The giant task

The giant task

Image: Riccardo Annandale / Unsplash

Energy turnaround and federal election: How to do it. Embellishments and background

At the end of April, the Federal Scarf Court has fallen an extremely important judgment The current Climate Protection Act of the Federal Republic of Germany violated in parts against the emergence and must be encouraged. There were failures in the law specifications, such as the greenhouse gas outlet bulk between 2031 and 2050 should be reduced. The legislature must improve the end of 2022 (no right to strike in terms of climate protection).

Of course, the government has reacted immediately and passed a new climate protection law to score in the election campaign at the Klimafront. Union and SPD in the government have done everything in recent years to brake the energy transition to hinder and scorify them. However, the breeze is not forgotten: a climate protection law alone does not bring anything, it must be implemented.

In September are federal elections. When the previous trend continues, we get a government coalition with the participation of the grunes after the elections. That’s how many hope that climate protection is finally taken seriously.

What is the climate protection concrete? First and foremost about avoiding CO2 emissions. So it’s about the exit from technologies that generate CO2. This applies mainly to energy production.

Change our entire technology

But we can not just get out of the existing technologies, because the energy is needed. We therefore have to switch to CO2-freely generated renewable energy, in the main solar and wind energy, change.

No problem say the green, sun and wind are in the overflow, you just have to use them. And right there is the hook. The energy itself is free and present in the overflow (at least solar energy), but your use requires expenses. And it is not only used to produce and store the electricity new, expensive plants, but also to its use.

So we have to change our entire technology. And both in the industry as well as in traffic and building heating. Where the problem is that this must be done at the same time and coordinated.

The previous introduction of the E-cars

The best example of how it is allowed to go is the previous introduction of the E-cars. Of course, we need the e-mobitat to absorb gasoline and diesel as fossil fuels. But if we load the E cars then at night with coal flow, unfortunately we do not produce less, but more CO2. If we want to save CO2 here, we have to load the cars with solar or wind stream. Namely with excess solar or wind power, otherwise somewhere else additional electricity is consumed from fossil fuels and thus generates CO2. Unfortunately, we do not have enough excess green stream.

Eon advertises television that the eco-friendly e-car is charged at home at home. This is Ubstes Greenwashing, because the carbon stream used is anything but climate-friendly. But Eon wants to greatly sell his carbon stream.

Mr. Altmaier always meets that we generate nearly 50 percent of our electricity regenerative and not so bad. But unfortunately the problem is only greighed here. We must first consider all the energy consumption and not only the power generation. And if we do that, we are not 50 percent of renewable energy, but somewhere between 14 percent and 15 percent. It follows that we must take our regenerative power generation at least sisterly.

What is not enough

And it does not eat, just appropriate power generation plants on devil come out of the ground, it also has to be created the corresponding storage capacitaes to store the current in generating peaks and feed in consumption peaks. And the networks must have appropriate transmission capacity, so be expanded accordingly. A huge task that is certainly not done in a legislative period.

But we have to start as soon as possible. And as effective as possible. Increases we can afford exactly as little as excessive misinvestments. Therefore, we should not optimize the power generation, the network and storage separately, but the whole power supply as a system. Only in this way can synergy effects can be used correctly.

In any case, a key ie in the upcoming general election campaign will be the climate protection and the energy transition. That’s why all politicians and parties are now talking about the topic. Suddenly Union and SPD are the rough pioneer in energy transition and climate protection and say goodbye quickly a new Climate Protection Act, they have always been about it. Strangely, in the government policy, not much of it has noted.

Who means it seriously?

The FDP warns "Hau-jerk actions" In climate protection. So in principle, the FDP is natural for climate protection, but only as long as it is not concretely. Because you do not want him then. AFD politicians say at least that they do not want climate protection. There are at least what one is and that you can not elect them for this reason.

The only ones to which one can believe in my belonging to believe that they are serious about climate protection, the greats and the left. The greats have managed this time to dispense with internal quarrels and aviation struggles and to compete for ordinary climate protection policy. And you can ame that you have the intention of adhering to this goal even after the election.

Social justice and climate protection: CO2 tax

On her election party convention, Mr. Daheck said a lot of fundamentals right at the beginning: climate protection and social justice together and it is about freedom in our society. In the election program of the grunes are very much, sometimes right, partly very bad proposals.

Let’s start with the company for society: social justice and cohesion. Controlling the discriminatory Hartz IV system and raising the minimum wage to a level of which one can live as well as ordinary tariff carrier and a wealth tax for rich.

All old demands of the left, which are absolutely necessary, if we want to avoid a further cleavage of society, which then at some point leads to disaster,. But if you can finish that, it requires a departure from neoliberal capitalism. To this clear statement, however, prints. Just as climate protection and CO2 savings.

Initially correct: We have to be in the next ten or. For a maximum of expanding the renewable energy production and use all the possibilities of society available to use. And we threaten the energy transition to burden the low-income non-positive.

But then comes the CO2 tax as "Important steering instrument". However, steering ames that I have the choice between at least two directions. This is not the case at the energy at the moment. For the time being, we are still dependent on the fossil fuels, because we do not produce enough regenerative electricity.

That’s why we can not change, even if we want it. As long as not enough regenerative energy is on the net, there is no change, no matter which "Steering instruments" be used. In the end, the energy is only more expensive by the CO2 tax and the consumer can only decide: either numbers or no energy. That also helps "Energy" nothing. And the redistribution of the loads in favor of the income-weaker by payment per capita is relativized by the coarse energy consumption of the larger family.

The climate act

Then comes the "Climate" with the industry. The state should ultimately pay the conversion of the industry so that Germany is competitive in the future and no jobs are lost.

Sounds good first. The question is only what works practically?

We could not let us hunt with any horror scenarios in the Bockshorn. Of course, there is also loser for every technological transition. In the present case, these are the EVUS, the suppliers of OL and gas as well as the petrol chemistry and their suppliers. In addition, the auto industry, whose paragraph in Germany is at least halved in the long term, and the entire freight forwarding industry.

But that can be no reason to capture on outdated and non-future-proof structures and technologies. Of course, through this technological change, many jobs are lost. That’s in the nature of the thing and is inevitable. However, the real reason for workload is not the energy transition, but the work product added by the technical development.

It has to be clear about it that the transformation of an industry always means a complete change in technology and therefore a new construction of the works. The new factories are self-consumed as modern and efficient, as possible, as possible. This increases their productivity and labor demand drops.

The staff in the automotive industry has long been clear that the transformation for electromobility costs at least every second workplace in the industry. And in other industries, it looks like it, it will only be twisted many times.

And there will be whole sectors. The coal and the nuclear power are only the beginning. Whereby those instructed there are even the gland that they have been working with the production of decent folic schools and the elimination of contaminated sites for decades. In other industries, Z.B. The petroleous chemistry, will not occur in the scope. Work is not an end in itself and work for the sake of work, nonsensical. Here you have to ask the question: Does man live to work or work to live? What do we want?

If we have to rebuild our entire technology, both in the industry like private, we should use the opportunity to use the same way to correct some social bad developments. Back to climate act with the economy.

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: