Germany Manages To Draft “Watered Down…Hollowed Out” Climate Plan For Marrakesh

Some days ago we wrote about how Germany was headed to Marrakesh without any plan on how it would meet its “climate targets”.

This of course promised to be a huge embarassment for a country that liked to massively boast about being a leader in fighting climate change.

Merkel’s government and leading ministers had to endure quite a beating by the media, and apparently caved in and have since reached a compromise with climate alarmist minister of environment Barbara Hendricks. They’re coming to Marrakesh with a Climate Plan 2050 after all.

“Hardly any substance…watered down”

Daniel Wetzel at the online national daily Die Welt here reports, however, that the plan has “hardly any substance” left in it, and:

What resulted was a light version: Many requirements have been crossed out or watered down. Those who profit are industry and power plant operators.”

That of course means that German consumers, who have been hard hit by the “Energiewende” (transition to renewable energies) through skyrocketing electricity costs and grid instability, can breath a sigh of relief: Germany is in fact only lukewarm when it comes to combatting the “most serious threat to mankind”.

“Nebulous text”

Also deleted from the Climate Plan 2050 is a minimum price for CO2 emissions trading, and what remains, according to Wetzel, is a nebulous “strengthening of price signals of emissions trading“.

“Completely hollowed out”

Wetzel adds that the German Greens and environmentalists have slammed the new Climate Plan 2050, calling it “completely hollowed out” and that it “will not fulfil the requirements of the Paris climate agreement“.

Yet, despite all the shortcomings in the latest draft, Wetzel believes that the plan will in fact be praiseworthy when it arrives in Marrakesh later this week, writing:
Hardly any counry has bothered drawing up a reduction plan that goes so far out into the future.”

No effect on emissions so far

One reader at Facebook commented that Germany’s climate fight so far has been a farce, and that it has caused far more damage than good. The reader writes that over the first 9 months of this year, Germany has in fact consumed 0.3% more energy than it did over the same period a year earlier, concluding:

The German Energiewende is meaningless for the climate. […]. Nonetheless, Germany’s most beautiful landscapes continue to be destroyed by wind turbines – a crime against nature.”

And then there are the astronomical financal costs.

 

9 responses to “Germany Manages To Draft “Watered Down…Hollowed Out” Climate Plan For Marrakesh”

  1. John F. Hultquist

    If I’m still around in 2050, I’ll be the oldest person in the world, or nearly so. But it is possible.
    I think it will take until then for researchers to devise an alternative form of energy supply that does not defile the environment as does wind and grid scale solar. The build-out of anything new will take lots of time, so fast and significant changes should not be expected.
    There are forecasts that world population growth will have leveled off and even started a decline — in some countries this is already happening.
    All those young folks in Marrakesh should go back to school and learn a useful trade — plumbing, health care, material science.

    1. Analitik

      It will take a breakthrough in physics which then needs to be deployed. Who knows when that could happen?
      http://euanmearns.com/is-large-scale-energy-storage-dead/

      1. yonason

        From the article…

        “California will consider any type of energy storage system provided it isn’t pumped hydro, the only large-scale energy storage technology that can be guaranteed to work.”

        __translation__

        cal politician – “No no no, we can’t do THAT.”

        energy co – “Why not?”

        cal pol – “It might work.”

  2. tom0mason

    It sounds like Germany is at last giving the UN a more measured and thoughtful response to the ‘waste of money schemes’ to redistribute global wealth*. But they are still behind the curve.
    I’ll echo President Ronald Reagan and say —
    “Mrs Merkel tear down that Energiewende!”
    Understand that as while that costly abomination stays, German will be at the focus of the global socialist experimental crucible for Western democracy’s industrial and financial destruction.

    *see http://understandingfraud.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/they-lied-to-you-about-climate-change.html

  3. AndyG55

    Talk by the far left sops of California seceding from the USA.
    (Maybe the closest moon in 70 odd years will it for them… ie.. San Andreas fault)

    I hope they do, because the nearby states will then have absolutely no obligation to sell then fossil fuel fired electricity.

    1. ClimateOtter

      One could almost hope CA would secede but for two things:

      A) the Democrats need all those liberal votes if they ever hope to win again.

      B) a lot of conservatives live in CA and they would not do well, in fact are already not doing well but don’t have a lot of choice in the matter.

  4. David Appell

    What can you expect? The Germans, once thought of as the premier engineers in the world, turned tail on nuclear energy after Fukashima and ran.

    Now engineering scares them.

    1. yonason

      Engineers can’t build a nuke power plant without the approval of the nanny state. I don’t see how they can be blamed for not building something that isn’t allowed.

  5. DE LARMINAT

    November 4th 2016

    PRESS RELEASE

    A French scientist’s research attributes most of the global warming to solar activity

    The Dutch-British publishing company Elsevier B.V. has put online on October 25, 2016, a paper entitled “Earth Climate Identification vs. Detection and Attribution”. This publication, referenced on the ScienceDirect website, was revised in the due rules by a peer committee in Annual Reviews in Control (ARC), one of the seven scientific journals of IFAC, federating thousands of international experts in automatic control and modelisation of complex systems.

    The author, Professor Philippe de Larminat, is a recognized expert in these disciplines. He applied the proven techniques of dynamical systems identification to the Earth climate, using paleoclimatic databases available from the major institutes and international organizations. It follows that “with a 90% probability level, one cannot reject the hypothesis of a zero anthropogenic contribution”. While “the hypothesis of a low sensitivity to solar activity must be rejected with a probability level greater than 90%.”

    Conversely, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) considers that “it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the middle of the 20th century”, this on the basis of the “Detection and Attribution”, a theory explicitly dedicated to anthropogenic attribution of recent climate change.

    The paper presents and clarifies the causes of this contradiction.
    • The main one is due to the durations used for climate observations: a thousand years for Identification, at most one hundred and fifty years for the Detection-Attribution, thereby eliminating the millennia events of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, notoriously correlated to solar activity. « It has the effect of minimizing the contribution of solar activity » says the author.
    • The second contradiction is due to a confusion between cause and effect, about the El Niño events. The author examines the reasons for this “heavy methodological error, which is obvious to any expert in systems science”.

    Could the Philippe de Larminat publication challenge the prevailing consensus on anthropogenic climate change, consensus which is turning the world economic issues (COP 21, 22) as far as the moral issues (Laudato si)? Questioned on the eventuality that a new consensus can emerge, that of a preponderant influence of solar activity on the climate, the author only recalls: “Neither the consensus nor the votes have any place in science; only the evidences matter. To the argument of authority, French philosopher Descartes opposed the authority of the argument. But the consensus is only a submission to the argument of authority, the lowest ever”.

    This publication, whose part is accessible even to the non-experts, confirms the conclusions already advanced by the author in his previous work “Climate change – identification and projections” (ISTE/Wiley, 2014). It is expected to reopen the debate on a new basis.

    Philippe de LARMINAT,

    Contact: philippe.delarminat@orange.fr

    Press Contact: +33 (0) 6 07 55 01 31

    Open access journal link : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367578816300931