The climate movement, argues with facts and reason. You don't want to teach, but also calls for implementing the decisions.
What is actually happening in the last year? In March, over a Million young people follow the example of Greta Thun, mountain, and strike for the protection of the climate. In may, the Video of Rezo in Germany goes viral. Then the results of the European election shock in the national parties. After the speech of Greta Thunberg in front of the UN in the Guardian about the 16-Year-old writes: "it shows the world what it means to lead." Fridays for Future (FFF) is traded for the Nobel peace prize.
In September, not only the boys, but very different age groups demo then demonstrating the air strike. 27.000 scientists*say in a call to "Scientists for the Future," with the objectives of Fridays for Future solidarity. The first reactions are Patriarchal-authoritarian. "Going back to school, kids!", "Leave climate research to the professionals!" Or Rezo: "the even is not allowed!", "Can you get the maybe legally in the handle?"
The second response wave, after the European elections: "O God, we lose the youth!", "We have no network expertise." And then: "Please let us talk to each other." The third response wave: In the parties and in the political apparatus of the naked fear of vote arises withdrawal and loss of power. The topic is abruptly placed on the agenda, to be able to stay in Power. The climate package is being put together.
The actual success of the movement is that it brings a surprising new discourse on the topic of climate protection in gear. It is re-thought out. The Problem is since the report of the Club of Rome in 1972, so for 45 years, learns a new, startling urgency. The immediate relation to mankind, to the young Generation itself is not new. And that is the source of their force. In the "How dare you"speech, "How dare you," says Greta Thunberg:
"people suffer, people die, entire Ecosystems collapse, we are at the beginning of a mass extinction." FFF says: "$(LB3616987:"Scientists for the Future"|_blank)$." And Rezo, it is simply: "If we do not change krass what, (is) the future of the young Generation and all following generations in the ass."
The climate crisis is based on the own chances to lead a good life, your power, our future is broken! Is this a new urgency. It comes to us. Not so much a "To-the world" out there, something External, should we treat voluntarily, because we are good people, with care. Because we love bees, trees hug, polar bears are cute.
What makes the new movement in terms of content, greatly, is the anchorage in the science
no, here is a direct relation of action and non-action is made on the life chances of today's young people living. These urgent messages will be delivered with an unexpected attitude. The boys race is not against the Ruling, but they are watching you. Rezo says: "you keep to your own goals." Luisa Neubauer said in the taz Interview: "We say how to do it differently and better.
We say: friends, you could enforce your time please quickly, what you have already decided in Rio in 1992 and in 2002, 2006 and 2015, all of that?“ It was, "as we would educate our parents and our state a bit [ ... ]." In fact, it slip "in a very strange teachers-and-teachers-role". Editor Peter Unfried brings it to the point: "The 'consent jurisdiction' has turned around."
What makes the new movement in terms of content, greatly, is the anchorage in the science. Greta Thunberg: "we need your children don't listen, nobody has to come, if I'm talking about. Okay. But what we expect is: Take the science of knowledge", which says that "our CO2 Budget will be sufficient for eight years. "Many believe that it is our opinion that we represent here. We are told: 'We are not of your opinion!' But you look just to the last report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.
Here you will find all of our 'opinions' combined." The claim to Validity of scientific findings about the climate crisis is decoupled from attitudes and opinions. Similar to Luisa Neubauer: "The Exciting thing about the climate crisis is that there is a geophysical truth, to not shake at the is, plus or minus a deviation. Scientific facts have a other position as a cultural truths.“
in "hard" natural Sciences vs. "soft" cultural truths or opinions. This is a skillful line of reasoning strategy, however, is too short. The new movement, you should exactly sharpen here, in the case of the "soft factors", their arguments and strategies for action still. Because of the objective data of the climate research is not automatic, as the entire social transformation process, including the question of subjective acceptance can be continued.
as well As those groups can be involved, the shut so far with your settings against the findings of climate research. Because to be able to an effective climate protection policy really practice, we need a fundamental consensus of society.
This is not generated automatically on the Basis of "geophysical truths", but it takes a critical, social-ecological transformation knowledge, which also takes into account the soft factors of the opinions and the basic settings of different social groups.Updated Date: 19 January 2020, 18:00