WEBVTT 00:17.870 --> 00:24.330 Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the second day of the ZAK Talks, 00:25.990 --> 00:30.150 organized by the Center for Applied Culture, Science and General 00:30.150 --> 00:30.150 Studies. 00:30.890 --> 00:35.650 My name is Senia Post, I am the scientific director of the center for 00:35.650 --> 00:37.070 those who do not know me yet. 00:37.070 --> 00:41.670 But I see many familiar faces, many of whom were here yesterday. 00:43.520 --> 00:48.250 It is a great pleasure to see you again, but also to see new faces 00:48.250 --> 00:48.950 here individually. 00:50.760 --> 00:55.490 After the first day of the ZAK Talks with discussions on the role of 00:55.490 --> 01:00.850 science, politics and media in social sustainability debates, we are 01:00.850 --> 01:05.070 looking forward to today's podium discussion on the topic of the 01:05.070 --> 01:10.410 emergency climate crisis, implications for democracy and the rule of 01:10.410 --> 01:10.410 law. 01:11.390 --> 01:15.770 I am pleased that the ZAK Talks, as part of the second KIT Science 01:15.770 --> 01:21.630 Week, with lectures, discussions, the kind of film night last night at 01:21.630 --> 01:26.050 the ZKM and a lecture this afternoon in the Staatstheater, will 01:26.050 --> 01:27.430 contribute to the program of the week. 01:28.630 --> 01:33.590 With this, the ZAK, as well as other public events distributed 01:33.590 --> 01:37.830 throughout the year, offers the topics from science, research to the 01:37.830 --> 01:43.290 interested public, to make a contribution, that is our intention, to 01:43.290 --> 01:45.530 current social debates. 01:47.450 --> 01:53.030 At this point I would like to thank the Federal Ministry of Education 01:53.030 --> 01:56.070 and Research and the Ministry of Science and the Ministry of Health 01:56.070 --> 01:59.610 and Welfare in Baden-Württemberg, who support the KIT Science Week and 01:59.610 --> 02:04.490 thus also our ZAK Talks as part of the excellence strategy of federal 02:04.490 --> 02:05.250 and state governments. 02:06.670 --> 02:11.370 Our thanks also go to the IHK, through whose support we were able to 02:11.370 --> 02:15.930 hold the symposium yesterday and the matinee this morning here in 02:15.930 --> 02:18.610 these wonderful, bright rooms. 02:18.610 --> 02:27.010 My special greetings and thanks go, of course, to Ralf Füchs, Lisa 02:27.010 --> 02:32.430 Jonsen, Professor Angela Schwertfeger and Professor Christian Seidel, 02:33.490 --> 02:35.850 who will discuss the podium discussion in a moment. 02:36.830 --> 02:40.390 Markus Brock, who will take over the moderation, will introduce you in 02:40.390 --> 02:40.530 a moment. 02:42.270 --> 02:45.610 So thank you very much for coming to Karlsruhe. 02:48.010 --> 02:53.850 Today marks the conclusion of the second KIT Science Week with the 02:53.850 --> 02:58.450 title Future together, sustainable design. 02:59.530 --> 03:06.150 The design of the future is based on three central principles in 03:06.150 --> 03:06.150 liberal democracies. 03:06.930 --> 03:09.790 First, on humanism, i.e. 03:10.350 --> 03:14.290 the respect for the dignity of every human being. 03:14.290 --> 03:20.610 Second, on the idea that people, through the exchange of arguments, 03:21.830 --> 03:28.290 through factual criticism and self-criticism, more or less rationally, 03:28.390 --> 03:35.210 regardless of prejudices or ideological preferences of reality and 03:35.210 --> 03:40.090 thus also the diagnosis of problems and the effectiveness of potential 03:40.090 --> 03:40.710 solutions. 03:43.370 --> 03:52.110 Third, on the assumption that opposing interests are heard and that 03:52.110 --> 03:54.090 they can be balanced by regulated processes. 03:57.450 --> 04:02.570 Current crises and crisis discourses, such as the pandemic or the 04:02.570 --> 04:06.810 diagnosis of the climate emergency, have also raised the question in 04:06.810 --> 04:14.090 response to tough negotiations and publicly polarized discourses in 04:14.090 --> 04:21.890 parts of society about how efficiently liberal democracies can act. 04:22.550 --> 04:28.270 For example, how efficiently climate protection can be implemented, so 04:28.270 --> 04:28.270 to speak. 04:29.830 --> 04:36.570 Few people explicitly want an autocratic system, but the desire for a 04:36.570 --> 04:43.770 strong, strong, strong, in this case, if you reduce it to climate, one 04:43.770 --> 04:49.210 -dimensional, problem-centered, impenetrable climate policy or 04:49.210 --> 04:52.830 pandemic policy is flaring up, when it is said, for example, follow 04:52.830 --> 04:56.170 the science or physics does not negotiate. 04:56.990 --> 05:00.870 And we are also today with the question of what liberal democracies 05:00.870 --> 05:08.970 can do in dealing with current and future challenges and what 05:08.970 --> 05:14.150 prerequisites must be met so that they are really capable of 05:14.150 --> 05:14.150 performing. 05:15.450 --> 05:20.490 And we also ask whether these prerequisites are met at the moment. 05:21.630 --> 05:24.450 And there are some questions that I would like to mention here as an 05:24.450 --> 05:24.670 example. 05:24.670 --> 05:29.990 How can elected representatives, i.e. 05:30.050 --> 05:33.870 representatives of the people, deal with the solution of long-term 05:33.870 --> 05:36.690 problems when they are dependent on election results in relatively 05:36.690 --> 05:45.790 short or very short legislative periods, as you might like to consider 05:45.790 --> 05:45.790 that. 05:47.850 --> 05:52.930 How can we make advances in this situation for sustainability and 05:52.930 --> 05:59.130 generational justice if it is difficult to add that the future, 05:59.350 --> 06:03.970 despite all the scientific modulations on climate or economic 06:03.970 --> 06:06.770 developments, is not predictable. 06:08.150 --> 06:13.510 These are some of the issues that our podium will discuss today and I 06:13.510 --> 06:17.310 wish you all an insightful time. 06:18.250 --> 06:21.290 I would now like to briefly introduce the moderator of the discussion. 06:22.590 --> 06:26.190 He is probably familiar to the ZAK regular audience because he has 06:26.190 --> 06:28.690 moderated the more frequent discussions with us. 06:30.590 --> 06:34.810 Many are familiar with Markus Brock as a TV moderator at Dreisat and 06:34.810 --> 06:35.510 the SWR. 06:36.730 --> 06:40.030 For many years he has been moderating talk shows, magazines and 06:40.030 --> 06:44.630 reports, such as the Museumscheck at Dreisat. 06:45.010 --> 06:50.070 He studied political science and sociology at Heidelberg and, in 06:50.070 --> 06:54.030 addition to various other programs for ARD and ZDF, he has moderated 06:54.030 --> 06:58.610 numerous radio programs at SWR 3 for ten years. 06:59.310 --> 07:01.990 Today he is on SWR 2. 07:02.610 --> 07:08.330 In addition, Brock often moderates discussion events, forums and 07:08.330 --> 07:13.210 events on different topics from science, research, economy and 07:13.210 --> 07:14.010 culture. 07:14.410 --> 07:19.450 Mr. Brock, I now give you the floor and the further moderation to you 07:19.450 --> 07:21.970 and thank you very much. 07:29.660 --> 07:34.920 Thank you very much, Professor Senja Post, head of science at ZAK, and 07:34.920 --> 07:36.560 I would like to warmly welcome you. 07:36.680 --> 07:41.060 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, great that you have come to this 07:41.060 --> 07:43.420 important, exciting topic. 07:43.660 --> 07:46.360 Also a warm welcome to everyone who watches us online. 07:48.000 --> 07:51.140 And you heard it, shape the future together sustainably. 07:51.660 --> 07:56.800 That is the motto of the entire KIT Science Week, in which everything 07:56.800 --> 07:59.040 revolves around sustainability and climate protection. 08:00.100 --> 08:03.180 Yesterday evening, among other things, it was asked whether the 08:03.180 --> 08:07.080 situation of some media and activists is being dramatized. 08:07.620 --> 08:11.760 It's just that no one who is half-witted, I have to say it so 08:11.760 --> 08:15.860 drastically, still seriously doubts that we must act against climate 08:15.860 --> 08:16.380 change as soon as possible. 08:17.880 --> 08:22.660 But whether world-end rhetoric is rather counterproductive, that is 08:22.660 --> 08:25.240 quite debatable and has also been discussed. 08:26.320 --> 08:30.540 The multiple crises, the permanent crisis mode, meanwhile lead to 08:30.540 --> 08:33.900 rejection and democracy, fatigue and dissatisfaction in many. 08:33.900 --> 08:35.720 I read a survey this morning. 08:36.060 --> 08:41.600 59 percent of all Germans no longer believe that we can do anything 08:41.600 --> 08:42.660 against climate change. 08:43.860 --> 08:45.260 They gave up, they closed. 08:46.680 --> 08:50.060 And that is something that needs to be discussed. 08:50.500 --> 08:51.940 How do you still reach people? 08:52.760 --> 08:55.580 And so we are asking today about the emergency of the climate crisis, 08:55.700 --> 08:57.980 implications for democracy and the rule of law. 08:59.060 --> 09:01.080 Professor Post has already addressed some questions. 09:02.120 --> 09:03.080 What impact? 09:03.080 --> 09:05.740 You have to ask that too, because the climate decision of the Federal 09:05.740 --> 09:08.740 Constitutional Court is a result of something legal. 09:09.480 --> 09:13.060 What strengths and weaknesses do democracies show in times of crisis 09:13.060 --> 09:17.180 like climate change and how do we deal with climate change here? 09:18.280 --> 09:20.820 These and many more questions we want to discuss today in the 09:20.820 --> 09:24.320 background of climate activism and generational justice. 09:25.280 --> 09:28.720 In the end, of course, again with your questions, where I can already 09:28.720 --> 09:30.560 ask you not to hold a co-referendum. 09:31.060 --> 09:36.860 So much time is lost, but to ask as precise questions as possible to 09:36.860 --> 09:40.820 our speakers, which I would now like to introduce to you. 09:40.900 --> 09:43.760 And then just come forward when I say your name. 09:44.120 --> 09:48.440 Ralf Fuchs is with us, co-founder and managing director of the liberal 09:48.440 --> 09:53.420 modern center, former chairman of the Heinrich Böll Foundation, an 09:53.420 --> 09:54.920 experienced green politician. 09:55.660 --> 09:56.000 Welcome. 10:03.790 --> 10:08.270 Lina Jonsen, climate activist and speaker of the last generation. 10:08.430 --> 10:08.750 Welcome. 10:14.820 --> 10:19.160 Professor Dr. Angela Schwertfeger, professor of public law, especially 10:19.160 --> 10:22.740 administrative law at the Georg August University in Göttingen. 10:23.380 --> 10:23.800 Welcome. 10:27.320 --> 10:30.900 And Professor Dr. Christian Seidel, professor of philosophical 10:30.900 --> 10:34.600 anthropology at the Department of Philosophy at the KIT. 10:34.820 --> 10:37.760 Among other things, he deals with political philosophy, also with 10:37.760 --> 10:42.960 global and intergenerational justice, with moralism, applied ethics, 10:43.080 --> 10:45.900 and he was co-author of an Ethics of Climate Change. 10:46.140 --> 10:47.360 A warm welcome to you too. 10:51.840 --> 10:58.680 And I hope that you all agree that we are not discussing today that we 10:58.680 --> 11:00.880 have slept far too long in the face of climate change. 11:02.720 --> 11:07.040 We have known this at the latest since the 1970s, even, you know, the 11:07.040 --> 11:09.000 mineral oil industry knew this. 11:09.340 --> 11:15.260 They commissioned studies where they got exactly what we know today. 11:15.480 --> 11:16.780 Everyone knew it. 11:17.180 --> 11:17.820 We did nothing. 11:18.180 --> 11:18.840 We slept. 11:19.100 --> 11:21.040 And all industrial nations in particular. 11:21.740 --> 11:25.420 And I think it is now, I have already indicated it earlier, common 11:25.420 --> 11:28.060 sense, that we have to act as quickly as possible against climate 11:28.060 --> 11:28.500 change. 11:30.340 --> 11:34.020 The only question is how, with what means, how do we take the people, 11:34.160 --> 11:38.640 how do we take the whole world with us and what means are morally, 11:38.960 --> 11:43.240 psychologically and legally reasonable and permissible to act quickly. 11:44.300 --> 11:49.200 In reference to our title, emergency climate crisis. 11:49.920 --> 11:55.200 If we have an emergency climate crisis, what would that mean legally, 11:55.380 --> 11:57.060 morally and socially? 11:58.340 --> 12:01.760 What does it mean legally if we have an emergency? 12:02.320 --> 12:05.460 Who can explain it legally, Ms. Schwertfeger? 12:06.360 --> 12:09.640 Yes, exciting question and a very big question, of course. 12:10.180 --> 12:13.240 So, when it comes to the word emergency, as a lawyer, I am always very 12:13.240 --> 12:16.680 reluctant to use it, because I think we are all aware that we have a 12:16.680 --> 12:18.880 big crisis and that we have a big challenge. 12:19.840 --> 12:23.100 But also because of German history, it is the case that our 12:23.100 --> 12:28.620 constitution explicitly does not, so to speak, try to react with the 12:28.620 --> 12:31.460 instruments of the normal situation even in crisis situations. 12:32.140 --> 12:34.980 This applies to both processes and to the content of the question. 12:35.380 --> 12:38.860 And for good reason, because of course, when you say we have an 12:38.860 --> 12:42.280 emergency and we are now deviating from the usual regulations, then of 12:42.280 --> 12:46.080 course there are always very big dangers that it entails and that can 12:46.080 --> 12:50.100 lead to the fact that you have to take all the people with you in the 12:50.100 --> 12:51.660 democracy with the usual decision mechanisms . 12:51.660 --> 12:58.040 And that's why I say as a lawyer and especially in the background of 12:58.040 --> 13:03.880 our past and why our constitution has largely limited itself to really 13:03.880 --> 13:05.660 only presenting emergency regulations for very extreme 13:05.660 --> 13:14.220 dysfunctionalities in the system , my pleasure would be that you are 13:14.220 --> 13:15.220 also very careful with these terms according to our constitutional 13:15.220 --> 13:23.120 order and that you really try or that it is, so to speak, our attitude 13:23.120 --> 13:27.540 or the constitution with the means that we have in a democracy to try 13:27.540 --> 13:28.460 to solve such crises. 13:28.940 --> 13:32.780 Because we have a lot there, so we have many basic rights that help us 13:32.780 --> 13:33.740 to draw attention to problems. 13:34.400 --> 13:37.480 Freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, you can protest publicly, 13:37.880 --> 13:41.320 you can also confront politics with what it does or what it does not 13:41.320 --> 13:41.640 do. 13:41.960 --> 13:44.920 That means, it is not the case that democracy is powerless and that 13:44.920 --> 13:47.760 you now have to put everything out of power, so to speak, to determine 13:47.760 --> 13:48.140 from above. 13:49.400 --> 13:53.620 So from a legal perspective, great caution with the term emergency, 13:53.820 --> 13:56.020 from a historical perspective too. 13:56.480 --> 14:00.100 Ms. Jonsen, since I knew that we would meet here, of course, we have 14:00.100 --> 14:02.040 dealt even more intensively with the last generation. 14:02.520 --> 14:06.860 And if I understood everything correctly, then you mean the last 14:06.860 --> 14:10.740 generation again, so to speak, for all of us, that you say we are the 14:10.740 --> 14:12.040 last generation that can still do something. 14:12.460 --> 14:14.540 After that it is actually impossible to keep up. 14:15.220 --> 14:18.600 And basically you see it as an emergency. 14:19.020 --> 14:20.380 Do I understand that correctly? 14:20.520 --> 14:24.240 Do you say we have an emergency, a climate crisis, and almost every 14:24.240 --> 14:26.180 means is right to do something about it? 14:27.660 --> 14:31.100 I always find the term emergency to sound a bit cute. 14:31.500 --> 14:35.640 The title is also called emergency, question mark, implication for 14:35.640 --> 14:36.260 democracy. 14:36.960 --> 14:43.160 Emergency means that, for me, it means something like a crisis that we 14:43.160 --> 14:45.180 now have in front of us and that we can overcome somehow. 14:45.540 --> 14:46.320 And then everything is fine again. 14:46.480 --> 14:49.760 We have already had major social crises in society, in history. 14:50.380 --> 14:52.840 And there the society was able to recover again and again. 14:53.260 --> 14:59.520 Wars have wiped out hundreds of people, diseases have killed thousands 14:59.520 --> 15:00.460 of millions of people over several generations. 15:02.540 --> 15:05.300 And with the climate crisis, however, it is something where we have 15:05.300 --> 15:07.500 certain tipping points in the system that strengthen themselves at 15:07.500 --> 15:07.740 some point. 15:09.220 --> 15:12.340 And that's why we have this time-limited factor. 15:13.060 --> 15:17.480 And we still have the opportunity to move so far, to change direction, 15:17.960 --> 15:22.780 to change the policy so that by 2030 we completely get rid of the use 15:22.780 --> 15:23.800 of fossil fuels. 