Olaf Scholz, the improbable role model

[Celerity]

A state that protects—and a bulwark for democracy and modernity. Is this, Robert Misik asks, the new paradigm of the democratic left?

https://www.socialeurope.eu/olaf-scholz-the-improbable-role-model



Foreign Policy, the American magazine with focus on international affairs, surprised me ten days ago with a headline: ‘Welcome to the West’s Olaf Scholz Era’. The German chancellor, said the standfirst, ‘represents the future of progressive politics’. The (British) author of the piece, John Kampfner, recognised that in his personal style Scholz has ‘few characteristics of a potential savior’. But in a quiet, unexcited way his coalition is radically modernising the German economy for the first time, while his foreign-policy orientation has undergone a complete change—which usually happens at most once in a generation. The successes are impressive.

Yet Scholz’s style consists of not talking too much, explaining little and giving the impression that everything is taking its necessary course, trusting that the reasonableness of this policy will be obvious to everyone in the end. It is an ‘incremental revolution’, according to Kampfner. Scholz is also symptomatic of contemporary progressivism in a second respect. Governing in shaky alliances, which only allow the smallest compromises with a more and more fragmented electorate—making the leader more of a conductor—will be the reality everywhere in the future. The Foreign Policy piece is smart but a bit pretentious. For a new ‘era’ one would hope something like a paradigm would be outlined. Yet the analysis does go against the current: leading articles celebrating the Scholz government as a success story are thin on the ground.

Bickering partners

The Ampelkoalition (traffic-light coalition) in Berlin is squabbling. Even the most basic projects lead to bickering within the government: the partners strangely believe it would be a clever tactic to distinguish themselves from each other while giving the impression of a dysfunctional administration. The German economy has been virtually stagnant for three quarters; in two there was even a minimal contraction. Somewhat hysterically, commentators are already asking whether Germany will soon be ‘the sick man’ of Europe again.

The Schuldenbremse (debt brake) is now forcing some moderate fiscal consolidation and could even bring about a recession. With the centre-right Free Democrats in a rather centre-left government, any departure from ideological ‘fiscal discipline’ requires painstaking work. In opinion polls, approval of the government is deep in the basement. Scholz’s social-democratic SPD ranks at about 18 per cent, more or less. Even well-meaning supporters are somewhat puzzled by the government’s peculiar performance: they rather wish Scholz could act a bit more like a traditional boss, offering visible leadership while keeping things under control.

Radiating relaxation............

snip

[NNadir]

1. His energy policies kill people.

Anil Markandya, Paul Wilkinson, Electricity generation and health, The Lancet, Volume 370, Issue 9591, 2007, Pages 979-990.

Here's table 2:

Germany routinely has the 2nd highest carbon intensity for electricity of all major countries in Europe, after Poland, having shut clean nuclear energy to burn coal.

As of this writing, Germany has a carbon intensity of 510 grams of CO2/kWh, compared to France's 28 grams of CO2/kWh.

Electricity Map, Germany.

Poland is however, planning to do something about that, by embracing anti-Schultz policies.

PEJ seeks siting decision for Pomeranian plant

[Celerity]

2. He has only been chancellor since 8 December 2021, yet your first article is from 2007.

I absolutely disagree with Germany shutting down their nuclear plants, but that is only one part of what it takes to run a country.

[NNadir]

3. The article from 2007 is an article on the external cost of energy, which almost certainly hasn't...

...changed.

Chancellor Schultz would have done well to have read it before choosing to kill people since it has been available for reading for years.

There is actually tons of scientific literature on the subject of the external cost of energy; I simply chose that one because it has a nice table.

Before Schultz decided to kill people by insisting on closing Germany's last three nuclear plants, prominent scientists begged him to show some decency and not increase the numbers of people killed by coal. I wrote about it here:

The scientists can screw off: Germany shuts its last nuclear reactors.

Over in the E&E forum, we have fossil fuel sales people and sales bots rebranding fossil fuels (at a thermodynamic loss) as "hydrogen," ( A Giant Climate Lie: When they're selling hydrogen, what they're really selling is fossil fuels.) praising and cheering this disgusting policy of driving climate change, specifically appealing to this unapologetic embrace of fossil fuels by the Chancellor of Germany:

Why investing in new nuclear plants is bad for the climate.

The author of this appalling pitch for fossil fuels, cited this ignorant lawyer, Schultz, as if he were a scientist, although Shultz's contempt for science, as evidenced by his energy policies, is as clear as daylight would be, were the skies not filled with smoke because planet is on fire because of policies like Shultz's.

To me, climate is actually the only issue at this point that really matters. Shultz is on the wrong side, and refuses to open his mind, suggesting to me that he has a limited mind.

I note, with disgust, that German energy policies which Schultz assumed unchanged from those of his predecessors (originating with the Gazprom executive and former Germany Chancellor Gerhard Schröder) funded Putin's Ukraine war.

I have no use for Schultz, none.