Germany’s Environment Ministry Blames “Cold Winter” For Stalled Fight Against Climate Warming!

Germany’s Federal Ministry of Environment (UBA) has released its latest annual Report of Indicators: DATA ON THE ENVIRONMENT 2017, which is designed to provide “a comprehensive overview of the environment’s status”.

Today’s post looks mainly at the climate and energy part of the report. One thing we can conclude from it: Germany is failing horribly to reach its emissions targets, as the following chart in the report shows:

German equivalent Co2 emissions fell from 1,251 million tonnes in 1990 to 906 million tonnes in 2016. However, there has not been reductions in 8 years. Source: UBA

Not surprisingly the UBA is in total dissatisfied with Germany’s progress on many environmental fronts, and the report reads like a thinly veiled anti-industry, anti-population growth manifesto. It sees major challenges in “climate change, the nitrogen problem, diminishing biodiversity, consumption of resources or the terrible ecological condition of our lakes and rivers, and including plastic in the oceans and seas”.

On climate change it summarizes:

Climate change is now all too obvious: 2016 was the warmest since measurements began. The 20 warmest years since 1850 have all occurred since 1990. The German federal government has set the target of reducing greenhouse gases 40% by 2020 compared to 1990. According to the latest numbers they have, however, risen over the past year. A cold winter and the rise of emissions from transportation were the cause. The current development doesn’t suffice for reaching the target.”

Ironically Germany’s failure to be on course to meet it’s anti-warming targets gets blamed in part on “a cold winter”, the report claims.

Also Germany’s consumption of primary energy also has not gone down since 2008, as the following chart shows:

Source: AGEB

Obviously, draconian measures will have to be taken if the country wants to hit its 2020 target.

It’s important to note that the first reductions are rather easy, as it simply entails avoiding wasting energy. But from now on it is going to require squeezing it out through expensive technical means and painful sacrifice.

And with Donald Trump dumping Paris Accord, a number of countries will probably have little incentive to cut back their energy consumption, and thus will only make it even harder for go-it-alone countries.

There is one success that Germany’s UBA can boast: Revenue pouring into state coffers from environmental taxes, fees and surcharges almost hit a new all-time record, reaching 58.2 billion euros (i.e. about 750 euros for each and every citizen).

Source: German Federal Statistics Office (2016)

So profitable can environmental protection be for the state.

54 responses to “Germany’s Environment Ministry Blames “Cold Winter” For Stalled Fight Against Climate Warming!”

  1. yonason (from my cell phone)

    “2016 was the warmest since measurements began”

    More like “…since fraudulent adjustments began.”
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wgKQIfPr9to

    But adjustments are justified, right?
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-oxKF6rW-W0

    Doesn’t look like it.

    Looks more like criminal racketeering on an international scale by rogue governments nearly everywhere.

    1. sod

      2016 was the warmest year in the UAH data as well.

      Oh the facts, they hurt.

      1. Josh

        Whether or not it was the warmest year on record is irrelevant as our records only go back a relatively short period of time. Inferences have to be made about the climate of the past and much suggests that the warming in recent decades (due to adjustments or other causes) is neither new nor unprecedented.

        1. SebastianH

          The reason is new. If your car explodes because you hit a unicorn you would probably say this isn’t new nor unprecedented, right? After all cars have been exploding before.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH: “If your car explodes because you hit a unicorn”

            This is SebastianH’s best contribution to the scientific debate on climate so far. I thought the balls bouncing behind a wall anology was decent, but…exploding unicorns? Now that proves CAGW is truth.

      2. AndyG55

        El Nino transient, and still WELL BELOW MWP temperatures and certainly below anything before the MWP.

        Pity there is nothing reliable before 1979 otherwise I suspect 1940’s would be up there at a similar temperature or slightly higher.

      3. Peerke

        “2016 was the warmest year in the UAH data as well. Oh the facts, they hurt.”

        Maybe we should have a poll to determine who actually “felt hurt” by the weather last year.

        I’m sure most people will agree that the cold of winter hurts much more than the warmth of summer.

        1. sod

          so now we have the full scale of sceptic arguments:

          1. Co2 has no effect.

          2. 2016 was not the hottest

          3. it does not matter if it was hot.

          Great!

          1. AndyG55

            1. CORRECT well done sob !!!! yippeeeee !

            2. WRONG, and you were doing so well .. back to your normal ignorance.

            MWP was warmer. First 7000-8000 of the Holocene were much warmer. Quite probably 1940’s were warmer in NH.

            3. Sort of part correct.. except it wasn’t HOT. It was only slightly warmer than the Little Ice Age, which was the coldest period in 10,000 years.

            Do try a bit harder, still a FAILURE despite getting the first one right.

          2. AndyG55

            2. I misread, sorry.. ..

            seems you got number 2 right as well.

            Call me stunned and amazed !!!

            First 2 things you have EVER got correct since your childish trolling started.

            Maybe you are capable of learning, even if by mistake.

