Roland Dürre
Sunday December 11th, 2011

The Best Moment to Stop is When You Most Enjoy It ;-)

I feel more endangered – both for myself and my children – by the climate catastrophe than by any of the virtual rubbish like the “EURO Crisis”, “Financial or Debt Crisis”, etc.
Consequently, measures for avoiding the climate catastrophe are a lot more important to me than all the EURO rescuing umbrellas of this world.

Or in other words: whenever I think of the planet, I could not care less about the EURO.

For instance, I believe a massive and speedy reduction of carbon dioxide emission on this planet should have absolute priority. Consequently, in my role as “the crazy outsider”, I ask many stupid questions.

One of them comes now.

Can we really still, without further thought, climb into our cars, turn the keys and press the accelerator pedal? And can we then believe we are on the right path, just because our car needs one litre less Diesel fuel than its predecessor did (if that is true at all)?

Well, aren’t we lying to ourselves? To be sure, the cars need 6 instead of 7 litres now. That sounds swell and seems to be a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, however, the production of Diesel fuel produces more carbon dioxide than it used to. Which means that in fact the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted is more!

But even if it were not so. Do we still have the right to go anywhere by car? Isn’t every single avoidable or unnecessary kilometre driven by car a violation of nature, ourselves and our descendants that can no longer be tolerated? Or – as religious persons might say – a small sin, many of which quickly accumulate to become a great sin!
Even the excuse with the Chinese is of no help. Someone has to start.

Mind you, most of our mobility is totally unnecessary, anyway. Just look at Sunday mornings, when I ride my bike to the bakery and wonder where all this automobile chaos in front of the bakery comes from. Most of them have a shorter way to go than I.

If we really have to go abroad, there are always alternatives. If we use them, the additional carbon dioxide emission is at a minimum. How often do I find myself sitting in half-full or totally empty trains? And how much do I enjoy my average of perhaps two daily hours on the bike!

To be sure, it costs a little more time. Once in a while, it is certainly less comfortable. But I also win time – for instance working in the train or giving myself some exercise in fresh air. And I gain freedom!

Also, I am happy to see that more and more people think in the same way and even act accordingly. But still I often fear that Jeremy Rifkin, who wrote the (very much to be recommended) book “Die emphatische Zivilisation“, might be right after all when he says:

What a tragedy that now of all times, as the human race starts getting “reasonable“, they will soon be extinct.

(Translated by EG)

8 Kommentare zu “The Best Moment to Stop is When You Most Enjoy It ;-)”

  1. urmelmann (Sunday December 11th, 2011)

    Wo ist der BELEGTE Beweis, daß das sogenannte “Killergas” CO2 das Klima verändert?

    Wann wird der offensichtliche Einfluss der Sonne bzw. anderer galaktischer Phänomene auf das Klima ernst genommen?

    Wann wird dahingehend ernsthafter geforscht?

    Wir befinden uns auf der guten alten Erde nun mal nicht unter einer Glaskuppel, wo uns alles was drum herum passiert nichts angeht und alle klimatischen Veränderungen nur vom bösen bösen Menschen ausgehen kann.
    Wenn sie das ernshaft glauben, dann sind sie einer Religion bzw. Ideologie erlegen…

    Ihre Antwort auf meinen Tweet:
    #Iran #Israel #SaudiArabien #Russland #China #USA #GB #Kriegsdynamik …….und wir diskutieren über die Nachfolge von Gottschalk

    @urmelmann #Iran … #Kriegsdynamik … wir diskutieren über die Nachfolge von Gottschalk Richtig, aber es gibt auch noch #Klimakatastrophe

    Wie wollen sie bitteschön das Klima “retten”, wenn wir uns in einem nuklearen Winter befinden oder der Mensch gänzlich ausgerottet ist?
    Ich glaube dies ist in der gegewärtigen Lage völlig zweitrangig. Es gilt diese Kriegsdynamik zu verhindern und nicht daran vorbei zu reden.
    Über eine Antwort wäre ich erfreut 🙂 LG

  2. rd (Sunday December 11th, 2011)

    Wie gewünscht meine Antwort.

    Der wissenschaftliche Schluss, dass es eine wesentliche Korrelation zwischen dem Anteil von Kohlendioxid und Methangas in der Atmosphäre und der Erwärmung der Welt gibt, erscheint mir trivial. Natürlich kann sich auch die Wissenschaft irren, in diesem Fall erscheint mir dies aber als unwahrscheinlich. Modelle und Hochrechnungen sind zu überzeugend.

    Und der Anteil der Klimagase in der Atmosphäre ist halt mittlerweile so hoch, wie seit Millionen von Jahren nicht mehr. Allein das scheint mir bedenklich. Dass die Ursache für diese Werte die Verbrennung von fossilen Rohstoffen wie Kohle und Öl ist, kann man leicht rechnen.

    Dass Krieg das größte alle Übel ist (und nicht nur die Menschen sondern auch das Klima schädigt) ist mir klar. Ich hoffe aber, dass die Menschheit ein weniger vernünftiger geworden ist und sich so das Kriegsrisiko eher verringert hat.

    Meine größte Sorge hier ist, dass Kriege eher wieder als Folge der Umweltkatastrophe in Mode kommen könnte.

    Beide Themen Krieg und Umwelt sind aber natürlich relevanter als die Nachfolge von Gottschalk 🙂

  3. Detlev Six (Sunday December 11th, 2011)

    Ich möchte diesen apokalyptischen Sonntag nicht vorbeigehen lassen, ohne die Trilogie vollzumachen. Meine allergrößte Sorge ist die Weltüberbevölkerung. Da es Klimakatastrophen und Kriege immer schon gab, die Menschheit die Folgen davon also kennt, (im Gegensatz zu den wirklichen Variablen der Klimakatastrophenvorhersage und den wirksamen Methoden der Kriegsverhinderung) kann ich wissenschaftlich zuverlässig sagen, dass beide an meiner Sorge arbeiten werden.

  4. rd (Sunday December 11th, 2011)

    @Detlev: Einerseits ja. Andererseits führt Verarmung ja zu mehr Kindern, weil diese ja als Vorsorge fürs Alter gesehen werden. Und beide – Kriege wie Klimakatastrophe – dürften Armut schaffen …

  5. Chris Wood (Monday December 12th, 2011)

    I read something recently about climate change, that was new to me, and that seems not to be generally known. During the last 500 million years, the world’s average temperature was about 12 degrees hotter than now for about half the time. Four times, (including the relatively recent past, it has dropped to 2 or 3 degrees below the current average.
    So it cannot be said that the expected higher temperatures are generally damaging to life. What causes problems is when change is too rapid to cope with, when species cannot adapt quickly enough. And the present rate of increase is dramatically fast on a geological timescale.
    The level of CO2 in the atmosphere was generally higher than now. Carbon has been taken out of the atmosphere to make the shells that formed chalk, limestone and marble, as well as making coal, oil and tar. The greater warmth this would have caused on Earth was balanced by the earlier lower radiation of the sun. Cooler periods were sometimes caused by dust clouds in space, cutting off the sun’s radiation. (It’s funny to think that for millions of years at a time no other star or planet was visible).
    During the ice ages, see levels sank by dozens of meters. During the last hot period, (Eocene), they were dozens of meters higher than now. There were dinosaurs and tropical trees in Antarctica. Warming, (relative to now), was much stronger at the poles than the equator.
    One model, (which may exaggerate), predicts a temperature increase of 10 degrees by 2300, if fossil fuel burning continues at current rates.

    Power stations and factories already running will probably produce the 2 degree “target” rise, if they run as long as intended. Even this will have effects dramatic enough to make people forget Chernobyl and Fukushima.
    But I must agree with Six and even Urmelmann, that the really serious worries concern overpopulation, depleting resources and war. These are the problems that may bring civilisation to an end, probably eliminating mankind.
    And the current financial crises may signal the start of this process. It seems that people these days are only happy if they experience improving living standards. This is driven by inequality. The poor try to catch up and the rich try to stay ahead. In the past, this has been a driving force for progress. Democratic governments must try to satisfy these urges. So they try to force progress beyond what they can achieve, rather than letting things stagnate or regress for a generation or more. Of course stagnation itself is no help. Efforts must go into population limitation and sustainable use of resources, rather than new toys. I guess that mankind will be too stupid. But I have not completely given up hope.

  6. Chris Wood (Wednesday December 14th, 2011)

    I hear repeated comments about Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto agreement, but strangely nobody has mentioned that Canada, (with Russia and perhaps Skandinavia), can gain from the climate change. Vancouver and Victoria will be under water, but vast tracts of Canadian tundra will become fertile, (assuming burning continues for 100 years).

    Bayern III has expelled GB from Europe, or at least from the European Union! They reported today that London has dropped to third place in the World’s finance centers, and that Holland tops the European list (ninth place).

  7. Detlev Six (Wednesday December 14th, 2011)

    Sind Great Britain und Kanada jetzt die neue Achse des Bösen oder nur die Achse der Nervösen?

  8. rd (Wednesday December 14th, 2011)

    Vielleicht sind UK und Canada jetzt auch die Achse der Autonomen. Da weiß man dann nicht, ob positiv oder negativ? 🙂

Kommentar verfassen