#894 Commanded Climate Protection?

Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: Germany at just 2% of global CO2 versus Germany ranked 6th worldwide — both true, so which story does the storyteller pick? In Room #894 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” the group digs into a cruise ship’s “84,000 cars” of CO2 versus its real 2.89% share of shipping emissions, an 80-year-old who can’t get bank financing for a €150,000 heat pump retrofit, wildly conflicting heat-death statistics, and why fear-based climate messaging might backfire on the exact behavior it’s trying to change. Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…

Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.

A wonderful good morning to you all. Today we’re talking about commanded climate protection? How sensible can a regionally commanded climate protection actually be, and what effects does it have in the context of expropriation, which we talked about yesterday? There we also picked up examples like Holland and the farmer context, etc. Let’s see what further perspectives, impulses and so on come in today. I’m really curious. Yes, with regionally commanded climate protection, that basically means, so not just limited to Germany. As a region you could also understand the EU under that too. That’s why not just national or international, but limited to viewing a certain region. That’s why the term. And yes, and then I’m very, very curious. And I warmly invite you to join this morning too and get into the exchange, and gladly also without losing time. Above all, maybe chatting a bit from behind the scenes. Our little big one is traveling this morning. They’re going on a class trip, and because of Deep Talk I actually can’t say goodbye to him in person, because they have a meeting point at exactly 8am and leave, and the show runs in parallel. Accordingly I’m here with you today, but I promised him that I’d definitely be there when picking him up. I’m glad Marc is joining in a moment. Maybe a quick reminder before we start, dear Marc, that the room is recorded the whole time today, and accordingly anyone who joins automatically agrees to that. And we have three small room rules, also for those who might be joining for the first time today and want to get into the interaction. Please make sure you have a profile photo where you’re clearly recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. If someone doesn’t want that for whatever reason, or might not be able to speak right now, you also have the option to use the chat, and then I can gladly look in there in between too.

Marc, a wonderful good morning.

Good morning to the group. I’d actually firmly decided not to show up in a room today, because as an entrepreneur I won’t comment on political topics, for personal reasons. But what still occupies me, and that would also be my entry point, is simply, and there I get to the topic where I can deliver added value. And I’d like to go back and refer to the previous rooms we’ve all done together. And my point, where I’d start, is that a good rhetorician can not only formulate well, but knows exactly, like an advertising professional, what our brain responds to. That means, he ties into the anchor points where we’ve stored words, emotions, and meaning. And then I get to the topic. This is just a really, really important invitation, explanation for me, so you can follow me. We had the word storytelling or narrative recently, which is also very, very gladly used in talk shows. And narrative is nothing other than telling a story, and also in storytelling, and then I get to our topic, because storytelling is something we encounter every day, in talk shows, in politics and so on. And so you understand what I’m getting at, I’ve brought an example for you. And now I get to the topic of climate protection. And I want to show what numbers or storytelling do to us. And the following narrative, if we’re talking about climate protection, and the topic is also “before it comes to climate protection,” then I always have the possibility with storytelling to approach two positions for myself. And now I’m a politician who’s interested in industry, who advocates strongly for industry, and starts with a narrative that each of you has already heard, namely “Germany only has a two percent share of CO2 pollution.” Wonderful, the statement is correct, you can google that, it’s scientifically completely correct. So, what happens with our brain? If Germany only has a share of 2% in CO2 pollution, then that’s great. Then I’m free of all responsibility, then I don’t need to do anything, because, sorry folks, at 2% the other 98% is done by others, we don’t need to worry further. Now I take the position of a politician who cares deeply about the environment, and try to manipulate or move you in a different direction. And now I’ll say the sentence, which is also correct. Germany is in 6th place for CO2 emissions. So Germany ranks 6th in CO2 emissions. Worldwide we’re in 6th place. So we’re involved in 6th place in environmental pollution in the world. Now they’ll say, oh, if we’re in 6th place, then we’re right at the front. Then we have to do something. And that’s how you play with numbers. On one hand, we’re only responsible for 2% of environmental pollution. Yes, that’s correct. But we’re in 6th place in the overall context, after China and the USA and India, who occupy the front places. And that’s basically how it goes with every topic we open up, that the art lies in leaving out important details and using numbers to achieve the result we need or want for a discussion.

Yes, wonderful. Thank you, thank you so much. And the example shows very, very nicely how, without distorting facts so to speak, you can shift the focus just through different statements and emphases, so to speak, and thereby also steer the perception and the emotions, in inverted commas. And there we’re at the next really important aspect, I think, in this context, that we can pick up too. Namely we’ve said that humans are social and emotional. That means, if we look at this from neuroscience, that also does something to you. On one hand with the aspect of storytelling, and on the other hand, if we look at how our brain functions and deals with changes, and there’s still, if we look at this in companies, in the meantime there was once a study from IBM, that’s also been a while ago, but shouldn’t have changed dramatically, because the approach hasn’t changed massively in many places, that 80 percent of change projects actually fail in companies. And then of course it’s interesting to ask the question, what’s that actually due to? So are people not willing to undergo changes somehow? We’ve talked about this before in various rooms, that it’s always about two questions too, on one hand, that our brain asks itself. Whether that’s existentially threatening for us in some way, that’s the first question. And the second question we deal with is, what does that bring me? So what use is it to me actually? And if I answer both questions with no, then I don’t even start to deal with the topic, so to speak. So I also don’t go into action. And many of the activities that are done in change processes, so to speak, is, above all, that communication on one hand doesn’t run correctly, and on the other hand also something like appealing to reason. However, we need the activation of the motivation system, and the motivation system isn’t activated by reason. So if we use various arguments in conversations to appeal to reason, then that won’t somehow lead to any insight. They’ll all maybe nod nicely, that can be observed in many contexts too, but it doesn’t lead to actual movement getting going. And that’s certainly another nice factor that can be considered in this context too. So on one hand in the sense of communication, how do I do it, in what way do I do storytelling, how, depending on interest, so to speak, do the stories change too, so to pay attention to that too, and at the same time also consider this aspect, to activate the motivation system of an individual, what stories might I need to tell then too, to be able to connect here. So that might also be quite interesting at this point, so not just to debate on the level of reason, but arrive at the emotional level. Marc, what do you say about that?

