Well then, not at all. As long as the big players really don’t join in, there’s no point in rushing ahead. Especially not if it worsens international competitiveness.
And the idea of the pioneer doesn’t work either. What other countries then see is a Germany that shoots itself in the foot out of idealism. Competitiveness will decline, prosperity will diminish. And precisely that is perceived by other countries as a negative consequence of environmental protection.
So. I like this because it is a logically sound position. It has realistically abandoned the belief that a world in which everyone does “their own thing” as they think could achieve the climate targets. So either you are in favor of supranational organizations that do nothing other than massively ensure through price interventions “from above” that fossil fuels stay in the ground. What is subsidized is also burned. Whether here or elsewhere, it does not matter.
Or you don’t want that and honestly say that climate goals will then simply be missed. So what?
Both options each have different consequences in the future that one has to face. One should then also speak about this fairly, about how one intends to deal with it.
Not so funny “fun fact”: Oil is today, adjusted for purchasing power, priced as it was
before(!) the oil price crises of the 1970s. So what has actually been achieved internationally so far?
By the way, I am of the opinion that the long-term consequences of climate change will have more serious consequences than supranational coordination against the free market. But I can’t bet on that opinion, things will turn out differently.
