Germany’s ‘Die Welt’: The Paris Climate Treaty And “The Absurd Excrescence Of Climate Protection”!

German flagship national daily Die Welt has a commentary by Daniel Wetzel on a new report just released in Berlin by Greenpeace Energy, which outlines what Germany needs to do in order to fulfill the Paris Treaty.

“Unrecognizable in just a few years”

So profound would be the ramifications of doing what is necessary to fulfill the Paris Treaty that Wetzel is left with no option but to label it as the “absurd excrescence of climate protection“.

He writes that if carried out, Germany would be “unrecognizable in just a few years“. In other words, following Paris is pure economic lunacy.

For example the Greenpeace Energy report writes that in order for Germany to meet its Paris Treaty targets, the country would have to completely end its production of vehicles with gasoline and diesel engines by the year 2025, and electrify important freight routes and German autobahns, and of course the entire bus and freight traffic industry in the shortest time. Wetzel writes that it would mean the end of the internal combustion in less than a decade, with no planned alternative for replacement in sight.

What that would mean for the German automotive industry, the very backbone of its economy, the country’s competitiveness, jobs and location as a place to do business, Wetzel writes: “The study does not look into it.”

In Germany one of every 6 jobs is connected to the automotive industry.

Cost? Too high to calculate

On that one point, which concerns transportation, Wetzel writes: “Concepts and cost estimates for this are not yet available.”

Gas and oil heating ban by 2020

Implementing the Paris Treaty to the letter would not only have profound consequences for the transport sector, but also for Germany’s other primary major energy consumer: heating. According to the Greenpeace Energy Report, “Because the product lifetime cycle for heating systems is up to 20 years, it is necessary to ban the installation of new gas and oil heating systems beginning in the year 2020 in order to achieve full decarbonization by 2040“.

Wetzel writes: “German furnace manufacturers would have to stop production immediately.”

To accomplish the aimed decarbonization, Wetzel tells readers that Germany would need to increase its current green energy generation capacity some five fold, according to the study, from 600 terawatt-hours to 3120 terawatt-hours by 2040.

Wetzel criticizes Germany’s Energiewende, claiming that a number of highly naïve projections were used earlier to convince the public that somehow it would all work out. For example in 2010, Germany expected to cut electricity demand some 10% by 2020 when in fact electricity consumption has not been cut back at all – despite three recent relatively mild winters.

To replace Germany’s current fossil fuels with green energy, Wetzel writes that the Greenpeace Energy estimates it will be necessary to increase the current number of wind turbines in operation in Germany from 26,000 today to some 80,000 over the coming years! Yet, anyone who knows the public’s current sentiment with respect to littering the landscape with industrial turbines will tell you that this is all pie in the sky.

Already one German state, Bavaria, has made the permitting of new turbines practically impossible.

Already we see the huge widening chasm between the Greens’ demands and reality – making us wonder if they are still in touch. Undeterred and seemingly immune to rationality, they continue clinging to the decarbonization vision despite its growingly apparent absurdity.

Already Germany has put itself on the path to NOT MEETING the Paris climate targets and by a very long shot. The country’s new energy feed-in act scales back (and certainly does not five-fold) the installation of new renewable energy installations in the future, Wetzel points out.

Already the requirements for fulfilling Paris outlined in the Greenpeace Energy report are rendered dustbin material. Yet the Greenpeace Energy report insists that wind and solar energy installations must be ramped up six fold, and even call for consumers to subsidize it all. Currently, Wetzel writes, Germans are already paying 25 billion euros annually in feed in support.

CO2 emissions, by the way, have not fallen in 7 years, some 175 billion euros later. That even goes beyond “absurd”.


31 responses to “Germany’s ‘Die Welt’: The Paris Climate Treaty And “The Absurd Excrescence Of Climate Protection”!”

  1. Colorado Wellington

    “Already we see the huge widening chasm between the Greens’ demands and reality – making us wonder if they are still in touch.”

    That is a question that only psychiatrists may be able to answer. Lay people have poor understanding of what’s going on in the minds of lunatic cult members.

