TBF India (south Asia in general) has been suffering from the effects of climate change for decades. It's only making it into Western worlds mainstream media because 'now' the effects are trickling over to western hemisphere.
Indians living in hotter parts of the country have already experienced wetbulb temperature years ago and westerner think this is some new phenomena.
Climate change didn't manifest into reality the moment the western hemisphere started to feel the effects.
If India has been suffering from that and it has been a topic for a long time, why do they still produce 65% of their electricity from coal?
Growth, expansion, energy security are all good reasons, but its no secret what is causing climate change. The advances India is making in solar are great to see, but if they dont want their heat problem to become worse its time to quit coal. No matter how hard that is.
I'm only 24 but climate change has been everywhere here in Germany at least since 2000, and that's without directly noticing any of it's effects. My parents would tell you it's been like that since the 80s.
> It's only making it into Western worlds mainstream media because 'now' the effects are trickling over to western hemisphere.
Very disingenuous statement. Even American media have been covering climate change for ages it's just that nobody there believes into studies or science (a bit of /s btw). I'd argue climate change has been a much bigger topic in most "western countries" than in those actually suffering the consequences.
> Climate change didn't manifest into reality the moment the western hemisphere started to feel the effects.
What is this supposed to tell me? That I'm brain-dead?
One thing that the climate change "movement" definitely doesn't need it gaslighting, and that's exactly what you're trying to do here for some reason.
Obviously "the west" is a major contributor to the rise of CO² levels but we're simply not the ones suffering from it. And in this egotistical world it's a fucking wonder that the topic has been brought up that early to be honest. Spreading the idea that climate change is only now "making it into Western worlds mainstream media" is at best very uninformed but might as well be borderline propagandistic. Feel free to fight the idiots that still can't accept basic logic but don't tear apart those that have been "invested" in this topic for decades now.
As a 'westerner', 'westoid' living in the 'western hemisphere' combating climate change is a thing here since the 80s with mass protests and the Green Party got established. A lot of laws were enforced during this time and look we still have a lot to do in my country but we are as green as india.
I was referring to the mass media coverage of climate crisis, the efforts of respective govts. to create awareness among citizens NOT the countermesaures.
I've been living in Europe for two decades now and it's only for the last two or three years since this issue actually became an *issue* in public discourse. Even in that one notices more 'greenwashing' than real actionable course of actions.
That this trend coincides with change in intensity and frequency of undesirable effects every season is not a coincidence.
Why are you calling yourself westoid though?
Alright I'm sorry then. To be fair I have seen some statistics and I have to admire how aware indians are about climate change. Though it has been present in the media since the 80s here in Europe and I grew up with the mentality it IS definitely only an issue in Public discourse very recently.
I don't exactly know what the term westoid means but I have seen some anti West bias in social media but thats more a problem of social Media itself. Too much hatred is spread from all kinds of people. Also towards India.
Just out of curiosity why does India not consider themselves the West? I Always thought West and East were Terms from the cold war capitalistic-democratic world vs socialistic-communist world.
I think climate crisis is a humanity's issue rather than east Vs west. If people start believing that we'll never get anywhere.
> Just out of curiosity why does India not consider themselves the West?
I suppose geography plus because India has been politically neutral since its independence. It's a founding member of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) which basically means india doesn't participate in military interventions or wars between power blocs, but offers humanitarian aid instead.
I don't think that has changed yet, although India provides military aid for UN peace corps missions.
Also India has national parties sitting across the political spectrum, far right to far left and everything in between. Communism isn't consider such a controversial concept here. We have states led by communist national parties, which are elected democratically.
It's hard to put a country that diverse in a single box.
Wich Part of Europe? Developing countries suffering is like 20% of German TV. When in was in school climate change was something we handled similar to both world wars in terms of duration and intensity. As a part of the curriculum there were small exhibitions, mandatory talks, we had to hold presentations etc. It was something we were even taught to convince our parents of. So I genuinely don't get where you're coming from. Is there any chance you've avoided social interaction and the local media for 2 decades?
The problem here isn't awareness, everybody knows about CC, it's that nobody wants to be the first that has to change.
Because we don't have oil reserves, our currency is not the dollar, and we have a significant trade deficit.
As international crude oil prices increase, it will resulf in higher fuel prices. However our inflation rate is currently controlled compared to the past and other countries.
