opinion
stress test
So much for ideology: if only Merz and Co. would campaign so vehemently for renewables
CDU leader Friedrich Merz (left) and Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP) lack great enthusiasm for renewable energies.
© Kay Nietfeld / Picture Alliance
The Greens’ ideological thinking is bringing us to the brink of a blackout, they say. But those who have played a big part in making the energy problem as big as it is now are shouting particularly loudly.
There’s a lot of talk about ideology these days. Mostly of green ideology. The accusation often hits Economics and Climate Minister Robert Habeck. It is said that he is only unwilling to leave the last three nuclear power plants in Germany online “for ideological reasons”. And just because he follows this, his ideology, so blindly, he is jeopardizing nothing less than the well-being of all of us, i.e. the supply of Storm.
This is the reaction from the Union to the energy stress test that Habeck presented on Monday. And if the FDP weren’t in government right now; the liberals would certainly have found similar words. Already they could hardly contain themselves, demanded an extension of the lifetime of the nuclear reactors and accused Habeck of an “election campaign maneuver” because the Emsland nuclear power plant in Lower Saxony is the only one of the three power plants that should not be used as an emergency reserve. In Lower Saxony there will be elections on October 9th. If you have such coalition partners, you really no longer need an opposition. A rogue who suspects ideological thinking behind such statements.
Didn’t Robert Habeck move massively?
Whatever one might think of Habeck’s politics and his energy crisis management, the fact that he was accused of ideology is remarkable. Wasn’t it Habeck who jumped over his shadow and wanted to open up new gas supplies in Qatar as a result of Putin’s war of aggression in the Ukraine – even if not very successfully?! Isn’t it Habeck who, despite the decision to phase out coal, wants to use more coal-fired power plants again for a transitional period in order to reduce gas consumption (quote: “That’s bitter”)?! Isn’t it Habeck who, despite the green holy cow of the nuclear phase-out, which is already well advanced and – remember – was initiated by a CDU Chancellor, two remaining nuclear power plants are now at least ready for crisis emergencies want to keep?! And aren’t the producers of renewable energy used in the latest relief package to skim off chance profits, although that’s also bitter from a green point of view?!
With all due respect, one rarely sees so much mobility in terms of one’s own ideology. Certainly not by politicians of the caliber of Merz or Lindner. Do you remember that shortly after the start of the war, the Minister of Finance called the renewables in the Bundestag – quite the Liberal – “liberation energies”? That has long since faded away. And CDU leader Friedrich Merz already knew that the stress test with regard to nuclear power was not sufficient before the result was even available. This is opposition for opposition’s sake. Legitimate, of course, but also: ideological.
Nuclear energy – on and on
Of course, the bad thing is in no way a criticism of Habeck. The gas allocation was anything but a big hit. There are actually legitimate doubts that a nuclear vehicle is suitable for emergency supply, as it cannot simply be switched on when it is needed. And yes, we probably need every kilowatt hour, wherever it comes from. But Merz and Co. don’t criticize specifically, they do something they have always done: They propagate nuclear power and currently give the impression that all problems have been solved with the nuclear reactors.
But that is not the case. The three remaining nuclear power plants would probably save only one per thousand of German gas consumption annually in stretching operation. In any case, only six percent of our electricity comes from nuclear energy, and the trend is falling. All this is not nothing, but it will not carry us safely through the crisis either. Experts like energy economist Claudia Kemfert never tire of emphasizing that nuclear power has long been far too expensive. And anyone who propagates nuclear power with a view to the climate crisis dares to take a look at France, where a number of the power plants were recently not in operation because there was not enough cooling water from the rivers or it was already too warm to handle it even more with discharges to heat up.
Where could we stand?
One wonders where we would be if Merz and Co. would campaign for renewable energies with as much verve as they do for the risky nuclear technology with unclear disposal? Where would we be if the FDP wanted to see the innovative strength of the economy, which it praised so much, primarily in the renewables sector? And where would we be if earlier, often Christian-Democrat-led governments with SPD participation had already promoted renewable energies well beyond lip service in the past (and relied less on Russian gas). It would certainly not be all good, but our fear of having to freeze in the coming winter would probably be significantly less than it is now. Using the war and the crisis to propagate the phase-out of nuclear power instead of finally relying on sustainable solutions, since climate change does not wait for the end of the war, is ideology. But ideology doesn’t get us any further these days. No matter what colour.