Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

unfortunately, it's not much better for me either, just compare the number of patent applications internationally ...

According to Bloomberg, Germany was the innovation world champion in 2020. The ranking takes into account criteria such as R&D or manufacturing capabilities. Countries like the USA or Japan performed significantly worse in that regard. The sheer number of patents doesn't really say much. Because they have to be of quality and feasible.

You cannot pursue climate protection individually or nationally. CO2 has no flag. It is either achieved or not - but it is achieved together by all the major players. Or then not at all. "To each their own" is synonymous with "then not at all." One must face the consequences.

Well then, not at all. As long as the big players don't really participate, we don't need to rush ahead. Especially not if it worsens international competitiveness. And the idea of the pioneer does not work either.

Okay. I like that because it is a logically solid position.

That is logically completely unsound, because without any other proposed solution that means: Do nothing or just continue as before. This only makes sense logically for people who deny any connection between our actions and climatic changes. To me, it all sounds like a scenario in which a person is being beaten up, a group stands around, does nothing, and discusses that the individual has no chance against the attackers. Afterwards, everyone knows that the chosen alternative to do nothing led to the beaten person dying before the eyes of the group. Completely logical, on the other hand, is the path of building an economic sector that makes climate technology increasingly attractive. Building such an economic sector requires investment. This can be direct or indirect – for example, through legislation that includes climate goals. This has the chance initially to work for a sufficiently large local market and to find imitators.

That is logically completely unsound,

I feel misunderstood, but I also see that I have not expressed myself clearly. Another attempt. What I meant: I find it “honest” (“logical” is not a good term here) when someone chooses one of the two alternatives I showed because they say: The other causes different problems that I am not willing to bear. I prefer to bear other consequences. Of course, that means acknowledging climate change and the problems it causes. My contribution was not directed at the science-denialism scene... at least not meant that way. Actually, I wanted to suggest that one must take a stand on which death is to be accepted here. Your analogy with the brawl holds, although on a moral level. The alternative, not being injured at the price of not having helped, will in fact be chosen by many people. Worldwide. What does that tell us about the likelihood that humanity as a whole could meet the challenge of the climate goals without education “from above”? And that seems to be dawning on many, as the success of the Greens shows. That such a movement could be coordinated internationally to really achieve the goals: I do not see that. Not even on the horizon. We (as all of humanity) lack essential forms of organization for that. And the liberal form of organization, which we primarily find in the market, definitely cannot do it.

Whereas I believe that meant exactly that sentence sarcastically or cynically. He is in favor of a supranational solution.

In your metaphor, there are several possibilities to help.
- An individual intervenes even though he is evidently outmatched and also gets beaten up, but possibly saves the one lying on the ground
-> (DE or EU enforce environmental measures, suffer economic disadvantages and are bullied by other nations, but the Earth gains a few more years in which other societies also come to the realization that a livable environment must be protected)

- possibly others in the group feel motivated to help by the brave intervention and together they manage to keep the attacker in check.
-> (democratically led USA join in and together with appropriate measures manage to get CN and Russia to enforce more environmental protection measures)

- at least one calls the police, who arrive in time and arrest the attacker
-> (Supranational organization with corresponding enforcement power – unfortunately doesn’t exist)

- the one lying on the ground turns into Hulk and simply kills everyone
-> (Gaia theory)

One should also consider the relation; even if the entire EU were CO2 neutral from now on, it would not change the warming.

The really important factor is rarely discussed, overpopulation.

Someone who has children today is ultimately more harmful to the climate than the driver with an old diesel car.

The media always behave as if humanity would die out due to climate change and the Earth would become uninhabitable.

Of course, that is nonsense.

Unfortunately, Germans always have this highly moralistic, didactic way about them, which makes it harder to deal with problems reasonably.

when you choose one of the two alternatives I showed because you say: The other one causes different problems that I am not willing to bear. I prefer to bear other consequences.

I fully agree that one should take responsibility for the consequences of decisions and expressly support that.

The twist in the climate issue is that a company or a private person like myself does not have to bear direct consequences from our actions or inactions. Others bear the consequences. That makes it easier to decide.
There are several possible reasons why the consequences can be shifted onto others at all:

[*]Personal reason: Many decision-makers are at an age where they expect not to experience the predicted consequences of their actions themselves. (After me, the flood)
[*]Business reason: If climate-hostile actions are economically more favorable, a competing company will take this path—unless the decision for a more expensive path creates a qualitative or brand added value.
[*]Legal aspect: A decision-maker in a company who spends money on things that effectively cost nothing—for example CO2—must be accountable to the owners. This can lead to accusations of embezzlement.

As long as the national economy must bear the costs with delay, the decision not to assume the costs is easy. The boomerang returns and, in case of doubt, hits others.

Whereby one should also consider the relation, even if the entire EU were CO2 neutral from now on, it would not change the warming.

There are different studies on this. I do not support this thesis without being able to validate another one myself. We remain here in the realm of "opinion."

The really important factor is rarely discussed, overpopulation.

That is an absolutely important factor. ALONGSIDE other factors and not instead of them.

Someone who has children today is ultimately more harmful to the climate than the driver with his old diesel.

Someone who takes a full bath is ultimately more harmful to the climate than someone who wears a full beard. Such comparisons would be amusing if some did not take them seriously.

The cabaret artist Josef Hader has wonderfully taken up your comparison (leading video channel – Josef Hader: Divorce from minute 2:10) – "We thought about child or car, then decided on the car because with a child you don’t get anywhere as fast..."