have not yet been moved to any step. There is simply no more time to lie to yourself. And also not to postpone the solutions until tomorrow. Because then it will be too late.
We are the world champions in looking the other way.
Unfortunately we are world champions in looking the other way and our leaders are masters in distracting people and doing so much action on secondary theaters of war that nobody notices how the lobbies are secretly setting the course and selling our future. It's ruthless and irresponsible. But it works, at least for the time being. But the parties that have no ideas to implement the goals will fail and those who want to split humanity into winners and losers will themselves be the losers.
Because without changes it threatens Climate collapse and it is threatening for everyone. There is no place to save yourself because our whole planet is affected and the people who have to flee will crowd in the few places that are less badly affected. That leaves the relocation to other planets, which some unscrupulous managers are already working on. What cynicism. With every nonsensical mission of Space X and Co, we miss the world a new coffin nail and all this driven by the idea of leaving the earth when it is no longer worth living.
Most solutions have been around for a very long time. What is blocking it are the people who don't want the right thing to happen.
The wheel was invented long ago. There are so many ways to help us adapt our behavior to the current environmental situation in good time. There is solar energy, bicycles, wind power, hydropower, vegan hamburgers, soy milk, the train, organic farming, unpackaged shops, local trade, the corner shop and now in every supermarket the free choice of many products, more harm with its consumption to prepare or less.
Our hundsfutter Snacks and Menus for dogs available at Enjoy Silvia unpacked in Cologne and it can also be bought unpacked online. We just pay great attention to it as much packaging material as absolutely necessary and we only use recycled cardboard boxes and compostable cellophane bags or reusable glasses. And always only as much as is absolutely necessary.
Tomatoes that are sold more cheaply in plastic packaging than in cardboard packaging .... With cheap offers you always have to consider that someone else pays the real price. It can also be your own children.
Yes it works ... actually we could as well as packaging all products in an environmentally neutral manner. Both sides just have to want it. The manufacturers but also the consumers. As long as we consumers comment on a bag with "yes but ..." that may not be as tear-resistant as the plastic variant, we deserve nothing other than climate collapse. Because every "yes but ..." can be to blame for our not realigning our lives fast enough. And for the entrepreneur, if you postpone solving the problem now, you will probably never be able to keep your promise because it was simply too late and nothing can be saved. In the picture the Cellophane bags that can be composted in household wastein which we all dry snacks and menus for dogs from hundsfutter pack. The manufacturer of the bags is the company block Packagings. We tried the bags ourselves. They simply disappear after about 2 weeks on the house compost. Really impressive.
EVERYONE of us can save the world a lot of plastic waste overnight. Instead of using aggressive detergent additives, simply use a metal sponge and unwrapped neutral soap to rinse off. That saves the wastewater and thus our drinking water and the plastic waste is simply eliminated. It's actually quite simple. And did you actually know that the fabric softener contains tiny plastic particles that create this fabric softener effect by coating the fibers. And imagine, the sewage treatment plants cannot filter out these plastics, so that they accumulate more and more in the groundwater and trik water and endanger our health - Are "cuddly soft" and "april-fresh" really worth sacrificing your health for?
Unpacked and without unnecessary weight, the dog menus from hundsfutter for soaking. Really tasty, natural and healthy food that is next to that vegan ingredients also makes a contribution to climate protection in terms of packaging and transport. That fits in with a sustainable lifestyle with a dog.
Even in the normal supermarket you can find compostable garbage bags made of potato starch. So there are fewer and fewer excuses if you don't do anything and leave climate protection to the others.
Civil disobedience as a solution?
In conclusion here is a text from the mirror on this problem, and begging the question that perhaps it is high time for civil disobedience. Fully to the point and worth reading and maybe we should really start slowly to implement what we learn from it. Because without changes we are threatened with total climate collapse
