May 25, 2023 - 10:15am
“Could Germany get a Green chancellor?” asked many media outlets ahead of the country’s last federal elections in 2021. In the spring of that year, the party polled at 28% in some surveys, a record for them and the strongest of all parties at the time. But since then much has changed. Public scandals and unpopular politics have sent the party into free fall. A survey published this week put the Greens in fourth place, behind the far-Right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).
Many commentators have pinned the increasing disaffection of voters on one of their most prominent leaders: Robert Habeck. Germany’s Vice Chancellor and economy minister was long hailed as the Greens’ strongest asset. With a reputation as a charismatic and pragmatic problem-solver, he seemed the right man to tackle the energy crisis that hit the country when Russia invaded Ukraine and exposed Berlin’s dependence on Moscow for fossil fuels. Habeck emerged as “Germany’s energy hero…the man of the hour,” as the Economist put it.
Now half of German voters want him to resign, according to a recent survey, putting him at 17th place in their popularity ranking of German politicians — the second lowest of all cabinet ministers.
Some hope that Habeck’s fall and that of his party will be temporary, caused only by a recent scandal involving Patrick Graichen, a close aide and deputy minister, who resigned last week following allegations of cronyism. But since then other people in Habeck’s inner circle have also come under closer scrutiny, much to the glee of opposition politicians. Julia Klöckner of the Christian Democrats (CDU) spoke of a “systematic issue due to the close connection between Green members of the government, climate activists, lobby groups and institutions”.
The CDU stands to gain much from the situation. Together with their Bavarian sister party, the CSU, with whom they form an electoral bloc, they currently poll as the strongest party at 30%. Even one of the Greens’ coalition partners, the Free Liberals (FDP), have distanced themselves from their policies. They stalled one of the Greens’ flagship projects: a ban of the installation of gas boilers in new houses starting next year.
Such policies are perceived as expensive and elitist by large segments of the German public. Surveys range from 50 to 80% of respondents against the gas boiler ban. The fact that Graichen had been one of the key advocates of the policy helped create a direct link between perceptions of corruption and Green Party policies. “Graichen goes…finally. Now the heating bill hammer [boiler ban] must also be taken off the table,” said the CDU’s Peter Liese.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis is the same corrupt nexus of NGOs and government that Mary Harrington has documented in the UK and that I see in Ireland. We have surrendered democratic decision-making to unelected, out-of-touch NGOs, who nevertheless receive massive amounts of taxpayer funding to instruct us on how to live our lives. I really do believe that this erosion of democracy is the root cause of the populist revolts we have seen in Europe and the USA since 2016.
Quite so. But there’s a general point which needs making: that once ostensible moral ideals are carried beyond a practical and sustainable point they become both excuses for oppression and occasions of hypocrisy. This is why the “celibate” so often end as abusive, the “compassionate” as bullies and the “pure” as utterly corrupt. Have there ever been such entitled monsters of depravity in charge as the staff of various “politburos” around the sorrowful, communist world? And it is the same with this malodorous tide of prattling “greens”. The need for another 1989 is now pressing; the latest iteration of Marxist stupidity must be sloughed off yet again if we are to survive.
A while back, I saw some Fianna Fail minister declaring that there are nine genders (or whatever number it was). Fianna Fail! The Irish state has been well and truly captured
Hence Fianna Fáil at 15% in the polls and apparently determined to wage war on their dwindling band of rural supporters.
Hence Fianna Fáil at 15% in the polls and apparently determined to wage war on their dwindling band of rural supporters.
Quite so. But there’s a general point which needs making: that once ostensible moral ideals are carried beyond a practical and sustainable point they become both excuses for oppression and occasions of hypocrisy. This is why the “celibate” so often end as abusive, the “compassionate” as bullies and the “pure” as utterly corrupt. Have there ever been such entitled monsters of depravity in charge as the staff of various “politburos” around the sorrowful, communist world? And it is the same with this malodorous tide of prattling “greens”. The need for another 1989 is now pressing; the latest iteration of Marxist stupidity must be sloughed off yet again if we are to survive.
