Why Germans all agree on shutting down the coal industry
abc.net.au/news/2020-02-23/why-coal-is-being-...
abc.net.auPosted Feb 23, 2020, 2:34 PM UTC
6724
abc.net.auThey also want to construct a gas pipeline from Russia to double the amount of gas coming in.
Don’t worry though, comrade Putin definitely won’t leverage the resource for political gains. He also definitely won’t use that advantage to protect the country’s most valuable export./s
4
comrade Putin definitely won’t leverage the resource for political gains
I'm not sure why there would be anything wrong if he did?
I think you're trying to imply that Putin is evil because he does things which benefit Russia, which seems ridiculous.
2†
It’s more a comment that getting rid of coal and replacing energy supply with Russian sourced gas, may not be the best compromise.
Especially from a country which will/has overtly sought to influence other nations to preserve their economic interests.
4
Find me a nation with a strong economy that doesn’t seek to influence other nations for their economic interests.
1
Who cares? The point of the comment is to praise Germany for getting rid of coal is ignorant of the fact that they are seeking to get more reliant on gas for energy from a country whose interests lie in exporting more gas.
So yay for Germany?
1
Mhm. Realpolitik is a thing.
1
Germany still imports lots of power from Poland which produces most of its power from coal.
I’ll believe the Germans are serious when they insist on only buying non-coal power from other countries
0
Germany imports electricity from both Poland and France. It also exports more electricity than it imports.
Also, even Poland is slowing removing coal from their electricity. A price on Carbon will do that. Currently, Euro CO2 price ranges from Euro 25.50 (AUD 41.83) to Euro 478.21 (AUD 784) per tonne.
Polish 'hard' coal produces about 780 kg of CO2 per MW-h (or Euro 19.84 per MW-h) and Polish Brown coal produces over 1050 kg of CO2 per MW-h.
8
I’d take this more seriously if they weren’t shutting down their nuclear power stations.
0
The only ones opposed are militant environmentalists who argue 18 years is too long to let the industry keep polluting.
They know they are being ridiculous and purposefully alarming. This following article written by two climate scientists scold other climate scientists for being purposely misleading. There is a lot to take in, but it is worth a read.
-1†
I don't quite see how the article you've linked demonstrates that the environmentalists referenced in this article are being ridiculous.
It says that the world is on course for 3 °C of warming as opposed to the 5 °C in the worst-case scenario. That's still not good enough.
Having said that, I'm not about to criticize Germany on this front given that unlike many others, they are at least doing something.
7
It doesn't directly call them ridiculous but it relies on you filling in the blanks. It does say they must stop what they are doing, as it is not helping. Many have chosen to go with a model of all policy removal and no more created and a fivefold coal use increase until 2100, the known coal reserves can't even supply that much coal. That is the ridiculous part. The upper limit was just put there a gauge how accurate the climate models were. If they went over that, they knew it was wrong, but instead many pick that upper limit model as the 'business as usual model' which hasn't been updated for 10 years.
-1
And you've inferred that these particular environmentalists are basing their opinion on this worst-case scenario model?
1
Yes I've taken the authors word of the very well referenced article.
1
Yeah follow Germany that's worked well in the past kekers.
-6
So should Australians. Live nearby a coal plant? You are much more likely to have lung diseases, chest infections and any babies born will be on average physically smaller. There are definitely measurable health effects.
But My PREciOUs JoB (that'll soon be automated away).