The house is on fire? Let it burn!

It is a Friday in the spring of 2019, I'm sitting at home. The sun is shining from the sky, a wonderful day for walking in the woods with an open jacket. Somewhere people, especially young people now go on the road. Let your equivalence, equations and chemical Experiments, your poem analysis and English exams as a result and demonstrate for a better future. Elsewhere, adults spiteful comments hack against the, in their eyes unrealistic owls in their devices. Or the prophecies of doom return, depending on the style of the arguments against the allegations or even verklagung.

I sit at home and think that Nothing will change. Neither the "older" Generation, the younger will take serious steps, the climate, the environment, to save the future. Because serious steps would be: almost unbearable to take drastic steps. It is clear to us that a vegetarian Day per week will do nothing, but also the uncompromising Vegans don't go far enough, if he omitted just as uncompromising on import of fruit, a detached house in the countryside, a private car, air travel and best travel in General. In addition, everything would have to be – or almost everything – more expensive costs: food, Heating, electrical appliances, building land, electricity, Google, transport. We would have to fall back on the standard of living of an earlier time.

of Course, we will not do that, certainly not voluntarily. Instead, we will confine ourselves to the usual excuses back, I want to put this Text together. Fear not, there is something for everyone.

For the unyielding climate change deniers:

1. climate change is a left-green consumer critics myth invented in order to damage the economy.

2. If climate change is real (which is not accounted for, see point 1), he is not caused by humans and can not be stopped, therefore, of people. In support of this opinion: any number of supposed experts with high-sounding doctorates, complicated-looking calculations of carbon dioxide percentages in the atmosphere and the attitude of the natural scientific thinking sceptic.

3. If these excuses is, that one should treat the environment well beyond climate concerns, gently, to play the effects of air pollution, water pollution, soil poisoning and extinction of species, refers to regions of the world and historical periods, in which everything is much worse, or was ("But the Chinese!", "But in fifty years!"), the Whole concludes with the remark, that also not is said that this all has anything to do with climate change, and then determines that it would be premature, before the final clarification of this question send to do anything. From here on, it goes back to point 2.

4. If you can squirm argumentative and not to the admission of certain of the actual environment around the existing problems, explains these singular events natural catastrophic character. Yes, the forest fires were bad, Yes, the dryness was regrettable, Yes, the Floods would not have to be, but unfortunately, again and again. This is force majeure, such a thing can never be avoided, but from this we can draw not the conclusion that we need on highways a speed limit. You linked to two particularly remote events, such as a rock fall in Switzerland, with the shrimp farming in Thailand. In order to convince even the hardest of opponents of the absurdity of the project.

For the conscience-stricken:

Who will not have to soft boil, that he understands the need for social change and possibly even a dull oppressive Conscience is plagued, yet active for a long time. Him a wide range of justifications for constructive inaction.

1. I'm anyway not a car / 'm already a vegetarian / have no kids / don't eat Avocados / just buy a pair of pants per year, for the rich. With the plus points, I've been through the waiver of a new phone / the purchase of an energy-efficient refrigerator / participation in a Bio-cheese accumulated, I can easily make a weekend trip to London / an SUV on my flesh drive / a day on the plate. Basically I act in a climate-neutral. (That these claims are outrageous and a serious Review not withstanding, is completely negligible. No one will ever do a serious Investigation, because then it would be out that everyone lies in some way in your own pocket.)

2. Who have come to realize that the point1 listed measures are nothing more than whitewashing and waste, is resorting to the fatalism: What am I supposed to lead as an Individual? To me it doesn't at all. If the policy does not tackle this, then nothing (and the policy will not tackle this, because in the excuse of the climate change deniers loop). In support of the Thesis the following arguments:

2. so Far serve it's self-the flesh environmentalists test is not able to shrink their ecological footprint sustainable, to the necessary Size. Zero-Waste or Zero-Plastic-pioneers at the end of but two children, a car, a heated apartment, a high-power, Toast in plastic packaging or a connection to the Internet. This makes them completely unbelievable. Emulate them, it is not recommended.

the problems of the others to go with us. Everyone is the blacksmith of his own happiness.

2 I Wanted to emulate them anyway, I would throw me a life full of excessively hard privations. I may have a quiet Conscience, but only at the price of complete self-flagellation. Why should I be the fool, the joyless life of a Tyrolean mountain farmers in the 19th century. Century, while all the others drive the cart without me magnificently on the wall? The little bit of moral Superiority can I have cheaper (see point 1).

3. For Horsemen remains in the result of the Argument, that already everything is too late. It follows that you should enjoy life to the fullest. The Titanic is sinking, but on the Buffet, champagne and caviar.

For the Optimistenund cynic:

There are also people who see in climate change opportunities. From their perspective, it is not bad at all, when the temperatures rise. I don't call them the optimists (not to say: a cynic). Here are your arguments for doing nothing:

1. The man has proven time and again that he can do with technical progress in a short period of time values of a civilization remarkable jumps. Today, the CO2 is in the atmosphere, tomorrow we will be sucking it with inexpensive machines and convert it into clean energy.

2. let's Be honest: We can use in Central Europe from climate change. The long Winter to me has always been an abomination. And last summer wasn't that wonderful? The irrigation problem, we will get a handle on (see point 1).

3. If someone in fact, the opposite should hold in other parts of the world-wide tracts of land uninhabitable and millions of people will be forced to leave your home, it is replied to, that these problems are probably nothing to do with. In addition, each of his own happiness is wrought.

4. Raises then someone, the question is how you intend with the thrusting climate migrants deal with, refers you to the tried-and-tested measures: pre-departure agreements with dictators, concentration camps in Libya, mass graves, prohibition of fences in the Mediterranean sea, barbed wire and deportations. All of this is already now the most efficient way, and in the meantime, we have become used so much because of the moral Outcry is silenced.

It is a Friday in the spring of 2019, I'm sitting at home. The world's climate is changing. Humanity remains the same. The signs on the wall are obvious. We will rhetorically have yet to upgrade. Still a bit visible symbol of policy. Maybe of cheap meat to organic chicken require. Or only once-a-year travel.

Really, nothing will change. Our excuses are just too good.

* Selma Mahlknecht (40) is a writer and dramaturge.She lives in Zernez, GR. (Tages-Anzeiger)

Created: 03.04.2019, 17:31 PM