[Puffer Fish]

Germany will be the world's only major economy expected to shrink this year, 2023.

The immediate problem is that the loss of Russian natural gas due to the war in Ukraine has dealt a severe blow to its industry through higher energy costs. But that's only really half the problem.
But the gas strain exposed longstanding cracks in the economy's foundation: too much bureaucracy and lagging spending on infrastructure.

The sudden underperformance by Europe’s largest economy has set off a wave of criticism, handwringing and debate about the way forward.

Germany risks "deindustrialization" as high energy costs and government inaction on other chronic problems threaten to send new factories and high-paying jobs elsewhere, said Christian Kullmann, CEO of major German chemical company Evonik Industries AG.

A 2011 decision to shut down Germany's remaining nuclear power plants has been questioned amid worries about electricity prices and shortages.

Germany went from envy of the world to the worst-performing major developed economy, David McHugh, Associated Press, 9-19-2023
https://apnews.com/article/germany-econ ... cd85ae84ed

As another smaller factor, I also suspect immigration hasn't been benefiting Germany too much in recent times, but that's another story.
Living standards in Germany are lower than what they were in the 1990s. Although the unemployment levels are still low.

[MistyTiger]

Hmmm. I did hear about the German oil industry taking a hit.

I have a friend in Germany. I will ask about the situation before I respond further.

[ThirdTerm]

It follows Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the loss of Moscow’s cheap natural gas, which was an unprecedented shock to Germany’s energy-intensive industries. Russia cut back natural gas to run factories and generate electricity to a tenth of what it was before invading Ukraine. The problem will be solved once the war in Ukraine is concluded. Meanwhile, Germany can beg Russia to supply more natural gas to the country.

The loss of cheap Russian natural gas needed to power factories “painfully damaged the business model of the German economy,” Kullmann told The Associated Press. “We’re in a situation where we’re being strongly affected — damaged — by external factors.”

After Russia cut off most of its gas to the European Union, spurring an energy crisis in the 27-nation bloc that had sourced 40% of the fuel from Moscow, the German government asked Evonik to keep its 1960s coal-fired power plant running a few months longer.

“The perception of Germany’s underlying strength may also have contributed to the misguided decisions to exit nuclear energy, ban fracking for natural gas and bet on ample natural gas supplies from Russia,” he said. “Germany is paying the price for its energy policies.”

[Steve_American]

@Puffer Fish, what this means is simple. If an advanced nation uses less fossil fuels, then its GDP goes down almost in a linear way.

The opposite is also true. If a nation's GDP is going up then you can be sure that its fossil fuel use is going up in an almost linear way.

Therefore at 3% growth in GDP the nation will also increase its use of fossil fuels by very close to 3%.
.

[Puffer Fish]

what this means is simple. If an advanced nation uses less fossil fuels, then its GDP goes down almost in a linear way.

The thing is, Germany has had over 25 years to try to convert away from fossil fuels. It's not like the political will wasn't there either. The Greens (environmentalists) were a powerful part of the coalition government. They succeeded in getting nuclear power shut down. And Germany is considered the wealthiest of the major economies in Europe, and has a reputation for getting things done, and they certainly have more engineering expertise than any other country.

If Germany wasn't able to do this, it kind of begs the question how feasible it actually would be for other countries.

And not only that but Germany totally knew 8 years in advance that relying on Russian natural gas might not be a good idea. Russia has used gas as a political weapon before in the Baltic countries. The United States (under Trump) even warned the German government about it and tried to get them to invest in natural gas facilities at their ports to be able to accept more expensive American-sourced natural gas, in the event there was ever a shut-off due to political tensions with Russia.

[Steve_American]

The thing is, Germany has had over 25 years to try to convert away from fossil fuels. It's not like the political will wasn't there either. The Greens (environmentalists) were a powerful part of the coalition government. They succeeded in getting nuclear power shut down. And Germany is considered the wealthiest of the major economies in Europe, and has a reputation for getting things done, and they certainly have more engineering expertise than any other country.

If Germany wasn't able to do this, it kind of begs the question how feasible it actually would be for other countries.

And not only that but Germany totally knew 8 years in advance that relying on Russian natural gas might not be a good idea. Russia has used gas as a political weapon before in the Baltic countries. The United States (under Trump) even warned the German government about it and tried to get them to invest in natural gas facilities at their ports to be able to accept more expensive American-sourced natural gas, in the event there was ever a shut-off due to political tensions with Russia.

It seems like you are accepting my assertion that GDP follows the use of fossil fuels, going up and going down.

OK, I should have just said "energy use". I didn't because non-fossil fuel energy is not a significant part of all energy.

Germany made all those huge mistakes. What is your point?

If your point is that it really isn't really possible to keep increasing energy use at 2% to 3%/yr, and reduce fossil fuel (=FF) use, then we agree. This likely is the main reason that for the last 50 years all societies have kept increasing FF use.

Recent studies have concluded that there are just not enough minerals to go green in a big enough way. And trying to do it anyway would cost a lot of money and poison a lot of sq. miles of the world and its oceans.

Recently, I saw a claim that Reagan said that he supported forming the IPCC the way it was, in fact, formed; because he knew and wanted it to be unable to stop FF use from growing at 2 to 3%/yr.
. . This, if true, means that those in power with the all-necessary information CHOSE to make the world reach the point where we are now. They chose to avoid slowing GDP & energy growth and instead keep growing at 3%/yr.; knowing it would end civilization in about 50 or 60 years.
.