Germany Proves That Burning Money On Green Energies Does Not Reduce CO2 Emissions…”Bitter Result”

German CO2 equivalent emissions refuse to budge 10 straight years running, despite hundreds of BILLIONS invested in green energies.

As we have been hearing recently, global CO2 emissions continue their steady climb, despite the trillions of dollars committed to green energy sources worldwide and efforts to curb CO2 emissions.

Source: International Energy Agency (IEA).

Looking at countries individually, Germany, a self-designated “leader” for carbon free energies, saw its equivalent CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in 2017 fall only a measly half a percent.

Big green talk, so little to show

If any country has seen huge chasm between its CO2 reductions performance and its lofty green rhetoric, Germany is it.

Despite the hundreds of billions already spent on green energies, mainly, wind, sun and biogas, Paris Accord cheerleader Germany has not seen any progress in CO2 reductions ten years running:

Germany CO2 equivalent emissions, millions of metric tons. Source UBA.

According to Germany’s UBA Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency), Germany’s reductions still remain stuck at the levels of 10 years ago (2009 = 908 million tonnnes CO2 equivalent – see chart above).

Dubious 1990 benchmark

Most of the country’s CO2 reductions since 1990 arose from the shutdown of old communist run East German industry, after the eastern and western parts of the divided nation united in 1990.

Offshored emissions, pollution

Also huge CO2 reductions resulted from the offshoring of energy-intensive industries, to countries where regulations are less strict, labor is cheaper and energy efficiency is woefully lower; for example: China. The true result: Germany managed to cut its CO2 equivalent emissions, but the net result is most likely greater overall CO2 emissions.

The same could be said about plastic in our oceans. Often it’s best to keep the industry home, where at least it’s done far more cleanly.

Huge price for so little result

Moreover, Germany’s investment in green energies really did not begin in earnest until 2005, and so the results have been truly a flop. All that money for so little.

Meanwhile environmental groups have come out and blasted Germany’s weakling result. Alarmist climate and energy site Klimaretter (Climate rescuer) commented here:  “Germany is practically making no climate change progress at all.”

Greenpeace Germany’s Karsten Smid fumed: “The UBA figures are the bitter result of Chancellor Merkel’s climate policy.”

48 responses to “Germany Proves That Burning Money On Green Energies Does Not Reduce CO2 Emissions…”Bitter Result””

  1. Jim

    Like all green policies, it was wrongly thought out. Moving the production from a well regulated country to a unregulated country does not improve anything. The pollution is now unregulated. And there are fewer “green” jobs for everyone. Did the price of the product go down? Or higher, due to shipping and handling. More people able to buy it, no, fewer well paying jobs means poorer people. Greater profit, until benefits are cut because fewer people working. Interesting.

    1. yonason (from my cell phone)

      Like all unchecked parasites, they degrade and ultimately destroy their host.

    2. Henning Nielsen

      Germany can keep up with this nonsense for as long as they can afford it. After that, it’s back to making sense and making money. And nobody except the fanatics will care one hoot if the emissions rise.

      1. AndyG55

        Germany will never reduce its CO2 emiossions much below what they are now.

        In the mean time., China, India, most SE Asian countries, Turkey, Poland, many African countries will continue to build up their coal, oil gas, energy supplies. There will continue to be large increases in human released plant food for many decades, possibly even centuries to come

        Wind and Solar CANNOT be used to bring a country up to first world economic level, but they can sure be used to take a country DOWN to third world standards.

  2. SebastianH

    Why do you guys have to completely ignore that Germany is also shutting down its nuclear power plants at the same time? Are you not able to calculate the amount of CO2 Germany would emit if it hadn’t increased the renewable share up to 38% (2017) or almost 40% (2018 until today)? https://energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&period=annual&year=all

    That’s the amount of CO2 saved in the electricity sector. Other sectors, agreed … not much progress in the last 10 years. That ought to change though in the next 10 years.

