5 ms·

Basically Germany will miss the goal of a 40% reduction by 2020 with only reducing CO2 by 30%. Beside coal/gas power, mostly from closing nuclear power plants.

Basically Germany will miss the goal of a 40% reduction by 2020 with only reducing CO2 by 30%. Beside coal/gas power, mostly from closing nuclear power plants. For example a quarter of CO2 emission in Berlin is coming from two Vattenfall coal power plants. Other effects are larger increase in people and economic growth. I have been buying renewable energy for 15 years, but not many/not enough people in Germany care. On a positive note renewable energy is 35% in Germany.

guitarbill 9y ago
This largely coincides with the Green Party's rise in popularity. Sadly it seems they have no real plan, only ideology. IMO this is why they've prioritised shutting down nuclear power over coal power, because demonstrating against nuclear power is almost required to be a member, but sensible policies are not. I don't think you can blame Merkel, she doesn't really have a hard stance on most topics - if anything, the opposite is true, and her position on many things is vague or pragmatic. It seems to me that the popularity of Martin Schulz and the AfD are a direct response to that.
- hannob 9y ago
  > This largely coincides with the Green Party's rise in popularity. The green party could probably profit much more from those topics if one had the feeling they'd be more trustworthy in those issues. Particularly in the diesel emissions scandal the greens are a big failure - the reason being that the greens form the government in southwest Germany (Baden Württemberg), which has a strong car industry.
  - guitarbill 9y ago
    I'm from Baden Württemberg, and I'm not sure how strong the car industry is any more. For example, every year a bit more autobahn has a speed restriction applied to it. I think you're spot on though. The diesel emissions scandal is made worse by the fact that diesel was promoted in the EU because the CO2 emissions tend to be lower than petrol. This is reflected by diesel vs petrol prices in France or Germany (diesel was/is? cheaper per 100km), compared to the UK where diesel wasn't as popular.
    - wink 9y ago
      Where do you get this rise from? 2009 - 10.7% 2013 - 8.4% 2017 - 8-10% (projections) Only B-W has a ruling Green Party, I'd they they're still mostly at 10% everywhere else.
      - qznc 9y ago
        Living in Baden-Württemberg is probably the reason. Green is the strongest party there (2016 30%). They are ahead of CDU (Merkels party) for two periods now.
        wink 9y ago
        Yes, that's why I claim it's a local thing :)
        guitarbill 9y ago
        Fair enough, the point I was trying to make is that it's more than just Merkel + some lobbying, and that this article is badly written and mostly rubbish.
    - pgeorgi 9y ago
      Not sure about the situation in France, but in Germany the diesel/petrol difference is much older than any CO2 concerns. Here, Diesel is taxed less than petrol, originally as a measure to support agriculture (who traditionally use Diesel engines on the field). There's a slightly higher tax on the car itself with a Diesel engine. Together this makes Diesel cheaper if you're using your car _a lot_, and so vehicle fleets (corporate, car rental, ...) are all Diesel based. That's hard to roll back politically (since it's cutting into expensive investments of huge organisations).
- cygx 9y ago
  the popularity of Martin Schulz That's a good one!
daemin 9y ago
Closing all of the Nuclear power plants after Fukushima was a bit of a dumb reactionary move. It's shifted power generation from emission free Nuclear to dirty emission heavy coal, which emits more radioactive Uranium into the atmosphere than a Nuclear plant (or so I am led to believe). It's basically paying lip-service to being environmentally friendly so that you can feel good about yourself while doing nothing productive. Kind of like having separate bins for recycling, green waste, and general rubbish in the home/office but in the end just emptying all of them into the same place.
- pgeorgi 9y ago
  > Closing all of the Nuclear power plants after Fukushima was a bit of a dumb reactionary move. It's shifted power generation from emission free Nuclear to dirty emission heavy coal There was a plan in place since 2002 to shut down all nuclear plants by about 2020 (plus/minus some, since the criteria was amount of power emitted per plant). That plan was cancelled in 2010 by Merkel, replaced by a more generous plan (deadline: 2022) a year later after Fukushima.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    Why was that the plan initially? I'm not up on the history of this one.
    - pgeorgi 9y ago
      In 1998, we got an SPD/Greens coalition government (with SPD being left-ish). The Green party formed in the late 1980s from various ecological initiatives, among them groups that protested against the use of nuclear power as an energy source. Therefore quitting nuclear power was part of that government's DNA. 2002: In 2000 they managed to create an accord on ending the use of nuclear power plants, signed by the various affected parties in 2001 and turned into law in 2002. The law forbade the creation of new nuclear power plants (not that it mattered much: the last one went online in 1989), set a limit of "an average of 32 years of operation" for existing sites, and that there may be a total energy production of 2.62 million GWh through nuclear power in Germany, counting from January 1, 2000. By December 31, 2008 a good half of that amount was generated. There were some other new requirements as part of the 2002 law: regular safety controls, no nuclear reprocessing, a requirement to setup sites for temporary storage of nuclear waste, tenfold increase to 2.5bn EUR for the mandatory insurance operators had to take against incidents (with no limit in personal liability if they were at fault). 2010: In 2009, Germany got a new management (CDU/FDP: Merkel's CDU, that we consider conservative, with the FDP as a highly fiscal conservative / corporation friendly side-kick). They quickly drafted a new deal which went into effect in 2010: The 7 oldest plants were granted 8 more years of operation each. The other 10 plants got 14 more years. But still no permits for new plants. (so enthusiasm was... low) Everybody else was checking various legal venues to stop the law from going into force. 2011: Fukushima happens. In Germany, the highly contentious decision from yesteryear (still hotly debated) meets the fears of a nuclear wasteland. Within days the 7 oldest plants that were just granted 8 more years (plus a newer one that was notoriously problematic) were ordered to shut down for a few months until things are sorted out. Within 5 months, there was another revision of the law on nuclear power, which required those 8 plants to remain shut down. It also defined various lifetimes for the other plants, none staying in operation into 2023. The first of the remaining sites went offline recently, for the others there's a map with their schedule at http://www.bmub.bund.de/themen/atomenergie-strahlenschutz/nukleare-sicherheit/aufsicht-ueber-kernkraftwerke/kernkraftwerke-in-deutschland/ http://www.bmub.bund.de/themen/atomenergie-strahlenschutz/nu... End result: The latest plants went online in 1989, so for them the "average 32 years life time" would have been in 2021. Since various older plants were running longer than their 32 years, 2021 would be a good guess, if a bit on the high end. However assuming that power generation in nuclear power plants is somewhat constant over the years, with some reduction over time due to plants shutting down, these 2.62 million GWh might have lasted until 2018 or so. Merkel is now held responsible for "shutting down nuclear power in Germany" by the end of 2022. Which, to me, looks like an extensions, not a restriction of nuclear power in Germany. (Details taken from https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomkonsens https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomkonsens and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomgesetz_(Deutschland) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomgesetz_(Deutschland) )
_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
But I might add, for some perspective and concerning the "Who’s the world’s leading eco-vandal? It’s Angela Merkel " the US has 67% higher CO2 emissions per capita than Germany, Australia 94% and Qatar 314%.