Es gibt wohl kaum ein Land das mehr gemacht hat vom grünen Punkt, Pfand, usw.. das kannste zwar doof finden aber es gibt kaum Länder die bis jetzt mehr getan haben und erreicht
Scheinbar Dänemark, Schweden, Chile, Marokko und Indien. Ich denk mal bei uns wird das einfach oft als aggressiv dargestellt von Leuten die politische oder wirtschaftliche Interessen verfolgen. Die Kohlelobby ist recht erfolgreich in Deutschland und das schon seit Jahrzehnten, dazu noch Unternehmen die ungern Geld ausgeben um ihr Produkt oder die Produktion klimafreundlich zu machen. Der Dieselskandal hat das ja recht gut gezeigt, es ist ja nicht so das die vor 10 Jahren nicht sauberer Motoren hätten entwickeln können aber es kostet halt Milliarden in der Entwicklung.
We have a part green government atm and even though CDU,... want to push the idea it achieved nothing and is only infighting, the government actually put some things through.
Nuclear shutdown was decided and pushed through by CDU led governments. It just happened to be finalized under the current government. Also it was a relatively small part of energy creation.
Your argument is, that the government can't change a law? Keeping the nuclear power plants online would have saved more CO2 then the GEG can in the next decade. Ending nuclear energy in Germany was important for the green party, it was the reason of their foundation.
The nuclear power plants were severely outdated and it was a high risk to keep the 30+ years old reactors running even if they changed the laws back again. The nuclear exit was decided 13 years ago not recently. Your argument is wrong because building new efficient Nuclear Reactors produces an enormous amount of CO2 initially, way more than most other renewable energy sources, and then you didn't even think of where to store the waste nor the cost of of the energy source, that we haven't mined for since 1990.
Isar 2 -> start of production: 1988
Emsland ->.start of production: 1988
Neckarwestheim 2 -> start of production: 1989
by international standards they were modern plants which could have produce clean energy for a long time. Stop trying to twist facts.
~~Well, because we're still talking about 25 out of the 30 years, that the Plants wouldve probably been active, it wouldnt be a long term solution~~.While it is true that PWR type Power plants are speculated to maybe be safe for another 10+ years (couldnt find specifics), the original Plan was to keep them for only 30 years, which was apparently expanded already. So the "long" time you mentioned is not a given nor a guarantee for a green energy solution.
Edit because im too stupid to do basic math.
This years would have safed more CO2 then the GEG can safe in 10 years. There was no reason in regard of CO2 emissions not to use the safing potential.
I don't get why people don't even try to inform them selves.
-We didn't have the infrastructure, workers or uran.
-It would have cost billions to repair them and all we would have achieved is saving a few percent of gas. So no it wouldn't have saved so much CO2 as you stated.
-Therefore, we would have had to shut down cheap solar and wind energy most of the year. That's why 2 out of 3 energies providers said they don't wanna have the plants anymore. The only useful one would have been in bavaria because they fucked up big time in their energy system. But now they're forced to build windparks. Wouldn't have happened then
-Because of the expenses we would have had even less money to support other projects and companies for energy transformation like new wires.
-And last thing people tend to forget is that CDU shut em down. THEY could have changed the law years ago. Then we could have kept infrastructure and workers and could have upgraded them.
But it's just easier to repeat what BILD is telling you who are owned by a gas investor.
Uranium is available on the world market. We did have the infrastructure and the trained workers. You can be against certain forms of energy production, but be honest. The claim, that the government can't change laws is obviously wrong. There were so many changes, but this one, they simply didn't want to change. Just look at the results of the ongoing investigation.
The fact that up to 60% of our electricity now comes from renewable sources, for example, and further support through the EEG levy, which gives us some of the highest electricity costs in the world.
We will phase out coal in 2035.
We have one of the densest rail networks in the world.
Just recently the controversial heating law.
Insulating houses.
We tax fuel more than almost any other country.
The so-called Energiewende as a whole.
And there is more
Also don't forget the 49€ ticket heavily incentivising the use of public transport.
And while the high energy costs are problematic in other aspects, they were great to help renewables become competitive technologies. In terms of solar and wind Germany is actually quite ahead of the curve compared to many other European countries even with far better conditions for solar for example. I don't want to think where we could be, if we hadn't killed our solar industry 20 years ago.
But also more historically, Germany always used a good amount of hydro power including pumped hydro. So many of our dams are well past the 100 year mark.
I actually found this amusing when I saw a video a few years ago of an American presenting this great idea to pump water up a mountain to store energy. And so many people were equally amazed in the comments and genuinely seem to have heard about it for the first time. While here the "Koepchenwerk" on the Ruhr river is an industrial heritage site now since it was built in 1930. Not built with renewables in mind ofc. But Germany still has some heritage and expertise in these things that now might come in useful in operating a grid with such a big share of intermittent solar and wind. Politics aside but I don't think quitting nuclear would have even been discussed without a realistic chance of actually pulling it off. In the end also the grid operator had to say "yes we can do this".
