Climate protection or slavery

You should not expect any new grimaces from old monkeys and no system-critical news from ARD-aktuell. The editors prove this every day. Especially enervating with their conformist reports about the weak-chested policy against the climate catastrophe: our state radio does not provide assistance to the audience so that they discover the little essential thing in the insubstantial politician chatter. The dramaturgy of the news design oscillates between occasional alarmism and frequent praise: "Look, we are the good guys! We are doing it right, we are a role model for the world!" Then there are headlines like this:

Germany is meeting its climate targets for 2020.

In the preamble of the message mentioned here on Tagesschau.de it is called:

"40.8 percent fewer emissions compared to 1990 - that even slightly exceeds the target agreed in the Climate Protection Act."

"Beschtens!", says the educated Swabian. Although the Tagesschau admits that the decline is mainly due to the corona-related lockdown. The title and text of the entire article do not encourage critical reflection on what the governing dilettante ensemble in Berlin is performing as an environmental political theater.

ARD-aktuell does not report anything incorrect about the "climate policy", but gives false impressions. Connections are not shown, you can not go to the roots of the problems. Manipulative restriction to selected and desirable facts is enough to create fantasies that are useful to the government, but far from reality. In the specific case, for example, what was omitted was what a study commissioned by the federal government itself had revealed: the measures planned and initiated by 2020 are not sufficient to reduce the so-called greenhouse gases at the back and front.

This year, the experts again made meaningful forecasts that would have to suggest a career change to the responsible politicians:

The goal of reducing greenhouse gases in the energy industry – the largest burden factor - will be significantly missed with 58 percent compared to the target of 77 percent by 2030.

The eco-balance of transport policy is even worse. According to the "Projection Report of the Federal Government 2021", the measures already adopted cannot even achieve half of the targeted emission reduction by 2030. The overall verdict is devastating:

"Even if the climate measures adopted so far are fully and successfully implemented, Germany will not be able to achieve its self-set climate targets for the next 20 years."

ARD-aktuell reported on this latest study, but already used the blurring feature in the title of the message:

"Climate targets are likely to be missed."

Essential statements of the investigation were further relativized and defused with government official, campaign-related comments:

"...the expressiveness of the content is 'very limited'. ... Since the end of August 2020, 'So much has been done in terms of climate protection that the projection report can be considered outdated with a view to 2030'".

The Tagesschau obscures the view that the federal government is trying to relieve itself of its failure by driving the experts it has commissioned over its mouth. Their arrogant and insubstantial "a lot has happened" lulls the TV viewers instead of letting them understand what the report actually predicts: an unchanged catastrophic climate development. The Tagesschau does not convey a basic understanding of what is and what should be in this way.

Instead of informative information, ARD-aktuell offers useless information on the topic of climate catastrophe in abundance. On the Internet site Tagesschau.de a whopping 80 related reports appeared in the period between October 31 and November 9. More than three quarters dealt with international aspects: the summit in Glasgow, the problems of Canada, India, the PRC, the shortcomings in Russia's environmental protection policy (of course a must for the Russophobic editorial staff) or the profound gender problems in Western Sahara.

Topics of national interest were in the minority. The old camels, on which there was sucked again and again, were of course sweetened with environmentally-politically clever o-tones of Chancellor Merkel. The climate-political swan song of the former Environment Minister in the Kohl cabinet, which she is now singing at the end of her 16 years as chancellor, encouraged the Tagesschau editorial team to launch a primitive attack on common sense:

"Climate conference: Germany improves to 13th place in the climate protection index. ..."

and:

"Germany formulates ambitious climate targets". Tätää, tätää!

Where the dog is buried

The Tagesschau develops and promotes the myth that full-bodied announcements and isolated tinkering with symptoms will somehow stop the environmental destruction. The editorial team is simply not able to address central causes: the capitalist economy and its growth religion. Unfortunately, goods and services are not produced exclusively for the prudent satisfaction of the needs of mankind, but also for the purpose of increasing the profit of the owners of capital, whether it serves the world or not.

