Categories
Ecology

What apocalypse is coming?

(Published 2020)

The world-famous icon of the green movement, Greta Thunberg, was able to give a highly emotional speech at the UN in September 2019, in which she called for an immediate rethink and urgent action to avert the catastrophes threatened by our reckless use of natural resources. The focus was on the controversial[i] man-made climate change, which is also held responsible for many other environmental problems.

The "climate Gretl" met with the full approval of the alternative scene and even received the alternative Nobel Prize.

The movement she initiated, “Fridays for Future”, is a terrific propaganda campaign that Greta was definitely not able to stage on her own. This hype brought demonstrating students to the streets in many countries around the world. (One automatically thinks of Mao's Cultural Revolution). Mostly those from good backgrounds who only know wealth and find a school strike for a good cause as a funny happening. Would “Saturdays for Future” have found a similarly large audience?

The "Extinction Rebellion," which conjures up the end of the world, is much tougher. It takes a more decisive approach, does not hesitate to block roads, paralyze traffic in places and question our democracy.

The media like to pick up on such issues and blow them up into mass phenomena that attract widespread attention, put politicians under pressure, and provoke political quick-fixes. The Parliament of the European Union has declared a climate emergency[ii], and conservationists speak of "ecocide", the ecological suicide of mankind.

Unfortunately, such drastic warnings of approaching environmental catastrophes - with or without natural or man-made climate change - are very justified, but come at least half a century too late.

During the 1950s and 1960s, there might still have been time to take consistent countermeasures.

At that time, the inhabitants of the western industrial nations believed that they could enjoy a beautiful, modern life forever - with steadily increasing prosperity - and take advantage of all the benefits of scientific and technical civilization. Who would want to see the "collateral damage" to the environment that only a few specialists were beginning to notice? During my studies, in the 1960s at a technical university, I didn't hear about it.[iii]

Therefore, at the time, I also thought like almost everyone and only became thoughtful when important information gradually came to me:

* In 1962, Rachel Carson (1907-1964) published "Silent Spring."
"Silent Spring" with its feared bird deaths was, from today's perspective, the starting point of the worldwide environmental movements.[iv]

* In 1968, "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrlich was published.
At first, the "population explosion" was hardly taken seriously. In a number of countries, such as Egypt and India, attempts were made to curb the rampant population growth, but these were soon abandoned. Not least because religions, above all Christian churches and Islam, resolutely rejected the measures needed to achieve this. In China, the strictly enforced one-child policy has had an effect. Otherwise, the rapid economic growth of the People's Republic would not have been possible and the world population would have grown even faster.
Otherwise, the "principle of hope" applied: Through increasing prosperity, better education, especially for girls, women's rights and improved health care, the birth rate should decline and the population should settle at a tolerable level. At present, the world population is still growing by 80 million per year; it is expected to reach ten billion by 2050 and then slowly decline.

Here are a few figures:
World population:
1804: 1 billion
1927: (after 123 years) 2 billion
1960: (after 33 years) 3 billion
1974: (after 14 years) 4 billion
1987: (after 13 years) 5 billion
1999: (after 12 years) 6 billion (growth levels off
2011: (after 12 years) 7 billion (due to decrease in
2020: (after 9 years) 7.79 billion (India and China.

* In 1972, the Club of Rome published "The Limits to Growth." This should lead to the realization that unlimited growth cannot be possible in the long term in a limited living space. Economists and politicians do not want to admit it to this day, although NASA published pictures of the earth - seen from the moon - as early as 1969, which vividly show everyone the limitations and vulnerability of our planet. (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globale_Umweltverlösungen_und_Zukunftsszenarien). 
Even then, the Club of Rome warned that growth might not be slowed down by a shortage of raw materials, but by environmental degradation.

* 1975 was followed by the bestseller "A Planet is Plundered" by Herbert Gruhlthat I still knew personally.
The CDU member of the Bundestag, Dr. Herbert Gruhl (1891-1983), was rejected by the Federal Chancellor Helmut Kohl. So Gruhl left the CDU and in 1978 became the founder of the green movement in Germany, which initially appeared as the “Green Action Future” (GAZ). 
A chancellor with foresight would have appointed Herbert Gruhl as environment minister and let the gifted speaker travel the country and give lectures on a modest budget. Then the CDU would have become the most modern party and "The Greens" would not exist.