    1. Lumpi

      Why do you guys completely ignore that replacing nuclear by renewables doesn‘t save any Co2? It just raises costs and makes the grid less reliable. Is that your goal?

      1. richard verney

        The trouble is that one cannot replace nuclear with wind/solar because nuclear is steady state base load, whereas wind and solar are highly variable, intermittent and non despatchable power.

        Nuclear is being replaced by coal (brown coal at that) which can provide the steady state 24/7 base load required and which is the foundation of the grid.

        Germany is learning the lesson that because wind and solar are non despatchable they require 100% backup by fossil fuel generation and this back up, using gas generators, is being used in ramp up/ramp down mode which is not efficient and creates as much CO2 as if it was not used in ramp up/ramp down mode, but rather was used in steady state 24/7 mode.

        What our friend just cannot get his head around is that using gas plants in this manner is like driving one’s car in urban/city environs where one is constantly accelerating and stopping with the result that a lot of fuel has to be used over coming inertia. This is why a car’s urban/city fuel consumption is so much less than its motorway/highway consumption with the resultant increase in CO2 emissions.

        germany is going to look pretty dumb at criticising President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Accord. Since the US is exploiting its shale reserves it will reduce its CO2 emissions by considerably more than and of the other developed nations and, come 2030, Germany will not have been able to have reduced its Co2 emissions to any significant extent.

        The interim reports that have to be filed under the Paris Accord should make interesting reading in the coming years.

        1. richard verney

          CORRECTION

          This is why a car’s urban/city fuel consumption is so much less than its motorway/highway consumption with the resultant increase in CO2 emissions.

          Should have read:

          This is why a car’s urban/city fuel consumption is so much MORE than its motorway/highway consumption with the resultant increase in CO2 emissions.

        2. SebastianH

          Please stop this blatant lie that fossil fuel power plants would emit as much CO2 when not running as if they were running 24/7!

          And while it’s fantastic that the U.S. is reducing it’s CO2 Output faster than Germany, it’s similar to a 200kg losing weight vs a 80kg person losing weight. When the U.S. reaches 80kg you will recognize that more gas will not lead to further “weight reduction”.

          1. AndyG55

            It is NOT a LIE, seb.

            It is a proven FACT.

            You IGNORANCE on how basic power production works is yet again highlighted in your monumental faceplant…..again.

            How’s that TOTAL RELIANCE on fossil fuel energy going for you seb?

            How’s that hunt for a paper proving that enhanced atmospheric CO2 leads to ANYTHING except enhanced plant growth?

            EMPTY as usual ??

          2. Lumpi

            I think you didn’t understand Richard‘s argument intellectually. That is one of the main reasons why we are in this mess. The people who impose this stupid energy policy on us don’t understand anything. They are driven by belief. The belief is their ‚reality‘ and everything outside of it must the be a lie or something that has to fought which is the reason why you basically want to shrik that gorilla.

            In neuroscience this kind of behavior of religious fundamentalists and/or epileptics is well known as an anomaly in the frontal lobe.

            Please go to a doctor instead of putting your sick views into politics.

          3. Newminster

            But they are running 24/7,Seb! It’s called “hot spinning”. When the wind suddenly stops or blows too strongly so that there is no electricity from wind, they are needed to supply that electricity.

            (Jeez, this is like explaining things to a five-year-old. I’m trying not to use too many big words.)

            And that electricity is needed NOW not in four or five hours when the plant has been fired up but in four or five seconds or the grid goes doolally!

            And if you don’t understand that, Seb, then you really have no business to be out playing with the grown-ups because you simply aren’t ready for reality yet.

          4. SebastianH

            @Lumpi:

            I think you didn’t understand Richard‘s argument intellectually

            Please get off you high horse. Richard is bringing up this lie all the time (e.g. this was not the first time). It doesn’t matter how often or accurate one explains things to you guys, you’ll stick with what your gut tells you.

            Please go to a doctor instead of putting your sick views into politics.

