Germany's generous subsidy and build out of solar, while solar was still really expensive, was key in driving the cost down which now the whole world benefits from. Huge credit there.
But bio fuels are an unmitigated disaster. Electric ground transportation is the future.
You can already use trains in a large scale: most larger European cities are well connected and have extensive local transport systems. Next the public sector will invest a lot of money into electrical busses and their infrastructure. E-Bikes are already very popular. Cars will take a few more years...
Merkel's government had ambitious goals, but industry and public was not ready - without substantial financial incentives, which would have been another problem.
If scientists finally succeed in mimicking the oxygen evolving complex from photosynthesis, you get decentralized free hydrogen. Suddenly real hydrogen combustion (instead of fuel cells) makes sense and should be advantageous, even compared to electric transportation.
But, of course, it's a bit like fusion power: should be achievable in principle, but the details are infuriatingly difficult.
Basically Germany will miss the goal of a 40% reduction by 2020 with only reducing CO2 by 30%.
Beside coal/gas power, mostly from closing nuclear power plants. For example a quarter of CO2 emission in Berlin is coming from two Vattenfall coal power plants. Other effects are larger increase in people and economic growth.
I have been buying renewable energy for 15 years, but not many/not enough people in Germany care.
On a positive note renewable energy is 35% in Germany.
This largely coincides with the Green Party's rise in popularity. Sadly it seems they have no real plan, only ideology. IMO this is why they've prioritised shutting down nuclear power over coal power, because demonstrating against nuclear power is almost required to be a member, but sensible policies are not.
I don't think you can blame Merkel, she doesn't really have a hard stance on most topics - if anything, the opposite is true, and her position on many things is vague or pragmatic. It seems to me that the popularity of Martin Schulz and the AfD are a direct response to that.
Closing all of the Nuclear power plants after Fukushima was a bit of a dumb reactionary move. It's shifted power generation from emission free Nuclear to dirty emission heavy coal, which emits more radioactive Uranium into the atmosphere than a Nuclear plant (or so I am led to believe).
It's basically paying lip-service to being environmentally friendly so that you can feel good about yourself while doing nothing productive. Kind of like having separate bins for recycling, green waste, and general rubbish in the home/office but in the end just emptying all of them into the same place.
But I might add, for some perspective and concerning the "Who’s the world’s leading eco-vandal? It’s Angela Merkel " the US has 67% higher CO2 emissions per capita than Germany, Australia 94% and Qatar 314%.
The article voices a bunch of valid criticism, but I really wish it could have done so without turning environmental damage into a contest and using unsubstantiated superlatives. Is it not enough to criticize someone without claiming that they are the worst? The jab at Trump felt misplaced as well.
>> but I really wish it could have done so without turning environmental damage into a contest and using unsubstantiated superlatives.
Are you familiar with "The Guardian"?
Everything is the worst, or (rarely) the best there. It's not exactly a tabloid, but it is becoming more and more of a sensationalist leftie/left-liberal opinion vehicle.
They've spent a lot of time on the "Merkel is a saint" angle lately, because of her actions on refugee flows a couple of years ago, and because they have considered her most righteous when held up against the hubris and failings of the UK (most particularly concerning "Brexit").
The article was very clear that she not simply open to criticism but has done more, by her industry-driven policy decisions, to damage the environment than any other person. Literally, the worst.
It's not a secondary claim; it's the entire premise of the article.
Very much George Monbiot's style, I find it grating sometimes how hyper-critical he is of a lot of climate change endeavours. But I suppose it's better to have that voice there than not.
I agree. And if they do make it a contest, providing numbers for comparison would be really helpful. Like, her impact compared to that of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.
However the jab at Trump shows what is wrong with the political level of environmental activity.
there is so much more implied by the Paris Accords that it actually will do and heaps of FUD to convince you it must be done or we are all doomed with a good dose of of thanks thrown to the politicians who so boldly stood up for it.
So the sycophants in press, special interest groups, and science, were all dutifully marched out to hark the message loud enough to distract from everything that actually was still going on.