guitarbill 9y ago

This largely coincides with the Green Party's rise in popularity. Sadly it seems they have no real plan, only ideology. IMO this is why they've prioritised shutting down nuclear power over coal power, because demonstrating against nuclear power is almost required to be a member, but sensible policies are not. I don't think you can blame Merkel, she doesn't really have a hard stance on most topics - if anything, the opposite is true, and her position on many things is vague or pragmatic. It seems to me that the popularity of Martin Schulz and the AfD are a direct response to that.

hannob 9y ago
> This largely coincides with the Green Party's rise in popularity. The green party could probably profit much more from those topics if one had the feeling they'd be more trustworthy in those issues. Particularly in the diesel emissions scandal the greens are a big failure - the reason being that the greens form the government in southwest Germany (Baden Württemberg), which has a strong car industry.
- guitarbill 9y ago
  I'm from Baden Württemberg, and I'm not sure how strong the car industry is any more. For example, every year a bit more autobahn has a speed restriction applied to it. I think you're spot on though. The diesel emissions scandal is made worse by the fact that diesel was promoted in the EU because the CO2 emissions tend to be lower than petrol. This is reflected by diesel vs petrol prices in France or Germany (diesel was/is? cheaper per 100km), compared to the UK where diesel wasn't as popular.
  - wink 9y ago
    Where do you get this rise from? 2009 - 10.7% 2013 - 8.4% 2017 - 8-10% (projections) Only B-W has a ruling Green Party, I'd they they're still mostly at 10% everywhere else.
    - qznc 9y ago
      Living in Baden-Württemberg is probably the reason. Green is the strongest party there (2016 30%). They are ahead of CDU (Merkels party) for two periods now.
      - wink 9y ago
        Yes, that's why I claim it's a local thing :)
        guitarbill 9y ago
        Fair enough, the point I was trying to make is that it's more than just Merkel + some lobbying, and that this article is badly written and mostly rubbish.
  - pgeorgi 9y ago
    Not sure about the situation in France, but in Germany the diesel/petrol difference is much older than any CO2 concerns. Here, Diesel is taxed less than petrol, originally as a measure to support agriculture (who traditionally use Diesel engines on the field). There's a slightly higher tax on the car itself with a Diesel engine. Together this makes Diesel cheaper if you're using your car _a lot_, and so vehicle fleets (corporate, car rental, ...) are all Diesel based. That's hard to roll back politically (since it's cutting into expensive investments of huge organisations).
cygx 9y ago
the popularity of Martin Schulz That's a good one!

