The clock is five to twelve.

Again.

As it has been for so many years.

Politicians and journalists, experts and activists are not only talking about the last chance to stop a global catastrophe at the current climate conference in Glasgow.

The British Prime Minister even speaks of a minute to twelve.

It was already mentioned at the conferences in Paris in 2015 and in Copenhagen in 2009 that it is the very highest railway and that we cannot wait any longer. 

As at these previous conferences, dozens of Heads of State and Government and thousands upon thousands of diplomats from around the world are gathering in Scotland to negotiate how to save the earth and humanity. Because climate change is about nothing less: If we do not very soon reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, which are produced, for example, when we burn coal, gas and oil, then the climate on our planet will change dramatically. The earth would be damaged in ways that could not be repaired. 

The consequences would be terrible, we are already noticing the first effects: there will be more natural disasters such as floods or droughts, and many people will have to leave their home countries because of hunger and thirst. Because the ice at the north and south poles continues to melt due to the higher temperatures, the sea level will rise and many coastal cities and entire islands will disappear from the map. So it was no exaggeration when UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned at the beginning of the current conference that we humans were in the process of “digging our own graves”. 

But despite all the appeals like those heard at earlier conferences, the meetings have so far changed far too little. It is true that the vast majority of politicians are now saying clearly what a great challenge lies ahead of us and how urgent it is to finally act. Sometimes surprising successes have even been achieved, for example when Paris agreed six years ago on the stricter goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees instead of the previous two. 

But the words were followed by too few deeds.

What is on paper has not yet become a reality.

Even if individual countries can now boast a few successes and more climate-friendly electricity is being generated from wind turbines and solar cells than ever before: despite all efforts and negotiations, global greenhouse gas emissions have not yet decreased, but continued to increase with hardly any brakes. 

How can that be?

If it is crystal clear that we have to do something and do it quickly - why is there still so little going on?

What makes climate change such a difficult problem to solve? 

One thing is clear: it will be expensive. Coal, gas, and oil are very cheap ways to generate electricity and fuel cars. Large parts of our previous economy and way of life are adjusted to them, so switching to more climate-friendly energy is very costly. This is a major challenge, especially for those countries that are not as rich as Germany and want to develop economically as quickly as possible in order to eradicate hunger and poverty. To build up their economies in an environmentally friendly way, they need support that richer countries were not always ready to give in the past. 

But the fact that something is expensive and time-consuming is not necessarily an obstacle in politics.

States and governments are there to tackle things that we can only achieve together.

During the Corona crisis, governments all over the world have shown: If it is really important and has to go very quickly because many human lives are at stake, then politicians are not afraid to take unimaginably large amounts of money into their hands in a short period of time and take effective action.

Why don't they do the same with the climate, when we know that there will be much greater damage to be feared in the long term, over many centuries?