Germany's decision to phase out nuclear energy was driven by a long-standing anti-nuclear sentiment and the desire to transition to renewable energy sources.

The closure of the final three nuclear plants marked the end of over 60 years of nuclear power in Germany.

This move was part of a broader strategy to achieve carbon neutrality, with the Green Party playing a significant role in the coalition government.

The Russian-Ukrainian war has significantly impacted Germany's energy supply, as the country was heavily reliant on Russian gas.

The conflict has led to increased energy prices and concerns about energy security, prompting Germany to seek alternative energy sources.

The government has been criticized for its reliance on Russian energy, which has been described as Germany's "Achilles' heel".

In response, Germany is investing in liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure to diversify its energy imports, although this is more expensive than Russian gas.

Some politicians and sectors of the population are advocating for the reactivation of nuclear power plants to alleviate the energy crisis.

However, the government remains committed to its nuclear phase-out policy, with Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck and Environment Minister Steffi Lemke reiterating their opposition to nuclear energy, citing safety and cost concerns.

The debate over nuclear energy's role in this transition continues, reflecting broader global discussions on the balance between renewable and nuclear power in achieving carbon neutrality.

Germany's decision to phase out nuclear energy was driven by a long-standing anti-nuclear sentiment and the desire to transition to renewable energy sources.

Title:

Content: Home / News / World /  Germany quits nuclear power; shuts final 3 plants
Back

Germany has shut its final three nuclear plants, marking the end of the country's end of nuclear era that has spanned more than 60 years.

Nuclear power has long been contentious in Germany.

The move has come as Germany's eyes achieve its green goal. Steffi Lemke, Germany’s Federal Minister for the Environment and Consumer Protection and a Green Party member, "The position of the German government is clear: nuclear power is not green. Nor is it sustainable".

Closure of three nuclear plant's history:

Germany shut three plants-- Emsland, Isar 2, and Neckarwestheim, representing the culmination of a plan set in motion more than 20 years ago.

During the 1970s, a strong anti-nuclear movement emerged in Germany. The movement gave birth to the green party, which is now part of governing coalition.

However, it was in the 2000s the German government pledged to phase out nuclear power and start shutting down plants.

But in 2009, a new government came to power and it seemed brief as if nuclear would get a reprieve as a bridging technology to help the country move to renewable energy.

Then Fukushima happened. In 2011, an earthquake and tsunami caused three reactors of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant to melt down.

Three days later then-Chancellor Angela Merkel who was previously pro-nuclear, announced Germany would accelerate a nuclear phase-out, with older plants shuttered immediately.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine provided another plot twist.

Germany isn’t the only country committed to walking away from nuclear — Italy gave up the technology in 1990, and Lithuania recently struck a deal to dismantle its Soviet-era reactors, which have sat idle for over a decade. But in many advanced economies, nuclear is experiencing a resurgence.

On Sunday, Finland will start regular power production at Europe’s newest and biggest reactor. The 1,600-megawatt Olkiluoto-3 unit that faced years of delays had been planned to enter commercial production on Monday. France is planning to build at least six new reactors by 2050 as well as experiment with smaller, modular ones. The UK has similar ambitions. And even in Japan, after a decade of paralysis following the nuclear accident in Fukushima, the public is warming up to the use of nuclear power. The Japanese government wants to restart reactors that have sat idle since the disaster and to extend the lifespan of existing units.

Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
More Less
Recommended For You
×
Get alerts on WhatsApp
Set Preferences My Reads Watchlist Feedback Redeem a Gift Card Logout

The closure of the final three nuclear plants marked the end of over 60 years of nuclear power in Germany.

This move was part of a broader strategy to achieve carbon neutrality, with the Green Party playing a significant role in the coalition government.

The Russian-Ukrainian war has significantly impacted Germany's energy supply, as the country was heavily reliant on Russian gas.

Title:

Content: How decades of complacency have left Germany facing a cold, dark winter

Betrayed by its own elite, the country is at risk of social unrest

Germany is facing its worst winter for 75 years. The impending catastrophe risks crippling its economy, sweeping away its government and bringing chaos to the heart of Europe.

In 1946-47, perhaps half a million Germans starved or froze to death in their ruined cities. Older Germans still shudder at the memory of the “Hunger Winter”. Some blamed the Nazis, others the Allied occupation. In fact, the British sent food, fuel and clothing they could ill afford to spare themselves.

Now Europe’s largest economy is heading for a winter of recession, rationing and possible blackouts. This time, though, there is nobody to blame except Germany’s complacent – and in some cases corrupt – political establishment.

As Vladimir Putin chokes off Russian gas supplies – already down to a fifth of their pre-war level – by closing the Nord Stream 1 pipeline for “maintenance” yet again next week, the lamps are going out for Olaf Scholz and his “traffic light” coalition of Social Democrats, Liberal and Greens.

'Autumn of rage'

The Bundesbank has been predicting a recession and the latest figures show that business activity is already contracting. Inflation, which hit 8.5 per cent last month, is expected to keep rising along with the rest of the eurozone, probably into double figures.

Yet for historical reasons Germans won’t just accept high inflation as a consequence of the war in Ukraine. The world remembers the hyperinflation that undermined the Weimar Republic a century ago; only older Germans recall the hyperinflation after the Second World War, which lasted longer. For three years Germany’s only stable currency was American cigarettes. No wonder Germans have been allergic to inflation ever since.

It is true that Germans are not yet demanding big pay rises or going on strike. But energy prices are already rising exponentially. The country's one-year ahead power price has skyrocketed to almost €1,000 per megawatt-hour, a jump of more than 720pc since the start of 2022. If Putin turns off the tap, bringing the mighty German economy to a juddering halt this winter, there is a real danger of civil unrest.

