5 ms·

To be fair, as a Europoor, I like having electricity. Europe really should have invested in fracking and nuclear power so this would never have been needed, bu

To be fair, as a Europoor, I like having electricity. Europe really should have invested in fracking and nuclear power so this would never have been needed, but the Putin-funded "environmentalists" and degrowthers put a stop to that.

ragebol 2y ago
> Putin-funded "environmentalists" Any evidence for that? I think a lot of people would not like fracking in their back yards, regardless of being "Putin-funded". Just regular garden variety NIMBY-ism
- eptcyka 2y ago
  Putin funded the German green party leader that campaigned to shut down nuclear power plants in Germany.
  - Xylakant 2y ago
    Given that the Green Party leaders in the last government were the staunchest supporters of shutting down the nord stream pipelines and supporting weapon deliveries to Ukraine even before the elections, this plan seems to have worked out extraordinarily well. Then again, maybe you mistyped. The decision to shut down the nuclear plants was taken by a conservative government. (Angela Merkel, right after Fukushima). Admittedly, the greens have been campaigning to shut down nuclear plants, but they also have always campaigned to replace them with Wind and Solar power.
    - lores 2y ago
      It's really ironic how the Greens contributed to global warming. Good intentions aren't enough, you also need to be informed and willing to take small steps towards the perfect future.
      - wewxjfq 2y ago
        Contributed what? Their nuclear exit caused two nuclear power plants to shut down, which were the oldest and smallest in Germany. They had a combined capacity of a just 1 GW - utterly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Even when the conservatives pulled the plug on nuclear power plants in 2011, Germany just stopped decreasing emissions of its electricity production for a year or two. And this was at a time of higher gas prices, so it's even up for debate how much the nuclear exit contributed to that short stagnation.
      - Xylakant 2y ago
        The Germans. Hmm. So this was about the Green Party, not about the Germans. But still, I’ll bite. The Green Party is anti-nuclear and it’s debatable whether that’s positive or not. But they also are staunchly anti-coal and other carbon based energy sources. The greens have pushed constantly for renewables, both to achieve strategic energy autonomy and lowering greenhouse gas emissions. The Germans have introduced the first legislation to subsidize renewables, in 1990, in 2000 under a red/geeen coalition renewed as EEG (Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz) that taxed fossil electricity and guaranteed a fixed above market price for producers of renewable electricity. This is widely regarded as a major boost for both solar and wind energy. We did, however, drop the ball a little when the conservatives came back to power. We still do range in the midfield when it comes to pet capita carbon emissions. We certainly could do better and I wish we did, but blaming it on nuclear power is fairly simplistic. If you look at https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/energie/energieverbrauch-nach-energietraegern-sektoren#entwicklung-des-endenergieverbrauchs-nach-sektoren-und-energietragern https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/energie/energieverbrauc... for example, then you’ll notice that our love for ICE cars is a major factor - cars are one of our major sources of carbon dioxide emissions, far more than nuclear plants replaced with gas plants.
      - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
        They kicked off the solar boom which is the #1 solution to climate change and will overtake global nuclear in generation this year or next. Not bad as a small step towards a perfect future.
    - eptcyka 2y ago
      Angela Merkel didn’t want to shut them down, it is only after mass protests that they decided to do that.
- braza 2y ago
  Not the OP, but this was a theme in the European Parliament in 2022 [1][2] and it was the object of a document that Greenpeace made [3] showing how pervasive the Russian lobby was over climate policies. I personally do not believe that Russia does it in Germany via the Green Party but more so over other parties, such as AfD and BSW. [1] - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-001275_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-00127.... [2] - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-001275-ASW_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-00127.... [3] - https://www.greenpeace.de/publikationen/20220517-greenpeace-report-russland-taxonomie.pdf https://www.greenpeace.de/publikationen/20220517-greenpeace-....
  - Xylakant 2y ago
    Also parts of the SPD - see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung_Klima-_und_Umweltschutz_MV https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung_Klima-_und_Umweltschu...
  - ashoeafoot 2y ago
    You can use the green party simply by donating sums to or amplifying extreme voices. You do not need to control the whole of a ideology driven organisation , when you can nudge the extremists and usefools to undo their own organisation . The party leadership forwards public transport, the oil lobby finances damaging cars, glueing to streets and other activities. The fanatics of your own site, are the worst enemy .
- lores 2y ago
  Considering the harm fracking does to the local environment, that's pretty justified NIMBYism, no? Europe isn't like America with vast expanses of empty land, fracking would ruin the lives of many people, not to mention the landscape, in order to get hold of a very unpopular resource.
  - ragebol 2y ago
    Oh, in this case indeed. In my hometown you can still find weathered down stickers over a decade old opposing fracking.
OgsyedIE 2y ago
European legal systems have a huge obstacle to fracking that the US doesn't: mineral rights are almost always severed from property rights in every European country. In the majority of the USA, if you own your home you own the oil one-point-four miles underneath it and can get royalties. In almost every part of Europe, you don't have any right to subsurface assets and have to eat the rare (but significant when they do occur) groundwater and seismic harms without recompense. The legal systems incentivise rational people to adopt NIMBYism.
- rascul 2y ago
  > In the majority of the USA, if you own your home you own the oil one-point-four miles underneath it and can get royalties. Generally not in any areas where there's something potentially valuable in the ground, though. Mineral rights tend to be separate there.
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    Mineral exploitation doesn't really happen underneath housing developments, it's almost all in rural areas where rights were never divided up.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- blackguardx 2y ago
  Not owning mineral rights on your property is very common in much of Colorado where there is lots of oil and gas development.

ragebol 2y ago

> Putin-funded "environmentalists" Any evidence for that? I think a lot of people would not like fracking in their back yards, regardless of being "Putin-funded". Just regular garden variety NIMBY-ism

eptcyka 2y ago
Putin funded the German green party leader that campaigned to shut down nuclear power plants in Germany.
- Xylakant 2y ago
  Given that the Green Party leaders in the last government were the staunchest supporters of shutting down the nord stream pipelines and supporting weapon deliveries to Ukraine even before the elections, this plan seems to have worked out extraordinarily well. Then again, maybe you mistyped. The decision to shut down the nuclear plants was taken by a conservative government. (Angela Merkel, right after Fukushima). Admittedly, the greens have been campaigning to shut down nuclear plants, but they also have always campaigned to replace them with Wind and Solar power.
  - lores 2y ago
    It's really ironic how the Greens contributed to global warming. Good intentions aren't enough, you also need to be informed and willing to take small steps towards the perfect future.
    - wewxjfq 2y ago
      Contributed what? Their nuclear exit caused two nuclear power plants to shut down, which were the oldest and smallest in Germany. They had a combined capacity of a just 1 GW - utterly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Even when the conservatives pulled the plug on nuclear power plants in 2011, Germany just stopped decreasing emissions of its electricity production for a year or two. And this was at a time of higher gas prices, so it's even up for debate how much the nuclear exit contributed to that short stagnation.
    - Xylakant 2y ago
      The Germans. Hmm. So this was about the Green Party, not about the Germans. But still, I’ll bite. The Green Party is anti-nuclear and it’s debatable whether that’s positive or not. But they also are staunchly anti-coal and other carbon based energy sources. The greens have pushed constantly for renewables, both to achieve strategic energy autonomy and lowering greenhouse gas emissions. The Germans have introduced the first legislation to subsidize renewables, in 1990, in 2000 under a red/geeen coalition renewed as EEG (Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz) that taxed fossil electricity and guaranteed a fixed above market price for producers of renewable electricity. This is widely regarded as a major boost for both solar and wind energy. We did, however, drop the ball a little when the conservatives came back to power. We still do range in the midfield when it comes to pet capita carbon emissions. We certainly could do better and I wish we did, but blaming it on nuclear power is fairly simplistic. If you look at https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/energie/energieverbrauch-nach-energietraegern-sektoren#entwicklung-des-endenergieverbrauchs-nach-sektoren-und-energietragern https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/energie/energieverbrauc... for example, then you’ll notice that our love for ICE cars is a major factor - cars are one of our major sources of carbon dioxide emissions, far more than nuclear plants replaced with gas plants.
    - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
      They kicked off the solar boom which is the #1 solution to climate change and will overtake global nuclear in generation this year or next. Not bad as a small step towards a perfect future.
  - eptcyka 2y ago
    Angela Merkel didn’t want to shut them down, it is only after mass protests that they decided to do that.
braza 2y ago
Not the OP, but this was a theme in the European Parliament in 2022 [1][2] and it was the object of a document that Greenpeace made [3] showing how pervasive the Russian lobby was over climate policies. I personally do not believe that Russia does it in Germany via the Green Party but more so over other parties, such as AfD and BSW. [1] - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-001275_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-00127.... [2] - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-001275-ASW_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-00127.... [3] - https://www.greenpeace.de/publikationen/20220517-greenpeace-report-russland-taxonomie.pdf https://www.greenpeace.de/publikationen/20220517-greenpeace-....
- Xylakant 2y ago
  Also parts of the SPD - see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung_Klima-_und_Umweltschutz_MV https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung_Klima-_und_Umweltschu...
- ashoeafoot 2y ago
  You can use the green party simply by donating sums to or amplifying extreme voices. You do not need to control the whole of a ideology driven organisation , when you can nudge the extremists and usefools to undo their own organisation . The party leadership forwards public transport, the oil lobby finances damaging cars, glueing to streets and other activities. The fanatics of your own site, are the worst enemy .
lores 2y ago
Considering the harm fracking does to the local environment, that's pretty justified NIMBYism, no? Europe isn't like America with vast expanses of empty land, fracking would ruin the lives of many people, not to mention the landscape, in order to get hold of a very unpopular resource.
- ragebol 2y ago
  Oh, in this case indeed. In my hometown you can still find weathered down stickers over a decade old opposing fracking.

OgsyedIE 2y ago

European legal systems have a huge obstacle to fracking that the US doesn't: mineral rights are almost always severed from property rights in every European country. In the majority of the USA, if you own your home you own the oil one-point-four miles underneath it and can get royalties. In almost every part of Europe, you don't have any right to subsurface assets and have to eat the rare (but significant when they do occur) groundwater and seismic harms without recompense. The legal systems incentivise rational people to adopt NIMBYism.

rascul 2y ago
> In the majority of the USA, if you own your home you own the oil one-point-four miles underneath it and can get royalties. Generally not in any areas where there's something potentially valuable in the ground, though. Mineral rights tend to be separate there.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  Mineral exploitation doesn't really happen underneath housing developments, it's almost all in rural areas where rights were never divided up.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
blackguardx 2y ago
Not owning mineral rights on your property is very common in much of Colorado where there is lots of oil and gas development.