About passive houses and plastic bags and styrofoam fur

Ah, a climate change skeptic. No one says there hasn't always been climate change, but by now climate scientists worldwide agree that the observed warming is significantly (negatively) influenced by humans and must accordingly be curbed. That there are still isolated specialists who deny this is already sad.

And always paying indulgences to the climate church, it's quite easy, for example with the electricity bill....

needs between 5 and 7 l, has space for 4 and CO 2 around 110 g.

With 5 to 7 liters of gasoline per 100 km, it should be 117 to 163 g CO2 per km. But it is not so important, as it is off-topic .

Your argument is, with all due respect, unfortunately quite limited. Just because A is not prohibited does not mean that a ban on B isn’t sensible. If the state regulated nothing, we would still have conditions like in the Stone Age.

The same applies to climate change... not implementing a sensible measure just because another possible measure is not implemented is somehow... ?!

This is where liberals and greens diverge. That was and is not the issue with Jamaica. I shudder at the tegos, and it will probably be similar the other way around. Karsten

With 5 to 7 liters of gasoline per 100 km, it should be 117 to 163 g CO2 per km. But that’s not so important, since it's off-topic .

Better more CO2 and fewer particles and nitrogen oxides!

Just as a thought: It is frowned upon in every school of thought (especially in the liberal(!) one) to justify something wrong by the existence of errors elsewhere.

No one would come up with the idea to say: Car accidents are unavoidable anyway, so let's just do away with traffic regulations.
SUVs can’t be regulated, so it doesn’t matter how houses are built... the quality of the logic is the same.

That CO2 effect deniers always come from the liberal camp to nip the discussion about this logic in the bud is no surprise. Because their own school of thought would stand in their way.

There are engineers who simply consider the greenhouse effect itself to be nonexistent—of course without ever having understood what exactly lies behind that term. But the worldview sticks. Discussions with such people are more barren than the Gobi Desert. At the first inconvenient counterargument, they pull out the equivalent of the Nazi card, the "freedom-restrictor card," and the conversation is over.

And climate change per se and the human contribution to climate change are two different things. It is enough to look at the timescale on which climate changes occurred before the industrial revolution and on which they have been occurring since then.
We might build higher dikes here and be happy that the red wine gets better. But what about the poor souls on certain other coasts?

Just as a thought: It is frowned upon in every school of thought (especially in the liberal(!) one) to justify something wrong by the existence of mistakes elsewhere.

No one would think to say: Car accidents can't be avoided anyway, so let's just do away with traffic regulations altogether.
SUVs can't be regulated, so it doesn't matter how houses are built... the quality of logic is the same.

It is no surprise that CO2 effect deniers always come from the liberal camp to nip the discussion about this logic in the bud. Because their own school of thought would then stand in their way.

There are engineers who consider the greenhouse effect itself to be nonexistent - of course without ever having understood what exactly is behind this term. But the worldview sticks. Discussions with such people are more fruitless than the Gobi Desert. At the first inconvenient counterargument, the equivalent of the Nazi card, the "freedom-cutting card" is played and the conversation ends.

And climate change per se and the human contribution to climate change are different matters. It is enough to look at the timescale on which climate changes occurred before the industrial revolution and on which they have been occurring since then.
We can maybe build higher dikes here and rejoice that the red wine gets better. But what about the poor devils on certain other coasts?

Of course, there are always winners and losers in climate changes. The question is: Where are there more winners or losers: with warming or with cooling?
My guess: With cooling, everyone loses.