Icon: enlarge
Greta Thunberg on October 16 in Berlin
Photo: PONTUS LUNDAHL / AFP
Does capitalism destroy the climate?
Yes, says the activist Carola Rackete: "Capitalism is destroying our livelihood."
Yes, says left-wing politician Bernd Riexinger: "Capitalism is not compatible with climate protection."
Yes, say the Fridays for Future protesters with cardboard signs saying "Capitalism Kills" and "Burn Capitalism".
Now one could remember the times of systemic competition: it was not capitalism in which the environment was particularly dirty, but the socialist alternative offer.
The GDR was a sewer.
In the last few years, the per capita emissions of CO2 were 50 percent higher than in the old Federal Republic, although the economic output per capita was much lower.
The GDR wrote environmental protection in its constitution as early as 1968, and in 1972 it had its own Ministry for the Environment, more than 14 years earlier than in the West.
But just because socialism was bad for the environment doesn't necessarily mean capitalism has been good.
And isn't the GDR-FRG comparison an "unimaginative 20th century debate", as activist Luisa Neubauer says?
My impression is that the criticism of capitalism is subject to a misunderstanding.
Many climate activists believe that capitalism is based on wasting resources.
That is a mistake.
Capitalism is the art of lack.
When it comes to wisely using limited resources, capitalism is unbeatable.
The consumption of raw materials in Germany and Europe had been falling for years, while the economy was growing.
In agriculture, less fertilizer has been applied in the past 30 years, but crop yields are higher today.
There are more applications in a mobile phone than there used to be in electronics stores.
If resources are scarce, the capitalist progress machine starts up.
Icon: enlarge
Fridays for Future demonstration on October 16 in front of the Chancellery in Berlin
Photo: JOHN MACDOUGALL / AFP
It has been like this since the beginning of the industrial revolution; digitization has further increased the pace.
There is one condition: it must be worthwhile.
The majority of all innovations are not provided by state institutions, but by companies - because it pays off.
Exactly this condition was not met with climate protection as long as there was no price for the emission of CO2 which adequately reflected the costs.
Economists who are inclined to capitalism are only debating whether emission certificates or CO2 taxes are the best solution.
Nobody doubts that a CO2 price is needed.
I therefore consider the talk of capitalism as a climate killer not only wrong, but dangerous.
It endangers a sensible climate policy.
If you want to save 90 percent CO2 within a few decades, you need new technologies.
One shouldn't demonstrate against capitalism, but for it.
Icon: The mirror