The meaning value of the future

Ambivalence – Do you sometimes also have the feeling that we are standing at a crossroads of history? Especially in Western countries, if we believe the statistics of economic growth, things are going better than ever before, and globally speaking, fewer and fewer people are living below the poverty line. And yet a sword of Damocles hangs over us on a threateningly thin thread. We can consume almost without limits, if our wallet allows it, yet at the same time we must watch as more and more areas of the planet have to make way for our insatiable hunger for consumption. When we look to the future, the forecasts regarding climate damage and the resulting cuts to our accustomed, comfortable life do not look particularly rosy. And yet leading politicians and entrepreneurs, but ultimately also we consumers, continue to cling to the belief in unlimited economic growth and consumption. 

For who likes to think about the consequences of their actions? Since time immemorial, people have not been particularly good at assessing long-term problems. This is evident in recent times also in the discussion about a nuclear waste repository that has been going on for what feels like an eternity, or the belief that Corona would simply disappear over the summer of 2020 and therefore one would not need to think about long-term strategies, let alone offer uncomplicated help for those economically disadvantaged by the crisis. 

But here it is not meant to be about the tiresome subject of Corona again, but rather about the parallels to climate protection in terms of strategic action. Whilst we are just discussing the latest events in America and Corona dominates the media world every day, in the small town of Lützerath a whole village is being relocated once again, so that brown coal can subsequently be extracted for the Garzweiler brown coal open-pit mine. Now, in the Corona pandemic, it becomes clear what happens when a social and economic system is not prepared for infection control measures, medically important equipment and much more, which leading experts have been warning about for years. And yet one finds the same approach not infrequently in decisions regarding climate protection, which nowadays can only be denied by out-of-touch die-hards. The phase-out of brown coal has long been decided – 2038 is supposed to be the date. But until then, an environmentally damaging and moreover economically absolutely unprofitable energy production will be subsidised and expanded, which produces several billion euros in environmental damage annually, which the general public must bear. And on top of that comes compensation for coal giants like RWE for the state-mandated phase-out of brown coal, as well as the costs for people becoming unemployed. In political discourse, there is a fondness for relying on figures that lie far in the future: brown coal phase-out 2038 or climate-neutral Germany 2050. This suggests that the important dates for implementing climate protection still lie far in the future, but that is not true. We cannot, as a country, but also as a global community, meet the Paris Agreement if we continue to operate for another 10 years as if our actions today have no influence, and then believe that with a bit of technology here and some savings there we can suddenly stay below the 1.5 degree mark, which is so important to avoid triggering chain reactions and a collapse of ecosystems and thus ultimately our livelihood. But the problem here is clear: the neoliberal growth principle of our world economy dictates that we must grow every year, that we must produce and consume more every year, and that climate protection must subordinate itself to this apparent fact. But this is a purely arbitrary and ideological orientation of modernity, in which profit is more important than the creation of long-term stable conditions on this planet. The consequences of climate change can be huge migration movements and relocations, armed conflicts over livelihoods, high compensation investments for climate damage of all kinds, but also for protecting people from the consequences of climate change. This can and will entail an incredible restriction of all our lives. One that goes far beyond an SUV ban in city centres, a speed limit or a ban on domestic flights, which today are gladly declared as "restrictions on fundamental rights or freedom". Everything that is possible in terms of consumption in a free society should continue to be permitted. Businesses are spared, sustainable energy sectors are only promoted to the extent that they do not displace fossil fuels from the market, even though economically they could, and in the end consumers are supposed to sort it out with their purchasing decisions and stop climate change. The shifting of this global and complicated problem onto a few purchasing decisions by private individuals suggests once again that the problem cannot become that big if everyone just exercises a bit of restraint. But neither do individual consumers make up a large part of emissions, nor can all people afford organic, fair-trade and vegan food, let alone are they able to always be informed about it. This out-of-touch way of thinking still clings blindly to the notion of an all-regulating, invisible hand of the market, which has never existed and which, especially in this increasingly globalised economic system that is detaching itself from classical production and consumption factors, will never exist.  

Why leading politicians and also entrepreneurs do not act according to the recommendations of science and take the warnings issued seriously remains, even in times of Covid-19 and the ongoing lockdown debate, a mystery. For not only in the field of climate change is there widespread scientific ignorance, but also with regard to Corona measures. Since the "light lockdown" in November, the figures have not fallen; on the contrary. And yet the government continues to insist on even stricter measures for private contact restrictions, whilst it categorically refuses a home office requirement for all companies where that is possible. Here too, there is once again a desperate clinging to the continuing economy. As if a virus would not spread simply because people meet in the office instead of at home. That we probably cannot end this pandemic if, as a society, we do not give up our ideals and measures of money and economic growth, at least for a short time, seems increasingly realistic. That a months-long delay has caused much higher economic damage than would have been the case with a short but proper lockdown for a few weeks is not proven, but it is plausible, especially when one looks at other countries that implemented early measures.

A clinging to neoliberal economic practices and the ignorance of scientific experts is today – neither with regard to Covid-19, nor to the probable or fairly certain fatal consequences of climate change – a realistic or defensible option. It is made for people who want to cling to their comfortable and privileged way of life, who do not care about the common good and who have no interest in shaping the future in a sustainably positive way. But change is today more important and necessary than ever before. For our ecosystems, for the survival of us as humanity and above all for our unique planet, which has given us life and so much more without any return.