daemin 9y ago

Closing all of the Nuclear power plants after Fukushima was a bit of a dumb reactionary move. It's shifted power generation from emission free Nuclear to dirty emission heavy coal, which emits more radioactive Uranium into the atmosphere than a Nuclear plant (or so I am led to believe). It's basically paying lip-service to being environmentally friendly so that you can feel good about yourself while doing nothing productive. Kind of like having separate bins for recycling, green waste, and general rubbish in the home/office but in the end just emptying all of them into the same place.

pgeorgi 9y ago
> Closing all of the Nuclear power plants after Fukushima was a bit of a dumb reactionary move. It's shifted power generation from emission free Nuclear to dirty emission heavy coal There was a plan in place since 2002 to shut down all nuclear plants by about 2020 (plus/minus some, since the criteria was amount of power emitted per plant). That plan was cancelled in 2010 by Merkel, replaced by a more generous plan (deadline: 2022) a year later after Fukushima.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  Why was that the plan initially? I'm not up on the history of this one.
  - pgeorgi 9y ago
    In 1998, we got an SPD/Greens coalition government (with SPD being left-ish). The Green party formed in the late 1980s from various ecological initiatives, among them groups that protested against the use of nuclear power as an energy source. Therefore quitting nuclear power was part of that government's DNA. 2002: In 2000 they managed to create an accord on ending the use of nuclear power plants, signed by the various affected parties in 2001 and turned into law in 2002. The law forbade the creation of new nuclear power plants (not that it mattered much: the last one went online in 1989), set a limit of "an average of 32 years of operation" for existing sites, and that there may be a total energy production of 2.62 million GWh through nuclear power in Germany, counting from January 1, 2000. By December 31, 2008 a good half of that amount was generated. There were some other new requirements as part of the 2002 law: regular safety controls, no nuclear reprocessing, a requirement to setup sites for temporary storage of nuclear waste, tenfold increase to 2.5bn EUR for the mandatory insurance operators had to take against incidents (with no limit in personal liability if they were at fault). 2010: In 2009, Germany got a new management (CDU/FDP: Merkel's CDU, that we consider conservative, with the FDP as a highly fiscal conservative / corporation friendly side-kick). They quickly drafted a new deal which went into effect in 2010: The 7 oldest plants were granted 8 more years of operation each. The other 10 plants got 14 more years. But still no permits for new plants. (so enthusiasm was... low) Everybody else was checking various legal venues to stop the law from going into force. 2011: Fukushima happens. In Germany, the highly contentious decision from yesteryear (still hotly debated) meets the fears of a nuclear wasteland. Within days the 7 oldest plants that were just granted 8 more years (plus a newer one that was notoriously problematic) were ordered to shut down for a few months until things are sorted out. Within 5 months, there was another revision of the law on nuclear power, which required those 8 plants to remain shut down. It also defined various lifetimes for the other plants, none staying in operation into 2023. The first of the remaining sites went offline recently, for the others there's a map with their schedule at http://www.bmub.bund.de/themen/atomenergie-strahlenschutz/nukleare-sicherheit/aufsicht-ueber-kernkraftwerke/kernkraftwerke-in-deutschland/ http://www.bmub.bund.de/themen/atomenergie-strahlenschutz/nu... End result: The latest plants went online in 1989, so for them the "average 32 years life time" would have been in 2021. Since various older plants were running longer than their 32 years, 2021 would be a good guess, if a bit on the high end. However assuming that power generation in nuclear power plants is somewhat constant over the years, with some reduction over time due to plants shutting down, these 2.62 million GWh might have lasted until 2018 or so. Merkel is now held responsible for "shutting down nuclear power in Germany" by the end of 2022. Which, to me, looks like an extensions, not a restriction of nuclear power in Germany. (Details taken from https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomkonsens https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomkonsens and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomgesetz_(Deutschland) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomgesetz_(Deutschland) )

_Codemonkeyism 9y ago

But I might add, for some perspective and concerning the "Who’s the world’s leading eco-vandal? It’s Angela Merkel " the US has 67% higher CO2 emissions per capita than Germany, Australia 94% and Qatar 314%.