Frank Rinck, June 6, 2024, Farming

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/172, pp. 22279-22280. 

Herr President. Valued colleagues. Dear fellow citizens. 

Today it is once again about further complicating the German fertilizer law for our farmers, and introducing yet more bureaucracy – 

            Sylvia Lehmann (SPD): Nein!

but one thing after the other. To begin with, it must be stated – and this we may not forget – that the problems deliberated here were first generally produced by the old parties. A faulty and very questionable nitrate monitoring network provided that just these nitrate values, upon which we here proceed, have come to an end in Brussels. 

            Karl Bär (Greens): That’s not in the monitoring! 

Unfortunately, this is made a theme only by us, and unfortunately none of you appear to see a need for a correction. 

Ladies and gentlemen, everything which was passed here in the last years in regards agriculture policy generally needs to be on the test stand. And do not worry: Once we of the AfD govern, we will correct all of your failures. That is a promise upon which the farmers in the future can rely. 

Basically, it can be said that the good,  professional practices of our farmers and their economic interests do not allow that more fertilizer comes into the field than the crops require. It all of course costs money and resources. And, ladies and gentlemen, no farmer squanders his money or resources; they want to work economically. If you would for once pass some time with real professionals – and I mean practicing farmers – 

            Sylvia Lehmann (SPD): We do that!

and not with whichever demagogue from your associations, you would know that. Yet what have you here today to decide? It’s about the introduction of a nationwide monitoring of active ingredients for fertilizer supply.  

Till Steffen (Greens): Don’t fall asleep up there! Man, man man!

Besides in our view, we could in fact say, in so far as it would be connected, that demonstrably clean water agricultural operations in red areas would finally be freed of senseless fertilizer duties. Under-fertilization is besides an exhaustion of the soil, and that is actually also a form of expropriation of the affected farmers. Nevertheless, of that there is in your draft law no word to be found. Your motion indeed sets this as a goal; yet it’s spongy there, that then this should be first clarified with the EU. 

Ladies and gentlemen, that is unacceptable. If the active ingredients monitoring does not here include distinct goals, then it is to be rejected; especially since, for the first in line operations, the monitoring means new bureaucracy burdens and documentation obligations. 

With that, we come then to the next point, the planned expansion of the material flow balance in §11 of the fertilizer law; you now call it “nutrient balancing”. Ladies and gentlemen, the material flow balance shall in the future be obligatory for all arable farms and bio-has facilities. Why is that actually? That is neither asserted in EU law, nor is it purposeful when at the same time shall come the active ingredients monitoring. 

The experts at the hearing – this, the colleague Staubinger already said – have distinctly indicated that this is not sensible and brings with it no recognizable uses at all. The material flow balance is therefore, and in view of your robust promises of deconstruction of bureaucracy at the farmers’ protests, to be eliminated in its entirety. 

Now on that we have plainly heard that this besides costs all otherwise than much money. Ladies and gentlemen, it is certainly not as if your draft law costs no money: A quarter of a million euros will each be assessed in the BLE [Federal Institute for Agriculture and Food] – for that, three new positions will created; thus then come three new green ideologues who will make it still more difficult for the farmers – and a half million euros for the Julius Kühn Institute. 

Karl Bär (Greens): These people shall certify EU fertilizer products with CE labels. Yet that is fully unrealistic!

I can well imagine what happens with this money: Still more green ideologues will then be employed. 

Ladies and gentlemen, you of the Ampel remain true to yourselves with your destruction of our German agriculture. The draft law put forward is just one additional vexation for the German agriculture. And we therefore reject it. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Rainer Kraft, April 10 2024, Energy Policy and Politics

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/162, pp. 20812-20813. 

Right honorable President. Valued colleagues. 

After many errors and confusions, the Union again professes nuclear power. This could be debated long, wide and sarcastically. Yet I simply leave it and say: Welcome back to the rational side of German energy policy. 

This is besides an energy policy represented by the AfD since 2013, thus from the time of our formation. Your obligatory expressions for an acknowledgment of the renewables of course still appear in a motion, yet have already retired from your demands, and that is a step forward. Finally recognized is that a reliable and economic electricity supply with contingent energies, dependent on season and weather, is not feasible, and is thus a risk for Germany as a business venue. 