Inevitably, this leads to competition and surplus production, not only in agriculture or the food industry. Depending on the industry, 20 percent or more of the products have to be destroyed again. According to expert estimates, for example, 30 percent of brand-new clothing.

The amount of work for their manufacture was superfluous, the resources were wasted. A closed circular economy is no longer possible in any area. For the capital surpluses achieved, reinvestment in the real economy is also almost impossible. The state does not drain them anyway, although it could use them for the urgent expansion and maintenance of its infrastructure. They therefore inflate a parallel "financial market".

All this is happening beyond the needs of our small planet and its impoverished population in many places. Of course, the Tagesschau cannot address the background in every single article. But she ignores her information mission in the entirety of her presentation of this topic. Moreover, it basically avoids any statement on the crucial questions:

Who will have to bear the heaviest burdens in trying to limit the climate catastrophe? And who will actually suffer from the consequences of the environmental damage that has not been prevented?

McKinsey & Company, the US-based corporate and strategy consulting firm represented in more than 60 countries, presents the problem as easily solvable, paints a Brave New World and will continue to earn a golden nose thanks to such siren sounds of predictable follow-up orders: it claims that climate change and its consequences can be managed with the expenditure of one trillion euros. The superficial salary is very popular, because there is no indication of who ultimately has to pay the gigantic bill.

Nothing new for Zahlemann and sons

BDI President Siegfried Russwurm makes it a few billion cheaper for Germany, but the question becomes "who pays how much?" also not really concrete:

"'The climate-neutral industrial country does not exist at zero cost'. The necessary additional investments of 860 billion euros are distributed among the state, citizens and companies. ... There is still a need for incentives for companies."

According to Russwurm, the state should invest primarily in infrastructure, which is expected to cost 240 billion euros by 2030 alone – including for better power grids, more renewable energy, charging stations, hydrogen capacities and the expansion of rail routes. After all, the man lets us see through what he is getting at: the taxpayer should serve, not the companies; on the contrary, they should be privileged even further than before. Yes, of course.

McKinsey pursues an acceptance strategy more skillfully in terms of propaganda:

"For the citizens of Europe, the costs will not increase overall: heating and cooling as well as mobility would be cheaper, while the prices for food and holiday flights could increase. Households with lower and middle incomes will even be somewhat relieved, wealthy households will be a little more burdened".

This seems as benevolent and mild as the talk of "country air" when the exhaust gases of a slurry tanker are meant. Involuntarily one wonders when behind such sentences and on Tagesschau.de finally the first emojis appear.

The 30 companies listed in the German stock exchange index DAX alone pay out more than 30 billion euros in dividends per year. If this money were paid into a solidarity fund of companies, it would be possible to achieve a third of the necessary sum by the year 2030, which would be necessary for reasonably effective climate protection.

There would be much more to get

Depending on the counting method, however, there are a further 3.2 million companies in Germany in addition to the 30 listed companies, of which at least 18,000 are large companies. As expected, the Tagesschau does not follow the obvious idea of including you as far as possible in the costs of coping with the environmental damage, although this was unquestionably part of its information mission. Gone are the days when a far-sighted social liberal federal government still demanded :

"Anyone who pollutes the environment or harms it should pay for the costs"

Nowadays, leading politicians prefer to advertise projects that resemble the self-crocheted toilet cover: they look good, are useless and unsanitary in the long run.

For ARD-aktuell, this is by no means an occasion for confrontational questioning of those responsible: rich environmental activists are spared, the common people have to pay for damage repair, the Tagesschau does not deal with this. An investigation by the organization Oxfam reveals details:

In Germany, the richest 10 percent were responsible for more CO2 emissions in 2015 than the entire poorer half of the population . Of the total emissions since 1990 for which the German population is responsible, 26 percent go to the account of the richest 10 percent; the entire poorer half of the German population is responsible for little more.

As is well known, there is no environmental pollution tax according to the polluter-pays principle and staggered according to the degree of avoidable in the respective case. Oxfam:

"The catastrophic consequences of the climate crisis are already being felt in many places today. Responsible is a policy that relies on consumer incentives, promises perpetual growth and divides the world economically into winners and losers. The poorest pay the price for the consumption frenzy of a rich minority."

In contrast to the rest of the German mainstream Tagesschau.de not reported on this study. That's what makes the quality journalist: he just keeps his mouth shut when he has to open the furthest.

Information placebos

ARD-aktuell has long been partly responsible for the fact that there is no significant social discourse about fair burden sharing in combating and limiting environmental damage. The editors prefer to provide information placebos such as the news about a little more commuter allowance or a few euros subsidy for citizens who can no longer pay their heating costs. The fact that this does not change anything about structural injustice is not conveyed.

No rule without exception, in fairness it should be mentioned: the Chancellor, who is now only a managing Director, recently described the pricing of CO2 emissions as a matter of her heart, but wisely avoided admitting who pays the prices. That's what ARD got - currently at least in its reader niche Tagesschau.de after:

"In fact, a CO2 pricing ends up paying the consumers. Due to the tax introduced in Germany at the beginning of the year, gasoline has become more expensive by about seven cents and diesel by about eight cents per liter. Heating costs are also rising."

However, the fact that Merkel was preferably the chancellor of the moneyed nobility and was not shaken by the fate of the "little people" will never cross the lips of a Tagesschau speaker.

After the tsunami disaster at the Japanese nuclear power plant Fukushima, Merkel proclaimed the nuclear phase-out, without informing the public that the power plant operators can now demand compensation in the billions for lost profits. With the planned phase-out of coal-fired power generation, the same malaise is emerging: the taxpayer must also pay for unfulfilled profit prospects of the coal industry. The sums at issue go far beyond compensation for lost jobs. There have been and still are no attempts to prevent this excess by law.

Jurisprudence in the back room

There is hardly any public talk about the protectionist economic policy that is customary in our country, but we proceed and decide according to its rules in all secrecy. The so-called investor-state arbitration, ISDS, makes it possible. Since the 90s, there has also been another legal basis, the Energy Charter Treaty, ECT. This treaty specifically allows private investors in the energy industry to sue EU member states and have it negotiated behind closed doors.

The reasons for bypassing the regular national and European courts are obvious: the prospect of higher "damages" with a lack of transparency and control on the part of the ordinary jurisdiction. This undermines the rule of law, fundamentally contradicts the public interest and burdens the taxpayer. Almost half of the 47 lawsuits already filed in this context were filed by investors with connections to the coal, oil, gas and nuclear industries. The defendant governments have been convicted or have agreed by way of settlement to pay more than $ 52 billion in damages from public funds.

Under the title Geheimprozesse gegen den Klimaschutz, the freelance journalist Henrik Rampe reports:

"... ‘This treaty is head-on against climate protection, and therefore it must be reformed very deeply,' said Luxembourg Minister Claude Turmes, but left the soon-to-be ex-Chancellor unimpressed."

For example, the Vattenfall Group has brought and continues to bring lawsuits against Germany, namely because of subsequent environmental requirements for the coal-fired power plant in Hamburg-Moorburg and because of the decommissioning of the Krümmel and Brunsbüttel nuclear power plants.

"Experience makes you smart," the saying goes. He could not have given Chancellor Merkel any consideration. It persistently refused to withdraw from the ETC Treaty, although it must have been clear to it what a huge financial obstacle it represents for any energy policy limiting climate damage. Pia Eberhard from the Brussels NGO Corporate Europe Observatory comments bluntly on this obstinacy:

"To say that we are not even considering the option of withdrawing from this treaty is not so different from denying climate change. In principle, this means that there is no problem, we can continue as before."

ARD-aktuell simply does not report seriously about the German political swamp. Therefore, if you want to know about the problems of environmental policy, it is better to read the gas meter. This is more interesting and enlightening than watching Tagesschau. Anyone who wants to write about the weird climate policy will not be tempted to commit intellectual theft on the Tagesschau offer anyway. According to Bertolt Brecht, stealing is bad in the poorhouse.

But Merkel's reputation as the most popular chancellor of all time remains intact. Soon there will be änschii miniatures for the front garden.

You can find the sources here.