Really?!?
On what do you base that opinion?
It seems a bit difficult to reconcile your suggestion with the following article:
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/coal/051221-germany-brings-net-zero-forward-to-2045-power-sector-hit-hardest-by-new-2030-targetSo Germany brought their zero emissions target forward by 5 years to 2045...
Looks like sometimes things happen faster than originally expected...
You really believe Germany will continue to rely on coal and gas? The S&P Global report seems to suggest differently. I note the following from the article:
The power sector was hit hardest with 2030 power plant emissions now capped at 108 million mt, down 38%, or 68 million mt from the previous target aligned to coal closure dates.
The tighter target could spell a faster exit from coal, with the law only setting a 2038 date.Happy to learn what information you base your opinion on tbrg!
Funny how it was noted that the announcement on 3rd of May came before the September elections...
Other interesting snippets from the article include the following:
EU CO2 prices hit a new record May 12 trading at Eur54.97/mt on ICE compared with levels below Eur5/mt only four years ago.The rapidly increasing CO2 price in Europe can only mean that Europe is more and more likely to introduce a carbon border tax, which has implications for our ability to sell our products into that market...
Given our current trading relationship with China, it would be advantageous to be able to do more trade with Europe, no?
Looks like the USA might go down a similar path to Europe with carbon border tax... then what?
There is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about the supposedly high cost of transitioning towards sustainability. However, very little thought is given to the future cost of not doing so and becoming a global pariah....