Politics is the art of distraction and division as practiced by modern politicians who are adept at manipulating public opinion usually with the full cooperation of a sympathetic press.
I feel like jabs at conservative politics are the norm now with a lot of journalism. A few weeks back an article [1] I read, from reddit, started with:
…the dastardly Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor seem to be a great gift to the Alt-Right’s xenophobic nationalists.
Interesting article, but unnecessary (and daresay incorrect?) jab at the start.
IMO being anti-nuclear and pro-environment are mutually exclusive positions. Easy way to discern who really wants to reduce carbon emissions and who is just a populist.
According to environmentalists in Germany, nuclear and pro-environment are indeed mutually exclusive. But I prefer not to copy all of my opinions from the group I most agree with.
FWIW I think nuclear is good in principle, but neither states nor companies have proven responsible enough to handle it. So I'm kind of against nuclear but not in this dogmatic way.
The practical difference is that I think there should be further research to design inherently safe approaches and processes to reduce the risk until it's orders of magnitude safer - maybe something with Thorium, maybe fusion, maybe a new fission reactor design. Then I'd be in favor of using it.
The nuclear waste "killer argument" is mostly bullshit. Highly radioactive substances are spent quickly, long lived substances radiate weakly. 100000 years are quite predictable in geology.
It is incredibly telling to me that the article doesn't even mention the nuclear issue because, i assume, the author is afraid of that reality. Coal is going to have to be a backbone because nuclear got killed. Pick your poison please, but be honest that that was the choice made.
Very good article. The industry-government nexus in Germany is indeed super powerful and underrated: other countries call it corruption, in Germany is called corporatism.
In the last few years we saw it in action, with important repercussion on the global level: for example, the way the Greek crisis was managed it had to do much more with the safety of German banks, that with the welfare of Greece (https://www.esmt.org/pub/where-did-greek-bailout-money-go).
> other countries call it corruption, in Germany is called corporatism.
That's insulting, and factually inaccurate - unless you have evidence to substantiate this hyperbole?
> for example, the way the Greek crisis was managed
The Greek crisis had other origins, and the financial checks/obligations upon joining the Euro are supposed to mitigate against the risk of not being able to devalue a national currency to e.g. boost tourism or exports. Too bad the Greek financial records may have not been completely accurate.
While Germany has benefited from the Euro, so have other countries. And it wasn't/isn't without downsides for Germany, either. I distinctly remember when the Euro was introduced, everything became far more expensive than the Deutschmark prices had been.
I think we can agree on that the economy is very much globally connected, and that a recession is going to have wide-spread effects. And that austerity doesn't work, and shows that best case, economists and bankers don't know what they're doing, or worst case know exactly what they're doing.
However, equating the actions/stance of one nations banks to that nation's people is a leap too far.
Without European (and incl. German) money Greece would be bancrupt and no longer in the Eurozone. Bancrupt banks in Europe would have helped no one, particularly not Greece.
For the welfare of the people in Greece the greek government is responsible, not Angela Merkel.
> other countries call it corruption, in Germany is called corporatism
I notice this world wide
I ask government officials for "expedited processing" with IRL emphasis and air quotes when I want something done faster, some times it could be construed as a kick back, other times the legislature had already voted for that where I must congratulate them for their keen recognition of revenue streams.
I don't consider due process as the qualifier of non-corruption. I don't actually care.
I just wish more people would accept the relative morality of the institutions they comply with.
As a person, she's extremely obstinate. For a leader, this trait can be advantageous - after all, who wants a leader who changes their minds all the time - but for the rest of Europe it's a curse. Somehow she is unable to admit she made some serious mistakes, and we're all suffering because of it.
That's actually the opposite of the perception of Angela Merkel in Germany. In Germany she is seen as populist, because she changes her mind quite often or waits until the public opinion is clear. Only in the refugee crisis, she was seen as following moral principles having not made any concessions to right wing politics (which earned her a lot of respect and a lot of hate). Make no mistake, generally her team is very accurately tracking public opinion.