A while back, I saw some Fianna Fail minister declaring that there are nine genders (or whatever number it was). Fianna Fail! The Irish state has been well and truly captured
This is the same corrupt nexus of NGOs and government that Mary Harrington has documented in the UK and that I see in Ireland. We have surrendered democratic decision-making to unelected, out-of-touch NGOs, who nevertheless receive massive amounts of taxpayer funding to instruct us on how to live our lives. I really do believe that this erosion of democracy is the root cause of the populist revolts we have seen in Europe and the USA since 2016.
Corruption and coercion was built into Green politics from the start. They don’t build anything except white elephants and propose nothing of value. So they resort to rigging the market against value-adding portable high-density energy sources and in favour of expensive low-energy-density alternatives.
Then resort to a heavy butcher’s thumb on one side of the scale which they lump under the title “externalities”.
Corruption and coercion was built into Green politics from the start. They don’t build anything except white elephants and propose nothing of value. So they resort to rigging the market against value-adding portable high-density energy sources and in favour of expensive low-energy-density alternatives.
Then resort to a heavy butcher’s thumb on one side of the scale which they lump under the title “externalities”.
“The AfD polls in third place at the moment. Their activists have long used phrases like “linksgrün versifft” — “Left-green-dirty” — to whip up anti-establishment feeling.”
Maybe they said it because the Greens have long been dirty. The way the Greens filled the bureaucracy with climate zealots is truly disturbing.
“The AfD polls in third place at the moment. Their activists have long used phrases like “linksgrün versifft” — “Left-green-dirty” — to whip up anti-establishment feeling.”
Maybe they said it because the Greens have long been dirty. The way the Greens filled the bureaucracy with climate zealots is truly disturbing.
In many countries there is a revolving door relationship between government, activist NGOs, and the mainstream media. An impoverished media can no longer afford to do independent research and is happy to regurgitate ideologically compatible press releases. Poorly paid journalists recognise their roles are a potential stepping stone to a proper livelihood in the NGO sector or government – so long as they stay onside. And the state provides the cash to keep it all going, funding bogus pressure to double down on authoritarian (but remunerative for some) Net Zero, public health and anti-car policies for example, while legislating to literally outlaw the articulation of opposition.
Associated Press gets $8 million grant from eco activist group to promote climate stories.
Spot on.
The whole ‘nudge theory’ idea so beloved by this class is itself profoundly anti-democratic as often opaque ‘consultation processes’ exist to sideline and isolate any criticism of policies which once passed become shibboleths, pursued by tiny baby steps so as not to alarm anyone before it’s too late to do anything.
This can take years.
Scotland provides cautionary examples aplenty, and a ray of hope.
Cautionary examples of insincere public consultation and steamrollered legislation include the truly sinister ‘Named Person’ Act,the Edinburgh Tram project, and more recently the Gender Recognition Reform act.
With GRR almost the entire political class and, despite what some try to say now, most of the ‘MSM’ or ‘Legacy’ Media, were enthusiastic and supportive of it.
This, despite blindingly obvious dangers which were predictable and accurately predicted.
Sturgeon even branded any critics as bigots and transphobes, misogynistic (bizarrely) and even ‘possibly racist’.
Despite a massive parliamentary majority in favour, and strenuous attempts to tell people to shut up as it had all been properly consulted upon, debated at length upon and was now passed by a huge majority; people didn’t shut up.
This emboldened Sunak &Jack to issue the section 30 at which point the entire Wizard of Oz edifice began to collapse.
Sturgeon of course resigned and now the whole range of antifa style wokery is being questioned with far greater vigour in Scotland.
Long may this virus of true grassroots democracy thrive and hopefully variants will develop, as they already are, across the UK and Europe (eg the Dutch Farmers party), and this time hopefully, no vaccine can be found.
Associated Press gets $8 million grant from eco activist group to promote climate stories.
Spot on.
The whole ‘nudge theory’ idea so beloved by this class is itself profoundly anti-democratic as often opaque ‘consultation processes’ exist to sideline and isolate any criticism of policies which once passed become shibboleths, pursued by tiny baby steps so as not to alarm anyone before it’s too late to do anything.
This can take years.
Scotland provides cautionary examples aplenty, and a ray of hope.
Cautionary examples of insincere public consultation and steamrollered legislation include the truly sinister ‘Named Person’ Act,the Edinburgh Tram project, and more recently the Gender Recognition Reform act.
With GRR almost the entire political class and, despite what some try to say now, most of the ‘MSM’ or ‘Legacy’ Media, were enthusiastic and supportive of it.
This, despite blindingly obvious dangers which were predictable and accurately predicted.
Sturgeon even branded any critics as bigots and transphobes, misogynistic (bizarrely) and even ‘possibly racist’.
Despite a massive parliamentary majority in favour, and strenuous attempts to tell people to shut up as it had all been properly consulted upon, debated at length upon and was now passed by a huge majority; people didn’t shut up.
This emboldened Sunak &Jack to issue the section 30 at which point the entire Wizard of Oz edifice began to collapse.
Sturgeon of course resigned and now the whole range of antifa style wokery is being questioned with far greater vigour in Scotland.
Long may this virus of true grassroots democracy thrive and hopefully variants will develop, as they already are, across the UK and Europe (eg the Dutch Farmers party), and this time hopefully, no vaccine can be found.
In many countries there is a revolving door relationship between government, activist NGOs, and the mainstream media. An impoverished media can no longer afford to do independent research and is happy to regurgitate ideologically compatible press releases. Poorly paid journalists recognise their roles are a potential stepping stone to a proper livelihood in the NGO sector or government – so long as they stay onside. And the state provides the cash to keep it all going, funding bogus pressure to double down on authoritarian (but remunerative for some) Net Zero, public health and anti-car policies for example, while legislating to literally outlaw the articulation of opposition.
The war in Ukraine did not “expose Berlin’s dependence on Moscow for fossil fuels” – the purchase of cheap and reliable, and comparatively green Russian natural gas was a deliberate and profitable German political choice, pursued by governments on the left and the right consistently over more than 30 years, and against sustained and massive pressure from the US.
It was Germany that rejected Russian gas, not the Russians withholding it.
Germany is still dependent on natural gas, but now it is “relying” on expensive and unreliable US fracking gas, supplemented by coal – surely the most idiotic “solution” from both an economic and environmental point of view.
And, in the meantime, Germany’s close “ally” the US has dynamited the Germans’ economic lifeline.
But what was in it for the US in opposing so vehemently German reliance on Russian gas?
I’m not a psychologist, just an observer.
I note that a young Columbia Law School JD candidate in 1987 wrote the book “ALLY VERSUS ALLY: AMERICA, EUROPE, AND THE SIBERIAN PIPELINE CRISIS”. The author is now the US Secretary of State.
I don’t think we can assume that US military or diplomatic foreign policy follow a coordinated, thought-out, long-term strategy.
A good market for US (higher priced) gas.
They saw the strong German economy as a threat. Now with an unstable and expensive energy situation, German companies are much less competitive and many of them are now moving to the US. Also, I recommend checking out the speech George Friedman of Stratfor gave in 2015 at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. He said it was in the utmost interest of the US to prevent an alliance between Germany and Russia. German technology combined with Russian natural resources would make them unbeatable.
I have a suspicion, when this is all over, Russia will do another Catherine: Invite dispossessed Dutch farmers and German entrepreneurs to resurrect the economies of the devastated lands in the conquered oblasts.
I have a suspicion, when this is all over, Russia will do another Catherine: Invite dispossessed Dutch farmers and German entrepreneurs to resurrect the economies of the devastated lands in the conquered oblasts.
I’m not a psychologist, just an observer.
I note that a young Columbia Law School JD candidate in 1987 wrote the book “ALLY VERSUS ALLY: AMERICA, EUROPE, AND THE SIBERIAN PIPELINE CRISIS”. The author is now the US Secretary of State.
I don’t think we can assume that US military or diplomatic foreign policy follow a coordinated, thought-out, long-term strategy.
A good market for US (higher priced) gas.
They saw the strong German economy as a threat. Now with an unstable and expensive energy situation, German companies are much less competitive and many of them are now moving to the US. Also, I recommend checking out the speech George Friedman of Stratfor gave in 2015 at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. He said it was in the utmost interest of the US to prevent an alliance between Germany and Russia. German technology combined with Russian natural resources would make them unbeatable.
And you are happy with this long reliance upon a corrupt, kleptocratic and expansionist regime like that of Putin’s Russia?