Yes, thank you for the contribution, and what we’ve had really often in the rooms, questions and questioning, really questions and questioning. And I’ve brought another example, just so you become aware of that. If I now send someone on a cruise, that’s also at the same time a defense strategy for you that you might be able to apply. If I now want to spoil a cruise for you in summer, because I read this and these narratives are in circulation, then a friend tells me, hey, I’m going on a cruise ship with my partner in summer. Then I say, oh, that’s wonderful. Did you actually know, this is also verifiable, the numbers aren’t made up by me, did you actually know that a cruise ship emits as much CO2 as 84,000 cars? Well, I wish you a lot of fun, nice vacation. Then the corners of his mouth go down. But if he’s dealt with the numbers, then he can counter and defend himself by telling me, “Yes, yes, dear Marc, you’re right there. A cruise ship emits as much CO2 as 84,000 cars, but the share of CO2 emissions in shipping overall is only 2.89 percent, whereas the share of cars in traffic worldwide is 18 percent. Now I see you drive a car. Now the question is, at the end of the year, who of us two was responsible for more CO2 emissions in the world. I don’t have a car and you do have a car, so I’ve just left out the numbers. As I said, I just left out the number that the car takes up 18 percent of overall pollution, and the ship 2.89 percent, the whole shipping industry. But this narrative and this story, a cruise ship uses as much as 84,000 cars, so the CO2 emissions, that’s such a gigantic number that burns itself into our brain, and our brain is at that moment in such a discussion or argument simply, because our brain’s capacity is limited, because we can’t recall the information, we’re always put against the wall in discussions with such numbers, and then a discussion, let’s say, becomes unobjective or scientifically simply incorrect, but it’s then conducted on the basis of emotions and feelings, as you just explained, Yasemin.

Yes wonderful, thank you, thank you so much, and apparently we’ve struck a nerve somewhere, in inverted commas. Layla and Sabine have joined too, and I’m curious, then we can gladly make cross-connections again too. Layla, a wonderful good morning, what do you say about the topic?

A wonderful good morning, I first have to ask how my sound is. I have my headphones on, but that can’t be helped right now, so they’re different ones.

Wonderful. Great.

Now I just hope that the reception still works. I just thought, we’ve already talked about this, Yasmin, that climate needs better marketing, and that’s really true, because we always need good reasons to do something, and when Marc was just talking, I had to smile internally, because I thought, this is such a typical argumentation, and it always reminds me a bit of a children’s playground, like, “but he does it too, and he does it too, and you have to too,” and so on, where I think, yes, that’s right, he’s going on a cruise too, and that’s not cool. Still I need to pay attention to the climate. But we’re a bit stuck in this feeling that the other person also has to do it, and if they don’t do it, why should I do it? And that’s, in terms of moral level, that’s a bit like peer-group orientation, I think, so that we’re at level three. And this giving and taking, one hand washes the other. But this is about the climate. And I know it’s not acute yet. Actually it’s acute this summer. And if you look at the poles melting, it’s acute. But that has to do with the distant horizon. And this sounds now like I’m doing a lot about it. No, I’m doing too little. But I look at it. And what I notice is simply that we’re all doing too little, and that we like to point the finger at the other person, and then we get into whataboutism. And then it’s like Marc said, then it’s feelings, and it’s a bit of children’s ethics, and it’s a bit like on the playground, I wanted to say again.

Yes, definitely. And on one hand we’re doing too little, and on the other hand it’s also the case that if someone from outside wants to prescribe what we should do, then a resistant attitude usually arises all the more. We know this from many other contexts too. You can check that yourselves. If someone tells us what we have to do, then it’s not that we shout “yay” and say, “yes, exactly, that’s what we’ll do now,” but then the discussions start all the more, or the outrage is great and similar. And all of that can be observed in all these debates too, so to speak. And with that I’d also like to welcome Sabine too. A wonderful good morning. What do you say about the topic?

