Scout
2021-10-27 15:11:20
- #1
The constitutional judges justified their ruling on climate protection with the protection of the freedom of future generations and derived a CO2 residual budget from the Paris Climate Agreement.
The emission amounts allowed until 2030 according to the Climate Protection Act reduce the remaining emission possibilities after 2030 to such an extent that, in the opinion of the Federal Constitutional Court, "thereby practically every constitutionally protected freedom is endangered," such as, for example, the freedom to live in a heated house, mow the lawn, use a computer, eat beef, produce steel, cars or handbags, plow fields, attend conferences or go to the cinema.
An economy in this sense would also no longer be able to finance a welfare state in today's sense. Whereas the welfare state unfortunately has an eternity guarantee in the Basic Law. So the cat is probably biting its own tail!
Thus, one can understand this ruling as a mandate for a CO2 phase-out with a minimum degree of personal freedom and potential performance. And nuclear power – whether one likes it or not – can make a significant contribution to this. Yes, according to the ruling, this can even be seen as a categorical mandate to politics to grant nuclear power a more significant role again.
Because with this, the freedom restrictions required to achieve the climate targets would not be nearly as dramatic as the Federal Constitutional Court assumes. The CO2 residual budget would last longer without drastically restricting freedom. And it is exactly with this freedom that the FCC based its ruling....
The emission amounts allowed until 2030 according to the Climate Protection Act reduce the remaining emission possibilities after 2030 to such an extent that, in the opinion of the Federal Constitutional Court, "thereby practically every constitutionally protected freedom is endangered," such as, for example, the freedom to live in a heated house, mow the lawn, use a computer, eat beef, produce steel, cars or handbags, plow fields, attend conferences or go to the cinema.
An economy in this sense would also no longer be able to finance a welfare state in today's sense. Whereas the welfare state unfortunately has an eternity guarantee in the Basic Law. So the cat is probably biting its own tail!
Thus, one can understand this ruling as a mandate for a CO2 phase-out with a minimum degree of personal freedom and potential performance. And nuclear power – whether one likes it or not – can make a significant contribution to this. Yes, according to the ruling, this can even be seen as a categorical mandate to politics to grant nuclear power a more significant role again.
Because with this, the freedom restrictions required to achieve the climate targets would not be nearly as dramatic as the Federal Constitutional Court assumes. The CO2 residual budget would last longer without drastically restricting freedom. And it is exactly with this freedom that the FCC based its ruling....