4 ms·

> accelerated a preexisting plan in Germany to completely phase out nuclear power by the end of 2022 That's a bit misleading. This is how it went: - in 2002,

by rob74 6y ago

> accelerated a preexisting plan in Germany to completely phase out nuclear power by the end of 2022 That's a bit misleading. This is how it went: - in 2002, the Social-Democrat/Green (Schröder) government decided to phase out nuclear power by 2021. - in 2010, the Christian-Democrat/Liberal (Merkel) government decided to delay that plan. - in 2011, after Fukushima, they made a U-turn, which led to the current phase-out that will (probably) be completed in 2022. (see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomgesetz_(Deutschland)#Novellierung_2002 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomgesetz_(Deutschland)#Novel... - in German) So Fukushima didn't accelerate the plan, it actually forced the Merkel government to return to the preexisting plan...

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
It didn’t force Merkel to do anything. It was just a cheap opportunity to try and grab a few Green votes.
- rob74 6y ago
  Well yeah, in a democracy popular opinion will force you to do things if you want to win the next election. If you want proof that Merkel's instinct wasn't entirely wrong, you can take a look at the results of the 2013 election: her party (CDU/CSU) gained 7,7 points to 41,5 percent, while the FDP, who were seen as representing the industrial lobby, dropped a whopping 9,8 points to 4,8 percent (and out of the Bundestag, because a party has to get at least 5% to be represented there).
  - ChuckNorris89 6y ago
    >in a democracy popular opinion will force you to do things if you want to win the next election Well, there's the problem with our type of democracy. It boils down to a popularity contest instead of a competence one, so politicians will do or say whatever gets them re-elected instead of what's good for the long term being of the country/voters/society. Much like the focus on the "next quarter" of CEOs, that ends up ruining companies long term at the expense of quick profits short term, politicians in the west focus only on the "next election" instead of major issues like housing, education, pensions, demographics, infrastructure, defense, immigration, all of which require long term planning to get right but nobody cares as they just keep kicking the can down the road and hope they won't be in the office by the time shit really hits the fan. And when the shit does eventually hit the fan, whoever will be in office will just blame the predecessors for knowing X was unsustainable and not having done anything about it. Rinse and repeat.
    - toyg 6y ago
      I don't disagree, western democracy is still the worst system of government except for all others that have been tried from time to time. Solutions to short-termism are very welcome, but more often than not they tend to boil down to "someone stays in power for decades", which is not really desirable, is it?
      - ChuckNorris89 6y ago
        >"someone stays in power for decades", which is not really desirable, is it? Which is super ironic as Merkel has been in power since forever, well, 15 years to be exact, but still, way longer than most other EU or western governments.
        toyg 6y ago
        But as mentioned, she had to steer her policies several times to do so. Democracy in action.
      - dsign 6y ago
        There is a simple solution to short-termism: create strong incentives for people to learn in depth about the topics they will press the politicians about. Even better, down that same road you can get effective direct democracy where everybody has a direct vote for the laws, and the legislative is no longer a representative body.
    - wazoox 6y ago
      Notice that the devolution of democracy into a "popularity contest" isn't a given: the French "Convention citoyenne pour le climat" proved that informed (and not propagandized) citizens can make rational political choices when given a chance.
    - contravariant 6y ago
      You can either see it as a problem or as its main feature. It's not great but at least it's better than public opinion having 0 effect on policy.
- lispm 6y ago
  > It didn’t force Merkel to do anything Merkel would have governed against the strong will of the Germans to get rid of nuclear ASAP. This topic has been intensely discussed in Germany for two decades already. That was not a sustainable position. Mass protests would have awaited the government.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    > Merkel would have governed against the strong will Her changing positions got a 10 point bump. It’s a large group for sure, but it’s still just placating dimwits to gain quick political support to stay in power. The vast majority clearly didn’t care.
    - lispm 6y ago
      > just placating dimwits Only shows your lack of respect for the voters. > The vast majority clearly didn’t care. The vast majority did care. It was one of the hottest and longest debated politics topics. Merkel knew everything about it, since she was before the responsible minister.
      - kortilla 6y ago
        > Only shows your lack of respect for the voters. Lack of respect specifically for 10 percent of the voters who changed their view of a politician to a positive based solely on her caving into populist pressure to adopt a bad energy policy. People are too ignorant to decide in any form of direct democracy how safe nuclear is. These dimwits chose to accelerate climate change (a well-known acute global problem) over nuclear power because “nuclear is scary” and didn’t support Merkel until she agreed. Despicable. > The vast majority did care. It was one of the hottest and longest debated politics topics Nope. The 10 point change showed how little it mattered. “Hottest political topics” just means people interested in national politics. It’s still irrelevant to the majority.
    - okl 6y ago
      Here is a survey from April 2011 that proves you wrong: https://www.infratest-dimap.de/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/dt1104_bericht.pdf https://www.infratest-dimap.de/fileadmin/_migrated/content_u...
jojobas 6y ago
And Schroder is now chairing Rosneft, Putin's oil extraction and export conglomerate. Talk about putting Rick Belluzzo to shame.
- dsnr 6y ago
  I hate this new HN culture of downvoting completely accurate statements when they don‘t align with the hivemind‘s ideas. Ok, maybe not the most insightful comment, but completely true. Schröder pushed denuclearization and advocated for the switch to natural gas (which is so convenient for Russia that he‘s now very close to Putin and held top positions in Russian energy companies)
  - wmiel 6y ago
    What is more, the Nord Stream I and II pipes were put under the Baltic Sea to bypass Poland and Ukraine and avoid extending existing pipes, not because it was economically viable. This is a political decision that hits Ukraine geopolitically. It increased German and European dependency on Russian natural gas and decreases political costs of Russian hostility against Ukraine significantly.
    - fuoqi 6y ago
      No, don't trust the US propaganda used to promote its more expensive LNG and keep European countries in its leash. Both of Nord Streams are commercial projects first and foremost. IIRC they have payback period of something like from 10 to 15 years, which is quite reasonable for an infrastructure project. Look at the map, primary source of natural gas today in Russia is the Yamal peninsula, and path from it to Germany through the Baltic is shorter than through Ukraine. Also take a look at companies which invest into the project, almost half of the cost is paid by the European companies. Do you think they would invest so heavily into a purely geopolitical project? Also it's a common sense to reduce your transportation risks, both Poland and Ukraine are clearly hostile towards Russia (does not matter why and who is responsible for that in your opinion), so why would you not avoid their territory for transportation of one of your main exports if it's possible? We already have seen how disputes can cause a significant disruption in 2008-2009 and now Poland tries to fine Gazprom for a ridiculous sum for building Nord Stream 2 (sic!). And finally Ukrainian gas transportation system is in a dire need of rehabilitation and modernization, e.g. due to its poor state they recently had a gas explosion near the Lubny city. The Ukrainian state does not have funds for it, Russia will not do it for obvious reasons, and Europe does not want to pay for it either. >It increased German and European dependency on Russian natural gas Blatantly false. Consumption of Russian natural gas has been more or less stagnant for a decade and does not show any signs of future growth. It has even shrunk, in 2007 Russia supplied 626 billion m3, while in 2018 only 549. If anything it will only decrease in the following decades. For example according to a Gazprom's model it will peak in 2027 around 580 billion m3 and will steadily decline thereafter.

by rob74 6y ago

read_if_gay_ 6y ago

It didn’t force Merkel to do anything. It was just a cheap opportunity to try and grab a few Green votes.

rob74 6y ago
Well yeah, in a democracy popular opinion will force you to do things if you want to win the next election. If you want proof that Merkel's instinct wasn't entirely wrong, you can take a look at the results of the 2013 election: her party (CDU/CSU) gained 7,7 points to 41,5 percent, while the FDP, who were seen as representing the industrial lobby, dropped a whopping 9,8 points to 4,8 percent (and out of the Bundestag, because a party has to get at least 5% to be represented there).
- ChuckNorris89 6y ago
  >in a democracy popular opinion will force you to do things if you want to win the next election Well, there's the problem with our type of democracy. It boils down to a popularity contest instead of a competence one, so politicians will do or say whatever gets them re-elected instead of what's good for the long term being of the country/voters/society. Much like the focus on the "next quarter" of CEOs, that ends up ruining companies long term at the expense of quick profits short term, politicians in the west focus only on the "next election" instead of major issues like housing, education, pensions, demographics, infrastructure, defense, immigration, all of which require long term planning to get right but nobody cares as they just keep kicking the can down the road and hope they won't be in the office by the time shit really hits the fan. And when the shit does eventually hit the fan, whoever will be in office will just blame the predecessors for knowing X was unsustainable and not having done anything about it. Rinse and repeat.
  - toyg 6y ago
    I don't disagree, western democracy is still the worst system of government except for all others that have been tried from time to time. Solutions to short-termism are very welcome, but more often than not they tend to boil down to "someone stays in power for decades", which is not really desirable, is it?
    - ChuckNorris89 6y ago
      >"someone stays in power for decades", which is not really desirable, is it? Which is super ironic as Merkel has been in power since forever, well, 15 years to be exact, but still, way longer than most other EU or western governments.
      - toyg 6y ago
        But as mentioned, she had to steer her policies several times to do so. Democracy in action.
    - dsign 6y ago
      There is a simple solution to short-termism: create strong incentives for people to learn in depth about the topics they will press the politicians about. Even better, down that same road you can get effective direct democracy where everybody has a direct vote for the laws, and the legislative is no longer a representative body.
  - wazoox 6y ago
    Notice that the devolution of democracy into a "popularity contest" isn't a given: the French "Convention citoyenne pour le climat" proved that informed (and not propagandized) citizens can make rational political choices when given a chance.
  - contravariant 6y ago
    You can either see it as a problem or as its main feature. It's not great but at least it's better than public opinion having 0 effect on policy.
lispm 6y ago
> It didn’t force Merkel to do anything Merkel would have governed against the strong will of the Germans to get rid of nuclear ASAP. This topic has been intensely discussed in Germany for two decades already. That was not a sustainable position. Mass protests would have awaited the government.
- kortilla 6y ago
  > Merkel would have governed against the strong will Her changing positions got a 10 point bump. It’s a large group for sure, but it’s still just placating dimwits to gain quick political support to stay in power. The vast majority clearly didn’t care.
  - lispm 6y ago
    > just placating dimwits Only shows your lack of respect for the voters. > The vast majority clearly didn’t care. The vast majority did care. It was one of the hottest and longest debated politics topics. Merkel knew everything about it, since she was before the responsible minister.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      > Only shows your lack of respect for the voters. Lack of respect specifically for 10 percent of the voters who changed their view of a politician to a positive based solely on her caving into populist pressure to adopt a bad energy policy. People are too ignorant to decide in any form of direct democracy how safe nuclear is. These dimwits chose to accelerate climate change (a well-known acute global problem) over nuclear power because “nuclear is scary” and didn’t support Merkel until she agreed. Despicable. > The vast majority did care. It was one of the hottest and longest debated politics topics Nope. The 10 point change showed how little it mattered. “Hottest political topics” just means people interested in national politics. It’s still irrelevant to the majority.
  - okl 6y ago
    Here is a survey from April 2011 that proves you wrong: https://www.infratest-dimap.de/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/dt1104_bericht.pdf https://www.infratest-dimap.de/fileadmin/_migrated/content_u...

jojobas 6y ago

And Schroder is now chairing Rosneft, Putin's oil extraction and export conglomerate. Talk about putting Rick Belluzzo to shame.

dsnr 6y ago
I hate this new HN culture of downvoting completely accurate statements when they don‘t align with the hivemind‘s ideas. Ok, maybe not the most insightful comment, but completely true. Schröder pushed denuclearization and advocated for the switch to natural gas (which is so convenient for Russia that he‘s now very close to Putin and held top positions in Russian energy companies)
- wmiel 6y ago
  What is more, the Nord Stream I and II pipes were put under the Baltic Sea to bypass Poland and Ukraine and avoid extending existing pipes, not because it was economically viable. This is a political decision that hits Ukraine geopolitically. It increased German and European dependency on Russian natural gas and decreases political costs of Russian hostility against Ukraine significantly.
  - fuoqi 6y ago
    No, don't trust the US propaganda used to promote its more expensive LNG and keep European countries in its leash. Both of Nord Streams are commercial projects first and foremost. IIRC they have payback period of something like from 10 to 15 years, which is quite reasonable for an infrastructure project. Look at the map, primary source of natural gas today in Russia is the Yamal peninsula, and path from it to Germany through the Baltic is shorter than through Ukraine. Also take a look at companies which invest into the project, almost half of the cost is paid by the European companies. Do you think they would invest so heavily into a purely geopolitical project? Also it's a common sense to reduce your transportation risks, both Poland and Ukraine are clearly hostile towards Russia (does not matter why and who is responsible for that in your opinion), so why would you not avoid their territory for transportation of one of your main exports if it's possible? We already have seen how disputes can cause a significant disruption in 2008-2009 and now Poland tries to fine Gazprom for a ridiculous sum for building Nord Stream 2 (sic!). And finally Ukrainian gas transportation system is in a dire need of rehabilitation and modernization, e.g. due to its poor state they recently had a gas explosion near the Lubny city. The Ukrainian state does not have funds for it, Russia will not do it for obvious reasons, and Europe does not want to pay for it either. >It increased German and European dependency on Russian natural gas Blatantly false. Consumption of Russian natural gas has been more or less stagnant for a decade and does not show any signs of future growth. It has even shrunk, in 2007 Russia supplied 626 billion m3, while in 2018 only 549. If anything it will only decrease in the following decades. For example according to a Gazprom's model it will peak in 2027 around 580 billion m3 and will steadily decline thereafter.