B.ald it is the crucial day, the politicians switch to election campaign mode. This is good because now you are ready to listen and answer questions. Something like this: We have to become climate neutral, earlier or earlier, depending on the party. Now we would like to know what that means for everyday life. A new heating system is due, who guarantees that it can still be operated with oil or gas in two decades? Don’t you have to stop selling durable vehicles like tractors, harvesters and bulldozers now? And will hybrids then only be allowed to drive electrically?
Or do the filling stations only serve alcohol and biodiesel? We had that before, but B 100 was taxed away. If you want that, you have to explain where the energy crops are to be grown. Or where the hydrogen for synthetic fuel comes from. It is also supposed to replace the gas in the network, we had that before, but it was a long time ago. Instead of 90 billion cubic meters annually, 270 will then be needed. Isn’t the dispute over Nord Stream 2 superfluous? The hydrogen is to be produced in the desert with solar power and shipped over there in a CO2-neutral manner, where is there clean water for electrolysis and where is there investors for such projects?
At this point, the objection often comes that CO2-neutral does not mean zero emissions, what is emitted here can be offset elsewhere. So solar stoves instead of wood fires in developing countries, the Chinese are putting wind turbines in front of them so that they can do without new coal-fired power plants, and there is reforestation everywhere – the German oak as an export hit. That brings us to the question of all questions: Could it be that we are being ridiculed and the politicians simply leave it to their successors to explain why such goals could not be met?