Angela’s Angst: €Billions Squandered on Wind & Solar But Germany’s CO2 Emissions Continue to Rise

The one, nay the only, ‘justification’ for the $billions squandered on subsidised wind power is ‘saving’ the planet from CO2 gas.

Except, that the wind industry has never produced a shred of credible evidence that chaotic and intermittent wind power has actually reduced CO2 gas emissions, anywhere on that planet.

If CO2’s your ‘poison’, wind power is clearly no antidote.

No single country has thrown more money to the wind and the sun than Germany. And yet, in the mother of all ironies, CO2 gas emissions continue to rise.

Germany Proves That Burning Money On Green Energies Does Not Reduce CO2 Emissions … “Bitter Result”
No Tricks Zone
Pierre Gosselin
28 March 2018

As we have been hearing recently, global CO2 emissions continue their steady climb, despite the trillions of dollars committed to green energy sources worldwide and efforts to curb CO2 emissions.

Source: International Energy Agency (IEA).

 

Looking at countries individually, Germany, a self-designated “leader” for carbon free energies, saw its equivalent CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in 2017 fall only a measly half a percent.

Big green talk, so little to show
If any country has seen huge chasm between its CO2 reductions performance and its lofty green rhetoric, Germany is it.

Despite the hundreds of billions already spent on green energies, mainly, wind, sun and biogas, Paris Accord cheerleader Germany has not seen any progress in CO2 reductions ten years running:

Germany CO2 equivalent emissions, millions of metric tons. Source UBA.

 

According to Germany’s UBA Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency), Germany’s reductions still remain stuck at the levels of 10 years ago (2009 = 908 million tonnnes CO2 equivalent – see chart above).

Dubious 1990 benchmark
Most of the country’s CO2 reductions since 1990 arose from the shutdown of old communist run East German industry, after the eastern and western parts of the divided nation united in 1990.

Offshored emissions, pollution
Also huge CO2 reductions resulted from the offshoring of energy-intensive industries, to countries where regulations are less strict, labor is cheaper and energy efficiency is woefully lower; for example: China. The true result: Germany managed to cut its CO2 equivalent emissions, but the net result is most likely greater overall CO2 emissions.

The same could be said about plastic in our oceans. Often it’s best to keep the industry home, where at least it’s done far more cleanly.

Huge price for so little result
Moreover, Germany’s investment in green energies really did not begin in earnest until 2005, and so the results have been truly a flop. All that money for so little.

Meanwhile environmental groups have come out and blasted Germany’s weakling result. Alarmist climate and energy site Klimaretter (Climate rescuer) commented here: “Germany is practically making no climate change progress at all.”

Greenpeace Germany’s Karsten Smid fumed: “The UBA figures are the bitter result of Chancellor Merkel’s climate policy.”
No Tricks Zone

Angela’s Angst: $billions thrown to the wind, yet CO2 emissions still rise.

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.

Comments

  1. Meanwhile, in the Good ‘ol Yew Ess of Hay ………..

  2. Norman Matchett says:

    Follow the money… Politicians are only faces … Commerce rules the world…. Abraham Lincoln said..
    With the end of the war (civil), corporations have become ascendant and the Republic is finished!

  3. association contre-courant val de besbre says:

    It has to do with the nuke power scare in the first place, even though it stays put behind climate change scare. Potential cell mutation risk for 100.000 years make you close your eyes on any kind of ugliness I guess… In poor rural areas now, theres even more important behind that, cos further away from those abstract nuclear risks , it comes down to a simple question of “money talk”.

    Imho if we convince those people to compare the figures of what local profit (corruption) from the wind turbine deals could be, with what the real cost of the social destruction will be locally for them … then wind gets unacceptable again. All social economy will try to flea the wind turbine zones – if possible (it will take some time but it’s a sure outcome (meanwhile nuclear energy will stay here). All local economy is thus impacted – mainly tourism and craftmanship at first but not only. My advice to all : let’s all methodically put together some concrete figures backing this money destruction for each region first. It ll make thus an unbeatable argument against cheap corruption of rural areas through monstruous windturbines.

  4. Charles Wardrop says:

    Why do so many politicians and establishment figures continue to back this whole windpowered electricity charade, proven worthless, except to those benefitting: could corruption be a main explanation, and/or political cowardice, stupidity and ignorance?
    Group think must have “helped” to get it established, along with the very dubious “MANMADE G.W.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: