[Domestic Policy] The Emissions Hysteria Industry 2019-07-02

Fridays for Future and Greta Thunberg have achieved great fame and popularity. Their demands have already been repeated and adopted by the press and politicians. In fact there are several people in the background with their own agenda.

On top of that comes the attention Fridays for Future and Greta Thunberg get are missing when it comes to the consequences and the scientific backgrounds. On the one hand lower and middle income groups in particular face the costs of driving bans and a possible CO2-tax. On the other hand the debate is missing statistics and scientific backgrounds that show the opposite. As the debates around Fridays for Future and Greta Thunberg and the emissions from vehicles converge reviewing the background and dynamics is needed.

The Deadlock
What is Missing
Epidemiology
Driving Bans
Fridays for Future
CO2-Tax
Conclusion

The Deadlock

Greta Thunberg and her German equivalent Luisa Neubauer have gained great fame and popularity. But the public debate is in a loop in which anxiety and panic are preached. Questions on environmental and energy policy deal less and less that and more and more when action is to be taken. The quiet opposition to this formed as complete rejection and competition for the best ideas does not come about.

Much more the measures desired by one side are reinterpreted. Both sides are obviously and primarily interested in having the sovereignty about the interpretation. In doing so they regularly act like children who put their fingers in their ears and do not want to listen anymore. However this does not do justice to the topic or the offices of the politicians involved.

The shortcomings of the debate for the lower and middle income groups weigh particularly heavily. A concept for socially responsible measures which deserves this predicate does not exist. This sheds a bright light on the political will and capabilities of one half of the political spectrum.

What is Missing

Because of the debate about emissions from internal combustion engines decisions such as driving bans have already been taken. Incineration of hydrocarbons (CxHy) inevitably produces carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). Carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) are natural products of that combustion. Depending on the fuel, the process and the treatment of the exhaust gases harmful combustion products such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbons (CxHy) and fine particles are produced.

In Germany particulate matter emissions have fallen by 50% (PM2.5) and 40% (PM10) since 1995 respectively. [pm25] [pm25,alt] [pm10] [pm10,alt] Nitrogen oxide emissions in Germany have fallen by 60% since 1990. [NOx] [NOx,alt] Since sulfur-containing fuels are increasingly not being used sulfur dioxide emissions in Germany have fallen by 95% since 1990. [SOx] [SOx,alt] See:
[STEM] The Emissions Hysteria Industry - The Basics

With carbon dioxide (CO2) the situation is even more complicated. The current fraction of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the earth's atmosphere is about 400 ppm (0.04% volume fraction). The historical fraction of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the earth's atmosphere is controversial, but the assumption that it was about 280 ppm (0.028% volume fraction) (about 1880) is common. In addition to man-made there are also natural emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) such as seas as the solubility of gases in liquids is inversely proportional to the temperature. The man-made share is even more controversial.

The external factors on the climate of the earth are completely neglected. The earth is heated by the sun a fusion reactor that is thousands of times heavier and bigger in size than the earth whose activity is not constant but is described by the Gleißberg cycles. Since the sun is a fusion reactor any experimental setup in which the sun is simulated by a candle, lamp or else is useless because the emission spectrums are different. In addition the distance between the Earth and the Sun is not constant but is described by the Milankovic cycles.

And a presumed scientific consensus of 97% does not change these uncertainties and disturbances. Because science is not a democracy but the search for the truth and not the opinion of the majority. These uncertainties and disturbances in the debate should either be taken serious or be invalidated but should in any case be addressed.

Epidemiology

Completely detached from facts do work the news. The news read like prophecies of an incoming doomsday. This exemplifies the media failure in the preparation of scientific topics.

"Air pollution kills millions of people every year" (Luftverschmutzung tötet jährlich Millionen Menschen) [1]
"Too much dirt in the air and water - 9 million deaths from pollution" (Zu viel Dreck in Luft und Wasser - 9 Millionen Tote durch Umweltverschmutzung) [2]
"Particulate matter causes nine million premature deaths worldwide" (Feinstaub verursacht neun Millionen vorzeitige Todesfälle weltweit) [3]

Epidemiology is the science of the distribution, causes and consequences of health-related conditions in populations. One method is the comparison of health damage.

Harmful combustion products such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbons (CxHy) and fine particles such as soot (C) are hazardous. But only for that people do not die. Epidemiology thus compares the damage to health with an equivalent number of deaths.

However the results can be influenced or even superimposed by different confounding factors. When assessing harmful combustion products other factors such as a significantly different proportion of smokers or weather conditions can affect the incidence of illness or death much more than differences in air quality.

Driving Bans

Although emissions of particulate matter nitrous oxide (SO2) and sulfur dioxide (NO2) have fallen driving bans were and are imposed on vehicles with a specific emissions standard. It inevitably raises the question of who has an interest in preventing already sold vehicles from driving. But company cars and vehicles of persons who depend on them for personal or professional reason must be purchased again in order to meet the required emission standards. Driving bans on vehicles with a specific emission standard are thus de facto a buying incentive for new vehicles.

