Nuclear power plant debate: How torn are the Greens?

Without the anti-nuclear movement, the Greens would not exist. Now the party could break with a dogma. How do they get out of there?

Many green souls are likely to experience the current nuclear debate as a personal stress test. The party was founded in West Germany in the early 1980s by leftists, peace activists, environmentalists and – most importantly – by members of the anti-nuclear movement.

The demand for an immediate halt to the construction and operation of all nuclear power plants was already found in the first party program. In 2000, the red-green coalition initiated the first nuclear phase-out. According to current law, the three nuclear power plants Neckarwestheim 2, Emsland and Isar 2 must be shut down by December 31, 2022 at the latest. New Year’s Eve is probably already marked in bold in many green calendars. The discussion about the continued operation of these three nuclear reactors shakes the foundations of the green party.

What positions are there within the Greens?

In view of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and disruptions in the supply of Russian gas, Green Economics and Climate Minister Robert Habeck openly discussed extending the life of the three nuclear power plants at the end of February. Shortly thereafter, the Green Prime Minister of Baden-Württemberg also spoke out against “bans on thinking”.

Since then, the debate has picked up steam. Union and AfD and also the traffic light coalition partner FDP are in favor of letting the active piles run longer than just until the end of the year. Some of the SPD also consider a so-called stretching operation to be conceivable.

This increases the pressure on the Greens to develop a position. The Green Bundestag Vice President Kathrin Göring-Eckardt has not ruled out a stretching operation with fuel rods already in use for a “real emergency situation”.

“Between Plague and Cholera”

Bavaria’s Greens are also open to continued operation. In the event of a gas shortage, approval would also come from the Thuringian Greens. On the other hand, the Greens in Lower Saxony, for example, strictly reject a stretching operation.

In other state associations, such as Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt, reference is made to the second stress test commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Economics, i.e. the current review of the power supply in winter. We want to wait and see the result.

With a view to the plan to reactivate particularly climate-unfriendly coal-fired power plants that have been shut down, the Green Youth speaks of a choice between plague and cholera. The internal party discussion is reminiscent of the old Realo and Fundi debates of the Greens.

How does the party deal with the intra-party nuclear debate?

The question of a stretching operation or a temporary extension of the term is driving the green membership from the grassroots to the top of the party and could split them. The party headquarters is therefore trying to paint a picture of unity in public. According to a report by “Welt”, the federal office recommended a language regulation for the nuclear power plant debate in a handout.

Accordingly, it said that one should not be driven by mock debates. Questions should be answered “as calmly and concisely as possible”. Despite the occasionally articulated differing positions, observers have so far not been able to identify any clear rift through the Green Party.

According to political scientist Antonios Souris, it could still be a challenge for the party leadership to keep the various tendencies within the party together. He sees in the red line drawn by party leader Ricarda Lang that a temporary extension does not become a permanent one, an opportunity.: Maybe in the end it can be a compromise that ultimately does justice to the emergency situation, but the party does not do it in the long term a return to nuclear power.”

How could the green party solve the dilemma?

In fact, the Greens are experiencing what other parties have experienced before them: the goals set out in the party program and the necessary government decisions do not always go well together. Souris sees a dilemma here. Parties often experience “that the program no longer seems to fit in with everyday government life and the reality of government,” he says.

In order to be perceived as a reliable and responsible government partner, the Greens will probably have to swallow the bitter toad should the worst come to the worst and signal a willingness to compromise when it comes to a temporary extension of the term. The party leadership must make it clear to the members that the DNA of the party will not be betrayed and that the general phase-out of nuclear power will be adhered to. However, many in the party are likely to hope that the current stress test will end in such a way that another nuclear debate is unnecessary anyway.