5 ms·

because their anti-nuclear environmental groups were actually being funded by Russia behind the scenes. And there are still fools who think that economic integ

because their anti-nuclear environmental groups were actually being funded by Russia behind the scenes. And there are still fools who think that economic integration somehow prevents wars, which was shown to be false after WWI. These people said if Europe just paid a bunch of money for Russian energy they'd obviously never attack them. See what's happening with China and the US as more proof that handing over your economy doesn't placate anybody

Ygg2 4y ago
You're going to need some citation on that Russia connection.
- ren_engineer 4y ago
  >“Ninety-nine per cent of the text of the articles of association is about climate and environmental protection, but 99 per cent of the money comes directly from Nord Stream II AG, which belongs to Gazprom.” >“It’s quite a curious foundation. It is a puppet construction,” said Sascha Müller-Kraenner, head of Environmental Action Germany, a green charity, which is challenging the legality of the organisation both in the German courts and with the European Commission. https://archive.ph/KXgC0 https://archive.ph/KXgC0 and German politicians from pretty much every single party have been taking bribes from Russia for years. Their energy policy of simultaneously shutting down coal but not spinning up any nuclear made them reliant on Russian natural gas, which they've been warned about by the US for years and are now paying the price for from 2019 - https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/06/06/how-europes-green-party-may-hand-putin-a-major-victory/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/06/06/how-europes-green-p... and a video from 2018 of Germany's UN delegation quite literally laughing at the suggestion they'd be reliant on Russia for energy if they proceeded with Nordstream 2. Some good schadenfreude here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg
  - _fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
    True that foundation exists, and is heavily criticized by other German environmental organizations in Germany as even this article points out. Also it was founded after the nuclear exit was decided. You are falling for the trap where you know a little bit about a subject but draw the wrong conclusions from it.
cinntaile 4y ago
Russia and the EU aren't at war, neither is the US and China. You haven't really proven that economic integration doesn't prevent wars.
- hash07e 4y ago
  Really? No sanctions? No finland minister asking to ban russian tourists from schengen? Really? Ok.. turn the ac then!
  - rowanG077 4y ago
    Are you really equating sanctions with full on war?
    - hash07e 4y ago
      Yes Us providing guns and trainning is not war? Eu providing arms and guns is not war? Economic sanctions are not war? War is not a movie with bang. War is happening now. It started when they sunk the war ship russian..
      - cinntaile 4y ago
        Ukraine sank the war ship as far as I know? I do not consider providing supplies war, the same goes for economic sanctions.
      - formerly_proven 4y ago
        > War is happening now. > It started when they sunk the war ship russian.. I'm sensing this is a (((they))) kind of they.
      - panick21_ 4y ago
        > Us providing guns and trainning is not war? No. > Eu providing arms and guns is not war? No. > Economic sanctions are not war? No. > War is not a movie with bang. No. > War is happening now. Yes between Ukraine and Russia.
AnonCoward42 4y ago
> because their anti-nuclear environmental groups were actually being funded by Russia behind the scenes. Every competing energy source lobby is probably trying to stack the chances against each other, but the activists were not by and large funded by Russia. > These people said if Europe just paid a bunch of money for Russian energy they'd obviously never attack them. You can't expect any party to hold still forever. If you provoke your partner long enough they might react at some point. In the long-term that is basically a guarantee.
osigurdson 4y ago
Not German, but I suspect memories of Fukushima and Chernobyl could be weighing on the minds of some. Perhaps this is an irrational concern but people are not necessarily rational - particularly when randomly polled on topics they know little about.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  Perhaps irrational? It's certainly irrational. Nuclear is among the absolute safest methods of energy production. Looking at Wikipedia one person died and sixteen were injured at Fukushima. That risk should dictate energy policy? "Irrational" is being kind.
  - osigurdson 4y ago
    When you think “power plant disaster”, what power plant instantly comes to mind? It’s a powerful “brand” that is quite difficult to displace in people’s minds. That is the problem to solve.
    - ALittleLight 4y ago
      I think of hydroelectric dams which can destroy whole towns. There is a single hydroelectric disaster that has killed many more people than all nuclear incidents put together.
      - osigurdson 4y ago
        Ok!
- Cwizard 4y ago
  What I don’t understand is how those two incidents are even relevant. Chernobyl happened because of a faulty design + mismanagement and Fukushima was located on a region prone to earthquakes/tsunami’s caused by earthquakes. The factors do not really apply to Germany. And even if it did, the deaths caused by those accidents were quite low. Meanwhile coal pollution is killing people by the thousands but this is somehow ok? I think the sole reason the west moved away from Nuclear is because it sounds scary and because the oil countries had a strong interest in maintaining the non-nuclear status quo.
FourthProtocol 4y ago
Indeed so. I've been following nuclear in Germany ever since those railroad protests when they tried to transport nuclear waste from somewhere to somewhere else which I thought was crazy (the protests). The part I felt had merit is that none of Europe's lofty solutions to safely storing/disposing of the waste output ever came to anything. I believe until this day that industry is still trying to work out how to dig 30km down to safely store the waste underground. That said I haven't kept up to date on any progress or better solutions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- RF_Savage 4y ago
  Onkalo in Finland is not 30km deep, which none have achieved anywhere. But Onkalo is one of the few actually built long term nuclear waste storage locations anywhere. It is for domestic nuclear waste only. There is no desire to become the international dumping ground for nuclear waste. Tbh I believe the waste should be reprosessed as fuel and burnt in reactors instead of burial. But non-proliferation things make that impossible.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    These geological repositories are such political bullshit theater. Its fucking sad. The are actually more expensive then simply developing the reactors to burn up that fuel. Its just crazy that we live in this world. The US collected money from nuclear plants for 50 years for disposal, and had plenty of money to develop waste burning reactors. And yet that money is totally unused. While politicians dead-lock on this idiotic Yucca Mountain project. Its beyond sad the state we are in.
- vimy 4y ago
  After more than 50 years of nuclear power plants in use we can say that there is no nuclear waste problem. The ‘waste’ has been stored above ground for decades and nothing has happened. It’s clearly safe. We should just keep doing what we’re doing. No need to dig expensive holes.
_fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
> because their anti-nuclear environmental groups were actually being funded by Russia behind the scenes. I am German and very pro nuclear, but this is conspiracy bs. And why make such a grand claim without a single source?
- 323 4y ago
  > Nunes, as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee: Russia is secretly funding the environmental movement, particularly in Germany, to help pressure the closure of nuclear power plants. https://www.eenews.net/articles/devin-nunes-claims-russia-is-financing-environmentalism/ https://www.eenews.net/articles/devin-nunes-claims-russia-is... Dominique Reynié: "We found that Gazprom funded environmental NGOs that provided ministers to various governments, such as Belgium, which then advocated abandoning nuclear power". https://twitter.com/ziontree/status/1497998920739274757 https://twitter.com/ziontree/status/1497998920739274757 > For instance, the Soviets used front organizations to influence the anti-nuclear movement, the initiative that most visibly put Western leadership on the defensive. West German Interior Ministry and FBI reports concluded that Soviet-linked organizations were successfully swaying local peace movement initiatives to conform to Moscow’s positions https://warontherocks.com/2017/09/russian-active-measures-in-germany-and-the-united-states-analog-lessons-from-the-cold-war/ https://warontherocks.com/2017/09/russian-active-measures-in...
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Its not a conspiracy. Its for certain that there was a real anti nuclear movement but its also true that fossil industry and Russia spent money to fund these efforts. So it happened but how effective it was is questionable.

