4 ms·

The German Green Party was basically founded on anti-nuclear sentiment. The older members see it as their absolute life goal to stop nuclear power. They would r

The German Green Party was basically founded on anti-nuclear sentiment. The older members see it as their absolute life goal to stop nuclear power. They would rather see everything burn to the ground than change their mind. As long as they are in government any compromise will be difficult. Also, the situation in Germany is much worse than people from the outside think. Our best-case scenarios actually plan for pretty brutal energy saving cuts. People will be fully expected to wear multiple layers of clothing in their own homes because apparently having a warm home is now considered a luxury. Other than hoping for a early peace in Ukraine I don't really anything that could solve the issues. I guess we will just have to tough it out.

DocTomoe 4y ago
> Other than hoping for a early peace in Ukraine I don't really anything that could solve the issues. I guess we will just have to tough it out. Don't worry. The government is setting up all the right parameters for a revolution to replace them. Large parts of Germany, especially in the already government-critical east, are dependant on gas. Let October be the first cold month that hits us ... and the first grandma who decides she can't afford heating and freezes to death at night will make a splendid spark that will topple our pro-Ukrainian resolve.
- someguydave 4y ago
  So you think Germans will not blame Russia for problems caused by the lack of Russian gas?
  - cardanome 4y ago
    Russia claims it would deliver as much gas as we need if we were to open Nordstream-2 though.
    - someguydave 4y ago
      The same Russia invading Europe on its eastern borders? Hasn’t dependence on Russian gas earned some suspicions among ordinary Germans?
      - DocTomoe 4y ago
        Actually, Russia has a track record of being a reliable provider of gas in worse situations than we are in today, reaching back to times when the Cold War was at its hottest. Outside of big media and some very ideologically-kosher circles, public opinion seems to be 'leave us our peace about that whole war business, make sure energy prices are sinking to an acceptable level again', with the mood becoming more explosive with every news article that tries to get us into the NATO party line.
        someguydave 4y ago
        The Cold war never involved a large scale Russian invasion. Do you really think Russia will stop at the Polish border if they make it that far?
        DocTomoe 4y ago
        I think you may forget about Afghanistan, 1979. And yes, I really think that. I do not think many sensible people believe in a looming Russian invasion of Germany.
        someguydave 4y ago
        Ok but what about Poland? Germany is obligated to defend Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, etc. You honestly think Russia will not invade them? Or that Germany will not be obligated to spill blood in their defense?
        DocTomoe 4y ago
        > Ok but what about Poland? Given how deeply ungrateful the Polish government has been towards the rest of Europe, especially Germany, in the last twenty years or so, pulling the evil German Nazi card whenever their will was not completely fulfilled while at the same time leeching off mostly Germany-originated monies, they can go suck it for all I care. > Germany is obligated to defend Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, etc. Nope. Read the relevant contracts. Nowhere in it it says that we need to "defend" anyone. NATO Article 5 states that an attack on one of the member states would be considered an attack against them all - and countries have endured attacks without retaliating (See: USS Liberty incident). > You honestly think Russia will not invade them? Not in the immediate future. Russia is overextended as it stands, they are obviously unable to stage another war for quite some time. > Or that Germany will not be obligated to spill blood in their defense? Also, we are not obligated to spill blood in defence. NATO Article 5 just states that we must take an action that we consider necessary - and not to aid the affected party member - but to restore peace and stability in Europe. If an aggressor blitzkrieged say Estonia, the whole thing was over in 24 hours, and everyone remaining was convinced that that's the end of it, peace and stability would return without any action necessary. Also, actions can be very little., they could be a strongly worded WhatsApp message to the aggressor. This ambiguous meaning has been put in by the US, by the way, supposedly because they themselves thought it was not a good idea to sacrifice New York for Paris. And Article 42(7) TEU only talks about "mutual aid" in case of armed conflict, which can be as little as sending some rice crackers.
someguydave 4y ago
> The German Green Party was basically founded on anti-nuclear sentiment. As an American it is not hard to see how these hardened anti-nuclear activists in Germany benefit Russia. It is also not hard to see the close political and historic proximity between the Soviet Union and the Green party. It seems that average Germans do not make that connection. Why?
- foepys 4y ago