          3. SebastianH

            A worthy reply from our master troll/disinformer AndyG55 😉

      4. yonason (from my cell phone)

        There is no UAH data for the 1930’s against which to compare satellite results for our times, sod.

        We DO have station data for the entire time period, though. And Tony Heller does an excellent job of showing how govt., idealogues have manipulated that data out of all recognition.

    2. SebastianH

      Just read the FAQ: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php

      Do you really think this is all done to “fake” something?

      1. Josh

        Ahhh the NOAA. Weren’t they caught with their fingers in the cookie jar a short time ago?

      2. yonason (from my cell phone)

        “Do you really think this is all done to “fake” something?” – SebH Chatbot

        Since their raw data says one thing, and they torture it until it seems to say something else, YES!

        1. SebastianH

          Have you read the FAQ I linked to? Do you object any of the methods they use to adjust the data? Which one in particular?

          1. yonason (from my cell phone)

            Did you watch the second Tony Heller video explaining why their adjustments are a scam, SebH-Chatbot?

            You want me to believe liars when they tell me they are telling the truth?

  2. Philip Verslues

    Paris was Garbage to start it’s still garbage and will only get worse. No golbul warming for 20 years. CO2 levels FOLLOW Temperature levels up and Down. How do you drive a car on gas that doesn’t exist YET!

    1. sod

      “CO2 levels FOLLOW Temperature levels up and Down. How do you drive a car on gas that doesn’t exist YET!”

      you are wrong. The trailer typically follows the car. At least up to the moment, when you add a heavy trailer to a small car on a steep hill.

      your understanding of climate is currently at -17 on a scale from 0 to 100. Please educate yourself.

      1. Josh

        And yet Sod only offers Greenie Kool-aid. His understanding might well be placed below -50

        1. sod

          “And yet Sod only offers Greenie Kool-aid. His understanding might well be placed below -50”

          no argument, just insults.

          CO2 can both lead and follow temperature increase. fact.

          1. AndyG55

            Present some arguments yourself.

            Some ACTUAL PROOF.. do you even know what that is?

            All you have done so far is meaningless yapping. !!

      2. AndyG55

        Poor sob-sob, still remains utterly IGNORANT of all facets of climate.

        He has NEVER educated himself past pre-school level., and almost certainly does not have the capability to.

    2. SebastianH

      Do you really think that the currect CO2 concentration increase is caused by a temperature increase some time ago?

      1. Josh

        It’s caused by many factors but is not a problem. If anything the current CO2 levels are much too low.

        1. AndyG55

          If a significant amount oif CO2 is from human emissions , that is WONDERFUL, because with many countries going full out on coal fired power plant production (or gas is locally available), there will CONTNIIUE TO BE AN INCREASE for many years to come.

          And guess what seb-sob..

          There is absolutely NOTHING you and your AGW scammer can do about that FACT 🙂

          … except of course your endless, meaningless and pointless Chihuahua-like YAPPING. !!

          1. sod

            “If a significant amount oif CO2 is from human emissions , that is WONDERFUL,”

            your champion Lomborg has written a peer reviewed article that estimates a temperature increase of 4.7°C.

            https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-meeting-paris-pledges-would-prevent-at-least-one-celsius-global-warming

            even you can not be stupid enough to think that that is good news.

            “There is absolutely NOTHING you and your AGW scammer can do about that FACT”

            well, over here in the real world 200 countries have joined the Paris accord and are trying to fight against this insanity.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            “your champion Lomborg has written a peer reviewed article that estimates a temperature increase of 4.7°C.”

            That’s because he’s fully a believer in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Since he’s written another peer-reviewed paper that says the effect of the Paris Agreement would be just 0.17 C of warmth “savings” even with those high estimates of CAGW temperature changes, that just goes to show how inconsequential the emissions reductions are. Even James Hansen said the Paris Agreement was worthless.

            By the way, I highly doubt that Lomborg is Andy’G55’s “champion”.

          3. SebastianH
          4. AndyG55

            Seb and sob , you guys clearly have absolutely ZERO idea what Lomberg is saying

            Your ignorance of basically EVERYTHING is astonishing.

            And really, do you think the 4.7C has any merit is science, what-so-ever??

            You really are living in a gullible, brain-washed, FANTASY, both of your together, holding hand, without a single brain synapse firing.

          5. AndyG55

            “I highly doubt that Lomborg is Andy’G55’s “champion””

            Despite being VERY misled on the AGW scam, at least Lomborg has a common sense approach about the economic stupidity of what is being pushed by the Paris Agenda and other AGW farcical crap.

            He realises that Paris Agenda is total economic stupidity and a total waste of money that will have ZERO effect on anything.

            Pity that he doesn’t have the scientific background to realise that the whole AGW scam is a total farce from the ground up.

  3. clipe

    Heads-up. Climate Depot has top-of-page links to short articles from James Delingpole and American Thinker on what Kenneth Richards recently reported at NTZ.

  4. SebastianH

    Stretched the first graph and included a trendline. The failure to meat thise line in the last few years is not that dramatic and once electric cars set off the savings in primary energy consumption and CO2 emissions will be enormous, even at the current composition of the electricity mix.

    http://imgur.com/a/BmDdH

    The gas usage this winter was higher than last winter, comparable to 2014/2015: https://agsi.gie.eu/#/graphs//DE

    1. AndyG55

      Oh look.. seb lent his monkey a ruler.

      Didn’t know you owned a monkey, seb. !

      …. either that or you are a fantasy driven mathematical inebriate.

      1. sod

        “Oh look.. seb lent his monkey a ruler.”

        you have no arguments, just insults.

        what seb did is simple: he put the misleading graph above 8i would call that one a trick, by the way!) into the right scale.

        I think that Germany will miss the 2020 target. the current CDU/SPD government simply was not interested in renewables at all but instead is trying to save the big electricity companies and is fighting against the truth and for diesel cars.

        But if you are watching the news in Germany (diesel…) you can get the impression that massive changes might be coming sooner than expected (and as it happens mostly not with support by the government and industry but AGAINST their resistance. Stupid leaders always at the back of the pack…).

        PS: no celebration post about Germany giving a 6 billion € gift to the nuclear companies yet?

        1. AndyG55

          If you can’t see that sebs moronic linear trend came from anything but the mind of a monkey.. then you are even dumber than even I thought you were.

          1. SebastianH

            The reduction goals are on a linear trendline. Are you blind?

          2. AndyG55

            Moronic, meaningless, linear trend line.

            Are YOU blind..

            … as well as being a monumental mathematical illiterate.

          3. AndyG55

            And do you REALLY think it has even the slightest hint of REALITY about it ??

            Is your hallucinogenic FANTASY really that deep ??

          4. SebastianH

            What are you talking about? Those are proposed goals for CO2 emission … future events! They are on a linear trendline beginning vom 1990, that’s all this line says. Why are you acting like an idiot over this?

  5. John F. Hultquist

    Today where we live the temperature reached 32°C (90°F).
    On Saturday it is forecast to reach 17°C (63°F).

    The science is settled:
    By the June Solstice there will be a glacier in our back yard.

  6. Modellprognosen: Kühler Sommer 2017 in Deutschland und Europa? – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] Umweltbundesamt (UBA) macht „Kalten Winter“ für Verfehlen der deutschen „Klimazie… […]

  7. AndyG55
  8. AndyG55

    And not so good for the EV shills.

    Got your EV ordered yet, sob or seb 😉

    http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Cobalt-Frenzy-Prices-Surge-150-As-Tech-Giants-Battle-For-Supply.html

  9. PGreij

    How are you goibg to power all these EV’s? With wind turdbines and solar? Plug them in at night?

    6 cars takjng juice at same time im a street and you have a brown out.

    Deluded.

    1. sod

      “How are you goibg to power all these EV’s? With wind turdbines and solar? Plug them in at night?”

      they will slowly load, mostly during day when there is plenty of solar PV electricity.

      going nearly full EVs will only increase electricity demand by about 15%. That is about the amount of electricity that we could save by switching to LED lights and similar effective appliances.

      Charging EVs under normal circumstances is NOT a problem.

      “6 cars takjng juice at same time im a street and you have a brown out.”

      this is not true. please give a link to the basis of this claim. Are you assuming people using fast charges at home all the time and at the same time?

      1. AndyG55

        Sob-sob doesn’t have an EV, do you sob, sob

        Its all just a nil-information fantasy to him. !!

        1. SebastianH

          Why can’t you ever reply to any question asked and instead always divert to some other topic or insults?

          It’s pretty clear that local power grids need some improvement if everyone is driving an EV, so what? Is that a problem? The electricity generation for EVs is certainly no problem at all.

  10. sod

    Uk just got over 50% from renewables yesterday.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40198567

    facts.

    1. ClimateOtter

      For how long a period of that day? 10 minutes? an hour? two hours?

      1. SebastianH

        Daily? It was 64.2% renewables for Wednesday (June 7th) in Germany, a rather windy and sunny day … this whole week is currently at 51.5% renewables in Germany.

    2. AndyG55

      And what provides the power for ALL the rest of the time except these little blips in wind power.

      And what would they do if that other supply didn’t exist in enough quality to cover ALL of the missing electricity when there is no wind.

      sob-sob still doesn’t comprehend the economic MADNESS of forcing REAL electricity supply system to operate uneconomically, thus putting them out of business..

      The only possible reason for such ignorance is because he is a brain-washed idiot.

      1. sod

        “And what provides the power for ALL the rest of the time except these little blips in wind power.”

        pssst. I will tell you a secret: ALL the rest of the time is part of the merit order bidding system. EVERYONE can simply bid into it. Just get yourself a cheap modular fusion reactor or build a little coal plant in your garden and start making a fortune!

  11. Germany’s Environment Ministry Blames “Cold Winter” For Stalled Fight Against Climate Warming! | Un hobby...

    […] P. Gosselin, June 7, 2017 in […]