Climate activists are attacking the rich and super rich – that’s what’s behind it

In recent weeks, symbols of modern wealth have suffered en masse: In Germany, activists of the last generation spray painted a private jet, a luxury hotel, a boutique, a yacht. And much more. They colored the water in the marina of Neustadt in Holstein green with a (non-polluting) dye.

The message behind all their actions: to draw people’s attention to the “reckless waste of the rich”.

Because according to a study by aid organization Oxfam, which is based on studies by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) and the Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI) from 2021, only a small elite is driving the destruction of the climate violently. According to this, the per capita emissions of people belonging to the richest 1% of the world’s population in 2030 would be 30 times higher than the value compatible with the 1.5 degree target.

The activists of the last generation use this knowledge to clarify their point of view.

“In Germany there is no discussion about how much more the richest are fueling the climate catastrophe,” says Joel Schmitt in an interview with Watson. He is an activist of the last generation.

Because he felt that the Fridays for Future demonstrations were no longer enough to draw attention to the severity of the climate crisis. He says:

So Joel started taking to the streets along with other activists. And since the beginning of June, to draw attention to the influence of the very rich with regard to global warming with targeted campaigns.

Almost no journalist addresses the fact that the “super-rich” are taking in more and more CO, despite the need to reduce emissions₂ would blow in the air. Through their private jets. By their yachts. Because of their overconsumption. “It’s just not talked about,” Joel gets excited. “It is perfectly clear that climate protection only works if the richest participate.”

However, the government does not force the richest to reduce their own emissions. Joel emphasizes that she is still working on the necessary ecological transformation.

He says: “Our goal is for people to see that things are going wrong politically in Germany. It cannot be the case that the general public argue about shower times while the wealthy are flying over our heads.”

The problem that activists of the last generation see: when renunciation is talked about, it is always about collective renunciation. “It is never differentiated who has to do without – namely the richest. And not the bottom half of the population,” says Joel.

Huge luxury villas, private jets and yachts are not compatible with maintaining our livelihood.

He emphasizes:

Especially since politicians are responsible for changing the preconditions in such a way that climate-friendly decisions are also more favourable. And easier.

Exactly the opposite is the case today, exclaims Joel. “And that means that the bottom half of the population is increasingly unable to afford things, while the wealthiest have the money to pay high prices – so they can buy their freedom.”

To stick with the nurse example: The energy renovation of their apartment – ​​the conversion of a gas heating system to a heat pump, for example – had to be financed.

“If she lives in the countryside, she should be able to keep driving around in a car – then an electric car. We need better public transport in the cities, so that a car is unnecessary there,” says Joel. And in a climate-neutral world, she would travel to Italy by night train instead of by plane. He adds: “That would not be an exemption. Nowadays, however, the train is much more expensive than the plane – something is clearly wrong there.”

Even though activists this summer have turned their protests increasingly against symbols of wealth, they still don’t want to end the roadblocks. This is because they could exert the “greatest political pressure”. Joel says:

Their requirements do not change either. It remains the case that the last generation is asking the government, among other things, to convene a social consultation.

This would put decision-making power on the subject of climate protection in the hands of randomly drawn citizens, who would be advised by scientific committees on the decision-making process. The intention behind the proposal: if laws and climate protection measures come from the middle of society, they will also become more popular.

In Ireland, for example, it became clear that this concept works: There, with the help of a citizens’ council, the strict regulation that abortion is prohibited in almost all cases could be changed. The government there had long shied away from a decision – for fear of losing voters. Instead, a randomly chosen citizens’ assembly met and voted to change the law. With success: the will of the people was carried out.

The activists of the last generation are convinced that this success can be repeated in Germany. And finally, faster and more effective climate protection could be enforced by society for society.

(t-online/dsc)