5 ms·

Sometimes I wonder if the Greens are actually funded by petrol companies because everything they do seems to benefit them in the end. In Switzerland the Greens

Sometimes I wonder if the Greens are actually funded by petrol companies because everything they do seems to benefit them in the end. In Switzerland the Greens are trying to be as dumb as the German ones.

recuter 5y ago
Old people vote more. Old hippies vote harder. Hippies are impressionable and watched a lot of Hollywood movies like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Syndrome And more recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries) Jane Fonda is a sexy grandma who still got it, she stopped the war in Vietnam and got us in shape. With our powers combined, we are Captain Planet? We were elected to lead not to read! Here is an additional thought: if you dedicate an entire party completely and totally to solving one problem, what happens to them if the problem actually gets solved? Seems like a single issue politician is exclusively incentivized to shift blame in order to get re-elected rather than, you know, do anything constructive. France is something like 70%+ nuclear powered, they got it all sorted for the rest of the century. Not much for the greenie weenies to do.
- pjc50 5y ago
  I'm old enough to remember when Chernobyl was on the news, not a fictionalised version. The initial "discard all milk production across Europe" phase lasted a few weeks, but the last restrictions in the UK took 26 years to lift: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-18299228 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-18299228 (it's also been in the news recently as it was right in the middle of the Russian assault on Kyiv!) The French nuclear mix is currently 58% : https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energy-source https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energ... because a large number of reactors are offline: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1549986/macron-france-nuclear-power-edf-civaux-flamanville https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1549986/macron-france... There are two problems with nuclear power: - a "black swan" low probability risk of something really bad happening, despite everyone saying it can't happen, and poisoning the surrounding area - it's expensive, takes a long time to build, and can develop expensive problems. Many of the French reactors are approaching the end of their 50 year design life. That said, it was definitely a mistake for Germany to close plants without a specific safety risk.
  - recuter 5y ago
    Germany is the 4th largest economy in the world with pretty regular budget surpluses. I think that's what you might call penny wise pound foolish, is there a saying like that in German? Black swan events are nothing to make light of. I mean technically there's also a "black swan" risk of a meteor destroying the earth or monkeys flying out of my butt. I guess they aren't that good at that whole engineering thing anymore and just can't handle this as well as the French. ;)
  - winkeltripel 5y ago
    My argument for nuclear: the alternative low-carbon base load is grid-scale lithium ion batteries. That tech is ,(AFAIK) 10 years out from reaching both the scale and price point needed. Also note that solar and wind need enormous amounts of land.
nix23 5y ago
But in Switzerland the population voted against nuclear energy, and with that we "the people" are as stupid as the green party, right?
- baq 5y ago
  somebody convinced the Swiss that benefits are not worth the risk and/or costs; it's quite clear now that some of the risk of being reliant on gas was... understated. the greens, for all my love of the environment for the sake of my grandkids, are blind to geopolitics, and I used to think this is just naivety; I'm starting to doubt that considering the extent of FSB's and GRU's influence.
- recuter 5y ago
  Yes.
- archerx 5y ago
  >'and with that we "the people" are as stupid as the green party, right?' Yes.
  - nix23 5y ago
    But we can import it from france and we have hydro, why even care about the nuclear-waste and all the negative sides of it. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-get-75--of-power-from-renewable-sources/46016854 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-get-75--of-power-from-ren...
    - recuter 5y ago
      Nuclear Power - Bad from inside Switzerland, Okie Dokie from France. Their reactor in Bugey is like 200km from the one you're shutting down early. Man.. it would sure be funny if France elected some eccentric far right character for additional excitement.
      - nix23 5y ago
        >Okie Dokie for France. Yes why not? They take the risk, we pay them for. >eccentric far right character for additional excitement. Is the far right not happy making money?
throwaway4aday 5y ago
You're not wrong but I don't think they're the only backers. The anti-nuke movement is a rat's nest of perverse influences.
vimy 5y ago
Gazprom funds green NGOs in Europe. The dogmatic anti-nuclear energy minister in Belgium has ties to Gazprom. Europe gets 40 % of their gas from Russia. In the 90s most of the gas came from Europe itself until all those wells shut down under Green pressure.
pilsetnieks 5y ago
Not just some petrol companies, by Gazprom itself: https://www.transparency.org/en/press/germany-state-government-conceals-gazprom-connection-controversial-environmental-foundation-beneficial-ownership https://www.transparency.org/en/press/germany-state-governme...
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  That's not a green group, it's just a front for Gazprom. Just like the fake "Whale conservation" group fighting wind power off Nantucket is a front. If you want to criticize something as large as the Environmental movement, and you can't even find one real example to cite then maybe that means something. If you can't criticize them, don't bring up people that are larping as them for their own ends.
  - pilsetnieks 5y ago
    But that is entirely the point - the environmentalists as a whole are not the problem, the problem is the groups that usurp the mantle and push for policy contrary to the wider group's agenda. I'm not criticizing people who fight against pollution, animal cruelty, and fossil fuel abuse; I'm criticizing people pretending to be environmentalists yet lobbying for fossil fuel increase and dismantling cleaner alternatives.
dxuh 5y ago
Even though it's very often stupidity instead of evilness, I really think that they are not stupid. They started as a pacifist party and now they passed the largest defence budget since WW2. You don't do that by accident. I think most of what they represent is just a fashionable front.
ohgodplsno 5y ago
For Germany as a whole I cannot speak, but it is an extremely common thing, yes, whether they know it or not. * Greenpeace Germany has a gas division. They've now split it off and officially only own 5 shares (while being headquartered in the exact same building, by the exact same Greenpeace members): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy * Companies like Total have made use of their enormous war chest to take control of multiple organisations that push wind & solar power (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/fossil-fuel-firms-accused-renewable-lobby-takeover-push-gas https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/fossil-f...), knowing full well it cannot cover all of our energy needs and knowing they will be here to sell natural gas, continuing the use of fossil fuels. * Anti nuclear organizations are very often bankrolled by large oil lobbies (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f..., https://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclear https://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclear), once again, pushing to get nuclear replaced with natural gas.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  I've bought gas from various "green" energy suppliers over the years. Generally, they need to offer it for people that need both, even if their main aim is expanding solar or wind power. Some, like this example, go a little further and try to mix in hydrogen or biogas to reduce carbon output, or offset the carbon in some way, but even when they didn't, it was still greener than the alternatives on the market and a profitable business advancing their professed agenda. I wish nuclear fans would apply their ridiculously high standards for what they consider green energy to nuclear as well rather than just sabotage any attempt at advancing renewable energy with snide gotcha arguments.
  - ohgodplsno 5y ago
    Don't get me wrong: I am all for the presence of renewables in our energy mix. Solar at the individual house level is a great option, and making use of it in other spaces that are currently useless would be great. (Lining the top of parking lots to provide shade and electricity is a great option). Wind turbines are a bit more debatable, but as it stands, still provides a good option for some intermittent but good enough power. But know that your mindless antinuclearism is going to be our downfall. Our only options for baseload generation as it stands are nuclear and gas. And by protesting nuclear, you are giving oil companies a large avenue to keep fucking us all over. Rejecting nuclear at all costs right now in an attempt to get some renewable only future is madness. It is only leading us further down the hole of global warming. The only sabotage happening here is organisations like greenpeace literally committing acts of terrorism against nuclear plants. No-one wants to go nuclear+gas. Your mention of hydrogen makes you even more of a useful idiot for oil companies. Hydrogen does NOT work. We get 27% efficiency when it comes to storing it and using it as power. P2G2P is 50% at best. And while STEPs are a great solution for storage, we've used most of it. Unless you're looking to drown Bavaria to make a big lake. Build a ton of nuclear plants. Move as many countries as possible away from gas and coal. Once that's done, I'm more than happy for all of us to think of alternatives for nuclear.
neuronic 5y ago
There are dumb aspects about the German Greens ("Veggie Day") but they do a good job moving Germany into the right energy direction today. Your criticism is generally unwarranted and the data shows it. I think we shouldn't use words like "dumb" at all because we are all trying to bring about the most sensible, safe and productive energy future for our nations. These nations have different circumstances and demands and some are more influenced by corrupt individuals than others. With regard to the Greens, what exactly is dumb? It can't be the move away from nuclear because first of all, that was decided by Merkel's CDU long ago and second, it is economically the only sensible thing to do in 2022. It's what the MARKET dictates. Capitalism at work because no one will pay for the cost of building and running a nuclear plant while renewables are already working and massively cheaper to build, run and INSURE. I'm not even talking about technology, safety or waste disposal at all. There is no reason to even go there because today NO energy provider in their right mind will build new nuclear plants today (and they won't matter anyway because building one takes 10+ years). The decision is a result of cost and not technological misunderstanding or ignorance. Most days, Germany already produces and consumes >50% of renewable energy and it will only accelerate: https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE On the other hand, France's electricity briefly cost more than >€2900/MWh yesterday (as opposed to €101/MWh in Germany) due to their reliance on few but old nuclear plants with high safety standards which go offline quite often. France's electricity shortly was the most expensive of all time in the world yesterday. https://old.reddit.com/r/de/comments/tw656a/zwischen_8_und_9_uhr_heute_morgen_kostete_eine/ https://old.reddit.com/r/de/comments/tw656a/zwischen_8_und_9... Anyone who actually supports new nuclear power plants today shamefully displays their utter ignorance of the modern energy market. It is COST that is prohibitive first and foremost. It will always be a LOSS operation. The market dictates the use of distributed renewable energy, which also prevents nearly all other issues associated with nuclear. Nice side effect. In fact, Germany's real big issues are bureaucracy and NIMBYs but thanks to the current crisis those will hopefully be solved within the next years.
- recuter 5y ago
  > I'm not even talking about technology, safety or waste disposal at all. There is no reason to even go there because today NO energy provider in their right mind will build new nuclear plants today (and they won't matter anyway because building one takes 10+ years). The decision is a result of cost and not technological misunderstanding or ignorance. Yes, obviously. German chocolate manufacturer Ritter Sport has decided to continue working in Russia. According to Ritter Sport, about 7% of its business is in the Russian market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder#Relationship_with_Russian_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder#Relationship_... Money makes the world go around. You got in bed with Russia for cheap energy, which you enjoyed for a decade or two, and it cost you an increase in your defense spending and some dead Ukrainians. Lets hope that's all it will cost you. Of course you had no choice, it is the invisible hand.
fsflover 5y ago
https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/the-true-face-of-the-anti-nuclear-movement https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/the-true-face-of-the-anti-n...

recuter 5y ago

Old people vote more. Old hippies vote harder. Hippies are impressionable and watched a lot of Hollywood movies like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Syndrome And more recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries) Jane Fonda is a sexy grandma who still got it, she stopped the war in Vietnam and got us in shape. With our powers combined, we are Captain Planet? We were elected to lead not to read! Here is an additional thought: if you dedicate an entire party completely and totally to solving one problem, what happens to them if the problem actually gets solved? Seems like a single issue politician is exclusively incentivized to shift blame in order to get re-elected rather than, you know, do anything constructive. France is something like 70%+ nuclear powered, they got it all sorted for the rest of the century. Not much for the greenie weenies to do.

pjc50 5y ago
I'm old enough to remember when Chernobyl was on the news, not a fictionalised version. The initial "discard all milk production across Europe" phase lasted a few weeks, but the last restrictions in the UK took 26 years to lift: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-18299228 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-18299228 (it's also been in the news recently as it was right in the middle of the Russian assault on Kyiv!) The French nuclear mix is currently 58% : https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energy-source https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energ... because a large number of reactors are offline: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1549986/macron-france-nuclear-power-edf-civaux-flamanville https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1549986/macron-france... There are two problems with nuclear power: - a "black swan" low probability risk of something really bad happening, despite everyone saying it can't happen, and poisoning the surrounding area - it's expensive, takes a long time to build, and can develop expensive problems. Many of the French reactors are approaching the end of their 50 year design life. That said, it was definitely a mistake for Germany to close plants without a specific safety risk.
- recuter 5y ago
  Germany is the 4th largest economy in the world with pretty regular budget surpluses. I think that's what you might call penny wise pound foolish, is there a saying like that in German? Black swan events are nothing to make light of. I mean technically there's also a "black swan" risk of a meteor destroying the earth or monkeys flying out of my butt. I guess they aren't that good at that whole engineering thing anymore and just can't handle this as well as the French. ;)
- winkeltripel 5y ago
  My argument for nuclear: the alternative low-carbon base load is grid-scale lithium ion batteries. That tech is ,(AFAIK) 10 years out from reaching both the scale and price point needed. Also note that solar and wind need enormous amounts of land.

nix23 5y ago

But in Switzerland the population voted against nuclear energy, and with that we "the people" are as stupid as the green party, right?

baq 5y ago
somebody convinced the Swiss that benefits are not worth the risk and/or costs; it's quite clear now that some of the risk of being reliant on gas was... understated. the greens, for all my love of the environment for the sake of my grandkids, are blind to geopolitics, and I used to think this is just naivety; I'm starting to doubt that considering the extent of FSB's and GRU's influence.
recuter 5y ago
Yes.
archerx 5y ago
>'and with that we "the people" are as stupid as the green party, right?' Yes.
- nix23 5y ago
  But we can import it from france and we have hydro, why even care about the nuclear-waste and all the negative sides of it. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-get-75--of-power-from-renewable-sources/46016854 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-get-75--of-power-from-ren...
  - recuter 5y ago
    Nuclear Power - Bad from inside Switzerland, Okie Dokie from France. Their reactor in Bugey is like 200km from the one you're shutting down early. Man.. it would sure be funny if France elected some eccentric far right character for additional excitement.
    - nix23 5y ago
      >Okie Dokie for France. Yes why not? They take the risk, we pay them for. >eccentric far right character for additional excitement. Is the far right not happy making money?

throwaway4aday 5y ago

You're not wrong but I don't think they're the only backers. The anti-nuke movement is a rat's nest of perverse influences.

vimy 5y ago

Gazprom funds green NGOs in Europe. The dogmatic anti-nuclear energy minister in Belgium has ties to Gazprom. Europe gets 40 % of their gas from Russia. In the 90s most of the gas came from Europe itself until all those wells shut down under Green pressure.

pilsetnieks 5y ago

Not just some petrol companies, by Gazprom itself: https://www.transparency.org/en/press/germany-state-government-conceals-gazprom-connection-controversial-environmental-foundation-beneficial-ownership https://www.transparency.org/en/press/germany-state-governme...

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
That's not a green group, it's just a front for Gazprom. Just like the fake "Whale conservation" group fighting wind power off Nantucket is a front. If you want to criticize something as large as the Environmental movement, and you can't even find one real example to cite then maybe that means something. If you can't criticize them, don't bring up people that are larping as them for their own ends.
- pilsetnieks 5y ago
  But that is entirely the point - the environmentalists as a whole are not the problem, the problem is the groups that usurp the mantle and push for policy contrary to the wider group's agenda. I'm not criticizing people who fight against pollution, animal cruelty, and fossil fuel abuse; I'm criticizing people pretending to be environmentalists yet lobbying for fossil fuel increase and dismantling cleaner alternatives.

dxuh 5y ago

Even though it's very often stupidity instead of evilness, I really think that they are not stupid. They started as a pacifist party and now they passed the largest defence budget since WW2. You don't do that by accident. I think most of what they represent is just a fashionable front.