            It’s kind of telling that you don’t try to explain how it’s not a lie and how what Richards writes could work, but instead try to go ad hominem from some kind of “superior intellect” position. Please, maybe we can meat up in an upcoming Mensa international event and discuss this in person? I assume you are a member as well?

            @Newminster:

            But they are running 24/7,Seb! It’s called “hot spinning”. When the wind suddenly stops or blows too strongly so that there is no electricity from wind, they are needed to supply that electricity.

            Yes, some are. It’s not like wind/solar is that unpredictable that you have to keep your 80 GW power plants running all the time in case they are needed.

            (Jeez, this is like explaining things to a five-year-old. I’m trying not to use too many big words.)

            You come down from your high horse too please. If anyone needs to be told not to behave like a five-year-old it is you guys. First thing when someone tells you that you are wrong, you go in a tantrum and insult that person.

            And if you don’t understand that, Seb, then you really have no business to be out playing with the grown-ups because you simply aren’t ready for reality yet.

            How many power plants do you think are necessary to keep the grid stable with as much wind/solar in it as Germany has? Do you think all plants are constantly on standby? Or do you know that it’s only a few of them?

            Sorry, Richard above just sees German CO2 figures and concludes more wind/solar doesn’t reduce CO2 emissions. He completely ignores the reduction of nuclear power, the (small) reduction in coal power and the increase or stagnation of fossil fuel usage in other sectors. It’s not “grown-up” at all, it’s silly childish behaviour.

          5. SebastianH

            In case you want to know how German power plants are operated:
            https://energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=gas&year=2018&week=12

            You can filter down to individual power plants on that website. And no, coal power plants did not “suddenly” have to shut down during the night from the 21st to then 22nd. Wind power was pretty stable during that time, that is just the reduces night power consumption.

            You can also look at week 11 where wind was a bit stronger, how power plants were managed. Most hard coal power plants just shut down during those days. No “hot spinning” and neither did most gas power plants: https://energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=gas&year=2018&week=11

        3. mwhite
          1. mwhite
      2. SebastianH

        We aren’t ignoring it. That is a serious challenge though … one that some might argue was unnecessary to take on. But it is dishonest to say that renewables aren’t reducing CO2 emissions. Just not true.

        1. Newminster

          And if they are, so what?

          CO2 is an essential trace gas without which life on earth would be impossible. 400ppm is not excessive; 700ppm would be better.

          There is no consistent correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Historically rising temperatures are, if anything, the cause of CO2 levels as the oceans out-gas.

          The earth has been cooler at higher CO2 levels and warmer at lower CO2 levels than today.

          CO2 is not a pollutant and does not pose any threat to human life in any concentration ever likely to be encountered in the atmosphere.

          Admit it, Seb, you’re just one of those retarded enviro-nuts who can’t cope with civilisation so think we ought to go back to some pre-industrial (non-existent) golden age and the only way we will do that is by doing away with efficient energy sources and the only way to do that is to lie about CO2. I’m right, aren’t I?

        2. jmdesp

          The truth is that you’re destroying by shutting down nuclear all what you’re gaining with the renewable, so that it ends up a stand still.

          The only plausible reason for doing that is that you’re believing absolute lies about how dangerous low levels of radiation are. There’s several places on earth that have as much natural radiation as there is around Fukushima daichi, and no statistically significant change in health is measured. Hospitals are making people ingest several tens millisievert of radiation every single day, through scintigraphy and PET scan, and nobody is worried.

          So suddenly the people who claim that climate change is the worst danger facing humanity are ready to waste our chance of avoiding it because of the tiniest risk of actual damages from radiations ?

          I hope you understand why they appear like liars and manipulators then.

          1. SebastianH

            The truth is that you’re destroying by shutting down nuclear all what you’re gaining with the renewable, so that it ends up a stand still.