Herr Träger, last weekend, electricity customers needed to pay up to 56 euros per megawatt-hour in electricity disposal costs so that the German excess electricity production could be dumped in foreign countries. 

Generally, a comparison with foreign countries, for example France which you so readily criticize, is eye-opening. German is faced with around 500 billion euros in system integration costs for the massive construction of the network. France does not need this construction. France will not need a hydrogen core network for 20 billion euros. 

            Harald Ebner (Greens): Nevertheless!

France does not need 16 billion euros every 20 years for large electricity storage facilities. And electricity disposal costs for excess electricity no French electricity customer will ever need pay. 

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Hear, hear!

Yet what France does have, Herr Träger, are emission values of around 20 grams CO₂ per kilowatt-hour of electricity. I venture in this place a prognosis: With your energy policy, Germany will never achieve this value. 15 million tons of CO₂ – for the science-adverse Ampel coalition, the most dangerous substance on Earth – since the final exit from nuclear power in 2023 will each year additionally be emitted in the German energy sector. 

             Harald Ebner (Greens): Wrong! Wrong! Less than ever!

To 2030, that will total up to around 90 million tons of CO₂. For the Ampel, it’s all the same. 

            Harald Ebner (Greens): No, that’s simply not right! Fake news!

Dear colleagues of the SPD, Greens and FDP, finally admit that, for you, CO₂ emissions are all the same! For you, it’s only about an ideology, business nepotism for the re-distribution of tax billions, and the patronizing of the citizens. Throughout Europe, the hydrogen preliminary projects are dying:           

            Harald Ebner (Greens): Remain with the atom!

Lately, the H₂ Sines Rotterdam project in the billions; earlier, the German lighthouse project “West Coast 100” in Heide. Other projects like Uniper in Rotterdam are put off for the present. Nevertheless, billions in tax monies, provided for in means of promotion, die in one project after another. Yet in the BMWK [Economy and Climate Ministry], one continues to ride the dead hydrogen horse. 

It is thus right and important that the Union sees it as does the AfD, and that the society-splitting firewall falls in the energy policy. Doubts are nevertheless brought up, dear Union. The Union demands forbidding the decommissioning until a new government can conclusively clarify the question. It naturally needs be said more precisely: Until a new Chancellor and his coalition partner decide this. Since it well needs be asked, dear Union. How, with a Green coalition partner, do you want to introduce the fundamental, required change of direction in the German energy policy? 

Dear Union, if you seriously mean it with the return of nuclear energy and an end of the catastrophic green energy policy, then one thing is clear: The firewall must go! 

            Harald Ebner (Greens): Oje, oje!

To sum up. Dear colleagues, your motion goes in the right direction. We agree with it, even if it is faint-hearted and lets miss precisely what this country in the present economic situation urgently requires: A basic avowal for a fundamental, long-term and reliable change of direction in the German energy policy. Since the contingent energies with immense integration costs do not deliver what our industry and citizens need. You thus have a choice: Either you sell out the welfare of our country in an ideological coalition with the Greens, or you decide for cooperation in energy policy with the AfD. 

 

[trans: tem]

Gunnar Beck, March 11, 2024, Climate Excommunication

European Parliament, Strasbourg, P9 CRE-PROV(2024)03-11(1-242-0000). 

In 1633, the Inquisition excommunicated Galileo for helio-centrism – that is to say, for his renunciation of a Church dogma that the Sun circles around the Earth. Last month, ECB director Elderson threatened all co-workers with discharge who – cite – “deny the reality of solely man-made climate change, or that the climate change endangers the price stability.” 

Now, as a conservative, I rejoice over anyone who believes that earlier was much better. However, the ECB should preferably exchange its climate inquisitors for good economic historians, who know that not the climate change but the expansion of the money supply accelerates the inflation, just as Hans de Witte and Wallenstein managed it without limit in Galileo’s time. For its climate dogma and monetary policy are the greatest hocus-pocus in Europe since the geo-centric world view. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Sylvia Limmer, March 13, 2024, EU and Combustion Engine

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P9 CRE-PROV (2024)03-13(3-264-0000). 

Herr President. 

It is delightful that majorities across delegations could be repeatedly formed for the Euro 7 norm which, instead of green ideology and visions, could at least partially maintain measure and mean for the auto industry, and are thereby ultimately consumer-friendly, since it would have been autos in the low price segment which, with the EU Commission’s original draft, would have experienced a massive price increase. 

And that we could enforce with the stronger requirements the stability of drive batteries is in any case a success, and we are thereby a bit closer to the goal of ending the regulatory preference for e-autos. 

Obligatory on-board surveillance systems and stronger limit values for trucks and buses we definitely reject, yet it is of course a fact that it is basically not really about reducing harmful emissions, since these in regards nitrogen oxides have been reduced about 70% in the last 30 years, even though the permitted vehicles have doubled. The goal of the implementation of the so-called mobility transition of the Green Deal was always an accelerated end of the combustion engine. 

Thus in regards this vote out-weighs the fact that, with this vote for this Euro 7 compromise, the EU Commission’s fully unrealistic limit values are off the table, and we will vote for this proposal. 

 

[trans: tem]

Dietmar Friedhoff, December 14, 2023, Food, Africa and the AfD

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/144, pp. 18370-18371. 

Herr President. Valued colleagues. 

Germany is stuck in a budget crisis, the people in Germany become poorer and the government distributes ever more money ever further to all the world. And the CDU now sets out to strengthen the worldwide food security, yet in that regard seemingly does not entirely grasp the realpolitischen facts. 

I first want to state that the 17 sustainability goals also apply for Germany. 

Deborah Düring (Green): Hä? You nevertheless normally do not want it. Be a bit congruent! 

Meaning: It is a top priority duty of the German government to also directly and successfully implement the 17 goals in Germany. Thus in this case: No hunger also in Germany. In Germany are presently six million people, of whom two million children, affected by nutrition poverty. According to the association of child and youth doctors, in Germany far over 500,000 children regularly suffer unallayed hunger – here, in Germany. Inflation, rising rent, benzine and energy prices, an ideological trucking fee and CO₂ duties will further intensify this situation. Germany becomes more and more a problem child and even a developing country. 

Question: If a country does not fulfill its own sustainability goals, how can it then set out wanting to fulfill them elsewhere? It sounds like the “You’ll never walk alone” of our Chancellor. It sounds like weitere Häme. It sounds like Doppel-Wumms and “change of times” [Zeitenwende]. 

Yet where are now the most starved? In Ethiopia, for example, the former development policy exhibit country. Here will be built with assistance of the United Arab Emirates a palace on a grounds of 500 hectares; cost, 15 billion euros, which corresponds to the Ethiopian state budget. 

            Wolfgang Stefinger (CDU/CSU): Yet not with development monies! Mein Gott!

The UN presently investigates in Ethiopia because assistance deliveries have vanished into obscure channels and have been converted to money. Finally: In the last 20 years in Ethiopia, a man-made de-forestation of over 60 percent has taken place as a result of the high increase of population. That and not climate change is the principal problem in regards dried-out ground, water scarcity and the decrease of agricultural area. 

            Deborah Düring (Green): Ach Gottchen! 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): Oje, oje!

How now is this challenge to be solved? Solution: An end to the classic development policy, into an economic cooperation guided by German interests for a sustainable strengthening of the African continent. To that pertains: Who says A, needs also say fD. AfD is the solution. 

Industrialization of Africa for A: Value-creating, sustainable work and training places. Which is concerned with f: Financial Freiheit, Fortschritt und Förderung [freedom, progress and promotion] of African industry and infrastructure. Which ultimately has positive effects on D: Democratic processes, demographic challenges and Durchhaltefähighkeit [perseverance], thus the countries’ resilience. 

            Vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki: Come to a conclusion, please. 

Exactly this provides for food security also in Germany. 

            Vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki: Herr colleague. 

Sustainable, stable and effective – plainly AfD. 

Thank you. 

 

[trans: tem]

Dirk Spaniel, October 19, 2023, Electric Vehicle Subvention

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/131, p. 16445. 

Frau President. Right honorable viewers and listeners. Right honorable colleagues. 

As I read the motion, dear colleagues of the Union, I needed to look twice, whether it really came from you. 

            Klaus Wiener (CDU/CSU): It is printed on the upper left 

This is at the least an open coalition offer to the Greens. Here you want to maintain or again introduce the subventions for electro-mobility. 

