Why Germany ditched nuclear before coal – and why it won’t go back

Atomkraft Nein Danke - Nuclear Power No Thanks. Wikimedia Image Flickr: Atomkraft? Nein Danke!
Author	Bündnis 90/Die Grünen Nordrhein-Westfalen licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
Author Bündnis 90/Die Grünen Nordrhein-Westfalen licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

Why Germany ditched nuclear before coal – and why it won’t go back

Trevelyan Wing, University of Cambridge

One year ago, Germany took its last three nuclear power stations offline. When it comes to energy, few events have baffled outsiders more.

In the face of climate change, calls to expedite the transition away from fossil fuels, and an energy crisis precipitated by Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Berlin’s move to quit nuclear before carbon-intensive energy sources like coal has attracted significant criticism. (Greta Thunberg prominently labelled it “a mistake”.)

This decision can only be understood in the context of post-war socio-political developments in Germany, where anti-nuclearism predated the public climate discourse.

From a 1971 West German bestseller evocatively titled Peaceably into Catastrophe: A Documentation of Nuclear Power Plants, to huge protests of hundreds of thousands – including the largest-ever demonstration seen in the West German capital Bonn – the anti-nuclear movement attracted national attention and widespread sympathy. It became a major political force well before even the Chernobyl disaster of 1986.

Its motivations included: a distrust of technocracy; ecological, environmental and safety fears; suspicions that nuclear energy could engender nuclear proliferation; and general opposition to concentrated power (especially after its extreme consolidation under the Nazi dictatorship).

Instead, activists championed what they regarded as safer, greener, and more accessible renewable alternatives like solar and wind, embracing their promise of greater self-sufficiency, community participation, and citizen empowerment (“energy democracy”).

This support for renewables was less about CO₂ and more aimed at resetting power relations (through decentralised, bottom-up generation rather than top-down production and distribution), protecting local ecosystems, and promoting peace in the context of the cold war.

Germany’s Energiewende

The contrast here with Thunberg’s latter-day Fridays for Future movement and its “listen to the experts” slogan is striking. The older activist generation deliberately rejected the mainstream expertise of the time, which then regarded centralised nuclear power as the future and mass deployment of distributed renewables as a pipe dream.

This earlier movement was instrumental in creating Germany’s Green Party – today the world’s most influential – which emerged in 1980 and first entered national government from 1998 to 2005 as junior partner to the Social Democrats. This “red-green” coalition banned new reactors, announced a shutdown of existing ones by 2022, and passed a raft of legislation supporting renewable energy.

That, in turn, turbocharged the national deployment of renewables, which ballooned from 6.3% of gross domestic electricity consumption in 2000 to 51.8% in 2023.

These figures are all the more remarkable given the contributions of ordinary citizens. In 2019, they owned fully 40.4% (and over 50% in the early 2010s) of Germany’s total installed renewable power generation capacity, whether through community wind energy cooperatives, farm-based biogas installations, or household rooftop solar.

Most other countries’ more recent energy transitions have been attempts to achieve net-zero targets using whatever low-carbon technologies are available. Germany’s now-famous “Energiewende” (translated as “energy transition” or even “energy revolution”), however, has from its earlier inception sought to shift away from both carbon-intensive as well as nuclear energy to predominantly renewable alternatives.

Indeed, the very book credited with coining the term Energiewende in 1980 was, significantly, titled Energie-Wende: Growth and Prosperity Without Oil and Uranium and published by a think tank founded by anti-nuclear activists.

Consecutive German governments have, over the past two and a half decades, more or less hewed to this line. Angela Merkel’s pro-nuclear second cabinet (2009-13) was an initial exception.

That lasted until the 2011 Fukushima disaster, after which mass protests of 250,000 and a shock state election loss to the Greens forced that administration, too, to revert to the 2022 phaseout plan. Small wonder that so many politicians today are reluctant to reopen that particular Pandora’s box.

Another ongoing political headache is where to store the country’s nuclear waste, an issue Germany has never managed to solve. No community has consented to host such a facility, and those designated for this purpose have seen large-scale protests.

Instead, radioactive waste has been stored in temporary facilities close to existing reactors – no long-term solution.

Nuclear remains unpopular

National polls underscore the Teutonic aversion to nuclear. Even in 2022, at the height of the recent energy crisis, a survey found that 52% opposed constructing new reactors, though 78% supported a temporary extension of existing plants until summer 2023. The three-way Social Democratic-Green-Liberal coalition government ultimately compromised on mid-April 2023.

Today, 51.6% of Germans believe this was premature. However, a further deferral was deemed politically unfeasible given the trenchant anti-nuclearism of the Greens and sizeable cross sections of the population.

Despite some public protestations to the contrary (the main opposition CDU party declared in January that Germany “cannot do without the nuclear power option at present”), in private few political leaders think the country will, or even realistically can, reverse course.

As an industry insider told me, talk of reintroducing nuclear to Germany is “delusional” because investors were “burnt … too many times” in the past and now “would rather put their money into safer investments”. Moreover, “it would take decades to build new [nuclear] power stations” and electricity is no longer the sector of concern, given the rapid buildout of renewables, with attention having shifted to heating and transport.

Chart of power production in Germany by source
German nuclear power (purple) has largely been replaced by renewables (yellow), not coal (black and brown).
Clean Energy Wire, CC BY-SA

Predictions that the nuclear exit would leave Germany forced to use more coal and facing rising prices and supply problems, meanwhile, have not transpired. In March 2023 – the month before the phaseout – the distribution of German electricity generation was 53% renewable, 25% coal, 17% gas, and 5% nuclear. In March 2024, it was 60% renewable, 24% coal, and 16% gas.

Overall, the past year has seen record renewable power production nationwide, a 60-year low in coal use, sizeable emissions cuts, and decreasing energy prices.

The country’s energy sector, it seems, has already moved on. In the words of one industry observer: “Once you switch off these nuclear power stations, they’re out.” And there’s no easy way back.

For better or worse, this technology – in its present form at least – is dead in the water here. For many Germans, it will not be missed.The Conversation

Trevelyan Wing, Fellow of the Cambridge Centre for Geopolitics and Centre Researcher at the Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance (CEENRG), University of Cambridge

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingWhy Germany ditched nuclear before coal – and why it won’t go back

The obstacles that could still stop flights to Rwanda from taking off

 

Penny Morduant calls Rishi Sunak a sign post
Penny Morduant calls Rishi Sunak a sign post
Natalie Hodgson, University of Nottingham

Rishi Sunak has finally secured the legislation he needs to support his Rwanda plan. A late night session of ping pong between the two houses of parliament culminated with the passage of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act.

Under this plan, the UK will send some people who have travelled to the UK by small boat to Rwanda. Rwandan officials will consider their asylum claims and determine whether they are a refugee. If a person is found to be a refugee, they will be resettled in Rwanda.

After the European Court of Human Rights stopped the first flight taking off nearly two years ago, the government is now preparing for its second attempt. In a press conference hours before the crucial vote, Sunak said that flights would begin in July.

But there are still logistical and legal obstacles that the government must overcome before any flights can take off.

Finding an airline willing to fly to Rwanda

The government claims to have secured the airfield and charter flights necessary for removing people to Rwanda. However, campaigners who oppose the scheme are targeting these elements of the policy in an attempt to make flights logistically impossible.

In October 2022, the charity Freedom from Torture successfully convinced the airline Privilege Style to withdraw from the government’s Rwanda scheme. Freedom from Torture have now turned their attention to AirTanker, the government’s current preferred airline. They are coordinating protests against the airline and are asking their supporters to write letters opposing AirTanker’s involvement in the scheme.

UN human rights experts have warned airlines that transporting people to Rwanda could make them complicit in human rights abuses.

Further legal challenges

Charities have also been preparing to support asylum seekers to challenge their removal to Rwanda. We can expect to see several types of legal action in the coming weeks.

First, individual asylum seekers will attempt to convince the Home Office to reconsider its decision to send them to Rwanda. After receiving a letter from the Home Office, a person has a short period – typically one week – within which to challenge the decision. People are likely to raise a range of human rights arguments against their deportation. These arguments might include that a person would face persecution in Rwanda because of their sexuality, or that they have complex medical needs preventing their removal.

If the Home Office upholds its decision, a person can challenge their removal in court. Sunak has recently said that there are 150 judges and 25 courtrooms ready to hear these legal challenges.

If their removal is still upheld, a person might take the last-resort step of applying to the European Court of Human Rights for an interim order blocking their deportation. However, this course of action is complicated by the fact that civil servants have been directed to ignore injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights unless a minister says otherwise.

Under international law, the government is bound to follow an order of the European Court of Human Rights. It would be unlawful for a person to be sent to Rwanda in violation of an order of the European court. The union representing senior civil servants has warned that it might take legal action against the government if civil servants are required by ministers to breach international law.

Asylum seekers are also likely to challenge the Rwanda scheme more broadly, arguing that Rwanda remains an unsafe country for them. The government’s new law declares that Rwanda is safe. However, both the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have maintained that the safety of Rwanda is a matter for the courts, not parliament, to decide.

If a broader legal challenge is brought, it will be for the courts to determine whether the government’s efforts to improve the conditions in Rwanda – which include drafting a treaty with Rwanda and training Rwandan officials – mean that Rwanda is now safe for asylum seekers.

Sunak and his government have staked a lot on this scheme and the passage of the safety of Rwanda bill brings it one step closer to reality. However, even if the government succeeds in getting flights off the ground, the plan is likely to fail in its quest to stop the boats.

There is no evidence to suggest that the Rwanda plan will deter people travelling across the English Channel to seek asylum.