As for your account of fracking, you will excuse a degree of doubt as to its accuracy. Whatever its shortcomings it is surely more reliable than intermittent wind, and far cheaper, given that the real costs of so-called “renewables” (e.g what it takes to build those giant mills) are so heavily subsidised.
And then there’s nuclear – closing it down being another spectacular own goal from Frau Merkel, along with encouraging an invasion and resettlement of Europe without so much as a by-your-leave as regards Germany’s fabled “partners”.
Of course, as one steeped in the “non-aligned” leftism of contemporary Germany, your first recourse in reply will doubtless be to stigmatize America as the regime in the opening question – which is no more than an argumentative dodge.
Let us therefore take that as read and move to the main point: that the solution should have been to pursue as much European independence, abundance and security of energy supply, using fossil and nuclear fuel, as possible. A sensible EU policy would hence have encouraged Britain to exploit the further resources of the north sea and natural gas.
But we live in an age when irrational and intemperate dogma has driven out sound sense. And in the name of that sound sense, I offer this challenge: try to reply without a scintilla of superiority or condemnation.
I fully agree that Europe should long have pursued a policy of genuine independence, in all matters – economic, diplomatic, and military, and that includes independence from the US, instead of the ever more blatant vassalisation (a term that has been used in polite discourse) that is the current reality.
I don’t get what mean with Merkel encouraging an invasion of Europe. If you mean her admitted lying to Russia about the implementation of the Minsk Accords, which in international law were binding on everybody, a lie that lies at the root of Russia’s invasion, then yes, I agree with you.
As for being “happy” with buying cheap and reliable gas from Russia, Germany is still buying energy from Russia, only at vastly inflated prices due to the need to pay intermediaries to whitewash its provenance.
You moralise about Russia’s corruption etc., but we don’t seem to worry about the moral purity of our trade partners generally. We don’t have any qualms about buying oil from the Gulf or selling our weapons there. And we happily send billions to the Ukraine without any accountability, the most corrupt country in Europe.
What percentage of European Armed Forces match the British with regard to rigour of selection and training, especially Royal Marine Commandos and Parachute Regiment? I would suggest most of the European Armed Forces are only capable of putting down internal dissent: they are glorified paramility units. The purpose of the EU Army is to further dissolve the nation state and provide careers for officers loyal to the EU.
What percentage of European Armed Forces match the British with regard to rigour of selection and training, especially Royal Marine Commandos and Parachute Regiment? I would suggest most of the European Armed Forces are only capable of putting down internal dissent: they are glorified paramility units. The purpose of the EU Army is to further dissolve the nation state and provide careers for officers loyal to the EU.
I fully agree that Europe should long have pursued a policy of genuine independence, in all matters – economic, diplomatic, and military, and that includes independence from the US, instead of the ever more blatant vassalisation (a term that has been used in polite discourse) that is the current reality.
I don’t get what mean with Merkel encouraging an invasion of Europe. If you mean her admitted lying to Russia about the implementation of the Minsk Accords, which in international law were binding on everybody, a lie that lies at the root of Russia’s invasion, then yes, I agree with you.
As for being “happy” with buying cheap and reliable gas from Russia, Germany is still buying energy from Russia, only at vastly inflated prices due to the need to pay intermediaries to whitewash its provenance.
You moralise about Russia’s corruption etc., but we don’t seem to worry about the moral purity of our trade partners generally. We don’t have any qualms about buying oil from the Gulf or selling our weapons there. And we happily send billions to the Ukraine without any accountability, the most corrupt country in Europe.
The reliance on Russian gas, and a desire to counter-balance American power and influence, and most of the mercantilist range of policies Merkel came to personify were all manifestations of the same error almost everyone across almost every government in the West made after the collapse of the USSR and it’s Eastern European and Central Asian empire.
That if we traded with Russia, and China, ‘they would become more and more like us’
Automatically.
And in the process create a less deeply divided, thus safer, unipolar world, and so one where opposing the last superpower’s unchallengeable hegemony motivated diverging foreign policies.
They didn’t become more like us. The diverging foreign policies having created a convincing impression of a fissiparous and divided ‘West’ then serving to encourage the outcomes we are seeing playing out today.