15:23.800 --> 15:24.460 This is necessary. 15:24.700 --> 15:28.560 This is not something I think is great or what we all want, but it is 15:28.560 --> 15:29.620 the necessary means. 15:29.960 --> 15:33.140 And that's why we're in a catastrophic situation here, not an 15:33.140 --> 15:35.400 emergency where we turn something a little and then everything is fine 15:35.400 --> 15:35.400 again. 15:35.500 --> 15:37.340 Then we can continue as before, but we really have to doubt this 15:37.340 --> 15:38.180 status quo. 15:39.760 --> 15:42.380 And that's why we're called the last generation before the tipping 15:42.380 --> 15:42.640 points. 15:43.140 --> 15:46.340 Because we are the last generation, all of us, so not just me and now 15:46.340 --> 15:49.040 the younger generation, but also you, all of you who are sitting here. 15:49.640 --> 15:54.880 Because we are the last to still steer this catastrophe into a path 15:54.880 --> 15:59.440 where we do not rush into such an uncontrolled time, where we can no 15:59.440 --> 16:00.940 longer preserve these democracies that we live in. 16:02.740 --> 16:09.120 And from this insight, Professor Seidel, can you say morally, 16:09.380 --> 16:12.660 ethically, that almost every means is allowed? 16:15.380 --> 16:20.360 No, I think you have to distinguish two questions in this context, 16:20.880 --> 16:21.580 actually three questions. 16:21.740 --> 16:24.560 The first question is, is this a suitable description of the status 16:24.560 --> 16:24.580 quo? 16:24.940 --> 16:28.140 And Ms. Jonsson has already indicated from the perspective of the last 16:28.140 --> 16:30.740 generation that this may not be the right term at all. 16:31.260 --> 16:34.580 I think what the term definitely implies is that there is a certain 16:34.580 --> 16:37.960 urgency, and that is also a concern that the last generation bears in 16:37.960 --> 16:41.980 the title, namely that a time window closes and the term of the 16:41.980 --> 16:46.120 emergency suggests that there is a special time pressure here. 16:46.800 --> 16:51.760 And this time pressure can lead to deviations that would be met 16:51.760 --> 16:56.420 differently under conditions under which this time pressure is not 16:56.420 --> 16:56.800 subject. 16:57.940 --> 17:03.660 We actually know this in the legal system by the exemption or 17:03.660 --> 17:05.200 restriction of certain fundamental rights. 17:05.460 --> 17:07.180 And this applies on a moral level, i.e. 17:07.240 --> 17:11.040 beyond a valid legal system, of course, in a similar way that one 17:11.040 --> 17:15.660 says, if there is an emergency and there is a special urgency to avert 17:15.660 --> 17:20.560 a moral catastrophe, then in any case other means are permissible than 17:20.560 --> 17:22.340 those that are necessary under non-emergency conditions. 17:23.640 --> 17:26.420 The question is of course still whether there is, i.e. 17:26.480 --> 17:28.660 there must be a principle of proportionality in the legal system. 17:28.860 --> 17:30.280 Of course, this is also the case in the moral area. 17:30.960 --> 17:34.860 So I have to ask, is the use of those means that we are now choosing 17:34.860 --> 17:40.440 to avert this emergency or catastrophe under time pressure, is that 17:40.440 --> 17:44.680 proportionate compared to what it costs and what it brings to us? 17:45.420 --> 17:47.740 And so the basic answer is yes. 17:47.900 --> 17:50.940 From a philosophical point of view, there are other types of weighing, 17:51.420 --> 17:55.740 other types of compromises that have to be made, that are painful or 17:55.740 --> 17:56.580 can be painful. 17:57.320 --> 18:00.420 But that doesn't mean that you can do everything and that everything 18:00.420 --> 18:00.800 is allowed. 18:01.340 --> 18:04.020 Simply because, of course, the implementation of certain means can be 18:04.020 --> 18:09.660 morally catastrophic in itself and the elevation of rule of law in the 18:09.660 --> 18:13.180 direction of authoritarian regimes or something like that would of 18:13.180 --> 18:16.840 course be a big evil, which, by the way, would also typically affect 18:16.840 --> 18:19.660 many generations, because it is not reversible from today to tomorrow. 18:20.380 --> 18:24.400 The crucial thing is, I think everyone of us sitting here wants the 18:24.400 --> 18:27.920 same thing, namely that we fight climate change as efficiently as 18:27.920 --> 18:27.920 possible. 18:29.840 --> 18:31.440 The question is how? 18:32.060 --> 18:39.080 You, Mr. Fuchs, have repeatedly published and shown ways for many 18:39.080 --> 18:43.700 years that, to my personal great amazement, find far too little 18:43.700 --> 18:44.340 resonance. 18:46.140 --> 18:47.280 How does that come about? 18:47.420 --> 18:50.680 How do you explain this and explain very briefly what your thesis is, 18:50.860 --> 18:51.640 how you would approach the subject? 18:54.020 --> 18:59.480 I would like to link again to this concept of emergency, so to speak, 18:59.800 --> 19:04.440 and reinforce the skepticism of Ms. Schwertfeger. 19:05.940 --> 19:16.740 Yes, it is evident that if climate change, the heating of the earth 19:16.740 --> 19:21.340 continues unbridled, that we are heading into catastrophic futures. 19:23.520 --> 19:29.680 And not only in the distant future, but at least the middle-aged in 19:29.680 --> 19:32.340 the room will probably still experience it. 19:33.420 --> 19:41.600 At the same time, this term is not only risky, but I also think it is 19:41.600 --> 19:48.400 misleading when you derive from it not only a restriction of 19:48.400 --> 19:52.180 fundamental rights, which you have now considered to be legitimate 19:52.180 --> 20:00.500 from an ethical perspective, but when you derive from this perspective 20:00.500 --> 20:08.660 of emergency that we now have to restrict rigidly. 20:08.660 --> 20:10.860 Yes, that's the answer. 20:11.100 --> 20:13.720 Yes, we have to drive everything back, we have to slow down. 20:13.880 --> 20:16.660 And that's a bit of what's going on in your action. 20:17.880 --> 20:20.120 No more flying, no more driving. 20:20.640 --> 20:23.040 That's basically a utopia of social stillness. 20:23.840 --> 20:26.180 That's a bit of an example of COVID. 20:27.140 --> 20:32.660 We have responded to the COVID crisis with a partial stillness of 20:32.660 --> 20:37.680 society, with restrictions on public life, mobility. 20:39.080 --> 20:41.480 But that is not the answer to climate change. 20:43.040 --> 20:46.800 Yes, we can perhaps reduce CO2 emissions by changing our behavior and 20:46.800 --> 20:52.340 by a certain extent by reflecting, say, 10, 20 percent of CO2 20:52.340 --> 20:53.880 emissions. 20:55.360 --> 21:03.340 But we live in a growing world, in a world population of now 8 to 10 21:03.340 --> 21:09.500 billion by the middle of the century, with billions of people who are 21:09.500 --> 21:12.920 striving for more material prosperity out of bitter poverty, who want 21:12.920 --> 21:14.120 to grow into the global middle class. 21:19.100 --> 21:26.300 That is, the answer to climate change is not restrictions, but the 21:26.300 --> 21:30.560 answer to climate change is a different way of production, a post 21:30.560 --> 21:32.200 -fossil way of production. 21:32.840 --> 21:39.400 Away from oil, gas, coal, to renewable energies, everything that is 21:39.400 --> 21:40.040 derived from them. 21:40.400 --> 21:45.720 A rapid increase in energy efficiency, resource efficiency, the 21:45.720 --> 21:51.800 reinvention of mobility, a radical transformation of industrial 21:51.800 --> 21:52.540 society. 21:52.680 --> 21:54.280 And that is above all innovation. 21:57.080 --> 22:05.120 So the idea that we respond to the emergency with restrictions is not 22:05.120 --> 22:09.380 only politically dangerous, because that is a slippery slope in an 22:09.380 --> 22:16.000 authoritarian, ecological emergency government, but it is also 22:16.000 --> 22:16.780 misleading in the matter. 22:18.560 --> 22:25.020 We need a breakthrough into a green industrial society, into an 22:25.020 --> 22:26.340 ecological modern society. 22:27.040 --> 22:28.840 That is actually the core of the dispute. 22:30.820 --> 22:33.740 A climate researcher recently said that it is not about dismantling 22:33.740 --> 22:36.860 anything, but about rebuilding everything. 22:39.040 --> 22:44.740 You call on science very strongly in everything you do and say, listen 22:44.740 --> 22:47.140 to science, follow the science. 22:48.480 --> 22:51.400 Yes, I would agree with a lot of what you said. 22:52.260 --> 22:53.960 I don't see it very differently. 22:54.640 --> 22:59.400 We have to rebuild, but we also have to save money. 22:59.660 --> 23:02.160 And there are simple measures. 23:02.660 --> 23:04.240 You are now saying that we need innovation. 23:04.380 --> 23:06.380 There is the innovation that we need now. 23:07.240 --> 23:10.140 It is also not a failure that people are not willing to learn. 23:10.320 --> 23:11.940 Politics can also entrust something to society. 23:12.420 --> 23:13.600 Many people are ready. 23:13.900 --> 23:15.280 Many people want more climate protection. 23:15.520 --> 23:17.800 Sure, you have to look at what that means in concrete terms. 23:18.400 --> 23:19.080 How do we get out of it? 23:19.280 --> 23:21.420 But in the end it fails in implementation. 23:21.800 --> 23:24.160 And if you are just talking about the emergency and that everything 23:24.160 --> 23:27.820 has to change radically quickly now, then it sounds like we only know 23:27.820 --> 23:32.940 since yesterday how bad it is for us and that we now have to change 23:32.940 --> 23:35.120 something and have to make a radical turnaround. 23:35.740 --> 23:38.220 And that has been known to us for 50, 30 years. 23:38.800 --> 23:40.220 That's why the disaster. 23:40.300 --> 23:42.340 It's not an emergency that has been around since yesterday and now we 23:42.340 --> 23:43.500 have to change everything quickly. 23:43.720 --> 23:44.260 How do we do that? 23:46.020 --> 23:47.160 I just wanted to address that in this case. 23:48.120 --> 23:52.120 And on the whole, it just needs this political framework in which we 23:52.120 --> 23:56.080 can move so that the population has alternatives, so that it can also 23:56.080 --> 23:57.640 open up, can break up. 23:58.460 --> 24:00.740 But it needs this political framework to implement it. 24:01.600 --> 24:06.940 And that's why we as a society expect, the last generation of politics 24:06.940 --> 24:11.820 expect, if it doesn't manage to make its own plan, how we can get out 24:11.820 --> 24:16.040 of the fossil fuels by 2030, as Olaf Scholz guessed, as his own expert 24:16.040 --> 24:16.780 council did. 24:17.880 --> 24:21.040 But Olaf Scholz stands there and says, no, I don't think so, I think 24:21.040 --> 24:22.480 we can do it by 2045. 24:22.640 --> 24:25.420 He contradicts his own expert council, he contradicts all the climate 24:25.420 --> 24:28.500 scientists who stand there and know no other way to help than to ring 24:28.500 --> 24:31.320 the alarm bells and say, we have to move now. 24:31.440 --> 24:34.320 But if it fails in implementation in the end, we expect from the 24:34.320 --> 24:36.620 federal government that it will then seek help from society. 24:37.500 --> 24:41.520 And that's why we proposed the Council of Society, based on the 24:41.520 --> 24:45.040 principle of civil council, a super democratic means to give democracy 24:45.040 --> 24:49.860 momentum again, to take the population with it, to bring all the 24:49.860 --> 24:53.580 political camps that have just formed together at one table, to bring 24:53.580 --> 24:56.980 mutual understanding and to think about, okay, what is a concrete 24:56.980 --> 24:58.720 plan, how do we manage to get out of it? 24:58.720 --> 25:01.260 But look at the election results. 25:02.580 --> 25:06.840 If the majority of the population were on your side, then you would 25:06.840 --> 25:08.520 have to at least vote for the Greens. 25:08.900 --> 25:11.360 But the Greens have lost massively in the last two state elections. 25:12.500 --> 25:16.760 The AfD now has a majority in the West, like it has in the East. 25:19.780 --> 25:22.300 Do you think that if you have a civil council? 25:23.960 --> 25:28.280 I read that and thought, well, great, then nothing will advance at 25:28.280 --> 25:31.040 all, because the majority will not do anything. 25:32.020 --> 25:36.840 It is also due to the way in which politics is communicated to 25:36.840 --> 25:37.260 society. 25:38.380 --> 25:42.740 And the way it is going now, no one ever stands up and says, okay, we 25:42.740 --> 25:46.820 have a disaster here, we have overslept, but we will now put 25:46.820 --> 25:49.480 everything in motion and we will show you that too, we will prove it 25:49.480 --> 25:55.700 to you, to introduce measures now, how we can save as a society as a 25:55.700 --> 25:55.700 whole. 25:56.580 --> 26:01.800 You get support and alternatives are offered, but it is not 26:01.800 --> 26:02.260 communicated honestly. 26:02.900 --> 26:04.660 I think you have to be careful about that. 26:04.680 --> 26:06.980 What is the reason for this political stalemate? 26:07.180 --> 26:10.140 And we had the Greens in the government, but they had a lot of leeway, 26:10.460 --> 26:12.160 were squandered by the FDP. 26:13.040 --> 26:17.300 And you can see that it is a very big communicative problem that we 26:17.300 --> 26:20.540 have and that it is not communicated honestly and is not even 26:20.540 --> 26:24.580 described in detail, because politicians often do not dare to really 26:24.580 --> 26:27.840 mention it in words, what it actually means, because of course they 26:27.840 --> 26:28.920 are afraid to lose voters' votes. 26:29.820 --> 26:33.660 And they always like to take the path of the least resistance in order 26:33.660 --> 26:35.340 not to lose any voters as much as possible. 26:36.240 --> 26:40.320 And that is a big problem, but I still have faith that people actually 26:40.320 --> 26:42.220 all want the same thing, that everyone actually understands that we 26:42.220 --> 26:43.160 are all in the same boat. 26:43.260 --> 26:46.780 And if you let them discuss it with each other and also let different 26:46.780 --> 26:51.860 groups of the population meet in a council of society, then mutual 26:51.860 --> 26:52.900 understanding can be developed. 26:52.900 --> 26:57.480 And, as in other examples, very progressive measures can be taken. 26:57.860 --> 26:58.880 It's nice when it works. 26:59.280 --> 27:01.880 I don't know how you feel in my circle of acquaintances, when we sit 27:01.880 --> 27:05.620 down for dinner in the evening and then the opinions clash with each 27:05.620 --> 27:06.580 other on no topic. 27:07.260 --> 27:09.640 There is as much shouting as there is climate policy. 27:10.260 --> 27:16.640 That is highly emotional and there is so much hate and anger on you, 27:17.280 --> 27:19.220 on Fridays for Future, on the Greens. 27:19.220 --> 27:20.800 That's incredible. 27:21.620 --> 27:25.420 In bourgeois parts of the population, where you think, what's wrong 27:25.420 --> 27:25.800 with you? 27:26.820 --> 27:28.820 So that's highly emotional. 27:29.180 --> 27:33.120 And then the question is again morally ethical, because they argue 27:33.120 --> 27:34.400 with restrictions. 27:36.500 --> 27:39.800 I also know that from future researchers, climate researchers, 27:40.020 --> 27:43.180 mobility researchers, who say we have to ban, we have to do this and 27:43.180 --> 27:46.560 two long-distance trips per life are probably enough with the plane 27:46.560 --> 27:47.220 and so on. 27:47.260 --> 27:48.960 This is not a climate dictatorship. 27:49.500 --> 27:51.620 Is that morally and ethically justified? 27:52.060 --> 27:56.440 Or shouldn't we actually say, rebuild, yes, but ban, ban, ban? 27:56.700 --> 27:57.740 No, Mr. Seide. 27:58.880 --> 28:04.960 I think the discussion right now is a lot about honest communication. 28:05.240 --> 28:06.060 And what is it, so to speak? 28:06.760 --> 28:08.400 What does it mean to give someone a glass of wine? 28:08.880 --> 28:11.700 And what is the correct strategy, so to speak? 28:11.700 --> 28:18.220 And I think we're underestimating a little bit the task of 28:18.220 --> 28:19.840 transformation that lies ahead of us. 28:20.500 --> 28:23.480 And I think I'm a little different from Mr. Füchs. 28:23.700 --> 28:28.960 So if you look at the situation under the perspective of justice, then 28:28.960 --> 28:33.960 the average per capita emissions per household of a single German 28:33.960 --> 28:37.600 person is usually around 9 to 10 tons of CO2 per year per capita. 28:38.400 --> 28:42.580 And what would be under climate-ethical points of view, so to speak, 28:43.170 --> 28:47.480 would be something like the order of magnitude of one ton of CO2 per 28:47.480 --> 28:48.100 year per capita. 28:50.120 --> 28:51.340 That's not particularly much. 28:51.600 --> 28:55.400 So that's about 12,000 kilometers with an average German car from 28:55.400 --> 28:56.000 Baden -Württemberg. 28:58.100 --> 28:59.500 And then you can't emit anything else. 29:01.480 --> 29:03.200 And if you now... 29:03.900 --> 29:06.820 So I wonder where the optimism comes from. 29:07.300 --> 29:10.100 To say innovation, technical innovation will guide it. 29:10.260 --> 29:13.060 Because purely empirically, I think we see... 29:13.660 --> 29:16.260 So we already had the three-liter car 50 years ago. 29:17.160 --> 29:18.420 It was technically feasible. 29:18.620 --> 29:21.160 What happened is the typical rebound effect. 29:21.640 --> 29:24.220 The efficiency gains flowed in different directions. 29:25.100 --> 29:26.900 And the cars got heavier, bigger. 29:27.500 --> 29:29.160 The mobility behavior has changed. 29:29.320 --> 29:32.480 No one would have come up with the idea 50 years ago to drive a car to 29:32.480 --> 29:32.680 the bakery. 29:33.560 --> 29:34.500 It all changed. 29:35.940 --> 29:39.300 And in that respect, I wonder if this idea, we rely purely on 29:39.300 --> 29:45.060 technical innovation, is really, so to speak, the promising strategy. 29:45.520 --> 29:49.080 Or whether we don't give in to pure wine actually means, as Ms. 29:49.100 --> 29:52.180 Jonssen said, to stand up and say, this is going to be hard. 29:52.940 --> 29:54.740 But there may also be something good about it. 29:55.320 --> 29:58.160 There is something like, at least in philosophy, the ideal of 29:58.160 --> 29:58.620 satisfaction. 29:59.280 --> 30:02.040 And that a good life also consists of not always striving for higher 30:02.040 --> 30:03.680 and more, but to be satisfied. 30:04.140 --> 30:11.340 And you don't have to talk about giving up, but to present it 30:11.340 --> 30:15.980 positively as a gain that you have by limiting yourself to the 30:15.980 --> 30:16.260 essential. 30:16.800 --> 30:18.280 And that is the ideal of giving up. 30:18.720 --> 30:21.360 And there are people, and there were people, who have positioned 30:21.360 --> 30:23.340 themselves politically and have preached that. 30:23.460 --> 30:25.840 That requires a certain amount of courage, so to speak. 30:27.140 --> 30:29.020 My favorite philosopher is John Stuart Mill. 30:29.400 --> 30:32.980 He was not only a philosopher in the 19th century, but also a public 30:32.980 --> 30:38.860 publicist and was a member of the British Parliament for a while. 30:39.740 --> 30:43.000 And he has been vehemently and progressively for his time at the time 30:43.000 --> 30:43.900 for the women's right to vote. 30:46.260 --> 30:49.520 And then he has always said that he knows that he will not be re 30:49.520 --> 30:51.060 -elected if he intervenes. 30:51.660 --> 30:55.700 But he was also the target of public criticism and so on. 30:55.760 --> 30:56.900 And he was not re-elected either. 30:57.420 --> 31:01.900 But for four years, in a legislative period, he was so long, so to 31:01.900 --> 31:05.380 speak, parliamentary, that in any case, not immediately afterwards, 31:05.500 --> 31:06.780 but in the aftermath, no one came by. 31:07.640 --> 31:11.200 And so it was on the agenda as a political issue, also at the expense 31:11.200 --> 31:12.280 of personal preference. 31:12.620 --> 31:15.120 He just couldn't go on as a politician. 31:15.300 --> 31:21.760 And I think this kind of politician, if we had them, then what Ms. 31:21.800 --> 31:25.000 Johnson has proposed could then become a reality. 31:25.300 --> 31:27.440 That someone stands up and says, we're doing it now, even if that 31:27.440 --> 31:29.140 means that we'll be shot at the next election. 31:29.140 --> 31:32.580 But maybe we're putting the turntables in the right direction, behind 31:32.580 --> 31:33.900 which you might not be able to go back so easily. 31:34.380 --> 31:40.120 But of course you have to ask again about contentment. 31:40.580 --> 31:41.540 You have to be able to afford it. 31:43.220 --> 31:44.100 You have to be able to afford it. 31:44.500 --> 31:49.180 In an oversaturated German society, you can be content and preach 31:49.180 --> 31:49.960 contentment. 31:50.760 --> 31:53.200 In the rest of the world, it won't work very well. 31:53.840 --> 31:57.360 And you always have to keep in mind that if we set up the breathing in 31:57.360 --> 32:02.380 Europe and any other CO2 production, then we won't even have caught up 32:02.380 --> 32:03.300 with China's annual growth. 32:05.860 --> 32:09.420 That means we have to get the whole world to do it. 32:09.640 --> 32:13.560 And if we tell them, you're content and drive our economy down and 32:13.560 --> 32:17.600 drive everything down, I could imagine that the world would say, no, 32:17.680 --> 32:18.420 we're not doing that at all. 32:18.880 --> 32:21.420 The one that's just starting to consume. 32:22.240 --> 32:22.840 Mr. Fuchs. 32:23.860 --> 32:25.580 You've already taken a lot of answers. 32:25.580 --> 32:30.400 I mean, where do we get into? 32:30.440 --> 32:32.580 Maybe the concept of emerging. 32:33.780 --> 32:41.240 We can only get so far out of fossil fuels as we can get into an 32:41.240 --> 32:45.040 alternative energy and production system. 32:46.060 --> 32:54.080 The work of art is a highly complex industrial society that has an 32:54.080 --> 32:55.260 infinite number of obstacles. 32:55.260 --> 33:00.540 Among other things, the social state and the whole educational and 33:00.540 --> 33:03.260 scientific system and the health system. 33:03.920 --> 33:07.980 To convert it into a running operation without it becoming a major 33:07.980 --> 33:13.060 break -in and a disruptive crisis. 33:13.920 --> 33:19.560 Not just because we otherwise lose the majority of society for sure, 33:21.120 --> 33:28.080 but because economic transformation actually requires more economic 33:28.080 --> 33:29.640 dynamics and not less. 33:31.000 --> 33:34.660 This is a huge investment process. 33:34.940 --> 33:38.220 The conversion of the entire industrial production apparatus. 33:39.300 --> 33:41.340 The conversion of our traffic system. 33:41.600 --> 33:42.880 The conversion of our cities. 33:44.340 --> 33:47.540 This requires large-scale investment. 33:48.020 --> 33:54.940 And in a shrinking economy, investments and innovation are also 33:54.940 --> 33:55.160 shrinking. 33:56.080 --> 33:57.520 Second point. 33:58.640 --> 34:06.820 If we had to reduce the average to around one ton of CO2 per capita 34:06.820 --> 34:11.580 per year, to make it globally sustainable, i.e. 34:11.600 --> 34:16.020 the ability to absorb natural lows, would then enable climate 34:16.020 --> 34:16.880 neutrality. 34:17.920 --> 34:21.840 And we are now in Germany at around 8.5. 34:22.520 --> 34:25.240 In China, by the way, we are already at 7.5. 34:27.700 --> 34:34.220 Do we then reduce this by reducing our consumption, our mobility, our 34:34.220 --> 34:36.540 standard of living by a factor of eight? 34:38.280 --> 34:40.760 I mean, what kind of utopia is that? 34:41.720 --> 34:43.340 Who do you want to win for that? 34:46.080 --> 34:53.080 The alternative is that we radically decarbonize our way of production 34:53.080 --> 34:56.140 and our consumption. 34:59.300 --> 35:03.320 I'll take the example of flying, because that's so controversial. 35:04.580 --> 35:07.760 We live in a globalized world. 35:08.360 --> 35:10.640 Economy is internationally affluent. 35:10.880 --> 35:13.340 Science is internationally global. 35:14.780 --> 35:15.480 Tourism. 35:16.280 --> 35:19.420 Even families are increasingly internationalized. 35:20.300 --> 35:23.100 My two daughters, for example, are not married to Germans. 35:25.800 --> 35:29.440 Migration also means, of course, an increasing number of flights. 35:30.320 --> 35:33.980 That means the idea that we could reduce the climate impact of flying 35:33.980 --> 35:38.620 by abolishing flying is completely unrealistic. 35:38.620 --> 35:43.960 If you look at the growth rates in air traffic in Asia, Latin America 35:43.960 --> 35:47.920 and the Middle East, what is the answer? 35:48.060 --> 35:50.060 We have to make flying climate-neutral. 35:50.720 --> 35:53.060 And that's not a fata morgana. 35:53.620 --> 35:56.700 We basically know how to do it. 35:57.520 --> 36:04.720 With climate-neutral fuels, with hydrogen planes, with optimized 36:04.720 --> 36:09.480 flight control, with the formation of clouds, of condensed streaks. 36:09.800 --> 36:12.740 We basically know how to do it scientifically. 36:13.640 --> 36:17.520 But this is a process that takes time. 36:18.360 --> 36:23.380 The transformation of a highly complex industrial society takes time. 36:23.840 --> 36:27.940 Sophistication is an enemy of ecological transformation. 36:28.740 --> 36:33.540 We have to accelerate this as much as possible, but in such a way that 36:33.540 --> 36:35.960 the transformation in the current industry succeeds. 36:36.540 --> 36:41.240 That is the big challenge and it will take 20-30 years. 36:41.700 --> 36:45.020 And only that is a model that is connectable to the world. 36:46.640 --> 36:48.420 No one in the world is interested in a self-sufficient shrinking 36:48.420 --> 36:49.100 Germany. 36:53.560 --> 36:55.360 Ms. Jonsson and then Ms. Schwertfeger. 36:57.400 --> 36:59.440 Okay, I don't even know where to start. 36:59.440 --> 37:01.380 You sound like you're coming from the FDP. 37:02.780 --> 37:05.260 I just wanted to say because you've been talking about flying. 37:07.380 --> 37:10.160 Investment in climate protection, yes, that costs money. 37:10.900 --> 37:15.140 But if you compare it to all the consequences caused by climate 37:15.140 --> 37:19.380 disasters, it costs us millions of billions more. 37:19.840 --> 37:22.880 So we have to see how long-term we want to think. 37:23.280 --> 37:24.080 We have to invest. 37:24.440 --> 37:26.040 Exactly, we have to invest. 37:26.040 --> 37:30.500 And we have to earn the investment in the current operation of the 37:30.500 --> 37:31.100 people's economy. 37:31.780 --> 37:37.720 Now the federal government subsidizes fossil fuels in large 37:37.720 --> 37:37.740 quantities. 37:38.020 --> 37:44.140 In 2021, it was 121 billion euros that simply flowed into fossil fuels 37:44.820 --> 37:46.520 and fossil infrastructures. 37:46.580 --> 37:48.680 And that's a good example of what you said about flying. 37:49.400 --> 37:54.320 Namely, if we normally refuel our car here at home, then we all pay a 37:54.320 --> 37:55.360 tax on our gasoline. 37:56.280 --> 37:58.120 If someone now has a private jet, they don't have to pay a tax on 37:58.120 --> 37:58.620 kerosene. 37:59.740 --> 38:00.480 They are then exempt from taxes. 38:01.100 --> 38:05.540 So the air traffic is also subsidized so that flying is still nice and 38:05.540 --> 38:07.160 cheap so that people can continue to fly. 38:07.640 --> 38:12.860 Now you can see where to subsidize or maybe create a social balance. 38:13.640 --> 38:17.720 I don't want to say I want to ban cars and I want to ban flying. 38:18.240 --> 38:20.320 But that's why I'm coming back to this council of society. 38:20.640 --> 38:24.560 Because if 99 people suddenly sit there who mostly live on the 38:24.560 --> 38:27.520 countryside and need their car to go to the city to be able to go to 38:27.520 --> 38:33.040 work and then there is one who has a jet and he consumes 35 times more 38:33.040 --> 38:35.340 energy than one person in his whole life. 38:35.420 --> 38:37.900 Then you can think about it and think about it together. 38:38.020 --> 38:41.760 Okay, sorry, but we have to make cuts here so that all other people 38:41.760 --> 38:42.800 can still maybe keep their car. 38:43.360 --> 38:47.520 But then you also have to see who we are talking to where we subsidize 38:47.520 --> 38:50.700 and that's where it's going politically in the wrong direction. 38:50.980 --> 38:54.800 And that's exactly what I wanted to point out where we should invest 38:54.800 --> 39:02.740 because we know where we should go but we don't do it because fossil 39:02.740 --> 39:07.960 lobby interests have more weight in political decisions than society 39:07.960 --> 39:08.240 as a whole. 39:08.980 --> 39:13.140 I'll come back to that in a moment. 39:13.140 --> 39:17.540 which you as the last generation propagate as the next goals. 39:18.060 --> 39:20.640 Because I don't understand some of it because it is clear that we have 39:20.640 --> 39:24.420 70 billion in Germany per year climate-damaging subsidies. 39:25.700 --> 39:28.500 You are completely right that a lot is going wrong there. 39:29.080 --> 39:32.920 But I don't understand why you don't take a more massive approach to 39:32.920 --> 39:33.840 get it into your heads at all. 39:34.300 --> 39:35.960 But first of all, Ms. Schwertfeger, I have seen that you have written 39:35.960 --> 39:36.840 a lot. 39:38.620 --> 39:42.320 And I would like to add one more thing and ask if the judgment of the 39:42.320 --> 39:46.460 Federal Constitutional Court two and a half years ago actually had any 39:46.460 --> 39:47.320 effect? 39:47.560 --> 39:52.040 Because there are now again and again complaints where people say you 39:52.040 --> 39:54.020 have caused damage and you have to stand up for it. 39:55.020 --> 39:59.760 Yes, so maybe first briefly to what we heard before. 39:59.760 --> 40:02.220 I think this is now very much represented as the opposite. 40:02.980 --> 40:05.000 Once somehow contentment and once transformation. 40:05.260 --> 40:08.560 As a lawyer, I would say that the golden way is usually in the middle. 40:08.780 --> 40:11.600 So I think you have to look that you combine it accordingly. 40:12.760 --> 40:13.200 Yes, 40:16.400 --> 40:18.120 the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court. 40:18.580 --> 40:20.640 I actually thought of them in the last few minutes. 40:21.580 --> 40:24.140 Because especially these transformation processes that we have 40:24.140 --> 40:29.620 addressed actually play a decisive role So it's always a bit difficult 40:29.620 --> 40:31.320 to explain the decision in a few minutes. 40:31.860 --> 40:34.580 But if you give me the opportunity, I'll be happy to do it. 40:35.420 --> 40:39.400 So maybe first to what the Federal Constitutional Court did not say. 40:39.620 --> 40:49.660 The Federal Constitutional Court has not decided that there is a right 40:49.660 --> 40:51.180 to climate protection of the individual. 40:51.860 --> 40:56.920 That was not decided, even if it was often represented accordingly. 40:57.740 --> 41:01.100 So there is no right of the individual to climate protection. 41:01.420 --> 41:04.540 The Federal Constitutional Court has left the question open whether 41:04.540 --> 41:06.160 there is an ecological minimum of existence. 41:06.840 --> 41:10.040 It has dealt with this, but it has said that I leave it open here that 41:10.040 --> 41:11.280 it is not to be decided in this process. 41:12.100 --> 41:13.060 So that's the first point. 41:13.060 --> 41:17.000 The second point is that it's not about the ... 41:17.000 --> 41:19.340 So there was a procedure in front of the Federal Constitutional Court 41:19.340 --> 41:21.840 where complainants made a violation of their fundamental rights. 41:22.420 --> 41:25.340 And that's a very important difference in the legal system. 41:25.460 --> 41:28.120 We have an objective right that the state must adhere to. 41:28.820 --> 41:30.440 But that doesn't mean that you can sue it. 41:31.220 --> 41:33.960 You can only sue things that you have a right to. 41:33.960 --> 41:36.520 And here in this case it was about fundamental rights. 41:37.800 --> 41:40.580 The Federal Constitutional Court has also dealt with the question what 41:40.580 --> 41:46.540 are the consequences that we feel in our fundamental rights due to 41:46.540 --> 41:47.300 climate change? 41:47.400 --> 41:51.120 How is it, for example, that people are affected in their health 41:51.860 --> 41:54.320 because they are sick and because the heat waves come? 41:54.380 --> 41:58.060 How is it with property, when we have forest fires, when we have 41:58.060 --> 41:59.320 flooding and so on? 41:59.320 --> 42:04.440 In this case, it was other complainants who complained in other 42:04.440 --> 42:05.060 constellations. 42:05.700 --> 42:10.440 For example, that the harvest of the farming family was endangered. 42:11.980 --> 42:14.620 This point wasn't the one that led to the complaints. 42:16.220 --> 42:19.540 The Federal Constitutional Court has decided that the fundamental 42:19.540 --> 42:22.860 rights also include protections for the state. 42:23.500 --> 42:26.320 That the state, when fundamental rights are endangered, has to 42:26.320 --> 42:28.920 intervene to protect the individuals. 42:29.000 --> 42:32.400 But in this respect the state has an extreme leeway. 42:32.960 --> 42:35.100 And the Federal Constitutional Court has said that you cannot accuse 42:35.100 --> 42:38.500 the state of doing nothing and there is a great leeway. 42:39.100 --> 42:43.040 And this is still within the framework of what the state can do. 42:43.400 --> 42:47.880 So these protections, what is always closest to us, the immediate 42:47.880 --> 42:50.900 consequences of climate change for our health, for our property, 42:51.260 --> 42:55.500 wasn't the reason why the case was successful. 42:55.740 --> 42:56.940 What led to the success? 42:57.300 --> 42:59.380 And this is where I come to the transformation processes. 43:01.020 --> 43:04.600 The Federal Constitutional Court has focused heavily on scientific 43:04.600 --> 43:05.500 findings. 43:06.760 --> 43:12.100 So it didn't do science itself, but it took data that exist. 43:12.380 --> 43:14.620 It consulted the reports of the World Climate Council. 43:15.380 --> 43:17.620 It consulted reports of the Council of Environment. 43:18.100 --> 43:22.980 And it said that the starting point is the 1.5 to 2 degree goal that 43:22.980 --> 43:25.300 we have in the Paris Agreement on Climate Protection, where Germany 43:25.300 --> 43:26.140 has committed itself to it. 43:26.780 --> 43:31.560 And it also read into our Constitution in Article 20a, where there is 43:31.560 --> 43:34.520 protection of natural habitats as a concretization. 43:34.620 --> 43:37.000 That means we have to reach this 1.5 to 2 degree goal. 43:38.300 --> 43:43.100 And in science, this 1.5 to 2 degree goal has been converted into a 43:43.100 --> 43:47.080 global CO2 budget that we still have in the world, that we can still 43:47.080 --> 43:49.640 use so that the temperature doesn't rise further. 43:50.860 --> 43:53.940 And this global CO2 budget has been converted into Germany by the 43:53.940 --> 43:55.180 Council of Environment. 43:58.160 --> 44:03.100 That means the Federal Constitutional Court had a German residual CO2 44:03.100 --> 44:03.460 budget. 44:04.380 --> 44:08.180 And the argument of the Federal Constitutional Court was that on the 44:08.180 --> 44:14.220 basis of the current Climate Protection Act, if you look at what the 44:14.220 --> 44:19.980 targets are and what is intended, the law only had plans and 44:19.980 --> 44:25.040 perspectives until 2030, that if more does not happen and that was the 44:25.040 --> 44:27.960 starting situation, the Federal Constitutional Court had to judge that 44:27.960 --> 44:34.160 if we only have this law and nothing else happens, then, according to 44:34.160 --> 44:41.560 the argument, until 2030, this CO2 budget, this German one, even with 44:41.560 --> 44:44.740 the most optimistic calculations, is almost completely exhausted. 44:45.080 --> 44:46.780 And what does that mean in the consequence? 44:46.980 --> 44:55.280 That means that if you don't introduce transformation processes what 44:55.280 --> 44:58.260 the legislator has to do is to create incentives that, for example, 44:58.360 --> 45:01.480 transform the automotive industry and so on. 45:01.780 --> 45:02.680 But that was not intended. 45:03.220 --> 45:07.760 If that is not the case, then this CO2 budget would be exhausted and 45:07.760 --> 45:09.740 then a so-called full braking from one day to the next. 45:11.940 --> 45:17.200 That means then you would have to ban everything that has to do with 45:17.200 --> 45:18.680 CO2. 45:18.680 --> 45:20.820 And that's pretty much everything. 45:21.460 --> 45:23.680 So not just mobility, but also food and so on. 45:24.100 --> 45:29.860 And this full braking that you would have produced by doing too little 45:30.520 --> 45:36.860 would have, already today, led to such extreme basic legal 45:36.860 --> 45:40.700 interventions in 2030 that the Federal Constitutional Court said that 45:40.700 --> 45:43.820 this is too much, this is unacceptable, the principle of 45:43.820 --> 45:47.500 proportionality, these are disproportionate restrictions and that's 45:47.500 --> 45:51.640 why you hurt with this insufficient preparation of the transformation 45:51.640 --> 45:56.020 processes today the basic rights where the injury only occurs in 2030. 45:56.940 --> 46:02.480 So a very intelligent or also very thought-out, but I think if you 46:02.480 --> 46:07.140 explain it, very logical consequence, but not about what we actually 46:07.140 --> 46:09.460 think, protection against the consequences of the climate, but 46:09.460 --> 46:12.680 protection against the serious climate protection measures. 46:13.000 --> 46:15.540 That was the argument of the Federal Constitutional Court. 46:15.540 --> 46:18.100 That means legally it doesn't really help for those who want to 46:18.100 --> 46:18.360 complain. 46:19.360 --> 46:20.300 I wouldn't say that. 46:21.900 --> 46:26.500 So immediately, in fact, immediately this construction is different 46:26.500 --> 46:29.600 than that we could say now, we turn it around one-to-one. 46:30.020 --> 46:32.720 I believe that the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court has 46:32.720 --> 46:34.180 had a lot of impact beyond that. 46:34.760 --> 46:37.960 So once, as far as the protections are concerned, which I briefly 46:37.960 --> 46:39.040 mentioned, i.e. 46:39.040 --> 46:41.520 our basic rights that also protect that we are affected by the 46:41.520 --> 46:42.280 consequences of climate change. 46:43.760 --> 46:46.520 The Federal Constitutional Court did not deny that this does not 46:46.520 --> 46:46.880 exist. 46:47.000 --> 46:49.280 It just said, the border is not yet crossed. 46:49.500 --> 46:54.240 But it said, in any case, environmental impacts, climate change 46:54.240 --> 46:58.180 consequences, can injure this basic right or force the state to do 46:58.180 --> 46:58.520 something about it. 46:59.160 --> 47:04.140 That is, it said, the border is not yet crossed, but that can happen 47:04.140 --> 47:04.580 in the future. 47:05.080 --> 47:07.740 So that means this path has not been cut off, only it was not in the 47:07.740 --> 47:08.080 concrete. 47:08.080 --> 47:12.620 And so an important thing that also contributes to individual 47:12.620 --> 47:16.320 decisions on the administrative level, when it comes to approval 47:16.320 --> 47:19.740 procedures or all the individual decisions that also contribute to 47:19.740 --> 47:22.380 more or less emitting, installation approval. 47:23.740 --> 47:29.840 For all of them, you can draw an important point which I believe will 47:29.840 --> 47:32.060 immediately illuminate us all, but which the Federal Constitutional 47:32.060 --> 47:33.580 Court has made explicit again. 47:33.820 --> 47:39.760 Namely, that with the progress of climate change, climate protection 47:39.760 --> 47:40.980 is gaining more and more weight. 47:41.860 --> 47:44.140 And that is something, as I said, that illuminates us all. 47:44.600 --> 47:47.640 The further the climate change progresses, the more important it is to 47:47.640 --> 47:48.040 protect the climate. 47:48.260 --> 47:51.680 But it is in the law that we always have to make sure that we bring 47:51.680 --> 47:52.900 interests together. 47:53.500 --> 47:57.120 And of course it is essential that you can always say, yes, but on the 47:57.120 --> 47:59.480 scale of climate protection, the weight is getting heavier and 47:59.480 --> 47:59.620 heavier. 47:59.740 --> 48:03.760 That's why there have to be other strong weights on the other side. 48:03.980 --> 48:08.000 In this respect, it has definitely had an effect, but it is usually 48:08.000 --> 48:09.560 not as it sometimes could be. 48:09.580 --> 48:14.520 So I read it politically, primarily as a challenge to politics. 48:14.980 --> 48:17.160 Finally do something, otherwise you'll get real problems. 48:17.640 --> 48:18.620 Yes, that's the way it is. 48:19.160 --> 48:19.800 So I would support that. 48:21.160 --> 48:22.440 Mr. Seidel, then Mr. Fuchs. 48:23.400 --> 48:24.940 Yes, maybe if I can take up the question now. 48:24.940 --> 48:30.900 I think it was wonderfully represented by Ms. Schwertfeger, a point 48:30.900 --> 48:33.780 that was also important to me, namely that the argumentation of the 48:33.780 --> 48:37.320 Constitutional Court is very interesting in the argumentation figure 48:37.320 --> 48:40.960 because it actually takes the aspect of intergenerational justice 48:40.960 --> 48:42.980 seriously, namely the distribution of freedoms. 48:45.000 --> 48:49.060 But I also think that in this context you have to point out that there 48:49.060 --> 48:50.000 is another perspective. 48:50.400 --> 48:53.060 And I think that's something that is very important for the last 48:53.060 --> 48:54.180 generation. 48:55.860 --> 49:01.820 This whole argumentation is always limited in our legal framework by 49:01.820 --> 49:07.220 the fact that only those who currently live can be bearers of 49:07.220 --> 49:07.940 fundamental rights. 49:08.560 --> 49:14.120 This means that the whole argumentation comes to the limit when it 49:14.120 --> 49:15.320 comes to people who are not yet alive. 49:16.520 --> 49:20.620 So future children who will live at some point and in any case will 49:20.620 --> 49:23.180 also be affected cannot be taken into account in the argumentation. 49:24.340 --> 49:27.300 Of course, in the legal framework they play a role from an ethical and 49:27.300 --> 49:27.980 moral point of view. 49:29.780 --> 49:36.900 And that is, with regard to the transformation task, I think a new, 49:37.100 --> 49:39.020 somewhat temporary, new realization. 49:39.200 --> 49:43.100 At some point in the course of history we learned that many people 49:43.100 --> 49:47.340 were convinced that the skin color or the gender of a person makes a 49:47.340 --> 49:48.600 morally relevant difference. 49:49.420 --> 49:52.640 Many people believed that it was justified to treat people of 49:52.640 --> 49:56.420 different skin colors and people of different genders differently. 49:57.120 --> 50:00.900 We have learned at least that this is not a well-founded conviction. 50:01.340 --> 50:04.520 It has not taken place everywhere in practice, but we also learn other 50:04.520 --> 50:04.720 things. 50:04.820 --> 50:08.600 We learn, for example, that the fact of where someone was born is not 50:08.600 --> 50:09.360 so morally relevant. 50:09.360 --> 50:13.660 It then costs us a lot of effort to recognize that in relation to the 50:13.660 --> 50:16.280 question whether it actually means that you can live in every country 50:16.280 --> 50:16.820 in the world. 50:18.280 --> 50:19.560 Morally, probably. 50:19.820 --> 50:23.900 And now we may also learn that the fact of when someone was born does 50:23.900 --> 50:25.160 not make a morally relevant difference. 50:25.880 --> 50:29.960 Someone who was born in 100 years whose interests are now also to be 50:29.960 --> 50:30.900 taken into account from a moral point of view. 50:31.880 --> 50:33.280 But what are his interests? 50:33.480 --> 50:34.520 Who defines them? 50:34.520 --> 50:35.300 Exactly. 50:35.440 --> 50:37.100 The question is, what are these interests? 50:37.340 --> 50:43.220 But as long as it is people, there are basic needs that have always 50:43.220 --> 50:43.980 been part of all people. 50:44.480 --> 50:47.440 The protection of physical integrity, which is also generally 50:47.440 --> 50:48.940 guaranteed. 50:49.120 --> 50:52.640 These are basic goods that come to every human being. 50:52.640 --> 50:55.520 And as long as we can be sure that what lives in the future is people 50:56.540 --> 51:01.980 and not AI or something like that, we can assume that these basic 51:01.980 --> 51:05.560 needs will be there and thus interests that are worth protecting will 51:05.560 --> 51:05.900 be there. 51:06.180 --> 51:08.840 And I think that plays no role in the argumentation in the Federal 51:08.840 --> 51:11.900 Constitutional Court on the basis of the framework, but that is 51:11.900 --> 51:12.680 important from an ethical point of view. 51:13.780 --> 51:19.120 And that also raises the question that many people do not believe yet. 51:19.320 --> 51:23.320 Many people believe that the interests of future people are less to be 51:23.320 --> 51:25.260 weighed because they live in the future. 51:26.340 --> 51:30.620 And I believe that the task of transformation is also to change 51:30.620 --> 51:31.520 beliefs. 51:32.640 --> 51:38.560 So to make sure that people get better moral convictions, just as you 51:38.560 --> 51:42.820 had to make sure that people realized that skin color has no moral 51:42.820 --> 51:46.700 relevance, that gender has no moral relevance, that sexual orientation 51:46.700 --> 51:47.840 has no moral relevance. 51:48.380 --> 51:49.600 All of this had to be learned. 51:49.980 --> 51:50.460 It takes time. 51:51.040 --> 51:54.960 But when Mr. Fuchs says that the economic transformation takes time, 51:55.100 --> 51:57.480 then I think you can rightly say that we also take this into account 51:57.480 --> 52:04.060 for the moral transformation and try to convince people. 52:04.060 --> 52:09.860 And I think that's what the last generation is doing, to see it as a 52:09.860 --> 52:11.840 corrective of a limitation of democracy. 52:12.600 --> 52:16.840 Namely to point out that there is still something else that we may not 52:16.840 --> 52:20.320 be able to catch up in our framework, because the future generations 52:20.320 --> 52:21.220 don't have a voice now. 52:21.320 --> 52:21.920 They're not there yet. 52:21.960 --> 52:22.500 They can't speak. 52:22.880 --> 52:23.700 Mr. Fuchs. 52:25.480 --> 52:33.100 First of all, I don't think that people are such an egoistic gender 52:33.100 --> 52:36.820 that they don't think about the future of their offspring. 52:37.680 --> 52:46.600 I believe that it is actually part of being human to worry about the 52:46.600 --> 52:47.440 offspring of the future generations. 52:51.280 --> 52:58.520 And that means in this case that we have to think about what a world 52:58.820 --> 53:04.220 can look like with 10 billion people by the middle of the century 53:05.320 --> 53:15.260 striving for prosperity, education, modern health care, mobility, good 53:15.260 --> 53:15.820 nutrition. 53:15.820 --> 53:25.300 And a world economy that has at least doubled We have to realize that 53:25.300 --> 53:27.920 this is the real challenge. 53:29.200 --> 53:36.080 Even if we decide that there will be no economic growth from now on, 53:36.240 --> 53:42.620 it is irrelevant for Germany whether 0 or 1 or 1.5 percent. 53:42.620 --> 53:47.680 Globally the world economy will at least double. 53:48.540 --> 53:52.020 The annual growth rate is about 3 percent. 53:52.020 --> 53:54.280 In the last 20 years we had 4 percent. 53:55.500 --> 54:01.900 And that means that the real challenge is to achieve the decoupling of 54:01.900 --> 54:04.420 economic prosperity and natural consumption. 54:07.100 --> 54:12.100 That is the core of a green industrial revolution. 54:13.560 --> 54:19.300 Of course there is no total contrast between, I wouldn't call it 54:19.300 --> 54:23.260 satisfaction, but self-responsibility. 54:23.980 --> 54:26.940 You don't have to fly to Mallorca for the weekend. 54:28.260 --> 54:30.340 And you don't have to eat meat every day. 54:30.600 --> 54:31.840 That's not even a question. 54:33.040 --> 54:38.400 And if you can avoid that you should also avoid driving a private car. 54:38.900 --> 54:41.140 I mean, who does that voluntarily in the city? 54:42.840 --> 54:46.320 So, self-responsibility is of course right. 54:47.800 --> 54:57.100 But that's just a fraction of what we have to to decarbonize the 54:57.100 --> 54:59.660 industrial society in the next decades. 55:00.720 --> 55:09.620 And that's why I insist that we have to talk about a radical change in 55:09.620 --> 55:15.540 our way of production that is connectable to the rest of the world. 55:16.240 --> 55:18.140 That's our real task. 55:19.040 --> 55:26.600 It doesn't matter whether we are climate-neutral in Germany in 2045 or 55:26.600 --> 55:29.480 2047 or 2050. 55:30.540 --> 55:31.300 It doesn't matter at all. 55:33.500 --> 55:39.720 Our contribution must be to create a kind of pioneer model for an 55:39.720 --> 55:44.860 ecological industrial society for the compatibility of prosperity and 55:44.860 --> 55:48.540 environmental protection and to provide the technologies for that. 55:49.360 --> 55:54.180 Our contribution to global CO2 emissions is currently about 2%. 55:55.340 --> 55:59.900 But our technological contribution can be much higher. 56:02.020 --> 56:05.920 To equip the world with these technologies is not only a German task 56:05.920 --> 56:07.520 but also a European one. 56:08.680 --> 56:12.320 And the instruments for that are not abracadabra. 56:12.400 --> 56:17.480 The European Union has created a very effective instrument and also a 56:17.480 --> 56:19.060 very hard one. 56:19.780 --> 56:29.160 Namely a CO2 budget which actually means that we only have a very 56:29.160 --> 56:35.260 limited volume of CO2 emissions if we want to limit climate change. 56:37.060 --> 56:43.140 That means the emissions trade is based on a hard lid for CO2 56:43.140 --> 56:45.500 emissions for the industries that are involved. 56:46.680 --> 56:51.660 And we have to use this instrument consistently for all economic 56:51.660 --> 56:57.320 sectors not only for energy and energy-intensive industries but for 56:57.320 --> 57:01.520 everything including the construction sector, transport and everything 57:01.520 --> 57:01.920 else. 57:03.580 --> 57:09.060 And that means rising CO2 prices and we have to make them socially 57:09.060 --> 57:16.020 acceptable by giving back the income from these CO2 taxes in the form 57:16.020 --> 57:18.380 of climate money to the citizens. 57:19.540 --> 57:23.020 So instruments that make it socially acceptable. 57:23.740 --> 57:29.820 We need alliances between people between companies environmental 57:29.820 --> 57:32.480 movements science and politics. 57:33.160 --> 57:40.000 And we must not divide society but we have to keep it together and 57:40.000 --> 57:44.080 create a majority for a new progress story. 57:44.840 --> 57:51.940 Not forward we have to go back but a new idea of progress. 57:51.940 --> 57:56.140 I think we don't have another chance to win this race. 57:57.300 --> 58:01.700 Ms. Jonsen, I have two questions for you. 58:01.700 --> 58:05.200 I already said it earlier about the goals you propagate. 58:05.700 --> 58:11.980 You create publicity with your actions and demand a 9 Euro ticket. 58:12.640 --> 58:18.480 From what we know it's nice but there are investigations there are 58:18.480 --> 58:22.600 more dangers and it's nice for those who drive anyway but almost 58:22.600 --> 58:23.120 nobody gets hurt. 58:24.500 --> 58:28.860 Why don't you demand that the 70 billion climate-damaging subsidies 58:28.860 --> 58:29.720 are stopped? 58:30.300 --> 58:34.580 Service car privileges, tax exemptions for kerosene and much more. 58:35.160 --> 58:38.880 In Luxembourg there is already a service car privilege only for 58:38.880 --> 58:42.420 electric cars that drive locally CO2-neutral. 58:42.740 --> 58:44.140 We still don't have that. 58:44.140 --> 58:50.040 We make absurd subsidies the FDP would have to play along. 58:50.040 --> 58:51.100 Why don't you do something like that? 58:51.780 --> 58:52.580 For example. 58:53.500 --> 58:59.000 Why don't you demand that climate money is introduced where we 58:59.000 --> 59:04.980 suddenly have a positive narrative not only in Heizhammer but say it 59:04.980 --> 59:09.380 will be expensive we have the rising CO2 prices but you get climate 59:09.380 --> 59:13.400 money and if you are CO2 neutral or CO2-poor you end up with more in 59:13.400 --> 59:14.280 your pocket than before. 59:14.660 --> 59:19.160 Then you can take the people who have less money who cannot afford to 59:19.160 --> 59:22.940 change everything because they don't have enough with them. 59:23.080 --> 59:25.340 Why don't you demand such goals? 59:25.740 --> 59:28.560 I sometimes get the impression that you are struggling with the 59:28.560 --> 59:34.000 complexity of these issues but if we don't put them on the agenda and 59:34.000 --> 59:39.560 you create the public where such goals can be propagated explain it to 59:39.560 --> 59:40.520 me because you are in exchange with science. 59:41.920 --> 59:44.640 That's a very good question and it's also something I encountered in 59:44.640 --> 59:49.260 the beginning before I came to the last generation I thought what kind 59:49.260 --> 59:52.700 of popel demand is that a 9 euro ticket for everyone and the speed 59:52.700 --> 59:55.660 limit I don't want to go on the streets and go through all these 59:55.660 --> 01:00:00.000 repressions that sounds absurd but then you have to get into the 01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:09.580 strategy of civil disobedience and it's about that you have to start 01:00:09.580 --> 01:00:15.280 to create a space where there is a discussion you have to fight these 01:00:15.280 --> 01:00:19.520 free spaces that has always been there when it comes to big moral 01:00:19.520 --> 01:00:24.660 crises you have to fight such a free space and it's about that you 01:00:24.660 --> 01:00:29.620 first take very banal demands that are on the table and for which 01:00:29.620 --> 01:00:35.400 there are social majorities there is a majority for cheap local 01:00:35.400 --> 01:00:41.440 transport for the 9 euro ticket many people used it there is a 01:00:41.440 --> 01:00:45.760 majority for the speed limit you can see it all the neighbouring 01:00:45.760 --> 01:00:49.260 countries are laughing at it why doesn't Germany have a speed limit of 01:00:49.260 --> 01:00:53.160 course you can't save as much as you could if you transform all the 01:00:53.160 --> 01:00:58.140 industries but it's not only about transformation it's also about 01:00:58.140 --> 01:01:03.680 showing the people we do everything we can and we save because it 01:01:03.680 --> 01:01:10.160 comes with it if you look at economists you could transform you could 01:01:10.160 --> 01:01:17.120 transform but then there is the saving process and these are simple 01:01:17.660 --> 01:01:21.080 concrete measures that could be implemented overnight that wouldn't 01:01:21.080 --> 01:01:25.220 cost anything you can put up some signs and you have a speed limit who 01:01:25.220 --> 01:01:30.840 is socially just is also safer for the people there is a majority why 01:01:30.840 --> 01:01:35.760 isn't it implemented and then you put the politicians or individual 01:01:35.760 --> 01:01:42.140 politicians on the wall and ask what is the problem so that the people 01:01:42.140 --> 01:01:47.960 can see that maybe other interests of big car lobbies are more 01:01:47.960 --> 01:01:53.580 important than what the people want and that's how it started it has 01:01:53.580 --> 01:01:59.540 to start with simple demands so that you can see a concrete success 01:01:59.540 --> 01:02:04.140 because it could change overnight and then you could see that politics 01:02:04.140 --> 01:02:08.340 really does something and shows us that we do everything we can 01:02:08.340 --> 01:02:15.480 because it is often said and then it goes on it's very complex I don't 01:02:15.480 --> 01:02:19.520 want to break it down it's complex but the civil disobedience it's 01:02:19.520 --> 01:02:24.120 often done as if we didn't have a plan and people would sit on a road 01:02:24.120 --> 01:02:28.880 and hope for something but if you look at the research on civil 01:02:28.880 --> 01:02:33.980 disobedience and civil resistance by Erika Chenoweth or Jean Sharp 01:02:33.980 --> 01:02:38.700 there is a science behind it there are tactics behind it civil 01:02:38.700 --> 01:02:43.640 disobedience is a tactic and we have seen it in history many of you 01:02:43.640 --> 01:02:47.440 probably know the civil rights movement in America the women's rights 01:02:47.440 --> 01:02:51.260 movement in England Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street the Arab 01:02:51.260 --> 01:02:55.940 Spring, Pakistan the lawyers movement the Serbian organization Otpor 01:02:56.520 --> 01:03:00.500 there are many examples also in Germany the occupation of Helgoland 01:03:00.500 --> 01:03:05.380 two students sat on the island and said they want Germany back and not 01:03:05.380 --> 01:03:10.180 as a military base like in the anti-nuclear movement the Monday 01:03:10.180 --> 01:03:14.920 demonstration in the GDR we all act as if we didn't know what was 01:03:14.920 --> 01:03:20.740 going on but there is a strategy behind it how we put enough pressure 01:03:20.740 --> 01:03:30.020 on politics to change society in a timely way which is what we need we 01:03:30.020 --> 01:03:37.040 had discussions like this 30 years ago and it is still complex but we 01:03:37.040 --> 01:03:45.140 need a social quick change and in history civil disobedience has been 01:03:45.140 --> 01:03:50.860 used as a means to a quick social transformation when it comes to huge 01:03:50.860 --> 01:03:57.340 moral crises to attack and attack this is what is strategic do we doze 01:03:57.340 --> 01:03:58.280 or sit down? 01:03:58.340 --> 01:04:05.980 you can doze me you know, I think I was in jail for three and a half 01:04:05.980 --> 01:04:11.860 months because of student movement university occupation and such 01:04:11.860 --> 01:04:24.320 stories I have a lot of sympathy for this idea we put pressure from an 01:04:24.320 --> 01:04:31.000 avant -garde from a climate avant-garde we put pressure on politics 01:04:31.000 --> 01:04:39.420 and on the majority society to speed up the change but I think and I 01:04:39.420 --> 01:04:49.100 am an old member of the Green Party we have to be critical about what 01:04:49.100 --> 01:04:55.500 is going wrong with our own politics and our own actions you have to 01:04:55.500 --> 01:05:03.780 do that because the effect is the opposite of what you want and expect 01:05:05.900 --> 01:05:11.420 we are experiencing a growing level of anger in society not only 01:05:11.420 --> 01:05:17.140 against the last generation but also against the Greens the heating 01:05:17.140 --> 01:05:26.660 law was a fire extinguisher and we are at a critical point where we 01:05:26.660 --> 01:05:33.640 are losing the majority support in society why is that? 01:05:33.720 --> 01:05:39.640 I don't have a final answer but one answer is for sure that we 01:05:39.640 --> 01:05:46.540 shouldn't take action where we take people as hostages who are driving 01:05:47.880 --> 01:05:53.380 not voluntarily but because they are craftsmen or drivers or people 01:05:53.380 --> 01:05:59.940 who have to do something urgent or people who were looking forward to 01:05:59.940 --> 01:06:10.920 their holiday this kind of actions where we take people as hostages is 01:06:10.920 --> 01:06:18.260 counterproductive it goes backwards and politically speaking the 01:06:18.260 --> 01:06:24.840 heating law is a different story we have to think what are the social 01:06:24.840 --> 01:06:33.240 effects of our ecological proposals how can we catch them and buffer 01:06:33.240 --> 01:06:39.900 them and how does it look with the practical feasibility in which time 01:06:39.900 --> 01:06:46.620 frames can we implement it and then it can be that it takes a bit 01:06:46.620 --> 01:06:57.420 longer than it should and should but we need the approval of the 01:06:57.420 --> 01:07:05.140 majority and we have to show how it works as a success model as a 01:07:05.140 --> 01:07:10.160 success model this is the turning point and otherwise we can talk to 01:07:10.160 --> 01:07:21.840 each other on a Sunday and argue what we have to do but we will do the 01:07:21.840 --> 01:07:28.100 opposite we are at a very critical point when it comes to the social 01:07:28.100 --> 01:07:35.800 acceptance of our climate policy Ms. Jonsson the last generation we 01:07:35.800 --> 01:07:42.620 start in 15 minutes with audience questions actually in 15 minutes you 01:07:42.620 --> 01:07:43.720 can go but 01:07:52.420 --> 01:07:56.700 I have family in Israel you don't have to tell me what happened in 01:07:56.700 --> 01:08:06.540 Israel ok yes in connection you speak with science do you also speak 01:08:06.540 --> 01:08:13.340 with communication scientists with psychologists what is the right 01:08:13.340 --> 01:08:18.700 tactic with the movements that you have introduced many were the mass 01:08:18.700 --> 01:08:22.840 movements where maybe from initial civil disobedience to mass 01:08:22.840 --> 01:08:32.780 movements you can't observe that they react very flexibly to my great 01:08:32.780 --> 01:08:37.120 pleasure I do a show called Museums Check I am constantly in the most 01:08:37.120 --> 01:08:40.080 beautiful art museums in Germany, Austria and Switzerland I was there 01:08:40.080 --> 01:08:46.060 a few days after the attack on a coin in the Barberini Museum I felt 01:08:46.060 --> 01:08:50.320 the horror and the security measures that have resulted from it and 01:08:50.320 --> 01:08:55.660 you have switched because you noticed that this is not good now you do 01:08:55.660 --> 01:09:01.140 other actions but don't think about it also because the media 01:09:01.140 --> 01:09:06.140 attention has allowed that you have to adapt your strategy have to 01:09:06.140 --> 01:09:13.180 change your goals that you propagate and maybe do other actions I was 01:09:13.180 --> 01:09:20.280 thinking about Greenpeace which are targeted to those who have caused 01:09:20.280 --> 01:09:21.880 the damage to address it more clearly 01:09:26.180 --> 01:09:33.860 Sure, I am asking myself what the claim to movements is you should 01:09:33.860 --> 01:09:37.240 educate you should take people with you you should draw attention it 01:09:37.240 --> 01:09:43.820 is a wide range and of course we think clearly we react to political 01:09:43.820 --> 01:09:48.300 situations we are very flexible we reflect a lot we don't think about 01:09:48.300 --> 01:09:55.060 it I find it interesting how people use very drastic terms like 01:09:55.060 --> 01:10:03.700 assassination it is an instrument to put the peaceful protest in a 01:10:03.700 --> 01:10:07.560 certain corner to show society that these are people we want to 01:10:07.560 --> 01:10:15.480 delegitimize or criminalize it is often used to put us in a corner we 01:10:15.480 --> 01:10:19.800 are in constant exchange we have a media network we are in exchange 01:10:19.800 --> 01:10:25.120 with journalists we are in exchange with many politicians we have a 01:10:25.120 --> 01:10:31.500 political network we have a scientific network we are in contact with 01:10:31.500 --> 01:10:33.620 the churches there are many people behind us with the Psychologists 01:10:33.620 --> 01:10:42.440 for Futures there is a lot of networking because we know a critical 01:10:42.440 --> 01:10:48.760 mass has to reach a mass mobilization and the progress the last 01:10:48.760 --> 01:10:54.340 generation has made for one and a half years not only in Germany 11 01:10:54.340 --> 01:10:57.960 different projects in different countries maybe some of you have heard 01:10:57.960 --> 01:11:05.460 of Just Stop Oil in England in New Zealand in Norway there is the same 01:11:05.460 --> 01:11:08.540 kind of civil resistance and the same techniques and there is an 01:11:08.540 --> 01:11:14.580 exchange what works, what doesn't in the Netherlands there were mass 01:11:14.580 --> 01:11:22.420 blockades on the A12 where the government said we will make a plan how 01:11:22.420 --> 01:11:27.620 we can I don't know what the exact word was but it was until 2030 to 01:11:27.620 --> 01:11:34.540 stop the use of fossil fuels there was a success now we think how we 01:11:34.540 --> 01:11:38.220 can use it strategically in Germany if one country makes a success it 01:11:38.220 --> 01:11:44.620 can spread to the other it is something very strategic and we think 01:11:44.620 --> 01:11:49.240 how we can move forward how can the strategies be and we wish the same 01:11:49.240 --> 01:11:55.260 from the politicians that they reflect and implement we don't do it 01:11:55.260 --> 01:12:04.240 for fun we do it for the right and it is absurd if you think what 01:12:04.240 --> 01:12:14.740 people do or feel forced to do if our own climate goals are not kept I 01:12:14.740 --> 01:12:19.740 think it is crazy if there is an article 20a that says we all have a 01:12:19.740 --> 01:12:23.720 right to live the future generations should be kept in mind that 01:12:23.720 --> 01:12:31.760 doesn't happen and nobody can complain and what we said it is bad for 01:12:31.760 --> 01:12:37.700 them if they don't stick to it but what happens if they pay a fine in 01:12:37.700 --> 01:12:44.660 the end we can only win or lose and civil resistance has a great 01:12:44.660 --> 01:12:49.060 potential to have success for this change and that's why I decided 01:12:49.920 --> 01:12:55.780 that it is the most morally acceptable to put myself on the street and 01:12:55.780 --> 01:13:00.900 to claim my right and the right of my future children and to stick to 01:13:00.900 --> 01:13:08.380 politics so that nobody gets in the way and we all have to ask what is 01:13:08.380 --> 01:13:12.860 our own responsibility what can I do as a single person and I can't 01:13:12.860 --> 01:13:17.980 get in the way like with other actions that might look good and then 01:13:17.980 --> 01:13:24.680 you think oh great there is a nuclear power plant blocked that's great 01:13:24.680 --> 01:13:33.720 and then you go home and that's it we all have to position ourselves 01:13:33.720 --> 01:13:40.500 and it is about this confrontation with ourselves because it is of 01:13:40.500 --> 01:13:45.860 course something unpleasant thank you before I have a question to Mr. 01:13:45.860 --> 01:13:54.380 Seidel criminalization you are right assassination is criminalizing 01:13:54.380 --> 01:13:58.680 but if you love art then it is an assassination if something like that 01:13:58.680 --> 01:14:03.400 is thrown which could have been destroyed as the restauranteur assured 01:14:03.400 --> 01:14:06.780 me because the smoke is behind it and then it gets really dangerous 01:14:08.700 --> 01:14:16.150 but is that actually punishable because we live in a very different 01:14:17.600 --> 01:14:25.660 legal spectrum the Bavarians are able to lock you up for weeks others 01:14:25.660 --> 01:14:29.600 say nothing we are unfortunately experiencing because you mentioned 01:14:29.600 --> 01:14:35.940 Israel in Germany that the Berlin police and justice do not want to 01:14:35.940 --> 01:14:40.880 take action against anti-Semitic protest actions but say no, it's okay 01:14:40.880 --> 01:14:51.640 basically there is a very large spectrum yes apparently maybe first 01:14:51.640 --> 01:14:55.340 two things criminalization and preventive arrest you have to 01:14:55.340 --> 01:15:00.220 distinguish clearly both have something to do with the police but we 01:15:00.220 --> 01:15:03.460 distinguish very strongly one is about criminal law that is, to punish 01:15:03.460 --> 01:15:09.300 in retrospect repressively and the aspect of criminalization these are 01:15:09.300 --> 01:15:13.140 the questions is it necessary to put yourself on the street and stick 01:15:13.140 --> 01:15:16.220 to it or resistance against police officers or is it a matter of 01:15:16.220 --> 01:15:20.300 damage that is one side and the other side the preventive arrest that 01:15:20.300 --> 01:15:23.700 is part of the police law danger defense law that is, you want to 01:15:23.700 --> 01:15:26.940 prevent that they get back on the street so to separate that first 01:15:30.200 --> 01:15:33.960 basically yes they say now and I can understand that very well and 01:15:33.960 --> 01:15:39.160 that seems to me sometimes I would still weaken it a bit the 01:15:39.160 --> 01:15:43.540 perception that would be decided very differently so in the area what 01:15:43.540 --> 01:15:48.360 you just mentioned preventive arrest is actually a matter of police 01:15:48.360 --> 01:15:53.860 law that is, there are different possibilities depending on the state 01:15:53.860 --> 01:15:59.100 where it takes place Bavaria has the longest temporary span that is in 01:15:59.100 --> 01:16:02.740 their legal framework that is in their legal framework the question is 01:16:02.740 --> 01:16:07.680 again that is formal in the framework there is a deadline of a month 01:16:07.680 --> 01:16:11.260 and when that is met it is on the first way in the framework that 01:16:11.260 --> 01:16:15.400 means not yet and I can't answer that so abstractly whether that is 01:16:15.400 --> 01:16:19.380 legal in general because it always depends on the individual case we 01:16:19.380 --> 01:16:24.660 have already heard the principle of proportionality and that means 01:16:24.660 --> 01:16:28.720 even if I have the opportunity after the law for a month preventive 01:16:28.720 --> 01:16:33.320 arrest the question is whether that is proportional in relation to the 01:16:33.320 --> 01:16:35.840 danger that threatens so if now one only once somehow set on the 01:16:35.840 --> 01:16:42.460 street it's about the prognosis, for example or also with the need if 01:16:42.460 --> 01:16:45.780 you sit down on the street and get stuck there many aspects play a 01:16:45.780 --> 01:16:49.640 role how long was that was there the possibility to drive past was 01:16:49.640 --> 01:16:55.900 that announced that means maybe a little bit to strengthen the trust 01:16:55.900 --> 01:17:01.520 in the legal framework just because one court says that and that 01:17:01.520 --> 01:17:05.280 doesn't mean that we are on the high seas and that is arbitrariness 01:17:05.280 --> 01:17:09.360 you can only judge that that's why I'm very reluctant to say is that 01:17:09.360 --> 01:17:12.720 punishable or not especially since I'm not a criminal lawyer but 01:17:12.720 --> 01:17:16.840 rather in the field of police law but it really always depends on the 01:17:16.840 --> 01:17:20.760 individual case and that's why you have to differentiate a lot I just 01:17:20.760 --> 01:17:24.440 arrived from Franconia and there it is, for example in Nuremberg a 01:17:24.440 --> 01:17:28.280 general provision was issued that these actions are no longer that 01:17:28.280 --> 01:17:31.380 they are forbidden without prior announcement and Fürth has said in 01:17:31.380 --> 01:17:34.620 return we don't do that and you wonder why Nuremberg does that but 01:17:34.620 --> 01:17:37.500 Fürth doesn't yes, because there are very different starting points in 01:17:37.500 --> 01:17:41.260 Nuremberg it was done again and again it was announced we do it again 01:17:41.260 --> 01:17:45.400 and in Fürth it was without attachment it was not announced so these 01:17:45.400 --> 01:17:48.400 are the differences so that, for example, when I read the newspaper it 01:17:48.400 --> 01:17:50.760 seems plausible to me as a lawyer nevertheless, you have to look at 01:17:50.760 --> 01:17:56.440 the individual case but I think what is very important and there you 01:17:56.440 --> 01:18:01.460 can indeed in one or the other decision also ask questions I think on 01:18:01.460 --> 01:18:05.000 both sides it is totally important to treat climate activists 01:18:05.000 --> 01:18:09.980 differently than others I mean, if they meet a need then they are to 01:18:09.980 --> 01:18:13.940 be judged and of course that is also part of civil disobedience to 01:18:13.940 --> 01:18:17.800 consciously cross the line but I can't do the same just because they 01:18:17.800 --> 01:18:20.360 are climate activists they are suddenly much longer in prison than I 01:18:20.360 --> 01:18:23.900 would do that with someone else so I think that is very important and 01:18:23.900 --> 01:18:27.800 there are maybe also I can't judge because I don't know all the 01:18:27.800 --> 01:18:33.160 decisions but I think there is also the appeal of course to the 01:18:33.160 --> 01:18:38.900 corresponding courts and so on we have an objective legal system and 01:18:38.900 --> 01:18:41.540 it is not about what the motives are but you have to judge that in the 01:18:41.540 --> 01:18:44.580 individual case and in this respect it is also missing of course that 01:18:44.580 --> 01:18:50.400 politics says we have to have the law the law is neutral so to speak 01:18:50.400 --> 01:18:57.980 in relation to the person that has to be used accordingly Mr. Salm I 01:18:57.980 --> 01:19:02.400 have the impression that Ms. Jonsen and Mr. Fuchs basically want the 01:19:02.400 --> 01:19:12.540 same in the end climate neutrality in the end that we get the climate 01:19:12.540 --> 01:19:17.940 change so slowed down that we don't run into a disaster it's just 01:19:17.940 --> 01:19:23.800 about the choice of means but we have to take the people with us 01:19:23.800 --> 01:19:29.500 that's what Ms. Jonsen just said it's actually about to get a mass 01:19:29.500 --> 01:19:35.660 movement out of these actions that then calls for it now we have the 01:19:35.660 --> 01:19:41.080 trend of moralism which in my opinion is already a very strong split 01:19:41.080 --> 01:19:47.580 of society that is evidenced in my opinion for example by the AfD 01:19:47.580 --> 01:19:53.460 election results and this peak between the conservative camp and the 01:19:53.460 --> 01:20:01.500 left urban camp I would say isn't that very dangerous what we are 01:20:01.500 --> 01:20:06.740 doing shouldn't we try morally ethically first of all to allow other 01:20:06.740 --> 01:20:12.160 perspectives more moralism is so to speak morality as an ideology so I 01:20:12.160 --> 01:20:16.200 would say it very briefly they say I am right and you are all wrong 01:20:16.200 --> 01:20:22.640 and that leads to people feeling excluded that leads in the USA for 01:20:22.640 --> 01:20:27.360 example to this extreme split of society shouldn't we try from a moral 01:20:27.360 --> 01:20:31.480 and ethical point of view to become much more open and try to take 01:20:31.480 --> 01:20:37.300 everyone with us and not point fingers at those who do something that 01:20:37.300 --> 01:20:44.580 is guaranteed wrong in my opinion to get ahead at all thank you very 01:20:44.580 --> 01:20:50.560 much for the preface I have a question about moralism I think it plays 01:20:50.560 --> 01:20:54.400 a big role especially about the public appearance and actions of the 01:20:54.400 --> 01:20:59.220 last generation but also of other climate activist groups I think it 01:20:59.220 --> 01:21:04.880 is important to say exactly what it is I don't think that moralism is 01:21:04.880 --> 01:21:09.020 created and manifested that you stand up and say I am right and 01:21:09.020 --> 01:21:17.280 everyone else is not that is the claim to be inviolable of course it 01:21:17.280 --> 01:21:25.040 exists I mean if I break on elementary moral values like the 01:21:25.040 --> 01:21:29.980 protection of human life and if I of course stand up and say who 01:21:29.980 --> 01:21:35.860 doesn't see it that way is wrong I think that is true there are truth 01:21:35.860 --> 01:21:39.880 statements also in moral the question is is it smart to always 01:21:39.880 --> 01:21:43.880 thematize in front of the background of the effects she described and 01:21:43.880 --> 01:21:48.580 to carry it open to the public that is a strategic question of moral 01:21:48.580 --> 01:21:55.600 communication where is it good and helpful to verbalize it but that is 01:21:55.600 --> 01:22:00.200 only one side there is also the accusation regarding climate activism 01:22:00.200 --> 01:22:09.700 that young people only want to show off and show off that is also in 01:22:09.700 --> 01:22:15.940 public discussions I think that is a rhetorical distraction because I 01:22:15.940 --> 01:22:20.060 think if you look at what these people are willing to do to take 01:22:20.060 --> 01:22:26.720 personal repressions it is not about the good feeling but about a deep 01:22:26.720 --> 01:22:31.580 moral responsibility which Ms. Jonsen also expressed when she said I 01:22:31.580 --> 01:22:34.420 have decided for myself that this is the only right thing and I think 01:22:34.420 --> 01:22:37.740 that is important to emphasize because we had arguments in the 01:22:37.740 --> 01:22:41.760 discussion which pointed out what do the others do we in Germany can 01:22:41.760 --> 01:22:45.560 do the right thing but what do the others do maybe they do something 01:22:45.560 --> 01:22:48.540 wrong and just because the others do something wrong does not mean 01:22:48.540 --> 01:22:52.980 that we should not do the right thing and that is also something you 01:22:52.980 --> 01:22:59.840 can emphasize in the discussion that it seems moralistic you have to 01:22:59.840 --> 01:23:03.120 recognize that and then you have to ask a strategic question how 01:23:03.120 --> 01:23:08.860 strong can I emphasize that it is always wise to focus on moral 01:23:08.860 --> 01:23:12.880 obligations as an ethicist I would say that is not always wise but 01:23:12.880 --> 01:23:20.100 there are other narratives which have the same idea satisfaction also 01:23:20.100 --> 01:23:24.360 something like the green transformation that can be good as a 01:23:24.360 --> 01:23:30.840 narrative to realize the right moral concern without saying that it is 01:23:30.840 --> 01:23:35.180 a moral concern because it creates reactionary effects but that is an 01:23:35.180 --> 01:23:39.300 empirical question I cannot say much about that as a philosopher but 01:23:39.300 --> 01:23:44.180 there is good empirical research and you have to realize that and then 01:23:44.180 --> 01:23:51.640 transform it into strategies Mr. Fuchs I think to be honest it is also 01:23:51.640 --> 01:23:58.300 important that we talk openly about it and that is closely related to 01:23:58.300 --> 01:24:03.140 the question of climate ethics that we move into goal conflicts which 01:24:03.140 --> 01:24:14.150 we cannot solve there is no absolute primacy of climate policy I will 01:24:14.150 --> 01:24:25.870 give you two examples housing if we according to the logic of climate 01:24:25.870 --> 01:24:29.670 change and climate protection we would not be allowed to build a new 01:24:29.670 --> 01:24:37.430 apartment that is not true it is a waste of space it is a waste of 01:24:37.430 --> 01:24:44.370 material it is a waste of energy in the future we have a housing 01:24:44.370 --> 01:24:48.850 shortage in the urban centers and we have an annual net migration in 01:24:48.850 --> 01:24:52.430 Germany of 1.2 million 01:24:57.060 --> 01:25:03.220 and I do not want to stay in a state that then begins to divide the 01:25:03.220 --> 01:25:09.220 living space and determines how many square meters a person can still 01:25:09.220 --> 01:25:16.660 live that means we are moving into a goal conflict 01:25:19.780 --> 01:25:25.300 I have been in Bremen for a long time also city development and 01:25:25.300 --> 01:25:30.460 construction policy and have always been for private development we 01:25:30.460 --> 01:25:37.700 have to keep the landscape protection and natural areas and instead 01:25:37.700 --> 01:25:42.780 operate in compaction in Berlin we afford the luxury the Tempelhofer 01:25:42.780 --> 01:25:46.500 Feld not to build 01:25:49.760 --> 01:25:54.600 and that is also immoral to point out compared to those who are 01:25:54.600 --> 01:26:00.770 looking for an apartment and how do we solve this goal conflict we 01:26:00.770 --> 01:26:06.750 will never solve it completely but that we build as ecological as 01:26:06.750 --> 01:26:13.800 possible and the heating of buildings and the power consumption of 01:26:13.800 --> 01:26:19.240 buildings climate-neutral that works too you can build houses in a way 01:26:19.240 --> 01:26:26.200 that they produce more energy than they consume in a combination of 01:26:26.200 --> 01:26:37.780 heat pumps solar even in larger buildings small wind turbines you do 01:26:37.780 --> 01:26:42.320 not have to build like bunkers as little light as possible when you 01:26:42.320 --> 01:26:49.100 build windows with solar panels that is all possible and when it 01:26:49.100 --> 01:26:56.160 becomes economies of scale it will also be affordable I want to give 01:26:56.160 --> 01:27:03.200 you another example because I understand your concern I said earlier I 01:27:03.200 --> 01:27:04.500 have family in Israel 01:27:07.560 --> 01:27:09.260 we are in a debate 01:27:12.680 --> 01:27:19.980 whether we have to invest more in our military security you could also 01:27:19.980 --> 01:27:24.820 say the money is better invested in climate protection that avoids 01:27:24.820 --> 01:27:33.480 future conflicts but we can not do it that easily if we are confronted 01:27:34.980 --> 01:27:41.140 with powers that have no scruples to use violence and completely 01:27:41.140 --> 01:27:48.640 brutal unscrupulous to no rule-bound violence whether it is Russia in 01:27:48.640 --> 01:27:56.020 Ukraine or the Hamas in Israel then we need defensive democracies 01:27:56.020 --> 01:28:05.060 which also invest in security and deterrence that is also a form of 01:28:05.060 --> 01:28:12.580 peacekeeping that means we are constantly moving into conflicts 01:28:12.580 --> 01:28:20.700 between values where you can not just prioritize one is number one and 01:28:20.700 --> 01:28:25.720 the other will come at some point and these conflicts have to be dealt 01:28:25.720 --> 01:28:33.080 with that is the essence of a democracy and that is part of being 01:28:33.080 --> 01:28:40.380 honest that leads to my last question before we get to your questions 01:28:40.380 --> 01:28:45.700 ladies and gentlemen to Mrs. Jonsen I have always understood the last 01:28:45.700 --> 01:28:50.920 generation that they are actually firmly on the ground of a democratic 01:28:50.920 --> 01:28:57.260 society but I hear again and again from climate protection circles 01:28:57.260 --> 01:29:04.060 also from science yes, if we could prescribe this and if we could 01:29:04.060 --> 01:29:06.740 prescribe that and then it is always said yes, but that is not an eco 01:29:06.740 --> 01:29:12.940 -dictatorship you will be able to prescribe how firmly do you stand on 01:29:12.940 --> 01:29:20.040 a free parliamentary democracy and how much desire for the 01:29:20.040 --> 01:29:25.540 possibilities to prescribe things is there you said you want a mass 01:29:25.540 --> 01:29:28.960 movement and that means that people will go to the elections and no 01:29:28.960 --> 01:29:33.580 longer vote for AfD but vote for the Greens or a new, even more 01:29:33.580 --> 01:29:35.480 extreme climate protection party or whatever 01:29:40.060 --> 01:29:45.640 the last generation is deeply democratic we move completely within the 01:29:45.640 --> 01:29:51.420 framework of democratic means we buy the repression we also know we 01:29:51.420 --> 01:29:55.920 want to preserve what we are currently moving and unfortunately it is 01:29:55.920 --> 01:30:03.720 that democracies are put to the test and are in danger if we move in 01:30:03.720 --> 01:30:09.400 times like now in the climate catastrophe where our existential living 01:30:09.400 --> 01:30:12.240 conditions are simply taken away and I'm not just talking about 01:30:12.240 --> 01:30:16.040 Germany a small, encapsulated country but we are also dependent on 01:30:16.040 --> 01:30:20.540 other countries and we are simply a global networked system and we 01:30:20.540 --> 01:30:23.940 can't just look at our own welfare and at the end somehow pull up our 01:30:23.940 --> 01:30:26.780 walls and say, but you can't get in here and we are still building 01:30:26.780 --> 01:30:30.100 here for us so that we can get away well that's a big moral question 01:30:30.100 --> 01:30:34.900 that we don't just have to think about but also the whole global world 01:30:34.900 --> 01:30:39.520 and it's just that democracies only work together with climate 01:30:39.520 --> 01:30:43.920 protection and climate protection can only be solved democratically 01:30:43.920 --> 01:30:50.180 because it is something socially just where we all at the end want to 01:30:50.180 --> 01:30:55.760 think about how we can turn a crisis around so that