Wednesday
Apr062011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill German greens riding high
Apr 6, 2011 Greens With the slight hiccup at the Fukushima nuclear plant still fresh in German voters' minds, a recent poll in that country has estimated support for the Greens at 28% of the electorate, a record high which puts them second behind the CDU.
This could be construed as good news. I don't suppose it will take long for the either the Greens or perhaps more likely the electorate to come to their senses. It doesn't matter which.
Reader Comments (31)
BH says
I wouldn't bet on it. Germany likes its Greens, and let's remember where this slogan originated:
'Atomkraft? Nein Danke!'
But few things would give me greater pleasure than being proved wrong. A German electorate that rejected Green energy policy would indeed be a turning point in European eco-politics.
The Green propoganda department formerly known as the BBC is up to it's usual hypocracy again with a report on the PM program tonight stating that Chernobal caused 100s of deaths on site and thousands of deaths by cancer.
Independent unbiased reporting my a**e.
Windmühlen macht frei
It would give me great pleasure (sorry, Germans - it's 'schadenfreude') to see the Greens in Germany form a government.
They'd then have to take responsibility for the destruction of the German economy, and I don't think Germans would take kindly to that. After all, they make their money by making real things - unlike the Hollywood dream merchants, who'll be the only ones left bringing money into the coffers of the Californian government, now that more and more small producers and small industries are leaving that place, due to the 'green' policies ...
Are the German voters really so volatile and jumpy that the impressive performance of the Fukushima plants can influence them so? I guess Angela Merkel didn't help by being a bit jumpy herself. Such examples of apparent irrationality in politics are troubling, but scarcely surprising to anyone taking an interest in environmental issues.
The Irish made the same mistake with the Greens - and in a few years the average German punter will understand why the Irish threw them out of office.
Perhaps the best thing would be for the Germans to see why Anoneumouse's wry comment Windmühlen macht frei! is sooooo appropriate.
I disagree Bishop. The germans have no sense to come to. They are good scientists, engineers, technicians. They work weell, and work hard. But as people they are not tobe trusted. They were good Nazis, good Communists and now they are good Greens.
Perhaps this explain the British/BBC position: support the Greens enough for the Greens to bankrupt Germany. Cunning, very cunning.
The German Greens will no doubt be pleased by the report from the John Muir Trust on wind energy, posted on WUWT.
No chance that Chris Huhne and the rest will take any notice.
@G. Watkins - as reported on BBC Scotland this evening (see my post in Unthreaded).
See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12985410
I almost spilt my Glenmorangie. Almost.
Having lived for a few years inmersed in the most authoritarian and hierarchical society in Europe, I feel very inclined to agree with George Steiner
@ ZT - nah - there's no way we or the BBC could be that clever. I believe the Germans had an expression for Britain - something like "an island built on coal and surrounded by oil ". Just imagine what they could have achieved with our natural resources. Instead we ended up having to go to the IMF in the seventies, and despite having now had over 40 years worth of North Sea oil, we still have a £10 trillion national debt?
BBD said:
"I wouldn't bet on it. Germany likes its Greens, and let's remember where this slogan originated:
'Atomkraft? Nein Danke!'"
Why do you want to remember it originated in Sweden?
It is very heartening to know that currently only 28% of the German population are completely off their rockers.
John Silver
Did it? You have me there. I always thought it was from the old (1970s) German Green anti-nuclear movement.
George Monbiot wrote an article about nuclear and greens (1300+ comments saying he has been paid of by somebody)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world
The original debate must have been a must see. as George gradually realises with horror, that someone he looks up to Dr Helen Caldicutt, is a complete nutter (and he thus napalmed some green bridges in the article above)
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/30/prescription_for_survival_a_debate_on
GEORGE MONBIOT: I mean, this is—the U.N. Scientific Committee is the major repository of the science on this issue. You don’t know about it?