* "Global 2000", the one from US President Carter commissioned "Report to the President" to the problems to be expected in the 21st century, appeared 1980.
With President Reagan it ended up - probably unread - in the trash.

* 1984 one could see in "The Mirror" from 13. 8. "The Murderous Consequences of Compassion." from Hoimar von Ditfurth (1921-1989) read. (Available on the Internet). A shattering reckoning with our world-saving ego and the corresponding NGOs.

Many other reports showed and still show that "development aid" mostly remains ineffective or is even harmful. A few small successes are emphasized and the big catastrophes are played down.

No one wants to hear that help can only be given successfully if the population of the suffering country itself works resolutely on improvements and does not see itself as an innocent victim, passively waiting for the help it is entitled to.

After World War II, Africa was given better development opportunities than the war-ravaged East Asian countries. At that time, Africa was sparsely populated with 200 million people and had virtually all the important raw materials.

Densely populated South Korea - as an example of East Asia - was largely destroyed after the Korean War (1953). It was the poorest country in Asia and had virtually no raw materials. With its intelligent and industrious population, it managed through hard work to become the tenth largest industrialized country as early as the 1980s, with a population of 40 million at the time. In the course of several longer stays as a technical consultant, I was able to personally experience this impressive growth at first hand.

Singapore offers another example for Southeast Asia. At independence in 1963, it was on a par with Ghana. However, unlike Ghana, Singapore did not have any important raw materials. Today, Singapore is one of the richest countries in the world!

* Recently, the focus has been on avoiding "causes of flight."
Unemployment, poverty, land degradation, civil war, drought, deforestation, religious fanaticism, violence, youth unemployment, climate change, corruption, wars, (organized) crime, natural disasters, bad governments, terrorism, overpopulation, oppression, water shortages, etc. Not to speak of trade barriers, subsidies, tariffs, which cause hardship to underdeveloped countries. 
Who wants to abolish these multiple distortions in many countries and in what way?

For example, in Africa, with a population of 1.3 billion people, which is expected to double by 2050 and may reach four billion by 2100? Through the envisaged "Marshall Plan for Africa"?[v] 
Anyone who sees the population explosion, which has become uncontrollable in parts of Africa, as the most important cause of ecological, economic and political catastrophes is called a racist.

But inconvenient facts rarely reach politicians, while baseless illusions are diligently nurtured.

* From the "overload of the earth" can be heard for decades. Since about 1998 the "science of the carrying capacity of the earth" has the name Pherology (from pherein = carry).
One of the first German-language papers on this subject was published in 1979 by Dr. Wolfram Ziegler, whom I still know personally.[vi]

Commonly known today are the (much too high) "Ecological Footprint" and the "Overshoot Day". (Cf. "A devastating footprint" under "Ecology"). 
The latter tells us on which day of the year we have used up everything the Earth can produce in a year. In 2019, this "world overload day" was on July 29, and for Germany alone on May 3. The rest of the year, therefore, we live off the substance. Or: The world's population currently consumes on average 1.75 times what the earth can provide us. In order to make all inhabitants of the earth happy with the prosperity of the USA, five earths would be required. (wikipedia). But nobody in international politics seems to be interested in this.

This overloading of nature is illustrated by the finding that 66 % of the biomass of land-dwelling mammals consists of farm animals and 30 % of humans. How long, if humanity continues to grow, can there be room for wildlife at all? (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomasse).

Why does no one here listen to science, which is to be taken so importantly with the allegedly man-made climate change? Is it because of the interests of big business?

* Countless other publications and information on the environment have been spread, so that today the word "ecology" is on everyone's lips. There have long been tentative, often ineffective approaches to environmental protection and nature conservation, mostly initiated by outsiders and implemented only hesitantly by politicians.

