Man kann durchaus kritisch auf die Diskussion zur Transition der Energiesysteme blicken. Besonders kritisch tut es dieser Kommentator im Telegraph, dem man allerdings nicht pauschal widersprechen kann. Er verweist zu Recht auf einige unbequeme Fakten:
- „We’re constantly told nowadays that an ‚energy transition‘ is underway, from the fossil-fuel powered world of yesterday to the renewables-powered one of tomorrow. But is this actually happening? It’s a question on many minds these days, and one that comes with varying answers depending on who’s answering.“ – bto: Und das obwohl in Großbritannien im Vergleich zu Deutschland das Klimathema deutlich weniger in den Medien ist.
- „(…) the last two years have demonstrated that it is more complicated and indeed more challenging than just drawing a scenario and putting numbers on it and saying this is how it would happen (…) Germany would not have given a minute’s thought to importing liquefied natural gas from the United States two years ago, but is now importing US LNG and building import terminals (…) though Germany’s new-found appetite for US LNG does not mean Germany has abandoned its climate commitments, just that the shifting geopolitical situation forced officials to re-think and adjust the direction of its transition to bolster energy security.“ – bto: Es gab aber auch eine willkommene Ausrede, ist doch das Energiedesaster hausgemacht.
- „For China no such adjustment has been necessary, since the Xi Jinping government has always prioritized energy security above climate goals. China, which retains its nominal status as a ‚developing nation‘ in the eyes of the UN and other global organizations despite having the world’s second-biggest economy, has been happy to let western developed nations sacrifice economic and grid stability in pursuit of ‚net-zero by 2050‘ goals while it has continued to commission hundreds of new coal-fired power plants and become the world’s biggest importer of crude oil. Even the timing of China’s own climate commitment – net-zero by 2060, not 2050 – reflects the priority Xi and his ministers afford energy security in their thinking. A similar dynamic is at play in the world’s most populous country, India, whose own climate commitment timing is 2070, even further out into the future.“ – bto: Und bei uns feiert man dann China und Indien, wenn sie auch auf grüne Technologien setzen. Ja, die Betonung liegt aber auf auch.
- „(…) other developing nations in Asia, Africa and other regions continue to push back on western efforts to force them to abandon the use of fossil fuels to grow their own economies and allow their people to rise out of energy poverty in the same way those western nations have enjoyed over the course of the last 160 years.“ – bto: Das ist auch völlig legitim.
- „(…) past energy transitions, like the one in the UK from wood to coal that began in the 1500s, have taken place across a century or more and have never ended with the former energy source being abandoned. In fact, the world burned more wood for energy in 2022 than ever before, just as it used more oil, coal, and natural gas than in any other year on record. At the same time, though, we currently see heavily subsidized renewable energy sources like wind and solar rapidly expanding, along with myriad innovations taking place in battery technologies, hydrogen, and modular nuclear facilities.“ – bto: Sogar der Anteil an grüner Technologie wächst, aber absolut ist es eben immer noch fossil.
- „What it all boils down to is this: the prevailing narrative being pushed by policymakers, activists and much of the western news media of an energy transition that will dramatically reduce the use of fossil fuels and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 is a fantasy. The direction and pace of whatever transition ultimately occurs will be dictated by real-world complexities and events, not by schemes promoted in Brussels, Washington DC, and London.“ – bto: … und schon gar nicht Berlin.