Intelligence officials are warning that extremist organisations, such as the neo-Nazis of Combat 18, are planning an “autumn of rage”. As a foretaste, in the old Prussian town of Neuruppin near Berlin, there were ugly scenes this month as Scholz was shouted down by far-Left and far-Right protesters.

But the panic and indignation now brewing go far beyond the ranks of the “unteachable” extremists.

Germans sense that unaccountable elites have ceded control of their country’s destiny to Putin. The more they are must pay him for Russian gas, the bigger his war chest with which to perpetrate genocide in Ukraine.

Forcing Germany to be complicit in a colossal crime against humanity is a diabolical twist in the vengeance that Putin is now exacting upon Europe for backing Ukraine. According to The Economist’s Christian Odendahl, at present prices Germany will need to spend 8.4 per cent of its GDP on gas. Hitherto it was just 1 per cent.

Already preparations are underway for central heating to be rationed or even switched off, forcing residents to seek shelter in schools or town halls.

The country is scrambling to reduce its reliance on gas with a campaign to make households cut back, and a massive national effort has brought gas storage levels up to 81 per cent full.

Food prices, meanwhile, rose at a rate of nearly 15 per cent in July. Those who fear being unable to afford to heat their homes or feed their families are prey to angst and anger.

Actions have consequences... or do they?

Few foresaw the Russian invasion of Ukraine, let alone its devastating consequences for Europe. But it is dawning on the German people that the seeds of the present crisis were sown over the quarter of a century from 1998 to 2022, under Angela Merkel and her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder.

These were the years of plenty for Germany, when Berlin dominated the European Union, ensuring that its export-led economy benefited from the single currency while loading the social costs on to its poorer neighbours. But Germany’s dirty secret was cheap Russian energy.

Under Schröder – who went on to become one of Putin’s “useful idiots” – German industry began to abandon its postwar reliance on coal and nuclear energy in favour of Russian gas and renewables.

In 2011, after the Fukushima accident, Mrs Merkel announced that all German nuclear power plants would be closed down. It was a pyrrhic victory for the Greens but backed by all the major parties. Public opinion had been turned against nuclear energy in the 1980s by the Soviet-funded “peace movement”. Now the Greens are the keystone of the Scholz coalition.

Even in the country’s present predicament, Robert Habeck, the Green Vice-Chancellor and Environment Minister, is refusing to reverse the exit from nuclear to alleviate the energy crisis, though it is still possible over time to reactivate a number of nuclear power stations.

Yet Berlin is demanding that 26 other EU member states make huge cuts in energy use this winter to help Germany – to the irritation of the Spanish and others, who don’t depend on Russian gas and recall lectures from Berlin during the eurozone crisis about actions having consequences.

For decades, the Kremlin acted as Germany’s geopolitical drug-dealer, tempting Berlin to become ever more addicted to the energy that fuelled its manufacturing, pharmaceutical and chemical factories. Now that the Germans are about to go cold turkey, they are discovering how cynically the national interest was betrayed by their politicians and captains of industry.

With Schröder as its salesman, a new Nord Stream 2 pipeline was built under the Baltic Sea — with the blessing of Mrs Merkel, who fended off Anglo-American pressure to cancel what was regarded as a threat to European energy security.

Last year, as Russian tanks massed on the Ukrainian border and Nato warned of imminent invasion, Gazprom redoubled its efforts to keep the flagship project on track.

The Russian energy giant poured €192 million (£163m) into an environmental foundation set up by Manuela Schwesig, the Social Democratic premier of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern — the state that hosted Nord Stream 2 and stood to gain most. She proceeded to denounce the US for opposing the pipeline, claiming that American sanctions were purely self-interested.

Putin’s stooges almost succeeded in persuading Scholz to defy his Nato allies. He dithered until the eve of February’s invasion before shelving Nord Stream 2.

Now, after six months of Europe’s worst war since 1945, some German politicians are once again calling for the pipeline to be opened “so that people do not have to freeze in winter and our industry does not suffer serious damage”, as Wolfgang Kubicki, Vice-President of the German Parliament, puts it.

Meanwhile Ms Schwesig has just been re-elected as leader of the Social Democrats in her state by a large majority. Schröder has yet to be expelled from the party, let alone sanctioned.

Germany’s Achilles’ heel

This is the measure of Germany’s abject reliance, not only on Russian energy, but on the Russian state. For Putin, gas and oil were only ever a means to an end. He has always wanted to reduce the Germans — towards whom Russians have traditionally had an inferiority complex — to a status of servility.

Stalin only succeeded in dividing Germany. Putin seeks to turn the entire Federal Republic into his client state — and thereby impose his will upon Europe.

With the unerring eye of the predator, Putin grasped that energy was Germany’s Achilles’ heel. A single plant of a single corporation, the headquarters of the chemical and pharmaceutical giant BASF at Ludwigshafen, uses as much energy as Denmark.

Over the last 25 years, Germany’s craving for cheap energy led it into an unequal relationship with Russia — what the philosopher Hegel called “the dialectic of master and slave”.

Putin saw that some German politicians could be bought (Schröder), others bamboozled (Merkel), and still others bullied (Scholz). Other EU countries followed the German example by relying heavily on Moscow for energy, influenced by the evasion and ambivalence that has characterised Berlin’s policy for decades.

Germany, whose economy is substantially larger than Britain’s, has given just £1 billion in military aid to Ukraine compared to the UK’s £3.5 billion. The United States has given ten times as much as the EU. Yet Ukraine is a European country under genocidal attack.

The reluctance to provoke Putin that still prevails in wide circles of the Federal Republic is rooted in exaggerated notions of Russian military power, economic importance and cultural pre-eminence.

