Germany Is Set To Be the First Major Economy to Phase Out Coal and Nuclear. But Is It Enough?
Germany is trailblazing a new route for global economies, putting itself on track to be the first major power to phase out coal and nuclear energy. This announcement came after the German parliament voted on a gargantuan new energy plan that eliminates state-sanctioned coal use by 2038 and nuclear power by 2022.
Germany, already a leader in clean energy production, produces approximately 40–45% of its electricity from renewables. An impressive 21% is from wind power. And by 2030, 65% of the country’s electricity will come from renewable energy sources. Compared to the world’s other global political and economic powers, they’re in the lead. Renewables make up just 17% of America’s electricity, 27% of China’s, and 16% of Russia’s.
To avoid the slew of problems, like those facing Appalachia, that come with the shift away from coal, Germany will also help affected regions and communities with the loss of employment — approximately $45 billion will be allocated to assist in the transition.
Other strategies include subsidies for electric cars and energy-efficient heaters. Additionally, taxes on flight tickets will be increased and prices for train tickets will fall.
In many ways, this news seems like a huge win for environmentalists.
However, and expectedly — many critics have come after it. Some say it does not make the transition quickly enough. According to the Associated Press (AP), Greenpeace Germany and other environmental groups have harshly chastised this more conservative transformation. They claim the move will not reduce Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions fast enough to meet the targets set out in the Paris Climate Accord.
It seems they might be right. To abide by the Accord’s guidelines, greenhouse gas emissions need to be halved by 2030, and reach net zero by 2050. This current plan does not appear to bring Germany to that goal. Under the new plan, Germany will try to reduce carbon emissions by 55% of 1990 levels by 2030. However, it’s worth noting that Germany has said it will fail to reach its 2020 target to reduce emissions by 40%.
Christoph Bals, policy director for the environmental group Germanwatch, says a major detraction to this plan is that a majority of the necessary reductions are being pushed to the end of the 2020s, leading to another decade of dirty energy and, presently, irreversible pollution.
Environmental advocates have also criticized the subsidies offered to coal companies to shut down their plants, arguing the funds would be better spent in the renewable energy sector — or a myriad of other industries.
These criticisms without a doubt have merit. They should be raised. But perhaps the more concerning thing is something else.
As previously mentioned, Germany is a world leader in renewables. It’s one of the few major economies to even have plans to reach 100% renewable generation, let alone come close to 50% currently. I’d argue the greatest concern with this plan isn’t just that it doesn’t do enough, but that it is somehow the trailblazer. This is the most that big economies are doing.
One of the most industrialized nations in the world, with one of the most organized economies, and bountiful resources, is arguably not making the shift fast enough to reach the Paris Climate Accord’s goals. What does that say about the remainder of these world powers?
Japan currently produces roughly 10% of its electricity from renewable sources and has set its renewable share goal to 24% by 2030 — good, but relatively not enough to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
With the US’s pullout from the Paris Climate Accord, the immediate future isn’t hopeful for any lofty faith. If Biden wins the 2020 election, he will propose a $2 trillion climate plan that largely focuses on jobs, but would significantly invest in renewables technology and transportation — of course, this proposal would need to pass through Congress, which provides a whole different set of issues. If Trump wins reelection, further regression to fossil fuels is expected. Regardless, unless something radical changes in the US, the necessary emission cuts won’t be made in time.
Virtually no one expects much movement for oil-and-gas-giant Russia; the fossil fuel industry is still a deeply-needed crutch for Moscow’s socio-political infrastructure.
Some other countries have achieved more significant milestones, though admittedly on a smaller scale. Sweden is set to eliminate fossil fuels from its electricity generation by 2040. Costa Rica and Scotland have reached this goal already, now producing over 95% of their electricity via renewable sources. Denmark, with a vast army of wind turbines, has surpassed the 60% threshold. Clearly, these nations, though small, have shown it’s possible to make the transition.
The reality is that the large, wealthy countries aren’t making major moves; in fact, the three largest economies (the EU, China, and the US) are still actively supporting the status quo. The US government gives $20 billion every year to the fossil fuel industry (that’s just directly, estimates for indirect subsidies number in the hundreds of billions) and the EU subsidizes the same industries by €55 billion. China, although the world’s most significant investor in renewable technologies, gives $18 billion a year to coal alone. The East-Asian giant, which already consumes half of the world’s coal, also continues to build more plants.
Not to be the bearer of more bad news, but these numbers of electricity don’t even tackle the issue of transportation — Germany and many other renewable leaders still heavily rely on fossil-fuel-powered vehicles — making these emission goals little more than a dream.
All that being said, this announcement is good, and should inspire some inklings of hope. Maybe it will inspire other big economies to make a more ambitious transition as well. But the critics are right that it doesn’t quite do enough, or rather, it just isn’t everything we need. What’s most concerning, however, is the fact that right now, it’s the best we’ve got.
