By Bernd Timmerman, historian and sociologist

When you think of climate sceptics, the first thing that comes to mind is people who claim with a smooth face that the sun revolves around the earth. They see what they want to see. This is also the case with the climate.

While most of the science-based evidence really does point in the direction of a climate crisis. Playing dice with CO2 stones is of course not wise, but let’s not be blinded by only the prophets of doom who use the climate to impose it right away. They are crusades with ideological backgrounds.

How big is the actual influence of CO2 and what is the margin of uncertainty? In the arena of debates about the future of the Earth, science is always a tool for policy. Denying facts is unwise for survival. Nor does it make sense to put others in moral corners of shame.

How did it get to this point with the depletion of the earth? The neoliberal world of rulers who applaud world free trade as a new economic religion swear by the self-interest of mankind where consumption is central. Perhaps capitalism is the bringer of prosperity and destruction.

The reality of global warming, in which raw materials and fuels run out and cause too many emissions, is not fiction. Sea level rise, natural disasters and global warming are at least three disasters that should wake people up. It is not a conspiracy of idealists who invent things to impose a different lifestyle with hell and cry damnation in the vicinity of the end times.

An ecological catastrophe on a global level is irreparably the end of 5,000 years of civilization and billions of years of life. Maintaining the production thinking without borders with finite oil reserves is therefore short-term thinking with a destructive attitude. The climate crisis is without a doubt the greatest danger that threatens our planet. Let’s not fall into the traps of denial for wanting to be different.

Droughts, storms, forest fires, climate change can no longer be denied. Tell the honest story, but with the will to make choices that have less of an ideological charge. There are experts who argue that the next 50 years will be a period of misery and the fall of civilizations. Hunger, scarcity, wars and refugee flows.

Because when people talk about the consequences of the climate crisis, they mainly talk about the natural disasters and ultimately the uninhabitability of planet earth. But before this demise, there are the problems where we are already seeing a tip of the veil. The West is under enormous pressure from migrations. This could be the century of the great new migrations that are a prelude to large, protracted and serious conflicts in which a natural disaster is child’s play.

So a prophecy of doom with a tinge of idealism to increase prosperity elsewhere and protect the Westernlifestyle? Self-interest in survival as a human being and as cultural identities is probably human nature. Tackling the climate crisis is a kind of defensive tactic to counter aggression and unrest.

Solving the climate problem, however, means that decisions are needed that hurt and entail costs. A discussion about the changes in consumption and production is more meaningful and sensible than a conversation about denying a climate crisis by chanting that it is a normal cycle with a recovering earth.

The margin of uncertainty within the climate crisis debate is so small that it is better not to roll the dice with chances of survival. Then the climate should not be misused to introduce ideologically tinted changes as political decisions based on scientific certainties that are not always there. The climate crisis as a revolution to tackle overproduction and overconsumption and thus redesign the capitalist world according to its own good ideology.

In order to prevent new wars and population movements, a democratic and peaceful process is needed that involves choices that are sometimes simply compromises. The apocalyptic fear-mongering can have a paralyzing effect and thus lead to onward destruction. Communicating about the climate crisis needs to change. From problem to solution.

The climate deniers are a small minority and it is better to assume – on scientific grounds – that the earth is warming. To another discussion. No longer yes or no, but accepting that the earth revolves around the sun and then looking at possible changes in scenarios. Adding water to the wine without taking fixed positions.

Taking joint responsibility also means making joint choices that are supported in society, but in which politicians also dare to take responsibility for their decisions.

And therein lies the rub. Although tackling the climate crisis is primarily a political task, there must be change from society itself.

Not primarily trying to tackle the underlying problems of the unequal distribution of power and capital through revolution in a master plan, but looking at what is in any case necessary to keep the earth habitable for humans and animals in a relatively safe existence.

In this light, whether renewable energy is the only solution to the climate crisis is dubious. Nuclear energy, in combination with green energy, may indeed be a realistic solution.

Eating plant-based is not only a salvation for animals but also for the environment, but is it realistic and isn’t it wiser to look at cultured meat, less meat and more meat substitutes?

A long-haul flight emits more greenhouse gases than the entire CO2 emissions of a person’s other energy consumption in a year. Are consumers able to look at their own behaviour or do they continue to point the finger at the authorities?

How can CO2 emissions be reduced without measures that are so inhibiting that countries prefer to opt for a muddling through model? Restrictions on free trade and production, it is necessary. Let the best minds in a Manhattan Project come up with solutions in more scenarios.

Acknowledging the climate crisis, that stage has passed. There is a climate crisis. However, the scenarios for solutions should be more open and less devoid of ideology in order to win one’s own right. In the end, this is also about compromise, individual and collective action, and not about creating utopian or dystopian realities.