Yes, good morning to the group. I’m glad I’m not going on a cruise this year. No, I think the problem also lies in the fact that if it doesn’t hurt somewhere, reason alone probably isn’t sufficient. You can see that even with climate activists, who then fly to Bali for vacation. But Bali is a good word, because we were once on Bali ourselves, and the front of the island was really great, and then we walked into the hinterland. Not far from the hotel, there was a burning island of plastic bottles. So that wasn’t burned by accident, but that was the landfill, and that’s where the plastic bottles were thrown and burned. And of course then there’s always a bit of the question, how do I feel then in my great vacation. What I also wanted to say, topic modernization, climate protection in construction and so on. That’s also something, as Marc just said, very extreme. 50 percent is in normal residential construction. Those are numbers, those are figures, that’s crazy. But is it the right way, how it’s being approached right now? I’m active in the industry. If I, for example, finance a house that’s not quite new for 250,000, and people would have to add 150,000 on top for a full renovation, then not the same people would get the house, because no bank finances the 150,000 on top for them. And then you have to be realistic, what’s even possible here? And the people who stand up for such initiatives, who say, well it’s obviously logical, that has to be done, because over the next 20 years he’ll save so much energy that he gets the modernization costs back. Yes, but the problem is, it has to be financed today. The money has to be on the table today. So I’m a bit divided on that, that everyone should do something is clear, but it always has to be relatively feasible for the people, because they also want to have their home. Yes, that’s what I wanted to say. Oh, I wanted to add one small jab. How climate-damaging is the internet actually? How climate-damaging is it actually, if I post family photos in the WhatsApp group, in our family app? My husband reminded me of that again on vacation.

Yes wonderful, thank you, thank you so much, and I’m really curious what the others say about that too, because that would now also be the next point I wanted to connect to as an impulse. We’ve seen in many rooms that often the connections aren’t considered either. And especially these connections, that means, they’re all cycles. And I think many people don’t even question, in inverted commas, in the sense of climate protection and is that sensible or not, but it’s largely about these individual debates that are held here. And there of course the question arises at many points, are these really the right discussions being held about the right topics, in quotation marks. What’s even right or wrong? Of course you could debate that. However, if you pick up exactly what you said, Sabine, for example, if such a full renovation would need another 150,000 euros added, for example, that the bank doesn’t finance that, or for someone who already owns a property, so not now with the acquisition of a new property, where it’s not a new construction or such, then the question also arises, these are all costs everywhere that need to be borne. How is that supposed to be realized? Or also the timeframes being discussed here, for example with regard to heat pumps and so on, when that’s supposed to be implemented, so to speak, so what was said in the room, that it’s actually utopian and causes a lot of outrage at one point or another precisely because it’s partly so unrealistic that you ask yourself, what kind of debates are these that are being held? You might remember the one room where I opened this up in a context too. That was about circular economies and so on and so forth. There we also opened up this aspect with recycling, and the green dot was, for example, such a topic. We’ve all somehow learned that the green dot is important, and the idea per se might not even be wrong, but if you look at documentaries about what actually happens with our green-dot trash, namely nothing, it’s frustrating on one hand that we still live in this feeling that we need to somehow sort trash, even though actually nothing happens with this green dot at all, because from a cost perspective, recycling is so expensive that companies simply decide to produce new packaging again instead, and similar. That means, we’d have so many different points we could connect to, but instead we open up an area in the discussion that comes with incredibly a lot of money, and immediately the question arises, who should pay for that? So even if you had the money and didn’t need a bank for it, it’s still an investment at this point. Instead of maybe talking about, maybe we’d need, if we’re already discussing such topics, to possibly talk about new constructions. That means, when something new is built, then you could look at what chain reactions would be triggered. Could you maybe implement that there, instead of saying, everything that already exists now has to be converted, because these conversions need enormously a lot of money, so financially on one hand, but money isn’t the only thing, the only challenge, but we don’t even have the skilled workers who can implement that. So if we now said, just as an example, that this should be implemented within a year or two years. How many properties are we actually talking about there? So to really look at numbers, data, facts here too and see whether it’s even implementable at all, if we simultaneously talk about a shortage of people in the labor market. So these are all factors that play a role here too, regardless of who finances that and how high the financing costs are. Just to bring in a few more thoughts here too. And I find it wonderful, also with the jab you brought, Sabine. Because yes, we have so many aspects where we could also say, that’s also climate-damaging. The internet, or the photos you mentioned via the app and so on. We could open up so, so many examples here. Just if we think about how many phones or smartphones we go through in wear over a generation, so to speak, and so on and so forth. So you could open up so many doors here where we’d really need to look at these whole discussions from different perspectives too. Now I’m curious. Marc, Layla, Sabine, would you like to connect on this again? Marc, then Layla, then Sabine.

Yes, I have another really important point there. I already had the cruise example, and now I’m coming with the second narrative. And I say, I’m flying on vacation this year. And then someone says to me, how, you’re flying on vacation this year? I don’t find that good. We’re all apologizing for flying. And I find this Deep Talk so important, that we question everything. And yes, that’s not good either. But if you refer back purely to the scientific context, then I’d ask, when did you last buy textiles? Why is that? Because textiles have a bigger share of the world’s CO2 footprint, a bigger share than flying and shipping combined. But those are things that get left out. And that’s why I find such discussions so important, that it doesn’t just go into emotions, but that it’s scientifically questioned too. And then the second point we haven’t had yet, which I also find quite exciting, Germany has also outsourced a lot. For example, textile production. Textile production and phone production and everything we consume happens abroad. Now China belongs to the biggest CO2 polluters in the world. Well, that’s not really surprising, because if they produce our luxury and consumer goods, then of course they have a bigger CO2 output. But we then have a clean slate, a clean slate, in which we basically no longer have any production of these things, have less CO2, and are then also cleaner. That’s when it occurred to me too, that this is also a point that many entrepreneurs work with. That’s the clean-slate principle. If I have workers I don’t pay adequately, then I hire a subcontractor, can shrug my shoulders and raise my arms and say, it’s not my fault, it’s all the subcontractor’s fault. I’m clean, I’m good. And we need to be able to talk openly and factually about the fact that CO2 pollution also happens, that we’re responsible for. But it’s outsourced to other countries. And then I’m done. One more example. It’s also discussed a lot whether an electric vehicle has a higher CO2 output compared to a combustion engine. And in production, yes. So in production and the batteries we need, an e-vehicle has a higher CO2 output. But in use, and that’s also just relocated, in use, when this battery from China is then installed in our cars, that ensures our city centers stay cleaner. That’s definitely cleaner, if only electric cars drive in Cologne instead of combustion engines. It’s just the relocation, so the production is outsourced, and the CO2 pollution for our consumption happens in another country.

