Freedom for every habit and every sports car or freedom of action on an inhabitable earth also in the future?
Photo: SpaceX / AP / DPA
Not even the plaintiffs themselves expected that the Federal Constitutional Court would agree with them and make such a far-reaching decision: The Federal Government's Climate Protection Act is in parts unconstitutional.
The court rejected a number of arguments and claims.
The bottom line is that it is particularly critical that only inadequate measures are described for the period after 2030.
At first glance, this may not seem very revolutionary.
But there is still enough left for this decision to fundamentally change the political debate.
The only question is in which direction.
If things go well, it becomes the starting point for a reorientation of the party landscape, in which the reality of the climate crisis is accepted as the basis for action.
If things go bad, it will help ensure that climate protection finally becomes a cultural battle issue.
"The preservation of future freedom also requires the transition to climate neutrality to be initiated in good time."
Federal Constitutional Court
First of all, the Constitutional Court found with great certainty that compliance with the Paris target is a task that is guaranteed by the constitution, and not just a revocable political commitment.
Second, it argued with the plaintiffs' freedom rights, that is, very fundamentally.
The decisive passages in the decision are as follows:
"The Basic Law obliges, under certain conditions, to safeguard fundamental rights protected freedom over time and to distribute freedom opportunities proportionally over the generations."
»The protection of future freedom also requires the transition to climate neutrality to be initiated in good time.
Specifically, this requires that transparent measures for the further development of greenhouse gas reduction are formulated at an early stage. "
The Federal Constitutional Court has thus recognized an extremely unpleasant but indisputable fact: freedom is becoming a scarce commodity under the conditions of the climate crisis.
If you take the liberty now to decide against quick climate protection and in favor of the fossil way of life, the consequences will be so dramatic, so existential that there will hardly be any room for maneuver in the future.
Not only because then nothing can be done about the climate crisis, but also because the consequences of the climate crisis will foreseeably mean a permanent state of emergency that is characterized by coercion instead of freedom.
Liberalism that does not recognize this destroys freedom instead of increasing it.
Two possible reactions
Such is the nature of the climate crisis, and in this it differs from other political problems.
You have to think that is terrible because it means that our room for maneuver is limited today.
That is an imposition for any democracy.
But there is no getting around this fact.
Human action over the past decades already means that our freedom of action will be restricted if it is not to be restricted in a much more radical way in the future.
It is not the fault of whoever finds this out that it is.
So far, it has often not been found.
The court has now changed it from a philosophical fact to a political fact by ruling.
From a knowledge that hardly anyone seriously wanted to face to a legal principle that is binding.
In addition to continued indifference, of course, which would then only result in further court decisions, two opposing reactions by the parties and political actors are conceivable.
Firstly, they could accept this assistance from the court, adapt their position on the climate crisis and, at the same time, their concept of freedom, and ultimately even their understanding of democracy.
It's quite a challenge, intellectually, theoretically, programmatically, but it would be appropriate for the situation.
You would not have to take the step yourself, you could recognize the decision as a setting.
It would mean taking the material foundations of the climate crisis, but also the political and legal obligations, seriously.
If that were the result, it could result in real democratic competition for the best program for constitutionally prescribed climate protection while at the same time maximizing freedoms in times of the climate crisis.
Incidentally, the Greens do not necessarily have to win this competition before someone accuses the court of campaigning assistance.
Their competitive advantage so far is that they are the only party to be relieved of the fact that they fully recognize the reality of the climate crisis.
As soon as the others follow suit, it is by no means said that green solutions are the best or most popular.
Maybe it would be red, black, or yellow.
Climate protection as a worldview question
The second option is much more threatening.
In a defensive reaction, parties could escalate their own concept of freedom.
You could definitely declare every habit, every pipeline and every sports car to be a bearer of freedom.
In an attempt to protect their understanding of freedom from an inexorable reality, they could fully rely on Kulturkampf.
It would mean further decoupling from material reality, pretending to be able to decide against the climate crisis, and completely culturalising climate protection.
So to speak: turn climate protection into identity politics.
This danger always exists, but it increases in this case because decisions of the Constitutional Court force a position and because it can be so easily combined with populist criticism of functionaries.
Political actors could accuse the court of hostility towards liberty, including all those who welcome or even recognize its decision. You could scandalize the mode itself: that a court, not elected, restricts the freedom of parties and elected representatives. And ultimately the freedom of people to continue living fully fossil fuels or at least to do it halfway with climate protection.
In short, you could link climate protection further and more firmly with a worldview in which eco-lobby groups (the plaintiffs also included environmental protection associations) and activists, the state and functional elites are subjugating the innocent, free thinking and free life to prevent.
You could even interpret an argument as in this text as evidence that criticism should now even be suppressed.
This would make climate protection even more a question of worldview, yes, of identity: for or against?
Subject or friend of freedom?
Oppressor or co-rebel?
The fight against the climate crisis and dealing with its consequences, which in the best case scenario will be serious, in the worst case devastating, will, even in the most favorable scenario, create many conflicts that will be difficult to deal with politically.
The less materially and the more climate protection is dealt with in the mode of the Kulturkampf, the less likely it is to be able to work on it productively at all.
One can assume that the AfD will, as always, decide in favor of the Kulturkampf.
The question is what everyone else is doing.
As always in a free society: the choice is yours.
But also the responsibility.
The consequences of a culture war are clear - less freedom for everyone.