HELEN CALDICOTT: Well, yeah, no, I’ve read about it, but the main thing is that the WHO was prevented or did not examine the results from Chernobyl, and it’s ongoing and will be for generations and generations, George.
GEORGE MONBIOT: But the United Nations did. The United Nations—
HELEN CALDICOTT: And soil, 40 percent of the soil in Europe is contaminated.
GEORGE MONBIOT: The United Nations Committee did examine Chernobyl. And they have said—
HELEN CALDICOTT: Oh, yeah?
GEORGE MONBIOT:—that so far the death toll from Chernobyl amongst both workers and local people is 43. Am I—sorry, are you saying you didn’t know that they had examined this—
HELEN CALDICOTT: That’s a lie, George. That’s a lie.
GEORGE MONBIOT:—and you aren’t aware of their report?
HELEN CALDICOTT: That’s a lie.
GEORGE MONBIOT: What’s a lie?
HELEN CALDICOTT: How dare—
GEORGE MONBIOT: That they examined this—
HELEN CALDICOTT: Yes, I am.
GEORGE MONBIOT:—and they wrote a report?
HELEN CALDICOTT: How dare they say that?
AMY GOODMAN: On that—
HELEN CALDICOTT: How dare they say that?
GEORGE MONBIOT: But are you aware—are you aware of the report?
HELEN CALDICOTT: This is a total cover-up. Yes, I am.
A part of me wants to see them win an election outright, as a kind-of experiment. I wonder how long it would take them to completely trash Europe's most successful industrial economy?
Barry Woods
Thank you for going to the trouble of posting that exchange up. It captures the very essence.
Okay, this is an unverified 'rush transcript' so with that in mind:
From the link Barry Woods provided above:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/30/prescription_for_survival_a_debate_on
Priceless. Thanks again Barry.
Check out the last words from Helen.... I bet George didn't like that, the sort of rhetoric he uses against 'climate change deniars' !
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/30/prescription_for_survival_a_debate_on
AMY GOODMAN: In this wake of what has happened in Japan and on this anniversary of Chernobyl, three weeks away, I give you each 15 seconds to express your concern, as we wrap up this debate, beginning with George Monbiot.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, we have to use the best available science, not cherry-pick our sources, and we have to keep some perspective on this, so that we don’t see a massive rush to coal, as governments get out of nuclear as a result of what’s happened in Japan.
AMY GOODMAN: And Helen Caldicott, 15 seconds.
HELEN CALDICOTT: George, I totally agree with you about coal. I think it’s a deadly substance, and we must stop burning, à la James Hansen. But we must not go from the global warming frying pan into the nuclear fire, George. This is an obscene technology. They’ve known about it since the Manhattan Project. Seaborg, who discovered plutonium, said it’s the most dangerous substance on earth. Each reactor has 500 pounds of plutonium, lasts for half-a-million years, causing cancer after cancer.
AMY GOODMAN: We leave it there, and I thank you both for being with us.
HELEN CALDICOTT: Have you ever tried to help a child dying of leukemia, George? It’s beyond comprehension.
Kärnkraft nej tack just doesn't have the same resonance - or were the Swedes borrowing their soft southern cousins' language at the time?
Robinson,
The last green government to win (albeit not outright) a German election declared an emergency. Then they created one.
And entirely trashed Germany's economy, and ours, together with most of Europe. I'd rather not take the chance thanks.
The Germans like to appear holier and Greener than thou. Lots of money wasted, sorry, spent on solar, lots of building insulation, etc etc.
However, half their economy is dependent on the brum brum industry, and Germans like their cars big. And the German car industry is betting on the future of the petrol/diesel engine against electric, unlike the Japs and the French who are hedging their bets.
Oh and most of their energy still comes from coal - that which doesn't come from nuclear that is.
That debate on nuclear power was one of the most interesting debates I have listened to. It shows how debates should nbe structured: one on one for 30 minutes before you perhaps bring in any other experts.
