German environmentalism is NIMBY with extra steps.

German environmentalism is NIMBY combined with support for Russian fossil fuels.

For a bit more depth here, it turns out that German anti-nuclear (and other green energy source) activists were funded by Russia, a fossil fuel empire. [0]

It should also be noted that some of the US anti-nuclear activism was also funded by US fossil fuel industry, since the 1950's. [1]

[0] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-00127...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#Fossil_f...

> For a bit more depth here, it turns out that German anti-nuclear (and other green energy source) activists were funded by Russia, a fossil fuel empire.

That sentence falsely implies that all German anti-nuclear sentiment is a result of Russian (and previous soviet) financing, which gives the wrong impression, I think. Some more depth:

Growing up and living here, Germany’s anti-nuclear sentiment is majorly home-grown. You don’t get the multi-million public demonstrations just on foreign-financed activists. You don’t get multiple German federal election won just on foreign-financed activists. Insinuating so disregards the local politics and societal sentiment of Germany from ca. the 70s onwards.

Germany’s anti-nuclear sentiment is based on multiple strands, in my experience:

* General “radiation” skepticism, amplified by literature including children’s literature and tv reporting, sometimes even by real scandals like the leukemia thing.

* The very real possibility of Germany automatically becoming a nuclear battlefield of hundreds nuclear tactical explosions in the Cold War. Both the Warsaw Pact and NATO planned going nuclear from the first day. (Nuclear weapons and power are of course different things, but ... well)

* The search of nuclear waste storage location (not just spent nuclear fuel but secondary waste, high and intermediate level waste) was absurdly missmanaged. And then there is a string of accidents at pilot waste storage facilities. In my opinion you can’t explain the 2011 decision on Fukushima alone without talking about the preceding Asse II scandal.

* And yes, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima turbocharged pre-existing sentiments.

That is not to say Russia (and the Soviet Union before) as petro-states don’t have an interest and don’t try to corrupt. They certainly do.

Given what we know, they seem to have targeted politicians [1], more with a Pro-Gas-message, less with an anti-nuclear or green-energy-message. Both would be dumb for someone who wants to sell fossil fuels [2]. It’s no surprise that they seem now to target AfD and BWS, the far right and left parties with a pro-fossil-fuel-message. But that's the same in all western democracies.

[1] Small nitpick about your source [0]: Waszczykowski is a member of PIS and former minister in Poland’s PIS government. PIS has made a habit out of targeting Germany for domestic populist sentiment and in intra-EU squabbles. I’d interpret the question partially in that light. Giving the timing of that question I’d suspect the somewhat distorted kernel of truth must be Schwesig and the Nordstream II foundation, but I’d hesitate calling Schwesig an anti-nuclear activist, more a somewhat corrupt or naive politician.

[2] Russian/Soviet Gas was never a replacement for nuclear power in Germany. The vast majority of Germany’s gas usage is residential or industrial not in power plants. Burning gas domestically in apartment/house boilers for heat or in industrial applications doesn’t profit from electric energy – because replacing all these boilers is a multi-generational infrastructure project. Instead nuclear in Germany’s power mix was slowly replaced by by green energy and biofuels: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/energy-st...

You have taken the time to explain this to a further depth. Thank you.

Everyone should read this. The deal is that this is all much more complicated than a short comment could explain.

In agreement with much of what you have stated, please note my previous comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40330379

Regarding PiS, thanks for pointing that out. I certainly voted against them in the last election.

I am not jumping into any side of the argument here, but it is worth noting that the area of the "my back yard" is much smaller, and more densely packed in European countries, as compared to the seemingly endless land of the USA.

> the area of the "my back yard" is much smaller, and more densely packed in European countries

Germany is the 65th most densely-populated country in the world, behind the U.K., Japan, the Netherlands, Taiwan and Singapore [1]. It is not too dense for industry, that’s literally just thinly-veiled NIMBYism.

My point is a realistic solution is never offered. Should Tesla not expand in favour of ICE production? Is the solution to deindustrialise Germany and put all the plants in Eastern Europe?

It’s a short-term fixation on nearby problems without regards for global impact, and it’s characteristic of the German greens.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_depend...

They're there for a model change. We don't need more cars, we need less cars (and less of several other things). So the agenda is very simple: just don't build. And yes, maybe Tesla will go somewhere else but other activists will fight there.

