smile and economically sustainable mobility must be

The mobility of the future must be, to be sustainable as well as economically, to a strict minimum. What is “necessary” and what is “obsolete,” is a socio-political discussion, but it is clear that the necessary transport of people and goods must be as efficient as possible and that they are affordable – so that as everyone can participate in it. For this reason alone it would be foolish enough to stiffen already on technologies that may hinder later.

farewell to oil

Then there is the irreversible departure from the oil. There will never be an energy carrier with anywhere near the same energy density as the oil today. , Try the “all-purpose-vehicle”, ie the current “car” with a half tonnes in weight and range of nearly 1,000 kilometers, to receive as a cornerstone of mobility are doomed to failure, an electric drive will not change that. The electric car with the features of a car with a combustion engine, it will not happen.

magic word “diversity”

The magic word

future mobility is therefore: “diversification”. The renunciation of the energy-efficient oil, the weaker and to the particular requirements adapted forms of energy, rising costs and the climate change debate – this combination will force a new pragmatism is important only if the vehicle is suitable for the particular purpose, regardless of whether bicycle, scooter , or even a car. And whether one owns or rents, lends, leases, exchanges, all of which is decided from case to case.

To come close

this vision, one must above all know very well what opposes it, and therefore NOT what you want. As badly as the steps in the right direction is to avoid mistakes that may irreversibly

Specifically, we therefore want to NOT use that will be written of the “electric hype” and the propaganda for allegedly “emission-free driving with green electricity” in the future the “car” as the basis of mobility.

 We will NOT in general, that pegs are driven into the ground that define the future mobility of a particular technique, for instance on a particular infrastructure charging electric cars. It is too early to know if we do not even look like the future electric vehicle, not to mention future business models. The social core theme of “Mobility” is too important to be certain that it will leave interest – is not backed up with charging stations mobility, but mobility and access to customers. We do NOT want that – instead of other, lighter and more efficient – only additional electric cars as second or third car there. You are in competition with other mobility options, particularly an improved public transport and the countless concepts of “use instead possess.” They encourage not inhibit, but rather the creation of intelligent integrated mobility.We do NOT want that certain technologies are subsidized because of the technology, either through direct funding or by giving preference to the road.And of course we DO NOT want that fuel-saving techniques are the conventional car almost exclusively used to increase weight and power on, instead of lowering the effective consumption accordingly. Today would be the existing techniques – whether bluemoten, blue or efficiency EfficientDynamics – used consistently, we would consumptions and CO2 emissions by 3 liters less than 70 grams as normal – values ​​which will also be hard to achieve in the long run of electric cars. switch position and entry into new forms of mobility

.

Middle of the demo came to me the message that the Expectations Merkel has played down the climate change conference in her video message. Negligence occurs to me only. Central to the climate negotiations, the former Chancellor has just said that a legally binding agreement is probably nothing. The people here in Africa are doing here very clearly that climate change is for us all a question of survival. And there is not even an oath of office, which has made the Chancellor? Prevent damage to the German people also means fighting for a just international climate change agreement for the rescue of banks.

From the Chancellor would be rather positive, combative signal necessary, because the central question of the legal form of the resolutions of Durban, at least, seems to be movement in the negotiations. The Chinese chief negotiator said today told Reuters that China may introduce a legally binding treaty, but it depended on the elements. The signals are constructive, if the first must also manifest in the negotiations.

Was spotted today in negotiating a satirical cartoon center of the American chief negotiator, Jonathan Pershing, He as a snake that whispers to the other countries always dangerous messages – the link to the picture we have deposited. It only sets were used, which he distributed at his press conferences ever. There was a lot of smiles on the faces of the negotiators, who must constantly deal with the intransigence of the United States. It is time that the world draws conclusions from the artery of the U.S. block and get involved with no more compromise. For the ignorance and resignation of the U.S. over the interests of oil and coal lobby is not to beat!

.

SPD, Alliance '90 / The Greens and the Left falls between the vote is clear: All of these parties Member of Parliament who took part in the vote, voted “yes”. Interestingly, the voting records of parliamentarians from the ruling coalition: From the date a total of 33 votes from the CDU / CSU parliamentary group are ten after all the “Yes”, only three have been “No”, the remaining ballots are invalidated. One or the other members felt the blunt question probably pushed into a corner.