The medical points raised by Helen Caldicott do certainl raise concern and it would be reassuring to know whether any medical research has been conducted to allay her fears - but I suggest she is right and it has not.
Yes, governments and large organisations DO suppress evidence and news they think might not support their cause - then they release it when they think it will cause less damage. Look at the evidence of torture coming out of Kenya ... squirelled away for 50 years.
Can't wait to read some of the facts coming out of the European government organisations ... oh wait, I won't make it.
matthu your partly right its unlikely there has been any medical research conducted that allays Helens concerns, because she comes across a nutter who can simple not deal with reality if it differs from her own views, so there can never been any medical research that does this .
Still you evidence for any suppress of reports of reviews in this area , is what the same has Helen’s , in your own mind ?
Sorry, Robinson, but the modest experiment mentioned above (by others) doesn't amuse. The German petrie dish has a way of sloshing over into other parts of Europe. Last time, they almost overran Blighty, if you'll recall. This time, Gründeutschegedanken has already gesloshed into the EU. An EU Fifth Column has established a firm foothold among the major UK political parties, newspapers, and broadcasting. Here are some figures for those who find 28% German support for the Greens somehow consoling:
NSDAP % of popular vote:
1928 < 2.6
1930 18.3
1932 37.3
1933 - NSDAP takes over
1939 - WWII starts
1940 - First Battle of Britain begins
According to this timetable, you may have approximately ten years of freedom remaining. Perhaps less.
Vladimir Putin is not one of my all-time favorite people; nevertheless, the comment he made in December was succint, pithy, insightful, and perceptive:
Quote:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=28907
Putin suggests Germans replace nuclear with firewood
01 December 2010
Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin has told German businessmen that they may have to rely on Russian firewood for heating if they do not want to construct new nuclear power plants or bring in Russian gas supplies. At a business conference organized in Berlin by the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Putin recognised that "the German public does not like the nuclear power industry for some reason." He continued: "But I cannot understand what fuel you will take for heating. You do not want gas, you do not develop the nuclear power industry, so you will heat with firewood?" Putin then noted, "You will have to go to Siberia to buy the firewood there," as Europeans "do not even have firewood."
Why the Greens Party is so successful in Germany unlike other countries remains a mystery to me. Proportional representation system certainly has something to do with it since it makes it easier for a small party to consolidate previous gains. But I believe the party's social program has something to do with their success as well.
It is wrong to think of a large Green Party as merely representing the aspirations of environmentalist section of the community. In almost all other policy areas such as health, economy, taxation, workplace relations, foreign affairs, and particularly thorny issues like race, immigration and multiculturalism, Greens Party offer distinctly more progressive alternatives than other mainstream parties.
Once they enter on national political stage a small political party will have to diversify and seek to appeal other, more general, community concerns. Greens Party in Germany seem to have done that quite successfully.
George Steiner at Apr 6, 2011 at 7:14 PM
As somebody who has lived and worked in Germany for quite a few years now, might I say, George Steiner, that with the greatest of respect you are talking complete and utter racist crap.
The Bishop is read all over the world. What do you think people are going to think about this site - and about you - when they read stuff like this?
sHx @ Apr 7, 2011 at 5:12am.
Hmmmm.
Here in the UK the Greens operate differently. Ever since they were first formed in the 1980s and started getting some success at local and EU elections, the Tories, Dims and the Labia Party have all busied themselves in stealing the Greens' clothes. Consequently they now all have greenie policies as daft as the Green Party themselves. (The Dims perhaps even dafter).
It's a bit like one of Helen Caldicott's cancers taking over. But not a hypothetical computer simulated cancer like hers. A cancer on the body politic firmly evidenced in the main political parties' published policies.
@Martin Brumby
The Greens Party in the UK suffers from archaic parliamentary and electoral systems as well. And, yes, all mainstream parties in the UK seem to have embraced the milder versions of the Greens' environmental agenda, most probably as a result of EU commitments, not because the Greens offer any political threat at national stage. The voting system already prevents that.