As a German reader I think I can say that the part about Germany is wrong. In Germany the whole deal is about renewable energy. Even though nuclear energy does

As a German reader I think I can say that the part about Germany is wrong. In Germany the whole deal is about renewable energy. Even though nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse gasses and seems to be clean, it is by no means a renewable energy source. For most Germans, clean energy is certainly not the goal, but sustainable and renewable energy is. The article totally confuses these two things. Also, a majority of Germans believes that nuclear energy is just too dangerous to be handled by humans. (Yes, we are pussies in this regard.) The commitment to phase out nuclear energy does not mean to be less commited to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In fact it only means that you have to be more focussed on your goals than before. Personally, I heavily doubt that the cut of 40% in greenhouse gas emissions until 2020 (compared to the level of 1990) will work out. But it is nevertheless good to have these ambitious goals. They have probably led to better legislation to encourage the use of renewable energy than in other countries. On some level these goals put pressure on politicians to do something. If they lead to only 5% reduction, I would already consider it a success. If that scale for success seems stupid to you, you are right. But this is the measurement of success I put on politicians. I don't expect much from them. That's what I learned from the past. Most of them can only think until the next election. 2020 is just too distant to be important for most politicians.