  This is revisionist history and your completely false accusations put it near Russian propaganda territory. I challenge you to find even a single proof for what you wrote. The Greens were the only party calling for embargoes against Russia to stop importing Russian gas all together in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea. They also opposed Nord Stream 2 from the beginning. They inherited the clusterfuck the conservatives left them when they got elected in 2021 and now have to deal with what they have. The conservatives killed the German solar industry (world leader at the time in the 2000s) and also killed the wind turbine industry shortly after. Reason? China was cheaper. The Greens were also the first to call for weapons for Ukraine while other parties struggled to even make statements.
  - someguydave 4y ago
    Russian propagandists would accuse Russia of secret interference in European politics? Of course evidence on these matters is going to be hard to find. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-s...
    - foepys 4y ago
      Your "proof" is not supporting anything. Environmentalists can be anybody. Russia didn't want Germany to utilize fracking gas because this would mean that Germany doesn't need Russia anymore. The Green party opposes any gas where possible. Just because Russia financed a few fringe groups doesn't mean that the Green party is in bed with Russia. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/nord-stream-2-die-gruenen-sind-uneins-ob-sie-das-pipeline-projekt-stoppen-wuerden-a-b2120c02-0002-0001-0000-000178494482 https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/nord-stream-2-die... This clearly proves that in June 2021 the Greens already predicted what would happen in 2022 and opposed the opening of Nord Stream 2 because of geopolitical and security risks.
jillesvangurp 4y ago
You make it sound like it's just the greens. In reality, it was a conservative Christian Democrat lead government that decided to get rid of nuclear power. Together with SPD, the socialists. Both are moderate parties and quite representative of the German attitude towards nuclear. There hasn't been a government without either SPD or CDU leading it. No other party has ever supplied a chancellor in post war Germany. And you'd be wrong to assume FDP is very pro-nuclear. The current government features SPD (labour), the Greens, and the FDP (conservative). They have their work cut out but it's not an impossible job. Nuclear might get a temporary and short extension of life in Germany but that 8GW is not going to matter a whole lot relative to the tens of GW of gas that are used for electricity and the many GW more that are being used for heating. The numbers just don't add up. Short term it helps as a stop gap solution but long term there's a need for many tens of GW of additional capacity. Most of that inevitably is going to be wind and solar. Gas is a complete non starter at this point. And coal is quite expensive and coal supplies also are a bit tricky as most of that actually also came from Russia. The Ukrainian crisis is basically succeeding in making the Germans go cold turkey on gas and coal in a hurry. It's going to be disruptive and expensive but they are going to get it done much earlier than they were originally planning even a year ago. The disruption will be mainly to industry which will suffer most of the consequences of high prices and limited availability of gas. However, that will cause industry to respond by investing in reducing their dependency on those energy sources. Once that takes effect, the transition is permanent. Probably, ten years from now, most coal production in Germany will be gone; most gas heating and electricity will be gone and what little remains will be powered using expensive imports. Some of which might still come from Russia.
- cardanome 4y ago
  > Most of that inevitably is going to be wind and solar. Gas is a complete non starter at this point. And coal is quite expensive and coal supplies also are a bit tricky as most of that actually also came from Russia. Wind and Solar have the drawback of not being a constant or reliable source of energy. Yes, they provide cheap and clean energy but not always when you need it. Yes, the solution would be to save the energy when you need it BUT we don't have that, yet. I really hope we will figure something out but we need not face reality: The tech is not there yet. It might take decades that we don't have. This is so frustrating to argue with people. Like, I really like your optimism but we don't have a saving solution. We have some ideas but scaling them up towards the scope that we actually need is not easily done. I really wish you were right but the facts don't add add. > However, that will cause industry to respond by investing in reducing their dependency on those energy sources. Since when do they know that they should be transitioning to other sources? Decades? What have the done? Nothing. As long there are other countries with cheap gas I am not so optimistic. Yes, some will make the transitions, other will move production to other countries and lot's of them we will simply lose. The next years will be brutal. Only when the international community actually starts to take climate change and dependence on gas more serious will we see some change.

