Former Federal German Minister Under Merkel Warns: Germany Heading to A Climate Tyranny

From NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin 

“Basic rights in crisis mode” in Germany. The real threat to democracy.

“How we live, heat, get around, travel and what we eat could soon no longer be an individual decision, but increasingly be dictated by the state,” a former German federal minister warns. 

Image cropped from Kristina Schröder’s Twitter account.

Kristina Schröder, photo above, who served as the Federal Family Minister from 2009 to 2013 in the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel, recently commented that Germany currently finds itself on a dangerous environmentally dogmatic path under the current leadership.

Pandemic as the blueprint

In a commentary published at Der Pragmaticus here, she writes: “The pandemic has provided a blueprint for the climate movement on how to enforce fundamental restrictions on basic rights.”

“Germany is heading in the direction of a radical climate protection dogma that almost completely ignores the costs of the path taken. And once again, the two predominant patterns of argumentation in the pandemic can be observed: A refusal to weigh things up and an ends-justify-the-means mindset,” Schröder adds. “I am convinced that large sections of the climate protection movement are also fighting our way of living and our economy at least as much as they are fighting climate change.”

CO2 as the virus to fear

Schröder adds that it is easy to see that CO2 is being viewed as a virus and to imagine future measures to curb it: “there is a threat of regulations affecting our most private lifestyles. How we live, heat, get around, travel and what we eat could soon no longer be an individual decision, but increasingly be dictated by the state.”

Schellnhuber “3 tonnes per year”

She also speaks critically of Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the former director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) who proposes “every citizen could be given a CO2 budget of three tons per year.” The average German emits 11 tons per year, and thus getting down to just 3 would certainly entail draconian restrictions and regulations.

But so far many Germans have been acting complacently about such drastic proposals, Schröder notes, adding: “This eager willingness to relinquish fundamental freedoms is all the more disturbing as a crucial question is hardly being asked, let alone answered: Does effective climate protection really have to mean such losses of freedom and prosperity?”

Schröder, who contributes regularly to Welt, also wonders why in Germany there’s  such a “blindness to the costs” of reducing CO2.  “Why this indifference to the loss of freedom and prosperity?” And: “Why this longing for bans, renunciation and penance?”

“Powerful lever” against capitalism

In Schröder’s view, for the activists, climate protection is “a powerful lever to push back the hated capitalist system.”

She concludes:

“I am certain that if a technical solution were to be found tomorrow that would allow us to render CO2 harmless overall, large sections of the radical climate protection movement would not be relieved, but disappointed.”

Foe the greens and the many activists, it’s follow our politics! It’s not about science.

Read Kristina Schröder’s full commentary here (German). 

4.9 36 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
56 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
December 12, 2023 9:06 pm

When the Greens and others went full anti-nuke, it was obvious it was not about the climate.

William Howard
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 13, 2023 7:33 am

exactly – a former head of the UNIPCC stated that the real goal of the environmental movement is the destruction of capitalism – all just a bunch of communists trying to rule humanity

scvblwxq
Reply to  William Howard
December 13, 2023 8:05 am

The millionaires and billionaires who own the press and control the politicians are planning on making trillions from the $US200 trillion it will take, Bloomberg estimates it will take, to stop warming by 2050.

They are ignoring the fact that when global emissions of CO2 dropped 6% in 2020 during the pandemic lockdowns and closures, the increase in the level of CO2 kept going up at the very same rate.

https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2020/global-energy-and-co2-emissions-in-2020
https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2

JC
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 13, 2023 8:06 am

We could quibble about the parameters of measuring and comparing the cost of Nuke power and natural gas turbine 2-3 tier electrical generation. The general consensus is nuke power is more expensive due to capital and security costs…especially on the back end of the reactor life span.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx

“Nuclear power is cost-competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels”

So why have nuke plants in PA, OK, LA, AK, NY, TX, ND, New England, The North East, the Mid Atlantic etc?

