SAVE THE WORLD - JOIN IN
Cosmology of Dignity - Peaceful Solutions to Save the World
Grischa Eichfuss
Philosopher & environmental activist
-
tolerance
-
human rights
-
charity
-
understanding
"We have to act today as if the climate catastrophe has happened and act accordingly so that it doesn't really happen tomorrow and we can't do anything more."
Grisha Thomas W. Eichfuss
Why don't we trade ?
The progression of climate change is so slow in nature that people do not see it as a threat. That is why they do not act consistently and purposefully
We do not perceive climate change with our senses. It is invisible, noiseless and odorless. He remains abstract, surreal and unreal
Corporations and politicians step on the brakes so that change becomes cheaper . Social arguments are used as an excuse. Money beats the end of the world.
Developed countries do nothing because they assume that infrastructure and technology will provide solutions for protection in the future. But then they are already destroyed.
The abstract Kadisaster
Dhe climate change is a schlthreatening danger. Because he is very so slow, he will due to menschlicher perception of time as non-existentand felt harmless. In addition, the process runs invisible to humane sense organs.
The danger is still perceived today as something abstract and surreal, it's something that will happen sometime in the distant future, something I can't see, hear, smell or touch, which actually has nothing to do with me.
It's like death. Young people know about the mindnd that they die sometime in the future. But that's so far away for her, death so strange that she's inlive knowing that their death does not exist. Only at the end of life, when people are confronted with their transience, does death emerge from its shadowy existence. Only then will he be perceived for what he actually ist: The final end of earthly existence.
The knowledge of future dangers is only in the mind as a theory. We know it will come at some point. It's all a long way away. Words are apparently not enough to make a future danger appear just as real as an acute one, e.g. the Corona Pandemic.
Individual states take credit for global warming due to the slowness and invisibility of the processe as abstract true, the fear enis only intellectual. This is not enough as a driving force to react massively. Fear only becomes a strong driving force in the form of feelings, which releases energies for action. Only when catastrophes occur that terrify them does the danger become realtbar and felt as a feeling of anxiety.
Legacy Strategies fail
A typical example of traditional crisis management of humanity in an ad hoc stylethe past corona pandemic. The danger was acute, experienced and perceived by everyone on a daily basis, and rightly so around the world caused fear and panic.
The virus has been identified as a concrete threat to humanity.
EqFrom then on, infinite resources were immediately mobilized. The whole world fought shoulder to shoulder for its existence:
-
Trillions of dollars have been pumped into the economy, infrastructure and social systems
-
There have been vaccineffe found in record time
-
Sharp but necessary laws to save mankind were consistently passed and implemented
-
Everything humanly possible has been done to protect the human specieshold
-
The crisis has been resolved.
THERES WILL NO LONGER WORK DURING THE CLIMATE DISASTER
Once climate change enters a stage as concrete as the Corona Pandemic, all will be lost. Fighting only when "the enemy" comes within sight and range has often been and still is the practice of human civilizations. That doesn't work here because the consequences of climate change are irreversible. This means that any damage that has been done can never be repaired.
That's why we humans have toimmediatelydo something against global warming with the same energy, consistency and determination as with the Corona Pandemic!
The strategy should therefore be as follows:
We already have totodaypretend the consequences of the climate catastrophe enteredare entered and act accordingly so they don't actually happen tomorrow - and there's nothing more we can do.
industrial power and politics
Ich will now describe to you what is probably the world's largest century-conventionechn that industry and large corporations have ever committed: Oil and energy companies have known about the devastating effects of the burning of oil, gas and coal on the global climate since the 1950s. They keep this knowledge under wraps and, when it could no longer be swept under the rug, began to systematically deny man-made climate change.
Since the 90s, Exxon, Shell, BP and Chevron have been building up a successful network of lies of climate deniers using conservative business lobbyism, environmental front organizations, think tanks, bought experts, lies, bribery and slander, which to this day has been responsible for anthropogenic global warmingquestion stell and dispute.
What sounds like a James Bond film is historical reality. It happened the same way. Uncovering this conspiracy earned authors Neela Banderjee, John H. Cushman, David Hasemyer, and Lisa Song 2016 Pulitzer Prizes [ 1 ]
[ 1 ] Inside Climate News: Exxon—The road not taken,2015
We can concand the industrynottrust
Why did Exxon, Koch and the industrial conglomeratedone that, against all common sense?
The greed for more and more money, wealth, luxury and personal power.
She were willing to sacrifice nature and all of humanity. This made her walk over dead bodies without hesitation. Once company over much, very much have money, e.gonly profit counts for them. If the industry does not even shy away from the ultimate crime, the downfall of human civilization, to rake in money, it can be safely assumed that there will be no scruples about poisoning people, animals and nature on a smaller scale andzu kill. If the corporations didn't even stop the end of the world, they won't think twice about such "trifles".
Industry concentrates money and power. This power corrupts the executive and supervisory boards. That's why you shouldn't trust these people.
The amalgamation of politics and corporate interests
If the methods of the industry are openly known, why don't the western states put a stop to it? Very easily:
The state is a (silent) partner in every corporation because it participates in the company's profits through income tax.
The more the corporation earns, the more the state earns. This places every government in a conflict of interest.
To date, the industry has deliberately delayed the transition to zero-carbon energy because the transition to zero-carbon infrastructure costs less money if it happens as slowly as possible, or ideally not at all.
DSince politicians are in the same boat as the economy, they usually comply with the urging and demands of industry lobbyists. Haven't you ever wondered how it can be in times of climate catastrophe that the German government doesn't enforce a speed limit, causing millions of tons of CO2 fast would be saved free of charge? The auto industry doesn't want it because it would drastically reduce the sale of SUVs, sports cars and luxury cars. That would cost profits - the auto industry and the government.
The lie with the workplaces and social security
Therethe industry needs to pretend to be carbon freee wants to implement structures as quickly as possible, she advances the argument that a quick and radical change will lead to many people being unemployeds become. You can't do that to these people. The faithful worker must not be sacrificed, etc.
Politicians say that jobs, the economy and social security must be taken into account when it comes to climate protection. At first glance, this sounds reasonable, but there is a misconception:
Politicians assume that the effects of climate change will remain as they are now. Although the weather in Europe has become more extreme, it is not endangering European infrastructure or the economy. The stability and maintenance of Western societies are not in lasting danger. In these considerations, it makes sense to design ecological measures in such a way that economic and social aspects are also taken into account.
After all, climate protection should ultimately ensure that we can maintain our prosperity and our lifestyle without making personal sacrifices. In order for us to be able to do this, however, the economy must only subordinate itself to climate protection to a limited extent.
Now the misconception: If the current climate system collapses, the effects will devastate the economies, infrastructure and stability of Western societies. What you actually wanted to protect through moderate climate protection, you destroy. Thelogic errorsr is that today's measures are intended to maintain the security and stability of the economy, but in truth to theirslead to destruction. Instead of preserving our wealth, they destroy it.
The truth is that going slow doesn't protect and spare the workers and the little man at all. If theinfrastructure collapses, it is always the socially disadvantaged who suffer and die first.
The argument to help the socially weak by slowing down climate protection is a myth, a lie of the industry to evade its responsibility.
.jpg)
