3 ms·

>Burning lignite is the most ridiculous thing you can do. It would literally be better for the climate to import coal from Australia and burn that. It would li

by vjcbe 7y ago

>Burning lignite is the most ridiculous thing you can do. It would literally be better for the climate to import coal from Australia and burn that. It would literally be better to destroy thousands of jobs and depend on another country for some of your energy needs? Well let me dispute that. According to Wikipedia, "27 percent of Germany's electricity came from lignite power plants"

adrianN 7y ago
Yes it would literally be better for the climate, as I said. If you don't want to depend on another country for your energy needs, how about you use the abundant resources of wind and solar? They have the benefit of not destroying the livelihood of future generations. Right now about 100k jobs in the wind energy sector in Germany are in immediate danger because the government essentially stopped all new construction. Already 80k jobs in the solar industry are lost to China. So please don't tell me about the 20k jobs in coal (or 60k or whatever if you count secondary industries).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
paganel 7y ago
If those thousands of jobs have big negative externalities then the answer is “yes”. Mining of lignite has very big negative externalities.
alkonaut 7y ago
Obviously if you shut fossil plants and import fossil energy that’s a failure. I don’t understand why “jobs” is even a part of the discussion here. What percentage of the workforce is in fossil energy production? Has to be tiny.
- _ph_ 7y ago
  It is certainly less than the jobs being created when using reneweable energies. "Jobs" would be a great argument in favour of reneweables, all environmental reasons aside.
x3ro 7y ago
The "jobs" argument is a common myth. There are very little jobs in this industry (around 10000). In comparison, the German government has destroyed several times that amount by recently removing subsidies from solar power development (coal is still subsidized).
- imtringued 7y ago
  Coal towns are still a thing but solar towns never existed.
  - kuschku 7y ago
    Wind towns do exist, and are right now getting destroyed, with many people losing their jobs left and right due to the current conservative german government preferring coal and reducing the money that goes into renewables. It’s been all over the local news in recent years — be it Senvion, Enercon, Powerblades, or any of the other companies affected, with entire towns losing half of their jobs or more. https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/schleswig-holstein/Senvion-Sind-die-Arbeitsplaetze-noch-zu-retten,senvion214.html https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/schleswig-holstein/Senvion-Si... https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/Windenergie-Branche-bangt-um-Jobs,windenergie506.html https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/Windenergie-Branche-bangt-um-... https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/oldenburg_ostfriesland/Enercon-Jobabbau-Bundesministerium-bleibt-locker,enercon186.html https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/oldenburg_ostfr...
- jstimpfle 7y ago
  s/little/few

by vjcbe 7y ago

adrianN 7y ago

Yes it would literally be better for the climate, as I said. If you don't want to depend on another country for your energy needs, how about you use the abundant resources of wind and solar? They have the benefit of not destroying the livelihood of future generations. Right now about 100k jobs in the wind energy sector in Germany are in immediate danger because the government essentially stopped all new construction. Already 80k jobs in the solar industry are lost to China. So please don't tell me about the 20k jobs in coal (or 60k or whatever if you count secondary industries).

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

paganel 7y ago

If those thousands of jobs have big negative externalities then the answer is “yes”. Mining of lignite has very big negative externalities.

alkonaut 7y ago

Obviously if you shut fossil plants and import fossil energy that’s a failure. I don’t understand why “jobs” is even a part of the discussion here. What percentage of the workforce is in fossil energy production? Has to be tiny.

_ph_ 7y ago
It is certainly less than the jobs being created when using reneweable energies. "Jobs" would be a great argument in favour of reneweables, all environmental reasons aside.

x3ro 7y ago

The "jobs" argument is a common myth. There are very little jobs in this industry (around 10000). In comparison, the German government has destroyed several times that amount by recently removing subsidies from solar power development (coal is still subsidized).

imtringued 7y ago
Coal towns are still a thing but solar towns never existed.
- kuschku 7y ago
  Wind towns do exist, and are right now getting destroyed, with many people losing their jobs left and right due to the current conservative german government preferring coal and reducing the money that goes into renewables. It’s been all over the local news in recent years — be it Senvion, Enercon, Powerblades, or any of the other companies affected, with entire towns losing half of their jobs or more. https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/schleswig-holstein/Senvion-Sind-die-Arbeitsplaetze-noch-zu-retten,senvion214.html https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/schleswig-holstein/Senvion-Si... https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/Windenergie-Branche-bangt-um-Jobs,windenergie506.html https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/Windenergie-Branche-bangt-um-... https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/oldenburg_ostfriesland/Enercon-Jobabbau-Bundesministerium-bleibt-locker,enercon186.html https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/oldenburg_ostfr...
jstimpfle 7y ago
s/little/few