Germany’s online Der Spiegel here reports that Germany once again will fail to reduce its CO2 emissions this year, 2017.
This is a profound embarrassment for Germany, a country that has been a staunch preacher of climate protection and one of the world’s most vocal critics of President Donald Trump’s decision to back out of the Paris Climate Accord.
Rise of 5 million tonnes
According to the leftist Spiegel, greenhouse gas emissions in Germany rose by 5 million CO2 equivalent tonnes in the first half of 2017, hitting 428 million tonnes. That’s a jump of 1.2%. Experts say that the rise is likely due to increased petroleum consumption. According to Spiegel, diesel fuel sales are up 6.5 percent.
Part of the increased petroleum probably is due to low fuel prices, and the unusually colder than normal weather in January and April. Germany is failing horribly to reach its emissions targets, as the following chart 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
And if this year’s trend keeps up, it’ll mean that Germany’s emissions will have remained flat for 9 consecutive years. A decade of failure. It will also mean that the country’s greenhouse gas emissions will rise for a third consecutive year. More here.
Germany’s anti-diesel movement will end up raising CO2 emissions
The bad news for the climate-protection-preaching Germany is that greenhouse gas emissions reductions are likely going to get far tougher, as once again the country’s leaders are managing to shoot themselves in the foot in the comedy that has become the Energiewende.
One of the country’s leading Green Party politicians, Winfried Kretschmann, has just warned that the current movement to ban the diesel engine will have serious climate target consequences, reports the online Die Welt. As the publicity against the diesel engine cranks up, people will opt for the gasoline-powered cars instead. The problem here is that diesel engines get far better fuel mileage than the Otto engines, and so German consumers will only end up spewing more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Also Germany’s flood of immigrants, who have other worries on their minds, will add to make the German targets an even bigger fairy tale.
32 responses to “Germany’s Failure To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Set To Extend To 9 Years!”
Reminds one of the definition of sailing… going nowhere very slowly at great expense. Clearly, Germany is sailing along. As far as substituting CO2 for NOx, doesn’t it make sense, real polution reduction vs. fake polution on reduction?
How does that horrible Trump dare to discard the Paris Agreement goals before we do?
But at least sailing is done by people who have freely chosen to do it, knowing the down-side, and not caring because of the pleasure they get from it. Government mandated climate nonsense compliance, not so much.
I have pointed this out many times to our resident troll.
Germany has come up aginst the buffer and cannot now reduce CO2 emissions at all easily without inflicting massive harm on the lifestyle of its citizen’s and damaging the competitiveness of its manufacturing economy.
Because of the unrelaible and intermittent nature of wind and solar, they do not result in the significant reduction in CO2 and this is why CO2 emissions have not falen to any reasonable extent since 2007. Wind and solar require 100% backup and this is largely being supplied by fossil fuel plants. Whilst wind may provide on vaerage about 23% of its nameplate capacity that does not correspond to a 23% reduction in CO2 since the fossil fuel back up is run in inefficient ramp up/ramp dwn mode which produces almost the same amount of CO2 had it simply been running at steady state 24/7 52 weeks a year. If you like compare the fuel economy of a car driving 100 km on extra urban/motorway conditions with driving 77 km (ie., 100 – 23%) in urban conditions.
Germany is closing down its nuclear and building (I think) 7 coal powered generators. This will increase CO2. germany has presently bee lucky to use the interconnect with france, but France which supplies largely CO2 free energy via nuclear. However, France may close 17 of its nuclear power stations by 2025 which will restrict france’s ability to supply energy via the inter-connect. It is yet to be seen how France will replace this fleet, will it be with coal or with gas, but either way it will result in more CO2.
One should not underestimate the impact of migration. Germany has to deal with assimulating over a million migrants. They will wish to reunite with their families so the numbers are likely to be well over 2 million plus what further migration comes in within the next 15 years. All these migrants will reuire housing, schools, shopping facilities, hospitals, public transport, cars etc. There will be a huge increase in CO2 whilst such infrastructure is built to accomodate these migrants, and electricity for heating and cooking etc, and of course another million vehicles on the road. Germany’s per capita CO2 emissions is about 9.5 tonnes such that an extra 3 million people, ignoring the infrastructure building CO2 emissions, will result in an additional ~28 million tonnes of CO2 annually.
There is no way that Germany will comply with its Paris Accord commitments. As mentioned previously, it is ironic that the US which has withdrawn from Paris, will be the most successful developed nation at reducing its CO2 emissions because it will continue decarbonising its economy by the switch from coal to fracked gas.
The US is sensible since it can reduce CO2 emissions using fracked gas without restricting its energy demand. Europe will have to curtail its energy demands if it wants to reduce CO2 emissions. Curtailing energy demands will necessarily harm GDP wealth creation and prosperity. European citizens are in for a hard time as reality comes home to bite.
Using wind and solar as energy source replacement indeed increases overall CO2 emissions with the phasing out of nuclear. The same thing is happening in Japan, where many new coal plants have been built.
Sorry, but please cut the BS. This is not just untrue it marks you as a misinformer. Unless you really don’t know better, then I’d suggest you learn some math and inform yourself before you put lies like this one out in the world.
Power plants aren’t running 24/7 52 weeks a year at full capacity. A select few do come close, the majority does not (even if there weren’t as much wind/solar on the grid). Get that out of your head! A better car analogy would be to compare the fuel economy of 100 cars driving to 77 cars driving at the same conditions.
First, what is the source for this? Can you list the locations of those 7 plants? And second: More power plants producing the same amount of electricity do not increase CO2, especially when new power plants are replacing old ones.
How many GWh has France exported to Germany exactly? You make it sound as if Germany was a net importer of electricity. Do you think that is the case? How often does Germany import more electricity as it exports?
One shouldn’t, but is that really a problem? More people mean more emissions, so what? The per capita emissions are the ones that matter … Earths population will further increase and consume more energy, decreasing the per capita emissions faster than that growth should also decrease total emssions. We are on a good path to achieve that in the coming decade.
That’s not ironic and not surprising either. Since you like analogies: when you have two people starting a diet the one who initially weighs 200 kg (person A) will be able to lose weight faster than the one who already weighs less than 100 kg (person B). But it will be difficult for A to catch up to B when the diet is just eating 1 unit of ice cream instead of 2 units while B is trying to get completely rid of ice cream …
Again, cut the BS please! Nobody has to curtail anything in Europe.
Nobody BS-ing by you, chatbot.
A study in Denmark showed that the CO2 emissions of the coal fired power station actually INCREASE.
Seems that seb doesn’t understand ANYTHING about combustion efficiency.. No surprise there.
“Nobody has to curtail anything in Europe.”
Nope, that can just keep increasing their coal usage.. or gas from Russia. 😉
And yet another moronic analogy. !
You should stand up, so people know you are trying a comedy act, seb.
Link to that study please, AndyG55 … I asked you for this source like 100 times (also the source for CO2 between window panes being worse than normal air) …
Yawn!!!! Both have been provided in the past.
You even discussed the latter.
Where is that paper proving CO2 causes warming of atmosphere, oceans or anywhere. ?????????
You are an EMPTY, attention-seeking, little drone, seb.
“…without inflicting massive harm on the lifestyle of its citizen’s and damaging the competitiveness of its manufacturing economy”
I wouldn’t stress about that. The UN Sustainable Development Agenda has all that taped.
“28. We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services…”
Closing the Nuclear plants is the reason why they make no progress. Environmentalists demand decreasing emission and removal of Nuclear. The result is higher energy costs and stable emissions.
This was obvious from day one.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2017/08/06/germanys-failure-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions-set-to-extend… […]
Well done Germany you’ve had such a big impact on the climate from all your hardship in reducing CO2 levels. Arguably you’ve made, and potentially will make, no difference what so ever.
Yep not a jot.
So keep up the hard work as the rest of the industrializing world is enjoying your industrial decline to a green utopia.
How can this be?
Just the other day I was reading that renewables were supplying most of Germany’s power!
