The main thing we talked about? Well, they are talking again: the Petersberg Climate Dialogue, which starts tomorrow, the UN Climate Change Conference to be prepared in Paris, on December a global climate agreement is to be decided – and indeed of all 190 nations. An impossibility, one would think. But this time is to succeed, which in 2009 so shamefully failed in Copenhagen, which is why you tried already establish unity – by talking about it. But what really?
Nothing is more clear. The climate changes? That it actually does always, the only question is in which direction. Will it therefore warmer? Furthermore, there is no really reliable evidence, because as long as we have had to actually do it with a general global warming, it has made in recent years break. But how can you, without knowing whether it is really the world warmer, agree on a target, especially a so arbitrary as that to limit the warming to two degrees? Moreover, one is even on the factors that promote climate change, in the scientific world not unanimous.
Still believe the lobbyists of climate change, the stoke fears of global warming, not only that it would be harmful – as if it were not for the medieval climate optimum, which for most people was a godsend. They also announce that such warming is the emission of greenhouse gases in industrialized countries owe that one therefore should reduce -. By reducing energy consumption
And afterwards, 160 nations are to some? A country like India, which is ranked 3 in terms of CO2 emissions argues convincingly, his primary goal was to free his people through industrialization of poverty, which is why its consumption of electricity and fuel more still had to rise.
Saving energy is therefore a luxury, can afford only the rich countries. The greatest luxury permitted to Germany looking for new and clean energy sources as possible.
Musterknabe Germany as an example and vanguard? In this country takes the expansion of “clean” energy sources to at breakneck speed, that would be even faster if the citizens would not increasingly rebelling against the establishment of more powerful wind turbines in the nature reserves or on their doorstep. From vile selfishness? Because they do not want to see more of the blight German cultural landscapes? Or because they now know that their land has been brought down by the hasty “energy revolution” in 2011 on the sidelines?
- Page 2: emissions