Well, political opinions differ. I personally don't think Merkel has made any mistakes whatsoever. If the elections were only about the main candidates, I'd definitely have voted for her in the next election (have already voted). She seems to be the only person left in charge who takes basic human rights and humanist values seriously; for everyone else they seem to be only important as a lip service and as long as they are convenient.
Well it rather seems she changes her mind all the time. You can find various compilations of instances where she doubled back on earlier statements (sometime from years ago, but still). I get the impression she is extremely opportunistic, at least on a larger scale.
As I recall she didn't want to shut down Germany's nuclear industry, but was dragged there by the voting public. It's pretty difficult for stubborn people to be successful politicians in a parliamentary democracy.
But Merkel does indeed change her mind all the time. Not even trying to be judgmental but her politics are really populist. She has not a clearly defined platform, just whatever is agreeable with the electorate.
Like cancelling the 2002 nuclear shutdown deal in 2010 and then reenacting a new, poorly planned one in 2011 because a plant several thousand miles away ran into issues?
Agreed. While I have only respect for her, I'm afraid that through ignorance and rigidity her policy choices during the Eurozone crisis have set European integration back a generation.
I fail to understand why German automotive industry is lobbing pro diesels. All German car makers make both gasoline and diesel engines, if diesels were banned or taxed to be more expensive customers wouldn't resign from buying cars but would choose some other available option (gasoline, hybrid, electric).
There have been zillions invested in the Diesel, which would have been wasted. The Diesel is also seen as the more efficient engine: less fuel consumption and less CO2 emissions.
I think it's because they have a technical edge (well...) in diesel engines for cars and / or because they sell so many of them, especially in Germany itself. Markets favoring diesel engines thus favor German car makers.
They lobbied against safety belts, catalytic filters and a lot of other stuff. They can safely be ignored and usually they are pretty good at adapting to new conditions.
1. The Diesel process is more efficient than the Otto process (the theoretical limit is much higher)
2. Taxes in Germany: Diesel fuel is taxed at a much lower rate than other gasoline. In turn, the cars themselves are taxed a bit higher. If you drive a lot, a Diesel car is more economical for that reason.
2. Have ever had a chance to drive a car with a Diesel engine? The power over RPM curve is so different that the experience feels very different and arguably much more convenient.
I think the point is high CO_2 exhaustion rate of the gasoline cars, so that entire industry (and customers) switched towards the diesel engines, actively promoting them to be superior and eco-friendly variant of gasoline engines. Turns out they were wrong (just the other type of the pollution - Feinstaub) and to make things worse, they kept silent until the entire thing broke viral.
Diesel emissions are exaggerated. European emission standards set limits for diesel emissions that are just minutely different from gasoline emissions.
American limits for diesels are notorious for being more restrictive than for gas engines.
All of that considered, diesels are plainly more economical and more efficient on pretty much all common engine size ranges
First off, the big problem with diesel is not CO2, but NOx gases, which are way more immediately dangerous to human health. That's why some cities are thinking of banning them ASAP right now.
Second, besides VW which was creating even 40x the emissions than the standard you mentioned required, pretty much all the other car makers were creating 10-15x as many emissions, too, thus making that "strict standard" way looser. Forget Euro 6 or Euro 5. These cars weren't even compliant with the 25 year old Euro 2. In other words, all of these car makers "passing" the emissions tests over the past two decades has been all a bad joke played on the EU population.
Finally, a new stricter (than Euro 6) standard was supposed to arrive by 2021 or so, but Merkel once again intervened to make the standard even looser (by +50% more emissions allowed) than the previous one, which would be a first in the history of the Euro emissions standards, which have become increasingly stricter not looser, so far. All thanks to Merkel.
"Vorne hui, hinten pfui" is the correct term (which means "nice from the front, but disgusting from the rear" or something like talking the talk, but not walking the walk).