Tilman Kuban (CDU/CSU, turned to the Greens delegation): You could just vote in favor!

Now you certainly know – you have already written it in your motion – that these subventions so far have indeed not worked. How then do you actually want to introduce with a motion something which has not worked? You yourselves write in this motion that there is mis-use, that we have promoted vehicles which were sold off in foreign countries, which we here in this country do not have in our fleet of vehicles. You write this in your motion. 

When we since 2016 so far promote electro-mobility with 10 billion euros

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Madness!

and have just 1.2 million vehicles in this country, then it needs for once be asked: What actually is awry here? And then you want to knock out by 2026 six billion euros for the charging infrastructure. I want to say to you here: It can be believed that climate change is hindered with German tax money; you do that. We do not believe that German tax money hinders, stops or in some way influences the climate change. Yet you believe it. Yet if it is believed, then one cannot nevertheless proceed and senselessly incinerate so much money. Electro-mobility’s CO₂ avoidance costs per ton of CO₂ – the Scientific Service of the German Bundestag says this – are from 800 to 1,000 euros per ton of CO₂ – 800 to 1,000 euros! In European emissions trading we are at approximately 80, 90 euros per ton. That is to say: You buy the ton of CO₂ avoidance at ten times the expense that it actually needs to be. For that, you can easily do away with the coal power plant CO₂, and indeed ten times as much. There, we are at 65 euros per tons of CO₂. You want the dumbest thing that can be  done with German tax money: You want the promotion of electro-mobility. 

The FDP besides ought to know better. They commissioned an estimation according to which it is even 2,300 euros per ton. That is to say: All of you here know: What you are doing here does not serve CO₂ reduction, does not serve the climate change. What you are doing serves for the impoverishment of the German population. 

The employment of your methods is absolutely unsuitable for reducing the CO₂ emissions, and it is absolutely unsuitable for making the population accustomed to electro-mobility. Most, 70 percent of users of electric vehicles, use this vehicle as a second vehicle. What you are doing is socially unjust. You redistribute tax money so that people who gladly want to have an electric auto as a second or third auto will have it in the future. 

That also applies to business. The well-to-do business can do it, and the poor, the not so well-to-do business cannot do it. All essentially use the electric vehicle not as a first vehicle but essentially as a second vehicle. Thus the method which you employ here is completely wrong. 

Ladies and gentlemen, when one is headed in the wrong direction, then one does not go faster – which you here want – but turns around. Electro-mobility is a wrong way. We are of the opinion that here you should rationally use the tax money. Preferably exert yourselves to achieve the CO₂ avoidance, when we at all do it in this country, with synthetic fuels, with openness to technology, which you besides are always preaching, dear colleagues. That should be our way. I can assure you of one thing: There will still be the combustion engine when your policy long since no more exists. 

Many thanks.

  

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Gunnar Beck, October 4, 2023, Green Bonds

AfD Kompakt, October 4, 2023. 

How deficient actually is the so-called Green Economy is seen not only in the horrendous promotion programs for windpower and photovoltaic at the cost of the citizens and consumers, but also in the so-called Green Bonds. So as to be even only rudimentarily competitive, these loans require a green EU mark of quality so that they will at all be purchased and traded in large quantities. 

Under normal circumstances – without this unspeakable EU economy planned around the Green Deal – the current loans would scarcely arouse an interest. And this mark of quality shows how stubborn and aloof the EU elites act, far from any connection to reality. We of the AfD work for the citizens and want to return a sense of freedom, prosperity and growth to the expensive as sin Green Deal. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel, September 8, 2023, Building Energy Act

AfD Kompakt, September 8, 2023. 

While the alarm sounds for the construction business because there are scarcely any more orders for the erection of new dwelling space, the Ampel unperturbed further pursues the disposition of the GEG [Gebäudeenergiegesetz, Building Energy Act]. Especially Economy and Energy Minister Robert Habeck thereby shows how far distant he is from reality. Who, like Energy Minister Habeck with unbearable arrogance demands of the citizens to leave the “comfort zone of self-contentment”, he demonstrates with what contempt he regards Germany. The assertion that the Ampel solves problems “like never before” is the crowning touch. 

The GEG will expropriate home builders and demolish their pension plans. At the same time, it presents landlords and renters with unimagined additional costs while it offers not the least little added value – neither for climate nor for the citizens in Germany. And this law is a symptom of a Federal government exclusively motivated by ideology for which it cannot go fast enough to destroy our country. The AFD will, should it participate in a Federal government, revoke all of these laws and direct the focus on what is really important for the people in this country. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Enrico Komning, July 6, 2023, Maritime Industry and Energy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/115, pp. 14130-14131. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable Herr Minister. Ladies and gentlemen. Colleagues. Dear visitors from my constituency up in the gallery. 

It was once earlier said: The future is good for us all. – Yet that now is certainly at an end. Your Scholz Zeitenwende [change of times] lacks a “d”; it needs be said, Zeitendwende, if not to say: End times change. 

            Enak Ferlemann (CDU/CSU): Oh Gott!

Ladies and gentlemen, German shipbuilding lies prostrate. The insolvency of the Genting Werften in my home State of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions on account of bad political decisions. 50 percent of the entire worldwide ship production meanwhile takes place in China, 40 percent in South Korea. And do you know how high is the portion of German shipbuilding worldwide? I will tell you: At just 0.3 percent. That is the result of your maritime industrial policy, ladies and gentlemen of the Ampel, yet also previously of the Union. 

Investors in droves flee from Germany – see the net 125 billion euro capital flight of last year. With your energy disaster, you drive the still halfway functioning Mittelstand supply industry to foreign countries and into bankruptcy. And what is your idea? A “climate neutral Federal fleet”, an environment symbolic “environmentally friendly sea-going ship design” 

            Lukas Benner (Greens): Super!

and the regulated examination of Federal waterway sluices. Na, hearty congratulations. Your Ampel motion is more a threat than an assistance for the maritime industry. 

Nevertheless, you now want to investigate the adjustment of the import turnover tax collection in other European states. Ja, good morning, ladies and gentlemen! We of the AfD proposed that already in May 2019! You assert keeping as much as possible value creation in country, yet, at the order of the Chancellor, sell off a part of the port of Hamburg to China. The truth nevertheless is that primarily large foreign concerns, which finance Habeck’s lobbyist network, make a fortune, while the people in Germany no more know how they can pay their electric or gas accounts. 

            Felix Banaszak (Green): I am sorry about your constituency.

You promise a growth of 400 gigawatts of offshore wind output in the next 20 years. Herr Westphal presently speaks of an output yielding 8 gigawatts. And in view of the just 38 new installations in the past year with a nominal output of 342 megawatts, that is nevertheless just a dream wish. At that tempo, you need 1200 years instead of 20 years. 

You assert to want to make the seaports into hubs of a renewable energy system, yet build an LNG terminal for expensive and before all dirty U.S. fracking gas in the middle of a nature preserve area at Rügen. Not even your expert, Felix Heilmann, – besides, formerly active for Graichen’s Agora Energiewende – holds that to be a good idea. 

And the Union motion clearly shows how you, ladies and gentlemen of the Union, are as before imprisoned in the woke embrace of the Greens. 

            Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): We? Since when? Now I do not                                    understand that! 

            Enak Ferlemann (CDU/CSU): That is just ridiculous! 

Colleague Westpahl has also just approved of your motion. The Union motion throughout breathes the insecurity between compliant green obedience and the public pressure of needing just once to play at a little opposition. 

            Christoph Ploss (CDU/CSU): Name for once an example!

The crisis of the maritime industry is the crisis of German industry – a crisis created by all of you. Affordable energy: That is what Germany needs before all. 

            Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Herr colleague, your speaking time                            is at an end.

            Felix Banaszak (Green): Yes, finally! 

And finally put an end to your bureaucracy crusade in unholy alliance with the EU.           

             Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Herr colleague.

I thank you. Many thanks. 

            Michael Kruse (FDP): Rubbish Comedy Club for free!

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rainer Kraft, July 6, 2023, Emissions Decree

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/115, p. 14242. 

Esteemed President. Valued colleagues.

 The 31^st decree presented for the enforcement of the Federal emissions protection law is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Duty-bound, the protection of labor and environment is addressed, and you promise the new, the healed world. Yet, thought through to the end, your assessment means the zero harm strategy, that the safest workplace is no workplace, and that the most environmentally friendly production is to be a production outside of Germany. 

Chemistry, ladies and gentlemen, chemistry is life; life which you gladly wish to comprehensively control and regulate. Your planned economy shall thereby be in reality implemented by legions of self-named consultants, institutes and agents. You create entirely new job descriptions without any productive activity – to the harm of the entire nation and its citizens who everyday stand at the value-creation front.    

I know, you can only with difficulty imagine; solvents in industry are indispensable. They make possible the manufacture of chemicals, undertake cleaning chores, support the production fabrication, and assist in the optimization of the surface area; in regards corrosion protection, phosphating, chromating, anodization, etching, painting, and in regards to thousands of additional uses which you want to restrict and make more expensive. 

You assert that an intensification of the emissions protection would have no effect on the consumer prices. That – and it needs be said quite clearly – is a lie, and a bad one at that. For of course added certifications cost money. Of course additional expertise costs money. Of course additional bureaucratic positions in Brussels cost money. And of course the unnecessary re-equipment of industrial installations costs money. 

It is the taxpayers’ money which you here, with your dream of an eco-socialist Utopia, throw out the window by the handful. Many, many small and mid-sized businesses require in one form or another simple solvents. What else remains for these businesses as a result of your price hustling than to shift the costs onto their customers? 

As if that were not enough, the product quality will also suffer. The quality of paints and colors will diminish. Metals will rust sooner; woods will more quickly rot. Your reducing plan is the way back to the Dark Ages. That has something to do neither with sustainability nor with environmental protection. It will simply cost money and workplaces. 

We of the AfD say no; no to your irrational fear of everything which human ingenuity and the urge to create has brought forward; no to your agenda hostile to economy and freedom, and no to measures which serve environmental protection only on paper. The Federal emissions protection decree should serve the German people and not put together an additional stimulus program for India or China. We, the AfD, want to export goods, not workplaces. We reject the decree.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

  

 

 

Alice Weidel, July 7, 2023, Heating Law

German Bundestag, July 7, 2023, Plenarprotokoll 20/116, pp. 14329-14330. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

The Federal Constitutional Court’s decision has spared us the disgrace of an ignorant, half-baked and bungled law, cobbled together with the crowbar, being enforced. 

You wanted to flog through this green ideological project, with disdain for the citizens’ concerns and the rights of the parliament, and arrogantly wipe away the reasoned objections of an entire host of experts. You obviously still have not heard the shot; for you stubbornly cling to this project. And you of the CDU also do not really want to prevent the heating law; you also have said yes to it. 

Thorsten Frei (CSU/CSU): Then you have not listened to the speech of the delegation chairman! 

A heating law in two months is just as wrong as now. Nothing therein is to be repaired. For the entire proposal by which you want to prescribe to the people how they have to heat their dwellings and houses is not only wrong, it is also unconstitutional.   

You speak of respect. Yet you seize hold of the citizens’ private property, without shame. Constitutional law defends this private property. 

            Konstantin Kuhle (FDP): And human dignity!

Your impoverishment and expropriation law forces owners of private property to sacrifice their reserves and resources for expensive, inefficient and in many cases unsuitable electric heating. You drive them into indebtedness. Many will not be able to maintain their property. International investors stand by, ready for the great sell-out. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): That is just rubbish!

Millions of renters will need to pay the bill as a result of rising rents. 

The world laughs at Germany because its government needlessly destroys the nation’s wealth, ruins the middle class and drives industry out of the country. For the reduction of CO₂ emissions and the influencing of the world climate, the heating law is completely useless. You have tinkered with it for months. Yet you still cannot say how great the CO₂ savings generally shall be. 

Over the true costs, you leave the citizens in obscurities, and deceive them with promises of subventions which you cannot pay. You do not tell the truth to the people of the additional attacks on the national wealth which threaten by way of the EU’s subterfuges, moreover pushed by CDU/Commission President Ursula von der Leyen: An intensified renewable energy law, the forced reconstruction by means of the impending EU building guidelines, and the introduction of the monstrous EU CO₂ certificate trade in the construction sector, threaten entire population classes with an annihilation of prosperity and expropriation. And herein is seen once again the double-standard and the hypocrisy of the CDU. 

