It will be three months before the heads of state and government of the world have to agree in Glasgow how they can contain the dynamics of climate change and its destructive consequences for the earth's ecosystem in such a way that this planet will continue to exist in a hundred years will be habitable under decent conditions.
The politicians who are applying for a mandate for the next German Bundestag do not have that much responsibility - but they only have a few weeks left to explain to the citizens what they would do with climate protection if the worst came to the worst.
Above all, the Union parties and their candidate for Chancellor Armin Laschet should think of a little more than the mantra-like recitation of formulas that are reminiscent of the “magic square” of the Stability Act of 1967.
At that time, the parties pretended to the citizens that price stability, full employment, economic growth and external balance were all at the same time and completely free of conflict.
Anyone who today promises the citizens of the future a climate-neutral economy, work for all and social cohesion at the level of prosperity (at least) of today should also disclose the conflicting goals that are likely to go hand in hand with this new square.
This is especially true for the Greens.
For the price of a scoop of ice cream?
Not really
Contrary to what the Union would like to lead them to believe, they can also think differently than just in terms of prohibition categories.
But the belief in the possibility of controlling the economy and society globally through even more laws and new ministries seems - see 1967 - as if it had fallen out of time.
However, the parties have long since proven that, apart from their will to the truth, their public prognostic ability is not the best.
The ball of ice with which the Greens once quantified the burden on a household from the costs of renewable energies has long since proven to be a capital misleading, as has the firmness of the “holding lines” in pension policy.
It is also clear that it will not be possible to protect against the already foreseeable consequences of climate change with aid packages for flood victims. Doom scenarios, however, are not particularly motivating. How about a little confidence like “We can do it”?