About passive houses and plastic bags and styrofoam fur

Asian car manufacturers are indeed of the opinion that electric cars are the right thing, but storing the energy as a battery is stupid. For the well-known reasons mentioned in the post above me. Hydrogen, synthetic/bio/conventional gas via fuel cells is, in their opinion, the right way. I also think it’s silly to make oneself dependent again on scarce raw materials, which would be necessary for this mass of batteries. Moreover, the demand for car batteries will compete with the demand from other mobile electronics with batteries. This creates a very high dependency and again the earth will be torn up to extract the raw materials in the most impossible ways. Actually a good time to buy stocks. Or directly in commodities.

As long as the fuel contains not only carbon and hydrogen, other combustion products besides CO2 and H2O cannot be avoided. This applies to diesel and gasoline. Of course, emissions can be reduced through technical optimizations but also through the way you drive. Both are limited. And unfortunately, it is the case that our cars are only "clean" on the test bench under very strict climatic conditions. The smaller car will simply consume less in reality than the heavy SUV. But driving and buying a car is often not only a question of practicality. If someone wants a large, heavy, and expensive car, they will always be able to justify it... Just like a controlled residential ventilation system in the house or else no controlled residential ventilation system and only a window frame ventilator. And in us humans, more comes out than just CO2 and H2O.

Not quite. My point is not that the passive house is like a plastic bag, but that it is an obvious legislative goal to mandate this type of house in new construction for CO2 avoidance reasons. Mandatory! I don't care if tego, haydee, or whoever else thinks it's good, they can build it. But to mandate it for everyone, while at the same time not banning the Touareg or BMW Six-Hundred-Thick-Pants, that's a disgrace. Our

Your argument is, with all due respect, unfortunately quite limited. Just because A is not prohibited does not mean that a ban on B is not sensible. If the state did not regulate anything, 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 kind of... ?!

Your argumentation is, with all due respect, unfortunately quite limited. Just because A is not prohibited does not mean at all that a ban on B is not sensible. If the state did not regulate anything, 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... ?!

Climate change has been around for about 4.8 billion years (since the Earth has existed and had an atmosphere). And until 65 million years ago, the climate was significantly warmer and the ecosystem correspondingly larger and more diverse. I do not even want to discuss the influence of the additional CO2 emissions since industrialization here. But if it prevents the next ice age (which would actually be due for geological reasons), then the influence is rather positive. Or do you want to imagine the refugee flows if a glaciation begins north of Hamburg? Against stronger storm surges or a higher sea level, you can, if necessary, build better dikes, but what do you do against an advancing glacier?

We should simply not think too anthropocentrically here, according to the motto that humans influence everything and everything revolves around humans. It is no coincidence that overcoming anthropocentric worldviews is characteristic of the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern era.

Hopefully, we can avoid returning to the Middle Ages in the coming years...

I quote...

"Our Golf with three cylinders and 110 hp goes about 180, it needs between 5 and 7 liters, has space for 4 and CO 2 around 110 g. That is more than enough."

And I agree with you. For those who have been living here longer, that is more than enough....

Climate change has existed for about 4.8 billion years (since the Earth has existed and had an atmosphere). And until 65 million years ago, the climate was significantly warmer and the ecosystem correspondingly more extensive and diverse.

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