German fatalism about Russia’s ability to absorb casualties and yet win ultimate victory reflects folk memories of the Eastern Front. But Putin, unlike Stalin, does not have a vast conscript army at his disposal, he does not enjoy technical superiority and he cannot afford the war of attrition that he has unleashed. Nor are the Russian people united against an invading force in defence of their homeland. Only in Berlin do they think this is another Stalingrad.

This historical myopia has much to do with the long-standing German habit of subsuming the other nations that made up the Soviet Union into Russia. To this day most Germans have no awareness of the fact that the Nazis killed millions of Ukrainian civilians and devastated their country.

Ironically, many artists, writers and musicians who have fled Ukraine have found refuge in Germany. One example is the composer Valentin Silvestrov, who fled to Berlin aged 84 with one suitcase, full of his manuscripts. Once there, he discovered that Ukrainian music was unknown in Germany. Now that Silvestrov’s works are being performed, including at the Proms in London, the Germans are slowly waking up to the presence of a greater living composer than any of their own.

Many ordinary Germans, like the British, instinctively warm to the Ukrainian cause. The difference is in leadership – or lack of it. Chancellor Olaf Scholz, unlike Boris Johnson or Liz Truss, has shown only lukewarm support for Kyiv and has been implicitly rebuked by President Zelensky.

Hamburger grilled

Although there is no suggestion that Scholz has been bribed to go easy on Russia, he himself has become embroiled in a corruption scandal. He is accused of helping M.M. Warburg & Co, Germany’s oldest and largest private bank, to avoid a €47 million fine in 2016, during his time as Finance Minister in the Merkel coalition.

The Hamburg-based bank is alleged to have made up to €300 million in a capital gains tax scam which came to light while Scholz was also mayor of the city state. Just as he finds himself facing an unexpectedly grim present and a positively terrifying future, his provincial past has returned to haunt him.

Last week the Chancellor was grilled by a committee of inquiry in Hamburg. The normally meticulous Scholz claimed not to remember any details about his meetings with Warburg’s former chief, Christian Olearius, who has now been charged with tax evasion. Germany’s safe pair of hands, whom millions had entrusted with the nation’s finances, is now accused of being cosy with tax-dodging bankers and being an unimpressive, even unreliable, witness.

In other ways, too, Scholz is failing to live up to the moral example set by the two great Social Democratic Chancellors of post-war Germany, Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt. At a joint press conference with Mahmoud Abbas in Berlin earlier this month, Scholz remained tight-lipped while the Palestinian leader delivered an anti-Semitic tirade, accusing Israel of committing “many Holocausts” against his people.

Schmidt, who concealed the fact he had a Jewish grandfather from the Nazis but as Chancellor was an outspoken philosemite, would not have been impressed by his fellow Hamburger Scholz. Nor would Brandt, who famously fell to his knees at the memorial to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

Not for decades has anti-Semitism been such a threat in Germany: in July, Berlin’s Holocaust Memorial was desecrated with swastikas. Now, as Putin’s myrmidons massacre and deport Ukrainians near the site of Nazi genocide, while a quarter of the Russian Jewish population has emigrated in anticipation of pogroms, Germany needs a leader who is not afraid to denounce anti-Semitism even at the cost of diplomatic niceties.

After less than a year in office, Scholz’s personal ratings are plumbing depths never seen during Mrs Merkel’s 16 years at the helm. As Germans brace themselves for unprecedented hardships in peacetime, they are led by a weak and indecisive Chancellor at the head of a fragile three-party coalition.

Post-heroic, post-patriotic

Wednesday’s visit to Kyiv by Boris Johnson – his third – to mark Ukraine’s Independence Day was hugely appreciated not only by Volodymyr Zelensky but by all Ukrainians. Yet it was a gesture of solidarity that did not occur – could not have occurred – to Olaf Scholz.

The German Chancellor’s only visit to the Ukrainian capital last June, accompanied by Emmanuel Macron and Mario Draghi, was an awkward, chilly affair that yielded little more than promises. This week, Scholz posted a short video message, concluding: “Our hearts are with you.” Ulrich Speck, a German foreign policy analyst, commented: “Hearts, yes. But not weapons.”

Johnson, by contrast, knows he is among friends in Kyiv – a friendship symbolised by Zelensky awarding him Ukraine’s highest honour, the Order of Liberty. It is impossible to imagine the lugubrious German Chancellor finding the Prime Minister’s pithy words: “While people [in the West] are paying energy bills, people in Ukraine are paying with blood.” Nor would Scholz echo him in declaring: “I believe Ukraine can and will win this war.”

For his part, Zelensky told his people that they had been “reborn” in the heat of war. “We used to say: ‘Peace’. Now we say: ‘Victory’,” he declared.

Highly educated Germans find it hard to empathise with such Churchillian sentiments. Jürgen Habermas, the eminence grise of German intellectuals, makes condescending comments about Ukraine as a primitive place, still captive to the nationalist illusions of the last century, unlike more sophisticated, “post-heroic” Germany. It doesn’t occur to the 93-year-old philosopher that without the heroism of its soldiers and civilians, Ukraine would by now have ceased to exist.

Prussian military prowess has long since given way to post-patriotic pusillanimity. Where Merkel and Scholz feared to tread and even Biden was hesitant, Johnson was the first to commit himself wholeheartedly to the cause and to visit war-torn Kyiv.

Many other nations – the Poles, the Baltic states, the Scandinavians and the Canadians among them – have been more supportive than the Germans, who owe Ukrainians the greatest moral debt.

Berlin boasts of handing out a handful of howitzers while dithering over clapped-out armoured vehicles. Meanwhile British arms and training, Turkish drones and American rocket artillery systems have proved decisive on the battlefield.

