Germany’s Failed Climate Goals A Wake-Up Call for Governments Everywhere

[I Push Buttons]

Okay wait so how big was the miss? 1%? 50%?

I didn't see it in the article - can someone point this out to me?

Their goal was to reduce emissions 40% from the 1990 levels by 2020, they are on track for a 32% reduction and have said they will no longer focus on meeting the 2020 goal.

And you might be going "A 32% reduction is still good, right!?" The point of the article is that, if Germany can't achieve emission targets set in response to various agreements, most notably the Paris Agreement, then how could anyone else possibly do it?

Because in Germany, all sides of the government are on board with the green energy push and they have/will invest over half a trillion dollars in said push... And even with that they were still significantly short of the emissions reduction goals. While in most other nations there isn't the same consensus on the push for green energy and nowhere near the same level of resources being devoted to it.

[WintersLegion]

Yeah but nobody likes either of those other things and tentacle-trees are totally in right now.

I don't know Tangle Tree's never really seemed to be all that friendly in Xanth.

[Ravenblade]

They had this segment on NPR about how Germany keeps it's brown coal mines open, this is dirty coal.

The unions are very strong in Germany and the coal workers union or whatever it is called has enough clout to keep these brown coal mines open.

And people give Trump a hard time for trying to keep US coal mines open.

The same people who give Trump a hard time also give our coal mining companies and their machinations a hard time. There is no inconsistency. The one which exists is at the side of the IG BCE and political elements which deems jobs more important than the environment but other unions stick to CAP 2050 and oppose more investments into lignite mining.

Lignite is mined open-pit and does not require as much miners these days considering the high level of automation and use of contracted companies. Essentially there would be no massive job cuts at the same level when they closed the deep-mining anthracite mines decades ago.

There are a few things which make keeping in line with CAP 2050 actually impossible:

1.) the hastily initiated Energiewende process which favoured a quick exit from nuclear power plants as primary staple of power generation without the possibility of a smooth transition process towards renewable energy. As a result it requires running lignite-based power plants which even at high filtering causes emissions of radioactive byproducts.

2.) To this day entire inhabited zones including ancient villages are sacrificed for the plans of the CEOs of those mining companies such as RWE. Since they made plans and contracts for that sometimes decades ago authorities can't simply back out without crippling compensations pacta sunt servanda and such. In addition these companies especially RWE are known for astroturfing and planting loyal advisors into municipal councils so that they keep control.

3.) The government's half-hearted support for alternative mobility allowing for reduced emissions in critical areas such as cities and research into alternative energy sources for cars (fuel cells, e-mobility). They actually formed a platform for that but it consisted mostly supporters of Diesel and petrol engine motors which is like giving the fox the keys to the hen house.

4.) The government's EU-wide blocking of CO2 standards in favor of traditional car manufacturing and jobs.

5.) The government's half-hearted/non-existent support for digitalization. Yes, contrary to belief higher digitalization projects means inherently lower carbon footprint.

In essence conservative politics with no farther view than their own future career in the economy of their decision-makers are ill-suited to commit to effective environment policies, as are Leftist policies which think that jobs in an environmentally destructive market are so irreplaceable and without economic alternatives that it's more important to commit to it even if it costs the very basis this world is founded on. When the government was basically in bed with mining and power companies then it was unrealistic to assume that the result is anything than prosaic promises backed up by company-friendly policies. Germans themselves are to be blamed as well: most of them wanted the hasty exit, they want environment-friendly policies but not at the costs that have to be paid. So in essence today's policies are nothing more than a reflection of that.

With that said: I don't think missing the goals should be interpreted as failure. The wake-up call needs to be either in terms of moderation of plans towards realistic goals OR to be willing to commit to environment-friendly policies. The changes to be made should not be in terms of making it easier for power companies to evade regulation but towards taking power away from them in favor of environment friendly policies.

[Raakel]

Their goal was to reduce emissions 40% from the 1990 levels by 2020, they are on track for a 32% reduction and have said they will no longer focus on meeting the 2020 goal.

And you might be going "A 32% reduction is still good, right!?" The point of the article is that, if Germany can't achieve emission targets set in response to various agreements, most notably the Paris Agreement, then how could anyone else possibly do it?

Goals in such complex matters always shift and I'd consider 32/40% still a success. The 8% miss is due to strong lobbies still having a large handle on the energy sector.

IMO it's not a matter if Germany reaches or fails the goal because green energy is just a luxury that Germans can afford - The most deciding factor will be getting newly industrializing countries/continents on board. If they do the same mistakes we did decades ago they will be a much bigger/worse factor because they have generally larger populations.

[Slant]

There were targets for 2020 and 2030 which will certainly and most likely be missed; so you can't quantify it exactly as of now.

Main reason for missing the goals was hysterically abandoning nuclear energy after a tsunami in Japan. After all tsunamis are a common occurence in central europe, right eco retards?

No, but we've already had our core melt down in Chernobyl in Europe, so you being so dismissive is quite the joke.

[Slant]

With one of the oldest reactors even back then, because of stupid workers and lack in oversight. Reactors and safety procedures are on a completely different planet these days, especially Germany could build and operate amazing plants. Ditching nuclear came decades too early, and was hammered into the public mind way too severely. The option to bridge a few decades with it would be so so SO helpfull today, it almost makes me a bit angry that the cheap scare tactics of the past worked so well they still linger and govern our actions. I'd be all for building a couple of new reactors - IF the mandate to pick the absolute cheapest contractors is lifted and technicians were allowed to pick the proper contractors, of course. Keeping on with the Atomausstieg was an absolutely terrible idea.

I don't remember anyone being against it back then. Surely you're the only one that could've predicted this and cared enough about this to complain. Good on you! Personally, I'm good with the nuclear stop. And I'm also fine with failing to hit these numbers. It's not important. What is important is that we're trying. We can try more, but we've got a lot on our plate, mate. Between Greece, refugees, Brexit and now Turkey, the US and Russia thinking they can bully the EU around... I'm really fucking chilled about failing projections for 2030 or so. I'm not even in 2020 mentally. I don't give a shit about numbers for 2030. You know as well as I do that once this nation (or any nation) really sets its mind to it, those numbers are a joke and could be met within 2 years.

This article is a bit hyperbolic. Not in a bad way, it's a good wake up call, but I wouldn't go all doom and gloom and start whinging about a Government again that has more problems to solve than any of the previous ones and still keeps Germany calm like this.

[Erran Morad]

this is dirty coal.

Can you explain us what clean coal is please ?

I seek alternative knowledge

[Slant]

Yup, wouldn't it be just amazing if there was one big thing less to concern ourselves with? Could free up quite some time, and also a lottle lot of funds.

We are not overly concerned with these numbers. That is the point I'm making. A Government is able to deal with more than one things. They do that by prioritizing one thing over another. These climate goals have taken quite a step back to the more immediate concerns. That is how we free up time and focus for other things. And that's why we're currently not looking good on those numbers. But that is not the issue. What are you even complaining about exactly? Because right now you're the one that seems to be overly concerned with climate goals rather than complaining about us being in nuclear. Are you sure what your own point is?

In essence, I'd rather fail these goals without nuclear than continue a technology that has its own, long term, problems just to meet some arbitrary numbers.

I mean look at the graph from the article:



Sure, it looks like we might miss them. But really, it's not like we haven't achieved anything. You're being too dramatic about it. And the center one... wow, no idea who came up with that fantasy. The hunger for energy in a high tech nation will always be strong. That's more than just ambitious.

[Forogil]

As with most things, the issue of renewable energy isn't a "can we" question. That question was answered, decades ago, and it's a clear "yes". The question is "are we going to bother, or will we kick the can down the road because we'll be dead by then anyway." Which unfortunately, most of the time is also answered with "yes".

Well, it is also of matter of priorities.

"Renewables" can produce a significant part of the electricity - but wind, solar, and waves don't work 100% of the time. (And there is not enough biomass yet.)

That can also be handled, but the most working solutions are nuclear and hydro-electric dams - but due to other environmental concerns they are not used in Germany.

[Slant]

Well, it is also of matter of priorities.

"Renewables" can produce a significant part of the electricity - but wind, solar, and waves don't work 100% of the time. (And there is not enough biomass yet.)

A big part of the research goes into storing energy from a surplus period to a period when renewables aren't producing much. People often think renewables is only windmills and solar panels when probably the more important part is how to store the energy for long periods of time. Ideally, I think you'd like to be able to store energy for at least a winter. On a much, much bigger scale than most people can fathom. I think Elon Musk knows a bit about that and we would do well to watch what he does with his battery farms. A crude, brute force approach maybe, but it works.

[Noradin]

Because in Germany, all sides of the government are on board with the green energy push and they have/will invest over half a trillion dollars in said push... And even with that they were still significantly short of the emissions reduction goals. While in most other nations there isn't the same consensus on the push for green energy and nowhere near the same level of resources being devoted to it.

Actually... no, some just pretend to be.

[SirCowdog]

As with most things, the issue of renewable energy isn't a "can we" question. That question was answered, decades ago, and it's a clear "yes". The question is "are we going to bother, or will we kick the can down the road because we'll be dead by then anyway." Which unfortunately, most of the time is also answered with "yes".

You don't plant an acorn because you want a tree to sit beneath. You plant an acorn because you want a tree your grandchildren will sit beneath.

Sadly this.

Profits now, and fuck tomorrow when we can't collect profits because we're dead.

That's the name of the game.

[Flarelaine]

“Look at those losers re-investing capital in their own infrastructure trying to do 20 positive things and only succeeding in 19 positive things. What a bunch of losers.”

-sad man to no one in particular.

Creating employment at home all the time.

[petej0]

Goals in such complex matters always shift and I'd consider 32/40% still a success. The 8% miss is due to strong lobbies still having a large handle on the energy sector.

IMO it's not a matter if Germany reaches or fails the goal because green energy is just a luxury that Germans can afford - The most deciding factor will be getting newly industrializing countries/continents on board. If they do the same mistakes we did decades ago they will be a much bigger/worse factor because they have generally larger populations.

No, the 8% miss is due to unforseen side effects of green energy. These are the same issues we will see and have run into in other places. Notably the fact that green energy is cheaper due to their subsidies is pricing other forms of energy Coal, Oil & Nuclear to shut down their production plants because their energy is just too expensive to compete. This on paper sounds like a good thing, until you realize that without storage in the grids you wont have the needed capacity to supply energy at night or when their is no wind. etc..

[Forogil]

A big part of the research goes into storing energy from a surplus period to a period when renewables aren't producing much. People often think renewables is only windmills and solar panels when probably the more important part is how to store the energy for long periods of time. Ideally, I think you'd like to be able to store energy for at least a winter. On a much, much bigger scale than most people can fathom. I think Elon Musk knows a bit about that and we would do well to watch what he does with his battery farms. A crude, brute force approach maybe, but it works.

Batteries are largely a side-track for that.

We can already store energy at massive scale (TWh-range - and GW of output) to handle seasonal demands, just build a hydroelectric dam and don't run it when you don't need it. Batteries are still orders of magnitudes away from matching that.

In reality the overwhelming majority of energy storage world-wide (>90%) is the similar approach of pumped hydro-storage, that pump up water instead of waiting for rain-fall.

Germany has some of the pumped hydro-storage (e.g. Goldisthal - despite environmental concerns), but the other hydro-plants are primarily run-of-river ones, which doesn't help with load-balancing - but have less environmental impact.

As for Lithium-batteries, I think there might be some environmental push-back in Saxony if mining for Lithium.

[petej0]

Batteries are largely a side-track for that.

We can already store energy at massive scale (TWh-range - and GW of output) to handle seasonal demands, just build a hydroelectric dam and don't run it when you don't need it. Batteries are still orders of magnitudes away from matching that.

In reality the overwhelming majority of energy storage world-wide (>90%) is the similar approach of pumped hydro-storage, that pump up water instead of waiting for rain-fall.

Germany has some of the pumped hydro-storage (e.g. Goldisthal - despite environmental concerns), but the other hydro-plants are primarily run-of-river ones, which doesn't help with load-balancing - but have less environmental impact.

As for Lithium-batteries, I think there might be some environmental push-back in Saxony if mining for Lithium.

Hydroelectric dam ( at least the type we all picture) has the most environmental impact of all the green energy power generations.

[Forogil]

Hydroelectric dam ( at least the type we all picture) has the most environmental impact of all the green energy power generations.

Depends on location - but my point is that there is a trade-off between such environmental impacts, the climate impact of CO2 from non-green energy power, and the risk for nuclear reactors. It's not only that people don't care about the environment - it's also that they care about it in other ways.

Only if we ignore those tradeoffs can we claim that renewables can actually solve the problem today.

[petej0]

Depends on location - but my point is that there is a trade-off between such environmental impacts, the climate impact of CO2 from non-green energy power, and the risk for nuclear reactors. It's not only that people don't care about the environment - it's also that they care about it in other ways.

Only if we ignore those tradeoffs can we claim that renewables can actually solve the problem today.

Hydroelectric dams are massive structures that affect all sorts of wildlife habitats and migration patterns. It affects not only up stream but down stream conditions and have to go through years of impacts studies. Not to mention that you wont get any environmentalists on board if you even find one species of threatened animal who lives in the impacted area.

I understand the impact of CO2 but even environmentalists have a line you cant cross.

[Endus]

Hydroelectric dam ( at least the type we all picture) has the most environmental impact of all the green energy power generations.

The classic Hoover-type dams do. That's storage hydroelectric. Run-of-river hydro doesn't share the same issues, though you need to have a river that doesn't fluctuate in volume that much from month to month or year to year. In drier climates, like the Vegas desert, storage makes more sense.

Edit: I should note there's also pumped-storage, which can pull from run-of-river type systems and not involve damming in any respect, too.

[petej0]

The classic Hoover-type dams do. That's storage hydroelectric. Run-of-river hydro doesn't share the same issues, though you need to have a river that doesn't fluctuate in volume that much from month to month or year to year. In drier climates, like the Vegas desert, storage makes more sense.

Edit: I should note there's also pumped-storage, which can pull from run-of-river type systems and not involve damming in any respect, too.

Yes, that is correct. I have also seen concept storage types that pump water to the top of a tower during the day with solar energy and use gravity to produce power at night when the water is released to the bottom of the tower. I forget off hand if they had a special name or not. Really cool concept.