“P.S. We also don’t eat cats and dogs,” Berlin’s foreign ministry taunts Republican presidential candidate.

Germany’s foreign ministry hit back Wednesday at former U.S. President Donald Trump after he criticized the country’s energy policy at the presidential debate against Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump slammed Germany in his closing remarks, claiming Berlin regretted its decision to transition to renewable energy.

But the German foreign ministry took umbrage at that, blasting Trump in an unusually blunt statement on social media.

“Like it or not: Germany’s energy system is fully operational, with more than 50 percent renewables,” the ministry wrote. “And we are shutting down — not building — coal and nuclear plants. Coal will be off the grid by 2038 at the latest.”

      • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Because it’s still the second safest energy source, very close behind solar. And about 10 years ago, before heavy investment in renewables, it was the safest.

        This is like being afraid of airplanes because things only have to go wrong once for hundreds to die.

        Edit: Here is the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022.

        • Jumi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          There are reasonable and cost-effective alternatives to nuclear, to planes in many cases not so much. Also a plane crash doesn’t leave whole towns uninhabitable for centuries or needs special places to store burned fuel

          • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Again, this is baseless, unscientific, fear mongering. Nuclear is the second safest energy source, not far from solar. And still far safer than for ex. hydro, which destroys environments, and in that case it’s not an “if”.

            Honestly,I feel like I’m back in like 2005 arguing against pro-oil people; in this case it’s about renewables, but the arguments are still unscientific and usually based around “But tHe ecOnOMy”.

            The more things change, the more they stay the same.

            Edit: Here is the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022.

            • Jumi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              “Safest”, that’s why we need to think generations ahead to make signs that make clear forever that whatever is behind it shouldn’t be touched.

              I feel the same, first pro-oil and now pro-nuclear.

              We have safer and cheaper regenerative options and it’s about damn time we utilise them.

              • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                No, you have one safer option (solar), and just barely. And again, that is after a decade of heavy investment and development. The data doesn’t lie. You can’t just just throw out science and data when it doesn’t serve you. Stop spreading BS. You are quite literally spreading misinformation.

        • Zahtu@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah no, you cannot compare nuclear Fallout to airplanes flying down. At least Not from a risk Assessment and Management Level. From the nuclear Fallout you cannot prepare against it, when it Happens you are fucked (AS a country). From a airplane crashing you can prepare against that, as the severity aint that Bad regardless who sits inside (be it President, chancellor, CEO, other important person), for a functioning society its not that important as there are other people taking over that Helm. But when nuclear Fallout Happens, your whole people will fall ill to it, ceasing your society to exist. So it is only proper risk mitigation to end the use of all nuclear plants.

          • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            “When nuclear fallout happens”

            How would using nuclear as a source of energy (not weapons) result in a nuclear fallout, exactly? A nuclear fallout would result of nuclear superpowers (countries that possess nuclear warheads) initiating a nuclear war; meaning there would be nuclear warheads flying and detonating all over the world. There’s no reason a nuclear fallout would result from using fission as an energy source.

            • Zahtu@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Great Job dissecting my comment.

              Sure, you are right about the nuclear Fallout part, but a nuclear Catastrophe (or incident) like Fukushima, Chernobyl Happens, has the Same issue. You dont have any risk mitigation strategy available at large against it.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Because in many cases the risks are much more manageable than the risks associated with any meaningful alternatives.

        Nuclear power isn’t good nor bad, it’s one of many options, each of which may be suitable in a given circumstance.

        • Gerprimus@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The costs of safely decommissioning and dismantling nuclear power plants are immense and are borne by taxpayers. In addition, there are high insurance premiums for operators. Renewable energies, on the other hand, are becoming increasingly affordable and make us less dependent on fossil fuels and their price fluctuations.

          The future belongs to renewable energies. With them, we can ensure a safe, clean, and sustainable energy supply for generations to come. Nuclear power is a thing of the past.

          Would you like me to combine these options into a single statement, or perhaps focus on a specific aspect of the arguments? For example, we could emphasize the economic benefits of renewable energy, or the environmental impact of nuclear power.