The Federal Agency for Nature Conservation makes an ecological absurdity of the energy transition that anyone can see: the protection of the world's climate destroys the native nature.
In everyday life, contradictions usually cause rejection. For example, if someone declared, "I will protect your garden from destruction by providing it with technical equipment made of concrete and steel and all sorts of other alien materials", then its success with garden owners may be small. But if it's not about private gardens, but about Germany's nature and landscapes, the response is different. The greater the scale of absurdity, the more acceptable or perhaps more invisible it becomes.
The head of the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Beate Jessel, said the following about the presentation of the "Renewable Energy Report": "The expansion of renewable energies is imperative for achieving the climate protection goals and must also protect species and habitats from the consequences of climate change. The energy transition must be natural and environmentally friendly. An important role is played by the efficient handling of the area and the consideration of the respective landscape conditions. "
The quote is almost word for word in the report itself and is something like its essence. In other words, this means that the energy transition is a gigantic project designed to save the environment - and also to destroy nature.
This absurdity is embraced by the authors who are federal civil servants and thus committed to the belief that all still tricky problems can be solved with a simplistic but positive message: "Conservation and energy transition: harmony is possible". Possible? So, one has to conclude that harmony is not yet a given - and the existing energy transition does not protect nature. Of course not. Everyone sees that too, who does not go blindly through this country.
Even now there are only a few spots left in Germany's natural and cultural landscapes, where wind turbines do not block the view. And the next solar plant field is usually not far. Every fourth of the approximately 30,000 German wind turbines on land is located in a protected area. And, as you know, that's just the beginning. The share of the euphemistically "eco" power supply is expected to rise from 65 percent by 2030 to 80 percent by 2050.
So we'll leave our children and grandchildren with a nuclear and coal-free country, but their eyes will not be able to see without rotating wheels. The German landscape will be changed more fundamentally than any smoking chimneys or steaming cooling towers.
How Beate Jessel and her colleagues hope to manage to make this "nature-friendly" expansion remains their secret. Of course, they are right when they demand that "priority be given to energy savings and efficiency measures, thereby limiting energy requirements". Also worthy of support is their desire, which has so far been almost non-existent, to "use existing roof areas, especially in large metropolitan areas, for solar systems".
But will this create harmony between nature conservation and the energy transition? Hardly likely.
A little less destruction remains destruction. This can be nicely addressed or masked by statistical tricks (access roads and transmission lines to wind turbines are not counted when assessing land consumption), but the damage is still there.
In other words, Germany's climate idealism is out of place. Germany wants to be the world's role model for climate policy without nuclear power and coal. Whether this reinterpretation of German Idealism will make any difference is unknown.
Translation from German to English using Google Translate