Yes wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. Layla.

This discussion reminds me a bit of the religion discussion I sometimes have. A bit like the Gretchen question, how do you feel about faith? When Sabine just said, well, they go to Bali too. And there, you have, I know that, that I’m told, are you a practicing Muslim? You have to do this and that, because you’re this and that. Where I then think, yes, and I have to start with something. And then I always take the example of the ten commandments, where I say, you know, it’s like when I lie once and then say to myself, well, I’ve already done that. Then I could also directly say, wait, what else is there? You shall not, and then you shall kill yourself. At some point I’m there. And that’s a point for me where I say, no, I have to start with something. I’ve also thought about it, we don’t make it very visible, because climate change isn’t so visible for the individual. It’s visible if I consider that in Tunisia it’s 50 degrees this year, over 50 degrees. We have a very warm summer this year for us. And that pleases some but for older people it’s a problem. And what you addressed is all correct. And I think the transfer onto the citizen is also this difficulty we still have. Who’s supposed to pay for that? And I also don’t want my parents to have to install a completely new heating system, that this and that. I also don’t want something imposed on them and them losing their property. And I still want my nephews and nieces and their children to have a good future, and for me to notice as little climate change as possible. But it’s not so visible, because with these landfills in the ocean, that’s how it is. But I don’t see them. That’s how it is. Rare earths, I don’t see that, because I see my phone that I use. But I don’t see this mining issue that plays into it. And I think we need to make that visible. I think that’s important, because then we give people a good reason instead of imposing something on them. And I also believe we need to support them, and really regulate a lot state-wise too, so that it’s not actually the case that everything is passed onto the citizens. I find that a really important point, because if I have to pay for all of that, then I can be as good in it and have as noble views as I want. But ultimately it’s also about my existence here and now, and it’s about the future, and everything I do has consequences. And I saw recently, if I may briefly mention the example, in Egypt there was a shark attack, and I looked something up about that recently, and it said, well, it could be because animal waste is thrown into the sea too. It could be that. And if I then set up shark nets, that also sounds totally good, hey, I can go swimming, yes, sharks get caught in that. Those are then remnants, so animal waste again, and that in turn attracts sharks. So everything I do has consequences, and that’s not directly climate change now, but yes, food for thought.

Yes, thank you, thank you so much. Sabine.

Yes, what I wanted to say again is simply the uncertainty that this brings into many areas. That’s how it was now with this whole climate discussion or with this draft law and so on. First we’re at 33, then we’re at 45. So I’ve experienced many clients who said, that doesn’t matter to me right now, because if I set myself up climate-friendly today, I still don’t know today whether that’ll be what it is. Because none of us know that ourselves either. And that’s of course one of the biggest problems. Friends of mine who are buying a house right now, they said, we’ll quickly install a new gas heating system, then we’ll have peace for the next 20 years, and by then maybe we’ll also know what we want. And above all this thing, I mean, it was nice to talk about at the beginning, that you say, water or geothermal or such, that’s left out. So I mean, if so, then you’d have to be so open, whatever’s climate-neutral or climate-protection-oriented gets approved. And there, I mean, that’s been changed now, so we’re on the road to improvement. And from personal experience I can also say, it’s currently such a hype to put solar roofs on. We once had a solar roof on our old house. When we sold the house, we gave the solar system away for free. And that was eight years ago, because the buyer, it didn’t matter to him. He said, I don’t want such junk on the roof either, you can keep it. So a lot has developed already. Now eight years have passed, we’re currently considering, and say, if we sell the house in ten years, will we get something for it or should we just leave it? And in ten years it doesn’t really pay off. It pays off from the 12th year. And my husband went into depth. We still have a tenant in the house. How do we do it so the tenant can benefit from it? It’s crazy. How many emails he’s sent to the manufacturer, or the installer, that’s insane. There are always new requirements, or how it works, or how it doesn’t work. So from this side, this uncertainty certainly won’t help make people more climate-oriented, because then many lean back and say, they should first do their homework and then I’ll get on board.

Yes, thank you, thank you so much. And ultimately of course the question is also, how complex does it need to be at the points being tackled. So we just talked about this. We have a lot of things in daily life, whether we’re talking about textiles, phones, and so on and so forth. So we’d have so many points where a certain awareness could take place too, to connect somehow or similar. Instead we talk about various things that have enormous complexity, and then chain reactions and so on and so forth. That means, and we primarily talk about regulation, always about regulation too, and there we’re back at this education topic. If on one hand we say, well, we want to live self-determined, establish self-efficacy, education is important and so on, that’s also a component playing a role here. Then I also need the corresponding enlightenment, in inverted commas, at various points, to activate the motivation of people with the corresponding storytelling, from my point of view, gladly, to become active on their own here too, and not point at others, in inverted commas, or exclusively wait for someone from above to introduce some regulations. And that leads in many places more to annoyance than to it actually being solution-oriented at this point. And accordingly I’m curious what you say about that. Marc, go ahead.

Yes, I actually still have, to speak neutrally, but I find it totally important to look at the topic from different sides. And one narrative I keep hearing, that’s currently being used, is that the Greens are being attacked because they’re in government, that’s all there now. That’s simply factually wrong. And that makes my hair stand on end. And simply for the reason that there’s a Paris Climate Agreement, which already existed in 1995. There 198 countries sat together to agree on things. And then there’s a Kyoto Protocol, and there the European Union committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020. That was decided together with the EU member states and Germany. And then, dear Yasemin and dear group, somehow, I’ve never thought about this before, a thought came to me yesterday and I then considered, what’s actually the difference between an entrepreneur, a company, and our government? So the entire government. I then thought, it would be unimaginable, if we’re in a company, there’s a CEO and there’s a works council, and there’s a supervisory board, and the works council takes care of the employees’ rights, that they’re treated well, and the supervisory board controls the CEO, that everything runs properly. But it would be unimaginable for the supervisory board to deliberately throw obstacles in front of the management so they stumble, in the sense of “let’s get rid of them now” and “we want the company to have no success.” And in that context I read a statement last week that I found highly exciting, that also in the political, so in the election campaign, terms are used so that we don’t work solution-oriented. What does the discussion do to our society? Are we looking for a solution, or do we just want to win the next election? And a solution, others can’t, or currently nobody can offer 100 percent satisfaction. And when there are parties, like Dobrindt, who then use words, for example also with RAF terrorism, who compare climate activists with terrorists and so on, then I find that outrageous, instead of saying, we have a problem, how do we solve it? So the opposition and the government aren’t working on a solution there, but it’s also basically about winning elections. And if we don’t watch out, this is just so important to me today, if we don’t understand these processes, what’s happening to us and how we’re being manipulated, then that leads to the division of our society, and you have to be clear about the mechanisms, and it would actually be much better, but that’s a wishful idea, if there were people sitting at a table saying, we have a problem, we want to solve it, what’s the socially fairest approach, and then there are various solution possibilities, and in the article I read, that came out quite deliberately, that it’s currently not about being replaced either. Suppose the government were a company, then it could also be that the supervisory board eventually goes back into management at some point, because they have better solution approaches. But with us it’s currently basically about not offering the better solution approaches, but about defaming the opponent and simply winning elections with polemics and populism. And ultimately it’s about our common good, and that’s why it was just so important to me, if you understand these mechanisms and always question who’s speaking there, who do they belong to, what’s their goal, what do they want to achieve, is what they’re saying factually correct, just like with the railway, I’m done with that too. It’s also said that train travel is more climate-neutral, the creation of the railway, but then someone comes and says, to build the rail network, there’s also a certain CO2 output and so on and so forth. But we always find the arguments, no matter which position we take, we can, we see what we want to see, that was also a really exciting topic, our Deep Talk Club room, if we pay attention to white cars, then we’ll only see white cars. And that’s also how it works in argumentation, in politics, and with every topic we’d discuss here.

Yes, thank you, thank you so much. And then of course you can also turn the whole thing around a bit and look at it completely from a different perspective, also with regard to, because we also talk about questioning and so on. Especially because right now a lot, a lot of news is being read, and everything is somehow suddenly connected to climate change, to also deal with this critically here too. So heat periods and so on have also existed, historically viewed, again and again. And also panic with regard to, if we don’t act now, in five years we won’t exist anymore, that’s also existed before. So really to get into questioning here too, so to also look again, climate protection yes, but how big is the steering or the fearmongering that might partly also be happening there? And is everything actually so bad, in inverted commas? Or how much influence does the human have viewed in overall nature, so to speak, on that? Or what role does solar radiation play and so on, how certain things change over time, that we might have no influence on at all? So to look at that historically too. And Jürgen once said this so nicely. It’s always worth it to look at it historically too, to look at these curves too. And you’ll discover really interesting things there, where we might also be able to question one thing or another at all, whether it’s sensible, in inverted commas, to debate about it to this extent, with this intensity that’s opened up here and the panic that’s being fueled. Especially, and now I’ll open up another point, against the background, if we now think in connections, yes of course, if we’re threatened by the climate because we’re not doing enough climate protection and so on, then that has to do with the existence of humanity. Nevertheless we also have parallel to that completely different vehement challenges that Germany or the EU may also deal with. And to only have climate protection debates here, all the way to, we’re already so far again, I saw, that daily figures are now available online, how many heat deaths there were daily. Interestingly the heat deaths aren’t actually counted though, but simply estimated numbers that are opened up here. So you really may be very careful with this fearmongering in the media, and not let yourself be misled. From my point of view. Layla, you wanted to add something and then I’d like to welcome Raphael to the group.

Yes, I find that a really important point you just mentioned, because I was just considering that too. And I saw the Lanz show before this, and there was this climate researcher, this scientist. And there exactly this argument was made. But I know what you mean. That’s done very gladly. So also this image in the media too. It becomes such a topic. And now we have to deal with it. Now it’s the climate specifically, because we’ve apparently had climate change for quite a while already. The climate researchers have agreed, as far as I know, even if there’s no consensus here, at least this scientist from this show, please look it up, said that there is warming, and that these heat waves are more than was previously thought. Please look up the show. But I find it important that you said that again, because I think that’s what it’s about, and what I was thinking about, my point was actually the topic of education, because I really think education is really the key, and we keep saying that in the rooms, because we simply need to inform people about it, because I think humans are basically, that’s my firm conviction, good. And I think people actually want to do something for the climate too. And everyone who has children wants to do something for their future generations. And we should just make it visible then, and give them a reason why they should do it, and then give them the opportunity to do that. Because I think that’s usually what it comes down to. If everything is passed onto me, and I only have costs from it, then that’s stupid. But the will is there. And if we make it visible and then say, okay, if you go to Primark, then there’s fast fashion, then there are mountains of trash, then there’s endless chemicals, if you order from Shein, then you’re not doing anything for the climate, even if the top costs four, five euros. And when that’s made visible, and also there are lots of toxic substances in it that aren’t good for you, then that’s very logical for many people. And that’s what I wanted to say, because I believe we want to do something for that too. That’s why it needs attractiveness and solution orientation, instead of saying, okay, you, you, you, and why haven’t you, and why, and the little citizen has to do this and that, because those are all correct reasons. And they’re all important reasons. And I still believe we all want to do this. That’s why I believe education is the key. Thanks for listening.

Yes, thank you, thank you so much. And especially in this context this educational work is so important, because ultimately the awareness is missing in many places. Not because we’re per se against climate protection, in inverted commas, but because we’re partly simply not so aware of it, or because we don’t even know what effects it has, if I use ten different phones over a lifetime and so on. And if you extrapolate that to population figures and so on and so forth. I think it really makes sense here to go into educational work too, to create a certain awareness for this. You could start that at schools too, for example, and promote this awareness here too. And here, from my point of view, you can’t just say, in the sense of, we have to do everything ourselves and research everything ourselves, because, in inverted commas, we don’t even get the idea at various points to maybe research certain things. I once opened up this example in a different context with entire vaccinations and so on, that has less to do with the climate protection and environmental topic, but exactly all the discussions that were held with and around Corona and the vaccinations, and the debates and the discussions and all these people who were called tinfoil hats and conspiracy theorists and whatever. That’s what first made me sensitive to this vaccination topic, and it’s partly really shocking. I once mentioned in some context that, for example, I never questioned the U check-ups. You go to the doctor and the child automatically gets vaccinations, and you’re not informed about side effects or anything else at all. Zero. Zero point zero. We were never shown a package insert or anything else, and now of course you could say, well how stupid, Yasemin. Yes of course, but I never got the idea to question that, because I assumed, on one hand, that it’s mandatory, and on the other hand that it’s correct as it is. And here we see how important educational work is, what result we then come to afterward. That’s then left up to everyone themselves at this point, but at least it’s important to open up various topics and awareness for topics, to allow debates here too, and to actually first get into an exchange of opinions, to actually get this food for thought about certain things, like climate protection etc., to think about, and to engage with topics in depth here, and consider, and against the background of various considerations, to then also take small steps. Layla, you said it so nicely earlier, it’s not about changing everything at once, but starting somewhere. And that requires corresponding educational work too. And education plays a really big role there again.

Raphael, a wonderful good morning.

Yes, good morning everyone. Man, man, man, this is quite a climate coming up here again. I don’t even know anymore what I wanted to say first. So on the last topic with vaccination, maybe that topic area would come up sometime with child mortality, life expectancy increase or something like that. And on the climate topic, I find that exciting. The complexity is what causes the problem. That means, we have plastic in the sea, we soon have plastic in fish, we have storms everywhere, we have an actual change happening. That’s clear. The question is, how do we react to that and what do we do? The requirements we get, that we’re supposed to follow with heating, with all kinds of things, well that’s run a bit unfortunately. It’s run a bit better in the neighboring countries, a bit smoother. Denmark, they had higher consensus, they did it. The breadth of possibilities isn’t being tackled. I don’t know now who follows the money more. Is it the Greens or who is it now, what’s happening right now? So you don’t really see through it. But you don’t have the feeling, or it’s always just about prevention, I feel. That means, nobody wants to be told what they now have to do with heating, with anything, but they just want, if I were convinced or something, simply, and it would be a normal thing, that you just say, hey, we’re doing this now for the environment, and then we can live pleasantly on this planet for 500 more years, or something, and don’t need the Mars expeditions, and they found water there or something. Where are we even going? That means, do we have more exit strategies somewhere else than somehow keeping our house clean? So it’s a hugely great topic somehow. And we’re in it, and we all have to see what we can do about it, small and large.

Yes absolutely, thank you, thank you so much. With a view to the time, I won’t consider any more raised hands now, because I’d like to give the opportunity again to make cross-connections or bring in further aspects, if you have any, and then move into the closing round for today. Marc, I saw you raised your hand, if others want to add something too, gladly again. Marc.

Two points, dear Yasemin. Thank you for bringing up the heat topic. I read about that yesterday too and wanted to mention it too, and then stopped, because we have an insane possibility to inform ourselves today. I came across two numbers on heat deaths. One from Zeit, not Bild-Zeitung, but Zeit, which wrote that in 2019 we had 8,000 heat deaths, and then I found, right below that, immediately below, a report from Deutschlandfunk, which isn’t necessarily a station I take seriously either, they wrote 20,000 deaths, and then I couldn’t find any figures for myself that I’d want to announce here, and I refrained from that and noticed how difficult that is, and also how stupid it can be. One of the two just has bad, bad editors who copy from each other. You could say 80,000 and 90,000, and you said the magic word, that it’s estimated. But the difference between a figure of 8,000, sorry, from 8,000 deaths to 20,000 deaths, is so large, that either both didn’t research properly, and I didn’t want to go into the discussion with such nonsense. And that makes research difficult too. And to you, dear Raffael, I’d like to note, that goes through my mind. I think it also depends on the question, and you actually already said that, it ran unfortunately, and if I stand in front of a podium and say, who’s for climate protection, then all hands go up. Who wants to do that for whatever reason, then all hands go up. But the communication, the communication just ran badly, and then simply, which will certainly also be clarified afterward, then it needs to be clarified, and what Sabine said, that the grandmother who’s 80, it doesn’t help her if you say, that’s amortized in 20 years. You invest 150,000 euros now for the conversion, and then the grandmother says, well I might live three or four more years, and even if the grandmother wanted her house converted, she won’t get any more money from the bank. And those are then such points that are discussed quite openly and neutrally without emotions. But it’s just important to me today that we watch the processes, what happens to us as a society, it’s not about the content, but what do politicians do with us, what do newspapers do with us, how are we pushed in a certain direction, and then it’s no longer about the topic, is climate protection sensible or not, how strong is it, but it’s only about, one is a terrorist, one does that and he’s stupid, and we owe everything only to him, and it’s not looked at solution-oriented on a topic, but it’s just about populism, to win the next election, and I’m at least aware that the common good, that the common good affects all of us, and that requires a good solution, and that doesn’t require finger-pointing, as Layla already said, who’s to blame, but what can we do to make everything better in the future. And then the last point I want to say, I also find this always so interesting, when you complain about the current government, the life, our prosperity that we have now, is also based on an assessment we made in the past, and that means cheap labor, relocation of production abroad, and cheap energy. Cheap energy doesn’t exist anymore, because there are people who break our agreements, the trade agreements, and no longer behave the way we want. And cheap labor means dependencies, which we now notice. But that’s not the current government’s topic, but it simply requires a misjudgment. And I just find these rooms totally important, that in a discussion you always know that you’re not being carried emotionally in one direction or another, but that you say, friends, watch out, this has completely different causes, and now let’s look for a solution.

Yes thank you, thank you so much, and especially with such fundamental discussions, where there are also massive chain reactions, so we’ve talked about finances and such, also especially with these heat pump discussions for example, and there you also, in inverted commas, really open the doors to actually offer possibilities, attack possibilities too, all the way to also saying, is there a certain agenda behind this and so on and so forth. Because if we now take this example with heat pumps and the costs that are involved in this context, what happens if someone can’t bear these costs? What happens if the bank doesn’t finance that, and this requirement has to be met though? Is the consequence afterward that someone loses their house, for example, and so on? And then we’re back at the discussions around this whole topic of expropriations. In parallel, laws are being changed, where it’s not just war compensation, war victims’ compensation, but social situations and so on and so forth. That means, if you then put these overall events together like puzzle pieces, then of course a lot of question marks come up in the population too. And you may not be surprised about that from my point of view, because then you’re opening doors and gates, so to speak, to think in such directions too. And that doesn’t mean it is that way, or that it isn’t, but to also consider such things too, what thoughts arise from that too. And accordingly I don’t know whether the politicians or politics are doing themselves a favor by connecting to such complex topics too and wanting to bring about changes here, even though there might be many other areas where things could be implemented more easily, and that might also be food for thought too. And then I’d like to briefly pick up on the fact that Matthias wrote in the chat too, that might also be a topic, whether we’re doing enough for peace here for example. I’d like to announce that we’ll also have rooms in the coming days where we’ll look at things like arms deliveries etc. thematically too. That means, we also connect to topics like war and peace too, to always consider these overall connections here too. So gladly, stay curious, and join when we open up further topics too, to always make exactly these connections clear too, and thereby maybe also make it clearer why that’s also so difficult in politics, on one hand because the complexity is so high, on the other hand, because maybe also the way topics are talked about, we were at storytelling there, when we started this morning, also in recent days already, that all has an impact on how certain things develop in one direction or another too. And accordingly it’s important that we always open up the connections here too, also show the consequences, and the chain reactions, and how the topics are networked with each other, and what role that plays in the overall view too, also at the point of what reaches us then. Sabine, you wanted to continue again, and then I’d like to move into the closing round. You can gladly connect your closing word for today right away too.

Yes, I’ll gladly do that. Because you just said, what happens with such a house if it’s not feasible. I was recently at a conference of a not-so-small bank, and also talked about it with a not entirely insignificant person. And I then also told him my story from day-to-day business. And then it was simply said, then the houses just need to be demolished sometime. But how does reality look? A family, maybe not quite young anymore, moves into an apartment because they can’t carry the house anymore somehow. Then they want to sell the house. Yes, then nobody will buy it, because this and that needs to be renovated. That pushes the purchase price down and down. And then we’re actually a bit at yesterday’s topic. Isn’t that also a form of expropriation? Yes, so I was a bit stunned there. This bank offers modernization loans. But we’re back at the problem, who gets the loan? Good, that’s what I wanted to say, and the topic you mentioned, Layla, with education. Yes, I find that really, really important. But I’ve also thought about where do we actually get education from overall? And where do we get this education from? I’d say bluntly, kids largely get it from social media. Whether TikTok, whether food recipes. I now have three vegetarian children, and the kids have infected us more than I infected them. In that regard the kids are more infectious. So it always comes down to the circle of family, siblings, friends etc. And there it’s simply the case again, am I in an environment where that’s valued and appreciated highly, it will certainly infect me too. But if I’m in an environment, without naming a brand, but as I said, we were recently at McDonald’s, where the birthday, the child’s birthday is already celebrated at McDonald’s, then it’s maybe a bit different. And at school, kindergarten, those are still decisive influencing factors for me. I remember, when our kids were in kindergarten, there was this food tree or whatever it’s called. Yes, it was presented, but was still not lived by afterward in kindergarten. Or was that at a parent evening, where a mother gave her child cold curry sausage from the previous evening, and that was the trigger point. Great topic. I think we all need to have it in us. We all need to look at ourselves critically. What you said, Layla, finger-pointing certainly isn’t the solution, but the steps need to be feasible for everyone, I think. Have a nice day.