As before, ecosystems, the life-sustaining natural cycles of the "spaceship Earth," are suffering from a double growth under which they are bound to collapse sooner or later: The world population is growing only linearly (no longer exponentially), but per capita consumption is still growing exponentially. Nature cannot withstand this double growth pressure in the long term. This is because there has never been economic growth without additional environmental burdens. Will it be possible to achieve nature-friendly growth in the future?

The manifold ecological problems were probably too complicated for most people, including many politicians, and they did not want to hear about them. (I myself gave lectures on ecology at a technical college in the 1980s).

Then in 2019 a "one-point-problem" was discovered and propagandistically highlighted: Man-made climate change caused by burning too much fossil carbon! One could pounce on this, this idea was simple and easy to convey; but is it also true?
There are doubts, which, however, contradict the opinion of the mass media and are "politically incorrect"; because the reduction or avoidance of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels became a new ideology for conservationists, a state goal for politicians, a business model for the economy, and a new source of income for the treasury to tax carbon dioxide. Now we Germans in particular are called upon to serve as an example to the world![vii]

* Recently, 82 million people living in Germany are said to be (1.1 % of the world population, the industrialized country for 2.4 % of man-made CO2 responsible), as a model for the rest of the world, stop climate change. With investments of many hundreds of billions of euros, they want to end the burning of fossil carbon and abandon nuclear energy.
At best, this gigantic effort will reduce global warming by a few hundredths of a degree, but potentially plunge our economy into a severe crisis. Who among the remaining 98.9 % of the world's population will follow us down this risky path?[viii]

A few figures (www.Klimafakten.de):
Carbon dioxide emissions in gigatons per year:
(1) Natural: 750 (excluding volcanoes, which are said to account for only 1 %, still almost ten times that of Germany).
(2) From humans: 33 corresponds to 4.4 % of (1).
(3) Germany: 0.805 corresponds to 2.4 % of (2) or 0.107 % of (1).

Currently (January 2020) over 1,000 coal-fired power plants are under construction or in the approval process worldwide. The savings possible in Germany are already exceeded by the increased consumption in China. (www.erneubarenenergien.de).

* My book "The Apocalypse as Hope." was published by Droemer-Knaur in 1984.
One of the oldest and most widespread religious ideas, the “apocalypse of religions”, is contrasted with a new, highly dramatic threat to our world, the “apocalypse of ecologists”.
The "Apocalypse of Religions" has been expected for three millennia[ix]. Whether it can come or will come is a matter of faith. 
The "apocalypse of the ecologists" - the breakdown of natural cycles - will most likely be in the middle of the 21st century, unless it can be averted through unforeseeable events (new technologies, previously unknown sources of energy, other surprising twists and turns[x]), but hardly by political decisions.
Perhaps the two apocalypses are also identical without us realizing it?

Read also: "How much we are overloading our earth"., "The fight for the blue elixir of life" and "Are the apocalyptic horsemen coming?", all under "Ecology". 