The tragic deaths of five people in the Channel shortly after the government passed its legislation clearly demonstrates that the threat of deportation to Rwanda is not achieving its aim. Despite now being part of UK law, the Rwanda plan remains a political distraction from a failing asylum system that ultimately costs people their lives.The Conversation

Natalie Hodgson, Assistant Professor in Law, University of Nottingham

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingThe obstacles that could still stop flights to Rwanda from taking off

Pressure grows on Starmer to restore Diane Abbott’s whip a year on

https://leftfootforward.org/2024/04/pressure-grows-on-starmer-to-restore-diane-abbotts-whip-a-year-on/ Many articles from LeftFootForward today.

Petition to restore Diane Abbott’s Labour whip surpasses 12,000

Over 12,000 people have now signed a petition calling on Keir Starmer to restore the whip to Diane Abbott, as this Tuesday marks one year since her whip was suspended. 

Trade unions, campaigners and MPs have joined the call to reinstate her Labour whip using the anniversary of her suspension as a call for action from the Labour leader. 

Diane Abbott lost the whip following an article she wrote which suggested Irish, Jewish and Traveller people are not subject to racism “all their lives”, distinguishing between anti-black racism. She went on to withdraw her remarks and issued an apology. 

She has subsequently sat as an independent MP while an internal investigation continues. With over a year passed, campaigners have questioned why the investigation has taken so long, with the grassroots socialist Labour movement Momentum labelled Starmer’s investigation “a sham”.

https://leftfootforward.org/2024/04/pressure-grows-on-starmer-to-restore-diane-abbotts-whip-a-year-on/ Many articles from LeftFootForward today.

Continue ReadingPressure grows on Starmer to restore Diane Abbott’s whip a year on

Why are human rights groups condemning the Rwanda bill? Here’s what you need to know

https://leftfootforward.org/2024/04/why-are-human-rights-groups-condemning-the-rwanda-bill-heres-what-you-need-to-know/ Many articles from LeftFootForward today.

Despite the findings of the Supreme Court, the government is compelling judges to treat Rwanda as a safe country.

The passage of the Rwanda Bill late last night, after a parliamentary showdown ended between the Commons and the Lords, has been met with condemnation and outrage by a number of human rights groups.

Some have described it as a ‘national disgrace’ while others slammed it as cruel and inhumane.

Sunak had made stopping small boat crossings across the channel a major priority, with his Rwanda Bill a key part of his plans in doing so. The Prime Minister says that the first flights removing asylum seekers who arrive illegally to the UK to the east African country are due to take off in 10-12 weeks time.

So why are human rights groups condemning the legislation and why are they concerned?

Rwanda is not a safe country, Supreme Court rules

Disregarding domestic and international law

‘Genuine refugees would be at risk of being returned to their home countries, where they could face harm’

https://leftfootforward.org/2024/04/why-are-human-rights-groups-condemning-the-rwanda-bill-heres-what-you-need-to-know/ Many articles from LeftFootForward today.

Continue ReadingWhy are human rights groups condemning the Rwanda bill? Here’s what you need to know

It’s time to ban MPs from taking donations from fossil fuel firms

https://leftfootforward.org/2024/04/its-time-to-ban-mps-from-taking-donations-from-fossil-fuel-firms/ Many articles from LeftFootForward today.

We need to build a firewall between politicians and the oil and gas firms driving the climate crisis.

Richard Burgon is the Labour MP for Leeds East

The same oil and gas giants behind the record energy bills that have forced so many into poverty have also brought us to the cliff edge of climate catastrophe.

If we are to have a fighting chance of preventing the worst of the climate crisis, then we need to rapidly cut fossil fuel use. Key to that is breaking the vast power that oil and gas companies have over our politics.

That’s why this week I will present a Bill in the House of Commons to ban MPs from receiving funding or any other benefit from oil and gas companies.

My Private Members Bill would stop MPs from taking any second jobs with, or receiving any donations, gifts, hospitality or benefits-in-kind from, any company that makes more than 50% of its annual revenue from oil or gas.

It would also force the Government to end investments by the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund in any oil and gas companies.

The aim of my Bill is simple: to build a firewall between our political decision-makers and the oil and gas corporations that have knowingly caused the climate crisis.

For decades, oil and gas giants used their vast financial power to confuse and undermine the science about the role of fossil fuels in driving climate change. More recently, their focus has moved on throwing huge sums at delaying, blocking and weakening global climate action.

Fossil fuel money also pollutes British politics. The Tory Party received £3.5m from donors with fossil fuel, polluter and climate denial links in 2022 according to an analysis of Electoral Commission records by DeSmog, an investigative website focused on global warming misinformation campaigns.

https://leftfootforward.org/2024/04/its-time-to-ban-mps-from-taking-donations-from-fossil-fuel-firms/

dizzy: Despite this article having been written by a Labour MP it should not be assumed that the UK Labour Party will be any different from the Conservatives on the climate crisis or fossil fuel industry.

Continue ReadingIt’s time to ban MPs from taking donations from fossil fuel firms