With a catalog of very far-reaching proposals for climate protection, economics professor Helge Peukert triggered a debate on how radical the demands of climate activists should be. We reported about it.
Peukert suggests radical restrictions on consumption, mobility and housing as well as freedom rights. For this he received a lot of criticism, malice and even death threats.
Now he answers his critics: “The proposals are intended to make it clear that it will not work without clear renunciation.”
With his catalog of far-reaching demands for climate protection, the economist and constitutional lawyer Helge Peukert triggered a heated debate: How radical can and how radical should the demands of climate activists such as the “last generation” be. Peukert not only demands extreme restrictions on consumption, mobility and housing, but also the restriction of freedom rights through emergency laws. We reported about it. Peukert received a lot of criticism for his suggestions, malice, and also reported death threats. In a new post for the alternative business medium Oxi Peukert now commented on the discussion.
He justifies his radical proposals with his assessment that people are threatened by a “biocide” due to global warming. The tipping points at which climate change will gain momentum and become irreversible have either been reached or are imminent. He therefore sees a contradiction between the extent of the threat and the “modest proposals” of the ‘last generation’.
The activists are best known for blocking traffic and attacking works of art or houses. Their demands include a 9-euro ticket for passenger transport and a speed limit of 100 km/h.
Peukert counters that when it comes to climate change, it’s “ten past twelve”. Therefore, “a global emergency stop” is necessary to “stop the mega-machine of growth”. His proposals should show “that it will not work without clear sacrifices and changes in all areas.”
Peukert: “Overcoming the paralyzing small-small of politics”
Peukert: “The catalog of my suggestions was not intended as a well-rounded total program that could definitely be implemented in this way”. He wanted to indicate at different levels and fields of action (from the elevator to the world cartel) “that we are facing really fundamental transformation challenges.”
Peukert rejects the accusation that many of his proposals are totalitarian and amount to an eco-dictatorship. He wanted to “overcome the paralyzing small-small on the political stage without falling into autocratic solutions”. The emergency laws passed by the grand coalition in 1968 and fiercely opposed by the extra-parliamentary opposition could serve as a model.
“So I don’t have a totalitarian eco-Taliban regime in mind,” writes the professor. “But if we move towards up to five degrees (climate warming), ‘freedom and democracy’ no longer have a chance, because then it’s about bare survival”. When he calls for restrictions on elevators, it’s not about denying the disabled the elevator, “but what was meant is that if you reduce electricity consumption in general, there will be enough green electricity for elevators for the disabled.” The dismantling of the chemical industry he calls for is also there !important, so that there is still enough scope for the production of medicines in a climate-neutral regime”.