Endnotes:
[i] The EIKE (European Institute for Climate and Energy) denies in a series of lectures that climate change is man-made through the combustion of fossil carbon. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), recognized by politicians as the “Climate Council”, had to put up with severe attacks on its credibility and even accept falsifications. (See Internet, https://www.economy4mankind.org/klima-co2-sonne/ and https://jean-puetz.net/buerger Betrug-zur-notwendigen-klimarettung-und-abhilfe-mit-einem-vorwort- von-jean-puetz). Some even speak of pseudoscientific, deliberate misinformation: (cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB4sevIG8XU).
Controversial discussions on this important topic hardly take place in the public media anymore, and anyone who doubts the causality of man-made carbon dioxide for global warming is muzzled as a "climate denier." The purely factual, highly complex "climate science" has become a "climate policy" burdened by prejudice.
Dass wir in einer „Zwischeneiszeit“ leben und es vor Jahrtausenden ohne menschlichen Einfluss weit wärmere Perioden gab, wird ungern gehört.  (Vgl.:weltderphysik.de/gebiet/erde/news/2016/temperaturkurve-des-erdklimas-ueber-zwei-millionen-jahre/#:~:text=Temperaturkurve%20des%20Erdklimas%20über%20zwei%20Millionen%20Ja).
[ii] From the EU comes a highly ambitious program, the consequences of which few EU citizens are aware (see https://unbesorgt.de/warten-auf-wunder-oder-wie-die-eu-kubanisiert-werden-soll/ and https://www.klonovsky.de/2021/07/das-wort-zum-sonntag/). 
[iii] The dangers of nuclear energy were not discussed in the relevant lectures at the time. Instead, the proponents of nuclear energy promised cheap nuclear power in abundance. Edward Teller (1908-2003), the "father of the hydrogen bomb," even said that nuclear power would become so cheap that one could do without an electricity meter and only have to charge a connection fee. And CFCs, long since banned as harmful to the climate, were considered the ideal coolant.
[iv] There were precursors, e.g. the little-known book "Die Erde rächt sich" by William Vogt (Nest-Verlag, Nuremberg, 1950), or
Annie France-Harrar "The last chance for a future without hardship," Bayerischer Landwirtschaftsverlag, Munich, 1950.
The feared bird mortality has been visible since 2019 at the latest, perhaps due to insect mortality.
[v] Well-known Zambian-born economist Dambisa Moyo wrote in the Prussian General Newspaper on Nov. 21, 2017, "...over the period of the last 50 years, [more than] a trillion dollars has been transferred as aid to Africa." ... "But are Africans actually better off as a result of the more than one trillion dollars?" She argues for a gradual exit from the current system. She expands on her thoughts in her best-selling book, "Dead aid: why aid is not working and how there is another way for Africa."
"Germany received [through the Marshall Plan] 2.5 % of GDP, which was low at the time due to the war. In the 1990s, sub-Saharan Africa received development aid of more than 12 % of GDP." (Asfa-Wassen Asserate "The New Migration of Peoples," Propyläen, p. 179).
[vi] Ziegler, W .: “Approach to the analysis of the pollution of ecosystems caused by technical-civilized societies. - Diss. 1979, in Bayer. Agricultural yearbook, issue 8/1979, pp. 899 - 948. 
[vii] The earth's ecosystem is a highly complex, networked system in which hardly any measure remains without side effects. It is certainly not wrong to cut back on the burning of fossil carbon, but the resulting “energy turnaround” requires enormous amounts of valuable and rare raw materials, which have to be extracted with ever greater use of energy and great environmental pollution. According to the Energy Agency (IEA), the global demand for critical raw materials such as copper will quadruple by 2040, and the battery metal lithium will even increase by 42 times. (Der Spiegel, No. 41/2021. P. 10).
[viii] Is Savonarola (1452-1498) with his "God's State" the model here: "From Florence the light of God should shine over all Italy. In the end, even the followers of Mohammed would convert, if only Florence made a start and its inhabitants, as models for the whole world, lived according to the divine commandments." (Cf. "A Renaissance Prophet in the Fickleness of the Masses" in "Kurz, Knapp, Kurios" page 323). Today Germany and/or the EU want to be the large models for the whole world, which will not follow in all probability!
[ix] The first announcement of a Last Judgment was made by Zarathustra in the 2nd millennium BC.
[x] Optimists believe that we could produce almost limitless amounts of food with solar energy from water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen. We could then do without food crops and farm animals. Should it become too hot due to climate change, we could retreat to air-conditioned cities. Energy supplies the sun for all requirements enough! (Not much more than 1 % of the solar radiation on the earth is used for the by far largest production, for the photosynthesis of the plants. The rest is theoretically available to us).

Addendum I to the "Energy Transition" (2021):

In Germany, the Energy turnaround for ideological reasons. There are no longer any serious discussions about the necessity of the energy transition. It's all about speed.

Nuclear*) and coal-fired power plants are to be shut down in Germany by 2030. Germany aims to be climate-neutral by 2050.

The era of thermal power engines is probably coming to an end in Germany.

In road traffic, the last hour of the combustion engine seems to have arrived and the electric motor is seen as the future. What about the necessary charging stations?

