Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

In the most expensive houses? For example, we are building a promotional house with 130 sqm - without a basement, without a garage, without a carport, absolute standard equipment. And from what we've seen so far, most people in that new development area are building very modest houses. Nobody can afford an expensive house anymore with the land prices. As far as I know, everyone except us originally comes from the area and simply wants to live where they grew up and where their family and friends live. So I don't understand how the attached quote fits here.

If you include the price for the land, you quickly reach over a million. Doesn't that fall into your category of "expensive"? Aside from the fact that 130 square meters certainly represents more than "absolute standard equipment" for the majority of the population, especially in your area. Even though I quoted your post, @tomtom79's quote was not explicitly directed at you. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Do you also explain to your children and grandchildren like this why the planet was destroyed? It's hard to grasp how anyone can still be so ignorant in 2022.

But it can also be a little less dramatic, purely in terms of rhetoric. Expressed like that, it belongs rather in an activist forum. Here, people are lining up new buildings one after the other, forests are sometimes being developed into construction areas, so there's no need to start talking about ecological footprints here.

Just like the FFF kids who demonstrate on Fridays for the integrity of the planet, the latest iPhone in their pocket, going skiing in the mountains for 2 weeks in winter with their parents in a big Q7 or similar, and flying long-haul to a resort in Thailand in summer. Of course, the wording is somewhat exaggerated, but the message should be clear.

There is no topic for me with such a nasty double standard as environmental protection. If I am personally so convinced of an issue, then I stand behind it 100%, or who decides what is still okay for the health of our planet and what is not? How can one reasonably differentiate there? Impossible.

But it can also be a bit less dramatic, purely in terms of rhetoric. Articulated like that, it belongs more in an activist forum. Here, people are building new developments one after another, sometimes forests are being turned into building areas, so there’s no need to start talking about ecological footprints here. Just like the FFF kids, demonstrating on Fridays for the planet’s integrity, the latest iPhone in their pocket, going skiing in the mountains for 2 weeks in winter with their parents in a big Q7 or something similar, and flying long-haul to a resort in Thailand in summer. Of course, the wording is somewhat exaggerated, but the message should be clear. For me, there is no topic with such awful double standards as environmental protection. If I am personally so convinced by an issue, then I stand behind it 100%, or who decides what is still okay for the health of our planet and what is not? How do you reasonably differentiate there? Impossible.

I partly agree. But... Imagine people keep going like this. It’s not about stopping completely and I wouldn’t call myself particularly frugal. At least keeping the topic in mind already changes a lot. You do some things unconsciously that you wouldn’t do if there were no issues/demonstrations. I have also driven 1 km to the bakery with the SUV, but I don’t do that anymore, for example.

A question from an unknowing person. Maybe the natural scientists here can help me out a bit. We are currently experiencing a water shortage almost nationwide. As a result, prices will soon rise as well. Isn’t it possible to create a connection to the sea and fill up our lakes? Of course, the water would have to be treated on the way. Is that not possible? The water level rises, but the groundwater falls...

The groundwater level is not generally falling everywhere in Germany. What is true is that the average annual precipitation has been declining for many years. The extraction of groundwater, sealing of surfaces, and other anthropogenic influences lead to strongly fluctuating groundwater levels regionally. Due to, for example, river dams for hydropower plants, the lack of compensatory measures causes, among other things, a widespread rise in the groundwater before the dam. This also happened here in Ingolstadt when a dam was built nearby. The effects reach dozens of kilometers and have also led to a rise in the groundwater level here. This can be seen quite well at the groundwater measuring points in the form of a rapid rise of up to one meter within a few days. Therefore, construction water retention now has to be carried out for our construction. In 2015, this would not have been necessary before the dam was built.
A direct connection between sea level and groundwater level probably only exists in coastal regions. Treating and transporting water over such distances would have to be weighed against the effort of resettling people from water-scarce regions. The water supply like in the Roman Empire via aqueducts will probably not experience a renaissance for exactly this reason.

Of course, we hope for our project that the year remains as dry as it has been so far, but the environmental problems associated with it are definitely not good. Therefore, from the day the water pumps are switched off, it may well rain nonstop for 100 days :)

If you also take the price of the plot into account, you quickly end up with over a million. Doesn't that fall into your category of "expensive"? Not to mention that 130 square meters definitely represents more than "absolute standard equipment" for the majority of the population, especially in your area. Even though I quoted your post, @tomtom79’s quote was not explicitly directed at you. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No problem! It just sounded as if people here had to compensate with their big houses. But as I said, at least in the new development areas, the construction is very modest. In East Frisia, where we lived for a while, people sometimes build houses with 180–220 sqm. Of course, the building plots also cost a fraction of the price there. But what else is the average family supposed to do here in the area? Rental properties for four- or five-person families are almost non-existent, and the land prices are outrageous. And many simply want to stay here because they have their family and friends here and/or just feel comfortable. As I said, I’m glad some receive financial support from their families and can stay here, even if they are not top earners. After all, we also need teachers, educators, hairdressers, etc., not just engineers, IT project managers, and so on.

If I am personally so convinced of a topic, then I stand 100% behind it, or who decides what is still okay for the health of our planet and what is not? How does one differentiate properly there? Impossible.

I will simply never understand this all-or-nothing argument. I have had similar discussions about meat consumption. Of course, ethically it is most correct to completely abstain from meat. But it is still better to eat meat only once a week and pay attention to the form of animal husbandry than to consume half a kilo of cheap meat every day. And it’s not that complicated with climate protection either. It’s not about completely restricting yourself, but you know yourself that some things are simply unnecessary. And of course you don’t single-handedly save the planet by walking the 300 meters to the bakery instead of driving. But as corny as it sounds, many small actions by many people do add up to have a big effect.

Cologne on the right bank of the Rhine, nice district, good infrastructure, great connection to public transport, Boris NRW 880€/sqm, trend rising. Plots of land are more expensive here than the houses built on them… or so I thought! Comparatively poor location in the district, no basement, 130 sqm, 250 sqm plot, KFW 55, no connection to utilities included, 880K€, all sold. It doesn’t seem that bad yet. Oh, end-terrace house without garage or carport!