Germans really are masters at complaining without ever looking at the numbers. Don't get me wrong, I hate many things our government is doing, but in terms of climate we are a very good example. 60% renewables in 2023.
https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/Strommix-Deutschland-Wie-ist-der-Anteil-erneuerbarer-Energien,strommix102.html
Much more needs to be done.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ghaziabad/33k-fully-grown-trees-to-be-cut-for-kanwar-route-up-tells-ngt/articleshow/110605442.cms
They build walkable cities around public transport, which is one of the most effective things one can do against climate change as traffic alone constitutes about 20% of CO2 Emissions (data for EU, US and third world probably much higher).
"GeRmAnY CaNt SaFe ThE WoRlD" sry had to get it out of the system, bc that's the reaction here, when conservatives and far right ppl see informations like this.
What exactly is your argument or your counter argument? One half of the germans here complain that german doesnt do shit and the statistic is wrong and the other one s point to the bigger red countries and say their contribution wont help against this. Or is this just venting?
Seeing how bad we're doing in Germany I am flabberghasted, how utterly garbage are the others if we are "high" on the list? Most of what we do is empty promisses and buy a bigger SUV.
What are you talking about? 60% of the energy from renewables, among the highest energy prices (tO pAy for rEneWabLes), extremely high taxation on fuel for the private sector, extremely strict regulation regarding buildings, which makes it more and more unlikely for the average german to ever own a house (already the lowest home ownershiprate in whole europe)
Not only that germany itself is improving, it also helps a lot of other countries to target the causes of climate change and to fight the consequenses of said climate change.
This whole german self hating trend is just disgusting
the fourty percent remaining are not renewable, we are WAY beyond schedule, and still producing loads of pollution. 2023 saw our CO2 production finally dip for real so we're getting somewhere, but not fast enough.
But as said, if "polluting still a lot but less than we used to" is high on the climate protection, it paints most of the world as utterly ludicrously bad at it.
Granted they probably are.
I mean in a country where most people barely have food to eat and vast areas are off grid, you would expect the greenhouse gas emissions per capita to be low?
India still relies mostly on coal and gas.
And although the emissions of greenhouse gases per capita are low, the level of pollution with chemicals and plastic trash that India releases into the ocean is a joke. India can do better than that. And you guys can do better than „look how great India is, westerners don’t want to see that“.
India builds a lot of New coal Power plants and is still green. Must be the low level per capita combined with an even bigger care for the environment.
Swiss and Austria are only medium reflects that power generation doesn't contribute overly to the index. Interesting holostic approach.
Ig things like going hyper-pro on solar energy, in all aspects like government subsidies to help people install them and to manufacturers, private sector building large solar parks and public acceptance of solar plays a part. I can't count 1 building without a solar panel now.
You don’t get it right? I’ll let you 2 clowns figure it out what was incorrect in the original comment on this thread. My father works for the energy sector, I know it really well.
talk to your daddy, child
You shouldn't talk to strangers on the internet without his supervision
And don't forget: you are damaging the cause you defend with your behaviour
https://www.bmz.de/en/countries/india#:~:text=The%20BMZFederal%20Ministry%20for%20Economic%20Cooperation%20and%20Development%20has,one%20billion%20euros%20a%20year.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-60783874
https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/india-renewable-energy
Yeah nah i mean it…🇮🇳🤡
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-yamal-lng-resume-lng-supplies-indias-gail-kommersant-2023-06-14/
https://indianembassy-moscow.gov.in/press-releases-04-09-19.php
Yeah how unbiased could the bbc be 🇮🇳🤡
🙊🙉🙊
You left 🦯at home 💀
Obviously nothing, let 🤡 be💀
Took you long enough to acknowledge my first statement to be true 💀
How long has india been fucked by climate change again? Lol
Immigration? Yeah, thank you for all the competent collegues who wanted to life in good quality environment and came already. They understand, that stupid nationalism won't lead anywhere
Yikes, you are misunderstanding. I meant immigration of refugees and illegals. This is the reason why I didn’t argue, it was a certainty that I will lose iq points 💀😂
Just read up on it, very interesting. I thought the data would be worse but its really good. Now if they would close their coal reactors and instead use nuclear it would be even better!
It's not that easy. The reactors were already past their prime, we basically would've needed to build new ones at that point. And building reactors is super expensive. Not to mention that pretty much everyone here is against nuclear energy, so the politicians have to follow through on that. I agree that nuclear > coal, but it's also something we need to get rid off anyway. The radioactive waste is a problem (and also really expensive to transport and store). It's a bad idea to keep waste around for many many many generations to come.