Ygg2 4y ago

You're going to need some citation on that Russia connection.

ren_engineer 4y ago
>“Ninety-nine per cent of the text of the articles of association is about climate and environmental protection, but 99 per cent of the money comes directly from Nord Stream II AG, which belongs to Gazprom.” >“It’s quite a curious foundation. It is a puppet construction,” said Sascha Müller-Kraenner, head of Environmental Action Germany, a green charity, which is challenging the legality of the organisation both in the German courts and with the European Commission. https://archive.ph/KXgC0 https://archive.ph/KXgC0 and German politicians from pretty much every single party have been taking bribes from Russia for years. Their energy policy of simultaneously shutting down coal but not spinning up any nuclear made them reliant on Russian natural gas, which they've been warned about by the US for years and are now paying the price for from 2019 - https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/06/06/how-europes-green-party-may-hand-putin-a-major-victory/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/06/06/how-europes-green-p... and a video from 2018 of Germany's UN delegation quite literally laughing at the suggestion they'd be reliant on Russia for energy if they proceeded with Nordstream 2. Some good schadenfreude here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg
- _fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
  True that foundation exists, and is heavily criticized by other German environmental organizations in Germany as even this article points out. Also it was founded after the nuclear exit was decided. You are falling for the trap where you know a little bit about a subject but draw the wrong conclusions from it.

cinntaile 4y ago

Russia and the EU aren't at war, neither is the US and China. You haven't really proven that economic integration doesn't prevent wars.

hash07e 4y ago
Really? No sanctions? No finland minister asking to ban russian tourists from schengen? Really? Ok.. turn the ac then!
- rowanG077 4y ago
  Are you really equating sanctions with full on war?
  - hash07e 4y ago
    Yes Us providing guns and trainning is not war? Eu providing arms and guns is not war? Economic sanctions are not war? War is not a movie with bang. War is happening now. It started when they sunk the war ship russian..
    - cinntaile 4y ago
      Ukraine sank the war ship as far as I know? I do not consider providing supplies war, the same goes for economic sanctions.
    - formerly_proven 4y ago
      > War is happening now. > It started when they sunk the war ship russian.. I'm sensing this is a (((they))) kind of they.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      > Us providing guns and trainning is not war? No. > Eu providing arms and guns is not war? No. > Economic sanctions are not war? No. > War is not a movie with bang. No. > War is happening now. Yes between Ukraine and Russia.

AnonCoward42 4y ago

> because their anti-nuclear environmental groups were actually being funded by Russia behind the scenes. Every competing energy source lobby is probably trying to stack the chances against each other, but the activists were not by and large funded by Russia. > These people said if Europe just paid a bunch of money for Russian energy they'd obviously never attack them. You can't expect any party to hold still forever. If you provoke your partner long enough they might react at some point. In the long-term that is basically a guarantee.

osigurdson 4y ago

Not German, but I suspect memories of Fukushima and Chernobyl could be weighing on the minds of some. Perhaps this is an irrational concern but people are not necessarily rational - particularly when randomly polled on topics they know little about.

ALittleLight 4y ago
Perhaps irrational? It's certainly irrational. Nuclear is among the absolute safest methods of energy production. Looking at Wikipedia one person died and sixteen were injured at Fukushima. That risk should dictate energy policy? "Irrational" is being kind.
- osigurdson 4y ago
  When you think “power plant disaster”, what power plant instantly comes to mind? It’s a powerful “brand” that is quite difficult to displace in people’s minds. That is the problem to solve.
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    I think of hydroelectric dams which can destroy whole towns. There is a single hydroelectric disaster that has killed many more people than all nuclear incidents put together.
    - osigurdson 4y ago
      Ok!
Cwizard 4y ago
What I don’t understand is how those two incidents are even relevant. Chernobyl happened because of a faulty design + mismanagement and Fukushima was located on a region prone to earthquakes/tsunami’s caused by earthquakes. The factors do not really apply to Germany. And even if it did, the deaths caused by those accidents were quite low. Meanwhile coal pollution is killing people by the thousands but this is somehow ok? I think the sole reason the west moved away from Nuclear is because it sounds scary and because the oil countries had a strong interest in maintaining the non-nuclear status quo.

FourthProtocol 4y ago

Indeed so. I've been following nuclear in Germany ever since those railroad protests when they tried to transport nuclear waste from somewhere to somewhere else which I thought was crazy (the protests). The part I felt had merit is that none of Europe's lofty solutions to safely storing/disposing of the waste output ever came to anything. I believe until this day that industry is still trying to work out how to dig 30km down to safely store the waste underground. That said I haven't kept up to date on any progress or better solutions.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
RF_Savage 4y ago
Onkalo in Finland is not 30km deep, which none have achieved anywhere. But Onkalo is one of the few actually built long term nuclear waste storage locations anywhere. It is for domestic nuclear waste only. There is no desire to become the international dumping ground for nuclear waste. Tbh I believe the waste should be reprosessed as fuel and burnt in reactors instead of burial. But non-proliferation things make that impossible.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  These geological repositories are such political bullshit theater. Its fucking sad. The are actually more expensive then simply developing the reactors to burn up that fuel. Its just crazy that we live in this world. The US collected money from nuclear plants for 50 years for disposal, and had plenty of money to develop waste burning reactors. And yet that money is totally unused. While politicians dead-lock on this idiotic Yucca Mountain project. Its beyond sad the state we are in.
vimy 4y ago
After more than 50 years of nuclear power plants in use we can say that there is no nuclear waste problem. The ‘waste’ has been stored above ground for decades and nothing has happened. It’s clearly safe. We should just keep doing what we’re doing. No need to dig expensive holes.

_fizz_buzz_ 4y ago

> because their anti-nuclear environmental groups were actually being funded by Russia behind the scenes. I am German and very pro nuclear, but this is conspiracy bs. And why make such a grand claim without a single source?

323 4y ago
> Nunes, as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee: Russia is secretly funding the environmental movement, particularly in Germany, to help pressure the closure of nuclear power plants. https://www.eenews.net/articles/devin-nunes-claims-russia-is-financing-environmentalism/ https://www.eenews.net/articles/devin-nunes-claims-russia-is... Dominique Reynié: "We found that Gazprom funded environmental NGOs that provided ministers to various governments, such as Belgium, which then advocated abandoning nuclear power". https://twitter.com/ziontree/status/1497998920739274757 https://twitter.com/ziontree/status/1497998920739274757 > For instance, the Soviets used front organizations to influence the anti-nuclear movement, the initiative that most visibly put Western leadership on the defensive. West German Interior Ministry and FBI reports concluded that Soviet-linked organizations were successfully swaying local peace movement initiatives to conform to Moscow’s positions https://warontherocks.com/2017/09/russian-active-measures-in-germany-and-the-united-states-analog-lessons-from-the-cold-war/ https://warontherocks.com/2017/09/russian-active-measures-in...
panick21_ 4y ago
Its not a conspiracy. Its for certain that there was a real anti nuclear movement but its also true that fossil industry and Russia spent money to fund these efforts. So it happened but how effective it was is questionable.