Germany’s economy expected to dip into recession as Green policies backfire.
Since a coalition of the SPD socialists, Green environmentalists and FDP liberals took over the government in late 2021, the German economy has been declining and business confidence eroding.
Degrowth
Today Blackout News reports that the German socialist/green/liberal government has revised its economic outlook downward once again.
Recall that in 2021 the economy recovered strongly, with GDP growth reaching 2.7%. But at the end of the year, the socialists, greens and liberals took over, pledging to implement a green revolution. Almost immediately the economy slowed to a growth of 1.9% in 2022 and an anemic 0.1% in 2023.
But nothing to worry about, Germany’s economic minister Robert Habeck (Greens) insisted. The malaise was all Russia’s fault, and Germany only needed to stay his green course. The troubles, after all, have little to do with Germany’s skyrocketing energy costs and his green policies. Things will surely improve.
Back to recession
Well, they haven’t. And today, things are getting worse by the minute. According to Blackout News:
Germany’s economic situation has deteriorated drastically this year. Instead of the expected growth, Economics Minister Robert Habeck is now forecasting a decline in economic output. Originally a plus of 0.3 percent was forecast, now a minus of 0.2 percent is being calculated. These new figures reflect the serious situation of the German economy.”
Habeck promises growth – starting next year!
Now, Habeck, who has no financial or economic education at all – see below, wants us to forget 2024 and is promising 1.1% growth for 2025 and a ruddy 1.6% for 2026. Habeck said in a recent interview. “The growth initiative of this federal government is a necessary first step.”
Minister is confident that the German economy will be able to grow more strongly in the coming years if his measures are fully implemented.
Grim future for the Greens
Habeck’s promises haven’t panned out in three years. yet he expects us to believe they will beginning next year. The air is getting very thin for Habeck, his fellow Greens and Socialists. Next year federal elections are taking place and the polls look as grim as the economy.
The liberal arts economist
Economics Minister Robert Habeck studied German language and philosophy and received a Masters Degree in literature and philosophy in 1996. He was awarded doctorate in 2000 and joined the ALLIANCE 90/THE GREENS in 2002. Today he is Germany’s Federal Minister for Economics.
——————
THe GHE is 100 to 1 overstated, as 99% of the energy GHGs absorb are thermalized to establish local thermal equilibrium at each altitude, leaving only 1% to radiate.
David,
actually, there is a back radiation and it is more or less on the Planck curve at ambiant temperature in the 15µm waveband.
If you refer to Markus Ott and his collegue’s videos on Tom Nelson YT chanel, see their last one :
– they somewhat admitted it and now speak of “net flux” which is upward (may be they changed their mind after some of my comments on one of their previous YT videos). The problem is that this point makes all their “full thermalization” theory inconsistent : you can’t have it both ways.
My takeaway is that the backward flux in the 15µm waveband actually exists, it is measured to be of almost the same intensity of the upward flux. Only CO2 and water vapor wp can emit back in the 15µm waveband. The CO2 being way more active than wv in this waveband it is the main backward emitter at 15µm, thus the claim that CO2 emits nothing backwards is wrong.
Moreover, the fact that the CO2 downward flux have more or less the same intensity as the upward flux (it is indeed on the Planck curve at ambient temperature) shows that (at least in this measurement taken from Kondratyev) the CO2 absorbs (and thus thermalizes) almost nothing from the surface (the radiative energy transfer is the net flux or the difference between the upward and the downward fluxes in the 15µm waveband for the CO2) and thus does not warm the atmosphere. Conversely, it emit into space (this is also measured) which cools the atmosphere.
This is very important to understand because it explains why the atmosphere does not absorb so much from what is emitted by the surface (the net upawrd flux, which is the radiative energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere, is only 17 W/m² according to the NASA) while it emits 170 W/m² into space and thus cools itself thanks to the active gases in the IR spectrum and convection cells (which do the mix between warm and cold air).
If you want I can send you snapshots of those measurements from “Radiation in the atmosphere” written by Kondratyev in 1969.
Hope this help.
I appreciate a thoughtful answer. Here’s the rub: Pyrgeometers don’t actually measure radiation, but rather temperature differences. Then they are calibrated to convert temperatures into energy based on the SB BB formula, which does not apply. Consider these facts: 1) BBs have surfaces, but the atmosphere does not; 2) BBs have emissivity of 1, but 99% of the air (the non-GHGs) have emissivity of zero; 3) GHGs are neither BBs nor gray bodies because they only radiate in specific frequencies (thus the Planck Curve doesn’t reflect the radiation spectrum of any GHG (although for WV it’s closest).
The real problem for the GHE is that adiabatic effects explain a surface temperature of 294K (applying the environmental lapse rate 12 times downward from 12km attitude where on average the energy flow is in balance and temps are 216K). Thus the issue is not why is the surface as hot as 288K, but rather why isn’t it hotter, as in 294K? Unless the GHE cools the surface, it’s really more of a nuisance, making the problem worse.
The best would be to send you the snapshots of the back-radiation spectrum measured in Kondratyev’s “Radiation in the atmosphere” :
– you will see that it’s not a Planck curve calculated from a temperature conversion using SB black-body theory, it’s an actual spectrum which clearly shows the atmospheric window (almost 0 intensity except in the O3 waveband) and also the CO2 and WV back-radiation, etc.
– The only purpose of using the SB BB theory here is to compare the measured back-radiation with what a black body at ambient temperature would emit and the result is that active gases in the IR spectrum emits more or less with the same intensity as a BB at ambient T in their respective active wavebands.
– The instruments used in the Kondratyev’s book are not Pyrgeometers which are used to measure IR radiation globally, not to perform spectrometry. To achieve this, Kondratyev’s team used specific spectrophotometers : I can also send you the snapshots of a spectrometer scheme as described in the Kondratyev’s book.
I am confused. The Greens/Socialists/Liberals all believe in de-industrialization and slow economic growth. Why are they concerned and feel the need to exaggerate 2025/26 GDP growth? Surely they are over the target?
” Originally a plus of 0.3 percent was forecast, now a minus of 0.2 percent is being calculated. ”
The numbers suggest the direction is unknown. A random guess between -1 and +1 will be just as useful. There is a 50-50 chance it will rain next April 14th.🤣
“Minister Habeck is confident that the German economy will be able to grow more strongly in the coming years if his measures are fully implemented.”
Lefties in power and with wet dreams are deadly concoctions. The populace will realise this only when it is too late.
great blog for published
fac–segc.
[…] From NoTricksZone […]
[…] From the NoTricksZone […]
Excellent post. I absolutely love this site.thanks
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]