Skip to main content

Who the heck knows? There has been quite a bit of speculation here and elsewhere. I think I've found a reference that adds real value to the conversation. This diary is an extension of a comment found here.

From Lenz blog, I find a pdf (auf Deutsch) that appears to be quite useful in answering the question. The source is, according to Lenz:

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen, a leading German organization for statistic data on energy.
It should also be noted that these data are "Vorläufige Angaben, z.T. geschätzt" which, I believe means something akin to "preliminary data, some values are estimates".

Results below the Kos Doodle.

Although I just recently mocked someone unmercilessly for saying, "percentages are confusing" - come on, he had an associates degree in accounting - here I am saying "percentages are confusing." In context, it makes sense. Going from 20% to 25%. Five percent? Five percentage points? 25% increase? 20% less last year than this? But I digress...

Here are "the numbers" in absolute terawatt hours (TWh) from Germany as per the aforementioned reference from 2010 to 2011:

Nuclear was down 32.5 TWh
Soft Coal (brown/lignite) was up 7.1 TWh
Hard Coal (anthracite/bituminous) was down 2.5 TWh
Natural Gas was down 2.8 TWh
Oil was down 1.4 TWh
Hydro was down 1.5 TWh
Wind was up 8.7 TWh
Biomass was up 4.4 TWh
PV was up 7.3 TWh

Usage was down 13.6 TWh
Exports were down 11.7 TWh

So, in total, direct* fossil fuel usage was up by only 0.4 TWh but soft coal increased its percentage by 5% (from 40.7% to 42.7% of FF) - and soft coal is the "really nasty stuff"

Renewables were up 19.2 TWh, but that includes 4.4 TWh of biomass. You can take it or leave it as per your own opinions of biomass.

However, the point still stands that, as far as climate change is concerned, it would have been nicer to see soft coal down 32.5 TWh rather than a low carbon source.

* I say "direct" to avoid the subject of indirect emissions "caused" by the lowering of exports.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (4+ / 0-)

    Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

    by jam on Wed May 30, 2012 at 09:17:37 AM PDT

  •  Are these year over year numbers? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jam

    As I recall brown coal is the real nasty stuff.

    Given the likelyhood of a tsunami in Baden-Wurtenburg, perhaps shutting down the nukes wasn't the most optimal decision for the environment.  I look forward to  nuclear opponents, including a certain front pager with the initials LL who makes Armando seem thoughtful and considerate, babbling about the GHG cost associated with extracting uranium.

    •  yes, from 2010 to 2011 (0+ / 0-)

      Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

      by jam on Wed May 30, 2012 at 10:15:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hey jam, the German Govt. figures show that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Russgirl, translatorpro

        CO2 production went down by 2.4 % from 2010 to 2011 in Germany:

        Kohlendioxid: Die CO2-Emissionen verringern sich im Vergleich zu 2010 um 2,4 Prozent.
        http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/...

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Wed May 30, 2012 at 01:15:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes, but we're only talking about electricity (0+ / 0-)

          that report includes much more than electrons and pins the reduction on a warm winter and the reduced use of natural gas and heating oil.

          (and how much lower would it have been if they had taken 8 coal plants off-line instead of 8 nukes?)

          Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

          by jam on Wed May 30, 2012 at 04:44:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, the winter played a role. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jam

            Improvements in efficiency and better building standards are also playing a role, though.

            Of course CO2 would have gone down more if 8 coal plants had been shut down.  However, I find it odd when Americans are knocking Germans for shutting down their nuke plants.  Per capita CO2 emissions are far lower in Germany than in the U.S., after all, and Germany has done far better than any other major industrialized nation in regards to the implementation of renewables.

              Nuke plants are an immediate, potential, risk to Germany.  The 8 coal plants, on the other hand, although contributing to Global Warming, are not an immediate risk to the surrounding area and will also eventually be shut down and replaced by renewables, just like the nuke plants.  

            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

            by Lawrence on Thu May 31, 2012 at 01:46:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Don't let Nnadir hear (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lawrence, translatorpro

              You say that coal plants aren't an immediate, existential threat or he will thrash you with that UN report about deaths from indoor air pollution from biomass cooking. Again.

              Yes, it is the damn Germans' fault that I can't get a sweet overseas assignment. Why would anyone in Europe hire an American renewable energy engineer?

              Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

              by jam on Thu May 31, 2012 at 04:31:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Haha, good one. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                translatorpro, jam

                Hey, if you're looking for an environmental engineering job in Germany, your chances could be real good right now if you speak German.

                They're short on engineers in Germany right now, after all, and they've eased visa requirements.

                Have a good one!

