[IfOnlyYouKnew]

Why do you feel the need to phrase your talking point in the form of a thinly veiled rhetorical question?

In any case: yes, obviously. Although Germany works both within the EU and the UN climate process to find collective solutions allowing other nations to also reduce emissions. China is actually becoming a positive example these days, installing vast amounts of renewable energy.

Phasing out coal in Germany obviously makes for a good argument in such talks. But even if it doesn’t, not burning coal and buying from China is still strictly better than burning coal and buying from China.

It’s sort of like smoking and getting regular exercise is better than just smoking.

[T2_t2]

Does it though? If Germany's policies hurt the economy, at a time when the cost of energy goes up, it may threaten the plans. The last thing a costly reform needs is less money to spend.

Ignoring possible second order effects is a dangerous course of action. The nuclear shutdown in Germany was so bad not just for emissions (which have gotten worse) but also, as the Marginal Revolution article above points out, geopolitically as well. One decision can have a multitude of flow on bad effects.

The important part to remember is that the goal is not clean energy. The goal is for humanity to continue to exist and, if possible, to prosper. That is why climate change is awful, as it threatens our species. Not the planet. The planet will be fine. It is our species that is at risk.

Decisions made for vague, second effect ignoring reasons are worrying, especially when there are known second order effect consequences.