Dear Mr. Kraus,
The “Appeal of the Climate Alliance,” drafted by the Evangelical Academy of Bad Boll, contains mistakes in logic that cannot remain unchallenged.
1. “We need a broad social movement supporting climate protection.” No, we don’t need that. Climate is the statistical median of weather parameters of 30 years. Nobody can protect statistic medians.
2. “Time and again, climate policy is blocked by short sighted interests.” This is wrong too. Humans are not the principle agents directing climate change because God directs it through natural means such as solar activity, volcanic eruptions, and ocean evaporation, among others. Hence a truly effective “climate policy” is impossible.
3. The energy policies of the federal government must be vigorously protested because they are disastrous to the economy.
4. The Climate Alliance’s appeal “to take the gloves off for climate protection” must also be energetically opposed.
5. “Time is pressing. Climate change has begun already.” Climate change has existed for millennia, because climate is always changing.
6. “Climate change is hitting humans and nature worldwide to an extent that is historically without an example.” When the “green” Greenland got its ice shelf, it was much worse!
7. “Climate change is no destiny; it is a consequence of a lack of responsibility…” No, climate change is most likely a consequence of natural solar radiation variations.
8. “The fight against climate change is the central touchstone for a solidary global society…” No, nobody can fight solar activity.
9. “The increase of global average temperature has to be limited to 2 degrees Celsius compared to the pre-industrial level.” Again, this temperature increase is principally of natural origin. Unfortunately humans cannot end sunspot activities.
10. “Concerning the worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases, within the next 10 to 15 years a turnaround has to be accomplished.” Since water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas, how can any policy regulate ocean evaporation?
11. “The industrialized countries have to decrease their emissions by 80% until 2050…” For what purpose? No, they don’t have to do that, they cannot do that, and they won’t do that.
12. “…that Germany has to decrease its emissions until 2020 by 40%.” No, Germany doesn’t have to do that, cannot do that, and won’t do that.
13. “…scientific answer to the question if and how much international technologies can contribute to the permanent and secure storage of CO2 in order to protect the climate….” No, that is not working and unnecessary.
14. “…highly risky use of atomic energy use.” No, nuclear energy is not highly risky.
15. “The deactivation of atomic power plants as fast as possible.” No, nuclear energy is the electricity source of the future.
16. “Continuous development of renewable energies…” No, alternative energies are largely inefficient, costly, and unnecessary. Eatable raw materials, especially with so many starving throughout the world, should not be used for energy production.
17. “Law on financial support for renewable energies…” No. Policies which mimic the style of controlled economies will torpedo the Social Market Economy, the basic pillar of our prosperity.
18. “Use of fiscal incentives for climate policies…” No, such policies are not socially responsible. Under such a system, single individuals will be able to enrich themselves at the expense of common wealth.
The ideas of the evangelical church regarding energy policy will likely motivate responsible citizens to terminate their church memberships. The evangelical church should rather recommit to their proper mission, namely the annunciation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
With Best Regards,
Dr. Hans Penner
PS. Copies to concerned citizens, politicians and theologians
Dr. Hans Penner is member of the advisory board of CFACT Europe.