Throw in the seasoning of truly epochal South to North migration flows and as Christopher Columbus might have said “We are where we are.”
But what was in it for the US in opposing so vehemently German reliance on Russian gas?
And you are happy with this long reliance upon a corrupt, kleptocratic and expansionist regime like that of Putin’s Russia?
As for your account of fracking, you will excuse a degree of doubt as to its accuracy. Whatever its shortcomings it is surely more reliable than intermittent wind, and far cheaper, given that the real costs of so-called “renewables” (e.g what it takes to build those giant mills) are so heavily subsidised.
And then there’s nuclear – closing it down being another spectacular own goal from Frau Merkel, along with encouraging an invasion and resettlement of Europe without so much as a by-your-leave as regards Germany’s fabled “partners”.
Of course, as one steeped in the “non-aligned” leftism of contemporary Germany, your first recourse in reply will doubtless be to stigmatize America as the regime in the opening question – which is no more than an argumentative dodge.
Let us therefore take that as read and move to the main point: that the solution should have been to pursue as much European independence, abundance and security of energy supply, using fossil and nuclear fuel, as possible. A sensible EU policy would hence have encouraged Britain to exploit the further resources of the north sea and natural gas.
But we live in an age when irrational and intemperate dogma has driven out sound sense. And in the name of that sound sense, I offer this challenge: try to reply without a scintilla of superiority or condemnation.
The reliance on Russian gas, and a desire to counter-balance American power and influence, and most of the mercantilist range of policies Merkel came to personify were all manifestations of the same error almost everyone across almost every government in the West made after the collapse of the USSR and it’s Eastern European and Central Asian empire.
That if we traded with Russia, and China, ‘they would become more and more like us’
Automatically.
And in the process create a less deeply divided, thus safer, unipolar world, and so one where opposing the last superpower’s unchallengeable hegemony motivated diverging foreign policies.
They didn’t become more like us. The diverging foreign policies having created a convincing impression of a fissiparous and divided ‘West’ then serving to encourage the outcomes we are seeing playing out today.
Throw in the seasoning of truly epochal South to North migration flows and as Christopher Columbus might have said “We are where we are.”
The war in Ukraine did not “expose Berlin’s dependence on Moscow for fossil fuels” – the purchase of cheap and reliable, and comparatively green Russian natural gas was a deliberate and profitable German political choice, pursued by governments on the left and the right consistently over more than 30 years, and against sustained and massive pressure from the US.
It was Germany that rejected Russian gas, not the Russians withholding it.
Germany is still dependent on natural gas, but now it is “relying” on expensive and unreliable US fracking gas, supplemented by coal – surely the most idiotic “solution” from both an economic and environmental point of view.
And, in the meantime, Germany’s close “ally” the US has dynamited the Germans’ economic lifeline.
In Australia the Greens have become authoritarian, insisting that all members endorse to the letter gender ideology. So, they have lost members and voters. I am one of many I know who say we will never vote Greens again. That leaves us as “political orphans”.
In Australia the Greens have become authoritarian, insisting that all members endorse to the letter gender ideology. So, they have lost members and voters. I am one of many I know who say we will never vote Greens again. That leaves us as “political orphans”.
Any green party that opposes nuclear energy should be ridiculed and shunned.
Recently one of them was publically rejoicing at the closure of a nuclear plant, while Germany is busy re-opening coal (Coal !!!!) plants to try and balance their energetic needs.
Not just coal but lignite; which is so bad they may as well burn tyres for energy.
Not just coal but lignite; which is so bad they may as well burn tyres for energy.
Any green party that opposes nuclear energy should be ridiculed and shunned.
Recently one of them was publically rejoicing at the closure of a nuclear plant, while Germany is busy re-opening coal (Coal !!!!) plants to try and balance their energetic needs.
Where are the people who would normally defend this Green movement? Perhaps they would say that the corrupt part of the movement is justified because of the lofty goals.
Where are the people who would normally defend this Green movement? Perhaps they would say that the corrupt part of the movement is justified because of the lofty goals.
I’m sorry they’ve made a mess of things because it means they could lose the foreign ministry and Annalena Baerbock has been doing a good job there.
I’m sorry they’ve made a mess of things because it means they could lose the foreign ministry and Annalena Baerbock has been doing a good job there.