Toss the twisted political logic of climate aside.

Since there is clear evidence that there massive NG reserves in the USA, why do nuke unless there is no debate that it is the less expensive option.

The goal has to be cheap energy for America. This goal is now in murkiest political waters. Even to say it feels antiquated and arcane.

Tom Halla
Reply to  JC
December 13, 2023 8:14 am

On the cost of nukes, there has been a negative learning curve, I would argue due to lawfare by antinuclear greens.
Part of this is pure Luddite objections, as Women’s Studies majors fear anything they do not understand, and are unwilling to learn they have been lied to.

JC
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 13, 2023 8:55 am

Tom,

Agreed. 1979 is the point were green rad movement lifted off and they have been fighting ever since. Pure emotion! It has progressed to the point that the problem has become us. With their upside down logic, the last motive is cheap energy.

All I care about is cheap energy…. whatever it is.

We all need to have sound knowledge and understanding of the complex issues related to tech adoption and application. Unfortunately, our Academia no longer has the intellectual capacity to spend much time there. So where ever the wind blows is the default point of our dollars and votes.

Since 2007 the smartphone and reports of massive Marcellus shale gas reserves (and NG and Oil advancement around the world) has shaped our world like nothing else has in a long while…..combining market pressure along the global market fault lines and a new very powerful venue for global psych tech mass propaganda.

This is the reason for my cheap energy slogan, which I am now at last hearing out loud from the Republicans.

JC
Reply to  JC
December 13, 2023 8:15 am

BTW Germany, had direct access to NG through Ukraine from Russia. There was no reason to do the capital outlay to renovate those old nuke plants until the the Russian war.

Yes the twisted Green logic propelled the EU in 2009 to push to remove all the nuke plants but the economic impetus was Gazprom, Brazillian and USA LNG. The Brazil’s NG industry was killed by a Putin green bullet in 2012 and Obama threw a wrench into the US LNG industry, Putin cut deals with Germany and the UR, and then Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014 The irony is10 years later, US LNG diverting LNG going to Brazil to the EU.

dk_
December 12, 2023 9:08 pm

Schroeder should mind the career and fate of Dietrich Bonhoeffer if, indeed “large sections of the radical climate protection movement” become disappointed in Germany.

Bob
December 12, 2023 9:32 pm

Very important information. The regular guy needs to be informed about what he is being expected to do and give up for no good reason.

The Chemist
December 12, 2023 9:59 pm

Fascist Watermelons: Green on the outside, Red inside.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  The Chemist
December 13, 2023 3:35 am

The leaders of the climate cult are bananas- white on the inside and yellow on the outside.

Denis
December 12, 2023 10:01 pm

The “hated capitalist system?” This would be the the hated system that saw West Germany prosper in all ways while East Germany who used the alternative failed on every front. The East Germany that had to build a wall to keep their citizens from leaving? The East Germany that shot thousands of their own citizens who attempted to escape nonetheless? Yea, that’s the one.

RickWill
Reply to  Denis
December 13, 2023 12:16 am

I was reminded of the Trabant earlier today. Years ago I observed the stark contrast between the products of socialist East Germany and the market economy of West Germany. None better than the Trabant and the BMW of the same era before the wall came down:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No1-4GsQa-g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REQjy_fVbLQ

The UN, with support from Russia and China, is leading the western world into a socialist catastrophe.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  RickWill
December 13, 2023 1:56 am

It appears to me that it is The West who is leading the world into socialism.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gregory Woods
December 13, 2023 3:59 am

Specifically, the radical Left is leading the West to socialism.

And they are doing a pretty good job of it so far. But the chickens may be coming home to roost soon. Backlash may be coming as socialism’s flaws become apparent to every-day people..

scvblwxq
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 13, 2023 8:11 am

Two-thirds of Republicans under 30 support the climate agenda, and 42 percent of the Republicans overall support it. Ninety percent of Democrats support it, according to Per Research.

