Hacker News Reader

Comment by xorcist | Hacker News Reader

Probably not from Germany, are you? The greens were not part of this decision when it was actually made.

Yes, there was some anti-nuclear sentiment after Fukushima which made for an opportunity. But it was long in the running. Both the SPD and CSU/CDU had interests here. Lots have been written on this in established media, should you wish to delve deeper.

View on HN

The original shut down decision was made by the first SPD/Greens coalition under Schröder.

The Merkel government then stopped it, then resumed it again.

And now Greens try to claim it wasn’t their fault, despite it being the foundation of their party since the mid-1980s.

Yes, but the original plan of the Greens seeked to use nuclear power as a transitional technology to first replace coal. While the build up of renewable energy in Germany during the last 2 decades is very impressive, adding more gas to the mix certainly looks idiotic in hindsight. This wasn't the Greens fault, as they haven't been in government since 2005. They are now the ones having to deal with it though.

I hope there would be some investigational journalism to dig out how much money flooded from Russia towards lobbying this to happen..

There are plausible reports that money flew from Big Oil to anti-nuclear groups, so ... the Russians would have been in good company.

“There are plausible reports” should probably be followed by a link or two.

Yes they were. The decision was made under Schröder/Fischer around 2006.

It was reverted as soon as the CDU took over, and reverted back after Fukushima. But it is originally a "Green" idea and ideology, and it remains to be one today (see: Bavaria trying to get their plants recertified after 2022, because of the gas situation, and Berlin - staunchly Green - fighting it.)

> The decision was made under Schröder/Fischer around 2006.

Read up on your history once more. Schröder/Fischer were both voted out of office in 2005.

One of the effects of getting older: The sense of time warps, "some 16 years ago" loses meaning. You were right: The decision was made in 2000.

Or just a strong desire that surely somehow this was the green's fault. It's not inconceivable as they have an anti nuclear slant, but this one isn't remotely on them. They do have to deal with the fallout however.

In my book, a party that set up the Atomausstieg, after campaigning on the topic for a decade, after grossly overstating the potential dangers of nuclear, while supporting grassroots anti-nuclear groups and engaging in borderline criminal protests that often endangered nuclear transports doesn't get to play coy once the shit hits the fan in my book.

Let's respectfully disagree here.

I think we agree on almost all points, maybe with the exception on the overstated dangers argument. (One should always focus on the good arguments and not the bad, and there are plenty of educated people making coherent arguments without resorting to fear mongering.)

Anyway, don't let this cloud your judgement. There are economic issues here, and economics concerns trumps environmental, in Germany and elsewhere. This would have happened even if no anti nuclear campaigning had ever taken place.

In fact, it might even have happened faster if there wasn't also a big push for renewables, which have taken a lot of resources. The people really responsible should answer for this and not some convenient scapegoats.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com