"Green" policies are destroying this country

Link to carbon emissions world atlas. http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions?fbclid=IwAR2H3wOsgqL6ftTzR-gmSRFfC6Qj_Y9hfcwtop1m98lVTJ4sm_s3B7SpX4U

Will you ever cop on. If there was ever an example of the fallacy of renewables providing 100% reliable dependable energy it`s Germany with the hole they dug for themselves and spending 150 Billion doing it. To add to how wrong they got it, (and our greens by following ),and are still doing, they are back opening up coal burning plants, back mining for coal, buying more coal from Colombia`s 69,000 hectare open cast mine know locally as "The Monster" that uses 30 million liters of water a day, and back prospecting for fossil fuels while still planning to shut down the few nuclear plants they have left. Absolute nuts on whatever scale you wish to weigh that on.

Even with the usual green inflated prices and timelines, how many nuclear plants would that money have built and what percentage of their electricity would it have now provided CO2 emissions free compared to the 40% they had last year, which like everywhere else in Europe due to wind unreliability was less than the previous year ?

Burned area has been reducing globally for decades. Overall, global burned area (BA) has declined significantly (by 24.3% ± 8.8%) over the past 18 years (link below). The causes, effects, costs, and appropriate policy responses to wildfires are complicated. I wouldn't pretend otherwise, except when responding to climate catastrophists who claim the world is about to burst into flames next Tuesday week.

Climate change, land use change, and changes in the urban-wildland interface are all factors. Wildfires are never going away -- they have been burning since time immemorial and consume up to 15% of the Earth's land area every year. In places where people live they are a manageable risk, and more sensible practices (typically not ones promoted by Greens) can reduce their costs.

Since fires are episodic it's an area that is ripe for cherrypicking data. You could count fire frequency, average area burned per fire, number of fatalities, cost of property damage, fires by land use etc. etc. etc. It's all a bit pointless. I could tell you that number of wildfire fatalities is on a downward trend in North America for the past 30 years, but then it's slightly upward for the past 60. The numbers are tiny, though. Like all climate-related catastrophes, the numbers who die from them are miniscule and falling, and the cost as a fraction of GDP is similarly tiny. Notwithstanding that, you'd have no problem finding places (like California) where the urban-wildland interface is spreading and bad conservation practices have made the landscape more fire prone.

The takeaway messages: wildfires have been with us forever and are not getting worse; they may get worse in future due to climate change but we can and will adapt; in terms of human flourishing they are a very tiny cause of casualties and relative income loss. Meanwhile, fires will continue to be a rich source of catastrophe porn:

Some links:

Wu et al.: Historical and future global burned area with changing climate and human demography.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332221001299

Germany has been super committed to renewables for decades, and it's precisely the pursuit of that nonsense that has seen Germans lumbered with huge energy costs via subsidies on their bills to pay for this hopium and, now latterly, got them in the stupid fix they are in now because gas is the only viable instant backup to renewables failure and it failed majorly this past winter when the wind failed to show up.

Who's been funding the German Greens and bribing politicians to pursue these stupid anti nuclear pro gas policies for decades - why it's Gazprom.

Basically the green movement are stupid Russian dupes - and that's not confined to the German ones, either.

And here you are with another stupid link dump trumpetting how the Germans are demonstrating the truth of the adage: those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past, are doomed to repeat them.

The Germans can throw out all the estimates they like on timelines, but they have already sunk 150 Billion into renewables and they are at 40%, and that was when they had Putin`s gas, so how much more will it cost to get to 100% without it. 200 Billion after doing a u turn going back, not just to fossil fuels, but the dirtiest of the lot, coal.?

You, me any everyone else knows that there is not a hope of Germany being 100% self sufficient from renewables by 2035 without gas or nuclear being in the mix. Even Germany knows that with them rushing to build LNG terminals, so stop the fan boy stuff with Germany and see it for what it is. Compared to France they took the wrong approach, one we slavishly followed, and are still following elements of it that the German`s have thrown out the window on LNG and exploration. For 350 Billion the German`s would by 2035 have 100% self sufficiency and have pumped a lot less CO2 into the atmosphere had they followed the French example. As they are now, after spending 150 Billion to date, they are most likely next year going to move to 5th place of the worlds largest CO2 emitters.

I will give them one thing though, like the present top 5 in that emitters league table, when it came to protecting their economy, the bulls**t went out the window fast. Unlike our morons who are still beavering away, ignoring reality attempting to wreck ours

Looks like germany is revisiting their loon plans to shut their remaining nuclear plants. A bit more of reality biting their balls and they will be revisiting the idea of restarting the ones they so foolishly shut down.

Current global annual production of hydrogen electrolysers is one GW. An Australian hydrogen visionary has just started to build a factory that will double that, adding production capacity of 2 GW of electrolysers per annum when it's finished.

Hooray, now we are at maybee 3 GW anually, and Germany have set goals of 100% renewables by 2035, presumably based on H2 storage? I smell BS.

The Germans can be ahead all they like, but without electrolysers, no one is going to be making enough H to make their goals achievable. And they are again repeating the same mistake that was made with gas - underestimating the supply situation when every man and his dog also starts wanting H to make their unreliable windmills look more sensible.

Ah grand.

So I presume there’s another country on earth that have been able to use green hydrogen as a backup for when the renewables gap needs to be bridged?

How is it punching down? My post was literally one sentence of fact and not an ounce of emotion or bile or nuance.

Is it a good use of public money to give 15-20k to one self employed semi skilled business operator is the question I would ask, but I did not ask it there. The money would be better off spent on providing chargers to allow folks move to EV - since we need a million on the road in a couple of years.

I`m not a supporter of any party, but with the severe shortage of houses I would have thought putting roofs over peoples heads rather than retrofitting habitable houses to A BER rating would be a better spend of taxpayers money.

Our Mary Robinson was on the radio earlier this evening urging us all as individuals and families to do our bit and save the planet.

Curiously she went schtumm when asked about politicians and business leaders using jet travel and business class etc. Our Mary had no opinion on this at all. Seems one rule for them & her and another for the rest of us.