Only the "green" drives of construction machinery, airplanes, helicopters, trucks, ships, etc. can still be found.
Here, hydrogen at 700 bar, liquid hydrogen, "green" methane, other "green" hydrocarbons such as "green" methanol**), "green" gasoline, diesel or kerosene are possible energy carriers; fuel cell + electric motor, piston engine, gas turbine as prime movers. Promising further developments of accumulators are also currently underway. Which solution is the most favorable?

But according to the conviction of climate activists, it is about saving the earth, for which nothing can be too expensive. However, Germany can only make a minimal contribution to limiting greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so the cost/benefit calculation looks bleak. The decisive efforts to "save the climate" must be made by others, who will hopefully follow Germany's example.

In addition figures to the worldwide CO2-output in % (According to "The Pioneer" Capital Briefing, 5/2/2021):
China 27.2
USA 14.6
India 6.8
Russia 4.7
Japan 3.3
Germany 2.2
Iran 1.9
Saudi Arabia 1.8
South Korea 1.7
Canada 1.6
Rest of the world 34.2

About the Costs of the energy transition - by 2050 is expected to be well over 500 billion***), in extreme cases even more than 3,000 billion****) - little is said. These costs are in addition to the expenses for asylum seekers and the Corona crisis. It will not measurably reduce global warming. At present, emissions of man-made CO2 - expected to continue to rise worldwide until at least 2050. (Steingart's Morning Briefing from 10/18-21.

More necessary would be precautionary measures for inevitable global warming such as natural hazard insurance for buildings and household contents, improved land use planning, water engineering measures, etc.

Hopefully, in a few decades, the ideology-driven, unbalanced, poorly thought-out German energy turnaround will not be spoken of as a grandiose misinvestment that ushered in the downfall of Germany and Europe.

When the landscape is covered with "bird shredders" propagated by conservationists, all roofs are paved with solar cells, and the power grids have been elaborately expanded and extended, a few unanswered questions remain from today's perspective:

1). What happens during a "Dark lull" when neither the sun shines nor the wind blows?

Will we then have enough gas-fired power plants on standby to supply up to 100 % of the electrical energy we need at any time? From "green" natural gas or from hydrogen produced with solar collectors in the Sahara (an unstable crisis region)?

Or is there a way to store several days' or even weeks' worth of electricity until then? For example, in the natural gas grid, by networking with storage power plants in Norway, with battery storage or heat storage?

We may also want to purchase the missing electricity from foreign nuclear power plants (if they can produce enough surplus), similar to Austria, where the Zwentendorf nuclear power plant, which was completed and never went into operation, could not produce nearly as much nuclear energy as is purchased from abroad.

2) To better match demand to the fluctuating supply of wind and solar, "The Greens" want to offer consumers a "supply-oriented power supply", presumably with shutdowns. Then we would have to spend an "energy lock-down" in unheated apartments, by candlelight, without bathing and washing facilities and without mobility, where hopefully at least the water supply would still work. I would rather not speak of the foreseeable reaction of the industry to such an imposition.

3) What happens to the excess "green electricity" when the sun is shining and there is a lot of wind? Do we use it to generate hydrogen, methane (“power to gas”), liquid hydrocarbons (“power to liquid”), or can we store something else (see above)? The systems required for this still have to be built. The excess electricity is generated very unevenly, the required systems become disproportionately large, and the expected degrees of efficiency are poor. A lot is technically possible, but the costs are not to be neglected!

4) Electricity consumption will increase dramatically due to building heating and electromobility. Has this already been taken into account in the expansion planning of power generators and the line network?****)

Endnotes to Supplement I:
*) According to UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe), nuclear power plants are indispensable. In the UNECE region, nuclear power plants are currently under construction in 15 countries (Renewable Energies, 19. 8. 21). At present, there are promising developments of liquid salt or thorium reactors, which do not give rise to fears of a meltdown. However, there are still no solutions for the disposal of radioactive waste.
**) "Green" methanol would be an interesting solution. It is suitable for fuel cells, gasoline engines (without major conversions) and in principle also diesel engines, can be stored and transported well and can be distributed via the filling station network. (Roger Letsch: "How government intervention is screwing up a technology of the future," unbesorgt.de, 9. 6. 2021). However, methanol with Hi = 15.7 MJ/l, 4.36 KWh/l, 5.52 KWh/kg has a lower energy density than gasoline with 31 MJ/l.
***) https.www.weltwoche.ch: Essay of the week: Energy transition: The 4600 billion fiasco / Die Weltwoche Issue 20/2019.
****) According to the Ifo Institute; www.ifo.de> node.
*****) Current electricity consumption in Germany: 580 TWh. By 2030, at least 645 to 665 TWh are expected, due to the additional consumption of electromobility and heat pumps. The Frauenhofer Institute even expects 780 TWh!

Addendum II on "Hydrogen Technology" (2021):

The German government is focusing on hydrogen as an energy carrier.

Here are some data (according to Wikipedia):

Specific Weights:

(air 1.29 g/lit. or 1.29 kg/m³).

Hydrogen:

Under normal conditions: 0.089 g/lit. or 89 g/m³.

At 700 bar: 40 g/lit. or 40 kg/m³.

Liquid hydrogen at 14 Kelvin: 70.8 g/lit. or 70.8 kg/m³.

(Styrofoam is 15-30 kg/m³).

Heating values Hi:

(1 MJ = 0.2777 kWh; 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ).

Hi Hydrogen: 120 MJ/kg.

H2 at 700 bar contains 4.8 MJ/Lit or 1.33 kWh/Lit.

Liquid H2 at 14 Kelvin contains 8.49 MJ/lit. or 2.36 kWh/lit.

(Gasoline: approx. 41 MJ/kg; 31 MJ/lit.; 8.5 kWh/lit.)

Efficiencies:

Electrolysis: approx. 60 %.

Compression to 700 bar: approx. 90 %.

Liquefaction: approx. 75 to 80 %.

Fuel cell: approx. 60 to 70%.

Electric drive: 90 to 95 %. 

Overall efficiency optimally at:

H2 700 Bar: 0.6*0.9*0.7*0.95 = 0.36.

H2 liquid: 0.6*0.8*0.7*0.95 = 0.32.

These optimal values can only be achieved under favorable conditions; in practice, the efficiencies are significantly worse, so that 2 to 3 times as much electricity is required for the fuel cell as for the battery car!

Not included are the losses during storage and transport of H2.

Compressed hydrogen requires (heavy) pressure vessels.

Liquid hydrogen has a limited shelf life because, even with the best thermal insulation, it converts to gas that must be vented if it cannot be consumed.

(A battery-powered electric car realistically achieves only 65 - 70 % efficiency (tuev-nord.de) in the best case 80%. A modern diesel engine on 30 - 35%.)

Space requirement/mass ratio:

The following volume is required for the same energy content (31 MJ each):

Gasoline: 1 lit. - H2 700 Bar: 6,45 Lit. - H2 liquid: 3,65 Lit.

The following mass is required for the same energy content (41 MJ):

Gasoline: 1 kg - H2: 0,34 kg.

Container:

The gas tank can be configured almost arbitrarily.

A pressure tank for 700 bar should be spherical or cylindrical.

A tank for liquid hydrogen must be extremely well thermally insulated. Spherical or cylindrical are preferable because of the relatively smaller surface areas.

Production and transport of the energy carrier:

Current: Solar power, presumably from the Sahara, and surplus "green" power when the sun shines and the wind blows a lot in our country.

Hydrogen: Production in the Sahara or in the EU?

Transport of the energy: Which is cheaper: to transmit the electricity to Europe (massless transport) and to produce hydrogen at different places, close to the consumers; or to transport the (compressed) hydrogen (in pipelines or pressure vessels)?

Anticipated applications for hydrogen:

Construction machinery, chemical industry, feeding into the natural gas grid, helicopters, trucks, aviation (liquid hydrogen?), shipping, steel industry, etc. In many of these cases, methanol could be cheaper, easier to transport and better to store.

Addendum III to the latest ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court (August 2021):

The latest constitutional court

Wednesday, 04.08.2021 - 22:00 - Rocco Burggraf:

In the sense of the chronicler duty I would like to recall after short study of the factual situation once again the disputed judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court, with which in the course of the abolition of Germany, after the far advanced dissolution of the state territory and the state people also the last constitutional bastion fell. The institution, which has been consistently reorganized in terms of personnel and converted into a political interest group, has decreed - shrugged off by the population - the end of freedom, the end of constitutional rights and thus - probably unintentionally - its own end with its so-called climate decision of March 24 of this year. And not only that.

Apparently, hardly anyone realizes what a devastating decision was made by the high judges in the red robes. The decision-makers, who have been bothered time and again by clueless legislators with bungling works of art, felt obliged not only to check the course of Germanwings from the tower and to take corrective action if necessary, but also to take the control stick into their own hands and thus bring the aircraft to its destination.

In the absence of the appropriate capabilities, an autopilot was programmed in haste - obviously inspired by Andreas Lubitz - which initiated the immediate descent. Since then, all of our lives have been determined by a climate policy algorithm of bans and price increases that no one can stop. Because it now has constitutional status. This will be a nosedive.

In an inconceivable hubris that goes far beyond the mandate to examine constitutional conformities, the paragraph jugglers in March construct from the following assumptions an obligatory imperative to radically restructure the German economy and, beyond that, to permanently restrict all basic civil rights in a climate protection dictatorship. In its reasons for judgment, the BVerfGE recognizes the following political assumptions as correct, mutatis mutandis:-.

1. the natural foundations of life for future generations are being destroyed by anthropogenic global warming.

2. this global warming can only be effectively countered by achieving the so-called 2° or 1.5° target for increasing the global average temperature. For this, globally permissible CO² quantities must be calculated, divided into country budgets and then defined as maximum quantities with national legislation.

3. substitute measures for CO² avoidance such as biosphere development, nuclear power, hydropower, synthetic fuels, population and settlement policies are not relevant for budgeting and can therefore be disregarded.

4 For Germany, a residual emissions budget of currently 6.7 gigatons of CO², based on a (non-transparent) calculation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change but nowhere legally anchored, is to be used as a basis, from which the Federal Constitutional Court derives via a pro-head key, which is also considered reasonable, that Germany must achieve so-called "climate neutrality" by 2030 by means of extensive measures including the restriction of all existing fundamental rights. This includes CO² pricing, a complete restructuring of the economy and ultimately the regulation of all human activities associated with CO² emissions.

5 This German climate neutrality must be legally secured and regularly reviewed by the legislator.

Let us summarize: GERMANY abolishes in contrast to almost all other industrialized countries of the WORLD with the nuclear power the most important low-emission energy production, in order to then state that the WORLD average temperature - thus the WORLD itself - under the now in GERMANY valid conditions of allegedly renewable energy production can only be saved, if the GERMANS completely rebuild their economic structure, for this purpose renounce their liberty rights to life (producing, eating, living, heating, traveling....), in order to reach in the next eight years a GERMAN climatic neutrality, which can be calculated by nobody seriously, whose only effect in view of its ridiculous 2%igen portion of the global CO² emission in an alleged model effect on the remaining WORLD consists, which for its part already now far less rigorous climatic policy decided and whose largest emitters (e.g. China/India) in the world are in the center of the world.e.g. China/India) will emit more instead of less CO² in the next twenty years. A fact that already condemns the achievement of the mentioned emission targets to failure with high probability. It does not get more abstruse than this.

Although this monstrous constitutional tyranny, based on nothing but controversial and legally non-binding assumptions, was discussed among legal experts and a few alert contemporaries, it then went down just like all the other destructive activities of an apparatus gone wild and out of all control.

If you are interested in the legal details and the exact chains of argumentation underlying my populist translation, please read the somewhat drier source - the lecture of the emeritus expert for public law Prof. Murswiek at the University of Freiburg - for more detailed information. (Source: tatjanafesterling.de)

Addendum IV on growth:

According to "Steingart's Morning Briefing" of September 9, 2021, China plans to substantially increase its gross social product (GDP). In the longer term, China will aim for the same GDP per capita as the USA:

GDP of the USA 2021: 22.7 trillion US$. If China were to achieve the same GDP per capita as the U.S. with its current population, that would be 96.2 trillion US$The consumption of raw materials and energy would have to overtax the earth's capacity even further, especially since GDP per capita is also expected to increase in many other countries as the population rises!

