cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/11523745
Germany submitted its roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels to the UN in New York today, in line with the commitment made at the UN Cop 28 climate summit in 2023.
Germany is the third country to present its roadmap as part of the transitioning away from fossil fuels initiative, following France and the Netherlands.
In presenting the roadmap, the government aims to “inject further momentum into the process”, so that “as many countries as possible can flesh out their respective plans”, the environment ministry said.
…
Recent and near term policies by CDU move away from plan, and key CDU leaders pledge against any deindustrialization impacts of climate policy. With valuing the absolute competitive/employment advantage of facilitating the cheapest possible energy that are renewables. Policies include 10gw in new NG power plants, no more EV mandate, no more ban on new construction fossil home heating, removing renewable subsidies.
This UN plan is a bit more ambitious than last one, but Germany is moving backwards at the other side of its mouth.
If the United States wasn’t a corporatocracy then this should have been what we pushed for at the start of the Iraq war 20 years ago or even the Gulf war before that. Instead we got “drill baby drill” and now our interests align with great countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia.
Imagine what trillions of dollars of investment would have got the world instead of whatever mess we’ve got today.
Honestly, the best time to start phasing out fossil fuels was probably even earlier than that, maybe 1970s, when scientists first started reporting greenhouse effect. Back then it was still small enough to be reversible and preventable.
But the past can’t be changed, so the best second time is now.
France is basically one big nuclear reactor though, they would cover the entire country with them if they didn’t need the space to be the worlds 2nd largest weapons manufacturer…
Are you saying that these roadmaps are bad developments and that you’d prefer if they weren’t happening?
That is very obviously not what I am saying, as every honest person can tell.
Replacing one bad thing with another bad thing, is obviously not good.
According to the article Germany is going towards renewables, so it sounds like Germany is moving in the right direction, albeit obviously far too late.
That is very obviously not what I am saying, as every honest person can tell.
I don’t think you’re as good at communicating your ideas as you seem to be convinced you are. For example…
Replacing one bad thing with another bad thing, is obviously not good.
…this seems like a non-sequitur.
According to the article Germany is going towards renewables, so it sounds like Germany is moving in the right direction, albeit obviously far too late.
Far too late for what? To be useful? Should it not bother, then? Because you said that that’s not what you’re saying, but then you keep implying it.
Just make your actual point and stop dancing around it. “I think that what they should do is <insert point here>”. Simple. Direct. Constructive.
“every honest person”
Somehow that was still too subtle for you.
The fact that you don’t like me is just about the only idea that you HAVE expressed clearly. I’m still trying to figure out wtf the point of your original comment was (if there even was one), and you keep ducking every opportunity to clarify. I’m 100% not being disingenuous when I say that if you did indeed have a point you were trying to make, then it didn’t come across.
You were talking about France at first, then you switched to talking about Germany, and in both cases you seemed to express unhappiness with what they were doing (in France’s case you seem to think nuclear power is a bad thing despite not being fossil fuels and you make some weird comment about the arms trade; in Germany’s case you say it’s too late). I ask do you want them to not do it, you seem to say no. In case you mean that it’s good but they could do more, I ask you to express this in the form of “I think that what they should do is <insert point here>”, you don’t like that either. It seems like you never had a point to make.
Read article title
Read my reply
omg so difficult
Wouldn’t it be something if in 2060, China was the dominant superpower, followed by the EU, then US and Russia?
Wouldn’t it be something if in 2060, the lottery numbers were 12, 17, 22, 24, 35 and 36?
Yeah, it would mean the lottery is still a thing, that would mean humans are still a thing.