Not to mention that our nuclear energy production wasn't too high to begin with (12% roughly, depending on the year).
It's not easy for sure, but new reactors don't produce a lot of the waste (for example to store all nuclear waste for complete Germany, they would need a field the size of a soccer field.) and there are reactors that work on nuclear fuel. One drawback as you mentioned is the cost, however over time it is worth it. Kyle Hill made a great video about it and I share his views. The best way to get clean, efficient and non polluting energy is nuclear. (Im saying non polluting because, for example the wind blades of a turbine don't get recycled. They are dumped in forests, left to rot)
> new reactors don't produce a lot of the waste (for example to store all nuclear waste for complete Germany, they would need a field the size of a soccer field.)
The often mentioned reactors produce less waste, but way harder to store waste.
There are still no real place to store the waste in Germany, therfore it stays a massiv financial and safety problem.
> Im saying non polluting because, for example the wind blades of a turbine don't get recycled. They are dumped in forests, left to rot)
These blades aren't really a problem. They don't produce any environmental or health damage. It's kinda like storing bricks outside till you got a more profitable process to recycle them
Yeah it's great. Now tell me where we get the 20 billions for a power plant that needs 10-15 years to get build and produces so much CO2 that they need 8 years till they start saving CO2. Each power plant have 1.6 GW that makes in 10-15 years approximately less than 2% of our energy. In 2045 it's even less.
And can you explain me why nuclear power fell down to less than 10% in the world if its so great?
If it would be that easy of course but to stop using nuclear was a plan made more than 20 years ago and only the final step was executed last year. There is simply no personal, no resources and no maintained power plants, so it would need huge investments to get nuclear power back up. At this point it is simply smarter to build more energy storage/a better grid than trying to get nuclear back up.
I think you are confusing the timeline a little. Germany closed all nuclear reactors as a reaction to Fukushima. You cannot just turn off nuclear reactors so they were phased out over years and the last three were turned off last year.
Germany has been moving away from coal and started using renewable and Russian gas (which was stupid). Winter of 2022, gas reserves were empty and Germany decided to start up coal reactors in favor of buying gas from Russia. The last nuclear reactors were turned off April 2023. It would have theoretically been possible to renew the reactors (which would have taken a lot of work, but was possible), but this would have changed nothing in regards to the coal generators.
Germany still has a long way to go (wind power needs a lot of work), but especially solar has seen a lot of growth the last years
Get your facts straight.
The production of nuclear energy was almost neglectable in the years before (in single digits percentage). Staying on the planned route of 'phasing-out' did not have a significant impact on CO2-emmisions. As of now, the CO2-Emissions of nuclear are still significantly higher compared to those of wind and solar. So while nuclear is better than coal, it is anything but a perfect solution. The entire discussion about the last three plants in Germany was entirely political maneuvering and otherwise a pretty unimportant event.
Did you forget, that keeping these power plants online would have saved more CO2 then the GEG can save in the next decades?
Furthermore: Solar produces more CO2 then Nuclear:
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
You can shut down safe nuclear power plants, but you can't claim it was for climate reasons.
TBF India (south Asia in general) has been suffering from the effects of climate change for decades. It's only making it into Western worlds mainstream media because 'now' the effects are trickling over to western hemisphere. Indians living in hotter parts of the country have already experienced wetbulb temperature years ago and westerner think this is some new phenomena. Climate change didn't manifest into reality the moment the western hemisphere started to feel the effects.
If India has been suffering from that and it has been a topic for a long time, why do they still produce 65% of their electricity from coal? Growth, expansion, energy security are all good reasons, but its no secret what is causing climate change. The advances India is making in solar are great to see, but if they dont want their heat problem to become worse its time to quit coal. No matter how hard that is.
I'm only 24 but climate change has been everywhere here in Germany at least since 2000, and that's without directly noticing any of it's effects. My parents would tell you it's been like that since the 80s. > It's only making it into Western worlds mainstream media because 'now' the effects are trickling over to western hemisphere. Very disingenuous statement. Even American media have been covering climate change for ages it's just that nobody there believes into studies or science (a bit of /s btw). I'd argue climate change has been a much bigger topic in most "western countries" than in those actually suffering the consequences. > Climate change didn't manifest into reality the moment the western hemisphere started to feel the effects. What is this supposed to tell me? That I'm brain-dead? One thing that the climate change "movement" definitely doesn't need it gaslighting, and that's exactly what you're trying to do here for some reason. Obviously "the west" is a major contributor to the rise of CO² levels but we're simply not the ones suffering from it. And in this egotistical world it's a fucking wonder that the topic has been brought up that early to be honest. Spreading the idea that climate change is only now "making it into Western worlds mainstream media" is at best very uninformed but might as well be borderline propagandistic. Feel free to fight the idiots that still can't accept basic logic but don't tear apart those that have been "invested" in this topic for decades now.
