Being a relatively small and homogeneous group of people, having mainly grown up in Middle Europe and having completed an academic education, we (as the organizational team) have to ask ourselves if we can actually claim the title „grassroots“ climate plan or the climate plan „from below“ for the project we are working on.
We see our core task in providing the infrastructure for a development process that is as grassroots democratic as possible, which is transparent from the beginning and enables an intensive discourse. This at least offers the chance, that the climate plan will reflect a diversity of opinions represented in society. But at the same time, we have a decisive influence on the views represented in the climate plan, especially through the moderation of the individual areas and through our networking and public relations work. So we cannot take a rest on having issued an invitation that does not categorically exclude anyone, but are called upon to constantly be aware of the discrepancy between the grassroots democratic claim and the structurally given exclusivity of our group which leads us to look beyond our own horizons. As of yet, we currently do not have the possibility, due to our narrow capacities, to actually initiate a movement „from below“ - in the sense that a huge part of the society is actually represented.
Furthermore, we understand „from below“ as a claim to avoid an eurocentric viewpoint, that cares little about what our actions do elsewhere in the world and assumes that solutions that work for Europe have some kind of universal validity. This concern is no less difficult because of the facts mentioned at the beginning and must not be confused with the fact that the climate plan will go into many details about given structures of the German state and its abuses of its powers. To show that these structures are based on global and social inequality and that an effective fight against the climate crisis also means to fight against these inequalities is an important concern of us (as the organizational team of the climate plan). This in turn may seem as if we were setting a fundamental tendency. But it should mainly make the political tendencies of the organizers* transparent – the consequence for the climate plan's development process is merely that we seek contact to groups which we hope will represent viewpoints of the global south and give them a special weight in the discourse on just answers to the climate crisis.
Here you will also find our critical reflection on the name "fair1point5"