nemecko
The election campaign of our lives
https://taz.de/Wie-wir-Medien-vor-der-Wahl-versagen/!5797795/If you take the future political programs of all parties seriously - and you have to in this case - then there is no party that has developed a policy for limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees . Not even the Greens, who with their marketing talk of the “1.5-degree path” - with the kind support of Fridays for Future - have disguised that they want to go up to 1.8 at best, which has long been an illusion. While the governing parties CDU / CSU and SPD aim loosely towards 3 degrees. To put that into perspective, you have to imagine that they wanted to limit unemployment to 40 million Germans. Something was going on - and rightly so.
During that time, Bernd Ulrich put it in a nutshell that SPD candidate Olaf Scholz, with his idea of countering the climate crisis with “moderate” politics , wants to break into a radically changed future for us - radically worse than it is today. If “Keep it up” means that we want to continue to live in freedom, democracy and relative prosperity through a functioning economy, then we need serious future policies now so that things can continue.
...
Apparently there is an unspoken agreement not to talk about the central issues of the future. Or we journalists have accepted the agenda of excluding the future, which is specifically set by the two parties that have nicely distributed power and posts for tens of years. Those who have achieved a lot in the fossilized post-war world with their reformist measure-and-measure politics, but who have now not come out of their dysfunctional mode and continue to pretend it makes a terribly big difference which of the two pursues the illusionistic further- so leads.
Hardly anyone talks about the fact that the climate policy advocated by Scholz and Laschet is nowhere near enough to comply with the Paris climate agreement, which these parties signed themselves. Not even to keep the German economy going. Instead, the question repeatedly asked whether someone - looking closely at the Greens chairman Baerbock - wants to "forbid" something. With this spin, the attempt to solve a problem becomes a problem, the problem no longer exists.
I don't forbid anything, says Scholz, always supporting the state. He wants to score with that, and maybe he does, but it is also unconditional surrender before the fight for our future has even begun. Or not? In any case, you have to talk and argue about that, you have to ask questions in between, you have to have specialist knowledge and an eye for the future as a whole - and that is too often lacking for us journalists.