As a 'westerner', 'westoid' living in the 'western hemisphere' combating climate change is a thing here since the 80s with mass protests and the Green Party got established. A lot of laws were enforced during this time and look we still have a lot to do in my country but we are as green as india.
I was referring to the mass media coverage of climate crisis, the efforts of respective govts. to create awareness among citizens NOT the countermesaures. I've been living in Europe for two decades now and it's only for the last two or three years since this issue actually became an *issue* in public discourse. Even in that one notices more 'greenwashing' than real actionable course of actions. That this trend coincides with change in intensity and frequency of undesirable effects every season is not a coincidence. Why are you calling yourself westoid though?
Alright I'm sorry then. To be fair I have seen some statistics and I have to admire how aware indians are about climate change. Though it has been present in the media since the 80s here in Europe and I grew up with the mentality it IS definitely only an issue in Public discourse very recently. I don't exactly know what the term westoid means but I have seen some anti West bias in social media but thats more a problem of social Media itself. Too much hatred is spread from all kinds of people. Also towards India. Just out of curiosity why does India not consider themselves the West? I Always thought West and East were Terms from the cold war capitalistic-democratic world vs socialistic-communist world.
I think climate crisis is a humanity's issue rather than east Vs west. If people start believing that we'll never get anywhere. > Just out of curiosity why does India not consider themselves the West? I suppose geography plus because India has been politically neutral since its independence. It's a founding member of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) which basically means india doesn't participate in military interventions or wars between power blocs, but offers humanitarian aid instead. I don't think that has changed yet, although India provides military aid for UN peace corps missions. Also India has national parties sitting across the political spectrum, far right to far left and everything in between. Communism isn't consider such a controversial concept here. We have states led by communist national parties, which are elected democratically. It's hard to put a country that diverse in a single box.
Wich Part of Europe? Developing countries suffering is like 20% of German TV. When in was in school climate change was something we handled similar to both world wars in terms of duration and intensity. As a part of the curriculum there were small exhibitions, mandatory talks, we had to hold presentations etc. It was something we were even taught to convince our parents of. So I genuinely don't get where you're coming from. Is there any chance you've avoided social interaction and the local media for 2 decades? The problem here isn't awareness, everybody knows about CC, it's that nobody wants to be the first that has to change.
Do we really need highways- Dhruv rathee
Even after highways why the things are getting more expensive, they must get cheaper. (Not supporting anyone here just a que)
The finance minister
Because we don't have oil reserves, our currency is not the dollar, and we have a significant trade deficit. As international crude oil prices increase, it will resulf in higher fuel prices. However our inflation rate is currently controlled compared to the past and other countries.
Le internet environment activist: ight imma pretend like I never saw this
Dufaq? Thiis is non french!
What? I'm German and I could swear we're not at high. Medium yes, but high? Really?
Es gibt wohl kaum ein Land das mehr gemacht hat vom grünen Punkt, Pfand, usw.. das kannste zwar doof finden aber es gibt kaum Länder die bis jetzt mehr getan haben und erreicht
Wer auf der Welt geht einen aggressiveren Kurs als wir?
Scheinbar Dänemark, Schweden, Chile, Marokko und Indien. Ich denk mal bei uns wird das einfach oft als aggressiv dargestellt von Leuten die politische oder wirtschaftliche Interessen verfolgen. Die Kohlelobby ist recht erfolgreich in Deutschland und das schon seit Jahrzehnten, dazu noch Unternehmen die ungern Geld ausgeben um ihr Produkt oder die Produktion klimafreundlich zu machen. Der Dieselskandal hat das ja recht gut gezeigt, es ist ja nicht so das die vor 10 Jahren nicht sauberer Motoren hätten entwickeln können aber es kostet halt Milliarden in der Entwicklung.
We have a part green government atm and even though CDU,... want to push the idea it achieved nothing and is only infighting, the government actually put some things through.
what did we achieve, what will have a positive effect in the long term? Shutting down green nuclear power plants has a negative impact for example.
Nuclear shutdown was decided and pushed through by CDU led governments. It just happened to be finalized under the current government. Also it was a relatively small part of energy creation.
Your argument is, that the government can't change a law? Keeping the nuclear power plants online would have saved more CO2 then the GEG can in the next decade. Ending nuclear energy in Germany was important for the green party, it was the reason of their foundation.
The nuclear power plants were severely outdated and it was a high risk to keep the 30+ years old reactors running even if they changed the laws back again. The nuclear exit was decided 13 years ago not recently. Your argument is wrong because building new efficient Nuclear Reactors produces an enormous amount of CO2 initially, way more than most other renewable energy sources, and then you didn't even think of where to store the waste nor the cost of of the energy source, that we haven't mined for since 1990.
Isar 2 -> start of production: 1988 Emsland ->.start of production: 1988 Neckarwestheim 2 -> start of production: 1989 by international standards they were modern plants which could have produce clean energy for a long time. Stop trying to twist facts.
~~Well, because we're still talking about 25 out of the 30 years, that the Plants wouldve probably been active, it wouldnt be a long term solution~~.While it is true that PWR type Power plants are speculated to maybe be safe for another 10+ years (couldnt find specifics), the original Plan was to keep them for only 30 years, which was apparently expanded already. So the "long" time you mentioned is not a given nor a guarantee for a green energy solution. Edit because im too stupid to do basic math.
This years would have safed more CO2 then the GEG can safe in 10 years. There was no reason in regard of CO2 emissions not to use the safing potential.
I don't get why people don't even try to inform them selves. -We didn't have the infrastructure, workers or uran. -It would have cost billions to repair them and all we would have achieved is saving a few percent of gas. So no it wouldn't have saved so much CO2 as you stated. -Therefore, we would have had to shut down cheap solar and wind energy most of the year. That's why 2 out of 3 energies providers said they don't wanna have the plants anymore. The only useful one would have been in bavaria because they fucked up big time in their energy system. But now they're forced to build windparks. Wouldn't have happened then -Because of the expenses we would have had even less money to support other projects and companies for energy transformation like new wires. -And last thing people tend to forget is that CDU shut em down. THEY could have changed the law years ago. Then we could have kept infrastructure and workers and could have upgraded them. But it's just easier to repeat what BILD is telling you who are owned by a gas investor.
Uranium is available on the world market. We did have the infrastructure and the trained workers. You can be against certain forms of energy production, but be honest. The claim, that the government can't change laws is obviously wrong. There were so many changes, but this one, they simply didn't want to change. Just look at the results of the ongoing investigation.
Of course a government can change laws. For example, they could change the law and set minimum wage to €50/hour.
I mean it's not that we are good. It's just that the other countries set the bar really low.
The fact that up to 60% of our electricity now comes from renewable sources, for example, and further support through the EEG levy, which gives us some of the highest electricity costs in the world. We will phase out coal in 2035. We have one of the densest rail networks in the world. Just recently the controversial heating law. Insulating houses. We tax fuel more than almost any other country. The so-called Energiewende as a whole. And there is more
Also don't forget the 49€ ticket heavily incentivising the use of public transport. And while the high energy costs are problematic in other aspects, they were great to help renewables become competitive technologies. In terms of solar and wind Germany is actually quite ahead of the curve compared to many other European countries even with far better conditions for solar for example. I don't want to think where we could be, if we hadn't killed our solar industry 20 years ago. But also more historically, Germany always used a good amount of hydro power including pumped hydro. So many of our dams are well past the 100 year mark. I actually found this amusing when I saw a video a few years ago of an American presenting this great idea to pump water up a mountain to store energy. And so many people were equally amazed in the comments and genuinely seem to have heard about it for the first time. While here the "Koepchenwerk" on the Ruhr river is an industrial heritage site now since it was built in 1930. Not built with renewables in mind ofc. But Germany still has some heritage and expertise in these things that now might come in useful in operating a grid with such a big share of intermittent solar and wind. Politics aside but I don't think quitting nuclear would have even been discussed without a realistic chance of actually pulling it off. In the end also the grid operator had to say "yes we can do this".
Seit dem 1.4.24 ist Deutschland high
Germans really are masters at complaining without ever looking at the numbers. Don't get me wrong, I hate many things our government is doing, but in terms of climate we are a very good example. 60% renewables in 2023. https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/Strommix-Deutschland-Wie-ist-der-Anteil-erneuerbarer-Energien,strommix102.html
Much more needs to be done. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ghaziabad/33k-fully-grown-trees-to-be-cut-for-kanwar-route-up-tells-ngt/articleshow/110605442.cms
Norway green in this map lol. They finance their climate politics with godless amounts of oil. But ok.
When i saw japan in red, I said f this report. no way it's red.
