
Angela Merkel’s record on environmental policy has been a disaster - Tomte
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/world-leading-eco-vandal-angela-merkel-german-environmental
======
marze
Germany's generous subsidy and build out of solar, while solar was still
really expensive, was key in driving the cost down which now the whole world
benefits from. Huge credit there.

But bio fuels are an unmitigated disaster. Electric ground transportation is
the future.

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
> Electric ground transportation is the future.

It's a relatively less evil, for now. We still haven't found a good way of
dealing with old batteries and it's a huge environmental problem.

~~~
guitarbill
Do hydrogen fuel cells have major issues, other than the chicken-and-egg
problem of hydrogen refueling stations?

~~~
speedplane
Expensive materials (platinum) and difficulty making them small enough for a
car.

~~~
czechdeveloper
Is hydrogen low stability and easy leakage not an issue anymore?

~~~
speedplane
From what I understand, it's handled by well placed fuel tanks, where even if
they blow, no on inside the vehicle gets hurt.

------
_Codemonkeyism
Basically Germany will miss the goal of a 40% reduction by 2020 with only
reducing CO2 by 30%.

Beside coal/gas power, mostly from closing nuclear power plants. For example a
quarter of CO2 emission in Berlin is coming from two Vattenfall coal power
plants. Other effects are larger increase in people and economic growth.

I have been buying renewable energy for 15 years, but not many/not enough
people in Germany care.

On a positive note renewable energy is 35% in Germany.

~~~
guitarbill
This largely coincides with the Green Party's rise in popularity. Sadly it
seems they have no real plan, only ideology. IMO this is why they've
prioritised shutting down nuclear power over coal power, because demonstrating
against nuclear power is almost required to be a member, but sensible policies
are not.

I don't think you can blame Merkel, she doesn't really have a hard stance on
most topics - if anything, the opposite is true, and her position on many
things is vague or pragmatic. It seems to me that the popularity of Martin
Schulz and the AfD are a direct response to that.

~~~
hannob
> This largely coincides with the Green Party's rise in popularity.

The green party could probably profit much more from those topics if one had
the feeling they'd be more trustworthy in those issues. Particularly in the
diesel emissions scandal the greens are a big failure - the reason being that
the greens form the government in southwest Germany (Baden Württemberg), which
has a strong car industry.

~~~
guitarbill
I'm from Baden Württemberg, and I'm not sure how strong the car industry is
any more. For example, every year a bit more autobahn has a speed restriction
applied to it.

I think you're spot on though. The diesel emissions scandal is made worse by
the fact that diesel was promoted in the EU because the CO2 emissions tend to
be lower than petrol. This is reflected by diesel vs petrol prices in France
or Germany (diesel was/is? cheaper per 100km), compared to the UK where diesel
wasn't as popular.

~~~
wink
Where do you get this rise from?

2009 - 10.7%

2013 - 8.4%

2017 - 8-10% (projections)

Only B-W has a ruling Green Party, I'd they they're still mostly at 10%
everywhere else.

~~~
qznc
Living in Baden-Württemberg is probably the reason. Green is the strongest
party there (2016 30%). They are ahead of CDU (Merkels party) for two periods
now.

~~~
wink
Yes, that's why I claim it's a local thing :)

~~~
guitarbill
Fair enough, the point I was trying to make is that it's more than just Merkel
+ some lobbying, and that this article is badly written and mostly rubbish.

------
yorwba
The article voices a bunch of valid criticism, but I really wish it could have
done so without turning environmental damage into a contest and using
unsubstantiated superlatives. Is it not enough to criticize someone without
claiming that they are _the worst_? The jab at Trump felt misplaced as well.

~~~
shangxiao
I feel like jabs at conservative politics are the norm now with a lot of
journalism. A few weeks back an article [1] I read, from reddit, started with:

    
    
        …the dastardly Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor seem to be a great gift to the Alt-Right’s xenophobic nationalists.
    

Interesting article, but unnecessary (and daresay incorrect?) jab at the
start.

[1] [http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-american-who-buried-a-
kamik...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-american-who-buried-a-kamikaze-
enemy)

~~~
qf303rjr3
If you're going to quote an article, you shouldn't leave out context that
changes the meaning of the sentence you're quoting -

    
    
      "The 75th anniversary commemorations of the dastardly Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
       seem to be a great gift to the Alt-Right’s xenophobic nationalists."
    

It's the 75th anniversary commemorations that seem to be a gift - not the
attack itself (obviously).

~~~
shangxiao
Ah yes you're quite right! Apologies to all. I'd misread that, although I
think my point still stands: I'd like to read about the story and not hear
about politics in a foreign (to me) country.

