The Greens are using tactical tricks to force the Union to make a delicate nuclear decision

Photo of author
Written By Maya Cantina

MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MLB MLB MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL MBL

Scandal or not? To mislead the population or not? Abuse of civil servants or not? In the Bundestag it is about coming to terms with the unclear circumstances surrounding the eventual nuclear phase-out, when the last speaker surprisingly makes a huge threat:

The Greens are looking forward to the nuclear election campaign and are offering a bet

There were “dirty deals” in the gas and oil deals of the past, says Andreas Audretsch. And if it were about German energy history, about its dependence on Russia and other authoritarian states, then he looks forward to ‘coming to terms with them’. And if the Union now wants new nuclear power stations – the CDU decided this at their most recent party conference CSUThe boss was already in favor of it beforehand – then he looked forward to “the debate in the election campaign”.

Andreas Audretsch attends parliamentary debates a tough dog. The vice-chairman of the Green parliamentary group has experience in turning accusations against the federal government into accusations against the Union. Sometimes it’s clumsy and sounds like yesterday’s ‘whataboutism’. But sometimes Audretsch gets a point.

In short, Greens and SPD the Union – and also the FDP – a double, risky bet for them:

  • Part one: If you would now like to clarify, up to the last memo from an investigative committee, what happened at Robert Habeck’s Ministry of Economic Affairs and at Steffi Lemke’s Ministry of Environment when it came to phasing out nuclear energy, then we will also explain, down to the last note, how you led Germany to become energy dependent on dictatorships like Russia and Azerbaijan. Let’s see for whom the damage is greater.
  • Part two: If you want to seriously discuss new nuclear power plants in Germany, please do. And preferably during the election campaign. Let’s see who wins this argument.

Be that as it may, the Greens have prepared themselves well for such an election campaign battle, for example with this note from Robert Habeck in the Bundestag: Angela Merkel, the chancellor of the CDU, closed eleven nuclear power stations during her term. The traffic light didn’t close until three o’clock. The accusation of group leader Jens Spahn is unconditional the Greens The legacy of nuclear energy is a ‘legacy of Trittin’, the green ex-Minister of the Environment who was shamefully honored by Merkel, answers Julia Verlinden of the Greens: The nuclear exit is rather a ‘legacy of Merkel’. Historically, both are true.

The Greens have reached a sensitive point

Environment Minister Lemke says allowing nuclear power plants to run longer than the extra three months decided under pressure from the FDP with the Chancellor’s directive authority would have resulted in “compromises on safety” , plus: the companies would not have accepted liability for continuing operations for years, then the state would have had to take over. What could not be expected of the citizens. The Greens have a sensitive point here.

This also applies to a new version of nuclear energy. The investments would be worth billions, making nuclear energy very expensive, and even then it would hardly work without ‘state liability’. And one more, possibly decisive argument: Lemke says that there was consensus between the parties on the phasing out of nuclear weapons, which is also socio-politically important for such an important issue. There would certainly be no such consensus in the event of a re-entry as desired by the Union and possibly the FDP; the left would not go along with that. Not even when it comes to the development of new technologies such as small reactors (SMR). Or nuclear fusion. Plus:

Companies are not allies when it comes to re-entry

German energy companies are unlikely to be allies in a return to nuclear power. RWE CEO Markus Krebber has publicly stated that in his opinion nuclear energy has finally been eliminated in Germany. The board has been strategically transforming its company into a leading company in the field of sustainable energy for some time now. German companies would pay a high price if a nuclear-friendly government were to return to nuclear power.

The reason for the debate in the Bundestag is the accusations that the federal government, led by the two Green ministers Habeck and Lemke, has misled the public. By giving the impression that the nuclear phase-out was objective and not ideological. And the ministries’ files were deliberately manipulated. The ‘open-ended review’ promised by Habeck never took place.

Habeck and Lemke failed to suppress the accusations

This is not only the opinion of the Union, which is therefore considering a parliamentary inquiry committee, but also – again explosively for the traffic light coalition – also of the FDP. She says it would have been fair if the two Green ministers had said from the start: “We will do everything for Germany’s security of supply – except nuclear power stations.”

Habeck and Lemke failed to suppress the accusations. Maybe they didn’t want to do it at all. They chose attack as the best defense. Now the ball is back in the Union’s court. She must answer this question: even if she succeeds in proving green state abuses in phasing out nuclear weapons, how much will depend on her because of her dependence on Russia? And: will a nuclear energy renaissance still be an attractive issue to win elections in a year’s time?

Not an easy decision.



Source link

Leave a Comment

MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL MlL