The Co2 emissions figures must be wrong!
CO2 emissions are falling!
This site is a great place for information about Germany’s power production by source, every hour, every month:
Great site Henning! Very easy to understand. Definitely going to tab that one.
The idea that wind and solar power reduce CO2 emissions is based on a mythology that they produce a steady stream of power as stand alone generators, which is simply unrealistic. As I understand it the UK figures for the amount wind generates include that which comes from back up, so the whole thing is one big lie.
Yeah. Why build one base-load capacity, when you can build two at double the price? Sounds good to me.
Except you are not building two base load capacities.
Only fossil fuels and nuclear (and hydro in some places) have the capacity and regularity to provide base load power.
Greenies perpetuate the fiction that they’re building a base-load capacity with solar/ wind…
Germany’s wind generation is highly unreliable.
In 2016 it was below 20% of nameplate for some 2/3 the time. and only got to 50% of nameplate less than 5% of the time. ( thanks for the calculations, seb 😉 )
Its basically UNFIT FOR PURPOSE.
They do not … when do people stop spreading myths?
UK wind is just about as UNRELIABLE as German wind.
Like in Germany, the 90% reliability factor is below 4% of nameplate.
CANNOT provide base load. CANNOT provide on demand
ALWAYS requires back-up from REAL electricity supply
Doesn’t have to provide baseload and doesn’t need to provide on demand. It enables other power plants to temporarily burn less fuel at the current stage.
You again show that you know very little about combustion efficiency, ramping etc etc.
Why should REAL sources have to ramp up and down to make way for unreliable, intermittent supplies. It forces them into uneconomic, equipment damaging operation which yields very little reduction in CO2.
Its stupidity to the max.. no wonder you worship the idea.
And so you have to have a whole second system, because wind is USELESS and can only provide in fits and start.
FAR cheaper and better to just have a good, solid, RELIABLE supply system, that can provide when and as needed. Rather than WASTE money on a second intermittent system that operates on a whim, and disrupts the REAL supply system.
Wouldn’t you agree, seb.
You are basically right that less fuel is burned while solar-energy and/or wind-energy is used. However, the installation of both, just to add some volatile energy, didn’t come cheap.
The UK has about 15 GW wind installed and about 8.5 GW solar installed and they bring about 19% of the demand right now.
Many resources had to be used in advance and they are a part of the Earth Overshoot Day.
Should we not use the fossil fuel power plants more efficiently before we start to use these additional resources? Any machine has a wear and tear and it takes place more if the machine is not used efficiently. This reduces the life time of every part of the machine and they have to be replaced more often. This also means down time, which means a switch off and on and this on/off is not healthy either.
It’s like driving a car where the passengers walk every so often while the driver drives on for a while. Then the driver stops and waits for the passenger to jump in to continue the journey.
It is healthier for the passenger but not for the car. OK, you get from A to B, but is this efficient?
A good video to watch IFF you want to learn the facts about where atmospheric temperature actually comes from.
Whoops.. try that url again !!!
darn clipboard held the previous clip.
Funny. diesel fuel sales are up 6.5 percent.
No wonder they want to get rid of it. Without diesel cars, the consumption will not rise. 😉
Maybe people didn’t use the bike, as it was too cold.
I see, unusually colder than normal weather in January and April. 😀
Maybe we could use some global warming.
Overall, the Energiewende proves to be much less effective than was originally hoped.
Dr. Kees le Pair, a top Dutch physics scientist, produced two papers showing that the net fossil fuel savings of wind electricity on the grid are significantly lower than the direct wind electricity contribution.
The first paper is a model study, showing that for average wind contribution to the grid > 20% fossil fuel savings become negative. The model study was undertaken because it proved impossible to get information from electricity providers that might harm competitivity.
The second paper is based on the overall Dutch electricity sector information from the Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). Using trend line differentiation Le Pair succeeded to deduce actual fossil fuel savings by wind energy. After inclusion of the energy required for wind turbine production, installation, transport, net adaptation etc. the result was that wind energy was only effective for 1.6% of nameplate capacity.