------
Grue3
IMO being anti-nuclear and pro-environment are mutually exclusive positions.
Easy way to discern who really wants to reduce carbon emissions and who is
just a populist.

~~~
ahartmetz
According to environmentalists in Germany, nuclear and pro-environment are
indeed mutually exclusive. But I prefer not to copy all of my opinions from
the group I most agree with.

FWIW I think nuclear is good in principle, but neither states nor companies
have proven responsible enough to handle it. So I'm kind of against nuclear
but not in this dogmatic way.

The practical difference is that I think there should be further research to
design inherently safe approaches and processes to reduce the risk until it's
orders of magnitude safer - maybe something with Thorium, maybe fusion, maybe
a new fission reactor design. Then I'd be in favor of using it.

The nuclear waste "killer argument" is mostly bullshit. Highly radioactive
substances are spent quickly, long lived substances radiate weakly. 100000
years are quite predictable in geology.

~~~
mfukar
> FWIW I think nuclear is good in principle, but neither states nor companies
> have proven responsible enough to handle it.

So the currently operating nuclear plants that have gone without incident are
dismissed? Why so?

~~~
cygx
Their design is still fairly naive in dealing with worst-case scenarios (eg
lack of core catchers).

~~~
mfukar
I'm not sure what that means. Are you pointing out a severe deficiency that
makes their whole operational record somehow moot?

~~~
cygx
It means their design is flawed, cannot be fixed and likely would not pass
muster if proposed today.

Whether or not you consider this a severe enough deficit to necessitate a
shutdown is a matter of policy.

As to any operation record, just keep in mind that the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Plant had one dating back to 1971.

~~~
mfukar
I don't make policy. Policy, however, involves risk management. If deficient
plants have been operated successfully for this long, the implication to me is
that their operators have proven responsible enough to handle it.

~~~
cygx
_If deficient plants have been operated successfully for this long, the
implication to me is that their operators have proven responsible enough to
handle it._

A lack of air bags is not noticable until your car crashes.

~~~
mfukar
Sure, but what you're claiming is that air bags are missing based on never
having seen them operate.

~~~
cygx
No, they are missing because the car had been built before the invention of
airbags. It's uncontestable that currently operating reactors generally lack
certain safety measures we'd have added if we built them today.

The question is if we nevertheless deem them 'safe enough'.

~~~
mfukar
> It's uncontestable that currently operating reactors generally lack certain
> safety measures we'd have added if we built them today.

It is, because it is also a tautology. To me it has no bearing over the point
we're discussing.

------
kome
Very good article. The industry-government nexus in Germany is indeed super
powerful and underrated: other countries call it corruption, in Germany is
called corporatism.

In the last few years we saw it in action, with important repercussion on the
global level: for example, the way the Greek crisis was managed it had to do
much more with the safety of German banks, that with the welfare of Greece
([https://www.esmt.org/pub/where-did-greek-bailout-money-
go](https://www.esmt.org/pub/where-did-greek-bailout-money-go)).

~~~
lispm
Without European (and incl. German) money Greece would be bancrupt and no
longer in the Eurozone. Bancrupt banks in Europe would have helped no one,
particularly not Greece.

For the welfare of the people in Greece the greek government is responsible,
not Angela Merkel.

~~~
sjwright
Without being tied to the common currency, the Greek Drachma would have
devalued relative to the Deutsche Mark, making Greek exports and tourism more
lucrative. Had this been able to occur, the impact to the Greek economy would
have been far less.

Instead, the common currency has greatly benefited Germany: had the Germans
retained the Deutsche Mark, their currency would be valued higher than the
Euro is now, making their exports more expensive and/or lowering the profits
of export industries.

~~~
lispm
Greece imports a lot -> gets more expensive.

Greece with its Drachma would have been a welcome victim for currency
speculation. This was tried with the Euro, too, but it failed.

People also think in economic terms, but the Euro is a political project.
Countries like Greece wanted to be in the Eurozone. It was not Germany's wish.
It was the wish of Greece and the population of Greece also wanted it - not
just the politicians.

Germany actually did not want to have the Euro itself, it agreed to the Euro
to get the Reunification. But it agreed on the Euro to be a stable currency,
not one that politicians would devalue to gain short term effects.

~~~
readittwice
> Greece imports a lot -> gets more expensive. I just want to add: This could
> also be a good thing, since people in Greece are more likely to spend money
> on goods produced in Greece. This could help their economy.

~~~
lispm
It could, but for example Greece lacks energy resources and imports a lot of
oil and gas. That's not easy to replace and that still would involve imports.
The top imports are fuels, machines/computers, pharmaceuticals, electrical
equipment, ships, ...

------
dvfjsdhgfv
As a person, she's extremely obstinate. For a leader, this trait can be
advantageous - after all, who wants a leader who changes their minds all the
time - but for the rest of Europe it's a curse. Somehow she is unable to admit
she made some serious mistakes, and we're all suffering because of it.

