Purchase of organic products in an organic market in Hamburg
Photo: David Ebener / picture alliance / dpa
For parts of politics, the cause of the climate crisis seems clear: the consumers.
After all, everything is produced for them.
"Should they shop in a climate-friendly way," is the supposed solution.
But the advice is as realistic and helpful as that one should reach for cake when there is no bread in the house instead of starving.
The consumers are at the end of the production chain.
You can only influence the conditions at the beginning very indirectly.
Politics can do that directly. And it has to be if we want to achieve more sustainability and climate protection quickly and to distribute the costs fairly. The necessary climate change will not result from shifting responsibility to individual consumption decisions, but rather efficient state regulation that leads to a socially acceptable internalization of external costs. An emphasis on the polluter pays principle would reduce hidden distortions of competition and lower the overall costs for society.
Sustainability and climate protection are expensive. This impression cannot be avoided by anyone who compares the average prices of similar products in the discounter and in the organic market. It seems that saving the world must be worth it to consumers. And this is what it sounds like sometimes in politics. “We are all affected by climate change. And we can all do something to protect the climate. One can travel differently, be differently mobile, live differently, eat differently, "it was said recently in a well-intentioned statement by the federal government.
Sometimes the tone is less encouraging and tends to be reproachful.
Then it is said that consumers simply have to shop differently, after all they have it in their hands.
But the consumer is an incomprehensible being who says one thing and does the other.
Just a few weeks ago, the so-called consumer paradox was again mentioned, or the “attitude-behavior gap”, as a large online textile retailer put it.
Its study showed that consumers state that they want to shop sustainably, but then do not seek information about sustainability.
Several things are wrong with this.
First, reaching for the cheapest is not at all incomprehensible, but rather rational if there is a lack of information.
Until recently, many German companies were bracing their hands and feet against a supply chain law.
The reason: It is impossible to really control the supply chains and to track whether environmental regulations or occupational safety regulations are being complied with at all stages of production.
According to its own assessment, the industry cannot control it.
But the consumer is accused of simply not getting information.
Does anyone notice that consumers have a hard time getting the information when producers are unable to?
Not everyone can afford shopping in the organic market
Consumers who only shop in health food stores think they are on the safe side. But not everyone can afford it - this is also part of the reality of our country. If the consumer then chooses the cheaper one, he gets the moral guilt free of charge. Many consumers suspect that a T-shirt for a few euros can hardly be produced under fair, climate-, environment- and people-friendly conditions. But he can seldom judge whether this is better with a shirt that is ten times as expensive.
The wild-growing jungle of labels, made up of partly complicated, partly untrustworthy emblems, is of little help. If the consumer cannot judge the benefits of a more expensive product because he lacks the information or the budget to be able to shop in the high-price, organic, climate-neutral and fair trade segment, then it is rational to go for the cheapest. In doing so, he is at least maximizing his own financial benefit. At least in the short term.
The second mistake is revealed in the long-term perspective.
It consists in the fiction that the T-shirt, which costs a few euros, is cheap.
Because mostly the price - regardless of whether it is fuel, cheap meat or other products - can only be so low because parts of the costs are passed on to the general public, for example in the form of exploitation of workers or pollution of the environment and damage to the climate.
These costs are real.
You just don't find yourself on the price tag.
Others pay the bill.
In the case of the climate: all of us around the world, our children, grandchildren and their descendants.
Climate costs must be on the price tag
If these costs are not on the price tag, however, the consumer cannot include them in his purchase decision. Even worse: The apparently cheap T-shirt might make another, actually more sustainable and climate-friendly product appear expensive - which it would not be if the first one had an honest, full price. This is all the more true if the products - the diesel privilege sends its regards - are also subsidized by the state. This is a distortion of competition that costs society as a whole dearly.
"No climate protection is the most expensive option" - this position is now not only represented by the federal government, but also by management consultancies and judges at the Federal Constitutional Court have emphasized the restrictions on freedom. But even if the total costs for society and future generations fall, they can certainly rise in the here and now for individual consumers. And thus become a problem. This threatens, for example, if the CO2 price simply rises in an uncontrolled manner and is passed one-to-one to the consumer. Then it hits people in particular who are perhaps responsible for less CO2 with their consumption because they cannot travel long-distance, perhaps not even afford a vacation, but are dependent on a car to get around in rural areas.
If there is no money to replace the combustion engine with a climate-neutral drive, it will be dark. Electricity and heating must also not become so expensive that they bring people to the verge of despair. Because the end of the story would be a division of society into people who have enough money to continue their lives as before and to buy themselves free from everything and into those whose existence is shaken by the additional costs.
But it doesn't have to be that way. What we need is a policy that does not shift responsibility onto consumers, but regulates it, sets standards for production and includes social compensation measures. Our surveys repeatedly show that many consumers want to make their contribution. But not everyone can afford to do this financially. Therefore, the income from CO2 pricing must be returned in full to all consumers. Distributed in the same amount per person, the money has a steering effect. A climate check could reward people who, through their consumption and behavior, have less of an impact on the climate. You will either receive funding,to buy more climate-friendly devices - such as a new refrigerator - or maybe even earn money with their climate-friendly behavior. People who, on the other hand, seriously damage the climate with their consumption, pay a lot more. A reduction in the EEG surcharge could also act as a repayment mechanism.
Green electricity also has to be really green
The incentive for renewable energy must increase, not only for homeowners, but also for tenants - for example through tenant electricity or community electricity tariffs.
Anyone who has ever checked how much effort it currently takes to use self-produced electricity collectively, knows how daunting the current rules are.
On the other hand, reports like the one from last week that many energy companies supply up to 58% less green electricity than officially stated because they are allowed to include the EEG surcharge, even if they do not generate any green electricity themselves, are harmful.
Is it again the consumer to blame for not having obtained sufficient information?
For people who have previously been dependent on their own car, we need completely new offers - for example a connection to mobility with app-based mobility offers from the front door with various means of transport - including better public transport and sharing offers - which can be easily combined with just a few clicks. To do this, all transport companies must provide their data. In order to encourage the switch, those who deregister their car for at least a year could receive an annual ticket for local transport or a subsidy for the purchase of an e-bike in return.
Anyone who wants to buy a new car should finally get reliable information on CO2 emissions.
So far, the consumption has been offset against the weight of the car when dividing it into efficiency classes.
So it is not based on absolute consumption, but the following applies: the heavier the vehicle, the more CO2 it can emit and the more it can damage the climate.
Here, too, a consumer who is guided by the efficiency class is misled.
All of these examples show: "Let them go shopping in a climate-friendly way" will not save the world.
The good news is that there are better concepts.
Politicians just have to apply them - from the beginning to the end of the production chain.