Primarily, the Ethics Council says, this should be done on a voluntary basis—through individual ”self-commitment as an expression of one’s individual freedom”—by, for example, “voluntarily abandoning certain vacation, consumption, or mobility practices.”
However, the Council’s statement continues (emphasis added),
On grounds of justice, it can be morally required to contribute to measures to tackle climate change. If one’s own exercise of freedom interferes in an unjust manner with the freedom and welfare of others or of future generations, for example through consumption that is harmful to the climate, the authorities may intervene with restrictions of freedom.
In other words: If you cannot be shamed into behaving in a way deemed morally correct by the elite, the government may simply have to force you. Flugscham, from the original Swedish flygskam, meaning “flight shame”—guilt about flying experienced by environmentally conscious travelers—is now an established word in the German vocabulary.
While the opinion states that the Ethics Council is opposed to suspending “democratic freedoms and processes” to reach the desired climate goals, the group says it largely falls to the government to provide the “supportive framework conditions” under which individuals can—as we say to the kids—make good choices.
These framework conditions, the opinion says, should among other things include lowered speed limits, increased “electromobility,” and increased CO2 taxes. The Council suggests a personal emissions limit that cannot be exceeded, and even “the ban on particularly climate-damaging products or services”—or, as Apollo News puts it: “a regulation as to who can buy what and to what extent.”
No comments:
Post a Comment