~~~
lispm
That's actually the opposite of the perception of Angela Merkel in Germany. In
Germany she is seen as populist, because she changes her mind quite often or
waits until the public opinion is clear. Only in the refugee crisis, she was
seen as following moral principles having not made any concessions to right
wing politics (which earned her a lot of respect and a lot of hate). Make no
mistake, generally her team is very accurately tracking public opinion.

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
> she was seen as following moral principles having not made any concessions
> to right wing politics

Well, Bavarians might disagree with both "moral principles" and "right wing".
Especially CDU is hardly "right wing".

~~~
MagnumOpus
The CDU is extremely fiscally conservative (see Schaeuble's black zero
project) and very socially conservative (anti-gay-marriage, anti-drug-
legalisation, pro-surveillance compared to the average view of the
population).

It is rather right wing in a global context. If you don't think they are right
wing, you might want to recalibrate your views of what you think of
"centrist".

~~~
gozur88
In the US the CDU would be center left.

~~~
zmix
No, it wouldn't. :)

------
mixedbit
I fail to understand why German automotive industry is lobbing pro diesels.
All German car makers make both gasoline and diesel engines, if diesels were
banned or taxed to be more expensive customers wouldn't resign from buying
cars but would choose some other available option (gasoline, hybrid,
electric).

~~~
ahartmetz
I think it's because they have a technical edge (well...) in diesel engines
for cars and / or because they sell so many of them, especially in Germany
itself. Markets favoring diesel engines thus favor German car makers.

~~~
mixedbit
I wonder if the technical edge is there only because German diesels do not
meet emission regulations. It is easy to have the best product on the market
if all the competitors need to make weaker engines to meet the regulations and
German companies make a cheating software instead.

------
baybal2
This sounds alarmistic to me.

Diesel emissions are exaggerated. European emission standards set limits for
diesel emissions that are just minutely different from gasoline emissions.

American limits for diesels are notorious for being more restrictive than for
gas engines.

All of that considered, diesels are plainly more economical and more efficient
on pretty much all common engine size ranges

~~~
mtgx
First off, the big problem with diesel is not CO2, but NOx gases, which are
way more immediately dangerous to human health. That's why some _cities_ are
thinking of banning them ASAP right now.

Second, besides VW which was creating even 40x the emissions than the standard
you mentioned required, pretty much all the other car makers were creating
10-15x as many emissions, too, thus making that "strict standard" way looser.
Forget Euro 6 or Euro 5. These cars weren't even compliant with the 25 year
old Euro 2. In other words, all of these car makers "passing" the emissions
tests over the past two decades has been all a bad joke played on the EU
population.

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/19/many-
car-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/19/many-car-brands-
emit-more-pollution-than-volkswagen-report-finds)

Finally, a new stricter (than Euro 6) standard was supposed to arrive by 2021
or so, but Merkel once again intervened to make the standard even looser (by
+50% more emissions allowed) than the previous one, which would be a first in
the history of the Euro emissions standards, which have become increasingly
stricter not looser, so far. All thanks to Merkel.

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/24/petrol-c...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/24/petrol-
cars-allowed-to-exceed-pollution-limits-by-50-under-draft-eu-laws)

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/28/angela-m...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/28/angela-
merkel-eu-car-emissions)

~~~
lispm
The industry was promoting the Diesel also with the smaller CO2 emissions of
this engine.

The other negative effects of the Diesel boom was very visible for a long time
and politics and authorities were ignoring it.

Merkel (and her coalition partner the CSU) is especially responsible for
having a very weak minister Dobrindt, who was not willing or able to guide the
automotive industry.

Merkel and the government is a part of the problem, but the automotive
industry and the consumer is even more so. The automotive industry promoted
the Diesel engine and the consumer bought especially the high-powered ones.
The government is responsible for low Diesel taxes, supporting large company
cars and a lack of regulation.

------
_pmf_
"Vorne hui, hinten pfui" is the correct term (which means "nice from the
front, but disgusting from the rear" or something like talking the talk, but
not walking the walk).

------
fogetti
Cool. Nicely put.

------
addHocker
Yes, she is a nice little sockpuppet for the car-industry and obviously
getting what you want as a industry always damaged the industry itself. No
innovation, no risk taking, no fast adaption of new tech..

This sort of behaviour opened up a whole industry for disruption, so in a way
corrupt politicians are the grave-diggers of old industrys.