ohgodplsno 5y ago

For Germany as a whole I cannot speak, but it is an extremely common thing, yes, whether they know it or not. * Greenpeace Germany has a gas division. They've now split it off and officially only own 5 shares (while being headquartered in the exact same building, by the exact same Greenpeace members): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy * Companies like Total have made use of their enormous war chest to take control of multiple organisations that push wind & solar power (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/fossil-fuel-firms-accused-renewable-lobby-takeover-push-gas https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/fossil-f...), knowing full well it cannot cover all of our energy needs and knowing they will be here to sell natural gas, continuing the use of fossil fuels. * Anti nuclear organizations are very often bankrolled by large oil lobbies (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f..., https://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclear https://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclear), once again, pushing to get nuclear replaced with natural gas.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
I've bought gas from various "green" energy suppliers over the years. Generally, they need to offer it for people that need both, even if their main aim is expanding solar or wind power. Some, like this example, go a little further and try to mix in hydrogen or biogas to reduce carbon output, or offset the carbon in some way, but even when they didn't, it was still greener than the alternatives on the market and a profitable business advancing their professed agenda. I wish nuclear fans would apply their ridiculously high standards for what they consider green energy to nuclear as well rather than just sabotage any attempt at advancing renewable energy with snide gotcha arguments.
- ohgodplsno 5y ago
  Don't get me wrong: I am all for the presence of renewables in our energy mix. Solar at the individual house level is a great option, and making use of it in other spaces that are currently useless would be great. (Lining the top of parking lots to provide shade and electricity is a great option). Wind turbines are a bit more debatable, but as it stands, still provides a good option for some intermittent but good enough power. But know that your mindless antinuclearism is going to be our downfall. Our only options for baseload generation as it stands are nuclear and gas. And by protesting nuclear, you are giving oil companies a large avenue to keep fucking us all over. Rejecting nuclear at all costs right now in an attempt to get some renewable only future is madness. It is only leading us further down the hole of global warming. The only sabotage happening here is organisations like greenpeace literally committing acts of terrorism against nuclear plants. No-one wants to go nuclear+gas. Your mention of hydrogen makes you even more of a useful idiot for oil companies. Hydrogen does NOT work. We get 27% efficiency when it comes to storing it and using it as power. P2G2P is 50% at best. And while STEPs are a great solution for storage, we've used most of it. Unless you're looking to drown Bavaria to make a big lake. Build a ton of nuclear plants. Move as many countries as possible away from gas and coal. Once that's done, I'm more than happy for all of us to think of alternatives for nuclear.

neuronic 5y ago

There are dumb aspects about the German Greens ("Veggie Day") but they do a good job moving Germany into the right energy direction today. Your criticism is generally unwarranted and the data shows it. I think we shouldn't use words like "dumb" at all because we are all trying to bring about the most sensible, safe and productive energy future for our nations. These nations have different circumstances and demands and some are more influenced by corrupt individuals than others. With regard to the Greens, what exactly is dumb? It can't be the move away from nuclear because first of all, that was decided by Merkel's CDU long ago and second, it is economically the only sensible thing to do in 2022. It's what the MARKET dictates. Capitalism at work because no one will pay for the cost of building and running a nuclear plant while renewables are already working and massively cheaper to build, run and INSURE. I'm not even talking about technology, safety or waste disposal at all. There is no reason to even go there because today NO energy provider in their right mind will build new nuclear plants today (and they won't matter anyway because building one takes 10+ years). The decision is a result of cost and not technological misunderstanding or ignorance. Most days, Germany already produces and consumes >50% of renewable energy and it will only accelerate: https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE On the other hand, France's electricity briefly cost more than >€2900/MWh yesterday (as opposed to €101/MWh in Germany) due to their reliance on few but old nuclear plants with high safety standards which go offline quite often. France's electricity shortly was the most expensive of all time in the world yesterday. https://old.reddit.com/r/de/comments/tw656a/zwischen_8_und_9_uhr_heute_morgen_kostete_eine/ https://old.reddit.com/r/de/comments/tw656a/zwischen_8_und_9... Anyone who actually supports new nuclear power plants today shamefully displays their utter ignorance of the modern energy market. It is COST that is prohibitive first and foremost. It will always be a LOSS operation. The market dictates the use of distributed renewable energy, which also prevents nearly all other issues associated with nuclear. Nice side effect. In fact, Germany's real big issues are bureaucracy and NIMBYs but thanks to the current crisis those will hopefully be solved within the next years.

recuter 5y ago
> I'm not even talking about technology, safety or waste disposal at all. There is no reason to even go there because today NO energy provider in their right mind will build new nuclear plants today (and they won't matter anyway because building one takes 10+ years). The decision is a result of cost and not technological misunderstanding or ignorance. Yes, obviously. German chocolate manufacturer Ritter Sport has decided to continue working in Russia. According to Ritter Sport, about 7% of its business is in the Russian market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder#Relationship_with_Russian_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder#Relationship_... Money makes the world go around. You got in bed with Russia for cheap energy, which you enjoyed for a decade or two, and it cost you an increase in your defense spending and some dead Ukrainians. Lets hope that's all it will cost you. Of course you had no choice, it is the invisible hand.

fsflover 5y ago

https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/the-true-face-of-the-anti-nuclear-movement https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/the-true-face-of-the-anti-n...