Sold down the Dnieper

Although the Scholz coalition officially sides with Ukraine, the unpalatable fact remains that Germany and its EU partners are financing Russian aggression by paying vast sums for Russian gas.

Will they stand up to Putin in Germany when the enormity of the ordeal ahead becomes clear to everybody? Will public opinion continue to back even the present feeble commitment, or will the voices calling for peace at the expense of Ukrainians prevail? It is all too believable that at some point, probably early next year when gas storage facilities are empty, Berlin – and Brussels – will open negotiations with the Kremlin, regardless of Kyiv’s wishes.

Yet it is then that the ghosts of the past may rise up to intervene in the present. The thought of Germans and Russians redrawing the map of Eastern Europe at the conference table sends shivers down the spines of every Pole, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian and, of course, Ukrainian. On August 23, 1940, exactly 82 years ago this week, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, carving up Poland (which then included Lviv and other parts of present-day Ukraine) and the Baltic states between Russia and Germany. No German Chancellor wishes to be reminded of that precedent.

However, nor can Scholz risk presiding over an even deeper and more lasting recession than that caused by the Covid pandemic. Somehow he must steer a course between the Scylla of appeasing Putin and the Charybdis of economic ruin.

The tension between these positions is reflected in the tripartite coalition. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and the Greens are the hawks, Finance Minister Christian Lindner and his pro-business Free Democrats are the doves, while the Social Democrats are deeply divided. The party leadership leans towards Moscow, the rank and file towards Kyiv. This explains why Scholz never says that he wants Ukraine to win the war, merely that they must not lose it.

The opposition Christian Democrats are only slightly more united. They too have a large wing that privately favours a negotiated peace, represented by their pro-business leader Friedrich Merz, and a smaller but not insignificant group led by the foreign affairs expert Norbert Röntgen, who hope for a Ukrainian victory. Merz has papered over the cracks by focusing on a campaign to reverse his predecessor Mrs Merkel’s exit from nuclear energy.

Meanwhile, the “understanding Putin” lobby has the support of both the hard Left Die Linke and anti-immigration AfD parties. German public opinion has slowly tiptoed away from its initial admiration for Ukrainian resistance and towards a compromise peace.

That subtle shift could soon become an overwhelming tide, once Germans are required to make real sacrifices. Vladimir Putin, we may be sure, is counting on it.

From October, Scholz will impose a gas levy on consumers to compensate energy companies for the cost of replacing Russian gas supplies. Germany’s biggest energy company, Uniper, was bailed out in July to the tune of £12.5 billion; it is now claiming another £18.5 billion of levies.

This policy is bound to be unpopular, since it redistributes tens of billions from the poor to the rich — curious thinking for a government of the Left. But this is nothing compared to the prospect of protests sparked by a national shutdown caused, not by a deadly virus, but by Putin’s energy politics.

A change in the air?

Modern Germany has a volatile history of popular protest. It began with the revolution that toppled the Kaiser in 1918. The Nazis mobilised the masses to carry out their “national revolution” in 1933. A workers’ uprising in East Germany was crushed by Soviet tanks in 1953. Student protests brought about a cultural revolution in 1968. Uniquely bloodless and benign was the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. This was Germany’s finest hour.

The defiance that breached the Wall and sent the Soviet army home was a blessing, but the despair that Putin’s revenge may induce this winter will surely be a curse. Gas has given the Russian dictator coercive control over the German political class, which willingly acquiesced in its fate.

In Kyiv, Boris Johnson said: “I can tell you that we in the UK will not for one second give in to Putin’s blackmail.” Olaf Scholz is incapable of speaking like this — because he does not believe it. He has failed to frame the coming ordeal as a battle in which Germans must make sacrifices for their own liberty, not just Ukraine’s. People don’t mind his lack of charisma; they do mind facing a nightmarish winter with spineless hypocrisy at the helm.

Will it become so obvious by next spring that Scholz is unequal to the task that either he or his coalition are replaced? Can the centre of German politics hold — or are we about to see a terrible revolt of the masses against a discredited political establishment? It has happened before. It can happen again.

Daniel Johnson was the Telegraph’s correspondent in Germany and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. He is now the editor of TheArticle.

The conflict has led to increased energy prices and concerns about energy security, prompting Germany to seek alternative energy sources.

The government has been criticized for its reliance on Russian energy, which has been described as Germany's "Achilles' heel".

In response, Germany is investing in liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure to diversify its energy imports, although this is more expensive than Russian gas.

Title:

Content: This is an audio transcript of the FT News Briefing podcast episode: Russia’s move on Ukraine triggers western sanctions

Marc Filippino
Good morning from the Financial Times. Today is Wednesday, February 23rd, and this is your FT News Briefing.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Russia is edging closer to war. President Vladimir Putin is endorsing Russian-backed separatists who claim the entire Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. Meanwhile, western powers are pushing back both with sanctions and by suspending the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project. But can Germany kick its Russian gas habit?

Guy Chazan
Its industry has really become addicted to relatively cheap Russian gas so it’s in a bit of a bind, really.

Marc Filippino
Plus, how are Russian markets holding up through all this? Unsurprisingly, not so great. We’ll tell you more. I’m Marc Filippino, and here’s the news you need to start your day.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Very late on Monday night, Russian president Vladimir Putin decided to send what he called peacekeeping troops into eastern Ukraine. They’ll support two Russian-backed separatist states that he’s recognised as independent. This crossed a line for western powers, and they retaliated with a salvo of sanctions against Moscow on Tuesday. The US is targeting two of Russia’s largest financial institutions, as well as Russian elites and their family members. The FT’s Henry Foy has more on Europe’s sanctions towards Russia.

