Who has suddenly concocted this alleged contradiction of ecology and democracy? Certainly not the few thousand ultra-discreet "rebels" of Extinction Rebellion (XR) who have blocked a few intersections. Not even the somewhat dodgy British activist of XR, who knows no one here who has said a stupid and fundamentally wrong sentence. ("If a society acts so immoral, then democracy becomes irrelevant." No, it will never.) Rather, it was the acting federal government itself, which has opened this barrel to zulititimize their meager climate package. This is not defended by the fact that in this way the climate goals can still be achieved with great certainty. Chancellor Merkel and her deputy Scholz have not pledged their names and offices to strengthen the weakness of the weak package, as was the case with the financial crisis. Instead, the Groko became a matter of principle.
Angela Merkel said that politics is the art of the possible, and has since on several occasions emphasized the value of the compromise in democracy. Environment Minister Svenja Schulze also defended the package in an interview with ZEIT: "You have to democratically solve this." Nobody from Belang had suggested that democracy should be called into question for the purpose of the struggle for salvation. The fact that the government justified its climate package not so much in terms of climate policy, but in terms of democratic theory, was aimed at something else: Merkel, Schulze and others wanted to say that they had decided on the most democratically possible. They suggested that demands that went well beyond that could only be realized with non-democratic means.
Basically an outrageous process: This tired, exhausted, anxious government declares itself climate-politically the measure of the possible. In order to gauge the presumption that lies in it, one has to recall the history of the climate package: the Grokounter writes in Paris a climate agreement, which would have to bring profound changes in this country. And then keep silent about it, does not make it to the topic of the election campaign of 2017. On the contrary: It was the Union, which shouted last winter against all their coming ecological proposals. And it was the SPD, which believed in the early summer to be able to restore contact with the workers by drastic verbal failures against green claims, Andrea Nahles did that on the front stage, Sigmar Gabriel on many backstage.
Not because the Groko has the majority, she has decided so - but because she no longer has them
Instead of preparing the ground for a pro-climate climate policy through administrative and argumentative work, the Green Party did just the opposite: it acted as if, after 14 years of perceived green government, it was finally time to put an end to all the climate-political exaggerations.
Thus, a negotiator told the SPD that it had not been possible to enter with a higher CO2 price because the Social Democrats would not have adequately prepared the necessary social compensation. Thus, worse prepared, a government could not go for a climate package that it had not planned by itself, but only to maximum external pressure in attack - late, hectic and unwilling. And what, after this counterproductive, even catastrophic preparation, came out at night, was suddenly to be the measure of the democratically possible? What a joke!
The truth is that it's not because the majority has the majority that it's decided - but because it no longer has it because it's forty percent, and the tendency is falling. And that without climate protection. Obviously, the coalition has not done what the Treaty of Paris demands, nor does it dispute what democracy is all about - but only what its own fear dictated to it. The political weakness of the Union and the SPD is declared the last cry of democracy. A democratic law.