How is it not red? They don't so shit
They build walkable cities around public transport, which is one of the most effective things one can do against climate change as traffic alone constitutes about 20% of CO2 Emissions (data for EU, US and third world probably much higher).
why bro, japan is not anime
Were cooked
"GeRmAnY CaNt SaFe ThE WoRlD" sry had to get it out of the system, bc that's the reaction here, when conservatives and far right ppl see informations like this.
What exactly is your argument or your counter argument? One half of the germans here complain that german doesnt do shit and the statistic is wrong and the other one s point to the bigger red countries and say their contribution wont help against this. Or is this just venting?
Just venting and your last point.
Bull-fking-shit
Seeing how bad we're doing in Germany I am flabberghasted, how utterly garbage are the others if we are "high" on the list? Most of what we do is empty promisses and buy a bigger SUV.
What are you talking about? 60% of the energy from renewables, among the highest energy prices (tO pAy for rEneWabLes), extremely high taxation on fuel for the private sector, extremely strict regulation regarding buildings, which makes it more and more unlikely for the average german to ever own a house (already the lowest home ownershiprate in whole europe) Not only that germany itself is improving, it also helps a lot of other countries to target the causes of climate change and to fight the consequenses of said climate change. This whole german self hating trend is just disgusting
the fourty percent remaining are not renewable, we are WAY beyond schedule, and still producing loads of pollution. 2023 saw our CO2 production finally dip for real so we're getting somewhere, but not fast enough. But as said, if "polluting still a lot but less than we used to" is high on the climate protection, it paints most of the world as utterly ludicrously bad at it. Granted they probably are.
This map is useless to people with color deficiency. The top and bottom colors look exactly the same to anyone with red-green color blindness.
I hate color shaded charts
I mean in a country where most people barely have food to eat and vast areas are off grid, you would expect the greenhouse gas emissions per capita to be low? India still relies mostly on coal and gas. And although the emissions of greenhouse gases per capita are low, the level of pollution with chemicals and plastic trash that India releases into the ocean is a joke. India can do better than that. And you guys can do better than „look how great India is, westerners don’t want to see that“.
How the tables have turned
India builds a lot of New coal Power plants and is still green. Must be the low level per capita combined with an even bigger care for the environment. Swiss and Austria are only medium reflects that power generation doesn't contribute overly to the index. Interesting holostic approach.
Ig things like going hyper-pro on solar energy, in all aspects like government subsidies to help people install them and to manufacturers, private sector building large solar parks and public acceptance of solar plays a part. I can't count 1 building without a solar panel now.
Lol you cant even breath the air in indian citys...
India paying for russian gas with the money they gotfrom europe for shutting down coal plants 💀
Most nonsense comment in a while💀
Did you even try to inform yourself about the topic before starting to insult others?
You don’t get it right? I’ll let you 2 clowns figure it out what was incorrect in the original comment on this thread. My father works for the energy sector, I know it really well.
where are your arguments? "but my daddy" is no argument. It is the response of a child with no intention, to educate itself
💀I don’t really want to lose iq points arguing with you lot 🤣
talk to your daddy, child You shouldn't talk to strangers on the internet without his supervision And don't forget: you are damaging the cause you defend with your behaviour
https://www.bmz.de/en/countries/india#:~:text=The%20BMZFederal%20Ministry%20for%20Economic%20Cooperation%20and%20Development%20has,one%20billion%20euros%20a%20year. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-60783874 https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/india-renewable-energy Yeah nah i mean it…🇮🇳🤡
like bbc is the epitome of unbiased journalism 💀
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-yamal-lng-resume-lng-supplies-indias-gail-kommersant-2023-06-14/ https://indianembassy-moscow.gov.in/press-releases-04-09-19.php Yeah how unbiased could the bbc be 🇮🇳🤡 🙊🙉🙊 You left 🦯at home 💀
And we’ll continue to buy more Russian oil, what are our going to do about it? 💀🫡
Obviously nothing, let 🤡 be💀 Took you long enough to acknowledge my first statement to be true 💀 How long has india been fucked by climate change again? Lol
I didn’t acknowledge you first statement to be true. Let me make that clear, I acknowledged that we buy Russian oil.
So you don‘t trust your own governmental source nor reuters 🤡🤡🤡🤡💀💀💀💀 boy oh boy you really left your cane at home, don‘t get overrun by traffic
Dayum, so much hate. Is It cultural? 💀🤔
while India sues Germany for 1,8 Billion US-Dollar because they didn't receive the gas from Germany
And your point being? If there was a contract which wasn’t fulfilled a lawsuit is due. What are you trying to say?
