Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Germany Set To Miss Net Zero By 2045 Target as Climate Efforts Falter (reuters.com) 188

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: German goals to cut greenhouse emissions by 65% by 2030 are likely to be missed, meaning a longer-term net zero by a 2045 target is also in doubt, reports by government climate advisers and the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) show. The European Union has sought to be a climate leader and Germany has set itself more ambitious targets than the bloc as a whole, but in many countries politics and the economic crisis have pushed the climate crisis down the agenda. Germany, Europe's largest economy, aims to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 65% by 2030 compared with 1990. Last year its CO2 levels were already 40% below the 1990 level, but the new reports said that was not enough.

"The expected overall reduction is probably overestimated," Hans-Martin Henning, the chairman of a council of climate experts that advises the government, said in a statement on Tuesday. The German government has ordered 130 measures in various sectors. The buildings and transport sectors in particular are failing to implement them, the council of government climate advisers' report said. The buildings sector is expected to be 35 million tonnes of CO2 short of target by 2030, while the transport sector is expected to have excess emissions of between 117 million and 191 million tonnes compared with the government target. Tuesday's advisers' report coincided with another from the UBA that found that Germany cannot become climate neutral by 2045 on the basis of planned and existing government climate policy.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Germany Set To Miss Net Zero By 2045 Target as Climate Efforts Falter More

Germany Set To Miss Net Zero By 2045 Target as Climate Efforts Falter

Comments Filter:

  • Maybe..... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wiggles ( 30088 ) on Thursday August 24, 2023 @01:04PM (#63793872)

    Maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't have traded all their nuke plants for fossil fuel ones?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by sinij ( 911942 )
      At least we now know why they did it. Politicians that pushed this insanity through were under heavy Moscow influence and Putin always had energy blackmail in mind.

      • Schroeder was totally corrupt, that's clear, but do we have any real evidence that Merkel was corrupt rather than just stupid?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by djgl ( 6202552 )

      Have you read the summary at all? It's not the electricity plants that are missing the goal. It's heating houses and driving cars.

      If you ask the German population if something should be done to help the climate, most people will agree. But as soon as you tell them they need to invest money from their own pockets to replace their gas heating with a heat pump and improve the insulation of their houses and stop driving more than 130 km/h, many say f*** off.

      • Valid reason (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Thursday August 24, 2023 @02:28PM (#63794144) Homepage Journal

        Have you read the summary at all? It's not the electricity plants that are missing the goal. It's heating houses and driving cars.

        If you ask the German population if something should be done to help the climate, most people will agree. But as soon as you tell them they need to invest money from their own pockets to replace their gas heating with a heat pump and improve the insulation of their houses and stop driving more than 130 km/h, many say f*** off.

        To be fair, much of German housing was heated with natural gas, and after Nord Stream went away the German people had to decide between climate goals and freezing to death.

        The climate last winter was particularly mild, which prevented a lot of Germans prevent freezing to death, but they really can't rely on having such incredibly good luck a second time.

        I think freezing to death might to be a valid reason to throw climate goals out the window, at least temporarily.

        Do you agree or disagree?

        Climate change policy will, in a more general sense, always be competing with safety and security. This is obviously a facet of human motivation [wikipedia.org] that the climate change activists don't seem to address. Or even recognize.

        You say that people aren't taking the climate threat seriously, that they aren't doing enough, that they don't consider it enough of a threat... but in reality there are more pressing threats, and people will - quite reasonably - want to deal with first.

        Threats such as malaria.

        Taking malaria as an example, we could just about eliminate the human suffering from malaria with a relatively small investment ($10b over 10 years). To put this in perspective, most deaths from malaria are children, and it is most definitely *not* unreasonable to believe that the health of your child today is more important than the health of the climate in 50 years.

        That example can be used as an analogy to just about everything else in the world related to climate change.

        It's a risk, but not an immediate one, and there are more immediate risks that are more serious that we have to take care of first.

        As an example, I don't think the people of Ukraine are in any way interested in climate change policies.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gTsiros ( 205624 )

          "it is most definitely *not* unreasonable to believe that the health of your child today is more important than the health of the climate in 50 years." ... more important, to *whom* ?

        • To be fair, much of German housing was heated with natural gas, and after Nord Stream went away the German people had to decide between climate goals and freezing to death.

          To be fair if Germany had decided in 2014 to start to decouple from Russia rather than buoy they economy on cheap Russian gas while funding Putin's war machine, this wouldn't be a problem now. They had 8 years to figure out what to do, instead they leaned in.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        It's heating houses and driving cars.

        To be fair, the summary (and linked article) lump the "transport sector" together. Which include cars, electric passenger trains and freight. And even if they can make inroads into the fossil fuel consumption by switching to electric vehicles, now they have to charge them from a coal plant. Same for switching home heating to heat pumps.

        Face it: Most of the green technology that people are hanging their hopes on depend on electric power. Get that wrong and they are screwed.

      • ...and stop driving more than 130 km/h, many say f*** off.

        that's why you're trying to whip that through now with such fervor right now, isn't it. While there's still plenty of ICU cars around, because this argument would fly right out of the window once there's enough electric cars. And compared to other things that could be done even now, that speed limit thing is a rounding error, even within the context of Germany, which in turn is a rounding error globally.

        It's not the CO2 is it, really, nor is it "safety". Its the unbearable fact that people are free to jud

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Only if you are stupid and have no clue how things work. Which, to be fair, true for all people that are still nuclear fans against all reason.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jwhyche ( 6192 )

        You do realize that we are winning right? There are more nuclear plants being designed and built than ever. You are aware the 4th gen plants have been approved.

    • Maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't have traded all their nuke plants for fossil fuel ones?

      I would make the No Nukers man gist arrays of capstans to generate the missing power. This wouldn't be totally carbon free, because your food always involves some carbon generation, but it would get Germany to net zero faster than belching lignite.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      Possibly. But nuclear power or lack of it has nothing to do with the problems being reported in this story.

      The reason Germany will miss its building sector goals is that legislation needed to meet the goal has been blocked. Germany currently has a coalition government between the Social Democrats, Greens, and FDP, a small center-right party. FDP has used its kingmaker position in the coalition government has to block anti-fossil fuel legislation. So -- even if Germany made *all* of its electricity by nucle

  • same for all others (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ubi_NL ( 313657 ) <joris.benschopNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday August 24, 2023 @01:07PM (#63793880) Journal

    Of course they will be missed. No country will make that deadline, because see the cost that occur to prevent the problem, but not the cost that happen when the problem arrived. You see this everywhere, on every scale. Politicians too, and they only need to worry about the next election season

    • Good.

    • Are you SURE no other country can meet deadlines? I hear France is generating a LOT of carbon-free power.

      But yes, too many countries have been co-conspirators with Gazprom & friends to replace one carbon-free energy with other, meanwhile keeping (increasing in some cases) oil & gas usage. And in China, coal is actually subsidized, and other forms of mass pollution are encouraged or ignored.

      Once the 'free passes' are cancelled, we can have an honest blame game.

      • > Are you SURE no other country can meet deadlines? I hear France is generating a LOT of carbon-free power.

        There's a lot more to the problem than electricity. Even if they went 100% carbon-free electricity (which Nuclear isn't unless you ignore the industry needed to support it) they would still fall short. They need to realize cuts to other sectors, especially transportation which is ~30% of their total emissions.

        They're struggling too [euractiv.com].
        =Smidge=

        • Re:same for all others (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sonlas ( 10282912 ) on Thursday August 24, 2023 @02:42PM (#63794190)

          Even if they went 100% carbon-free electricity (which Nuclear isn't unless you ignore the industry needed to support it)

          Which is true for all energy sources, even solar/wind. That's why we are calling them low-carbon energy sources, not "magically 0 carbon energy sources".

          They're struggling too.

          However, their strategy seems to bear better fruits than the one from Germany. Just look at this Cumulative CO2 chat for the 2 countries [ourworldindata.org]. France emitted 40 billion tons of CO2, while Germany is at 93 billion. They emitted 2.1 times what France emitted, with only 1.2 times the population of France.
          And look at the graph: Germany emissions have been increasing exponentially since 1960-70, while France's one has a less pronounced increase.

          France still has work to do though, especially in the transportation sector.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Ichijo ( 607641 )

            And look at the graph: Germany emissions have been increasing exponentially since 1960-70, while France's one has a less pronounced increase.

            Those are cumulative emissions, not yearly emissions. In fact, both Germany and France are reducing their yearly emissions per capita. [countryeconomy.com]

            • Those are cumulative emissions, not yearly emissions.

              Yes, that was the point. To show that Germany could have reduced their emissions the same as France 50 years ago, but instead they choosed this very year:
              - to close their last nuclear plants in advance (they were only 20-30 years old, could have produced electricity for 60 years)
              - to fight ICE ban and gas heaters ban

              And it was also an answer to the remark from Smidge saying that "France is struggling too". Whereas in reality, yes they need to do more, but there is not point trying to deflect the failure of

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Ichijo ( 607641 )
                Meanwhile, Germany's per capital emissions are dropping faster than France's.

