Deutsche Umwelthilfe once again acts as the supreme authority in environmental protection and condemns German companies to a “red card” because they refused to provide detailed information about the CO2 emissions of executive and company vehicles. 141 out of 166 companies surveyed did not respond at all, climate watchman Jürgen Resch is outraged. The environmental aid criticizes like a prayer wheel: "Executive floors often insist on prestige bodies". Resch should take a look at the fleet of the EU Commission (see my older post on May 5th, 2013). But the same applies there: driving large limousines is not (yet) a criminal offense.
To put it bluntly: those who refused to answer are right. Where would we actually go in this country if we were obliged to provide information about our company cars to a private association of self-appointed environmentalists. What could be the next poll? Information about domestic electricity consumption, how often we take a shower and whether we have well installed saving lights everywhere?
No, of course. The companies that are now being pilloried by the so-called environmental aid for refusing to provide information have acted perfectly right. It is not yet mandatory for us which car to drive. And it is certainly not a criminal offense to submit to a ridiculous survey by an association that is playing itself as a world saver, which has only one goal: to portray and denigrate the automobile and individual freedom, i.e. mobility, as harmful to society. And because that does not work with the best will in the world, environmental aid is trying to "pillory" it under the pretext of climate change. Well, the criticized companies won't take that seriously anyway.
The fact that 80 percent of the companies refused to answer questions from the Climate Inquisition in this survey is a positive signal of sovereignty. It is to be hoped that there will be more in the next survey who do not take part in this stupid survey and let themselves be demonstrated in this way. It's time to defend yourself against this subtle paternalism. It is enough to ignore them and refuse to answer such stupid questions. If, for example, the head of a German premium manufacturer drives up in a small car in the future, that would certainly not be an advertisement for his products. Should Dieter Zetsche and Norbert Reithofer or the other CEOs drive around in their company's entry-level product in the future because this is due to the so-called “climate rescue”? The boss of Deutsche Wohnen AG is criticized because the fleet consumption of his company emits an average of 116 grams of CO2 / km, while his BMW X5 company car emits 198 grams of CO2 / km. What an environmental crime! And then the accusation: the employees should save, the boss treats himself to something. An impertinent example of an ideology directed against the automobile under the guise of “saving the climate”. If the criticism of environmental awareness does not work, at least the envy-frustration should be stoked on the company boss, who is chauffeured in the luxury limousine. Just laughable.