Tuesday, 29 March 2016

Don't dis Energiewende. Attack German energy policy instead

A typical justification for Energiewende lists 6 objectives (pdf)

  1. Fighting climate change
  2. Reducing energy imports
  3. Stimulating technology innovation and the green economy
  4. Reducing and eliminating the risks of nuclear power
  5. Energy security
  6. Strengthening local economies and providing social justice

Consider objective A (Fighting climate change). This would probably be considered most important for us Anglo-Saxons because we're supposed to be pragmatic. Actual CO2 emissions reductions are partly done by a carbon-accountants trick: renewables are defined as CO2 free by diktat, not with evidence. Every Energiewende naysayer is defined as a climate change denier. When I query Energiewende supporters, they often say: Germany is moving towards decarbonization with renewable energy. In some vague, undefined, future: Germany will become carbon-free. When dis Energiewende, boosters try to befuddle me with arguments using one or all of the 6 objectives above. At the limit this comes down to the claim: you're not German, you don't understand us. In contrast when I dis German energy policy I can just say Germany is not reducing CO2 emissions, it's creating social injustice. They can't refute those two claims. They can refute the claim that Energiewende is failing with endless sophistry.

So I say: stop dissing Energiewende and start dissing German energy policy.

1 comment:

  1. I have seen a new and clever way to "lie with statistics." You make a change, and you look at twenty parameters for that change. SOME of them will change, slightly, in the direction you want them to change! Just by chance. Other parameters will go the other way.
    http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800
    Indeed: Germany's major goals are not being met. Germany's CO2 emissions are not being reduced, and its high prices are creating social injustice....that is what we should stress. These two things can basically be measured and they are going the wrong way. "Energy security" is vague, and it is the same as saying: eat chocolate to lose weight.
    "With twelve parameters, I can fit an elephant." Stick to the claims we can measure.

    ReplyDelete