Henry Foy
So the European Union has decided to sanction a lot of individuals and entities. They’ve gone after 351 members of the Russian parliament. These are elected MPs, elected representatives who voted for the independence of these statelets, these separatists to be recognised for troops to be sent in, and also 27 individuals and entities who are linked to actions that have undermined Ukraine’s sovereignty. The key thing here, though, is the EU, just like the US and the UK who also announced their own sanction packages, are saying this is not it. This is just the first wave. And if you continue aggression against Ukraine and if there is a full invasion of the rest of Ukraine not held by these pro-Russian separatists, then there will be more — much, much more. This first wave is targeted. It’s not particularly economically damaging, but it’s a sign that there is unity across the west in standing up to this.

Marc Filippino
Henry, is all this enough to push Russia from further escalation?

Henry Foy
Well Marc, officials I speak to here in Brussels, in the EU, inside of Nato, tell me basically, no. That effectively, Putin has made a decision that he is going to go the whole way and invade Ukraine. That’s a decision that he’s built up over years. It’s an emotional decision. It’s an irrational one. And there’s really little that the west can do about it, given that Putin has thrown away and torn up all the diplomatic efforts. And he will take these sanctions and the sanctions will slow him down. They will affect the Russian economy. They will make an invasion more painful than perhaps it would have been before. However, they’re not going to stop him if that is what he intends to do, and most people, the Nato intelligence community, the defence community, believes that that is his decision.

Marc Filippino
Now, how is Nato’s approaching all this? You know, a crucial issue for Russia is that it wants to keep Ukraine and other former Soviet countries out of Nato. What’s its role right now?

Henry Foy
So Nato’s role, they’ve been very clear about this, is to protect itself, to protect alliance members, to protect Nato members in Europe. So what they’ve done in recent months and weeks is to deploy more troops in eastern European countries that border Ukraine and Russia effectively as deterrents to Russia to say, look, if you are going to invade Ukraine, you’re not going to come anywhere near us because we are going to defend our own, our own members, but also to help with any cross-border fallout from an invasion of Ukraine, which is likely to be in the form of refugees, potentially spillover events such as terrorism.

Marc Filippino
Henry Foy is the FT’s European diplomatic correspondent.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

The news of Russia sending troops to Ukraine sent the price of oil up to nearly 100 bucks a barrel yesterday, and there was other energy news too. Germany has frozen the approval process on the controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Chancellor Olaf Scholz says Berlin would not approve the Kremlin-backed project. The pipeline is owned by the Russian-backed company Gazprom and would have increased a Russian gas supplies to Germany and the rest of Europe. The pipeline project has been in the works for years, and there has been a lot of pressure on Germany to stop it. But now that it’s been stopped, what’s next for Germany’s energy sector? Our Berlin bureau chief Guy Chazan joins me now to talk about this. Welcome to the show, Guy.

Guy Chazan
Hi.

Marc Filippino
So Guy, one of our Lex columnists wrote that Germany has been like a junkie in its addiction to Russian gas. How dependent is Germany on Russian energy?

Guy Chazan
Well, it relies on Russia for 55 per cent of its gas imports, and that’s more than many other countries in Europe. It’s a sort of, it’s an indictment in a way of the country’s kind of energy policies over the past few years because in 2011 it took this rather controversial decision to phase out all its nuclear power stations by 2022, and it’s now also phasing out its coal-fired power stations by 2030. So it has all these very ambitious goals to change its energy mix, but that has made it relatively more reliant on gas. And when you’re more reliant on gas, you’re more reliant on Gazprom because that’s Europe’s major supplier.

Marc Filippino
Yeah, and Russia, in response to Germany’s move, said, OK, well, you know, this is going to have an impact on already high energy prices. How hard will higher prices hit Germany’s economy?

Guy Chazan
Well, we’ve already been getting a taste of it because over the past few months, energy experts have said that Gazprom seems to be deliberately withholding supplies to the spot market in Europe, and that has driven up prices. But it’s basically destroyed the reputation of Gazprom as a reliable supplier in Germany. The green minister of the economy yesterday said that explicitly, and that’s really a big change because in the past, whenever you sort of ask German officials, you know, what about this relationship with Russia? They always say, well, you know, even in the worst times during the cold war, Russia was a reliable supplier. Those flows of gas were never affected. But that seems to have changed in recent months, and the perception of Gazprom has accordingly changed as well in Germany.

Marc Filippino
So given that this perception of Gazprom has changed, what alternatives does Germany have when it comes to energy sources?

Guy Chazan
Well, none at the moment. That’s the problem. It basically is building a terminal for the import of LNG, liquefied natural gas. But that is very expensive, much more expensive than Gazprom’s gas. So it’s in a bit of a bind, really. But the big difference, I suppose, really from the Merkel era, the governments of Angela Merkel, is that we now have this government with the Greens, and they are determined for Germany to go carbon neutral in the next 25 years. And if that ambition is achieved, then there will be much, much more renewables, much more wind and solar, and much less reliance on fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas.

Marc Filippino
Less of a question on the economics of this whole thing and more about the safety of German people. I mean, it’s the middle of February. If people aren’t able to heat their homes, is there a potential issue with people being safe and warm in Germany?

Guy Chazan
Well, I don’t think so, because the consensus is that Gazprom and Russia would not do anything as suicidal as withhold gas supplies to Germany. I mean that literally would be destroying an energy relationship, which is mutually, very, very beneficial. It’s not just Germany that benefits from this. It’s Russia, too, which relies very, very heavily on the flow of foreign currency into its exchequer. I think actually, if it were to come to that, Germany is actually quite well placed at the moment because the winter is drawing to an end and it’s getting sort of LNG shipments via Rotterdam. So it has been able to diversify. And apparently ministers have been saying the energy security situation is OK at the moment.

Marc Filippino
Guy Chazan is the FT’s Berlin bureau chief. Thank you, Guy.

Guy Chazan
Thanks.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Marc Filippino
Moscow’s main stock benchmark has collapsed by a third since October. Markets have been responding to the escalating crisis in Ukraine. Investors are mostly worried about two things — one, a full-blown invasion by Russia into Ukraine, and two, how sanctions, which you know, we talked about earlier, will affect assets. Our capital markets correspondent Tommy Stubbington has been following this and says there’s one area in particular investors are watching.

Tommy Stubbington
Possibly the most extreme form of sanctions in terms of their impact on the Russian stock market would be an outright ban on trading Russian stocks or Russian bonds on the secondary market, which would make it effectively impossible for western investors to hold those assets. Now we’re not there yet, but I mean, obviously any outside risks that investors see will lead to investors effectively dumping the Russian assets that they hold, and they do hold those assets largely because they are included in the indices, the investment benchmarks, the billions and billions of dollars of investments follow.

Marc Filippino
Now how insulated is the market overall? And is it likely that the Kremlin would react?

Tommy Stubbington
Share price declines, on their own, are probably something that I imagine the Kremlin wouldn’t be too worried about. They’d be more worried about the sanctions hurting at the level of the whole economy. And on that basis, the Russian economy is fairly well insulated from sanctions by the high level of dollar reserves that their central bank holds, which, you know, should be able to protect the rouble from any kind of run from overseas investors. And so the answer is the, you know, the Russian economy is certainly more sanctions-proof than possibly it was in the past.

Marc Filippino
Tommy Stubbington is the FT’s capital markets correspondent.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

You can read more on all of these stories at FT.com. This has been your daily FT News Briefing. Make sure you check back tomorrow for the latest business news.

This transcript has been automatically generated. If by any chance there is an error please send the details for a correction to: typo@ft.com. We will do our best to make the amendment as soon as possible.

Get alerts on Transcript when a new story is published

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2022. All rights reserved.
Reuse this content (opens in new window) CommentsJump to comments section

Some politicians and sectors of the population are advocating for the reactivation of nuclear power plants to alleviate the energy crisis.

However, the government remains committed to its nuclear phase-out policy, with Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck and Environment Minister Steffi Lemke reiterating their opposition to nuclear energy, citing safety and cost concerns.

Title:

Content: EU chaos! Macron and Scholz in furious bust-up over EU energy plans: ‘Risky and expensive'

FRENCH President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz are locked in a furious bust-up over EU energy policy plans as disagreements have sparked division in the bloc.

Link copied

Macron wields 'tools to set EU agenda'

While France has been pushing for nuclear to be included in the EU’s sustainable finance taxonomy, Germany is in the process of completely phasing out the energy source in the country. The EU’s taxonomy is intended to hand a green badge to companies and activities — or to withhold it — to “help shift investments where they are most needed". This is part of the bloc’s aim to direct funding towards energy sources with a low or zero carbon footprint.

But this has sparked fury as Germany does not view nuclear power as a form of clean energy.

Mr Macron wants gas and nuclear to be labelled as a “transitional” source under the taxonomy as he claims they are needed for the clean energy transition.

He says that this is because renewables are “intermittent, and thus not totally substitutable, even with our interconnections [in Europe], for non-intermittent sources of electricity production” like gas or nuclear power.

And these calls do not come as much of a surprise, given that 70 percent of French electricity is generated by nuclear power.

Mr Macron has pointed to the verdict from experts on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to back up his calls.

Macron and Scholz are in a furious energy bust-up (Image: Getty )

Emmanuel Macron is pushing for nuclear power to be included in the EU taxonomy (Image: Getty )

They claim that “nuclear power is one of the solutions to decarbonise our economies”.

And this seems to have convinced Brussels, as the EU Commission drew up a draft proposal, circulated on 31 December, for this to come into effect.

Subject to a consultation period until Friday (21 January), It gave EU members and others just three weeks to analyse the proposal and provide their own comments.

Germany is strongly opposed to the nuclear plans and has been phasing out nuclear power for over two decades.

It also plans to shut down its three remaining plants at the end of the year.

READ MORE: World holds breath as Ukraine to fire rocket amid Russia tension

Olaf Scholz's Government is opposed to the EU's proposal (Image: Getty )

But it is not Berlin who disapproves of the proposal.

The EU Platform on Sustainable Finance, a European Commission advisory body, has torn the proposal apart.

In an opinion piece, it argued that nuclear power is not an entirely clean energy source, and that fossil gas is “far from green”.

Under the EU’s draft proposal, gas-fired power plants would get a “transitional” investment label if they meet a certain criteria.

That is if they use “at least 30 percent of renewable or low-carbon gases as of 1 January 2026, and at least 55 percent of renewable or low-carbon gases as of 1 January 2030”.

DON'T MISS
Boris on brink: Red Wall poll signal end of the road for PM [REPORT]
EU Galileo blow as UK’s OneWeb network signs major deals [REVEAL]
EU helpless over Russia thanks to Merkel as Biden poised to step in [INSIGHT]

Germany argued nuclear is not a clean energy source (Image: Getty )

And as of January 1, 2036, the Commission said all gas-fired power plants would have to “switch to renewable or low-carbon gases” to qualify for the EU’s green investment label.

But under EU rules, no technology can be considered green if it causes “significant harm” to any of the taxonomy’s six environmental objectives.

Those are climate change mitigation and adaptation, water protection, the transition to a circular economy, pollution prevention, and biodiversity protection.

Germany has been kicking up a fuss over the proposals, calling them “risky and expensive” in a letter sent to Brussels.

Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck said in a joint statement with Environment Minister Steffi Lemke: “As the federal government, we have once again clearly expressed our rejection of the inclusion of nuclear energy. It is risky and expensive."