The FDP

completed under the further training sessions in their parade discipline “unpleasant attract attention” and gets us from reading the recommendation, “Democracy for Dummies.” Instead of giving the individual right to vote Liberal Member of Parliament, we have the FDP a flat response for all their sheep to send. Instead of a clear “yes” or “no” two-sided blah

In relative terms, our agreement is so there is ground for hope: Nearly 98 percent of the delegates are renewable each, within the CDU / CSU parliamentary group, there are whopping 83 percent. In absolute numbers, we see potential for improvement but still neat – especially in the ranks of the Coalition: We therefore urge all members to participate as soon as possible to the vote – the vote will run until the end of September

.Unfortunately, it remains

with a headline like the one above only with a pious wish. Now, instead of setting the course for the energy revolution, the ruling parties are debating one sponsored by the nuclear industry nuclear report, which it – though skillfully brushed on line – not even create, to bring peace to strife within the coalition

.

The preliminary interim results of MP survey:

FractionYesNoNo DecisionAlliance '90 / The Greens48–CDU / CSU10221The Left43-1FDP-13SPD69-1  

.

The biggest player in the ACEA's Volkswagen. Volkswagen not only financed the ACEA million with an annual injection, VW also occupied itself a good quarter of all seats in the ACEA. The lobby group is meeting today in Brussels to discuss his stance on the 95-gram target. The participants are the sixteen CEOs of 15 major European car companies. At the entrance to the venue ACEA welcomed as a stormtrooper, Greenpeace activists dressed up the bosses with a “cordon of disgrace.” You want to make Volkswagen's attention that the group

A) can not go unnoticed thwart climate change laws and
b) with a) on the spot to stop.

The ACEA

like a number of creative endeavors, but unfortunately untrue legends to justify his positions. Some we've put together:

Legend 1: “It's not!”

2007, advising the European Commission about to set the baseline CO2 emissions for new cars by 2012 to 120 grams. VW and other automakers said this target is “technically feasible”. The result is that the limit has been toned down to 130 grams by 2015

.

Technical improvements have now ensured that many companies will achieve the specified limits before 2015th Some have even established internal standards that undercut the legal requirements on or off. So much for “technically feasible”.

Legend 2: “The industry will collapse,”

Scaremongering is a proven line of argument – especially in times of crisis. Wikileaks cable disclose that Audi took the 2008 thesis, mandatory CO2 limits would make the auto industry broken. Other car manufacturers predicts that thresholds “would bring with it a massive political intervention – at the expense of the entire European – and especially the German – Auto Industry”

.

These dire predictions are by no means arrived. The CO2 rules are quite the opposite triggered a wave of innovation and stimulating competition among car manufacturers. Professor Ferdinand Dudenhoeffer, an expert for the German car industry, has found that “the experiences with CO2 limits that such standards can improve the innovation capacity of the sector significantly.”

Legend 3: “We need more time”

As automakers are now statutory law torpedoed, they complained not only about the definition of 120 grams, but over the planning horizon to 2012. Therefore, this was extended to 2015. The carmakers argued that the development of new models would cost time, the cars that come onto the market in 2012, were already prepared almost finished.

CO2 limits do not refer to individual models, but to the entire fleet. Car manufacturers need to sort out their fuel skid and focus more on the sale of fuel-saving models. It also does not mean that car manufacturers have to wait until the end of a product cycle. You can by-product updates continually improve the efficiency of their fleet, they have to do it

Legend 4: “All too expensive!”

A well-tried argument

are also reportedly high additional costs. 2007, the ACEA said that new cars cost in strict CO2 limits up to 3,000 € and more so would be prohibitively expensive for many consumers.

But not only CO2 emissions from cars have fallen in recent years, but also the rates that currently proposing an additional cost of about 250 to 300 euros.

Myth 5: “The customers are to blame!”

There is no market for fuel-efficient cars, so the argument: Why should automakers produce them? Here, the car manufacturer with marketing campaigns take a massive influence on the needs and thus the demand situation in the market. That is the reason why so many people drive SUVs with heavily armed by the City. With these models, VW makes the most profit per car sold.

.

Together with representatives from Staples, Time, Kimberly Clark, Office Depot and other leading companies in the wood and paper industry, I was informed about the progress of the Canadian Forest Agreement and discussed. The agreement was signed in May 2010 by Greenpeace and other NGOs as well as 21 paper and forest companies. So for now the so-called “Battle in the Forest”, as it was then was terminated. Since then, negotiations on the protection and sustainable use of the Canadian forest.

Use German companies, Canadian paper manufacturer. So I've traveled together with a representative of the Association of German Magazine Publishers in Toronto to learn about the progress of negotiations.

Yesterday I saw a lot of presentations, maps have been viewed with circles and considered the first results of the joint struggle for protection proposals. But no concrete proposals are on the table. Only the work cards. And many of them.

The expected results are therefore not yet available. Yet I have left Toronto with the feeling that there will be in the coming weeks, the first concrete results indicate need. For the protection of the boreal forest is important for the survival of the caribou, for local people and ultimately the climate.

This leads me to two other themes that move me today: the climate negotiations in Durban, and the fact that the Brazilian Senate has not voted on yesterday, a new forest law. This – it should be adopted – the further destruction of the Amazon 'open gate and door. We must do everything possible to save the Amazon as the boreal forest.

.

Actually, the Brazilian Senate should

yesterday to vote on the revision of the Brazilian forest law. For unknown reasons, the vote was postponed until next week. The amendment has to raise among other objectives, the minimum legal limit on how much forest landowners may deforest. In the previous forest law stipulates that a landlord legally allowed no more than 20 percent of its territory to cut down rain forest. 80 percent of the forest must remain in their original state as a so-called “Reserva legally” get. In savanna areas must be protected by 35 percent in all other habitats only 20 percent. Additionally found in the Forest Act provisions for the prohibition of agricultural activities and adherence to the minimum distances of the plantations along waterways. Violations of the Law, the adoption of the law would mean that more than 47 million hectares of forest could be cleared legally in the future. It also promises an amnesty for past illegal logging – not 29 million hectares would be reforested. Penalties of over € 4 billion would be left simply swept under the rug.

Even the discussion of the law has led to negative consequences: After the deforestation in Brazil in recent years been sharply – 2004-2010 was 75 percent less deforested in the Amazon – this trend again in 2011 developed into the opposite. Thus, in the State of Mato Grosso, where 90 percent of Brazil's soy is grown, the deforestation has increased this year by 37 percent. The violence in land disputes and against environmentalists in some Amazonian states has increased again. The murder of Jose Claudio Ribeiro da Silva in May of this year, just one tragic example.

Nationalist arguments

colored

The original forest law dates from 1934 and was completed 1965th It has since given more than 36 attempts to weaken the law. All were rebuffed. As far as it is now in the Senate never came in the parliamentary process. The current amendment found its beginning on 24 May 2011 in the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament. The lead deputy Aldo Rebelo, supported by the agricultural lobby, helped himself while a colored nationalistic argument: The existing forest law would only serve international interests. The food producers in Europe and the U.S. would hurt Brazil's agriculture and therefore Schöbe before the concern for the Amazon forest and the global climate.

Aldo Rebelo

forgetting that the law feeds the greed of the agricultural lobby and at the expense of small farmers and against the wishes of the Brazilian people. In June 2011 there was a representative survey according to which 85 percent of the population, the expansion of agricultural land at the expense of rain forest decline. It remains to hope that Brazil's President does not bow to the self-interests of the agricultural lobby, but the wishes of the Brazilian population.

host the UN conference on sustainability

Since October

Aldo Rebelo is the new sports minister, a not unimportant office in preparation for the FIFA World Cup 2014 and the 2016 Olympic Games. It is hoped that he would not even there advancing legislative initiatives that have such devastating consequences, like his modifications of the Código Florestal.

.

People worldwide have set their hopes in President Obama. He should end the Bush-era air blockade and sign a global climate treaty. About Obama's failure in this central question for the future of our planet has been much written. Comes over me sometimes the impression that all had forgotten that Obama is the top politicians in the U.S. still. In this role as president, it is one of his tasks specified in the Constitution, to sign international treaties. And Obama's first term of office is still a year. So the promise is still time to redeem at least a small part. That means for Durban: Obama must sign here a rigorous negotiating mandate. One that makes a legally binding climate treaty later than 2015. Interestingly, the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama has still not signed a single international treaty.

, Fossil of the Day 'for the USA

The chief U.S. negotiator

Jonathan Pershing is a former scientist of the World Research Institute. The same Pershing said earlier this week that sufficient current voluntary greenhouse gas reduction targets in order to stay below two degrees of warming by the end of the century. A phrase!! – That of the former employees at the IPCC report itself can hardly believe. In this provocative announcement, the U.S. has given the Fossil of the Day '. Basically wants Perhsing explain to the world that enough with the old “actions” of the U.S. and the world against global warming.

How long will the world listen to these lies even further? How long does the world still buy products from the U.S. indefinitely without adequate CO2 reductions of pollution historically largest nation to demand? As long as the EU countries want to rest behind the inaction of the U.S.? Fortunately, the EU, as stated in an article in the Guardian's has begun to criticize the U.S. hard. Also in yesterday's press conference EU a clear message was sent to the United States. At last! But it must go further. The world community needs to be here in Durban behind those countries that do not want to recognize the seriousness of the situation or knuckling under to pressure from the fossil fuel industries.

It is a question of survival – The EU must act

!

Here in Durban is also clear why the EU, the Kyoto Protocol must here and now extend legally binding. It should be designed initially for five years! The reason: Only with Kyoto2 can build the trust that is necessary to attract the emerging countries for simply continue negotiations without the United States. The logic that the EU only on climate change continues to move when everyone is on board other major countries, is fundamentally wrong and leads to nothing. On the contrary, would thus only manifests that the EU leaders and their ministers actually want to defend the interests of the petroleum and coal industry

.

have now started the negotiations on the legal sticking points that will determine the future of the UN climate process. It a question of survival for millions of people. Last night I saw a very impressive documentary about people on the African continent. The film shows how climate change is already existentially threatened people and extinguish their livelihoods. “It's the dirty sky” says one of the farmers in the film, whose livelihoods are wiped out. “We have not really in factories.” She looks vacantly into the camera.

My anger at the petroleum industries and the discouragement of Obama is getting bigger.

.

It is about that German citizens
to 4 January will have the opportunity to take a position on the Polish nuclear program. All necessary documents and information compiled by the Federal Environment Ministry.

“It is surprising that the authors did not consider the nuclear program of renewable energy into consideration,” says Jan Haverkamp, ​​energy expert at Greenpeace European Unit. “Especially as wind, solar, biomass would be abundant.

“Poland has not formulate alternatives to the nuclear program,” says Haverkamp. That is the legal vulnerability of the plan. “If now also call for the citizens of the neighboring states, we could stop the development of the program until there are other scenarios,” Greenpeace hopes. During the campaign, Prime Minister Donald Tusk Greenpeace has pledged to devote more attention to renewable energies.

On the side of the Munich Environmental Institute is preparing a participatory action along the lines of:

Poland is not yet lost! Prevent nuclear program in Poland

Please participate in numerous, it's all well prepared for the website of the Munich Environmental Institute

More information on the pages of our Austrian and Polish Greenpeace colleagues.

.

Who here is why

are identified by small cards that everyone wears around her neck. They have different colors depending on whether one or another of Greenpeace, for example, is a country negotiators, etc. is a member of the UN.

Is much here for me and lifted very abstract. If you say “REDD must be part of a FAB,” says one so that the new Kimaabkommen must prevent forest destruction

FAB stands for what the new climate agreement must be: fair, ambitious and legally binding, so fair enough to keep the Climate Change: below 2 degrees and legally binding

.

Right now I sit in a lecture on weather extremes due to climate change, which emphasizes again how urgently necessary it is that we manage to keep global warming below two degrees. Pakistan for example, had a new heat record with more than 53 degrees.

2012 runs from the Kyoto Protocol. I hope that we can make it in the next two weeks here to take a step forward. Time is short.

.

Crazy? No, system. The grade will be awarded that is not solely on the amount of CO2 emissions. Not about the cars are compared within a category, which would still make some sense. Instead, the CO2 emission is classified according to weight. Apart from the fact that no one goes into the car and house or two and a half tons of car purchases, perverted the meaning of this reference weight of the label into its opposite: the heavier the car, the cheaper it is ranked in the CO2 rating. This is in line with the German car industry. Has to make itself look good with their desire, especially heavy vehicles enforced. The climate is once again on the track. Especially bad is that is being abused by this action, the positive label in itself and falls into disrepute.

.