Posted on 06/04/2012 12:12:32 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Germany is successfully limiting the amount of carbon, energy and resources required to grow its economy. Though the public is generally satisfied with the level of environmental quality, the OECD’s Environmental Performance Review of Germany warns that challenges remain in areas like air and water quality, the protection of biodiversity, and de-carbonising energy production. It says that Germany will need more cost-effective policies to achieve its ambitious environmental objectives which, in some cases, go beyond those established in the European Union.
Stringent environmental requirements have helped to make Germany a leader in the environmental goods and services sector. Worth up to EUR 300 billion by 2020, ‘green’ is an important source of economic growth and jobs.
OECD Environment Director, Simon Upton said, “Today’s massive environmental challenges demand cost-effective solutions that promote innovation and avoid technological lock-in. New sources of green growth can play an important part in the recovery from the current economic and financial crisis. In this, Germany is leading the way.”
See the data in Excel here See the data in Excel here
The report presents 29 recommendations including:
Strengthen assessment of the impact of economic policies on the environment and the impact of environment-related policies on the economy. Design financial support for ‘green’ innovation to encourage private investment capital Systematically assess the environmental impact of subsidies, with a view to phasing out those that are environmentally harmful and economically and socially inefficient. This includes adjusting subsidies for renewable energies. Tax energy in sectors not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System and provide a consistent carbon price signal across the economy.
For further information, journalists should contact Ivana Capozza in the OECD’s Environment Directorate; tel.: +33 1 45 24 16 78. For a copy of the report, email: news.contact@oecd.org.
For more information on this report see the Highlights. For information on the OECD’s environmental work see: http://www.oecd.org/environment.
“....and de-carbonising energy production.”
Yah, good luck with that, while shutting down your nuke plants!
Guess they may get to shiver in the dark while waiting for wind, like Scotland.
Lovely comment backed up by lots of fact. Well said /sarc.
Actually during the weekend before last, 50% of German electricity demand was covered by solar power.
Are there a lot of challenges? Absolutely. Is it technically feasible. Absolutely.
I remember a few years ago when Americans used to believe that anything was possible and that they were the country that could make it happen. Nowadays and unfortunately very frequently at FR when it comes to energy-related topics, the comments seem to be about how anything that embraces systematic energy change is a left-wing plot and that there is no way the US can do it. It’s a shame that belief in yourselves has been so intensely sapped.
Um, wow. What a bunch of eco-hobbit blather. Seriously. Subsidized “green energy” companies are a drain, not a plus. If Germany stays this course, they’ll fall, too, until the populace latches onto to some charismatic leader who starts killing large numbers of people wholesale.
Read this book before. It ends poorly for everyone...
Oh, and to elaborate: the only economically viable sources of energy neceesary to sustain a real economy are fosil fuels and nuclear. “Greens” oppose both. Thorium reactors show some promise with no negative impacts from the “green” perspective, but greens oppose those, too, because the goal of the “green” leaders is power over others, not the environment.
The only shortages that will exist will be self-imposed.
Germany is refusing, out of pride, abstinence, I don't know, to peruse shale gas and existing resources.
If there really was a need to helter-skelter into a dynamic change, and not AGW driven, I'd agree with you that free enterprise can do it.
But they won't do it alone without government because any current technology is not cost effective. Just like electric cars.
“Actually during the weekend before last, 50% of German electricity demand was covered by solar power.”
Unless you can cite a link from a reputable source, I call bullsh*t. There simply isn’t enough energy in sunlight to do that for an economy of Germany’s size.
Oops, should have added: unless they’ve quietly added arrays of photovoltaic cells that cover an are about the size of Delaware (and nobody noticed).
Is the Wall Street Journal reputable enough for you?
Apology accepted. You could also use the google machine yourself though.
You may also wish to ask some others who have posted here to back up some of their outlandish claims. I have seen only opinions to date.
I have lousy luck looking up past articles.
But examples of how poorly the “Green” charade actually works are legion.
Once the “Subsidies” subside, so does the “success” of the companies involved.
I mentioned Scotland, several articles make it clear that wind has been an utter failure there, particularly since the dread “Carbon” is required in order to keep the turbines warmed and viable when the temperature and wind both drop.
“Solyndra” ring a bell?
How about the sudden death of Solar companies in Spain?
No subsidy = “Green” cannot compete.
Gov. Org. can fake it for a while, but in the end reality becomes apparent.
Carbon is king because it WORKS the best, that is reality, good intentions and fairy dust will not change that reality.
BTW, I have a “Green” propane powered truck (which I despise, very anxious to be rid of it!), my home is run from a grid that has one of the largest percentages of Geo-Thermal in the world.
So do not assume I dismiss the “Green” fantasy out of hand, I’ve done more research than the average poster here.
Um. Open mouth insert foot perhaps? Boy, you sure are spouting off without being very well informed.
C’mon, it’s the OECD, an arm of the EUSSR. Started as the Organization for European Economic Cooperation.
They’re quoting Reuters, with the disclaimer “according to”. And assuming that’s true, it’s for only a single day. It’s not going to replace coal, the new “green” fuel for Germany.
I guess you are also part of the “it’s impossible” group.
I don’t believe that solar is going to be THE solution in cloudy Germany. I do beleive that a low-carbon economy is possible though. CCS will have to play a role. The biggest progress on that is being made in the US at the moment.
For the record, there are dozens of reports on the 50% mark. It wasn’t “just” Reuters. Feel free to type it into google. If you type in “Deutchland 50% Solarstrom” you will get even more, but you may need to use google translate
I’m sure there are more reports aside from Reuters, but how to ascertain their political slant?
Merkel Tightens Grip on Energy Overhaul as Progress Lags
May 21, 2012
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-21/merkel-tightens-grip-on-energy-overhaul-as-progress-lags.html
"Germany has boosted the share of renewables in the power mix to about 20 percent from about 16 percent in 2009."
Out of curiosity, how much did solar produce this last winter?
So you are citing an article that shows that there has been a 25% increase in the renewable mix in Germany while the economy was growing as supporting YOUR point?
Methinks you don’t understand what we are talkin about here. Either that, or you don’t get math.
The only way “green” works is if you export manufacturing and switch to a service based economy then tax the hell out of it to subsidize the “green” crap. So what should become obvious to anyone is that doing so does not really reduce carbon output much, it just shifts it to other lesser developed countries. It might even increase carbon output since those lesser developed countries are going to have less advanced infrastructure and power utilities...and more transportation efforts getting the finished goods shipped back to the developed world.
It makes an interesting little social engineering experiment for the ruling elites to play with. But I see no benefit to the planet or to humanity.
You cite a reputable source, but the physics just doesn’t add up. This is simply not possible. But believe the propaganda if you will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.