Strictly against “Man Is a Pest”
We vehemently disagree with this. Any direction that views man as a pest will be completely incapable of developing solutions for the survival of mankind.Much worse, groups that view humans as pests will fight quite vehemently against anything that might prolong humanity's existence.
For this, let's consider the protests against the Tesla factory in Grünheide. Tesla's mission statement is “to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy”. What is there to protest about?
What was there about electric cars before Tesla? From the corner of the environmentalists came at that time the City-El. A vehicle with 3 wheels for one person and about 80 km range and 65 km/h top speed. This electric vehicle found very few buyers.
CityEl at the Wels energy saving fair 2006
This is what is meant by “being incapable of developing solutions for the survival of mankind”. The shift from the internal combustion engine to electric mobility is a very important problem. Tesla has been fundamental to solving this problem. Elon Musk has a very positive attitude towards humanity.
On the other hand, those who are under the influence of the pest philosophy will not be able to develop solutions, that's where something like a City El comes out. Just like the motto “We have developed a super problem solution, but the evil bad people have not accepted it”.
It is the perfect expression of “saving restricting renouncing”, because one does not want to concede more to the pest human being.
. Under the influence of the pest philosophy it became a dogma that the demand for electricity will decrease. Therefore one gave ridiculous 70 GW Photovoltaik as development goal for Germany. With it one operated "lobby work". But if you have such a lobby, you don't need any more enemies, as the smashing of the German photovoltaic industry in 2013 shows.
The difference between a CityEl and a Tesla is obvious, here is the difference between different energy transitions.
. Why are newcomers BYD and Tesla world leaders in electric cars? Because good solutions require a positive attitude towards humanity. Anything else leads to wild actionism and fake solutions that do an enormous amount of damage but are guaranteed not to solve the problem.
. Mankind has increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 420 ppm since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Of course this has an impact, of course we have to do something about it. But net zero emissions as a goal is absolutely ridiculous and insufficient.
Whereas we call back to 350 ppm as a target, it says so in the mission statement: planetary cleanup back to 350 ppm CO2, we contribute house by house. That is several times the net zero emissions target. How is that supposed to be possible when we are already in danger of failing at the much smaller target? Imagine it's a cold December day in Norway. You have a choice: