Germany wants to be climate neutral by 2045. But a panel of government climate advisers says it’s already in danger of missing a key target to cut planet-heating emissions by the end of the decade.

Germany’s climate advisory body has called for new policy measures to slash greenhouse gas emissions, warning that the country looks set to miss its 2030 climate change targets.

In a report published on Monday, the Council of Experts on Climate Change said Germany was unlikely to reach its goal of cutting 65% of emissions by the end of the decade compared to 1990 levels.

The panel, which is appointed by the government and has independent authority to assess the country’s climate performance, said sectors such as transport and construction in particular were struggling to decarbonize.

The findings contradict statements from German Climate Protection Minister and Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, who said in March that projections from the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) showed emissions were falling and Germany would meet its goal.

  • Halcyon
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    What do you dislike?

    Coal is used less in Germany every year since 20 years and being shut down until 2035.

    Other fossil energy sources like oil and nuclear energy are also vanishing.

    Wind, solar, water and biomass are rising constantly. That’s sustainable.

    • Adanisi@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Quick question, how is nuclear a “fossil” energy source? You know what that word means right?

      • Halcyon
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        The latin term ‘fossilis’ means “dug up”. You might think about by yourself what that means in regard to Uranium.

        Nuclear energy is not as clean or cheap as it is portrayed.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        One possible meaning of fossil is “any rock or mineral dug out of the earth”, which very much applies to uranium. If you want to police people’s choice of words at least make sure that you know the actual meaning of words. Another meaning, very much applicable here, is “something outmoded”. Something like a lathe can be a fossil without having spent a single second buried.

        • vintageballs@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          The more important meaning in this context, imo, is the first one. Unlike solar, wind, hydroelectric power etc., nuclear energy is fossil in the sense that it uses a finite resource which cannot be replenished.

        • realitista@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          fossil fuel

          noun

          1. A hydrocarbon-based fuel, such as petroleum, coal, or natural gas, derived from living matter of a previous geologic time.
          2. Any fuel derived from hydrocarbon depositssuch as coalpetroleumnatural gas and, to some extent, peat; these fuels are irreplaceable, and their burning generates the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
          3. Fuel consisting of the remains of organisms preserved in rocks in the earth’s crust with high carbon and hydrogen content.

          The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            I am not beholden to colonial language “authorities”.

            Also OP said “energy sources”, not “fossile fuels”. Yes that’s unconscionably nit-picky but so was criticising

            Other fossil energy sources like oil and nuclear energy

            in the first place: It’s perfectly clear what OP means. There’s no possible ambiguity. You attacking that kind of thing contributes to nothing but your own smugness.