Yes, she is a nice little sockpuppet for the car-industry and obviously getting what you want as a industry always damaged the industry itself. No innovation, no risk taking, no fast adaption of new tech..
This sort of behaviour opened up a whole industry for disruption, so in a way corrupt politicians are the grave-diggers of old industrys.
[+] [-] marze|8 years ago|reply
But bio fuels are an unmitigated disaster. Electric ground transportation is the future.
[+] [-] lispm|8 years ago|reply
You can already use trains in a large scale: most larger European cities are well connected and have extensive local transport systems. Next the public sector will invest a lot of money into electrical busses and their infrastructure. E-Bikes are already very popular. Cars will take a few more years...
Merkel's government had ambitious goals, but industry and public was not ready - without substantial financial incentives, which would have been another problem.
[+] [-] melling|8 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country
China is saving nuclear power too:
https://qz.com/627113/bill-gates-says-china-is-the-best-plac...
[+] [-] fogetti|8 years ago|reply
You wanted to say China, didn't you.
[+] [-] Tomte|8 years ago|reply
But, of course, it's a bit like fusion power: should be achievable in principle, but the details are infuriatingly difficult.
[+] [-] dvfjsdhgfv|8 years ago|reply
It's a relatively less evil, for now. We still haven't found a good way of dealing with old batteries and it's a huge environmental problem.
[+] [-] _Codemonkeyism|8 years ago|reply
Beside coal/gas power, mostly from closing nuclear power plants. For example a quarter of CO2 emission in Berlin is coming from two Vattenfall coal power plants. Other effects are larger increase in people and economic growth.
I have been buying renewable energy for 15 years, but not many/not enough people in Germany care.
On a positive note renewable energy is 35% in Germany.
[+] [-] guitarbill|8 years ago|reply
I don't think you can blame Merkel, she doesn't really have a hard stance on most topics - if anything, the opposite is true, and her position on many things is vague or pragmatic. It seems to me that the popularity of Martin Schulz and the AfD are a direct response to that.
[+] [-] daemin|8 years ago|reply
It's basically paying lip-service to being environmentally friendly so that you can feel good about yourself while doing nothing productive. Kind of like having separate bins for recycling, green waste, and general rubbish in the home/office but in the end just emptying all of them into the same place.
[+] [-] _Codemonkeyism|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yorwba|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nursie|8 years ago|reply
Are you familiar with "The Guardian"?
Everything is the worst, or (rarely) the best there. It's not exactly a tabloid, but it is becoming more and more of a sensationalist leftie/left-liberal opinion vehicle.
They've spent a lot of time on the "Merkel is a saint" angle lately, because of her actions on refugee flows a couple of years ago, and because they have considered her most righteous when held up against the hubris and failings of the UK (most particularly concerning "Brexit").
So now it's time to demonise her...
[+] [-] richthegeek|8 years ago|reply
It's not a secondary claim; it's the entire premise of the article.
[+] [-] superpope99|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perlgeek|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|8 years ago|reply
there is so much more implied by the Paris Accords that it actually will do and heaps of FUD to convince you it must be done or we are all doomed with a good dose of of thanks thrown to the politicians who so boldly stood up for it.
So the sycophants in press, special interest groups, and science, were all dutifully marched out to hark the message loud enough to distract from everything that actually was still going on.
Politics is the art of distraction and division as practiced by modern politicians who are adept at manipulating public opinion usually with the full cooperation of a sympathetic press.
[+] [-] shangxiao|8 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-american-who-buried-a-kamik...
[+] [-] Grue3|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ahartmetz|8 years ago|reply
FWIW I think nuclear is good in principle, but neither states nor companies have proven responsible enough to handle it. So I'm kind of against nuclear but not in this dogmatic way.
The practical difference is that I think there should be further research to design inherently safe approaches and processes to reduce the risk until it's orders of magnitude safer - maybe something with Thorium, maybe fusion, maybe a new fission reactor design. Then I'd be in favor of using it.
The nuclear waste "killer argument" is mostly bullshit. Highly radioactive substances are spent quickly, long lived substances radiate weakly. 100000 years are quite predictable in geology.
[+] [-] Ntrails|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kome|8 years ago|reply
In the last few years we saw it in action, with important repercussion on the global level: for example, the way the Greek crisis was managed it had to do much more with the safety of German banks, that with the welfare of Greece (https://www.esmt.org/pub/where-did-greek-bailout-money-go).
[+] [-] guitarbill|8 years ago|reply
That's insulting, and factually inaccurate - unless you have evidence to substantiate this hyperbole?
> for example, the way the Greek crisis was managed
The Greek crisis had other origins, and the financial checks/obligations upon joining the Euro are supposed to mitigate against the risk of not being able to devalue a national currency to e.g. boost tourism or exports. Too bad the Greek financial records may have not been completely accurate.
While Germany has benefited from the Euro, so have other countries. And it wasn't/isn't without downsides for Germany, either. I distinctly remember when the Euro was introduced, everything became far more expensive than the Deutschmark prices had been.
I think we can agree on that the economy is very much globally connected, and that a recession is going to have wide-spread effects. And that austerity doesn't work, and shows that best case, economists and bankers don't know what they're doing, or worst case know exactly what they're doing.
However, equating the actions/stance of one nations banks to that nation's people is a leap too far.
[+] [-] lispm|8 years ago|reply
For the welfare of the people in Greece the greek government is responsible, not Angela Merkel.
[+] [-] Boothroid|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ringaroundthetx|8 years ago|reply
I notice this world wide
I ask government officials for "expedited processing" with IRL emphasis and air quotes when I want something done faster, some times it could be construed as a kick back, other times the legislature had already voted for that where I must congratulate them for their keen recognition of revenue streams.
I don't consider due process as the qualifier of non-corruption. I don't actually care.
I just wish more people would accept the relative morality of the institutions they comply with.
[+] [-] dvfjsdhgfv|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lispm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonathanstrange|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oarfish|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gozur88|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] odiroot|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pgeorgi|8 years ago|reply
Like cancelling the 2002 nuclear shutdown deal in 2010 and then reenacting a new, poorly planned one in 2011 because a plant several thousand miles away ran into issues?
[+] [-] isolli|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mixedbit|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lispm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ahartmetz|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxxxxx|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gmueckl|8 years ago|reply
2. Taxes in Germany: Diesel fuel is taxed at a much lower rate than other gasoline. In turn, the cars themselves are taxed a bit higher. If you drive a lot, a Diesel car is more economical for that reason.
2. Have ever had a chance to drive a car with a Diesel engine? The power over RPM curve is so different that the experience feels very different and arguably much more convenient.
[+] [-] nemanjaboric|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baybal2|8 years ago|reply
Diesel emissions are exaggerated. European emission standards set limits for diesel emissions that are just minutely different from gasoline emissions.
American limits for diesels are notorious for being more restrictive than for gas engines.
All of that considered, diesels are plainly more economical and more efficient on pretty much all common engine size ranges
[+] [-] mfukar|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|8 years ago|reply
Second, besides VW which was creating even 40x the emissions than the standard you mentioned required, pretty much all the other car makers were creating 10-15x as many emissions, too, thus making that "strict standard" way looser. Forget Euro 6 or Euro 5. These cars weren't even compliant with the 25 year old Euro 2. In other words, all of these car makers "passing" the emissions tests over the past two decades has been all a bad joke played on the EU population.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/19/many-car-...
Finally, a new stricter (than Euro 6) standard was supposed to arrive by 2021 or so, but Merkel once again intervened to make the standard even looser (by +50% more emissions allowed) than the previous one, which would be a first in the history of the Euro emissions standards, which have become increasingly stricter not looser, so far. All thanks to Merkel.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/24/petrol-c...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/28/angela-m...
[+] [-] _pmf_|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fogetti|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] addHocker|8 years ago|reply
This sort of behaviour opened up a whole industry for disruption, so in a way corrupt politicians are the grave-diggers of old industrys.