Germany has also claimed that there is a lack of safety requirements in the nuclear field.

Robert Habeck sent a letter to Brussels slamming the proposal (Image: Getty )

And it argued that the lengthy construction of new reactors "does not offer a short-term opportunity" to phase out carbon-intensive energy sources such as coal.

But while it has poured cold water over nuclear plans, Germany does not seem so opposed to the inclusion of gas.

In the letter sent to Brussels, it reads that gas used in "ultra-modern and efficient gas-fired power plants forms a bridge for a limited transitional period".

But the German Government did mention that the proposed fuel switch targets to low-carbon and renewable gases laid out by the taxonomy proposal are not realistic.

And Mr Macron is travelling to Berlin today to meet with Mr Scholz.

While the leaders’ meeting will focus on the Russia’s mounting pressure on Ukraine, the energy plans will no doubt be a topic of conversation too.

The debate over nuclear energy's role in this transition continues, reflecting broader global discussions on the balance between renewable and nuclear power in achieving carbon neutrality.

Title:

Content: Skip to navigationSkip to content
FIZZIN'

Here are all the countries taking a second look at nuclear

Published

If you’ve noticed an atomic renaissance, you’re not wrong: Governments around the world are reconsidering plans to mothball nuclear power plants, even as interest in building new reactors continues to grow.

All too recently, the trend was going in the other direction. In 2011, after Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant suffered a series of meltdowns following an earthquake and tsunami, global public opinion swung hard against nuclear power, with Japan, Germany, and others announcing plant closures.

Today, that looks like an overreaction. Rising fossil fuel prices, thanks in part to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the increasingly obvious threat of climate change are forcing a rethink of the costs and benefits of atomic energy.

In brief, here’s what’s happening:

  • The UK has also decided to build a new nuclear power plant.
  • A variety of countries without nuclear plants are starting their first reactor projects.
  • Belgium is delaying the closure of nuclear power plants.
  • The EU voted to formally recognize nuclear energy as “green”.
  • The US announced $6 billion to keep nuclear plants open.

Nuclear is a big part of net-zero plans

The logic of turning to nuclear now almost doesn’t need explaining: It’s incredibly efficient, and it doesn’t emit carbon during operation. The International Energy Administration argues (pdf) that without growth in nuclear power, getting to net-zero electricity production by 2050 will cost an extra $500 billion in new investment and raise consumer electricity bills by $20 billion annually. Energy experts see nuclear as a good partner to backstop electrical grids during times when renewables aren’t as effective, like nighttime or when the wind isn’t blowing.

Turning that logic into a coherent investment program is a different story. Most of the policy decisions now are about preserving existing capacity, something of a no-brainer when every moment counts toward stopping global warming’s harshest consequences.

But to achieve net zero, investment has to go up, and the industry has to step up. The current paradigm for building nuclear reactors is a world of cost-overruns and megaproject nightmares, while newer ideas for smaller scale modular reactors have yet to be deployed at large scale. The IEA pointedly notes that industry needs to deliver cheaper projects to win back confidence.

The nuclear power to-do list

At the root of all the complications of atomic power are people’s strong feelings about its dangers or benefits, which can make dispassionate analysis a challenge.

Nuclear power is, statistically, among the safest sources of energy out there. Even at Fukushima, one of the worst accidents at a nuclear power plant, there were no deaths from radiation sickness; casualties came in the chaos of evacuation. But there are still thousands of people who can’t return to their homes due to radiation contamination. Better implementation of safety procedures and better regulation to incentivize it have to be part of the equation.

Mining fuel for nuclear plants is a tricky, toxic business, but so is obtaining the minerals needed for batteries and photovoltaics. Storing nuclear waste is technically challenging and politically sensitive, though nuclear power plants don’t produce all that much of it.

The danger of standing pat, though, is apparent in another complication: Rivers in Europe and the US that are used to cool atomic reactors are getting too hot for the job, forcing reductions in power generation.

📬 Kick off each morning with coffee and the Daily Brief (BYO coffee).

By providing your email, you agree to the Quartz Privacy Policy.


However, there is a growing trend towards using compound feeds that incorporate plant-based ingredients like soy proteins, wheat gluten, and corn gluten meal to reduce reliance on fishmeal and fish oil.

Additionally, some feeds may contain pigments like astaxanthin to enhance the color of the salmon flesh, making it more appealing to consumers.

There are also concerns about the accumulation of toxins such as PCBs and mercury in fishmeal, which can pose health risks to consumers.

In Canada, for instance, the use of pesticides like SLICE (emamectin benzoate) is regulated, although there are concerns about its decreasing effectiveness and the development of resistance in sea lice.

The European Union has standards for aquaculture that emphasize sustainability, but there are criticisms regarding the lack of clear indicators for environmental sustainability.

In China, efforts are being made to reduce the use of feed-grade fish and promote compound feeds to protect wild fish stocks and improve sustainability.

However, there is a growing trend towards using compound feeds that incorporate plant-based ingredients like soy proteins, wheat gluten, and corn gluten meal to reduce reliance on fishmeal and fish oil.

Title:

Content: 262
Views

China Works to Get Wild-Caught Fish Out of its Aquaculture Feed

[By Zhang Chun]

A 2021 Chinese government initiative to stop aquaculture feed being made from only young or low-value fish and to instead start producing “compound feed” – mixed with ingredients harvested from the land – is opening up a greener future for the sector.

According to the Ministry of Agriculture, in a series of trials last year, the sole use of low-value “feed-grade” fish as aquaculture feed was reduced by 77 percent, and by as much as 94 percent in farming of largemouth bass. Experts say the switch to compound feed could see overall use of feed-grade fish slashed by half for farming of certain species.

What is compound feed?

