While this is true they are among the worst polluters in the EU. England, Spain, France, even italy has a better CO2 balance than Germany per kWH. The amount of energy that comes from renewables is a meaningless number. The only thing that matters is how much CO2 they emit per kWH and due to their coal power plants, the number is quite bad.
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
Yes, Germany has a historic debt there. However, the transition is working and in 2024 Germany has used less coal than any year after 1960. Coal power usage is in a strong decline. The nuclear reactors have been more than replaced.
Just because they fully developed doesn’t mean the argument they are presenting isn’t logical. It might not be, and that might be because they aren’t fully developed, but you would never know. You must treat every argument you hear as if were generated in good faith. Saying that you can’t rely on them to understand their own shortcomings in their own logic is inconsistent with the idea of logical debate in the first place. How would one ever know the difference between someone who is not convincible vs a non convincing argument. And the idea that young people should just adhere to values is not only inconsistent with the idea that the elders are more logical, since that is merely an appeal to authority, but also won’t be an argument that a young person will listen to, since in your own words, they are irrational.
> Just because they [aren’t] fully developed doesn’t mean the argument they are presenting isn’t logical.
No, but it means that when kids present arguments that are illogical, they can’t understand that their arguments are illogical. What do you do when your kid is presenting illogical reasons to do or not do something?
> Saying that you can’t rely on them to understand their own shortcomings in their own logic is inconsistent with the idea of logical debate in the first place
You’re right it “is inconsistent with the idea of logical debate”—but that’s exactly my point. It’s simply a fact that kids cannot be relied on to understand the shortcomings in their own logic. The frontal cortex, which is responsible for decision making, is the last part of the brain to fully develop, and it doesn’t happen until the mid 20s. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to make decisions with kids based on “logical debate.”
> You must treat every argument you hear as if were generated in good faith.
Many arguments are generated carelessly or maliciously, in which case you will be swamped by bullshit or actively infected with a conspiracy theory. I know better than to trust my own logic brain completely, especially in the short-term. What's that bumper sticker, "Don't Believe Everything You Think"?
In the case of the US I think you mean Amtrak is nationalized? But that’s passenger rail. The us has a private freight rail system, which is from what I understand, is one of the best in the world.
The US nationalize Amtrak because the railroads were going to stop doing passenger service all together. But 100 years ago rail in the US and Britain were busted out. The British nationalized their rail. The US turned rail into a semi-regulated monopoly. Notable in the US due to geography the economy depends on freight rail to move bulk goods at least part of the way.
Writings I've seen basically say transportation systems fail under the free market eventually.
US railroads love the pat themselves on the back for their cargo rail. They are very profitable for the investors of those rail networks. But calling them best in the world is nonsense.
They just have lots and lots of old infrastructure that they can use and they don't need to share their rail with passenger travel, and their only responsibility is making a profit so they can cut anything away that isn't profitable.
Of course that then just leads to more traffic and trucks on the road. So far worse for the nation as a whole.
Uuuu, While the analogy is nice, I doubt that taxes are decided upon like an engineer deciding on damping coefficients. An engineer has a specification and tries to hit that spec. I have a hard time believing that’s how taxes are set. I would like carbon taxs/credits to be decided upon that way. But if you look at the real systems it’s obvious they weren’t designed that way. Finally, you are correct that you need to be careful in choosing the metric. I think I would also question the desirability of dampinh, which it seems like the other poster was trying to say. The market being dumber is a slower response in your analogy. They want a sports car, not a rolls.
I think it depends. If the union is voluntary its not forced. But often membership isn’t voluntary. The relationship between you and your employer, however is. Many people choose not to work for defense companies for example.
Agree, the language is problematic. But unfortunately companies sometimes use the law to take away that right. Additionally, right to repair sometimes means going beyond the default state and requiring companies to go the extra mile, so that is where the langauge may also stem from.
Inflation is a really bad example of a failure of economic theory. First, just because the field might understand how to avoid inflation, doesn’t mean that is actually implemented. And secondly, until recently inflation as measured by cpi has been low to zero for the last decade. I think a sense of proportion needs to be exercised here.
This is what REALLY bugs me about Germany in general. There is a cultural belief that germans are data driven and unemotional in their decision making. That they are the wise leaders who run the EU. They do not have the populist issues like the UK with brexit or the chaos that france has. They are not like the consuming americans who vote for trump. And yet, the reality of the energy policy demonstrates that Germany is nọt immune to this kind of traps. They prefer to shut down nuclear power plants and yes install many renewables.
They didn’t actually do the math. The point is while renewables may generate 50% of energy, the other half comes from coal which must be turned on when there is no sun or wind, which is so polluting even in comparison to natural gas, that it destroys the overall mix. You can estimate coal as around 700g/kwh(just look at poland when the sun isn’t shining) which divided in half gets you pretty close to Germany’s average of 300g. Had Germany switched to natural gas, they would be much closer to the UK, which did not have an energy transition.
China really only started prospering after the creation of special economic zones, no? And today while there heavy state influence at the largest firms, the rest of the country pretty much operates in a market system, or do you disagree?