Incidentally the vehicles are sold to Eastern and Southeastern Europe. In Romania for example the number of registered used diesel cars increased by more than 31,000 between 2017 and 2018. And according to a market survey of used car dealer AAA Auto 63% of the imported and used cars in the Czech Republic come from Germany and 60% of the imported and used cars have a diesel engine. It are these vehicles that need to be bought new. [4] [5]

A special role is played here by the German Environmental Aid (deutsche Umwelthilfe/DUH). The German environmental aid (deutsche Umwelthilfe/DUH) files legal complains for driving bans regarding the emission limits and has already reached them in several German cities. For one thing it has been recognized as charitable since its foundation which is why it is tax-advantaged. [6] [7] In addition it is financially supported and received a total of 9,717,098 Euros from 2014 to 2019 in tax money. [8,p.33] This collaboration of the German Federal Government with the German Environmental Aid (deutsche Umwelthilfe/DUH) recalls the introduction of the Riester pension. At that time people were sold a product in favor of the insurance industry without need. [9]

In addition the plans to control driving bans are a major extension of surveillance methods. There is still no nationwide control of driving bans. But according to the plans of the German Federal Government at least the number plate and the image of the driver should be recorded and stored. For this purpose the data should be collected automatically. And this would result in surveillance cameras. [10] [11] [12] [13]

According to a survey however it would be conceivable for only 27.7% to abandon their vehicle for environmental protection. For 63.9% however it would rather not be possible or in no case conceivable to abandon their vehicle for environmental protection. [14] [15]

Fridays for Future

Fridays for Future is an offshoot planned by the Club of Rome and the Plant-for-the-Planet Foundation. In addition both the official Donations account of Fridays for Future and individuals belong to the Club of Rome and the Plant-for-the-Planet Foundation. And the demands of Fridays for Future are largely congruent with those of the Club of Rome. See:
Fridays for Future

In February 2019 representatives of Fridays for Future published concrete demands on German politics. According to their own statements the demands were worked out in nationwide working groups and in consultation with scientists. The stated goal is to limit global warming to 1.5 ° Celsius. [16] [17] [17,pdf] [18] [19]

Germany should achieve a net zero in the greenhouse gas balance by 2035. (release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as absorbed)
Germany should get out of coal energy by 2030.
Germany is to be 100% supplied with sustainable energy by 2035.
Germany should end subsidies for fossil fuels by the end of 2019.
Germany is to be shut down by the end of 2019 a quarter of all coal-fired power plants.
In addition Germany is to be introduced a CO2 tax by the end of 2019.

According to the plans of the German Federal Government of a total of 45 gigawatts now no electricity should be produced from coal at the latest of 2038. In the meantime coal power plants with a capacity of 12.5 gigawatts are expected to be shut down by 2022. And by 2030 only coal-fired power plants with a total of 17 gigawatts excluding the safety reserves will be in operation. [20] [21]

CO2-Tax

Particular importance comes to a possible CO2-tax. The demand for a CO2 tax and the like gained more and more momentum with Fridays for Future. There was a veritable competition for the harshest sanctions and laws. And until the EU election in May 2019 The Green-Party offered to be the panacea. However the time of the demise of the world is always the same date as the date of the next election.

March 2019: The German federal government considers a CO2 pricing for fuel for example. [22]
April 2019: The top candidate of the Social Democrats in the European Parliament Frans Timmermans calls for a Europe-wide CO2 tax. [23] [24] [25] [26]
May 2019: The directors of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) Christine Lagarde consider a worldwide CO2-tax necessary. [27]
May 2019: The party leader of The Green-Party Annalena Baerbock wants to reduce CO2 emissions with the constitution. For this purpose each new law is to be checked for its CO2 emissions. [28]
June 2019: The party leader of the CSU Markus Söder calls for a Europe-wide toll to reduce CO2 emissions and for ten million registered electric cars in Germany by 2030. [29] [30]
June 2019: The Union of the Middle within the CDU calls for a general CO2-tax because of the loss to the The Green-Party in the EU election. [31] [32]
June 2019: The Federal Environment Agency demands a CO2-tax for heating oil and fuels. [33]

After the media coverage and the demands from the policy the environment and climate should be the biggest concern. According to a survey by the Raiffeisen- und Volksbanken Insurance the three biggest fears in Germany are a more dangerous world due to Trump's policy with 69%, the fear of the excessive demands of the Germans/authorities by refugees and the fear of tensions due to immigration of foreigners with 63% each. The fear of climate change only comes in 12th place with 48%. [34] And according to several surveys about 60% are always against and only about 30% for a carbon tax. At the supporters of the parties one only finds a majority for a CO2-tax at the Green-party. The majorities of the supporters of all other parties are against a CO2 tax. [35] [36] [37]

At the latest here caution is advised since a general consumption tax hits the small and middle income groups the hardest while the upper income groups can simply buy themselves free of the consequences. Strangely in the debate about a CO2 tax there is no offer for the small and medium-income groups which are the majority of the electorate. Leftists and social democrats also neglect the interests of their electorate. Both neither demand a wealth tax nor a tax reduction of less CO2 intensive energy sources instead of a CO2 tax. Instead the additional burden and its consequences are reinterpreted as good, right and important.

In addition there is little or no debate about the use of the revenue from a CO2-tax. The utmost would be a misappropriation for an increase in defense spending or a reduction in property tax as done in France. This is exactly what triggered the demonstrations of the yellow west (Gilets Jaunes).

At least one could argue for new investments in the German energy industry. Germany has to pay regularly to sell its own surplus of electricity abroad. The reason for this is that the power supply from solar and wind energy are simply not constant and this noise only increases with more plants. This means that on days when a lot of energy is generated from solar and wind energy the price drops too much. However these additional costs of the providers are paid by the consumers which is the electorate of the Left and Social Democrats. Therefore it now requires storage methods instead of more solar and wind energy plants. [38] [39]

Conclusion

Einfache Standards

Dieses Blog durchsuchen