The brainwashing has been extensive.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/

scvblwxq
Reply to  scvblwxq
December 13, 2023 8:12 am

Oops, …Pew Research…

MarkW
Reply to  scvblwxq
December 13, 2023 12:16 pm

I see the criticisms of your favorite poll haven’t dented your enthusiasm for it.

general custer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 14, 2023 12:37 pm

In a world of instant communication across countries and continents people are aware not only of the benefits of capitalism but also its drawbacks. They believe that corporate leaders, employees of the company, making millions of dollars a year, are bandits. The rewards to the most wealthy Americans, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, etc. aren’t commensurate with their intellectual and physical contributions. The true capitalists will live to regret the excesses of their bandit brethren when the neo-socialists start sliding them all into what will be a technologically advanced guillotine, probably one developed by one of the doomed.

mkelly
Reply to  RickWill
December 13, 2023 2:54 am

During my time in Iceland Trabants were considered throw away cars. People often bought two at a time. The cardboard glove compartment. The bicycle handle shift lever with the bicycle plastic end cap all pointed to CHEAP.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  mkelly
December 13, 2023 4:49 am

In the old East Germany you had to wait 5-10 years to get the car you ordered, buying two nearly not possible.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  RickWill
December 13, 2023 5:00 am

If you really want to compare a Trabant with a BMW, why not with that ?

kwinterkorn
Reply to  RickWill
December 13, 2023 3:47 pm

Russia is no longer pro-socialist. Putin is a realist who realizes he will have more power to play with (abuse?) with a more open free market economy.

Like China now, Putin sees the power of private enterprise—-he just makes sure that he (and his oligarch buddies) keep political control and also keep a percent of the profits coming to him. The leadership of China plays the same game. It’s actually a version of Mussolini’s fascist economics.

It is the European and American Left that still actually believe that somehow socialism could be made to work.

Petit-Barde
December 12, 2023 10:23 pm

Indeed, the pandemic response and the climate actions, all based on pseudo-science, fearmongering and blame game, have nothing to do with health or climate but belong to a totalitarian agenda pushed by unelected technocrats, corrupt politicians and crony capitalism.

Geoffrey Williams
December 12, 2023 11:27 pm

My only comment; be careful who you vote for . .

Iain Reid
Reply to  Geoffrey Williams
December 12, 2023 11:51 pm

Geoffrey,

and the choices are???

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Iain Reid
December 13, 2023 4:01 am

There *are* real choices.

I’m going to vote to Make America Great Again.

scvblwxq
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 13, 2023 8:13 am

It was just talk the first time.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  scvblwxq
December 13, 2023 3:52 pm

I’ll take the Trump economy over the Biden economy any time. It’s not even close.

strativarius
Reply to  Geoffrey Williams
December 13, 2023 1:38 am

In other word…. abstain

RickWill
December 13, 2023 12:05 am

“I am certain that if a technical solution were to be found tomorrow that would allow us to render CO2 harmless overall, large sections of the radical climate protection movement would not be relieved, but disappointed.”

Only a clueless imbecile could make such a statement. Show me any evidence that CO2 needs to be rendered harmless. CO2 is the gas of life. The abundance of life on Earth falls and rises in concert with CO2. Life on Earth starved itself of CO2 during the Carboniferous period

The main building blocks of life on Earth are carbon and hydrogen. Carbon is extracted from atmospheric CO2. Hydrogen is extracted from water. Reactions of life depend on nitrogen and phosphorous. as well as smaller amounts of other essential elements.

Only nutters who hate life could condemn CO2 as harmful. The rest of us would be better served if these nutters just passed on rather than making misery for the rest of us.

Hysteria
Reply to  RickWill
December 13, 2023 12:44 am

That’s a pretty harsh assessment . The quote doesn’t say she. Believes C02 to be bad – but that it is a proxy for a wider socialist attempt to limit personal freedoms and economic growth. And that it it was magically waived away, the zealots would not be pleased.

I thought it was generally a good article from someone who used to be on the inside of Big Government.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  RickWill
December 13, 2023 2:52 am

Her judgement about the climate protection mouvement in my eyes is absolutely correct.
It’s not the climate they make believe to protect, but to fight against free living, talking, choices etc.

starzmom
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 13, 2023 5:44 am

I agree with you. That is also precisely why the comparison to the covid reactions is so apt. Governments could hardly wait to eliminate our rights, and at least for a time we were so scared (by them) that we were willing to give up our rights. Europe was worse than the US, but it happened everywhere.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  RickWill
December 13, 2023 4:11 am

“Show me any evidence that CO2 needs to be rendered harmless.”

That’s what I say, too.

All this Net Zero insanity, and not one person on this Earth can prove that CO2 needs to be regulated or reduced. They can’t even tell you how much warmth a given amount of CO2 would add to the atmosphere, and they certainly can’t tell us about the negative feedbacks in the Earth’s atmosphere that might serve to negate any such warmth such as an increase in clouds.

Our leaders are destroying our economies and societies based solely on speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions about CO2. Soley.

I would challenge anyone to show differently.

Nothing substantiates climate change alarmist claims. Nothing. So why are we taking actions? The answer is lots of reasons, none of which are based on the science of CO2.

scvblwxq
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 13, 2023 8:17 am

When human CO2 was reduced by 6% during the start of the pandemic in 2020, it didn’t even make a dent in the rate of CO2 growth in the atmosphere.
https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2

MarkW
Reply to  scvblwxq
December 13, 2023 12:18 pm

Do you ever bother to read the responses to the drivial you post over and over again?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  RickWill
December 13, 2023 4:20 am

I read that statement as a mocking of the climate fanatics, in that EVEN if they could neutralize CO2 they wouldn’t be happy.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 13, 2023 4:37 am

That is exactly the meaning of that statement and it’s well said.

Richard Page
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 13, 2023 5:23 am

It’s not so much mocking as a matter of fact statement. Many of the Green movement don’t care about climate change and certainly don’t want a ‘solution’ – they want to impose their lifestyle, diet and ideology on everyone else and receive the aprobation that they were right all this time. I said this before and, no doubt, I’ll be saying it again but it is a mental illness that must be diagnosed and treated.

strativarius
December 13, 2023 12:43 am

As Hermann Hesse put it

Nur für Verrückte

Peta of Newark
December 13, 2023 1:55 am

“I am certain that if a technical solution were to be found tomorrow that would allow us to render CO2 harmless

Even she is blind, it does not even have to be ‘technical’

As per the attached and as seen at the end of my garden. Literally. Over the course of the last 18 months.
(My neighbour has a pet baby windmill, under the lightning bolts I added)

There wasn’t really a great deal to see for the first 12 months, apart from some little baby evergreen trees. A photo I have of them in May this year sees them about 12″tall and ‘pretty spindly
Top half of the image is them being harvested. Maybe not the best of pictures but you should be able to see the guy on the back of the tractor manhandling just one of what those ‘spindlys’ became = about 4ft tall with 18″ diameter root ball. Dates as indicated.
I borrowed one of the bushes briefly and put on some scales, it came in at 5kilograms (with all the soil removed)
Taking account the densities of Lignin/Cellulose vs Water, I’d make a wild-ass-guess that there was about 1.5kg of CO₂ in each of them and that (really W.A.G.) they’d be leaving about 0.2kg of sugar in the ground.
(Over the course of summer they’d each have fed 0.5kg of sugar into the ground of which .15kg would remain as soil bacteria they’d nurtured/fed. The rest of that sugar would have become CO₂ and returned to the sky.)

At the planting density they were, that plantation would have absorbed 37 Tonnes of CO₂ per Hectare over the last 6 months

The lower half the image shows what the field became – removing the trees (same as harvesting any/all arable crop) has created a dead/dying anaerobic stinking rotten bombsite.
All that surface water makes things cold as well – it is dumping immense amounts of energy skywards.

And the reason all that water is sitting there is because there is no water in the soils of continental Europe. The lack of water and water-containing plants on/in Europe is the reason for the huge high-pressure ridge that has sat there all summer and is still there.

As far as any/all anti-cyclonic systems (Babet, Ciaren, Debi, Aline Elin) coming off the North Atlantic (propelled by The Conveyor), what they see is a very effective mountain range in the form of that ridge and hence, they dump their water load as they attempt to climb up and over it.
And THAT is exactly what’s happening in UK right now, UK is being flooded, fertile soils are being destroyed (as you see in my image) exactly because the Europeans have destroyed their farmland soils and forests

If Europe (Germany) had had a plantation as was at the end my garden, the European heatwaves and flash floods would not have happened and the hideous cold over Eastern Europe right now (and snow in Munich) would not have happened either.
Those trees, had they been growing in Germany would pumped water-vapour into the air and thus punctured & deflected the summer-long cyclonic ridge AND, just look how much CO₂ they’d have sucked out the sky in doing so.
Even before all the water they retained in the soil.

But no, the destruction of Europe is spreading to some of The Best Soils on this planet.
Those trees grew to be as big as they were without significant rainfall or any artificial irrigation. It wasn’t an especially warm or sunny summer either for them but look what they made of themselves!!!
Yet when they were harvested, removed 70Tonnes of water (per hectare) from that field within themselves and left at **very** least, the same again in the ground and all the bacteria they created.

Serious question: Where did they get it all from?
i.e. CO₂ fertilation might, if it had any validity, might reduce water consumption BUT, it does not Make Water

Can someone have a quiet word with the lovely Kristina…….

MY Laurel Trees.PNG
Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 13, 2023 2:16 am

UK farmers, under instruction from their Government and their consumers are complicit in this race into extinction.

Because some parts of the plantation are still intact and you could walk down the rows of plants in jim-jams & wearing your bedroom slippers….. Instead of a nuclear powered sub crossed with amphibian army-tank (which would struggle) for the rest of the field. .
i.e. Arable plants grown as annuals (vs perennials) are The Problem here and the root cause of the observed climate changes.

And if we farmed livestock and actually ate the diet we were evolved to eat (saturated fat) – almost all the farmed landscape would be = perennial plants (cow pastures and meadows) interspersed with lots and lots of trees for windbreaks and hedges.
(Not these Laurels those = a bit on the toxic side for livestock)

(I’m sure someone soon is going to love those little Laurel Trees and put them back in the ground so it’s not ALL Doom & Disaster – they are gonna cost a ‘pretty penny’ when they reach the shops and garden centres – looking north of £20 a pop, maybe 2 for £30)

michel
December 13, 2023 3:07 am

In the UK local councils are now implementing parking fees according to CO2 emissions of the vehicle. In London there is a residents parking fee, which can vary from zero for an EV to 300 in Greenwich for a high emitting ICE. Telegraph:

The council is among the dozen London boroughs including Hackney, Lambeth and Kensington & Chelsea to introduce rates based on how much carbon dioxide vehicles emit.

Outside the capital, Bath and North East Somerset council introduced an emissions-based charging structure in eight council-owned car parks in September. St Albans in Hertfordshire has adopted a similar scheme for parking permits. 

Motorists parking in Brighton and Hove could also soon face charges based on their vehicles’ emissions, the city council announced this month.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  michel
December 13, 2023 3:19 am

I miss the logic, a parking car emits nothing, longer they park less they should pay.
:facepalm:

strativarius
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 13, 2023 3:31 am

The idea is to make life as difficult as possible where things that make life easier are concerned.

Between 20 and 30 years ago councils discovered a new revenue stream in Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ). I am forced, by Wandsworth council, to pay ~£180 for the privilege of parking in the street outside my house. And that does not guarantee someone else will not park there.

The CPZ is being used to crush independent travel.

michel
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 13, 2023 3:38 am

The unintended consequence of what they are all doing locally is a collapse in the UK car market. Residential parking is basically a tax on car ownership. People can’t afford to buy EVs because they are way more expensive. In the city they are also more expensive to run, because you have mostly to use public charging points. So a lot of people are going to decide they cannot afford an EV, maybe it doesn’t fit their use needs, and they cannot afford the tax on an ICE car, so they will just drop out of the car market.

I guess the country will not be so affected. Driveway parking and charging will be a help. For ICE cars however councils can raise parking, and can even charge for city access. And they evidently will, and feel very virtuous about it.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  michel
December 13, 2023 7:25 am

I don’t think feeling virtuous really comes in to it. It’s a way of raising money for the Council and that’s it.

Joseph Zorzin
December 13, 2023 3:34 am

“She also speaks critically of Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the former director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) who proposes “every citizen could be given a CO2 budget of three tons per year.”

But of course there will be exceptions for the wealthy- or they’ll have to sell their homes, yachts and private jets. Actually, those items will have to be destroyed as nobody could enjoy them with such a limit.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 13, 2023 4:24 am

The U.S. should limit John Kerry to three tons per year.

My local congressional representative has proposed a bill to defund John Kerry’s Climate Czar office.

After Kerry is fired, he won’t have to use that jet to fly all over the world attending climate change meetings, so he might be able to meet that three-tons-of-CO2 goal.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 13, 2023 4:46 am

My understanding is that they tried to limit Stacy Abrams to 3 tons but that was a lost cause many years ago.

Richard Page
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 13, 2023 6:55 am

It would be as futile as trying to limit him to producing less than 3t of BS in a year.

wilpost
December 13, 2023 7:27 am

COP28 a flop?
Think again

Phasing out or phasing down fossil fuels, purposely leaves in place high energy consumption per capita in the Western world, while preventing such high energy consumption per capita in Africa, without which their economies cannot develop.

That leaves plenty of fossil fuels available for the Western world, because Africans will not be allowed to use them. 

They will be reminded by the West, with a big stick:

“You are in phase-out/phase-down mode” 

“You are allowed to use high-cost wind, solar and batteries which we, the West, will provide, 

“We, the West, will loan you the money, at high interest rates, to hang yourself forever. 

Africans would stay soooo screwed, and stay soooo colonized

Be prepared for more migration to the West.

People do what they gotta do.

JC
December 13, 2023 7:46 am

The question remains, which came first the pandemic response or climate tyranny? Or have they been well choreographed flip sides of the same coin.. flipped by the same people globally in the West?

Will any formerly titled official from the Canadian Government shared the same concerns as Ms. Shroder? Probably not, Trudeau has Canada locked up tight. Too bad Tucker Carlson was ousted before he could do his expose on Canadian tyranny. What the Canadian Government did to the faithful Churches in Canada during the pandemic was heinous.

kwinterkorn
December 13, 2023 2:50 pm

German is well on its way to irrelevance. It is committing economic suicide, de-industrializing at a rapid pace.

Germany used to be famous for the innovative, high quality chemicals and machines it made. Soon it will be famous for poverty, failure, and political instability as the people wake up and get angry.

History suggests this does not bode well fir the rest of us. At least Germany’s low birth rate suggests any need for lebensraum will be limited.

Luke B
December 13, 2023 9:41 pm

“I am certain that if a technical solution were to be found tomorrow that would allow us to render CO2 harmless overall, large sections of the radical climate protection movement would not be relieved, but disappointed.”

Well, fortunately, it is harmless overall!

%d
Verified by MonsterInsights