A heating law of use to no one other than the international investors and the heating pump lobby which, even without clan chief Graichen, here have a tight grip on the Economy Ministry. And which is used by climate ideologues who thereby want to realize their dream of an eco-socialist, planned- and scarcity-economy, with its freight bicycles and candles, in which prescriptions and compulsion take the place of private property, of prosperity, reason and fair competition. 

It is completely clear why you wanted to so hectically enforce this: You are afraid of the citizens, of your own voters; since they very well understand that they will be lied to, cheated, expropriated and made poorer [belogen, betrogen, enteignet und ärmer gemacht]. Your calculation nevertheless will not proceed. Four-fifths of this country’s people are against the heating law. Four-fifths! That you cannot do fractions and math is fully clear. Have it explained to you what four fifths actually means. 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): By you, simply nothing is to be explained!

Be that as it may. The best heating law is no heating law. Use the hiatus which the Federal Constitutional Court has graciously given you to completely pulp this unspeakable law. 

I am grateful.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

Sylvia Limmer, July 12, 2023, EU Climate Decree and Agriculture

AfD Kompakt, July 12, 2023. 

By means of an intentional, massive recession of agricultural area, this decree endangers our food security, threatens the livelihoods of farmers and grape growers and is a further step into an EU climate museum. Its basic premise, according to which species variety on idled acres is generally greater than on acres in operation, is moreover to be questioned. 

Had the CDU/CSU members as a part of the EVP delegation on the Environment Committee proclaimed themselves for the rejection of the proposed decree, and thereby discreetly talked over the tacit cooperation with the AfD, they might now seemingly act quietly. The revolt contrived by Manfred Weber against the EU Commission President with a CDU party book has failed. 

All the same, this sudden change of mind was politically dishonorable. Even in October 2019, the “From Farm to Table Strategy” was enthusiastically agreed to in a resolution; a strategy which propagated, besides the reconstruction of nature, the wholesale reduction and in part the complete ban of pesticides. To that pertains the recent statement of Peter Liese, the EVP’s environmental spokesman, that the Green Deal would be “energetically” supported by the EVP. And who frankly admitted that with the Green Deal and the nature reconstruction decree, and the associated expropriations and interdictions of the citizens in reference to nutrition, one needs to apply more slowly. Thus increasingly in Germany, evidently “politically disturbed” citizens need to be “cooked green” more slowly so that they, like the proverbial frog in the pot, do not before time take flight. Thus one does not act out of factual and substantial conviction but merely on the basis of political calculation. 

The AfD on that account from the beginning has represented a clear line which makes a theme of and categorically rejects the abolition of agriculture associated with the green-red strategy papers. Since the farmers need our support, for it is they who safeguard our food. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Thomas Ehrhorn, July 6, 2023, War on One’s Own People

German Bundestag, July 6, 2023, Plenarprotokoll 20/115, pp. 14205-14206. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The draft law put forward deals primarily with the acceleration of the approval procedures for windpower installations and facilities for production of so-called green hydrogen. So as to forestall the same: The speeches on green hydrogen, this alleged wonder technology of the future, which in reality is a stillbirth, is an additional green chimera. Yet this is marginal. 

How shall permitting procedures now be thus accelerated? The answer reads: a) While almost all possibilities of protest and influence are taken from the public, b) while the States’ power of decision is undermined, c) while examinations of environmental compatibility are simply abolished, d) so that in the future protection of species and agriculture no more play a role. But anyway – the main thing is, Germany saves the world climate! 

How absurd this supposition in fact is, the following figures show: Germany, which has a two percent portion of worldwide CO₂ emissions, has since 1990 cut back some one-third of its emissions. The rest of the world, which is responsible for 98 percent of CO₂ output, has in the same time increased its CO₂ emissions by two-thirds. In other words: What we in Germany do or allow is absolutely irrelevant for the world climate. 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): That is an absurd theory!

The ideologically motivated and artificially generated climate hysteria thus alone serves as a justification for the planned radical change in our society, the radical change into an authoritarian socialist planned economy 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): Uijuijui! 

Jan Niclas Gesenhues (Greens): Conspiracy theory! Again a false turn on the internet, or what? 

in which the state prescribes to the people how they are to live, how they are to eat, with what they are to heat. It serves as a justification for the rainbow coalition’s war against our industry, against the automobile, against our private property, a war which meanwhile has become a war of those who govern against one’s own people. 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): That is the wrong word!

And I say to you: The people there outside, they know this and they are fed up with it. 

            Axel Echeverria (SPD): Yes, with you!

Since the only sustainability goal which you are in a position to attain is to drive this country straight into the wall and to annihilate our sustained prosperity. Thus Professor Dr. Knut Löschke, 

            Carsten Träger (SPD): How is he called?

member of the college council of the University of Leipzig and member of the board of trustees of the Max Planck Institute, speaks to the citizens from the deepest soul 

            Petra Sitte (Linke): He is for long no more a member. I have taken care of that!

when he says – I cite with permission of the President: 

I have enough of it…I have a nose full of permanent and ever more religious climate talk, of energy transition fantasies, of electro-auto worship, through horror stories of world downfall scenarios…to world catastrophes. 

I can no more bear the people who daily scream this in microphones and cameras or publish it in newspapers. I suffer first-hand how natural science is made a whore of politics. 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): Eijeijei!

Ladies and gentlemen of the CDU/CSU, I can thus give to you just the good advice: Send the firewall fetishists and BlackRock orders-takers as quickly as possible into the wasteland. Become again a party which is ready, in common with the AfD, to turn things upside down 

Daniel Rinkert (SPD): Do you then want to change the Federal Emissions Protection Law? What are your proposals? Of that, nothing is heard!

and to make reason-oriented policy for Germany. If you do not do that, you will, quicker than you suppose, dwindle into meaninglessness. 

Thank you. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

Karsten Hilse, June 15, 2023, Green Dictatorship

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/109, p. 13187.

Valued Praesidium. Ladies and gentlemen. Dear countrymen.

Again and again, destructive draft laws are put forward by the Ampel – driven by the green climate sects – and against every reason rushed through under disregard of all rules of this sovereign house, the main thing being it serves the climate ideology of the green communists.

It is a law which affects all households, all firms, all landlords, all renters, all homeowners, all local governments – thus practically everyone. According to the will of the greens of all the parties, by 2045 they shall be forced to heat climate neutral. In conformity with the experiences of the Corona dictatorship, every citizen is to be impressed under a climate yoke. Forsa chief Güllner is led to this statement, cite:

"Earlier SPD voters have the impression that their party bows down before a green dictatorship."

In concrete terms:

"When a small, elite minority…enforces its values by means of instructions and bans upon the society of a great majority of those thinking otherwise, that can indeed be evaluated as a dictatorship."

He is right.

This compulsion, these bans of course affect all of us. Correspondingly great are the outcry, the resistance and the comprehensible rage.

The perpetrators [Macher] naturally notice this rage. And despite that, they bring in this law today, talking drivel from their pompous “guard rails” for the pamphlet named the “Building Energy Law”, that Germany by 2045 should be climate neutral. The asserted consensus is however a flat lie. According to a Spiegel poll from March 30, 2023, climate neutrality is meanwhile left behind by half of Germany. 80 percent of people in the country reject your so-called heating hammer. And against this 80 percent, you make your destructive policy.

Yet what is really bad is that the other old parties extend a hand to you for that. From the special democrats and the green communists is meanwhile expected nothing other. That however the coward democrats play along with that is actually tragic.

Despite the mini-changes, for which the coward democrats celebrate themselves, it is and remains a destructive law, annihilating prosperity and workplaces, as is otherwise possible only in a war. Many people meanwhile designate your policy as a “war against one’s own people”. Anyone who participates in this war will someday need to be held responsible before the people.

The only party which stands against this collective suicide is the AfD. Consequently, our approval numbers are rising. That is good for Germany. Bad for Germany is that with each day this government further manages its work of destruction

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): Enough now with the shamelessness!

the heaps of rubble which we as a future governing party will have to clear away will become ever greater. We will do it, rely on it. I am besides of the opinion: He who votes Green, votes for war.

Many thanks.

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): Shamelessness!

            Jan Korte (Linke): Thorough Nazi speech!

 

[trans: tem]