He is the first political victim of the green energy transition - he will almost certainly not be the last.

What Is Behind The Fall Of Germany’s Green Energy Minister?

Norbert Röttgen, Angela Merkel’s Environment Minister, was - until a few hours ago - the face of Germany’s green energy transition. He aligned himself with a goal which can be stated politically, but which cannot be reached technically. His sacking was therefore inevitable. He is the first political victim of the green energy transition - he will almost certainly not be the last.—Peter Heller,  Wissenschaft kritisch hinterfragt, 16 May 2012

For the German Chancellor, the green energy transition is probably not something that she does out of conviction. She has - as so often – only adopted a policy in order to neutralize it, to give her opponents no point of attack, no room for distinction and no potential for mobilization. What she needed was a minister who followed this plan in a way that was politically communicable but would not lead to major upheavals in practice. What she got was a man of conviction. No mechanic of power. She got someone who was apparently deeply convinced not only of the need but also of the possibility of a switch to renewable energy sources combined with significant energy savings. Someone who actually thought this would be good for the industrialized nation Germany. —Peter Heller,  Wissenschaft kritisch hinterfragt, 16 May 2012

Federal Environment Minister Röttgen was sacked by Chancellor Angela Merkel today. Even his political opponents will have been surprised by this decision, which lacks precedent. At the same time, Peter Altmaier was announced as new Federal Environment Minister. While the green energy transition progressed rather slowly under Röttgen and Rösler, many observers now realize that with Peter Altmaier somebody is taking over who could put the green energy transition not only in question but also in danger.—Energie Experten, 16 May 2012

One of the government’s core projects, the so-called energy revolution refers to Merkel’s plan to decommission all nuclear power plants by 2022 and to obtain at least 80 percent of all energy from renewable sources by 2050. For some time already, Merkel hadn’t been pleased with Röttgen’s handling of the energy revolution. Now, it looks like she wanted to prevent the beleaguered minister from becoming a lame duck.—Spiegel Online, 17 May 2012

The EU’s unilateral climate policies face a deepening crisis. It is becoming ever more evident that currently favoured solutions to climate change are not in themselves economically viable. Given the manifest reluctance of the world’s big emitters to accept any legally binding carbon targets and in face of our economic crisis, Europe should undertake a comprehensive review of its economically damaging climate and renewables targets and — in the absence of an international agreement — should consider the suspension of all unilateral policies that threaten Europe’s economic recovery.—Benny Peiser, European Centre for Energy & Resource Security, May 2012

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has successfully ridden the climate change juggernaut to its inevitable end. By not directly confronting an inherited policy that he found distasteful, he has been able to manage it to a conclusion that has alienated fewer and satisfied more Canadians. In the years to come, as the international climate change file gradually fades into obscurity, similar to many other such utopian initiatives, he can look back with satisfaction at a job well done.—Michael Hart, Carleton University,  Ottawa Citizen, 16 May 2012

Methane hydrates constitute the world’s No. 1 reservoir of fossil fuel. Ubiquitous along vast stretches of Earth’s continental shelves, they hold enough natural gas to fuel the world for a thousand years – and beyond. Who says so? Using the most conservative of assumptions, the U.S. Geological and Geophysical Service says so. The U.S. now produces 21 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas a year. But it possesses 330,000 tcf of natural gas in its methane hydrate resource – theoretically enough to supply the country for 3,000 years (give or take). Using less conservative numbers, the U.S. is good to go for 6,000 years (give or take). –Neil Reynolds, The Globe and Mail, 16 May 2012

Items of notes and interest from the web.