In his book “The madhouse effect” writes the American climate researcher Michael E. Mann, the reasoning of so-called climate sceptics is based on a multi-stage denial. You don’t start with the statement that there is global warming at all. As can refute against this by simple temperature measurements and comparisons, following the second stage, the statement that climate change is a natural process that humans have no influence.
This was also the Position of the SVP. It has the disadvantage, that their advocates have to argue true free expertise against a burden of proof, which is with any scientific study, overwhelming. The largest party of the country is in the vicinity of a sect.
to deny The human influence on climate change, has the result that experts from the most prestigious Swiss universities are able to demonstrate a climatological real satirist like Roger Köppel, the permanent dissemination of mischief. For example, the claim that carbon dioxide is demonised and is for the climate to be harmless, because it is 97% natural origin. The latter is correct, for climate change, however, is irrelevant, because this 97 “natural percentage” to be compensated, including through photo-synthesis. A decisive factor for the global warming are the 3 percent, the man’s contribution are accurate.
Even if we arrived tomorrow, have an output of zero, this would be irrelevant as a contribution to solving the global climate crisis.
But such pseudo-discussions are likely to be rare. Because the election result of 20. October shows that it is in a country with a well-educated population is counter-productive, if politicians are riding with an attached jester’s cap scientific facts best. This finding can not escape even the SVP. One of their exponents move around levels to deeper Denial (the Problem solves itself thanks to the natural reactions of self, the climate change is bad, but not conducive). Overall, however, the party favors a statement that is opposite to the other a clear advantage is that it is, in fact, correct.
the statement, our country in the global with only a thousandth of the man-made CO2 emissions. Even if we arrived tomorrow, have an output of zero, this would be irrelevant as a contribution to solving the global climate crisis.
According to the political scientist Michael Hermann, the potential persuasiveness of this line of reasoning is much larger than those of the previous Position – not least because the SVP connects with the rejection of higher charges for fuel, flights, heating and others. Why should we pay more, if it changes in a global perspective, but nothing, and the Chinese continue to include a multiple of CO2? Additional effect, that much is easy to predict, would unfold the Argument in the midst of an economic crisis.
A rich country, its resources, accordingly, a larger contribution than a poor.
The “thousandth of a” theory of the SVP can be on several levels counter. In no other area, there would be someone in the sense that a Single should pay a collective obligation to miss because of its influence on the Whole was low. My rail ticket has for the operating result of the SBB is a minimal meaning – may I go so black? As Colonel Christopher would have reacted Blocher earlier to the statement of an objector, whether he indenter to the RS or not, is not for the strength of the Swiss army is irrelevant?
Since the conclusion of the Paris climate agreement on the reduction of CO2 emissions is a legally binding obligation. If Switzerland is allowed to escape with their CO2-thousandth of that obligation applies for Germany with its global share of 2 percent? But for China, with 30 percent, not more? Who should define something according to what criteria?
There are more arguments against it. Is used instead of the absolute emissions of those per head and add the “grey emissions”, is our CO2 percentage is much higher, as suggested by the thousandth of an Argument. (Gray emissions abroad, for example through the production of Goods that are later imported into Switzerland.) The 1992 UN framework Convention on climate change sets in addition to the ‘polluter pays’ principle, that a rich country should make its own financial, technological, social, and other resources accordingly, a major contribution to the fight against climate change as one of the poor.
The proponents of the climate-neutral transformation must also promote measures aimed at the individual wallet.
the Switzerland, their economy and their society so that they work in a climate-neutral, this would have a considerable international impact. And would be accompanied by a new wave of innovation, the export would generate competitive technologies and products. Furthermore, the absence of fossil fuels will, if it proves to be enforceable, there are also local environmental and political impact: cleaner air, more traffic zones, calmed in the inner cities, greater energy independence from foreign countries.
If all this is convincing enough to the pragmatic-sounding invalidate at the end of thousandths of an Argument? The show at the latest when the inevitable limitations and costs associated with the conversion to a climate-neutral economy.
The proponents of this tag should not argue only ethically. You also need to promote measures aimed at the individual wallet. For example, by higher taxes in the Form of tax breaks, cheaper health insurance premiums or other of the population flow back.
Created: 27.10.2019, 17:43 PM