And yes, activists will loose that fight, but they'll go on and ultimately, things will change. Paid holidays came like this. The end of slavery too. And a few other things.

There's no "realistic solution" because there is simply no choice to make. It's just "no means no".

Now, hopefully, those activists won't buy cars or buy the least possible. And that will have an effect too. But then you'll say: "if we stop selling cars then what's the solution? what about the workforce". Then again: they'll do something else. Because the governments don't want to see unemployment. And maybe there will be too much unemployment. But then again, maybe it's time to adapt to a new world where 50% of population is unemployed. But believe me, when that number will be big enough, politics will adapt.

> We don't need more cars, we need less cars (and less of several other things). So the agenda is very simple: just don't build

Then motion for capping car sales, or adding a massive tax to them. This protest just shifts supply to imports and ICE vehicles. More pointedly: to cars not made in their backyard.

It has zero effect on Germany’s car cult743 because they’re not targeting cars broadly, they’re not even targeting cars near them; they’re targeting this (and only this) factory.

> when that number will be big enough, politics will adapt

If protests cause 50% unemployment (or a 50% drop in living standards), the historic political adaptation is a government that ends the right to protest.

Why is it always Tesla vs. ICE? Seems like a false dichotomy.

> Why is it always Tesla vs. ICE? Seems like a false dichotomy

Tesla is the largest EV-only manufacturer in Germany, and is the second-largest seller of EVs in the country [1]. (Also, unless there is a record of Tesla factories being unusually dirty, the protesters are protesting expanding EV production in general. That it’s owned by Tesla seems irrelevant, another manufacturer would raise the same stated concerns.)

[1] https://www.best-selling-cars.com/germany/2023-full-year-ger...

Pairs well with corporates “next quarter without regards for global impact”

At some point we all just project “Gfy.” and refuse to “blink” and measure ourselves; we just keep rolling, saying “Gfy.” to those in the way. Maybe we couch that in pointless arguments like “where else should this unnecessary car company exist?”

Doesn’t really seem like just a “German greens” thing to project non-existent authority

> Sure, but the point is where would they prefer Tesla expand?

Tesla is not some necessity, it doesn't have to expand, this isn't like rejecting housing or new sanitation facilities.

Oh, protecting local established manufacturers. That makes sense.

Why not? It's also not like this is a foreign established manufacturer like Toyota, it's an Elon Musk joint, I can't think of many less trustworthy businessmen off the top of my head. I think they have every reason to doubt any promises Tesla makes, and doubt its future as well.

Don't accept promises, get written contracts with expensive penalty clauses.

That's a good idea, but never seems to happen; certainly it didn't in this case. Even when it does, the penalties are inevitably a fraction of the realized profits.

And unless you're pushing for anarchoprimitivism or the like, the factories building your environmentally friendly electric cars are going to have to be built somewhere. I'm reminded of an experience in high school near San Diego, where tons of people were opposed to a new (solar!) power plant out in the desert to the east and they were opposed to the high voltage power lines that would have brought power from this plant into the city. I'm sure there were other, less unhinged reasons to oppose it but the most vocal were the environmentalists opposing it because the transmission lines would interfere with some desert tortoise species habitat. Environmentalists protesting solar power is one of those hilarities that the universe just plops right on your lap sometimes.

I know of some owners of mini McMansions on 1-2 acre desert lots are up in arms about a 100MW solar plant being built nearby. I think they're pick any/all, old people that are fearful and hate change, OCD spectrum disorder types, and people that have transferred their well justified fear that the next brush fire will burn their houses down to the solar plant.

Notable that last one where people transfer anxiety about one thing to another thing is really common.

"Environmentally friendly" is not a binary description.

Electric cars may be more environmentally friendly than petroleum cars, but less environmentally friendly than a bicycle or electric bus.

Calling for more mass transit, better support for cycling, and a de-emphasis on personal automobile transport is not anarchoprimitivism.

Engineer I know that worked for a sterilization company said it was impossible to build a plant in Germany. Because there are three factions, businesses, labor, and greens. Business was mostly supportive. Labor wouldn't help because the factories employ like 20 people. And greens oppose because 'chemicals'

To do anything you need 2 of 3 and you only would get a half hearted, a neutral, and a vicious opposition.