Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Isn’t Kyoto supposed to reduce emissions?

posted at 5:40 pm on April 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view

Germany has often led the chorus of scolds against the US for its disengagement on Kyoto, but it’s singing a different tune today. Germany has one of the largest nuclear-energy programs in the world, but it wants to move away from this carbon-friendly energy production. It wants the EU to allow it to emit more greenhouses gases in exchange for shutting down its reactors:

German Finance Minister Michael Glos wants the European Union to allow Germany to emit more greenhouse gases in exchange for decommissioning its nuclear power plants.

Glos, a member of the conservative Christian Social Union, outlined his argument in a letter to Germany Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel, who belongs to the center-left Social Democratic Party. In the letter, which was obtained by the German business daily Handelsblatt, Glos urges Gabriel to press the issue before the European Commission. ….

Germany’s nuclear energy program is the world’s largest, and four of the world’s five top-producing nuclear plants are located in the country. The 17 active plants in Germany are slated to be offline by 2020, but some energy industry leaders are lobbying to change that timetable. They argue that renewable energy technology won’t be advanced enough in 12 years’ time to compensate for the loss in nuclear production.

The Handelsblatt reports that replacing energy generated by nuclear plants with power from dirtier sources, like the coal-fired plants that produce 80 percent of power in Germany, could raise emissions by 150 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.

Let me get this straight. Germany wants the US locked into the strict Kyoto controls as a means to depress our energy production move us to alternative energy sources. Now they admit that even twelve years from now, there won’t be any mass-production energy source that can replace even 20% of the current production they have now. Instead of recognizing the futility of Kyoto, Germany wants to pump out more pollutants instead.

So …. global warming can wait? The sky is not falling? Or does Germany propose that others in the EU cut back their own energy production for the sake of the German economy? Indeed, the Germans want a bigger cut of the overall allowed emissions, due to be negotiated this year.

I thought the idea was to move away from hydrocarbon-based energy production, not increasing it. Why should Germany get rewarded for shutting down its nuclear facilities in favor of coal-based generation? Germany should be expanding their nuclear-power capacity, as should we, as a means to eliminate dependence on petroleum. If the Germans want us to take their sky-is-falling alarmism seriously, they can start like acting as though they believe in it themselves.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

why are they decommissioning the plants? I don’t get it.

lorien1973 on April 2, 2008 at 5:45 PM

At the risk of repeating myself, does anyone notice that the evil non-kyoto-signing US is reducing emissions, while the wonderful, kyoto-signing Europeons are increasing theirs? I guess this really proves that talk is cheap, after all. Extra points for Germany for suggesting that they shut down the non-carbon emitting nuclear plants in return for adding coal plants, because nuclear power is, after all, evil in the sight of the greens….

Think_b4_speaking on April 2, 2008 at 5:47 PM

Freudian slip above – should be Europeans, not Europeons…

Think_b4_speaking on April 2, 2008 at 5:47 PM

Think_b4_speaking on April 2, 2008 at 5:47 PM

You had it right the first time

PappaMac on April 2, 2008 at 5:51 PM

No, it was supposed to make us feel good about ourselves. Good guess though, Ed.

AbaddonsReign on April 2, 2008 at 5:51 PM

Their intentions were noble, people! The Left is all about good intentions, results be damned.

SouthernGent on April 2, 2008 at 5:59 PM

Isn’t Kyoto supposed to reduce emissions?

No, not if emission standards are set by the “emotional feel good environmentalists” and not the scientific community!

Here’s something I posted to a different topic regarding “emotional environmentalism” and how it does more harm than good:

You would think all these “environmentalists” wouldn’t work so hard to block the building of new refineries since the ones in use today are utilizing much older and more polluting technology. After all there is only so much upgrading you can do to a refinery that’s more than 30 years old, to really have a less polluting and more environmentally friendly refinery you have to build one from the ground up, retrofitting only goes so far.

This proves the “environmentalists” use mostly emotion and not sound science or common sense in pushing its agenda. Besides the whole refinery issue is the gas additive MTBE that the “environmentalists” shoved down the gas industries throat a couple of decades ago when they were clamoring for an additive to gasoline that would make it burn cleaner. The gas industry wanted to take its time to find an additive that would work safely but the “environmentalists” screamed “stall tactics” and demanded they come up with an additive sooner and this is why they ended up using MTBE. The problem with MTBE however is it is very miscible with water and of course it has eventually found its way into our ground water and because MTBE is so miscible with water it’s nearly impossible with current technology to separate it out not to mention the costs of doing so.

Bottom line is the “environmentalists” did more damage to the environment in the case of MTBE (as just one example of where they have done more harm than good) because they base everything on emotion and not sound science and common sense.

In our current situation in becoming less dependent on foreign oil the “environmentalists” are once again placing the environment before our survival needs and as Maslow pointed out survival needs come first…so yes, lets start drilling and building those refineries and just as important lets start pumping lots of money into the research of alternative energy sources…something we should have started doing in earnest back in the 70’s when the Saudi’s held us hostage with the oil embargo!

Liberty or Death on April 2, 2008 at 4:47 PM

Liberty or Death on April 2, 2008 at 6:00 PM

Nothing says hypocrisy like smug, European hypocrisy.

Badger in KC on April 2, 2008 at 6:05 PM

Wait I don’t get it. Germany’s nuclear program is the biggest in the world but only accounts for 20% of its energy?

Doesn’t France’s nuclear program account for 70% of France’s energy? Or is that an urban legend?

And it wants higher allowances of CO2 in exchange for shutting down the plants? The Kyoto protocol wants to put an end to nuclear energy as well?

Am I missing some fundamental facts?

apollyonbob on April 2, 2008 at 6:05 PM

Germany should be expanding their nuclear-power capacity, as should we, as a means to eliminate dependence on petroleum.

Ed, uuuummmmmmm since you mentioned expanding. What exactly do you propose for Germany concerning thier “oil and nuclear” programs?

Oil Companies of Germany:

RWE Dae

Kuwait German Petroleum Comany aka Husky Energy, Suncor Energy, Okanagan Biofuels… yet has no website!

Wintershall Oil and Gas of Germany (largest Oil and Gas company in Germany)

And an interesting article about Nuclear Energy via the World Nuclear Asso. Stating that Germany will be phasing out their Nuclear altogether due to Windfarms and the fact they use coal for 55% of their energy needs.

I don’t know about you but sometimes spiegal just likes to rant.

upinak on April 2, 2008 at 6:06 PM

Europeons

Think_b4_speaking on April 2, 2008 at 5:47 PM

Hee hee. I’m gonna use that one.

As for the article, is it really blog-post-worthy to find sheer, unmitigated hypocrisy being practiced by global warmists? Or by Europeons? Or by Germans?

I can’t even work up any righteous indignation. Or, perhaps more apropos, schadenfreude.

Glos urges Gabriel to press the issue before the European Commission.

Which I’m sure he’ll do by flying his private jet to Brussels, or Strasbourg, or Luxembourg.

Per Ted Turner, I say we eat the global warmists first.

misterpeasea on April 2, 2008 at 6:09 PM

misterpeasea on April 2, 2008 at 6:09 PM

they are climate chagists (I am not even sure that is a word) now… but to eat them would be like eating T.T., tasteless, dry, stringy and devoid of any substance!

upinak on April 2, 2008 at 6:13 PM

apollyonbob on April 2, 2008 at 6:05 PM

Not sure of the percentages, but bear in mind that Germany is the most populous country in Europe. (In fact, there are more native German-speakers in Europe than there are French-speakers in Europe et à travers toute la Francophonie.)

On the other hand, France produces nuclear power not only for herself but for Britain as well (which prefers to use the stuff, but have it made in somebody else’s backyard).

Anyone know more exact numbers?

And, better yet, anyone know why the heck we aren’t (along with drilling in Alaska and more in the Gulf) building more nuclear plants ourselves?! (A lot of environmentalists are now getting on board with that idea as the least bad option.)

Tzetzes on April 2, 2008 at 6:15 PM

And, better yet, anyone know why the heck we aren’t building more nuclear plants ourselves?!

Tzetzes on April 2, 2008 at 6:15 PM

Blame The China Syndrome. One more reason to hate Hanoi Jane.

And, of course, alarmism by the drive-bys and the activists. Or is that redundant.

misterpeasea on April 2, 2008 at 6:22 PM

I thought the idea was to move away from hydrocarbon-based energy production…

So did I, at first. But every day it seems more clear, the idea behind this carbonphobic man made global warming scam is redistribution of wealth. Rather than scientific or environmental, it’s an ideological and political movement.

Since recent scientific data says there’s been no warming in the past decade, that the warmest period is recent history was not the ’90’s but the ’30’s, that in the past three years there’s been a cooling trend, then how come this “Gorebull Warming” is still a sustainable theory?

petefrt on April 2, 2008 at 6:26 PM

Oh, fer cryin’ out loud…Kyoto is a joke:

Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

flipflop on April 2, 2008 at 6:26 PM

The lifetime of a nuclear power plant is limited, especially breeder reactors, which last, at most, 20 years (if memory serves). Germany may be looking to close some of the older nuke reactors rather than renovate them, a process that will be expensive and difficult given the level of radiation in the older structures.

Nethicus on April 2, 2008 at 6:41 PM

Germany has clouds and a northern latitude. Probably not a lot of solar options. Not a lot of wind, wave power, or geothermal either. They should just stay with nuclear.

indythinker on April 2, 2008 at 6:51 PM

Actually, perhaps the real irony here is that Germany has done a good job keeping their emissions flat and now they have to go to a bunch of countries whose emissions have risen significantly and ask their permission to do likewise. Here’s the chart.

Kyoto is just more proof that with liberals, intention matters more than results.

Spolitics on April 2, 2008 at 6:52 PM

Not a lot of wind, wave power, or geothermal either. They should just stay with nuclear.

indythinker on April 2, 2008 at 6:51 PM

I’ve seen more wind turbines in Germany than anywhere else I’ve been.

But I agree nuclear’s the way to go.

flipflop on April 2, 2008 at 7:01 PM

Per Ted Turner, I say we eat the global warmists first.

misterpeasea on April 2, 2008 at 6:09 PM

Heh…good one…

Liberty or Death on April 2, 2008 at 7:01 PM

Ok, can we now quit being lectured to by Old Europe? It’s just getting dumb. We’ve got the Germans who want to lecture us on global warming while they pollute and won’t fight, the French who bitch about most everything (except Sarko), the Brits who tell us they’re better at counterinsurgency (see Basra), and the Belgians who are supposed to be such multilateralists but are in danger of their own country splitting apart. Yeah…um, we’re fine, thanks.

CP on April 2, 2008 at 7:05 PM

flipflop on April 2, 2008 at 7:01 PM

I thought the windmills were pretty!

Ok they didn’t take away from the scenery and it was interesting to look and see if there were bigger ones.

upinak on April 2, 2008 at 7:06 PM

lorien1973 on April 2, 2008 at 5:45 PM

Nuke plants have a finite lifetime that, believe it or not, can be calculated fairly accurately. Reactor vessels become hardened and brittle over time and the plants have to be retired. Since TMI and Chernobyl not a lot of new plants have been built and the existing ones are getting old. They’re gonna have to be shut down. The plants here in the states are undergoing a stress relieving process now to extend their lifetime but that’s only going to get you about another 20 years or so.

Oldnuke on April 2, 2008 at 7:07 PM

apollyonbob on April 2, 2008 at 6:05 PM

You didn’t miss a thing. That sentence about Germany’s nuclear program being the world’s largest is a little misleading. IF you look at percentage produced by nuclear it looks impressive until you realize that South Korea produces just about the same number of Kwh by nuclear as Germany and France produces more. Germany isn’t even in the same ball park as Japan or the USA even though percentages are roughly the same.

Germany 579 billion Kwh 28% from nuclear
France 543 billion Kwh 78% from nuclear
Japan 1.025 trillion Kwh 25% from nuclear
S.Korea 403 billion Kwh 40% from nuclear
USA 4.06 Trillion Kwh 20% from nuclear

Oldnuke on April 2, 2008 at 7:18 PM

I’ve seen more wind turbines in Germany than anywhere else I’ve been.

But I agree nuclear’s the way to go.

flipflop on April 2, 2008 at 7:01 PM

Go with both! They also have a lot of rivers. Damming one can be a tricky proposal (think of China’s Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze), but it’s yet another option to consider. Neither it nor nuclear should be ruled out a priori.

Tzetzes on April 2, 2008 at 7:34 PM

With climahysterics, it is all “do as I say, not as I do.”

William Teach on April 2, 2008 at 7:56 PM

The US has come closer to meeting it’s Kyoto target than any industrialized country except the Eastern Bloc, which has failed it’s way to success in terms of energy production.

But we’re bad because we haven’t signed the piece of paper. They are virtuous because they have signed the paper, but then ignored it.

gridlock2 on April 2, 2008 at 8:00 PM

Tzetzes on April 2, 2008 at 7:34 PM

They’ve got to replace 17 power plants, each roughly 1000 megawatts in size (rough average)! That would take a lot of wind to replace. Couldn’t get that much out of Washington DC. Once again if you want power of the magnitude we’re talking here You’re going to have to burn something. Or it’s going to get very dark.

Oldnuke on April 2, 2008 at 8:03 PM

Sssshhhh, don’t tell the useful idiots that Clinton was the one who didn’t want to sign it (rightly), gridlock2. They might spew at you ;)

William Teach on April 2, 2008 at 9:08 PM

Oldnuke on April 2, 2008 at 8:03 PM

Of course. I mean keep all options open (and examine each case individually; the Columbia River dams come to mind). Build nuclear power plants, use wind where possible (such as in front of the Kennedy compound!) and take advantage of new technologies in coal-burning.

Tzetzes on April 2, 2008 at 9:11 PM

Tzetzes on April 2, 2008 at 9:11 PM

Yep, all options should remain open. Just keep in mind that the largest wind generator in the world is 5 megawatts, it’s huge, takes up lots of acreage and it’s in the testing stage right now, not even operational. All those wind farms you see spinning around in places like Texas and Wisconsin are kinda small producers. They’re still going to have to burn something. Coal, oil uranium…something.

Oldnuke on April 2, 2008 at 11:28 PM

You vill do as ve say. Ve haf vays.

Johan Klaus on April 3, 2008 at 12:07 AM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.