Merkel’s Madness: €7,6 trillion For Germany’s climate project 

Posted: August 25, 2019 by oldbrew in climate, Emissions, government, ideology
Tags: , , , ,

German Chancellor Merkel surveys an offshore wind site [image credit:]

H/T The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

Germany looks set to win the title of biggest punter in the climate gambling game. Believing in failing climate models and alarmist propaganda can lead to some amazingly poor political decisions, but this one surely takes the cake for its extravagance.

Angela Merkel has called for a further tightening of Germany’s climate target – the nation should become CO2-neutral. By 2035, the costs will be twice of Germany’s economic output of a whole year.

For Angela Merkel, these are just a few words: “We want to be climate neutral by 2050”,
say Fritz Vahrenholt & Roland Tichy.

In the devotional mood at the Protestant Church Congress in Dortmund, where the Chancellor spoke these words, the faithful applauded her. No wonder: After all, the former investigative journalist Hans Leyendecker had announced ex cathedra – as president of the Kirchentag: “Anyone who does not acknowledge that climate change is man-made has no place at the Kirchentag.”

It is no longer a question of scientific debate and research, but of a new dogma of faith – who would dare to have any doubts if his name were not Galileo Galilei?

The Chancellor was able to bask in glow of the unity that religion offers the heart. Who wants to calculate what it means financially for German households if words are followed by deeds? The Chancellor now doesn’t want “any more chicken feed” in climate policy, as she had already announced a few days earlier to her MPs of the parliamentary CDU/CSU party group.

The Fridays for Future demonstrations demand a reduction of CO2 emissions to zero by 2035, the PR disaster caused by Youtuber Rezo’s “The Destruction of the CDU” video and the election successes of the Greens have obviously had an effect on the Chancellor.

People remember 2011 and Markel’s rash decision to prematurely abandon nuclear power. When the German chancellor believes that Germans want to save the world, she decides very quickly, whatever the cost. Only votes and public mood counts. Economic or other rational considerations no longer play any role – just like her decision to open the border for all and sundry. And now the jump onto the climate bandwagon because of demonstrating pupils and singing Protestants.

After a two-hour visit to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) on 14 June, Merkel apparently decided to turn German climate policy on its head. After his discussion with Merkel, PIK Director Ottmar Edenhofer announced euphorically: “Following the financial crisis and the refugee crisis, the Chancellor is now tackling the climate crisis”. Well then, one is tempted to add, what could go wrong with that!

“Pillepalle” (chicken feed) – by this Merkel apparently means the previous CO2 reduction target of 90% by 2050. Once – in 1994 – the then head of Deutsche Bank Hilmar Kopper had caused outrage because he arrogantly described the sum of 50 million German marks as “peanuts”. It became the ‘worst word of the year.’

But what is Merkel’s Pillepalle in comparison? It is a number with twelve instead of seven zeros behind the number five. With so many zeros, the citizen’s perspective and the Chancellor’s overview are quickly lost.

It amounts to about 4,600 billion euros, but it could also be 5,000 billion, i.e. 4.6 or five trillion. This was calculated by experts from the National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, the German Academy of Engineering Sciences and the Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities for their report published in November 2017 (“Sector coupling – Studies and considerations for the development of an integrated energy system”).

Per household in Germany, this total would mean additional monthly costs of either 640 euros (if the reduction is to be achieved by 2035) or 320 euros if the reduction is to be achieved by 2050. Monthly, mind you, not annually. So this is Merkel’s Pillepalle from the point of view of the people who have to pay for it.

The decisive finding from this research – financed by the Federal Government – is not only the astronomical sum of investment, capital and operating costs. When it comes to saving emissions, it’s the same as in competitive sports: the necessary training effort for further performance improvements increases as you get closer to the absolute maximum of what’s possible.

This means that every additional CO2 reduction step is significantly more expensive than the previous one.

Continued here.

  1. BoyfromTottenham says:

    We can only hope that Frau Merkel’s policy will get the same treatment as Australia’s Labor leader Bill Shorten’s ‘Carbon-free by 2030 because its a climate emergency, don’t worry about the cost’ policy at last year’s federal election. He lost to conservative Morrison. And we all breathed a huge sigh of relief.

  2. A C Osborn says:

    While they still invest in Coal Generation.
    Will they just close all those nice new Power Stations?
    Was that cost taken in to consideration?

  3. hunterson7 says:

    What is it with Germans and weaponized circular rationalizations?

  4. Gamecock says:

    Merkel wasn’t going to be outdone by that Theresa May. Though Merkel should have one upped her. “We want to be climate neutral by 2050.”

    2050 is yesterday’s BS.

    2045 would sound like an accomplishment.

    Then Macron can do 2040.

  5. pochas94 says:

    Amazing what ignorance can do.

  6. oldbrew says:

    One way to end up with a small fortune is to start with a large one 😕

  7. stpaulchuck says:

    another Imam of the Climate Caliphate heard from – “give me the money!!”

  8. Nick P says:

    I can’t believe it will all be done on the generation side. This recent demand side study shows another way?

    Click to access CREDS-Shifting-the-focus-July2019.pdf

    [reply] none of that will make any difference to the climate

  9. dennisambler says:

    Germany’s emissions in 2017 were twice those of the UK. Since 1997, Kyoto, her emissions have reduced by just 14%, for all the massive cost of the energiewende.

    During that same time, China’s emissions have risen by 188% and still rising until 2030, according to their “promise” to Obama, at which point of course, they will shut everything down.

    China produced 28.3% of global emissions in 2017, Germany, 2.29. the UK 1%. The whole of Europe produced just over half of China’s total and just 16% of total emissions in 2017.

    All pain for no gain, except of course for those pushing carbon credits and carbon offsets, renewable energy conglomerates, global financiers etc:

  10. hunterson7 says:

    It just struck me:
    Wind turbines are the crucifix of the climate change religion.

  11. oldbrew says:

    Germany has no problem with unlimited autobahn speeds then claims it cares so much about CO2 emissions 😟

  12. Adam Gallon says:

    Actually, oldbrew, they have. Earlier this year, a memo was leaked, suggesting a blanket 130kph limit. It was denied by their government, so a bit of a “Put the flag up the pole” job. Not now, maybe in the future.

  13. oldbrew says:

    Maybe their future electric-only cars will be speed-limited by law 😂

  14. Mike Watson says:

    Government funded projects benefit government bureaucrats and their lackeys, regardless of whether the projects benefit any taxpayers. So the funding will continue and increase until voters get rid of the bureaucratic freeloaders. That’s the difference between socialist economies and free markets. In a free market, I can avoid sending my money down a rat hole.

  15. Graeme No.3 says:

    old brew:
    No problem. The speed will be limited cost of electricity, which is almost the highest in the world already. Should this lunacy be allowed then how much electricity can you use speeding over 320 metres? (About the maximum trip the average German will be able to afford).

    Merkel will have to get her party (and coalition) to back her. With the public reaction to being told they must lose €320 (minimum) per Month I think that by December she will be an Ex-Chancellor.

  16. Derek Colman says:

    The irony of it is that Germany has already spent enough money on renewables to be carbon neutral in electricity generation. The same amount of money would have bought enough nuclear power to provide 110% of current demand, leaving a surplus to accommodate the growing number of EVs.

  17. ivan says:

    Derek, you must realise that the green slime don’t do nuclear – they appear to believe it is more evil than the dreaded plant food CO2.

    Here in France we have the green blob agitating for the shut down of the nuclear power plants that power France, Germany and the UK. Just imagine the hoo hah if that happened, at least three countries, maybe more, could shut down as far as the international scene is concerned.

  18. oldbrew says:

    Scotland wants to be at the forefront of obsessive climate nonsense…

    Climate change: Call for Scottish city centre ban on fossil fuel vehicles

    ‘A ban on fossil fuel vehicles in city centres by 2030 should be one of the Scottish government’s key policies, according to a group of civic leaders.

    The Climate Emergency Response Group has set out a 12-point-plan of measures it wants the government to consider.

    It includes calls for four new Green City Region Deals and a £100m fund for modernising agriculture.

    Ministers have said the climate emergency will be at the heart of next month’s programme for government.’

    Of course the clean air issue is nothing to do with the climate but they seem oblivious to that.

  19. oldbrew says:

    How the Media Help to Destroy Rational Climate Debate
    August 25th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

    Critique of the one-eyed reporting that goes on every day.

  20. oldbrew says:

    Sky Data poll: Taxpayers won’t pay to meet PM’s 2050 emissions target

    The estimated cost of cutting greenhouse gas emissions is around £20bn to £40bn – per year.
    – – –
    All for net zero benefit :/

  21. It doesn't add up... says:

    It is at least a better estimate of the cost than the mere £1trillion we are fobbed off with in the UK. Yet you know that it is still far too small. I still think the study done for the Labour party is closest: it will take three quarters of our income away.