About passive houses and plastic bags and styrofoam fur

Men, this kind of argumentation, I've been hearing it too long, too often, it seriously also makes me angry.

Could you specify exactly which kind of argumentation you mean?

Because at least I feel quite positively addressed by your post, as it says that if a decision A is pending (now e.g. because of CO2 reduction), the state should achieve this through a measure B:

Then you simply shape the market so that it goes in the right direction, and whoever still wants Cayenne turbodiesels, okay, the few Cayennes the world can take.

No no, it is always suspicious when it is approached in a highly moralistic way instead of looking at how it is and what follows from the actual state. Karsten

And how do you infer something from "what is," if you have no compass that gives you a target? Without such (the morality you so harshly criticize is part of such a compass), almost any conclusion is possible—but most of those conclusions you would also reject.

Imagining how the world should be in order to possibly make it move a little in that direction: If at that one already smells the sanctimonious finger of morality, I always ask myself about alternatives.
That is why my (rhetorical) questions about "the market" and "the state."

chand. moralistic, I could also say "idealistic," is also an ism, it becomes one whenever you think your interlocutor no longer talks, he lectures: his opinion is fixed, don’t confuse him with facts. Or in other words: when things become without alternative, when good and evil are clearly distributed (Greenpeace and even worse: Sea Shepherd), when coercion to achieve salvation is justified. Yes, there are rightly named goals: NOx must go down. CO2 amount must be limited (that does not automatically mean "stop emissions." If I burn something that produces 5 kg CO2 and that something previously consumed 5 kg, the amount is 0 despite emissions). But there are—here moralistic or idealistic thinking begins—thinking prohibitions and commandments. Commandments: renunciation, small-scale farming, decentralized, sustainable, without industry Prohibitions: nuclear power, industrial solutions, fusion energy For the latter, even research is stopped. The consequences. My home SH is an extreme wind turbine landscape. Decentralized. The electricity cannot be transported away (large-scale technology ban), the wind-safe open sea is wind power free on the German side. Or almost free. In DK it is exactly the opposite. Few turbines on land, masses at sea, large relay stations in the sea and cables bring the so centrally generated wind energy to Copenhagen-Aarhus. The rest on land is handled by ubiquitous small gas-fired combined heat and power plants, which also supply district heating to the remotest village. The normal Danish household has no heating except a stove. It has district heating from natural gas or biogas. Karsten

But here the moralizing or idealistic part begins, taboos and commandments. Commandments: renunciation, small-scale farming, decentralized, sustainable, without industry Prohibitions: nuclear power, industrial solutions, fusion energy

No no, it is always suspicious when something is approached in a highly moralistic way instead of looking at how things are and what follows from the reality. Karsten

.. moralistic, I could also say "idealistic",..., it always becomes that when you think your interlocutor no longer speaks, he lectures: his opinion is fixed, don’t confuse him with facts.

3 fascinating posts. I’ll also take a look at how things are: butterflies 80% dead. 2 nuclear power plants exploded, polar bears dying, all fish overfished, sea full of plastic waste, giraffes going extinct, etc. Problem? Not at all! It’s all a question of priorities. Freedom above all?

your conversation partner no longer speaks, he lectures: his opinion is fixed, don’t confuse him with facts.

The discussion, when it comes to big questions (climate change + CO2, energy transition, but also geopolitics + refugees for example) rarely takes place between people who discuss their different views based on the same facts. People simply state different facts(!) – and a genuine discussion is therefore excluded. One then feels simply lectured by the other side, because "the others" pretend to know something that one thinks oneself has understood much better.

I try to approach it with logic and science, but even that is seen by some people as patronizing. After all, the laws of nature also create thinking corridors. If something is physically nonsense, it can be thought, but it leads to nothing. Pointing that out is already a command/prohibition?

An example from your own comment:

( ...[ ] If I burn something that produces 5 kg CO2 and that something previously consumed 5 kg, the amount is zero despite emissions).

I would immediately call "Stop" there. With this approach, burning oil and coal is no problem – after all, both bound that CO2 millions of years ago that would now be released again.

Logically correct, if one takes your approach as a balance, would be that only as much should be burned as is simultaneously bound by processes elsewhere. No one would come up with the idea that it is logical to burn today and collect again next year – what happens in the meantime?

So. I have now virtually portrayed a fact presented by you as wrong (or as unfortunately formulated). But I do not want to reprimand you or point a moral finger. It is the indication that the cited approach does not deliver what it promises because it does not add up logically. Burning the renewable raw material wood only makes sense if the forests for it are not cut down faster than they regrow, as a case example.

If such a remark is seen as a prohibition of thinking or a reprimand, then a fruitful discussion is doomed to fail from the outset.

Problem? Not at all! It's all a matter of priorities. The main thing is freedom?

Well. Karsten sees himself as a liberal, not as a libertarian. Therefore, he is not generally opposed to regulations by a higher authority. If something is to be done on a global scale (let's say: fishing plastic waste out of the oceans), he will not condemn transnational, governmental agreements to achieve this goal. But perhaps a plastic bag ban at the supermarket checkout, if the alternatives are only available at a higher cost? Who knows.

3 fascinating posts. I’ll also check how it is: butterflies 80% dead. 2 nuclear power plants exploded, polar bears dying, fish all overfished, sea full of plastic waste, giraffes going extinct, etc.

Problem? Not at all! It’s all a matter of priorities. Freedom above all?

Too bad, emotional messages from a *-ISM supporter again instead of a factual post....

Some people just can’t live without a strong belief. Freedom is indeed difficult...