  2. Frederick Colbourne

    The lunatic scheme described here seem a lot like the program of the Ontario Province of Canada.

    But someone had a sense of irony when choosing the acronym: CCCP which used to be written:

    Союз Советских Социалистических Республик

    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

  3. sod

    The paper is available here:

    Basically it is mostly good news. For example look at the small increase of electricity we need, when we go 95% electric cars (page 23)

    PS: there is a relevant point missing in this article: The study is looking at an attempt to keep the 1.5°C target. And this would be the very first time, that anyone would do what Greenpeace wants us to do. I would like it though!

    1. DirkH

      Great! So you crooks don’t need subsidies anymore? Fantastic! Now give back the half trillion you have already stolen.

      1. sod

        Why not stay on topic for once?

        Even VW is thinking about abandoning the Diesel.

        So Greenpeace is basically mainstream now.

        1. AndyG55

          “So Greenpeace is basically mainstream now.”

          Yes, no longer are they an environmental agency.

          They are now very much a POLITICAL mainstream lobbyist…

          … but like the scum they are, they still try to ride the environmental line.

          Their “charity” status should be revoked world wide, and full company status, and all the financial oversight of company legislation should be applied.

        2. David Johnson

          I am rolling on the floor with laughter at your remarkable insights

        3. Graeme No.3

          I hope the water is well over their head.

        4. yonason

          Oh, yeah, sod. Those guys are nothing, if not “MAINSTREAM

          Here I thought sod went missing because he was in detox, but instead it looks like he’s just upped his dose.

        5. DirkH

          sod 21. June 2016 at 10:44 PM | Permalink | Reply
          “Why not stay on topic for once?”

          I am talking about international organized crime, which is the Global Warming movement. I am perfectly on topic.

          In my opinion, those that blather about CO2 miss the point. The international criminals could have used any old scientific theory to scare people. After all, NOBODY notices a warming.

      2. yonason

        But DirkH, don’t you realize how beneficial (un)renewables have been, and will yet be for the economies and welfare of every country upon which they’ve been imposed? //s//

        1. patrick healy

          A slight misprint there Yon – I think yo meant “unreliables” yes?

          1. yonason

            No misprint, patrick, but I have no objection to making the addition you propose. 🙂

    2. ClimateOtter

      sod, you could provide us all a good example by ripping your current heating system out now, buying an electric car and planting yourself a fairly large garden that doesn’t require fertilizer (which would pollute the water supply).

      1. sod

        Why do you not bother to read the article?

        Page 17. No NEW oil or gas heating systems starting in the year 2020. And this, again, is only, when we want to stick to the 1.5°C target.

      2. yonason

        I understand we aren’t supposed to reveal the location of posters, but in sod’s case, I think it’s important for people to know.

        When not posting to N.T.Z., sod can be found here.

    3. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

      “… when we go 95% electric cars…”

      Do tell how much cannabis one has to smoke in order to access such a magical world, where the basic laws of physics, engineering, economics, and many other forms of basic reality simply do not apply.

      And how’s that EU-mandated “Europe 202020” thing working out?

      1. sod

        “Do tell how much cannabis one has to smoke in order to access such a magical world, ”

        I do not know, what sort of drugs you consume. But the study is rather clear:

        page 24: a ban of non-electric NEW cars starting in 2025. And again, this is to achieve the “extremist” 1.5°C target.

        we will have a pretty high penetration of electric cars in 2025, with or without any ban. Watch and learn!

        1. David Johnson

          A high penetration? You must be mad. It will only be a high penetration amongst well off greens. The rest of us will have to walk. But that would suit you and your elitist friends

          1. sod

            “A high penetration? You must be mad. It will only be a high penetration amongst well off greens. The rest of us will have to walk.”

            Please, read the links (google translate can help) or at least accept what i write.

            We are talking about NEW cars, bought in the year 2025 (reminder: it is 2025, because this is about the 1.5°C target).

            Everybody who can afford a NEW car today, will be able to afford a NEW electric car in 2025.

            It is really nice, that you folks here pretend to be speaking for poor people, but in this situation (and basically all the time) it does not make any sense.

            poor people do not buy NEW cars. So the all of it does not affect them at all. This is not too difficult to understand.

            Poor people meanwhile live in the places that have extremely high air pollution values. So they are directly affected by the pollution caused by diesel cars today and they will directly profit from a switch to electric cars.

        2. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

          Good grief, you’re even more delusional than I had thought.

          You have obviously never had to actually make something work in your entire life. So that’s how you and your green cohorts think that technology development works? That some soft-handed paper-shufflers issue a “mandate” and it’s as good as done?

          I’ll ask again – how has that EU “202020” mandate worked out? (For those confused, that was a mandate issued by the EU some years back that by 2020, 20% of the cars in the EU would be all-electric. I guess it will either be sent down the memory hole, or they’ll just issue a proclamation that it worked when it obviously didn’t.)

          1. sod

            “I’ll ask again – how has that EU “202020” mandate worked out? (For those confused, that was a mandate issued by the EU some years back that by 2020, 20% of the cars in the EU would be all-electric.”

            can you please give me a link to that plan?

            Nissan still has sort of a 20% 2020 plan:


            and this paper speaks of 3% to 105 2020 to 2025.

          2. sod
          3. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

            It’s not my job to do your homework for you. And (apparently unlike you) I don’t think that “knowledge” is sitting in front of a screen all the time searching around for links. I’ve been at the meetings all over the world where the Euros would come in and brag about the EU 202020 initiative. If it’s unfindable, ponder how what I said earlier (that the total failure of the “target” would be memory-holed) seems to have already happened, with still four years to go.

            And do give some thought to all the continuing claptrap you cite about “targets.” As I said earlier, it appears that you and your greenie cronies have zero experience with actually making anything work, and thus think that if some soft-handed paper shuffler in an air-conditioned office somewhere writes down a “target” then the job is done.

            Find some real progress on electric vehicles (and from real engineers, not the greenie support-group sites) and maybe we’ll consider ceasing laughing at you.

          4. sod

            “If it’s unfindable, ponder how what I said earlier (that the total failure of the “target” would be memory-holed) seems to have already happened, with still four years to go.”

            sorry, you made a claim, you have to show the source. That is, how this works.

            Plenty of countries will fail electric car plans (for example German wanted 1 million by 2020).

            But a EU 20% plan sounds pretty extreme, so i really want to see the source.

          5. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

            No, that’s NOT how it “works” and you are not in a position to demand that everything be done on your terms. All you’re doing (once again) is starkly illustrating how silly the “Greens” of the world are – by showing (without realizing it) the difference between the real people who build real things and make them work and are actually AT the meetings where things are discussed, and the utter vacuousness of the “Green” types – who don’t know anything about anything of substance, have never had contact with anything of substance, and sit around all day browsing for links (from dodgy sources) and think somehow that that’s knowledge.

            The good news though is that it looks like you’ve at least found that even the publicly-declared “targets” for “electric cars” were and remain nothing more than baseless ideological fantasies issued by know-nothing-real bureaucrats.

      2. yonason
  4. Karl-Heinz Dehner

    It is even officially admitted: The German Environment Agency (UBA) has recently released a study „Klimaschutzbeitrag des Verkehrs bis 2050“
    The UBA considers that the German climate protection targets can only be achieved if the transport sector operates greenhouse gas neutral. To this end, all vehicles should, as far as possible, be propelled electrically with green electricity by 2050.
    In Chapter 6.4.3 it is assessed that this objective in the transport sector alone requires approximately from 1100 bis 1500 TWh green electrictry annually. For comparison, in 2015 the total electricity consumption in Germany amounted to about 600 TWh.
    Where the green electicity is to come from is not explained.

    1. Sara Hall

      Clearly, batteries must grow on trees! ;O)

      1. yonason
  5. nightspore

    Wow, they’ve gone into full Primary Process mode. (I’m impressed by the way that sod can take this lunacy in stride. Mr. Imperturbable.)

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy