ᐅ What is a reasonable cost for a new gas boiler?

Hangman schrieb:

An appealing argument.

But why stop at unborn children and kids?

What do you conclude from the fact that the CO2 footprint of adults is probably even higher? And that of adults in developed countries even higher? And then significantly (!) higher among the wealthy in those countries?

That alone might justify building a mausoleum.

I believe what Rick is trying to point out is that in the climate debate, we cannot argue purely scientifically. Because if we did, in order to maintain a minimum quality of life, we would have to live in tiny apartments within multi-family buildings. Single-family houses, children, new cars, travel, using the internet for leisure, air conditioning, and consumer goods in general are all potentially harmful to the environment. We would have to reduce ourselves to a minimum.

But of course, nobody wants that, so the debate is carried out morally and ethically as well. And here the question arises: who wants and above all who is allowed to set binding rules for the entire population of Germany? Hence the extreme example involving children.

One person generally strives for the greatest possible freedom in their own behavior and thinking, while the other considers certain bans to be completely legitimate and sensible. Now, person 2 brings up the scientific arguments but ignores the moral question. Person 1 argues on moral grounds but possibly neglects the scientific side.

Added to this is, especially in Germany, the financial aspect. We try to influence behavior through money. Unfortunately, this is done by making undesirable behavior very expensive, instead of making the desirable behaviors financially attractive.

Especially people with limited income often simply cannot afford the relatively expensive initial investment (and now we are getting to the point). How is a retired working-class couple supposed to afford switching to a heat pump? So they continue to heat expensively with oil because the ~50,000 euros (about $55,000) just aren’t available.

Do we want to take their house away from them now, because younger people are presumably more entitled to the house and would modernize it? After the elderly couple perhaps built and worked hard for it themselves?

The entire discussion involves incredibly complex issues that require a holistic view and solution. So far, I have seen neither in science nor in politics.

Science has known exactly what to do for 40 years. Solutions for social balance are also available. Politics just won’t listen.
And please, let's take care of ourselves first before blaming our hesitation on elderly, low-income people living in houses that are too large!

Exactly. We agree on that. Everyone should first start with themselves and ask what they are doing, what they want to do, and what they are willing to give up.
Then, it is also necessary to accept that others have different priorities (even if their footprint might already be smaller).
Regarding social equity, I have yet to see a globally viable concept.
We only have limited influence on this, and that influence is decreasing. We can only contribute within our own scope. Unfortunately, this hardly matters as long as Asia, India, and America do not join the effort.

More on-topic: Besides an air-to-water heat pump, you can potentially use a ground-source water-to-water heat pump in former mining areas, for example with the help of a trench collector. Admittedly, this is usually difficult (and often impossible) in existing buildings, but in this case, you can do quite a bit of the work yourself to reduce overall costs.