walter russell mead peter berger lilia shevtsova adam garfinkle andrew a. michta
Feed
Features
Reviews
Podcast
Enviro-Mental
Germany's "Green" Policy Threatens EU Climate Goals

Europe has styled itself a global green leader, and has some ambitious plans to reduce emissions. Within the European Union, Germany has attempted to blaze this new green trail, unveiling a comprehensive green energy strategy that involved boosting wind and solar energy with guaranteed long-term, above-market rates for producers. But Germany also began shutting down its nuclear reactors in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, and to make up for the loss of that consistent source of base load energy it has had to burn record amounts of coal. Now, Berlin’s reliance on coal isn’t just tarnishing its own image as a paragon of green virtue, it’s also threatening emissions goals across the European Union. Bloomberg reports:

While Germany pledged to cut heat-trapping gases 55 percent by 2030 from 1990 levels, it’s managed 25 percent so far and is moving in the wrong direction, according to the European Environment Agency. […]

Germany’s emissions rose even as its production of intermittent wind and solar power climbed fivefold in the past decade. Utilities boosted production from profitable coal-fired plants after Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to close all 17 of the country’s nuclear plants by 2022 in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011.

With its Energiewende, Germany hoped to teach the world a thing or two about responsible green governance. To that end, it succeeded, but not in the way environmentalists had envisioned. The policy experiment has been a resounding failure on both economic and environmental terms. Feed-in tariffs for renewables have sent electricity prices skyrocketing, while the nuclear drawdown has led to an increasing dependence on coal, which brings with it high emissions and localized air pollution. Germany has taught everyone a lesson, all right: how not to craft energy policy.

Yet Berlin’s green fervor seems to be contagious, as France announced this week that it would be reducing nuclear reactors’ share of the national energy mix in favor of boosting solar and wind production. The sooner greens come to terms with nuclear’s important role as a zero-carbon baseload energy source, the better.

Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Rick Johnson

    The Greens have no intention of coming to terms with nuclear’s important role as a zero-carbon baseload energy source. They have no interest in baseload energy, other than preventing humanity develop it. Their goal is to send us back to the caves. Stopping humanity using baseload energy is part of the plan.

  • Gary Hemminger

    I would have to somewhat agree with Rick. People who try to reason with the greens will fail because there is no logic to their plans. They “break out in hives at the mere mention of coal” is a quote the prof. once used and it is correct. They simply hate fossil fuels and this hatred is driving their plans. Global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it is just an excuse. They want to drive de-industrialization and the only way for them to be stopped is either for intelligent people to resist them, for their political arms to be defeated, or for their plans to be put in effect and fail. But one possible outcome is that their plans do get put into effect and fail, but they are too powerful to be stopped and we simply go into a mode where we all see energy poverty. Transfer payments will be made to the poor to pay for high power bills. They are already proposing this.

  • truthsojourner

    I can only cheer that the Germans have finally realized that turning their back on the use of coal would be committing national suicide. And I’m disappointed to hear the editors of TAI stating the reliance on coal is a bad thing, because it would indicate that they’ve bought into the hype of AGW.

  • gabrielsyme

    Another example of leftist ideology believing itself to be above the real world. Sadly similar to the biofuels fiasco, albeit far less damaging.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2014 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service