Contents page 1 — Why our excuses are wrong, side 2 — Together in the climate catastrophe On a page

Many of us life is inconsistent, for example, in the protection of the environment. Ecology is the German as important. Nevertheless, you spend a lot of money for long-distance travel and eat more food of animal origin, as good for the climate. Felix Ekardt, the head of the research unit sustainability and climate policy in Leipzig and Berlin as well as Professor at the University of Rostock, has the the theme of his guest posts for the TIME ONLINE and in the reader comments is also a contradiction harvested. Here he answers the most important objections.

we Take the global climate targets seriously, we need to reduce worldwide within two decades, the consumption of fossil fuels to zero, and the livestock significantly reduced. This would not change our everyday lives – little wonder, then, that like every. Even if we take the three of us instead of two decades, time for change, as the IPCC is considering, and the 1.5-degree limit with only about 50 percent likely to adhere to, it is still very challenging.

The approximately 1,000 comments under my TIME-ONLINE-lyrics about flying and about the consumption of meat, eggs and dairy products represent classic objections to the climate protection. Unfortunately, they are often wrong. But they show well what sustainability has failed so far in many cases.

All Overpopulation?

The classic of all objections is that We have no climate problem, the earth is simply overpopulated. Of course, – would the world, say, only 500 million people, the environmental problems are very much smaller. However, there is no reasonable way to reduce the world’s population in the short term, so massive.

in addition, our ecological footprint per capita in Europe and North America dozens of times greater than in many African countries, where the birth rate is the highest. And already today, with a poor Africa with a low ecological footprint, the global environmental situation is disastrous. A stable or slightly reduced population of the world closer to us, therefore, sustainability.

Felix Ekardt

is the head of the research unit sustainability and climate policy in Leipzig and Berlin as well as Professor at the University of Rostock. From him We can change: published in 2017, Social change beyond the critique of capitalism and Revolution, and a short circuit: such As simple truths that undermine democracy.

another classical objection States that A stringent climate protection is socially unjust, because then the meat and long-distance travel are not affordable for all. This is not entirely wrong. Only the climate change itself is a much bigger Problem for the poor, because he will hit you, in Germany and around the world. Apart from that: If it calls for total equality, then please, not only when it comes to the protection of the environment.

Even people with Ökosympathien another objection: environmental claims well and good, but the joy comes to long-distance travel, you want to leave, but not maggoty. The Greatest thing in life, it is for many people today, to collect experiences. That is good per se, however, is not more than a Dogma. In addition, you can ask: Are such long-distance travel is really such a great experience, not only because of the often uncomfortable travel circumstances? I myself no longer and service, fly private for the last 20 years only, when I leave Europe. And also I only do that every couple of years, and then for a longer period of time.

1994 I worked for three months in Israel. However, I have become someone else? And now I know really the country? I have to say no. For shorter trips and holidays this is even more true. Of Europe’s diversity of good food aside, the cultural Hotspots and pluralistic lifestyles worldwide, almost unrivalled – and it is accessible without flights.

The sense of a vacuum in the post-religious age, I would also not seriously, I walk through fire country or in Bangkok. Conscious renunciation, however, can be very exciting. And, in addition, yet very much auspicious as the drastic consequences of climate change for all of us.

Freedom-hostile, as some commentators say, is not a climate policy. Because it protects the freedom of the one in front of the other. Patronising it would be only when someone is protected, against his will, against himself, if one wanted to do about the meat eaters, even something Good, by preventing her from eating. To design a prohibition regime for endless a lot of individual actions that would turn illiberal.