                "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                by Lawrence on Thu May 31, 2012 at 04:48:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Zwei jahre (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Lawrence

                  auf gymnasium - funf und zwanzig jahre weg - or something like that. My favorite "do you speak German" story is when I was 16 and traveling in Germany. I asked a woman for directions auf Deutsch and she responded, "We will speak English. It will be better."

                  Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                  by jam on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:34:58 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  So Germany managed to shut down its oldest (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jam, bronte17, translatorpro, Russgirl

    eight nuclear reactors with no noticeable uptick in fossil fuel usage.

    I'd say that's pretty awesome, especially when one considers that their economy was growing.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Wed May 30, 2012 at 10:41:42 AM PDT

    •  I was quite impressed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lawrence, translatorpro

      I definitely thought there was going to be a big uptick in FF. The proviso being you can probably expect an uptick in emissions due to the increased use of lignite.

      Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

      by jam on Wed May 30, 2012 at 11:05:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, they're not scheduled to shut down the next (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jam, translatorpro

        nuke reactor until 2015, so you can probably expect to see a rapid decline in lignite usage over the next 3 years or so.

        BTW, even lignite power plants in Germany burn pretty clean, as far as coal plants go.  Germans are the ones who build the best coal plant filters in the world, after all.  A new lignite power plant in Germany will burn cleaner than an older, black coal plant.  They still pump out massive amounts of CO2, though.

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Wed May 30, 2012 at 11:36:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  As we discussed in the other diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jam

    this is really a lot of sound and fury over nothing.

    The real shame is that Germany had the chance to make an actual difference wrt carbon emissions and through complete idiocy, opted not to.

    •  well, I wouldn't say "nothing" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      translatorpro, Russgirl

      it's impressive. Just, perhaps, not quite as impressive as if they had taken 8 coal plants off-line and replaced them with solar/wind/efficiency.

      Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

      by jam on Wed May 30, 2012 at 11:07:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I suppose that's a luxury that a very rich country (0+ / 0-)

        has - namely, spend $130 billion in taxpayer subsidies over more than a decade building up solar to 3% of national energy generating capacity, and totally undo any positive effects that might have on global warming in a period of a few months by shutting down twice that in nuclear power generating capacity.

        In a way that is impressive.  Impressively idiotic.

        •  Germany hasn't spent $ 130 billion in subsidies (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          translatorpro, Russgirl, jam

          just to build solar.

          I'm pretty sure that they haven't even spent that much on all renewables.

          Furthermore, they're choosing to spend heavy on the front end in order to spend less in the long run.  The feed-in-tariffs for renewables only run for 20 years, or less.  After that time frame expires, the power plants are still there and it becomes the cheapest electricity around.

          The F.I.T. also is degressive, ie. the F.I.T. rates go down by up to 15% every year and solar power plants installed now sometimes are already less expensive than power from new NG-fired plants.  One also can't ignore the economic benefits of earnings from power production increasingly being democratized and going to the middle class instead of merely stuffing the pockets of big energy corporations.

          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

          by Lawrence on Wed May 30, 2012 at 12:28:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Meh, that's what I read on the internet (0+ / 0-)
            Germany once prided itself on being the “photovoltaic world champion”, doling out generous subsidies—totaling more than $130 billion, according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University—to citizens to invest in solar energy
            link

            That link might be wrong, however, since they've recently decided NOT to phase out subsidies.

            Which leads one to question the idea that "economies of scale" or whatever will ever kick in to make solar power economically competitive w/o massive subsidies . . .. (note that I don't necessarily think the subsidies are a bad thing, I just don't know why solar supporters are so eager to deny their existence).

            •  Well, you can't always trust the internets. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              translatorpro

              And that article is chock full of inaccuracies.  The author, for example, doesn't expand on whether that 130 billion was already spent or is what is expected to be spent in total.  If it is what is going to be spent in total... who cares?  The environment and energy security would be well worth that price.  I doubt that that calculation factors in the fact that lots of cheap electricity will be pumping into the market once the F.I.T. time span runs out, though.

              I read a Greenpeace study a while back that examined the subsidies for the different types of electricity production in Germany from 1970 to 2010 and showed that black coal and nuclear power have been more heavily subsidized per kw/h than renewables.

              The cheapest electricity from new power plants in Germany right now is from offshore wind, btw... that never would have happened this quick without the F.I.T.

              "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

              by Lawrence on Wed May 30, 2012 at 01:00:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  OK, very well, I read a Greanpeace study (0+ / 0-)

                that urged that chorine - one of the most abundant natural elements on this planet -be banned.

                At that point, I realized that whatever they put out is pretty much complete crap, no matter how well meaning.

                I'm not sure how reliable Slate is, but I've never seen anything that egregiously silly from them.

                In any event, I suspect that we're in complete agreement about how mendaciously ridiculous massive coal subsidies are.  Maybe we should just leave it at that.

                •  Yes, we definitely agree on that. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  translatorpro

                  German subsidies for coal, luckily, will finally end in 2018.

                  I added a link to the study.  It may have been sponsored by Greenpeace Energy and have some spin, but it is in line with other studies about subsidies.

                  The graph on page 7 is pretty interesting, imo, as it shows how subsidies have shifted over the decades.

                  "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                  by Lawrence on Wed May 30, 2012 at 01:12:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not sure how germane this is to the present (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Lawrence, jam

                    conversation, but I once calculated that if NJ was covered entirely with solar panels, the USA's electricity needs could be entirely met.

                    Somehow, that still seems like not a half bad idea to me.

                    •  I'm sure your calculation was pretty much right. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Roadbed Guy

                      But it'd probably be better to do it by covering half of Arizona instead.

                      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                      by Lawrence on Wed May 30, 2012 at 01:33:12 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Sure, why not. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Lawrence, bryduck

                        Seems like it has become more trendy to pick on Arizona than NJ these days.

                        I lost the exact Wikipedia page, but strangely enough there isn't as much different between solar capacity in the two places as one might expect - for example in Massachusetts (which I'm assuming is more or less like NJ) solar output is 14% of installed capacity and in Arizona it's 19%

                        Which brings up a potentially good use for the tar sands wastelands - why not install solar panels considering that:

                        Alberta is known as Sunny Alberta because it has more hours of sunshine a year than any other province.
                        link
                        •  Yeah, modern pv modules actually produce pretty (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          wu ming, translatorpro

                          well further north nowadays.  In fact, during the peak of summer they can even produce more than in the south, due to longer daylight hours and less heat(which currently lowers efficiency).

                          The Problem with places like Alberta, for example, is that pv modules will produce hugely in summer there, but there will be a big drop-off in winter.

                          We'd definitely need a lot of storage with the U.S. powered by solar alone, btw, but it seems that even that could be possible in the near future, with the arrival of reliable and cheap grid-scale electricity storage in the form of flow batteries:

                          April 26, 2012 – Vol. 17 No.6
                          Prudent Energy: World's Largest Vanadium Flow Battery Goes Online in the US.

                          The largest flow battery system in the world, capable of storing and delivering grid-scale power instantaneously, received permission to operate from the local utility and is set begin full operation, announced Prudent Energy, the manufacturer of the VRBÆ Energy Storage System. The project's commissioning marks a significant point in the deployment of large-scale electricity storage systems and will be used to expand onsite power generation at an agricultural processing facility in California owned by Gills Onions, a leader in sustainability, innovation, and technology.

                          "This project unleashes the power of energy storage for industrial companies and the grid of the future. It proves that multi-megawatt-hour VRBÆ systems can be delivered today. We expect dramatic benefits for a company like Gills Onions, to help manage their operating costs," said Prudent Energy Senior Vice President Jeff Pierson.

                          http://www.green-energy-news.com/...

                          This is going to make a big difference in countries like Germany, where renewables already have a high level of penetration.

                          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                          by Lawrence on Wed May 30, 2012 at 02:07:16 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  that's a 36% increase (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Lawrence, translatorpro

                          which is pretty substantial. There is a lot more sun in Arizona but it is also a lot hotter. Silicon has a poor thermal response - i.e. it gets less efficient the hotter the ambient temperature.

                          Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                          by jam on Wed May 30, 2012 at 04:40:10 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

              •  p.s. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Russgirl, jam, translatorpro

                link to study that was sponsored by Greenpeace Energy:

                It's in German, but has plenty of graphs:

                http://www.foes.de/...

                Germany has a long tradition of subsidizing energy.  The only thing that's really new here is that it is moving from subsidizing fossils and nukes to subsidizing renewables.

                "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                by Lawrence on Wed May 30, 2012 at 01:06:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  The 130 number is complete crap (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lawrence, translatorpro

                Here is the paper

                It doesn't even say what Lomborg says it says. What it does say is that the total cost of energy, over 30 years of the FIT will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $130 B. The net costs (the premium above wholesale based on their prediction of future electricity costs) will be something like $70 B. That's total from 2000 to 2029.

                Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                by jam on Wed May 30, 2012 at 06:30:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks for digging that up. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jam, translatorpro

                  I knew the figure had to be wrong.  I not surprised that the false number in the article is based on a severely outdated study by RWI, which basically is a big energy think tank.

                  Th study bases most of the cost increase on F.I.T. rates for solar pv from up to 2009.  The solar pv F.I.T. rates in 2012 have, however, been strongly reduced, and are, on average, less than half of what they were in 2009.

                  "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                  by Lawrence on Thu May 31, 2012 at 02:11:49 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  p.s. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jam, translatorpro

                  I've enjoyed the exchange in this diary, jam.

                  "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                  by Lawrence on Thu May 31, 2012 at 02:12:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  oh, bloody hell, Lomborg? really? n/t (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lawrence

              Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

              by jam on Wed May 30, 2012 at 05:31:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  I wouldn't call it "complete idiocy". (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      translatorpro, Russgirl

      The German economy probably would never fully recover from a nuclear meltdown.  Germany is a very densely populated country and - unlike in Japan - radiation can't just blow out to sea.

      Furthermore, nukes and renewables don't exactly mix well, ie. it's probably going to give Germany a far greater economic advantage if they forge full steam ahead with renewables.

      And it'll probably be better for the world this way, as well, as Germany forging ahead with renewables has been the greatest motor in driving down the price for renewables via economies of scale and the technological learning curve.  This should continue to have a positive impact for other countries, as well.

      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

      by Lawrence on Wed May 30, 2012 at 11:44:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes indeed, good points all (0+ / 0-)

        especially considering Germany's long history of being a frequently earthquake and tsunami stricken country . . ..

        •  Nuclear power plants don't require an earthquake (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Russgirl, translatorpro

          or tsunami to melt down.

          Germany very likely made the right choice, especially in light of a new study showing the risk of nuclear meltdown to be more likely than previously thought:

          http://www.sueddeutsche.de/...

          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

          by Lawrence on Wed May 30, 2012 at 12:43:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I can't read German, so I suppose that article (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jam

            says whatever you wish it to say.

            But puzzle me this - how can the French safely operate a much larger number of nuclear reactors, especially what with them being French and all?

            •  French power plants haven't exactly been safe. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Russgirl, wu ming, translatorpro

              There have been quite a few near misses in France.

              The study says that a nuclear meltdown will statistically occur every 10 to 20 years with the current amount of global nuke plants in operation.

              "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

              by Lawrence on Wed May 30, 2012 at 01:02:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Uh...no they do, at least in terms of real melt (0+ / 0-)

            downs.

            Chernobyl was a one-off event now engineered to prevent safety bypass. TMI happened ONCE and never happened again after triple redundent monitoring of cooling levels was installed.

            Germany made a terrible choice that has already cost $130 billion and will continue to cost more and more. However, since they are integrated into the European energy grid, they can afford to NIMBY this to other countries. And continue to use massive amounts of dangerous natural gas.

            Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

            by davidwalters on Wed May 30, 2012 at 02:20:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not interested in discussing with you, david, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              translatorpro

              as you always inject bunk numbers in your non-stop nuke promotion.

              This right here is absolutely false:

              Germany made a terrible choice that has already cost $130 billion
              To put it more clearly: that's a lie.

              "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

              by Lawrence on Thu May 31, 2012 at 02:16:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  If you include the amount of GTs built in (0+ / 0-)

              because of the investment in solar and wind, it's way above $130 billion not to mention fuel costs for those GTs. But "100% renewable" advocates don't like external costs, so they are ignored.

              Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

              by davidwalters on Thu May 31, 2012 at 09:15:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  As I understand it, Germany had an unusually mild (0+ / 0-)

    winter, which cut demand in general. Comparing a mild year without nuclear to a demanding year with nuclear requires more compensation for variables to get an accurate picture. You have to ask yourself how much lower coal and gas generations would have been if the nuclear plants had remained operating. Not only that, Germany used to be a much larger electricity exporter. A significant fraction of that was generated from nuclear power to countries that rely more heavily on fossil fuels. So you also have to ask what the effects on the entire EU were as a result of Germany's decision. When Germany's electricity exports went down did the rest of the EU crank up their coal plants to compensate?

    •  the export question (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      translatorpro

      last line of the diary:

      * I say "direct" to avoid the subject of indirect emissions "caused" by the lowering of exports.
      Roadbed Guy and I were having that discussion in a different diary. I'm not sure that you can "blame" Germany for Poland's penchant for burning dirt. If so, wouldn't they get credit for France's nuclear program as well?

      Lawrence's link upthread indicates that mild winter was responsible for lower emissions due to less natural gas and heating oil. Not sure how much that would directly impact the electrical sector if most of their heat comes from ng and oil.

      Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

      by jam on Wed May 30, 2012 at 05:29:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, they are damned if they do and damned (0+ / 0-)

      if they don't in your eyes. The per capita pollution in our homeland, the good ol' USofA, is much higher, why don't you clean up your own glass house before you bash Germany? Then again, you usually show up very late in these threads when your comments don't matter at all. Odd.

      „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

      by translatorpro on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:31:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site