no one is left 01:30:55.760 --> 01:30:59.860 behind and I find this debate or I notice again and again that debates 01:30:59.860 --> 01:31:04.780 are super privileged and are conducted in a privileged way we think 01:31:04.780 --> 01:31:09.480 about our own welfare and the people find it all somehow unpleasant 01:31:09.480 --> 01:31:15.100 and annoying and whether something should be banned or not what is 01:31:15.100 --> 01:31:21.340 happening right now is that thousands of people die everywhere and we 01:31:21.340 --> 01:31:27.100 are not free of that but we carry a huge responsibility as Germany in 01:31:27.100 --> 01:31:31.840 the whole global community we saw it in the Ahr Valley we saw it in 01:31:31.840 --> 01:31:37.160 Pakistan and it all happens now at 1.2 degrees warming compared to the 01:31:37.160 --> 01:31:41.640 pre -industrial of the calculation and we always pretend that 1.5 01:31:41.640 --> 01:31:44.320 would be a magical number and if we somehow stop it, everything is 01:31:44.320 --> 01:31:50.620 fine that's not true we just have to accept and let it work that our 01:31:50.620 --> 01:31:55.780 democracy is in danger if we don't do more climate protection and that 01:31:55.780 --> 01:32:01.160 it's just one-on-one and that we move in this democratic medium and 01:32:01.160 --> 01:32:05.300 that's the biggest achievement we have, our democracy but it didn't 01:32:05.300 --> 01:32:09.040 just come and it wasn't always built in stone and now we have 01:32:09.040 --> 01:32:12.300 something and we want to preserve it a democracy has become more 01:32:12.300 --> 01:32:17.660 democratic over time I see many women in the room we lived in a 01:32:17.660 --> 01:32:19.660 democracy where women were not allowed to vote and today we are 01:32:19.660 --> 01:32:22.560 allowed to vote a democracy is changeable and it has to adapt to 01:32:22.560 --> 01:32:28.980 crises but what we see politically, it doesn't adapt to the crisis and 01:32:28.980 --> 01:32:33.700 there the democracy is in danger and we want to preserve it with the 01:32:33.700 --> 01:32:37.580 civil resistance and that's a democratic participation in the 01:32:37.580 --> 01:32:43.880 political discourse your questions I have a question that relates to 01:32:43.880 --> 01:32:49.000 the legal connections because of the constitutional court decision 01:32:49.660 --> 01:32:53.600 because the courts have a very high legitimation and now regarding the 01:32:53.600 --> 01:32:57.820 alliances that were mentioned how do you get to the goal I wanted to 01:32:57.820 --> 01:33:02.300 ask in connection with the duty of protection you mentioned that it 01:33:02.300 --> 01:33:05.980 was not the duty of protection that gave the decision but in 01:33:05.980 --> 01:33:09.800 connection with the budgeting the protection against protection 01:33:09.800 --> 01:33:15.680 measures now it is so that there are already complaints about the 01:33:15.680 --> 01:33:20.460 current climate protection law in front of the administrative court in 01:33:20.460 --> 01:33:26.660 Berlin -Brandenburg because the budgeting is not sustainable because 01:33:26.660 --> 01:33:33.960 200 million tons are already missing how would in a foreseeable future 01:33:33.960 --> 01:33:39.880 complaint the chances of duty of protection and if you talk to the 01:33:39.880 --> 01:33:45.360 people who deal with it who say the distribution struggles could 01:33:45.360 --> 01:33:50.960 become drastic at the end of the decade if these things are not 01:33:50.960 --> 01:33:56.380 stopped and possibly such complaints would be successful that's why I 01:33:56.380 --> 01:34:06.870 wanted to ask yes that's a bit difficult because I don't now I'm 01:34:06.870 --> 01:34:10.850 coming back a bit that I don't like to give a very concrete answer if 01:34:10.850 --> 01:34:16.690 I don't have all the details so I think there are very many different 01:34:16.690 --> 01:34:23.710 procedures there are those who refer to the government but there are 01:34:23.710 --> 01:34:29.590 also many small complaints against imitating facilities and so on and 01:34:29.590 --> 01:34:33.510 in all of these it is not that the Federal Constitutional Court has a 01:34:33.510 --> 01:34:42.850 very clear effect but that it always works stronger so that's also so 01:34:42.850 --> 01:34:47.950 difficult for me as a legal scientist to answer because it is very 01:34:47.950 --> 01:34:52.270 clear then what the corresponding reports say in relation to this 01:34:52.270 --> 01:34:57.250 specific question and how the court reacts to it so whether it is the 01:34:57.250 --> 01:35:02.130 statements the studies that are available and which are independent or 01:35:02.130 --> 01:35:04.990 whether it includes further studies and then answers that on this 01:35:04.990 --> 01:35:12.330 basis so the it is actually the case that it is about very concrete 01:35:12.330 --> 01:35:16.490 effects already in the fundamental rights but maybe to frame that a 01:35:16.490 --> 01:35:21.230 bit so you have now addressed a German procedure and I have already 01:35:21.230 --> 01:35:24.870 mentioned that there are of course in the most different also in front 01:35:24.870 --> 01:35:28.470 of the most different courts there are procedures so there are those 01:35:28.470 --> 01:35:33.030 who are rather government-oriented then there are those who are 01:35:33.030 --> 01:35:36.370 against concrete projects what there is also, for example, we are a 01:35:36.370 --> 01:35:41.190 procedure against companies so a well-known procedure against RWE from 01:35:41.190 --> 01:35:50.670 a farmer from Peru who wants to make RWE liable because RWE has a very 01:35:50.670 --> 01:35:55.490 low but measurable share of CO2 emissions and he lives below a glacier 01:35:55.490 --> 01:36:00.010 and the glacier continues to melt and he has to make a precaution that 01:36:00.010 --> 01:36:04.350 when this glacier lake floods he can protect his house it is a very 01:36:04.350 --> 01:36:07.550 well -known procedure which is already running there was already a 01:36:07.550 --> 01:36:13.690 local appointment on site so there is also this dimension that 01:36:13.690 --> 01:36:18.990 companies are sued which is even more critical than procedures that 01:36:18.990 --> 01:36:25.830 are against the state because the main problem that arises is that of 01:36:25.830 --> 01:36:31.930 course when companies have behaved legally had permits for their 01:36:33.450 --> 01:36:36.950 installations and so on then of course it is very difficult whether 01:36:36.950 --> 01:36:41.350 you can make them liable for something that was actually legal so 01:36:41.350 --> 01:36:46.990 maybe just to see the overall context and as I said you have to look 01:36:46.990 --> 01:36:52.550 at each individual procedure my feeling is that when I look in the 01:36:52.550 --> 01:36:59.090 international area that climate lawsuits which can be very different 01:36:59.090 --> 01:37:04.270 are increasing and that there are always successes that you may not 01:37:04.270 --> 01:37:08.630 have imagined a few years ago but especially when it comes to 01:37:08.630 --> 01:37:11.990 protection obligations there are also some interesting procedures 01:37:11.990 --> 01:37:14.630 internationally there is for example a procedure in front of the 01:37:14.630 --> 01:37:19.970 european court for human rights of some portuguese teenagers who sue 01:37:19.970 --> 01:37:23.850 several states in front of the european court because they say we 01:37:23.850 --> 01:37:28.490 suffer so much in portugal we had very strong forest fires many people 01:37:28.490 --> 01:37:32.630 died that would be something where it is very much directly about the 01:37:32.630 --> 01:37:36.070 climate consequences and there this question of protection obligations 01:37:36.070 --> 01:37:38.730 is also raised again and there was now a negotiation about it so there 01:37:38.730 --> 01:37:44.350 will be a decision and I think that there are also dynamics that will 01:37:44.350 --> 01:37:47.710 advance and where it plays a very big role if for example the court in 01:37:47.710 --> 01:37:53.690 straßburg makes a guiding judgment because then of course it also 01:37:53.690 --> 01:37:56.010 affects the individual state constitutional courts 01:37:59.050 --> 01:38:04.370 my question is what about all the things that in the last 10, 20, 30 01:38:04.370 --> 01:38:10.410 years have been figured out all the projects and which are now being 01:38:10.410 --> 01:38:15.990 implemented so we have in karlsruhe for example that now plantations 01:38:15.990 --> 01:38:20.590 are being built in the kaiserstrasse so that a great site can go there 01:38:21.010 --> 01:38:26.810 or there should be a second Rhine bridge built so that the traffic 01:38:26.810 --> 01:38:33.450 flows better or whatever so such projects and then it is called and I 01:38:33.450 --> 01:38:38.110 also see a frustration in the civic movement which then says yes, if 01:38:38.110 --> 01:38:41.070 you talk to the city council then comes this detail, that detail, that 01:38:41.070 --> 01:38:46.910 detail they can't change their mind so the question is where does it 01:38:46.910 --> 01:38:50.030 start that we are really doing something different and could you not 01:38:50.030 --> 01:38:55.010 to include the citizens there is now a great public interest for 01:38:55.010 --> 01:39:00.970 example on the two many groups are active and how can it start that 01:39:00.970 --> 01:39:05.350 you say okay we have planned something in the last 20 years there are 01:39:05.350 --> 01:39:10.950 also decisions but that is not good under today's point of view we 01:39:10.950 --> 01:39:17.610 have to start now to think about it and to say okay we do it 01:39:17.610 --> 01:39:23.270 differently how would the conditions or the environment look legally, 01:39:23.410 --> 01:39:26.650 politically and so on I would like to ask the question to Mr. Fuchs 01:39:26.650 --> 01:39:31.330 because he as a former senator in Bremen with exactly such questions 01:39:31.330 --> 01:39:36.930 should know himself very well yes, I am now less involved in the 01:39:36.930 --> 01:39:43.790 Karlsruher municipal policy but the question can be generalized so I 01:39:43.790 --> 01:39:52.910 think nobody would contradict you if they say you have to put 01:39:52.910 --> 01:39:58.350 everything on the test I would like to say which was inherited from 01:39:58.350 --> 01:40:04.710 the past under the light of climate change but I think most cities or 01:40:04.710 --> 01:40:11.030 at least a lot are already on this path they are actually the pioneers 01:40:11.030 --> 01:40:22.730 cities which very concrete scenarios I hesitate a bit the term plan 01:40:22.730 --> 01:40:29.630 but development scenarios have been designed and decided how they want 01:40:29.630 --> 01:40:38.930 to be by 2040-2045 both in terms of their energy supply on their 01:40:38.930 --> 01:40:47.710 mobility system their area policy that does not mean that everything 01:40:47.710 --> 01:40:52.590 has to be stopped cities have to be able to develop also for economic 01:40:52.590 --> 01:40:56.730 reasons I know what he means projects are being realized because they 01:40:56.730 --> 01:41:01.810 were planned 20 years ago big companies are building a huge new 01:41:01.810 --> 01:41:04.830 complex which has now been inaugurated with a gas heating because it 01:41:04.830 --> 01:41:10.670 was planned 20 years ago that is the argument you need a different 01:41:10.670 --> 01:41:15.970 kind of dynamic a different kind of city development not everything 01:41:15.970 --> 01:41:26.070 stop but I would say a mixture of climate neutrality and climate 01:41:26.070 --> 01:41:32.590 adaptation climate adaptation is also a big topic for cities so fresh 01:41:32.590 --> 01:41:38.350 air cutting city greening facade greening all these things that have 01:41:38.350 --> 01:41:46.950 to be done preventively to catch the already foreseeable warming it 01:41:46.950 --> 01:41:54.030 will heat up much more in the cities than in the country we need a 01:41:54.030 --> 01:42:02.210 combination between measures that reduce the CO2 emissions and 01:42:02.210 --> 01:42:08.090 adaptation measures that we have to invest so that life in the cities 01:42:08.090 --> 01:42:15.570 will be bearable in the future and that worldwide the problem is not 01:42:15.570 --> 01:42:22.290 the European German cities but the big megacities in the global south 01:42:22.290 --> 01:42:30.590 of which you can hardly imagine how the living conditions are there so 01:42:30.590 --> 01:42:35.630 for the south the climate change will be much more dramatic and there 01:42:36.390 --> 01:42:42.670 money is often missing to invest in adaptation measures that is also a 01:42:42.670 --> 01:42:47.830 question of international financial aid which is absolutely necessary 01:42:47.830 --> 01:42:52.310 for this Ms. Post the lady in the front 01:42:59.840 --> 01:43:04.680 super thank you I have a question that Christian Seidel can answer 01:43:07.720 --> 01:43:13.180 I have stomach aches with this concept of generation justice or 01:43:13.180 --> 01:43:19.980 justice for future life because I wonder if you do not inevitably come 01:43:19.980 --> 01:43:24.520 to a kind of measure of justice so according to the motto who will be 01:43:24.520 --> 01:43:30.520 able to say in the future what the most just prioritization let's say 01:43:30.520 --> 01:43:39.240 of target conflicts will be so how do you want to know what later was 01:43:39.240 --> 01:43:49.900 just or justice will be produced so I think right first of all that 01:43:49.900 --> 01:43:53.700 you emphasize that we ask the questions we are negotiating here under 01:43:53.700 --> 01:43:57.400 uncertainty we do not know a lot we do not know what the living 01:43:57.400 --> 01:44:01.060 conditions of future people will be we do not know what preferences 01:44:01.060 --> 01:44:06.420 and wishes they will have that does not mean that we do not know 01:44:06.420 --> 01:44:09.440 anything so we know for example that it will be people we know for 01:44:09.440 --> 01:44:13.460 example that qua people they need something like clean air and a 01:44:13.460 --> 01:44:18.560 certain temperature spectrum to be able to live properly they may not 01:44:18.560 --> 01:44:22.800 want to be exposed to thunderstorms and so on every year so we already 01:44:22.800 --> 01:44:26.560 know all that and of course we can only make our decision on the basis 01:44:27.720 --> 01:44:33.880 but what you can say is less the question how does the distribution 01:44:33.880 --> 01:44:37.420 look between the generations as a company that you have to realize 01:44:37.420 --> 01:44:42.360 that there is now definitely an injustice so the injustice consists 01:44:42.360 --> 01:44:53.840 simply in that over time that the benefits of emissions come to us we 01:44:53.840 --> 01:44:57.180 all benefit from it that the room is comfortably air-conditioned that 01:44:57.180 --> 01:44:59.320 there is even a room where we are protected from the weather and so on 01:44:59.320 --> 01:45:05.800 we benefit from it but the disadvantages associated with it come to 01:45:05.800 --> 01:45:09.380 others and if one has the advantages and the others the disadvantages 01:45:09.960 --> 01:45:14.920 then it is simply unfair and we know that so it is not uncertain but 01:45:14.920 --> 01:45:18.740 that is the starting point for the whole climate-scientific discussion 01:45:19.960 --> 01:45:24.580 that you have to react to it that seems evident to me the question is 01:45:26.980 --> 01:45:32.060 if one asks how does the distribution look that is controversial but 01:45:32.060 --> 01:45:38.880 that it goes to the point that one protects the morally relevant basic 01:45:38.880 --> 01:45:43.880 goods of future people and that this would mean a redistribution in 01:45:43.880 --> 01:45:50.700 our wealth to more wealth for the future that seems to me very 01:45:50.700 --> 01:45:54.240 controversial how exactly that has to look depends on the moral 01:45:54.240 --> 01:45:58.220 philosophy of dissent there are of course different good arguments for 01:45:58.220 --> 01:46:01.920 different good positions but in any case what has to change in this 01:46:01.920 --> 01:46:08.440 direction there is consensus but there is no instance that can 01:46:08.440 --> 01:46:16.200 represent the interests of the future except the present it is about 01:46:16.200 --> 01:46:21.880 that we develop an extended justice that also includes the interests 01:46:21.880 --> 01:46:28.160 of the far away and the future but that is a question of the 01:46:28.160 --> 01:46:32.560 democratic discourse here and today and I think the skepticism comes 01:46:32.560 --> 01:46:37.280 when one tries to institutionalize it to create additional 01:46:37.280 --> 01:46:44.640 institutions that should act as a corrective to parliamentary 01:46:44.640 --> 01:46:49.760 democracy Ms. Schwerke we were still talking about a proposal you 01:46:49.760 --> 01:46:55.460 explained to me that was about the committees that would be something 01:46:55.460 --> 01:47:01.280 institutional one can of course think about groups that are less 01:47:01.280 --> 01:47:07.720 represented because they don't vote and set up committees but it is 01:47:07.720 --> 01:47:12.600 easier for the young people because you can ask them for future 01:47:12.600 --> 01:47:16.200 generations we don't solve the problem because the question is who 01:47:16.200 --> 01:47:20.640 sits in the corresponding committees I would like to ask why don't you 01:47:20.640 --> 01:47:21.980 just tell people to vote? 01:47:23.160 --> 01:47:26.480 if they are too young they can't vote if they are too young but at 18 01:47:26.480 --> 01:47:30.360 they can and because the young people didn't vote for Brexit because 01:47:30.360 --> 01:47:35.960 they preferred social media we got Brexit no, no, it's about those who 01:47:35.960 --> 01:47:41.040 don't have these rooms no more voting rights for over 60 years old 01:47:49.550 --> 01:47:55.490 I can understand the resistance I totally agree I can understand the 01:47:55.490 --> 01:48:02.230 concern and also the question that we should give up but my question 01:48:02.230 --> 01:48:08.310 is what is it in relation to a change in lifestyle of thousands of 01:48:08.310 --> 01:48:13.050 people in contrast to the manoeuvres that are carried out and I miss 01:48:13.050 --> 01:48:17.870 your voice why don't you raise your voice against manoeuvres in 01:48:17.870 --> 01:48:23.290 Germany that are a destruction of the environment of an incredible 01:48:23.290 --> 01:48:29.410 scale I miss your voice I miss your voice yes, that's one point and 01:48:29.410 --> 01:48:39.370 then we saw yesterday the film and we saw that there are incredible 01:48:39.370 --> 01:48:49.430 progress in research what can be done to to stop this development and 01:48:49.430 --> 01:48:55.730 to improve many things amazing and there is a lack of money and my 01:48:55.730 --> 01:49:00.130 question is yes, we have a special budget of 100 billion for the 01:49:00.130 --> 01:49:09.390 military why is there a special budget for climate change for climate 01:49:09.390 --> 01:49:15.030 research that is necessary that is equally important there is no peace 01:49:15.030 --> 01:49:21.870 there is no peace if we don't invest in climate those are my two 01:49:21.870 --> 01:49:26.250 questions thank you short question do you mean military manoeuvres or 01:49:26.250 --> 01:49:30.710 what kind of manoeuvres military exercises we had big military 01:49:30.710 --> 01:49:36.630 exercises here in Germany and I think the nuclear exercises with the 01:49:36.630 --> 01:49:41.770 attachments of nuclear bombs or the big international exercises I 01:49:41.770 --> 01:49:45.970 think those are incredible destruction that are taking place in the 01:49:45.970 --> 01:49:55.590 climate area thank you who wants to answer first raise your voice I 01:49:55.590 --> 01:50:00.550 think that is happening everywhere in society and we do it we are 01:50:00.550 --> 01:50:06.090 demanding but we are attacking what is happening according to the 01:50:06.090 --> 01:50:10.150 political situation and we are trying but you have to fight we have to 01:50:10.150 --> 01:50:17.510 fight to be heard because what we have tried in the last decades is to 01:50:17.510 --> 01:50:23.170 get into conversations to clarify to go to big demonstrations to raise 01:50:23.170 --> 01:50:28.310 signs of course I still go to the Fridays for Future demos I stood in 01:50:28.310 --> 01:50:31.490 front of the government buildings tried to talk to the politicians 01:50:31.490 --> 01:50:35.910 raised signs signed petitions worked in the Fraunhofer Institute I 01:50:35.910 --> 01:50:44.250 tried to vote I think a lot of people are trying to do everything but 01:50:44.250 --> 01:50:51.650 if it is not enough people are attacking more radical measures like 01:50:51.650 --> 01:50:57.190 this protest which is causing social upheaval but I think the voice is 01:50:57.190 --> 01:51:01.130 being raised the problem is we have to get over this point where we 01:51:01.130 --> 01:51:07.610 just get angry the voice has to be raised people have been doing this 01:51:07.610 --> 01:51:11.390 for 30 years and now we have to think how do we get out of this how do 01:51:11.390 --> 01:51:16.410 we get active how do we make everyone aware of their own 01:51:16.410 --> 01:51:21.230 responsibility what do I do but also recognize there are people in 01:51:21.230 --> 01:51:26.990 this country who have more power and more responsibility what do we 01:51:26.990 --> 01:51:30.710 vote for politicians so they have a responsibility for the society and 01:51:30.710 --> 01:51:39.190 set the framework for a better future I think it is a systemic problem 01:51:39.190 --> 01:51:48.270 because it is about short-term political parties lobbyists we have to 01:51:48.270 --> 01:51:56.570 think how we can make it more democratic and more actionable in 01:51:56.570 --> 01:52:00.690 relation to what we are oppressing and I am wondering why there are 01:52:00.690 --> 01:52:04.270 not more people on the streets who say it can't go on like this we 01:52:04.270 --> 01:52:08.030 can't pursue this status quo and I think the second question has to be 01:52:08.030 --> 01:52:11.230 answered by someone else I would like to say a few words about the 01:52:11.230 --> 01:52:17.690 climate fund I will start with the last one because it is less 01:52:17.690 --> 01:52:23.390 controversial but a question of information we have in Germany outside 01:52:23.390 --> 01:52:30.850 of the regular budget the Ampelkoalition has set up a climate 01:52:30.850 --> 01:52:40.530 transformation fund which is about 270 billion for the flanking of the 01:52:40.530 --> 01:52:41.910 ecological transformation 01:52:46.440 --> 01:52:52.930 the European Union has a program the European Green Deal which is 01:52:52.930 --> 01:52:58.410 about 500 billion at the moment it is not a question of missing money 01:52:58.410 --> 01:53:06.350 but the money does not flow because the deadlines for decisions for 01:53:06.350 --> 01:53:10.790 approvals and for the implementation of such projects are simply too 01:53:10.790 --> 01:53:19.950 long so there is no direct competition between more investment in our 01:53:19.950 --> 01:53:23.530 security and more investment in climate protection and we should 01:53:23.530 --> 01:53:28.190 protect ourselves from playing against each other and if they resist 01:53:28.190 --> 01:53:34.270 military manoeuvres then we can disarm the Bundeswehr because a 01:53:34.270 --> 01:53:40.270 Bundeswehr which can not practice is useless and we live in a 01:53:40.270 --> 01:53:45.230 different world than in the 90s where many of us thought we are only 01:53:45.230 --> 01:53:48.970 surrounded by friends and the question of military security does not 01:53:48.970 --> 01:53:54.610 matter anymore I am not even talking about the big crises like the war 01:53:54.610 --> 01:54:00.530 in our neighbourhood which is not only threatening Ukraine maybe some 01:54:00.530 --> 01:54:07.730 of you have noticed that Serbia a week ago was playing with a troop 01:54:07.730 --> 01:54:15.670 march at the borders of Kosovo if the Europeans are not able to stock 01:54:15.670 --> 01:54:23.230 up the peace troops which are already in Kosovo to say we will quickly 01:54:23.230 --> 01:54:29.750 add another 3-4.000 soldiers as a signal to the Serbs don't do that 01:54:31.150 --> 01:54:37.130 then the danger of war increases so please don't play climate 01:54:37.130 --> 01:54:43.110 protection and security politics against each other thank you Mr. Blau 01:54:43.110 --> 01:54:52.590 I would like to ask you and Mr. Seidel a question Mr. Fuchs mentioned 01:54:52.590 --> 01:55:00.290 some important keywords about connectivity international politics and 01:55:00.290 --> 01:55:04.990 that only this kind of climate protection or the consideration in this 01:55:04.990 --> 01:55:12.170 context can lead to global achievement Ms. Münzen, you mentioned the 01:55:12.170 --> 01:55:18.730 FDP but I think it is basically nothing else than what the economics 01:55:18.730 --> 01:55:25.630 tell us and if you call listen to the science then listen to the 01:55:25.630 --> 01:55:31.190 economics and therefore my question to you Mr. Seidel don't you see a 01:55:31.190 --> 01:55:35.830 moral duty of different climate protection measures which you as a 01:55:35.830 --> 01:55:41.870 nation as a state can take to choose those which are most suitable to 01:55:41.870 --> 01:55:47.910 achieve a global climate protection and now the second question to you 01:55:47.910 --> 01:55:53.470 Ms. Schwertfeger the article 20 in the decision of the Federal 01:55:53.470 --> 01:55:57.950 Constitutional Court stayed a bit pale in my opinion the court chose a 01:55:57.950 --> 01:56:03.830 different dramatic construction which you explained earlier my 01:56:03.830 --> 01:56:06.850 question to you wouldn't it be worth considering to make the article 01:56:06.850 --> 01:56:14.330 20 fruitful by giving up the right to the legislator by different 01:56:14.330 --> 01:56:21.490 measures which he can choose to choose those which are most likely to 01:56:21.490 --> 01:56:25.910 be realized with regard to the goal achievement the article 20 is of 01:56:25.910 --> 01:56:31.350 course more of a final norm than a conditional one and of course there 01:56:31.350 --> 01:56:37.150 is a lot of room but it has to be more than just a constitutional 01:56:37.150 --> 01:56:41.510 rhetoric a legal content has to be included otherwise we don't have 01:56:41.510 --> 01:56:46.030 norms do you see a possibility to make it fruitful? 01:56:48.310 --> 01:56:50.030 thank you do you want to go first? 01:56:50.550 --> 01:56:57.290 I'll go first I'll start with the article 20 yes, the article 20 is a 01:56:57.290 --> 01:57:03.050 state's goal and a state's goal is a kind of chewing gum norm which 01:57:03.050 --> 01:57:09.750 can be extended to make it fruitful and it is as I said before we 01:57:09.750 --> 01:57:13.470 don't have a right to climate protection but it is an objective duty 01:57:13.470 --> 01:57:17.250 which is directed to the state but the limits are very wide and to 01:57:17.250 --> 01:57:20.190 read out the requirement that it has to be very specific measures 01:57:20.190 --> 01:57:27.150 would of course underlie the democratic system that the best solutions 01:57:27.150 --> 01:57:29.990 should be found in the process and they don't have to be the most 01:57:29.990 --> 01:57:35.650 effective because there can be reasons which are against the most 01:57:35.650 --> 01:57:40.210 effective because it is more sociable and therefore it is necessary to 01:57:40.210 --> 01:57:43.070 bring them to an agreement maybe another point because you mentioned 01:57:43.070 --> 01:57:50.970 international politics in relation to the article 20a you said and I 01:57:50.970 --> 01:57:55.590 understand that in the constitution which was very vague but 01:57:55.590 --> 01:57:59.430 especially in relation to the international there are passages in this 01:57:59.430 --> 01:58:05.530 decision which made very strong 20a means climate protection in 01:58:05.530 --> 01:58:12.530 international cooperation and the court has a duty of our state to 01:58:12.530 --> 01:58:19.330 work together on the international level this is not so present 01:58:19.330 --> 01:58:24.290 because it did not directly affect the decision in the matter but this 01:58:24.290 --> 01:58:28.430 is also as a follow-up to the meaning of the decision this is present 01:58:28.430 --> 01:58:32.670 and this raises the index finger and says we don't do it alone we have 01:58:32.670 --> 01:58:37.230 to do it with others and our government is obliged to act 01:58:37.230 --> 01:58:44.610 internationally thank you, Mr. Sade you pointed out the question isn't 01:58:44.610 --> 01:58:48.630 there a moral duty to choose the strategy which has the highest 01:58:48.630 --> 01:58:54.530 chances of success and which is global if that is the question I would 01:58:54.530 --> 01:59:04.030 say the moral duty is definitely to choose the strategy which leads to 01:59:04.030 --> 01:59:15.650 a moral duty this moral duty is also to act on as far as possible as a 01:59:15.650 --> 01:59:21.790 state or as an individual which has a global effect but that doesn't 01:59:21.790 --> 01:59:28.990 necessarily mean that you choose the most likely strategy it is an act 01:59:28.990 --> 01:59:32.310 under uncertainty we have different strategies which have different 01:59:32.310 --> 01:59:37.590 chances of success and maybe the best is to choose one which is mixed 01:59:37.590 --> 01:59:44.590 in this respect you can say the plural for satisfaction should not be 01:59:44.590 --> 01:59:48.930 understood that it is only about satisfaction as little as the plural 01:59:48.930 --> 01:59:54.030 for a green innovation and technology it should be understood that it 01:59:54.030 --> 01:59:58.730 is only about and not also about reduction but you can mix it and then 01:59:58.730 --> 02:00:03.370 we get to the point where the answer to the question what is the most 02:00:03.370 --> 02:00:09.010 likely strategy which has the most likely chances of success on a 02:00:09.010 --> 02:00:12.270 global level is a mix of these strategies but that is an empirical 02:00:12.270 --> 02:00:19.250 question and I agree with you you have to take empirical research into 02:00:19.250 --> 02:00:21.770 account and not only those of economics but that depends on 02:00:21.770 --> 02:00:25.710 acceptability also in the political sphere and that is a different 02:00:25.710 --> 02:00:31.590 kind of science which is relevant thank you very much I have been 02:00:31.590 --> 02:00:33.850 massively alarmed at 1 p.m. 02:00:34.010 --> 02:00:40.290 it will be over and I know that some of you have to leave therefore I 02:00:40.290 --> 02:00:43.590 have to make a cut at this point I thank you very much that you 02:00:43.590 --> 02:00:49.550 mentioned the internationality at the end that it is a global topic I 02:00:49.550 --> 02:00:52.910 have been biting my tongue because this topic is also massively 02:00:52.910 --> 02:00:57.070 driving me crazy I would like to give you three short things to maybe 02:00:57.070 --> 02:01:03.570 continue to discuss outside in many parts of the world only two know 02:01:03.570 --> 02:01:08.750 heating and especially in the northern hemisphere only two settings 02:01:08.750 --> 02:01:14.210 high oven and off you could save a lot if you would pass on 02:01:14.210 --> 02:01:19.010 international German technology for example if you would help there it 02:01:19.010 --> 02:01:21.970 is a similar story as with the six rivers which I think 90 percent 02:01:21.970 --> 02:01:27.590 make the plastic waste into the seas which are all in Asia there we 02:01:27.590 --> 02:01:31.910 can do without straw and plastic bags that is one thing it does not 02:01:31.910 --> 02:01:34.450 mean that we should not do it but it means that we have to think 02:01:34.450 --> 02:01:37.890 globally also with climate protection the second thing is many years 02:01:37.890 --> 02:01:42.130 ago an American Pulitzer Prize winner said at climate conferences it 02:01:42.130 --> 02:01:46.930 is not important what is written on paper paper is patient what is 02:01:46.930 --> 02:01:51.030 presented in the exhibitions in the foyers is important because there 02:01:51.030 --> 02:01:55.990 people can see that it can be worthwhile to do something and that you 02:01:55.990 --> 02:02:00.710 can earn money with it the third thing is an American environmentalist 02:02:00.710 --> 02:02:05.590 just told me our Washington correspondent who said in a speech we have 02:02:05.590 --> 02:02:10.890 become very rich by destroying the world and now we will become rich 02:02:10.890 --> 02:02:16.990 by bringing it back to order and that is for me the positive story we 02:02:16.990 --> 02:02:21.290 need the legal framework because we have to create that it can work 02:02:21.290 --> 02:02:27.250 and we have the CO2 prices and we have the technology that we can 02:02:27.250 --> 02:02:33.470 bring to the streets what gives me courage is the science at the KIT 02:02:33.470 --> 02:02:36.630 for example something has been developed where not only CO2 is taken 02:02:36.630 --> 02:02:40.430 out of the air it is advertised everywhere that we have to do it 02:02:40.430 --> 02:02:43.790 because it is clear that we can not only do it by saving and changing 02:02:44.330 --> 02:02:48.530 we have to take CO2 out of the air but they make carbon out of the CO2 02:02:48.530 --> 02:02:53.590 and that is an industrial raw material that can be sold again that's 02:02:53.590 --> 02:02:57.930 how a business is made and without science it will not be possible I 02:02:57.930 --> 02:03:01.030 think we all agree on that so there is hope we just have to steer it 02:03:01.030 --> 02:03:04.670 in the right direction and we have to think globally that would be my 02:03:04.670 --> 02:03:10.490 plea for the discussion but the last word has of course Professor Post 02:03:10.490 --> 02:03:16.350 as a guest speaker and at this point a warm thank you to all four who 02:03:16.350 --> 02:03:18.750 have discussed so wonderfully and thank you very much for your interest