Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

Rarely read such nonsense. At 30 km/h, even more CO² tends to be emitted. Cars are not designed for such a load point at 30 km/h and near walking speed.

That's what the second gear is for. Cars are not designed for that ;) best argument of the discussion, fits well with Wissing's sign shortage. The 30 km/h urban speed limit is not consensual because it really affects everyone. Even Grandma Erna speeds to the hairdresser at 65 km/h, only on the highway does she get scared, then 120 km/h is enough and she strongly supports slowing down the 'speeders' on the highway at the coffee circle, because those are all complete psychopaths. 30 km/h in the city definitely saves lives and increases quality of life, whether CO2 is saved as well is not even decisive. 130 km/h on the highway does almost nothing. But I don't care if it is introduced, I just find the debate absolutely ridiculous. It's like masks in the supermarket, simply in the wrong place. Completely ineffective but for the knights of virtue the absolute moral ennoblement. P.S. near walking speed is also a blast. Many vehicle drivers really think that's about 30.

Because it's fun. Unfortunately, the conditions are hardly given anymore and it's more relaxing to flow with the traffic.

What kind of argument is that? And just because it's fun for the plantation owners, is slash-and-burn in the rainforest also okay? Or speeding in the city center? Or free gun sales for free citizens?

However, there are more and more older people from small villages who are deeply rooted in their hometown and eventually find the house with a large plot, stairs, and a gutter that you can clean using the big ladder, too much. The children have moved out to the city. Then a nice new apartment with a care bathroom, elevator, and a balcony or small terrace becomes attractive. Such things are insufficient in villages, as traditionally one of the children stayed in the house, started a family there, and cared for the parents’ retirement apartment and the parents themselves.

Another, younger family then looks forward to such a vacated house and also resolves the backlog of renovations: the building in the town center is brought up to date, making the town center visually more attractive again. And the elementary school might then not have to be closed after all....

A few remarks on this
- For the elementary school, it makes no difference whether the children live in the town center or in the new development area on the edge of the village.
- Families can hardly afford to resolve a backlog of renovations. At least not if the house is sold for just under the price of a new build.
- Old houses in the town center are rather for enthusiasts than for people who just want to live: often located on the main street, very old building fabric, possibly listed building status.
- The care apartment is only an attractive idea as long as you don’t look at the prices. For the difference between the house and the care apartment, you can have a gardener come for years. Or teenagers from the neighborhood can do the garden for a few euros.
- Most people don’t want to move out of their house with a garden and trade it for a balcony as long as it’s somehow possible. And if it no longer is, then actually a nursing home is due right away.

What kind of argument is that? And just because the plantation owners enjoy it, does that mean slash-and-burn in the rainforest is also okay? Or mowing the lawn downtown? Or free gun sales for free citizens?

So, everything without deeper benefit must be banned. Keeping pets? Environmentally harmful, massive CO2 emissions --> ban. Owning a single-family home? Environmentally harmful, disproportionate land use --> ban.

So, everything without deeper benefit must therefore be banned. Keeping pets? Environmentally harmful, massive CO2 emissions --> ban. Owning a single-family house? Environmentally harmful, disproportionate space consumption --> ban.

I am personally convinced that such measures (and more) will come, albeit too late. We need an immediate full stop of our consumption behavior to halt the ongoing environmental and climate catastrophe. I have been dealing more intensively with these topics in recent months and am somewhat shocked. My son will have to live under catastrophic conditions on this planet in his second half of life if we as humanity do not change quickly. In the end, it is a question of priorities - what is more important? The survival of our civilization and a somewhat intact planet or personal fun? And we cannot always argue that small measures bring little. Of course, the big issues must also be tackled, but many small measures also help in total. And on the subject of fun: I would also like to have a trap stand in the garden so that I don't always have to drive to the shooting range and I enjoy it. I still may not, I have to keep driving to the range.

Well, according to your logic, one would consequently have to simply liquidate 90% of the world population now.
Sure, that would be good for the planet. But the individual would, in 90% of cases, come out rather unhappy.
I also don't believe that your son will have to spend his second half of life under catastrophic conditions.
Humans are incredibly adaptable; that is their real strength. However, they only adapt if they are truly forced to.
That means CO2 emissions will noticeably improve once the oil is gone in a few decades. Before that, we will argue a lot, then eventually fight wars over the remaining reserves. Possibly even using nuclear weapons, which will also help the atmosphere.
There have been much worse times for humanity than those approaching us, and I am quite optimistic for my children that they will live an interesting life under reasonably dignified conditions.