Yes wonderful. Thank you, thank you so much, and let me gladly pick up McDonald’s as an example again, from a completely different perspective. One of the reasons why McDonald’s became so successful, by the way, even though they don’t primarily earn their money through citizens, is because there are surprise packages for children there. So anyone who’s observed that, there’s the kids menu, where there’s always a toy included, and so on. And these toys are always regularly exchanged too. That stimulates the motivation system. So if you pick up marketing here, so to speak, yes, so marketing in the sense of what works, and if we look at big chains, you’ll always find that they basically make use of the knowledge of how the brain works. And because they know how the brain works, know the basics of it, conduct corresponding market research and so on, they’re able to connect here accordingly too. Of course you can see that as manipulation, but you can also see it as influence, in the sense of, everything we do is ultimately manipulation, in inverted commas. So I can, whether I use that for the good direction or a negative direction, ultimately lies in my hand. And especially when we’re talking about political topics or such, the government might also do itself a favor, in inverted commas, to deal with the topic of marketing more, and look at what might be possible here too, especially to stimulate this motivation system in a positive sense too. Not to manipulate people negatively, but to be able to set a positive movement in motion. And with that I’d like to move into the overall closing round. Let’s start backward today. Raphael, Sabine already spoke, then Layla, then Marc.

Yes exactly, with the use of knowledge of how humans function or such. The government does that too, not just McDonald’s. That means, that’s the business with fear, that’s not just with insurance companies. We’re all afraid, what about our houses, what about our cold. So I know several houses now that have four systems they can heat with. Somehow, they’ve spent money on doctors coming, and that’s super exciting. And the business with fear is run by the government in an ambush-like manner too. And that’s why we see the fluctuating election results too. Yes, all super exciting. The group is great here, and yes, it’s the cross-section, this group here, so to speak, of the opinions that prevail out there. And the capitalist side is there too. We all don’t want to lose anything. We all always want the optimum, whether that’s selling a house, traveling, everywhere, that’s somehow normal. The thing is, you want to be showered but not get wet. Those times are probably over. And yes, we’ll have fun that way, I’ll stop now. I wish you a nice day.

Yes wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. Thanks for the comment, also with the business with fear, both with the aspect of the peace and war context, and we also have a room about extremism coming up. Let’s pick that up there too gladly. I think the question really arises here too, against the background of consideration. We have an approach-motivation or an avoidance-motivation, and it’s certainly quite exciting to look at that in this context too, because especially the business with fear leads to polarization, to extremes, to societal division, and whether that’s actually effective, one or another little remedy might be used, but whether that should be the means of choice in political contexts, that might also be really exciting to discuss. Layla.

Yes, I wanted to say the title, that fits quite well now, commanded climate protection, namely, if someone says, you don’t have to do anything at all, actually you don’t have to do anything at all. You can go into your bathroom now, can turn on the tap, you can grill ten schnitzels this afternoon, pas de problème, and that’s okay. And I still just checked what we can do for the climate, and I smiled, because I thought, hey, we’re already doing something. Because you can also go to your drawer, look in, whether there’s still a phone in there. And yes, giving that away for ecological purposes. You can save rare earths through that. You can turn off your tap, you can use a smaller pot and a lid. That’s already quite cool. And you know what we become aware of there too? What we’re already doing for the climate. And not just what we’re not doing for the climate. And of course, save, save, save. It’s worth it for the individual, it’s worth it for the future. And imposed doesn’t help at all, I think. And that’s why I wanted to say this again. And we’re already doing a lot. And if it’s small and if it’s solution-oriented, it’s a small thing, but maybe it moves something. And if we all do that, then we move a lot. Thanks for listening.

Yes, thank you, thank you so much. Marc?

I’d like to close with a summary that applies to all rooms. Who’s saying something? Which anchor points in our brain are always addressed? Then, what’s the source of the facts? Regardless of which topic we talk about, especially with the use of numbers and statistics. And then at the end, are there other answers? That at least always helps me answer many questions, even if often a big question mark still remains at the end. I wish you all a nice day.

Yes, wonderful. Thank you, thank you so much for the great examples, various impulses you brought in, and a very stimulating discussion, I think, which will certainly set one or another impulse again, stimulate thinking again, and then let everyone decide for themselves what that means for them and how they deal with it. Both in the direction of maybe changing one thing or another, all the way to maybe also patting yourself on the shoulder and saying, I’m already doing a lot, becoming consciously aware of that too, and/or seeing where I can do even more, to make my very individual own contribution. And tomorrow we continue with the next topic. It’s about the rainbow movement. I’m really curious about that too. That’ll certainly also be a very, very exciting round. What perspectives can be opened up with regard to interests, opportunities, and risks in connection with the much-discussed rainbow movement? That’s the question we want to deal with, and accordingly you’re all very warmly invited to join Deep Talk again tomorrow morning at 8, if you enjoy it and the topic interests you. In that sense, see you tomorrow. Ciao.