[mildmotive]

> Added to this are worsening geopolitics, the difficulty of eliminating carbon emissions and the travails of an ageing population.

Worsening geopolitics and an ageing population are more immideate problem compared to the inability to eliminate (not reduce) carbon emissions.

Or am I missing something? Can someone explain to me why ”eliminating carbon emissions” was sandwiched between the other two issues?

[jeroenvlek]

I suspect because of the also mentioned "own goal" of eliminating nuclear power despite not having green alternatives.

[PurpleRamen]

Germany has more than enough alternatives for nuclear power. The situation would have been even better if not for some brain farts sabotaging the movement to alternatives for various reasons.

The big problem is that has Germany has big dependencies on coal, gas and gasoline, for industry, heating, and cars. Nuclear power can't replace this at all. Which is why Germany is shifting around usages and started investing big in hydrogen.

[jeroenvlek]

Yes, but they could have kept nuclear until the reactors were end of life to have more time for the transition.

Instead, they frantically closed them and now coal consumption increased. Case in point: Lützerath.

[PurpleRamen]

They did, most German reactors are ancient and were past the recommended life-time. And coal consumption did not increase because of the closing down of nuclear reactors.

[jeroenvlek]

No? Why did it increase? You know a lot of reactors were closed early. What filled that demand?

[TheRoque]

Carbon emissions are also long-term plans. When you open a coal mine (which they do) or plan for increasing nuclear power, you have to plan decades in advance, which is why we should have started all this yesterday

[veave]

It's an Agenda 2030 propaganda piece.