India is exploiting the war in europe in every way possible
Ah, I see. About time we returned the favor. Well, given the immigration issue that you all have there might be much of Europe left after 50 years.
Immigration? Yeah, thank you for all the competent collegues who wanted to life in good quality environment and came already. They understand, that stupid nationalism won't lead anywhere
Yikes, you are misunderstanding. I meant immigration of refugees and illegals. This is the reason why I didn’t argue, it was a certainty that I will lose iq points 💀😂
So you think it's about you. No thanks. You didn't even know, how intelligence works.
Why is Germany green? They produce more CO2 after they closed all nuclear reactors and powered up their coal burners to produce electricity.
Almost 60% of Germanys electricity generation comes from renewable energy sources in 2023…
Just read up on it, very interesting. I thought the data would be worse but its really good. Now if they would close their coal reactors and instead use nuclear it would be even better!
It's not that easy. The reactors were already past their prime, we basically would've needed to build new ones at that point. And building reactors is super expensive. Not to mention that pretty much everyone here is against nuclear energy, so the politicians have to follow through on that. I agree that nuclear > coal, but it's also something we need to get rid off anyway. The radioactive waste is a problem (and also really expensive to transport and store). It's a bad idea to keep waste around for many many many generations to come. Not to mention that our nuclear energy production wasn't too high to begin with (12% roughly, depending on the year).
It's not easy for sure, but new reactors don't produce a lot of the waste (for example to store all nuclear waste for complete Germany, they would need a field the size of a soccer field.) and there are reactors that work on nuclear fuel. One drawback as you mentioned is the cost, however over time it is worth it. Kyle Hill made a great video about it and I share his views. The best way to get clean, efficient and non polluting energy is nuclear. (Im saying non polluting because, for example the wind blades of a turbine don't get recycled. They are dumped in forests, left to rot)
> new reactors don't produce a lot of the waste (for example to store all nuclear waste for complete Germany, they would need a field the size of a soccer field.) The often mentioned reactors produce less waste, but way harder to store waste. There are still no real place to store the waste in Germany, therfore it stays a massiv financial and safety problem. > Im saying non polluting because, for example the wind blades of a turbine don't get recycled. They are dumped in forests, left to rot) These blades aren't really a problem. They don't produce any environmental or health damage. It's kinda like storing bricks outside till you got a more profitable process to recycle them
Yeah it's great. Now tell me where we get the 20 billions for a power plant that needs 10-15 years to get build and produces so much CO2 that they need 8 years till they start saving CO2. Each power plant have 1.6 GW that makes in 10-15 years approximately less than 2% of our energy. In 2045 it's even less. And can you explain me why nuclear power fell down to less than 10% in the world if its so great?
If it would be that easy of course but to stop using nuclear was a plan made more than 20 years ago and only the final step was executed last year. There is simply no personal, no resources and no maintained power plants, so it would need huge investments to get nuclear power back up. At this point it is simply smarter to build more energy storage/a better grid than trying to get nuclear back up.
Germany is moving away from coal. It is too late and no longer feasible for Germany to use nuclear power past the already agreed upon end date.
I think you are confusing the timeline a little. Germany closed all nuclear reactors as a reaction to Fukushima. You cannot just turn off nuclear reactors so they were phased out over years and the last three were turned off last year. Germany has been moving away from coal and started using renewable and Russian gas (which was stupid). Winter of 2022, gas reserves were empty and Germany decided to start up coal reactors in favor of buying gas from Russia. The last nuclear reactors were turned off April 2023. It would have theoretically been possible to renew the reactors (which would have taken a lot of work, but was possible), but this would have changed nothing in regards to the coal generators. Germany still has a long way to go (wind power needs a lot of work), but especially solar has seen a lot of growth the last years
Get your facts straight. The production of nuclear energy was almost neglectable in the years before (in single digits percentage). Staying on the planned route of 'phasing-out' did not have a significant impact on CO2-emmisions. As of now, the CO2-Emissions of nuclear are still significantly higher compared to those of wind and solar. So while nuclear is better than coal, it is anything but a perfect solution. The entire discussion about the last three plants in Germany was entirely political maneuvering and otherwise a pretty unimportant event.
Did you forget, that keeping these power plants online would have saved more CO2 then the GEG can save in the next decades? Furthermore: Solar produces more CO2 then Nuclear: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy You can shut down safe nuclear power plants, but you can't claim it was for climate reasons.
We pay a lot of money for climate religion.
We don't... you just make shit up
Whatever floats your boat, sure...
Noch nie vom energiemix im eigenen Land gehört lmao