Germany hammers Trump over debate barbs about Berlin’s energy transition
www.politico.eu
“P.S. We also don’t eat cats and dogs,” Berlin’s foreign ministry taunts Republican presidential candidate.

“P.S. We also don’t eat cats and dogs,” Berlin’s foreign ministry taunts Republican presidential candidate.

Germany’s foreign ministry hit back Wednesday at former U.S. President Donald Trump after he criticized the country’s energy policy at the presidential debate against Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump slammed Germany in his closing remarks, claiming Berlin regretted its decision to transition to renewable energy.

…

But the German foreign ministry took umbrage at that, blasting Trump in an unusually blunt statement on social media.

“Like it or not: Germany’s energy system is fully operational, with more than 50 percent renewables,” the ministry wrote. “And we are shutting down — not building — coal and nuclear plants. Coal will be off the grid by 2038 at the latest.”

  • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.netEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    Because it’s still the second safest energy source, very close behind solar. And about 10 years ago, before heavy investment in renewables, it was the safest.

    This is like being afraid of airplanes because things only have to go wrong once for hundreds to die.

    Edit: Here is the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022.

    • Jumi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      There are reasonable and cost-effective alternatives to nuclear, to planes in many cases not so much. Also a plane crash doesn’t leave whole towns uninhabitable for centuries or needs special places to store burned fuel

      • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.netEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Again, this is baseless, unscientific, fear mongering. Nuclear is the second safest energy source, not far from solar. And still far safer than for ex. hydro, which destroys environments, and in that case it’s not an “if”.

        Honestly,I feel like I’m back in like 2005 arguing against pro-oil people; in this case it’s about renewables, but the arguments are still unscientific and usually based around “But tHe ecOnOMy”.

        The more things change, the more they stay the same.

        Edit: Here is the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022.

        • Jumi@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          “Safest”, that’s why we need to think generations ahead to make signs that make clear forever that whatever is behind it shouldn’t be touched.

          I feel the same, first pro-oil and now pro-nuclear.

          We have safer and cheaper regenerative options and it’s about damn time we utilise them.

          • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.netEnglish
            01·
            2 months ago

            No, you have one safer option (solar), and just barely. And again, that is after a decade of heavy investment and development. The data doesn’t lie. You can’t just just throw out science and data when it doesn’t serve you. Stop spreading BS. You are quite literally spreading misinformation.