German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/233, pp.
29939-29940.
Right honorable Herr President. Esteemed colleagues.
Before we cast a glance at the sustainability, a brief word
on the FDP’s motion in connection with climate neutral flying: Your motion is
from 2019, and it is not well altered, it needs be said. At a time when
Lufthansa has already cut 24,000 positions and considers cutting an additional
10,000 positions, you present a motion in which the German Bundestag shall
determine the fulminating growth of the aviation branch by the CO2
emissions proceeding therefrom.
Ja, dear FDP, in
which bunker have you spent the last 15 months that it has escaped you that the
aviation branch is stuck in the greatest crisis since there was an aviation?
While the people are alarmed about their jobs, you want us to occupy ourselves
with CO2 output measured by completely obsolete prognoses. For this
tactlessness, you should be just a little bit ashamed.
Dear FDP, you should also work a bit on your priorities.
Since the duty of the flight pilots is not to reduce the CO2
emissions of aircraft, but to bring the aircraft with all its crew and passengers
safely to the place of destination.
Quite briefly on the recent motions of the Greens: Dear
Greens, gender speech is Idioten speech
Dietmar Bartsch (Linke): Idiotinnen!
and thereby all is said on that.
Yet now all for sustainability. The re-working of the German
sustainability strategy tinkers with the symptoms without addressing the
central problem. This central problem is the Federal government’s false
emphasis regarding the original sustainability goals of Agenda 2030. Although
the principal concern of Agenda 2030 is the struggle against worldwide poverty,
this Federal government unilaterally further posits the goals of climate
protection and the reduction of a supposed inequality.
…For the increase of so-called renewable energy, you make
allowance for the logging of forests and the industrialization of acreage. Yet
you thereby contradict sustainability goal 15: Sustainability of the eco-system
in the country as well as a sustainable forestry management. The logging of a
forest so as to install a wind energy plant is no sustainable forestry
management.
You also contradict sustainability goal 2: The struggle against
worldwide hunger in which you sacrifice agricultural acreage for wind energy
plants and solar farms. Your entire, ostensibly sustainable energy policy is
the greatest enemy of sustainability goal 7: You are not concerned for a reliable,
clean energy of good value, but for a future in which electricity becomes a
luxury good, and which is only unreliably at disposal and only at horrendous
prices. And as a result of the shutdown of nuclear power plants, this energy
also becomes still dirtier.
The contradictions continue. And it becomes ever more
abstruse as your policy counteracts the sustainability goals. You say you
strive for a lowering of primary energy requirements. Yet at the same time you
want to establish a completely electricity-based Power-to-X economy; for which,
on account of the massive energy transformation losses thereby incurred, you however
first of all need to generate the necessary energy from the beginning. That is
to say: Your primary energy requirement initially goes up drastically. It
shoots you through the roof. A more contradictory policy is seldom seen, and it
is due to be simply voted out in the fall.
You conduct your fight against the alleged inequality with
ever the same socialist sledgehammer methods. He who is successful or diligent,
efficient or productive, he receives taxes and duties and is overcome by
bureaucracy until all is subordinated to the SPD’s acknowledged sense of justice:
Less for all, or make all equal – equally poor.
Among other purposes, your measures have little to do with
the improvement of living standards. Quite the opposite: You burden those of
low income by means of your energy, tax and finance policy. You thereby make it
more difficult for the people to be able to lead an independent,
self-determined life of dignity on their own power and without dependence on
the state transfer of benefits.
Yet quite obviously is it your intention to take away just
as much as possible from the people by means of high taxes and duties so as
then with little scraps to again purchase from them good will, good conduct and
votes.
Lastly, something on your facile and absurd sustainability
strategy indicators; for example, the detection [Erfassung] of criminal acts, which should decline. Na, ja, it would be desirable if the
number of criminal acts in the country would decline, not their detection, or –
better yet – if the clarification rate in Germany would increase. Yes, that
would be a step towards a state of law. Yet the mere detection is not that;
since the mere detection is only an act of bureaucratic administration. Or do
we want a situation as in Mexico, for example? There, criminal acts are diligently detected,
yet only approximately 2% are clarified. Thus in Mexico rules a de facto
lawlessness. Yet is nice that you there have detected all.
It remains to retain as a conclusion that the over-worked
German sustainability strategy indicates no coherence with the policy presently
practiced in Germany. Your policy leads to poverty, to de-industrialization, to
massive consumption of acreage, to energy scarcity and to environmental
destruction. Whatever good is stuck into Agenda 2030 will be ruined by your
policy, and there besides remains in the end only your eco-socialist uniformity
porridge.
[trans: tem]
