Oh great a discussion about international ethics, sure let's dive into the narrative and choose teams. Or not. Anyway, my understanding of the big picture using the mental framework I got from a previous HN post of short and long con(thanks HN)
The short con:
Environmental ethics, the other team is illogical.
The long con(Nuclear Lobby):
Those that support nuclear have invested and given subsidies to their respective industries disregarding the fact that it is not that safe. The definition of safety is based on the insurance which if I recall was capped at 100mil and the rest is insured by peoples taxes if something happens. If it wasn't capped the concept of nuclear would not be feasible.
The long con(Non nuclear Lobby aka Germany):
The previous German counselor (whose politics as I see them from afar where mostly based on human sentiment except when against industry) overshot anyone's assumption of the feasibility of a non nuclear policy and subsidized heavily non nuclear. Then they tried to support by European Lobbying and legislation. The whole thing backfired and they need to buy energy from abroad which has caused a steep increase in prices and a passive policy against Russia. So natural gas needs to also be defined as "kind of environmental" or Germany has no real policy. If it works, and since they are the entry of natural gas for Europe, they can friction everybody towards any policy that makes sense in the future.
Also: The environment something something (I have phased out, EU or any large country does not plan based on ethics, just based on short term reelection goals).
Also 2: EU refused to pre agree with Russians for natural gas prices and the gas price skyrocketed forcing more environmental policy that smaller countries in EU must adopt early. French threw a wrench in German's works who are exposed to their non nuclear investments. Also somehow Russians fault? Sure...
Also 3: Two actual targets of environmental policy: Reduce gas emissions, Reduce nuclear meltdown danger. Pick and choose depending on which country's media you are exposed to and their respective owners financing.
Also 4: 30% increase in non service production due to covid did not help prices I assume.
Guess: They will find an understanding somewhere in the middle, they are financially exposed, which means politically exposed and no one will remember after the a new round of articles from the media. In the meantime we are paying for no reason.
Why are you even here if you don't want to discuss/debate? There are literally a hundred other articles on here _today_ you could go read and comment on.
The short con: Environmental ethics, the other team is illogical.
The long con(Nuclear Lobby): Those that support nuclear have invested and given subsidies to their respective industries disregarding the fact that it is not that safe. The definition of safety is based on the insurance which if I recall was capped at 100mil and the rest is insured by peoples taxes if something happens. If it wasn't capped the concept of nuclear would not be feasible.
The long con(Non nuclear Lobby aka Germany): The previous German counselor (whose politics as I see them from afar where mostly based on human sentiment except when against industry) overshot anyone's assumption of the feasibility of a non nuclear policy and subsidized heavily non nuclear. Then they tried to support by European Lobbying and legislation. The whole thing backfired and they need to buy energy from abroad which has caused a steep increase in prices and a passive policy against Russia. So natural gas needs to also be defined as "kind of environmental" or Germany has no real policy. If it works, and since they are the entry of natural gas for Europe, they can friction everybody towards any policy that makes sense in the future.
Also: The environment something something (I have phased out, EU or any large country does not plan based on ethics, just based on short term reelection goals).
Also 2: EU refused to pre agree with Russians for natural gas prices and the gas price skyrocketed forcing more environmental policy that smaller countries in EU must adopt early. French threw a wrench in German's works who are exposed to their non nuclear investments. Also somehow Russians fault? Sure...
Also 3: Two actual targets of environmental policy: Reduce gas emissions, Reduce nuclear meltdown danger. Pick and choose depending on which country's media you are exposed to and their respective owners financing.
Also 4: 30% increase in non service production due to covid did not help prices I assume.
Guess: They will find an understanding somewhere in the middle, they are financially exposed, which means politically exposed and no one will remember after the a new round of articles from the media. In the meantime we are paying for no reason.