[ad_1]
reARD’s thematic week with the key question “How do we want to live?” brought “tough but fair” viewers an uncrowned long-range broadcast on Monday night. Instead, in a sense, climate change came back as a hot topic on a talk show. The title of the program: “On thin ice – How long does climate change leave us?”
In the study was the chairman of the CDU / CSU parliamentary group, Ralph Brinkhaus, who refused to bear the accusation that politicians like him had not done anything so far and that, as proof to the contrary, he constantly advanced political programs. climatic. This went against the grain, especially for actor and documentary maker Hannes Jaenicke, who repeatedly indignant reproached politics for “talking” a lot, but not acting.
Instead, marine biologist Antje Boetius described the threat of destruction to coral reefs and polar ice with alarming objectivity. His demand to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius was undermined by Fridays for Future activist Carla Reemtsma, who, referring to the Paris Climate Agreement, wanted to defend 1.5 degrees as an unconditional limit and for that, systemic changes. , for example in traffic. or sued in the industry.
Dirk Spenner, director of a cement company, insisted that his industry is well aware of its responsibility for climate policy and that CO2 saving, but producing zero-emission cement doesn’t work either.
Germany against the Paris climate goals
With unsurprising precision, Plasberg’s group also went through the well-known sticking points of all climate debates, like what is the best climate protection in Germany if other countries don’t follow suit, for example China.
“The discussion will probably be different there,” Spenner said, referring to the country’s industrial success: “People see the increase and its prosperity and then somehow they want to materialize it.” However, he believed that if Germany had a CO2 could save, others would definitely want to copy it.
There would soon be an opportunity to do so, Reemtsma cleverly intervened, that is, in a few weeks the states of the Paris Climate Agreement would have to present an initial provisional balance. It is a shame that Germany gives anything but exemplary testimony, the activist said.
“We have a phase-out of coal that makes it impossible to meet European and German climate targets in their current form, and we haven’t even looked at the other sectors.”
Climate protection versus prosperity
Brinkhaus’s central message was: “We have to show that industrial production, as well as climate-friendly prosperity, is possible.”
But what exactly did he mean by wealth? Plasberg had an idea and quoted an old interview with Brinkhaus. In it he had stated that he was not ashamed to represent people who drive a combustion engine, roast their necks and are workers: they are rather the backbone of society.
“I hope you regret the sentence,” Jaenicke told Brinkhaus, who of course verbally refused. “If I can’t bring these people with me in the fight against climate change, we will have lost it,” Brinkhaus was sure.
Small bans versus major changes to the system
Even if the climate crisis as a whole is still too abstract for many, also a well-known sticking point, Jaenicke didn’t understand why so little was happening in the much more concrete fight against plastic waste in view of the countless cups of coffee. take out and discarded plastic bottles.
However, the group did not listen to him. Because neither the marine biologist nor the cement entrepreneur wanted to get involved in the detailed discussion. It’s not about the little set screws, Boetius said. “We can only get ahead if you work in the energy system, if you work in the way business and finance work, if you have the right framework conditions.”
Spenner also didn’t think it was plastic cutlery or the model car. On the way to climate neutrality, thicker boards have to be drilled: “It starts with the electrification of industrial processes as far as possible. We need tons of renewable energy. That means we need a lot of photovoltaic energy, wind turbines and cables to tie all of this together. “
Wind turbines versus forests
Speaking of wind turbines, there was no getting around the Monday night debate. Brinkhaus once again worried about the acceptance of the people of his villages, which would get “three, four, five of these towers.”
For Boetius this was only moderately understandable, because on the other hand it was about preventing even more forests around the world from burning due to increased warming. Jaenicke was even less understanding, after all, people who complain about neighboring wind farms would still want to buy electricity.
Plasberg then confronted Jaenicke with the fact that he had once campaigned against cutting down a piece of forest – wind turbines would be built there. Depends on where you build it, Jaenicke defended himself. Reemtsma was in favor of weighing: “When we talk about forests, you cannot say yes or no in all areas.”
There are great differences between the different types of forests, and also: “It is about the ecosystems that are related to them, in case of doubt, the water reserves that are underneath, the animal species that only occur there.” In the end, that is extremely complex, and that as it showed all night, does not apply only to wind turbines.
[ad_2]