(Cf. "A devastating footprint" and "How much we are overburdening our earth" under "Ecology").

Addendum V on climate change:

At last, a well-known, very successful business leader is speaking out and saying what should have been made widely known long ago.

One who unbiased to work, is Prof. Wolfgang Reitzle. He has spent his professional life in the German industry was in a responsible position at BMW, Ford and Linden and today it serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors the Linde plc and as Chairman of the Supervisory Board the Continental AG. He is non-partisan. Never before has he been on a Party Congress spoken. Yesterday at the FDP was premiere. He could also have been at the Green, the CDU and - as I know him - also with the Left Party spoken to his View of things to the point. So it is not important, where he spoke. Important is, what he had to say.
There were five inconvenient truthswhich he shouted to the Germans: Truth number 1:
We have lost our leading position in the world. Reitzle verbatim:
"One wonders: Where are we actually still leading? - Most certainly in taxes, redistribution and the price of electricity. And that's exactly where some parties have concrete plans to further expand this leadership position. "
Truth number 2:
The nation state is already too narrow as a thinking space to be able to effectively counter climate change. Because, according to Reitzle:
“We either save the climate globally or not at all. Around 2.5 billion more people will be living on the planet by 2050. In 2019 alone, China built up almost as much coal capacity as we want to take off the grid by 2038.
In Africa, 600 million people do not have an electrical outlet today, but they will legitimately have one very soon. And much of the electricity from those outlets will come from new coal-fired power plants, which China in turn will supply to Africa. "
Truth number 3:
The market and competition are needed to achieve true climate neutrality on this planet. Reitzle advised Technology openness:
"Take the topic of hydrogen. It has accompanied me professionally for decades. And the opportunities offered by this technology are enormous.
Nevertheless, today we almost exclusively rely on battery technology. How come Well, it comes from the political framework. By not saying: “Let's see which technology will prevail”. Rather: "We know in advance what is best." Namely: the battery! ""
"The consequence is: No stone is left unturned in the auto industry. Hundreds of thousands of old jobs are at risk. There is a shortage of qualified people for many thousands of new jobs. "
“Can we still manage it? Yes. Somehow we can do it, Angela Merkel would say. But at a high price. "
"Now one could argue: Yes, then that's the price we have to pay. After all, we are saving the climate here."
And then he says to all whom it concerns, the Truth number 4which is the most inconvenient of all truths: much does not help much.
"No matter how far we go with deindustrialization, unfortunately we are not saving the climate with all this. The end, which should justify all means, is not reached by these means at all! "
Its Justification:
"An all-electric car, for example, that charges its electricity from a German socket is not driving CO2-free.
On the contrary: Our electricity mix is not only particularly expensive. It is also particularly dirty (CO2-heavy). And when the last nuclear power plant goes off the grid soon, it will be even dirtier for a long time."
Truth number 5: The financial costs of dirigiste climate policies will overwhelm Europe. Reitzle said:
"Even supporters of this path do not deny that it will be expensive. But unlike you and me, they are not worried about it. That's because they believe in Modern Monetary Theory, that is, in the printing press - in creating money out of nothing." "
Their Follow Reitzle described it like this:
"It leads to debt and transfer union. It leads to inflation. And at some point it leads to the destabilization of the euro. "
Its Conclusion:
"Our situation is like that of a ship that is in danger of sinking. The water is coming in at the front and the back at the same time. However, the hole at the front - in our case - is much smaller than the hole at the back in China, Asia and Africa. What sense does it make that we spend almost all our time, almost all our energy and all our resources on closing the small hole here in Germany?
Why don't we also and especially focus on the big hole?"
Conclusion: Someone like Reitzle can only inform, admonish, ask: The answer to his question about the big or the small hole is the question about the right priority. This question must be answered by the voters on Sunday.
(From "Steingart's Morning Briefing," 9/21/2021).