guest Post
It was only a matter of time before climate change triggered a new extra-parliamentary movement. Too big is the gap between ever new alarm signals and the sluggishness of politics and society. The fact that students form the avant-garde of the new Apo is only logical. It's about their future. "Keep it up" is likely to increase mean temperatures by four degrees over the course of this century. Our planet would become an inhospitable place. Billions of people would be threatened by storms and droughts, the coastal cities endangered by rising sea levels and gigantic storm surges, countless plants and animal species would disappear from the earth.
The new edition of the Apocalypse
Such ecological turmoil should also lead to violent social and political turmoil. It makes sense to think of such a world as a Darwinian scenario in which the law of the strongest rules and the rich entrench themselves against the poor. States armed to the teeth are competing for scarce resources, production and consumption are strictly regulated, and the economy is controlled by the state. Part of the society pays homage to an aggressive after-us-the-Flood-mentality, in parallel a new penitential movement seeks salvation in retreat to a self-sufficient, ascetic life.
That sounds like a reissue of the apocalypse. With this narrative the sensitive part of the youth in the western world grows up. Your future horizon is obscured by climate change. This fundamentally differentiates them from the last great youth movement. The students of 1968 became intoxicated with their ideas of a better world. It was - at least initially, before the upset of the protest in dogmatism and violence - to Love & Peace, self-determination, sexual freedom and a rule-free society. The outline was optimistic, the horizon was open. Technical progress was considered a leftist idea. Who can still understand the fascination of the first moon landing today? It was a triumph of science and technology over the limits set for man as a natural being.
The "western lifestyle" as the root of the evil
The mood today could not be more different. "Fridays for Future" is a protest against the potential disaster. He is supported by the children of the affluent society, who see in the blessings of modernity the germ of destruction. For them, it is no longer about overcoming boundaries, but recognizing the limits of nature as the definitive limits of civilization. Material prosperity, diversity of lifestyles, freedom of consumption, global mobility, personal comfort, progress through technology - all this is both natural and suspect.
The "western lifestyle" is the cause of all ecological evil - we produce too much, consume too much, travel too much, use too much raw materials and energy. The climate catastrophe therefore requires a "turn to the less" - here and now. The categorical imperative of this generation is "You must change your life to save the planet." So they read it in well-meaning media, hear it from professors and pastors, it rushes through Twitter and YouTube. Eating meat, driving a car or going on vacation becomes a question of ecological morality - and thus finding food for those who enjoy themselves in presenting green frequent flyers as false prophets who preach water and drink wine.
Stimmenfang # 92 From climate protection to upload filters - Does politics ignore the anger of the youth?
- Subscribe to
- Apple podcasts
- Spotify
- Deezer
- Alexa
- RSS
All podcasts
When morality and the world of life diverge too far, double standards flourish. At the same time, there is a growing gap between the biotech community, a wealthy and culturally influential group, and the "normalos", who cling even more defiantly to their traditional way of life. Veganism, electromobility and handcrafted certified organic cotton clothing are becoming a social distinctions. This is the germ of a new cultural struggle in which ecological and social issues form an explosive mixture.
Freedom does not mean recklessness
So that we understand each other: Of course it is good and correct to go by bike and use public transport. Eating meat in moderation is sensible for environmental and health reasons. Paying attention to the fact that people are not tortured for our material comfort, that animals are tormented, or that ecological messes are committed is a commandment of propriety. Freedom does not mean recklessness.
Nevertheless, it is fundamentally wrong to privatize the ecological issue rather than politicize it. The lifestyle of each individual depends on structures that we can only change together. Anyone who lives in the countryside of large cities is usually dependent on the private car, whether he wants to or not. How electricity is generated that powers our electrical appliances is a matter of energy policy. Anyone who works in a globally networked company, is active in the cultural industry or in research, belongs to the global NGO business or lives in a multinational family, can hardly do without flying. Industrial animal husbandry can be contained more effectively by laws than by individual behavior. Who lives for rent, has little influence on the energy efficiency of his apartment and the type of heating.
There is no lack of sympathy for "Fridays for Future", but rather political decisions to promote the ecological transformation of economy and society. As long as it concerns cheap appeals to ecological morality instead of concrete political demands, also female ministers can easily solidarise themselves with the Friday demonstrations. Everyone celebrates their concern, and everything stays as it is. More effective than any penitential sermon would be the introduction of a successively rising CO2 tax or a corresponding expansion of European emissions trading. Once prices reflect the ecological cost truth, it will trigger a race for innovation and investment. The additional revenue from environmental taxes should flow back to the citizens as a per-capita lump sum. Instead of demonizing market economy and entrepreneurship, we have to use their momentum. They are always the better alternative to an ecological planned economy.
More about SPIEGEL +
Above all, however, the appeal for self-restraint is far too short considering the size of the ecological challenge. If it is true that global greenhouse gas emissions must now drastically decline to become climate-neutral by the middle of the century at the latest, it does not help much if we wear pullovers instead of turning on the heating. A CO2 reduction of 90 percent or more can not be achieved through behavioral changes. Even the call to say goodbye to growth goes nowhere. He is hard to beat for worldliness. Whether we like it or not, the global economy will almost double in the next 20 years. The rise of the world population to nine to ten billion and the striving of billions of people to escape poverty are already taking care of that. Who wanted to deny this?
Courage for the future is better than panic
If we want to prevent the gap between the global economy and the global climate from becoming divergent further, there are no moral appeals, no driving restrictions here and no penances there. Then only a radical renewal of our production methods on the basis of renewable energies and renewable resources will help. It is about a green industrial revolution, a decoupling of prosperity production and natural consumption. That's ambitious, but not a breezy utopia.
We can not go back behind the technical-industrial civilization, but must move forward into an ecological modernity, which aims at intelligent cooperation with nature. Yes, there are limits to the ecosystem that we should not exceed. Otherwise we will go to the devil's kitchen. But respecting them does not mean subordinating human civilization under the iron barriers of nature. We can build on two sources of progress whose limits are not foreseeable: the sunlight's impact on the earth and human ingenuity. The conversion of solar energy, water and CO2 into vegetable and synthetic raw materials is the basis of a sustainable economy; the release of human creativity is the greatest productive power of all. That would be an ecology of freedom based on innovation rather than restriction. She, too, can not manage without regulative intervention, but she is aware that an excess of commandments and prohibitions is counterproductive. Smart politics set the guidelines for an ecological market economy in which competition for the best solutions can unfold. The future does not come from prohibitions, but from inventions.
You want to call Greta Thunberg: do not panic! Panic does not inspire, it promotes headlessness and reckless behavior. Anyone who firmly believes that we have only a short time left to prevent the final catastrophe ends up in resignation or despair. Then every means seems justifiable to stop the sinking, including the flight into violence. Catastrophic scenarios are more than enough. What is missing is the confidence that the ecological transformation of industrial society can become a success story. That is, admittedly, an open bet. But we do not have a better alternative to democracy and the market economy to win the race against climate change. The boys have every reason to be impatient and to make governments and companies go crazy. But in the end, we will only win if we convince the vast majority of our societies that climate protection, prosperity and a liberal way of life can be reconciled. Courage for the future is better than panic.