How does that compare to (projected) decreases if they didn't switch off their nuclear plants? It seems to me that is what the debate is really about.

No, the debate I was having was about the explicit mention of "increasing CO2", which is just plain false. There are a lot of people that parrot this around the world, by just guessing in line with their beliefs, but the data is pretty clear.

> No, the debate I was having was about the explicit mention of "increasing CO2", which is just plain false.

In the context it seems pretty clear to me that "increasing CO2" is meant to refer to relative changes, not absolute changes. Playing semantics is a fairly pointless distraction from the actual argument.

So, as I asked before, how would these changes compare to projected decreases, if the nuclear plants were not switched off?

The word "increase" has a clear meaning, and it means that there is more of something than there was before. The word opposite of increase is called "decrease", and Germany's CO2 emissions have decreased since they started switching off nuclear power plants.

Calling a decrease an increase is something I would call playing semantics.

Language is full of ambiguities that are only resolved by context. Both a relative increase and an absolute increase are increases, so saying that it has a "clear meaning" is fairly pointless here.

And you're still ignoring my original question, which I asked from genuine curiosity. I'm getting a strong feeling you prefer to focus on a straw man, because if you look at relative changes your position falls apart. Do prove me wrong.

I hope you're enjoying the increase in air temperature from 30 degrees in the summer, to 2 degrees today. The temperature for today was projected to be -3 two weeks ago, so we have a relative increase there. Is that how you think relative vs absolute works?

Again, *by context* this is precisely how you would *not* interpret "increase" here.

You've basically taken my point and turned it to mean the exact opposite, so that you can give a smart-ass reply while avoiding the actual question I'm asking. Well done.

I have tried having a normal discussion, which is not something I can say for you. To see this, it's enough to check what was initially posted:

"...Germany's current plan where you're decommissioning nuclear to become more "green" yet producing much more carbon dioxide."

It says clearly "decommissioning nuclear, YET producing MORE carbon dioxide". It's not true, and there's no other way around it. I posted an explicit response to this wrong post because I have seen it many times (and unfortunately I am repeating myself here). A lot of pro nuclear people are shaking their heads in dismay because the CO2 numbers in Germany are going up. They are not! I have literally had this very same discussion three weeks ago somewhere else with another person that does not check data.

How you then managed to spin it into a comparison to a fictional parallel universe where the plants are still on and concluded that a decrease is actually an increase I don't know. But it's enough for me for today.

> I have tried having a normal discussion, which is not something I can say for you.

You have not at any point tried to answer my original question. At every point you deflect to a straw man.

> It says clearly "decommissioning nuclear, YET producing MORE carbon dioxide". It's not true, and there's no other way around it.

As I have quite clearly explained to you, this can refer either to absolute or relative changes. It doesn't take a lot of goodwill to decide that they probably meant relative changes, and then from there on you can address issues (such as pros/cons of nuclear) that actually matter, instead of splitting hairs and argue about language.

> A lot of pro nuclear people are shaking their heads in dismay because the CO2 numbers in Germany are going up. They are not!

They presumably are, relative to what they could have been, no? That seems a perfectly good reason to be upset, even if you don't agree with nuclear as the best option. If you immediately lambast people for not using language the way you think it should be used, you are inevitably going to lose a lot of credibility. Goodwill is necessary for a constructive debate, and you're not really showing that here.

> How you then managed to spin it into a comparison to a fictional parallel universe where the plants are still on and concluded that a decrease is actually an increase I don't know.

If you're having trouble understanding the concept of a relative change, perhaps this is not the best discussion to be involved in. Far too often I see people comment loudly and denounce their opponents as idiots, when it is in fact themselves that don't fully understand the nuances and complexities.

And they could be going down even faster by switching on the nuclear plants! But at least now Germany is prepared in case of a Fukushima style tsunami. Nobody claims that carbon emissions are increasing by an absolute number.

Germany is investing heavily in green energy, but green energy won't be able to provide the necessary energy for years to come. Switching to their objectively worse power sources, both in terms of carbon emissions and release of radioactive compounds to the surrounding environment, was a stupid move based on nothing more than FUD.

You are making a series of assumptions that are either debatable or not true. We don't know how the alternate reality where the power plants are still on looks like. The biggest reason is that most of the plants that were switched off were scheduled to be taken offline anyway because they were old. It was only sped up because of Fukushima. When people talk about Fukushima, they usually say "well it was old technology, it can't happen with the new ones", but when Germany takes the old technology offline (we're talking about some designed in the 60s), then it's criticized for political posturing and FUD.

Secondly, I posted somewhere else, but the German tax payers are since 2017 on the hook for an estimated $170B of costs for the disposal of old nuclear waste from the plants. Greenpeace has criticized the deal as inadequate since the costs will likely be higher. The way I see it, a lot of money was saved by switching them off, and that money can be used for something else. The problem of nuclear waste is unsolved in most of the world, including the US, where there are already reports that the temporary storage is leaking. Another thing to consider.

But those are mostly just opinions and what ifs. Crucially however, you are assuming that green energy can't provide for years and that they switched to an objectively worse power source. It's just not true: they rely less on coal now then they did 10 years ago, and have increased the renewable part to 45% (from 30% just five years ago). The amount of coal in use now is at a historic minimum both in terms of the percentage and the absolute amount.

Data: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/38... (coal is represented by brown and gray)

Yeah, and the amount of power they export has about halved in the last year. They're just turning stuff off without a way to replace it which will bite us all in the ass in the long run.

It's the classic outsource stuff to other nations and claim victory tactic that helps nobody.

The amount of power they export peaked 2015-2018, at more than twice the previous record. Most of the nuclear plants were switched off before that. It is currently still above what they exported prior to the "nuclear exit". Please check data before drawing conclusions.

Data: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/153533/umfrag...