DocTomoe 4y ago

> Other than hoping for a early peace in Ukraine I don't really anything that could solve the issues. I guess we will just have to tough it out. Don't worry. The government is setting up all the right parameters for a revolution to replace them. Large parts of Germany, especially in the already government-critical east, are dependant on gas. Let October be the first cold month that hits us ... and the first grandma who decides she can't afford heating and freezes to death at night will make a splendid spark that will topple our pro-Ukrainian resolve.

someguydave 4y ago
So you think Germans will not blame Russia for problems caused by the lack of Russian gas?
- cardanome 4y ago
  Russia claims it would deliver as much gas as we need if we were to open Nordstream-2 though.
  - someguydave 4y ago
    The same Russia invading Europe on its eastern borders? Hasn’t dependence on Russian gas earned some suspicions among ordinary Germans?
    - DocTomoe 4y ago
      Actually, Russia has a track record of being a reliable provider of gas in worse situations than we are in today, reaching back to times when the Cold War was at its hottest. Outside of big media and some very ideologically-kosher circles, public opinion seems to be 'leave us our peace about that whole war business, make sure energy prices are sinking to an acceptable level again', with the mood becoming more explosive with every news article that tries to get us into the NATO party line.
      - someguydave 4y ago
        The Cold war never involved a large scale Russian invasion. Do you really think Russia will stop at the Polish border if they make it that far?
        DocTomoe 4y ago
        I think you may forget about Afghanistan, 1979. And yes, I really think that. I do not think many sensible people believe in a looming Russian invasion of Germany.
        someguydave 4y ago
        Ok but what about Poland? Germany is obligated to defend Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, etc. You honestly think Russia will not invade them? Or that Germany will not be obligated to spill blood in their defense?
        DocTomoe 4y ago
        > Ok but what about Poland? Given how deeply ungrateful the Polish government has been towards the rest of Europe, especially Germany, in the last twenty years or so, pulling the evil German Nazi card whenever their will was not completely fulfilled while at the same time leeching off mostly Germany-originated monies, they can go suck it for all I care. > Germany is obligated to defend Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, etc. Nope. Read the relevant contracts. Nowhere in it it says that we need to "defend" anyone. NATO Article 5 states that an attack on one of the member states would be considered an attack against them all - and countries have endured attacks without retaliating (See: USS Liberty incident). > You honestly think Russia will not invade them? Not in the immediate future. Russia is overextended as it stands, they are obviously unable to stage another war for quite some time. > Or that Germany will not be obligated to spill blood in their defense? Also, we are not obligated to spill blood in defence. NATO Article 5 just states that we must take an action that we consider necessary - and not to aid the affected party member - but to restore peace and stability in Europe. If an aggressor blitzkrieged say Estonia, the whole thing was over in 24 hours, and everyone remaining was convinced that that's the end of it, peace and stability would return without any action necessary. Also, actions can be very little., they could be a strongly worded WhatsApp message to the aggressor. This ambiguous meaning has been put in by the US, by the way, supposedly because they themselves thought it was not a good idea to sacrifice New York for Paris. And Article 42(7) TEU only talks about "mutual aid" in case of armed conflict, which can be as little as sending some rice crackers.

someguydave 4y ago

> The German Green Party was basically founded on anti-nuclear sentiment. As an American it is not hard to see how these hardened anti-nuclear activists in Germany benefit Russia. It is also not hard to see the close political and historic proximity between the Soviet Union and the Green party. It seems that average Germans do not make that connection. Why?

foepys 4y ago
This is revisionist history and your completely false accusations put it near Russian propaganda territory. I challenge you to find even a single proof for what you wrote. The Greens were the only party calling for embargoes against Russia to stop importing Russian gas all together in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea. They also opposed Nord Stream 2 from the beginning. They inherited the clusterfuck the conservatives left them when they got elected in 2021 and now have to deal with what they have. The conservatives killed the German solar industry (world leader at the time in the 2000s) and also killed the wind turbine industry shortly after. Reason? China was cheaper. The Greens were also the first to call for weapons for Ukraine while other parties struggled to even make statements.
- someguydave 4y ago
  Russian propagandists would accuse Russia of secret interference in European politics? Of course evidence on these matters is going to be hard to find. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-s...
  - foepys 4y ago
    Your "proof" is not supporting anything. Environmentalists can be anybody. Russia didn't want Germany to utilize fracking gas because this would mean that Germany doesn't need Russia anymore. The Green party opposes any gas where possible. Just because Russia financed a few fringe groups doesn't mean that the Green party is in bed with Russia. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/nord-stream-2-die-gruenen-sind-uneins-ob-sie-das-pipeline-projekt-stoppen-wuerden-a-b2120c02-0002-0001-0000-000178494482 https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/nord-stream-2-die... This clearly proves that in June 2021 the Greens already predicted what would happen in 2022 and opposed the opening of Nord Stream 2 because of geopolitical and security risks.

jillesvangurp 4y ago

You make it sound like it's just the greens. In reality, it was a conservative Christian Democrat lead government that decided to get rid of nuclear power. Together with SPD, the socialists. Both are moderate parties and quite representative of the German attitude towards nuclear. There hasn't been a government without either SPD or CDU leading it. No other party has ever supplied a chancellor in post war Germany. And you'd be wrong to assume FDP is very pro-nuclear. The current government features SPD (labour), the Greens, and the FDP (conservative). They have their work cut out but it's not an impossible job. Nuclear might get a temporary and short extension of life in Germany but that 8GW is not going to matter a whole lot relative to the tens of GW of gas that are used for electricity and the many GW more that are being used for heating. The numbers just don't add up. Short term it helps as a stop gap solution but long term there's a need for many tens of GW of additional capacity. Most of that inevitably is going to be wind and solar. Gas is a complete non starter at this point. And coal is quite expensive and coal supplies also are a bit tricky as most of that actually also came from Russia. The Ukrainian crisis is basically succeeding in making the Germans go cold turkey on gas and coal in a hurry. It's going to be disruptive and expensive but they are going to get it done much earlier than they were originally planning even a year ago. The disruption will be mainly to industry which will suffer most of the consequences of high prices and limited availability of gas. However, that will cause industry to respond by investing in reducing their dependency on those energy sources. Once that takes effect, the transition is permanent. Probably, ten years from now, most coal production in Germany will be gone; most gas heating and electricity will be gone and what little remains will be powered using expensive imports. Some of which might still come from Russia.

cardanome 4y ago
> Most of that inevitably is going to be wind and solar. Gas is a complete non starter at this point. And coal is quite expensive and coal supplies also are a bit tricky as most of that actually also came from Russia. Wind and Solar have the drawback of not being a constant or reliable source of energy. Yes, they provide cheap and clean energy but not always when you need it. Yes, the solution would be to save the energy when you need it BUT we don't have that, yet. I really hope we will figure something out but we need not face reality: The tech is not there yet. It might take decades that we don't have. This is so frustrating to argue with people. Like, I really like your optimism but we don't have a saving solution. We have some ideas but scaling them up towards the scope that we actually need is not easily done. I really wish you were right but the facts don't add add. > However, that will cause industry to respond by investing in reducing their dependency on those energy sources. Since when do they know that they should be transitioning to other sources? Decades? What have the done? Nothing. As long there are other countries with cheap gas I am not so optimistic. Yes, some will make the transitions, other will move production to other countries and lot's of them we will simply lose. The next years will be brutal. Only when the international community actually starts to take climate change and dependence on gas more serious will we see some change.