“Climate should not be considered a priority above others.” Words are powerful. They clearly remind me of the reasons why I left PLR in 2020.
On May 2, 2022, the Federal Parliament received about thirty scientific experts at a meeting on climate issues. The Swiss authors of the latest IPCC reports were present and provided a summary of their work.
The idea is excellent. What resulted was truly scandalous.
Only a third of the elected officials participated in this session. In addition to the conflicting agendas of some parliamentarians, this low attendance is explained by the broad rejection of participation expressed by many elected representatives of the Center, the Palestine Liberation Committee, and the United Council for Democracy.
The deputy head of the PLR ”does not agree that it is a small group that decides the priorities of elected politicians.” He asserts that “climate should not be considered a priority over others.”
The piece of cloth is burning
Am I surprised? Not right.
at 1989 In 2019, under the impetus of Petra Gussi, the PLR adopted a radical liberal environmental and climate policy. The message was clear: the party intends to take on the role of the climate emergency and give itself the means to respond to it.
As a member of this party, I had the pleasure of finally seeing the right awakening. So I drowned myself with pleasure in reading this tea towel position paper. cold shower;
And these excerpts: “State prescriptions, even restrictions, have no place on consumption in a liberal society. However, individual responsibility can play an important role in consumer habits. Better information and greater transparency are both necessary and desirable. … Only if individual responsibility does not lead and incentives to desired results, then strong measures, such as restrictions on products and goods, become necessary.”
Welcome to 1989! An age in which individual freedom is tested as an untouchable dogma at the expense of collective responsibility. An era when we have time to see if people are responsible enough. 1989? 2019? I guess PLR doesn’t define it itself.
Reading this document opened my eyes to my incompetence with the party and paved the way for a more responsible political commitment to environmental issues.
What are young people experiencing?
On May 11, Julia Steinberger, a professor at the University of Lausanne and co-author of the latest IPCC report, published a beautiful life lesson that perfectly sums up the inadequacy of current policies in the face of the climate emergency.
The article wisely conveys what young people are going through today. While many of them were screaming the climate emergency in the streets, we discovered them almost silent, immersed in a feeling of helplessness. Only politicians or business leaders can make big changes. … Everyone in power has known about this problem for a long time. However, nothing happened, and nothing changed. »
“Teenagers look at adults,” she tells us. “They see them as responsible people who guide and protect them. They see politicians as adults. So they are upset to see politicians who know what’s going on but don’t act.
Finally, Julia Steinberger speaks to us about the gap between a scientist who is able to mobilize to adapt to the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, but still cannot fathom the gravity of the situation in the face of the climate emergency.
“grown ups. This is a striking expression that sums up well what a politician should be. A person is more responsible than an ordinary adult, because he is educated, because he is committed to analyzing things deeply and moving society on important issues.
However, when two-thirds of the cyclists abandon ship and claim to free themselves from the climate emergency as the basis for all action, we are entitled to wonder who is an adult and who is a teenager.
The environment as a first candidate
As a green liberal, I believe that solutions to the climate crisis will come through innovation and entrepreneurship. I consider that any action that is not in keeping with the principle of the donut, either because it goes beyond the ecological ceiling or because it does not respect the social ground, has no reason to exist.
No need to be afraid of the company disappearing. For every harmful company we have to bring at the checkout, others will usefully replace it. Here we close the coal plant, there we build a dam to generate hydroelectric power. Here we are shutting down the production of thermoplastic compounds, and working on the development of new forms of soft locomotion. Here we prevent a chemical company from dumping toxic products into our waterways, and there we create new processes to produce medicines from natural sources.
The solutions are multiple. You still have to catch them firmly. Some political parties do not seem to realize that in a “climate emergency” there is the word “emergency”. In the election of 2023, it is best to remember that.