The individual climate quota

We are interested in solutions, not words. Governance also has something to do with reacting. But it is not only climate activists who are disappointed by our politicians' rigidity. Many citizens also find their statements on the subject of saving the climate discouraging, unimaginative, ineffective and predominantly aimed at maintaining strategic power. It is rhetorically skillfully formulated and argued, talked and talked down. Only one thing is not done - effective action.


Politics has failed, let science take the helm. For there are obvious solutions:


Since our total global emission is too high, it can be concluded that there must be an upper limit to the amount of man-made climate gas that our atmosphere can barely absorb without damage. A maximum level at which our climate would remain just about constant without global processes beginning to tip over.


The total amount of climate gas emission of all nations, or for the beginning only of Europe in the pioneering role, will be determined for a defined period on the basis of serious climate protection calculations, and should never increase during this period.

The aim is therefore to review this maximum cyclically, at reasonable intervals, on the basis of an international scientific expert model and to redefine it again continuously in order to distribute the right to its consumption, or the (exploitation of) this quota, fairly among all. For one thing is undisputed - EVERYONE has an equal right to issue. We should try to distribute this emission maximum according to a clever key, as fairly as possible among all.

Each citizen allocates a certain environmentally compatible quota of personal emissions by a committee, based on current scientific simulations and recommendations, for a specified period of time.


This climate-friendly budget can

  • be used free of charge by themselves
  • be sold proportionally to someone who wants to consume more than the quota of greenhouse gas to which he is entitled or must
  • be increased if necessary, by purchasing from someone who does not need all of his or her quota.

Now, you might say that emissions trading between rich and poor is unfair and that everyone should therefore only consume the quota to which they are entitled. Of course, the environmental crisis cannot be viewed in isolation from social aspects. After all, this question describes two very complex issues that undoubtedly play into each other: the justice problem and the climate problem. Of course, it sounds at first like injustice if some wealthy people can buy more emissions with their money than they are personally entitled to according to the distribution algorithm. Nevertheless, the ECO helps to reduce the wealth gap between rich and poor, because the rich now pay for their increased emissions, which they do not have to do today. Thus, lower-income households would have a potential new source of income from the sale of the quota they do not need themselves, which they do not have today. The ECO therefore not only has a very positive effect of the reduction of emissions, but also a desirable positive side effect, namely greater social justice.

This page was translated with the help of DeepL