            Indeed. If Germany hadn’t planned to stop using nuclear power due to its inherent dangers and the still unsolved waste problem, the reduction in emissions would be very visible and misunderstanding of what renewables do by “skeptics” would not exist to this extent.

            I hope you understand why they appear like liars and manipulators then.

            Why is someone lying when he/she doesn’t want to continue nuclear power and at the same time wants to increase the use of renewables?

          2. AndyG55

            Basically ZERO REDUCTION in CO2 output by Germany for several years.

            GET OVER IT, seb

            Just HUGE waste of funds that could have gone to improving societies around the world..

            QUITE DISGUSTING really !!!

            and remember…..

            1600 or so NEW coal fired power station around the world, with an estimated INCREASE of CO2 emissions of some 43%

            What a monu-MENTAL FAILURE the anti-CO2 part of the Agenda has been.

    2. Graeme No.3

      SebastionH:

      You say “it is dishonest to say that renewables aren’t reducing CO2 emissions. Just not true”. From your own link. Where is the reduction in emissions?
      https://energy-charts.de/emissions.htm?source=lignite&view=absolute&emission=co2&year=all

      1. SebastianH

        From your own link. Where is the reduction in emissions?

        See, that is what I mean by being dishonest. You posting a link to lignite emissions and asking why those emissions haven’t reduced if renewables ought to reduce emissions.

        You haven’t understood a thing.

        1. AndyG55

          So you ADMIT that emissions didn’t reduce.

          Well done. That is what the DATA says.

          Stay tuned for the next faceplant from seb

  3. Hans Schreuder

    Only a fool believes that human generated emissions of carbon dioxide make a dent in Nature’s balance sheet; even the UN IPCC knew that way back in the 1990’s: http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/IPCC_deception.pdf
    Further to that it is impossible for carbon dioxide to “trap heat” and there is absolutely no such mechanism as the “greenhouse effect” making our beautiful planet warmer than it should be. It’s the Sun, the Oceans and Nature.
    Each and every assertion by climate alarmists and many a well-known “sceptic” is complete BS without any scientific or other evidence.
    http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Role_of_CO2-EaE.pdf and http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Role_of_GHE-EaE.pdf
    Get the facts, make the right decisions.

    1. SebastianH

      Are you being paid to write such nonsense? This is just crazy and real skeptics should be afraid of you for making them look even more ridiculous.

      1. AndyG55

        Only NONSENSE here is YOUR’S seb.

        …. And anyone that pays you is WASTING their money.

        Noted that you are TOTALLY EMPTY of any rational response to facts..

        Nothing unusual about that, is there..

        STILL WAITING for that real scientific evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does ANYTHING except enhance plant growth.

        Waiting.. waiting.. wait… yawn…ing !!

      2. AndyG55

        “Only a fool believes that human generated emissions of carbon dioxide make a dent in Nature’s balance sheet”

        Statement 1…. TRUE

        Maximum estimates are 10% or so of increase in CO2.. Which nature takes care of but GROWING BETTER.

        The balance is maintained, the Carbon Cycle that provides for ALL LIFE ON EARTH, just expands very slightly.

        (Why does seb HATE all life on Earth so much that he wants to send plant life back into borderline starvation???
        Does anyone know ??… Does seb even know ???)

        “it is impossible for carbon dioxide to “trap heat” and there is absolutely no such mechanism as the “greenhouse effect” making our beautiful planet warmer than it should be”

        Statement 2…. ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

        so seb, if you have scientific proof that either of those statements is NOT true.

        SHOW US THE EVIDENCE..

        or remain, as always.. and EMPTY sack !!

        1. SebastianH

          Maximum estimates are 10% or so of increase in CO2.

          Did you just say that humans are causing just 10% of the increase of the CO2 concentration?

          1. AndyG55

            That is what the latest science says, might be 15%

            MORE THE MERRIER. !! 🙂

            Plant life LUVS it.

            Why do you HATE plant-life, seb ???

          2. SebastianH

            I am curious, have a link to that latest science? 😉

          3. AndyG55

            You mean you weren’t paying any attention a few months ago, even when you were making an arrant fool of yourself arguing black and blue about it?

            You really do like to remain WILFULLY IGNORANT, don’t you little trollette.

            Why do you HATE plant-life, seb ???

    2. AndyG55

      Well stated Hans. 🙂

      When you are on target…

      … expect mindless yapping in response. 🙂

  4. Bitter&twisted

    General comment- DNFTT

    1. tom0mason

      Or the trainee burger flipper who has to repackage his lies in stupid analogies because they can not properly rationally the reality of this world, and what is happening in Germany.

      1. SebastianH

        What is happening in Germany exactly? Do you think renewables are largely replacing fossil fuel power plants and because that doesn’t show in the CO2 emission stats it doesn’t actually reduce emissions? Or is it something different that you guys keep to ignore for the sake of a ridiculous argument?

  5. CO2isLife

    Oil Companies Don’t Produce CO2, Car and Truck Drivers Do
    Reminiscent of the “Guns Don’t Kill People, People Kill People” argument, the SF Judge Alsup presiding over CA vs. Big Oil Lawsuit asked a very interesting, and potentially, very damaging question for either the plaintiff or society at large. In the document titled: Case 3:17-cv-06012-WHA Document 161 Filed 03/27/18, the judge asks: If plaintiffs’ theory is correct, why wouldn’t … Continue reading
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/28/oil-companies-dont-produce-co2-car-and-truck-drivers-do/

  6. AndyG55

    World CO2 emissions rose by 1.7% in 2017

    And countries like India, SE Asian countries, several African countries…

    make ONLY JUST STARTED.

    1600 or so new coal fired power stations.

    The world emissions of CO2 will THANKFULLY continue to climb for MANY, MANY years. 🙂

    Germany’s piddling efforts at ZERO CO2 REDUCTION are totally MEANINGLESS in any way whatsoever (except in a fantasy la-la land)

    Even the AGW minions that plague places like Germany still RELY TOTALLY on fossil fuel energy for basically EVERYTHING in their feeble existence.

    1. SebastianH

      I wonder if Bitter means you by his DNFTT postings. You should give lessons on how to troll people …

      1. Bitter&twisted

        Missing the blindingly obvious again.
        DNFTT

      2. AndyG55

        Stating IRREFUTABLE FACTS is now trolling, according to seb.

        That means he can never accuse be of trolling.

        seb is a FACT-FREE zone. !!

  7. Henning Nielsen

    Sadly, the terrible German emotionalism is all too evident in the country’s energy policies. Germany bowed to the emotionalism of anti-nuclear campaigns. And then to the anti-co2 campaign. So, it was impossible for the German establishment to make the common sense policy of supporting nuclear, in order to reduce co2 emissions. (Provided of course, that cutting co2 emissions makes sense) They were caught in the trap of feelings and propaganda. Now they pay the price of letting themselves be cowed by fanatics. And what was it all for? Just for a bit of political correctness and “feel-good” factor. These are very expensive commodities indeed.

  8. Germany’s GHG Emissions Have Not Fallen For Ten Years | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

    […] Read the full post here. […]

  9. Germany Proves That Burning Money On Green Energies Does Not Reduce CO2 Emissions…"Bitter Result" | Un hobby...

    […] P. Gosselin, March 28,2018 in […]

  10. AndyG55

    The effect on price on the closure of Hazelwood in Victoria

    “A year on from the closure of the 1600 megawatt-sized plant in the Latrobe Valley, the report from the Australian Energy Regulator found wholesale prices in Victoria were up 85 per cent on 2016.”

  11. mary s

    I’m sure everyone here knows that there is a Seb Henbest that works for Bloomberg Finance and is paid a lot of money to be a salesman for renewable Energy and all its financial tentacles .https://twitter.com/SebHenbest?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    1. tom0mason

      And burger flipper.

  12. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #310