That’s a strangely editorializing headline. Kinda like “Apple to no longer mine Lithium”. Germany will (and has been) buy coal on the market. It’s easily transp

That’s a strangely editorializing headline. Kinda like “Apple to no longer mine Lithium”. Germany will (and has been) buy coal on the market. It’s easily transported by ship (unlike LNG, and, to some extend, oil), and there are lots of producers in many countries, making dependency a non-issue. Also: this isn’t really about environmental concerns. Those just weren’t part of the story when this was decided in the 90s, at least not in terms of global warming. Acid rain, and the local trouble with large cities built on top of the mines grappling with more and more geological disturbances were a concern, but the real reasons were simply economics: German coal had become too expensive (around two decades ago). Shutting down it’s heavily-subsidized mining is also consistent with the stated goals of reducing CO_2, because buying on the world market will (slightly) raise prices. There’s also the minor inaccuracy that Germany will continue mining lignite for a few years, although I guess that’s an acceptable simplification within the constraints of a headline. The winding down of the coal industry is actually somewhat of a model for such processes. This used to be a hugely influential industry, both in economic powers, as well as cultural. Growing up in the 90s, I remember strikes, protests, and other events around the mining industry and its original boom towns featuring in the news about every second day. To find compromises that did not satisfy any stakeholders, but succeeded in keeping the peace and, at long last, lead to an environmentally responsible energy strategy was quite a feat.