A Brave Old World??

It really is totally contradictory: The Green Party stands among other things for globalization and free movement of people, ideas and goods (i.e. their own ideas, of course) around the globe.


How can this be made congruent with their aim of ending or at least decreasing global warming?


According to their ideas for 2020 they propagate „open borders“ („Aus Deutschland und Europa raus, ebenso wie rein“ ) https://cms.gruene.de/uploads/documents/20190328_Zwischenbericht-Gruenes-Grundsatzprogramm.pdf
People should be able to fluctuate, to be continually on the move between countries and continents: „Das schließt ein, dass Menschen zwischen ihrem Herkunftsland und den aufnehmenden Ländern mehrmals ein- und ausreisen können. So unterstützt zirkuläre Migration den Austausch von Know-how zwischen Europa und den Herkunftsländern“.


How should all this fit in with their demands for „no flights, no aeroplanes, no CO2 emissions“ a.s.o?
They demand politics of global structures (Globale Strukturpolitik) in a world where everything and everybody are interlinked with everything and everybody else. („Denn in einer verflochtenen Welt verbinden und überkreuzen sich zwangsläufig auch alle Bereiche der eigenen nationalen Politik, egal ob Umwelt-, Agrar-, Bildungs- oder Rechtspolitik, sogar und immer mehr auch die Innenpolitik“.) They also demand fair and open trade with the whole world.


As long as there exists the demand that people should be able to get into and out of countries as kind of their basic right, as long as the global economy exists and should be made even more dominant and all-encompassing, as long as everything is interlinked with the whole world, there will be no end to international, intercontinental flights and thousands of ships and airplanes will be going round the world every day of the year.


How do they want to solve all these contradictions?


In the same way as this unhappy girl Greta tries to solve those contradictions? By choosing impossible ways of getting around the world?


Though in Greta’s case her problem of wanting to take part in the Climate Conferences in New York and later Chile could easily have been solved without a lot of carbon emission indeed. She could easily have taken part in these conferences without travelling there at all in our modern world of internet conferences and transmissions of her point of view via the internet. Though- of course- neither the internet nor all the gadgets needed for it are carbon free at all. But neither is her super racing-yacht.


But, of course, taking part in these conferences via conference calls would not have been so cool, it would not have had that tremendous amount of attention she and her team are getting now from some smallish parts of the world (mostly the European one, because she is pretty unknown everywhere else in the world). Though, if she had chosen the CO2 free way of taking part in the conferences, it would at least have been more honest. More focused – as she herself constantly demands – on the cause , not the person, i.e. herself.


The yacht she is using is not CO2 free at all- the opposite. And her crew is flying home and others are flying to the US to get the boat back to Europe. Many more flights are necessary for her PR – gag than if she had flown to the USA together with her dad, without any of this „much to do about nothing“. But no, of course there had to be all the attention from journalists from all over Europe, also getting to the UK (by airplane) and back home again (by airplane) and using lots of boats run by diesel to bid her farewell.


If anything happens on their way through the northern Atlantic, they must be rescued, put on a boat, or a helicopter and flown home or to the USA. CO2 free?? And how will they all get home again after her gap year in the USA and South America? Again on such a boat or rather on a wooden sailing boat? Or: -horrible thought- on an airplane after all?


This shows us a thing or two about our modern world: It is not easy at all to live completely without CO2 emissions. Our bare existence means a lot of those emissions. We cannot turn the wheel back to the days of the Vikings who crossed the ocean in very simple, very basic, small wooden boats with one simple sail. (See picture above – a type of boat used for hundreds of years). Lots of those brave Vikings lost their lives and drowned in the seas. However, they really lived without any carbon emission (apart from a few cooking fires) and when the media crow that Greta has no comfort at all on her racing yacht, then those Vikings had even a thousand times less comfort on their truly emission free boats. However, their journeys took much longer than two weeks, of course. And in nowadays‘ world nobody has the time, or the stamina, or the courage , or the possibility to live like that any more and have a life expectancy of about 35 years. Who can want such a way of living?


It seems that all this to-do about the environment is just an artificially constructed and blown up PR thing thought of by clever businessmen. And the girl – though she herself may be honest enough- is used as their flagship.


Whether she will have much influence in the US may also be doubted. First of all, the US is less prone to hysterical reactions than, let’s say, the Germans are. Most of Greta’s followers can be found in Germany with their constant wish to be the goody-goodies of nowadays‘ world, the ones who „know best“, the ones who want to „save the world“.

If at all, then the US have their own, homemade climate activists and advocates, like Isra Hirsi, the Co-Founder and Co-Executive Director of the US Youth Climate Strike. She has also led and organized hundreds of strikes across the country this year. Maybe she is looking forward to Greta’s arrival to co-operate with her, maybe she would rather be the one to be remembered as THE climate activist of the USA.
We will see.


But one thing is really for sure: All these debates and talks and ideas around changing the climate back to „normal“ – and what, for heaven’s sake means „normal“ in this context??: The Ice Ages? The very warm times in between?The climate of today? Isn’t it all wishful thinking? – will never ever be achieved if the world’s population is not going to decline DRASTICALLY and at once. Even if we could stop the earth getting still warmer by eliminating every carbon emission at all, even if we could go back to a pre-industrial life, a basic life of no comfort at all, it will not change anything if people increase steadily to the absolutely shocking number of 10 billion people!
Even nowadays numbers of 7 or 8 billion are FAR too many, not to speak of a world of 10 billion. Which will be absolute horror for sure not only regarding the climate but everything else as well: Nature, animals, water, air, all kinds of resources, mega- movements of young males, the horror of mega-cities packed with aggressive people… you name it. It will be absolute hell!

This means the only thing that might save the world and mankind is birth control, birth control, birth control, at once and everywhere in the world to the sustainable number of 1 to maximum 3 children per woman – worldwide.


And in addition to that, we should look after our world in general in a better way.
(17. Aug. 2019)