                • That's expected. If you start from higher, you have more opportunities for reduction.

                • Meanwhile, Germany's per capital emissions are dropping faster than France's.

                  From a much higher level. You can't spin this as Germany somehow doing better.

                • Meanwhile, Germany's per capital emissions are dropping faster than France's.

                  If that was true, this wouldn't be a surprise as they are starting from much higher.

                  However, it turns out that it is not even true [ourworldindata.org] (you should really try sourcing your assertions with actual data). As you can see, both graphs follow the same pattern. If we look at the CO2 emissions per capita for the time range 2000-2021, we can see:
                  - that Germany went from 11.03t/capita to 8.09t/capita, which means a 27% reduction
                  - that France went from 6.93t/capita to 4.74t/capita, which means a 32% reduction

                  I don't know

          • The industrial output of Germany is incidentally also 2.1 times higher.

            • The industrial output of Germany is incidentally also 2.1 times higher.

              If only that was true. But yet again, another Germany fanboy fails to provide any source to back up his claims.

              Let me fix that for you [ourworldindata.org]:
              - GDP/capita of Germany is only 10% more than GDP/capita of France
              - share of manufacturing in GDP is 23% for France and 26% for Germany. Where is that 2.1 times higher that you are claiming again?

              You can even have a look at other sources [europa.eu]. But they are all saying the same thing: Germany emits 2.1 times the amound of CO2 than France per capita, with a lot less to show for it.

              • It is true, France fanboi [brookings.edu].

                Germany is 7% of the global manufacturing, France is 3%.

                The numbers are a couple of years old, but France failed to become an industrial powerhouse in the meantime despite all the nukes they had.

    • Of course they will be missed. No country will make that deadline, because see the cost that occur to prevent the problem, but not the cost that happen when the problem arrived. You see this everywhere, on every scale. Politicians too, and they only need to worry about the next election season

      Your glass is obviously half empty. I, on the other hand, am actually amazed that they got this far:

      Last year its CO2 levels were already 40% below the 1990 level...

      According to the naysayers back in the 1990s getting CO2 emissions to 40% of what they were back then was supposed to cause an economic cataclysm and covering north of 40% of Germany's energy consumption with renewables [cleanenergywire.org] was supposed to be an insurmountable engineer challenge, ... and yet, here we are. Furthermore:

      The buildings sector is expected

      • Your glass is obviously half empty. I, on the other hand, am actually amazed that they got this far:

        Last year its CO2 levels were already 40% below the 1990 level...

        According to the naysayers back in the 1990s to 40% of what they were back then was supposed to cause an economic cataclysm and covering north of 40% of Germany's energy consumption with renewables [cleanenergywire.org] was supposed to be an insurmountable engineer challenge, ... and yet, here we are.

        I agree with you that a reduction of 40% is amazing, but I have to kvetch that dropping emissions by 40% of what they were is not the same as getting CO2 emissions to 40% of what they were. So, no, they're not there yet.

    • Norway with a lot of hydropower still aims to reach the goal by 2030, Finland by 2035, Island by 2040. Sweden also by 2045.

      The Paris Agreement, with 110 countries signing on, still requires a reduction by 45% by 2030 and net zero by 2050. The overall prospects currently are not that great, but a number of countries might well reach their goals. Some like the UK, Sweden, Denmark, France, New Zealand and Hungary even have legal commitments.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      China is five years ahead of its goal to hit peak emissions and then drop to net zero.

      Germany's problem is that it's cold, everyone uses gas for heating, and converting to electric heating is a big cost that nobody has a good solution for.

      • What fraction of heating in Germany is district heating (fernwärme) from electric generation plants? I experienced this outside Munich around 35 years ago. The basement installation was literal steampunk, and doubled as a clothes dryer with ordinary drying racks placed near the piping.

        • About 6%, but distributed very unequally across the country.

          • My situation might've been coal fired at the time but I see that there is now a biomass (wood) burning plant there. Part of my motivation for asking was around possible conversion opportunities. Reality was 20 years ahead of me. Biomasse Heizkraftwerk [yumpu.com]

  • Thanks to the "Green" Party (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sydin ( 2598829 ) on Thursday August 24, 2023 @01:19PM (#63793914)

    Their irrational aversion to any form of nuclear power generation whatsoever has not only dumpstered Germany's climate goals by forcing them onto burning dirty lignite coal, but from a national security perspective utterly gutted Germany's energy independence and made them reliant on imports. The "plan" was to rely on Russian LNG while renewables amiable to the Greens like solar and wind were phased in, but then Ukraine happened and welp! Just utter incompetence.

