Climate crisis | Climate crisis: rethinking prosperity

On the Goetheweg towards Brocken: The forest in the Harz looked more beautiful. Photo: dpa/Julian Stratenschulte A look at the news shows how much we have lost our compass in times of crisis. On Tuesday the federal government invited people to the economic summit. Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU) and six ministers advertised for investments. Companies pledged 228 billion euros. There was great satisfaction – investments ultimately secure the business location. There was no talk of climate protection that day.

The evening before, Eintracht Frankfurt held its general meeting. There, CEO Axel Hellmann explained that a new stadium was needed. The Waldstadion is too small; An arena is no longer up-to-date after 30 years. Hellmann advocates a new building with 80,000 seats. Quite a few consider him a visionary.

Just a day and a half later, at least the United Nations sounded the alarm: the earth is heading for a dramatic warming of 2.8 degrees compared to pre-industrial times. In the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, the global community agreed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. This goal can no longer be achieved because the global community is only acting half-heartedly.

In this country, climate protection only plays a role in the development of new projects if it does not conflict with economic interests. People are happy to dismiss responsibility - after all, Germany is a comparatively small country. If other states don't go along with it, their own efforts will have little effect. Such an attitude shows how little the commitments agreed at world climate conferences actually have an impact in everyday life. The climate crisis threatens the livelihoods of future generations. Climate researchers have long been warning of dystopian scenarios.

In its urgent appeal, the United Nations emphasizes that political decisions are one of the most effective levers for greater climate protection. It would be all the more necessary to declare a climate emergency. Then climate protection would have to be taken into account from the outset in every political decision. Not every business location would be welcome anymore. Fast fashion's business model, for example, would be put to the test if sustainability became a requirement. When building the stadium, Eintracht Frankfurt would also have to examine how the Waldstadion could be enlarged by expanding the existing structure instead of aiming for a new building.

If climate protection were taken seriously, it would no longer be a matter of growing at any price. Wealth would have to be redefined and as a society we would have to find a way to live with our limited resources. That would not be a loss of the future, but rather the prerequisite for having one.

With us, no one has to pay to be informed. Sounds like a bad business model? It is too. But independent journalism and participation for everyone are more important to us than profit. Journalism still costs money: research, printing and all the people who do it. That's why we depend on you. We need 300,000 euros by the end of the year.

Donate once or regularly, every amount counts. So that nd remains.