In an opinion piece at the Mittel Bayerische daily, Harry Neumann, National Chairman of the environmental group Naturschutzinitiative e.V. declares Germany’s Energiewende (transition to renewable energies) a failure and writes: “The wind power industry and nature protection cannot be reconciled.”
Moreover Germany’s EEG green energy feed-in act is doing more harm than good, writes Neumann: “The EEG is impeding the research of environmentally compatible technologies.”
Neumann also notes that despite having installed close to 30,000 wind turbines, Germany’s “CO2 emissions are not dropping, but rather are rising again.” He adds:
During the expansion of renewable energies, they failed from the start to set impact limits too protect nature, species, forests and landscapes.”
He also blasted what he calls the “political-industrial complex“, which he says has nothing to do with nature and climate protection, “but rather with the full exploitation of billions in subsidies“.
In Neumann’s view, the wind industry and nature protection “cannot be reconciled” and thus calls for the immediate repeal of the EEG feed-in act.
Veteran journalist: German energy policy fraught with absurdities
On another note, veteran German science journalist Michael Miersch explains in an interview conducted by Dr. Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation the sheer absurdity and widespread damage German renewable energies are having on the environment.
When asked about the current status and dialogue surrounding the Energiewende, Miersch tells Peiser:
I would like the debate to be less ideological and to be held with less moral rigor. Nowadays you cannot criticize the Energiewende without being put into a corner and being accused of not caring about global climate change.”
He cites the U.S. as a model of how to go about energy policy:
If you think about the US for example, they have achieved a lot in terms of CO2 reduction with gas power plants. There are very few gas power plants in Germany. They are building hardly any new ones.”
Hate to shoot the messenger, but Harry Neumann is a joke. The first paragraph alone is full of unsupportable nonsense.
I don’t get how non profits can exist that pretend to care about nature, but are “employing” these kinds of people (isn’t Vahrenholt head of a similar non profit?).
It’s the old, angry white guy stereotype all over again.
P.S.: Gloating about the CO2 reduction successes of the US is ridiculous. While it’s great they still aren’t even close to Germany’s levels. You can celebrate that a heavy person reduced his/her weight by eating half the amount he/she previously did, but if that is still more than double what others eat you shouldn’t take that as a role model.
Now this is desperation, Seb, and I’m not going to take it.
Why are you injecting racism into this discussion, Seb? Why is having a different opinion on energy or climate being “old and white”, or of any other race for that matter?
I’ve noticed this disgusting tactic of yours in your most recent comments. If you can’t argue points solely on their merits, without using snide offensive remarks, then you can stay the hell out of this discussion. I don’t want to see this gutter-level tactic of dividing up opinions and assigning them to race ever again. You are only trying to unfairly shame persons as racist based solely on their opinions.
You’re banned from this forum for 48 hours. Hopefully this will give you time to reflect.
Discussing with you guys is fun and all, but you interpreting “old, angry white guy stereotype” as racist and Kenneth claiming to feel offended by the word “denier” because of the Holocaust, is an interesting strategy to shut up opponents.
Have fun and some relaxing holidays in your made up bubble.
BTW: If you don’t know the term, here is a defintion and a bit of context for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_white_male
I’ll let you respond this one time. It’s not about “shutting up opponents”, but about respect and courtesy.
Suggestion, Pierre.
You allow ONE ONLY post from seb per day.
That way he can’t keep flooding threads with his childish nonsense, and may have to actually think about what he is posting for a change.
So SebastianH claims to be a victim (“shutting up opponents”) because he’s been caught injecting racism into a comment section on renewables policy. As if skin color has something to do with wind power.
I object to being called a “denier” because of that word’s association with Holocaust denial, which is a real thing…and racist. So, to get around that, you call us “denialists” instead, and then defend this name-calling as justifiable because, well, that’s what we are.
Your vitriol will not be missed.
I might add that sod attempted the same ugly tactic, and I promptly banned him for a day or two as well. He never came back – too ashamed, I suppose. If you can’t argue without having to offend others, then you simply don’t belong here.
If you want to express a different opinion, fine. Just don’t start racially offending people.
Indeed Pierre, well said.
I have been insulted with insinuations of being old, drug-taking, denier and many other things by seb. And then he reacts as if any of those insults are not personal attack, his rational amounting to he can make such statements because who knows all and believes, or pretends, that he has the moral high-ground.
An apology from this hubris filled person is very unlikely.
““The wind power industry and nature protection cannot be reconciled.””
This guys sounds like he is right on target.
Is that what has annoyed seb so much.?
Wind turbines destroy the natural environment over huge areas.
Destroy bird and bat populations.
They are unreliable, and irregular non-supply
… less than 16% of nameplate for over half the time.
USELESS, and a waste of money that could be used for FAR better purposes.
“is a joke. “
Only JOKE is you seb.
The first paragraph contains FACTS you cannot counter
…. so you SLIME instead.
the seb way… .
Say seb, the US could really, seriously reduce emissions if we just STOPPED FEEDING A BILLION PEOPLE.
Bet that works for you just fine.
Well done, Pierre.
The believers in AGW (as a way of getting political control) are losing their influence and get abusive because they see the end of the scam coming, and themselves being relegated to obscurity.
And may I express my best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year for you and your loved ones.
Thanks!
We are seeing some typical ecomarxist tactics here, when confronted with facts.
Rubbish the messenger, scream “racist” and if that fails, play the “victim” card.
Unfortunately with a pliant media this is often enough to shut down reasoned debate.
These tactics have worked for the greens for years.
Sorry, folks, but humans don’t generate enough CO2 to have any meaningful effect upon this planet’s climate. Everything we do generates about 3% of atmospheric CO2, which itself is a trace gas.
More nonsense and fear-mongering !!
Exactly, it is irrational to think otherwise but many do because many do not think they just recite a AGW prayer.
I’m pleased that at last some environmentalists are starting to call out the wind energy producers.
The hypocrisy of the groups which are supposed to care about wildlife has been one of the most appalling aspects of this whole stupid energy fiasco. If they’d done their job we’d not have hundreds of thousands of bird-killing wind turbines, we’d have nuclear power and hydroelectricity projects instead.
David Lambe stated, ” Everything we do generates about 3% of atmospheric CO2,…”
Do you have any published scientific references for that point?
Thanks.
The IPCC has nature contributing 95.7% of CO2 emissions and humans contributing 4.3% in their 2013 report (AR5)
The natural versus anthropogenic CO2 emission ratio as of 2013 from IPCC AR5, Figure 6.1:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-1.jpg
Natural emissions total: 198.2 GtC (primarily 78.4 GtC from ocean outgassing, and 118.7 GtC from total respiration and fire)
Anthropogenic emissions total: 8.9 GtC (7.8 GtC is fossil fuels, 1.1 is land use changes)
Ratio in terms of 100% total 207.1 = 95.7 to 4.3
This percentage was identified by Dr. Harde in his paper from earlier this year:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787
“The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%”
EON (energycompany) has a site showing a grid with solar and wind and battery backup in a small village.
It is a fine try :
https://www.eon.se/samhaelle—utveckling/innovation/lokala-energisystem/direkt-fran-simris.html
But it shows the problems!
😆
Excellent Lasse, no translation required!
[…] – German Energy Policy Gone Lost: “Energiewende Has Failed,” Writes Leading Environmentalist: […]