    • Re:Thanks to the "Green" Party (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Koreantoast ( 527520 ) on Thursday August 24, 2023 @01:56PM (#63794024)
      They gave up good in pursuit of perfection, but ultimately fell short of both.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by sinij ( 911942 )
      It wasn't irrational. We now know they were taking in donations and bribes from Moscow. Essentially Putin managed to purchase a lot of these movements and got to set the agenda.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Nuclear doesn't replace gas in most instances. Gas is burned for heat. Electric heating is possible, but it's expensive to retrofit to existing German houses.

  • In short, no matter what you do, no matter how pure your motives.
    No matter how doggedly you chase this car, it's NEVER enough.
    For these people "Kill everyone on the planet and let nature recover without us" is a "lazy half-measure".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      No, most people arent as crazy as you clearly are.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Cut back on the drugs. You are deranged.

      • The really effective way to achieve zero is to kill about 7 of the 8 billion people.

        The way things are going, this will happen all by itself.

        Speaking of deranged... You are like those nutbars standing on the street corner with a "The End is Near" sign.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Speaking of deranged... You are like those nutbars standing on the street corner with a "The End is Near" sign.

          If that is your level of perception, then there really is no point in speaking to you. You do not have what it takes to understand things.

  • Why is transportation missing? (Score:3)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Thursday August 24, 2023 @02:32PM (#63794152)

    New fossil fuel cars will be banned by 2035 [reuters.com]. So by 2030 I expect most new cars will be EVs (who wants to buy a dead tech?). There will still be a decent fraction of ICEs on the road, but it should be plummeting.

    And as bad as their policy of getting rid of nuclear and trying to go pure solar + wind is, EV charging is one of the things that can actually take advantage of those more intermittent power sources.

    • So by 2030 I expect most new cars will be EVs (who wants to buy a dead tech?)

      You'd be surprised.

    • New fossil fuel cars will be banned by 2035 [reuters.com]. So by 2030 I expect most new cars will be EVs (who wants to buy a dead tech?).

      Not really. Maybe you missed the news, but Germany (them again? must be a coincidence) turned around earlier this year [sae.org] and managed to lobby the European Union enough so that by 2035 there will still be ICE being sold, as long as they run on e-fuels. Of course, there is no real way to make sure that a car runs on e-fuels only, but hey, on paper it looks good. And it's just standard "foot-in-the-door" tactic so that the date gets pushed back in a few years, and nobody complains much.

      It also means that any ICE

  • That was just totally unpredictable!

  • Poor strategy (Score:3)

    by Stonefish ( 210962 ) on Thursday August 24, 2023 @05:01PM (#63794550)

    The strategy for carbon reduction which Germany has adopted has significant shortfalls.
    German is using renewables in combination with Fast Reacting Fossil generation (FRF). The paper "Bridging the Gap" http://www.nber.org/papers/w22454 has shown for every MW or renewables 1.14% or FRF is required so in fact you're having to build 2 power generation systems, one which is low carbon and the other which has high CO2 emissions. The paper was funded by the European Union.
    While Germany's relationship with Russia was amicable this wasn't overly expensive however it is now both expensive and dirty.

    To meet climate goals a power storage breakthrough has to occur or Germany will need nuclear power. Otherwise Germany's carbon emissions and electrical costs will remain amongst the highest in the Europe and the world.

    German please do the world a favour and turn your reactors back on and start building more. Germany had some of the best reactors in the world and was a shining beacon to the rest of the world on how to weave technology into a carbon free future. But now they just have gas...

  • ... man hours per year in traffic jams and complain about a few dozen youths gluing themselves to the road. Talk about a complete disconnect from reality. ... A bit like some gun enthusiasts in the US complaining about any regulation despite the US having a serious problem with shootings, way more than any other "1st world" country.

    All the while every car in use in Germany is occupied by 1.2 people on average. Cars that are increasing in weight and size every year. Totally bizarre and not sustainable by a l

  • As far as I'm aware, NO country is anywhere really near their targets, pretty much ever.

    This article says "Germany will miss 2045 targets"...I'm guessing that's a little unfair as pretty nearly ALL countries will miss these targets.

    Or am I mistaken?

Slashdot Top Deals

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Close