Germany’s leading climate alarmism site “Klimaretter” (Climate Rescuer) recently fretted that the German government has quietly watered down the country’s climate protection policy and targets for the coming decades.
In short, Germany is walking away from its climate protection commitments declared in Paris.
The site describes Germany’s plan to reduce CO2 emissions by 2050 as now being “non-concrete, watered down and without substance“. Klimaretter reports that as the draft policy has gone through the Chancellors Office “a number of targets for transportation, agriculture or buildings have been eliminated” and that the government intends to adopt an “open path” for reducing greenhouse gases.
The German site writes that the country’s Ministry of Envinonment’s once highly ambitious climate protection plan – forged with the help of climate scientist Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber – has since been greatly weakened:
The draft policy was made public for the first time and is now headed for a vote. Many critics already expected the original text to get greatly softened up. Now it’s official.”
The initial draft has been so strongly watered down that klimaretter writes that there is “not much of it left“. Gone are:
- the requirement to end coal power
- any mention of taxes on fossil and heating fuels
- duties on building heating systems
- requirements for reducing the consumption of meat
Another thorn in the eye of climate protection activists, writes the alarmist klimaretter: “The preamble of the draft now includes a statement that the German government wishes to place ‘central attention’ on maintaining the competitiveness of the German economy’” The plan itself is to only serve as a “compass“, and not as mandatory targets.
Declared targets “in serious danger”
German Greens and leftists are fuming over the hefty changes. Klimaretter quotes: Eva Bulling-Schröter, spokesperson of the Linke (Communist) Party:
Now at the latest it has to be clear that with this government Germany’s declared climate targets of reducing CO2 emissions 40% by 2020 and 95% by 2050 are in serious danger.”
Perhaps Klimaretter could use stronger language and call the plan “null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, inane, empty of meaning and effect for all time”.
” … reducing the consumption of meat …”
This brings up the issue of Germany’s long term population (non)growth.
This is a bit over a year old, but still:
In the long term, a decline in Germany’s population is inevitable. . . . the country’s 2013 population of 80.8 million was expected to increase, depending on the assumed extent of net immigration, over a period of five to seven years and to decline afterwards. He continued that the population figure would be below 2013 levels not before 2023. In 2060, the population size would be 67.6 million according to a lower and 73.1 million according to a higher immigration variant.
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2015/04/PE15_153_12421.html
If the economic issues mean a poorer lifestyle and demographics means fewer folks, the consumption of meat (and lots of other things) is soon to decline.
{I love it when an issue takes care of itself.}
In the USA recent higher immigration and birth rates of the immigrants has postponed the population decline to well beyond my time horizon. If the population cusp in Germany is ~2023 [happened already in Russia**] this issue should soon be news item #1 and “Klimaretter” can change its name to reflect a real issue.
**http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/russian-demographics-perfect-storm
See. We can see that they shift from one fraud to the next in the contradictions in the official story:
-As you say, under normal conditions the German population would shrink – the country is overpopulated since ca. 1900 when a big population and city growth began, probably through reduced child mortality. Greens would normally LOVE this shrinkage as the high consumption Western populations diminish and therefore the alleged environmental destruction shrinks. They want POOR people, not RICH people. And FEW of them, not MANY.
-At the same time the very same Greens (and ALL OTHER old parties!) demand we REPLENISH that shrinking population with UNLIMITED imports of Muslims from countries where the average consumption is LESS. (vastly less according to GDP/capita numbers). So here’s the contradiction.
So – WHY would the Greens especially not criticize the uplifting of the consumption of a Muslim from Syria from a Syrian level to a German-welfare-including free housing-level? (and, all of his extended family as they – the Greens – demand they all be brought into Germany for “family reunification”) Usually they criticize our every move for the environmental destruction it allegedly produces! This contradiction has actually completely shut them off with regards to the environment! The GREEN PARTY does not talk about the environment at all! In YEARS now!
I think we see a phase shift with the crooks of the Old Parties (the Greens as well as the socialdemocrats as well as the “conservatives”): They are switching from the warmunist population-control front to the islamisation front seamlessly. What is the common denominator of these two different frauds? Destruction of capitalism. First it was with trying to shut down energy production – now it is with the Cloward-Piven plan : Overload the capitalist society with useless eaters.
That the Greens support this is obvious – they are called watermelons for a reason: they are Adorno’s children; cultural marxists. What’s surprising is the outing of the “conservatives” – who first tried to outgreen the Greens and now try to out-islamize all the Leftist forces.
The import of Muslims progresses with a speed of about a million a year – this erased the shrinking of the German population, it is growing now.
Even though the “conservatives” claim they got it under control, in the first half of 2016 400,000 Muslims arrived over the still open border and claimed Asylum; another 600,000 are expected this year via “family reunification” – carefully covered up by our “media”.
So the key question in all this is: Who gives the “conservatives” their marching orders? Industry surely doesn’t want the imported Muslims as workers – DAX companies hired just 50 of them. Maybe industry wants them as consumers, financed by our welfare state: So this might just be a strategy to loot the welfare state. (And again: The Greens would be expected to protest that. But they don’t. Proving that the Greens don’t actually care for the environment.)
“he population size would be 67.6 million according to a lower and 73.1 million according to a higher immigration variant”
That’s very odd.
I would have assume a higher immigration intake(of islamists)would eventually lead to a lower population.!
Germany is currently ruled by a coalition of the conservative CDU and the social democrats (SPD) with some deep links to old coal business.
It is no surprise, that this combination is not showing any enthusiasm for renewables that start cutting down the old energy industry.
The current trick is to eliminate all medium term goals. The targets remain unchanged, but the path towards those targets gets lost.
but all around the world, renewables are making huge progress. 20 to 30% will soon be the norm. so please do not worry about a conservative german government trying to push the brakes.
“20 to 30% will soon be the norm”
ROFLMAO.. what you bin smokin’, dude ??????
Sod for once is absolutely right!
’20 to30%’ is about all one can expect to get out of a wind turbine- which means they will be generating maybe 5% of total energy when ostensibly there’s enough of them to generate ‘20%’.
All we need do is carpet the planet with them, and we might just reach 50%
But it won’t run vehicles.
And it won’t heat homes in winter.
And you can’t make daily-used materials out of it.
And it won’t keep the lights on when you most need them.
sod 10. September 2016 at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Reply
“Germany is currently ruled by a coalition of the conservative CDU and the social democrats (SPD) with some deep links to old coal business.
It is no surprise, that this combination is not showing any enthusiasm for renewables that start cutting down the old energy industry.”
Don’t believe sod’s lies – he is spreading desinformation: The SPD-CDU government is in place for 7 years or so and under it, the subsidies for solar and wind have grown to 30 billion Euros a year, a growth of 15 percent a year – the most fanatic green regime of history.
“The SPD-CDU government is in place for 7 years or so and under it, the subsidies for solar and wind have grown to 30 billion Euros a year, a growth of 15 percent a year” – DirkH
Yes, but from sod’s perspective, that IS “conservative.”
Yes, about 20-30% of nameplate capacity is all this useless junk produces
And if you ask….
“how much can you GUARANTEE to deliver 95% of the time? ”
… it comes out at about 3-5% of nameplate.
““how much can you GUARANTEE to deliver 95% of the time? ””
you are totally stuck on a utterly irrelevant number.
How a bout you speak to a person working on grid management?
Those 20% are no problem at all and your “guarantee” is utterly meaningless. How much nuclear can you guarantee in Japan today?
I dunno sod. I suspect the average Middle-class or Poor German would appreciate being able to get energy to heat their homes at Least 95% of the time. How you can see that as being Irellevant is beyond me.
But to answer your other question: Japan has brought 5 nuclear plants back online so far, and more are in the works http://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/Japan-Nuclear-Update
You may live in fear of nuclear energy but a lot of people want it, despite any polls you might dredge up.
Yep. Here’s another link on the topic.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Japanese-institute-sees-19-reactor-restarts-by-March-2018-2807164.html
More proof sod just makes stuff up. But then, we already knew that.
So, sop is content to have power only, say 50% of the time, or would 10% be better?
Come on sop, what percentage of the time do YOU want to have power available.????
I can certainly guarantee that down here in NSW, COAL can provide full power 100% of the time, and because of decent planning, the coal fired power plants sit around 80% of their nameplate 24/365.25
There was one nuclear station in the USA that was running at 100+ percent of its nameplate apart from scheduled planned refuelling.
Wind.. is a pathetic, irregular, inconsistent and ultimately HIGHLY DAMAGING for of energy production.
And of course, what you are saying is that wind is TOTALLY RELIANT on some sort of power supply that can provide AS REQUIRED, to fill in the near 100% of energy that wind CANNOT provide.
So why not just use that RELIABLE source, rather than the utter waste of money of useless, irregular, UNRELIABLE, environment destroying wind energy.