Compound feed normally contains a mixture of animal- and plant-based ingredients, and added nutrients such as vitamins. For aquaculture feeds containing fishmeal and fish oil, common additives include soy proteins, wheat gluten and corn gluten meal.

Feed-grade fish are those in a catch that are small, low in commercial value, or unsuitable for human consumption. They are sent to be processed into fishmeal and fish oil, or fed directly to farmed fish. But a significant proportion of feed-grade fish consists of juveniles of commercially important species. Once caught they can no longer grow into adult fish and breed, or be caught and sold on the market. Their removal damages ocean food chains and ecosystem stability.

The last decade and more has seen increased calls for China to tackle the use of feed-grade fish in aquaculture, but the current round of trials is the first organised by the Ministry of Agriculture. It focuses on species such as the yellow croaker, Japanese sea bass and largemouth bass, which tend to be fed more feed-grade fish. While those species don’t account for much of China’s fed aquaculture output, they do require much more protein than others to put on the same amount of weight. Compound feed cuts down on the use of fish by substituting vegetable alternatives, and is cheaper.

In the long term, sustained reductions in the use of fishmeal and fish oil in feed will be necessary to protect wild fisheries.

Aquaculture driving feed-grade fish catch

Fishers never used to set out to catch feed-grade fish; it was bycatch, with no economic value. Then in the 1980s, global aquaculture took off. “There was a lot of need for fishmeal and oil,” Rashid Sumalia, a fisheries researcher at the University of British Columbia, told China Dialogue. People started going out “purposely to catch them at distance, because there was a market”, he added.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO’s) 2020 global fisheries and aquaculture report, the use of fish for reduction to fishmeal and fish oil peaked in 1994 at 30 million tonnes, and stood at 18 million tonnes by 2018. Another 4 million tonnes were used elsewhere, including directly in feed for aquaculture, livestock and fur animals.

It wasn’t until the mid and late 1990s that aquaculture took off in China. The FAO’s 1998 fisheries and aquaculture report describes how rare it was for fish catches in Asia to go unused or be used as aquaculture feed. But in Asia, particularly in China and Vietnam, aquaculture has expanded rapidly and the region now accounts for almost 90 percent of global output. In China, output tripled between 1998 and 2020, to represent 60 percent of the global total.

Although many of the species farmed in China need little or no feed, fed fish and crustacean aquaculture accounts for half of output and requires millions of tonnes of feed-grade fish from Chinese waters alone. China does not currently have statistics on its feed-grade fish catch or use in fed aquaculture. One study calculated that in 2016 4.6 million tonnes of feed-grade fish were caught, 35 percent of the total recorded catch in China’s waters, and most was used directly as feed.

“The state is certainly aware of the problem,” said Fang Qing, China general manager for the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, adding that the difficulty in banning some harmful types of fishing gear in China is due to the ongoing market for the feed-grade fish it brings in. Since 2018, China has put minimum size limits in place for 15 commercial fish species, and ruled that feed-grade fish catch would drop to below 20% by 2020. There is no data available indicating whether this target was met.

This it isn’t just a Chinese problem. According to a 2017 study by the University of British Columbia, many countries, including the US and Norway, use feed-grade fish directly as feed. But the practice increased significantly in Asia between the 1990s and 2010, with feed-grade fish coming to account for a high percentage of landed catches.

Replacing feed-grade fish

In early 2019, the Ministry of Agriculture announced it would work to make Chinese aquaculture more environmentally friendly, and proposed the use of compound feed instead of purely fish-based feed. In April 2021, several provinces started trials of compound feed as part of more concrete action plans.

Compound feed for aquaculture is usually a mix of fishmeal, fish oil, wheat flour, soybean meal, vegetable oil and other land-grown ingredients. The amount of fishmeal and fish oil needed depends on the type of fish to be fed, and its stage of growth. According to Fang Qing, carnivorous fish such as the yellow croaker need huge quantities of meat protein at certain stages in their growth, and the relationship between particular nutrients and the growth and physiology of the fish can be complex. Hence, producing appropriate compound feed involves a lot of research and development.

To quantify how efficiently a species is farmed, the aquaculture industry uses a ratio called Fish in:Fish out (FIFO). The closer the FIFO is to 1, the more fish meat is produced per unit of input; a score of 1 means an extra kilogram of fish used as feed results in an extra kilogram of fish to harvest.

A study published in 2020 shows a FIFO of almost 1 for salmon and trout, thanks to the use of compound feeds which require less fishmeal and fish oil. If only fish were used to feed those species, the FIFO figure would be similar to that of the yellow croaker – over 6, according to an upcoming paper co-authored by Zhang Wenbo, an assistant professor in the College of Fisheries and Life Science at Shanghai Ocean University. His research into conventional yellow croaker aquaculture in China found that the direct use of feed-grade fish is still the best option for the yellow croaker farmers. But Fang Qing told China Dialogue that a lot of feed-grade fish fed to yellow croaker goes uneaten, and ends up sinking to the seabed or rotting, causing pollution and increasing the risk of disease.

More compound feed use would help reduce FIFO numbers in two ways: by cutting use of feed-grade fish, and by increasing conversion ratios – that is, generating more fish growth per unit of feed.

Zhejiang is taking the lead in both those areas. Since 2016, the province has been shutting fishmeal factories during the closed season and restricting the percentage of feed-grade fish in the overall catch. This, combined with the use of compound feed, saw Zhejiang cut the use of feed-grade fish by 835,000 tonnes across 710,000 mu (474 square kilometres) of aquaculture farms during the 13th FYP period (2016-2020). “Previously, feed-grade fish were the primary feed for largemouth bass in Zhejiang. These last two years that’s almost all been replaced with compound feed.” The FIFO ratio for farmed largemouth bass in Zhejiang could come down to 1.5, half the national average for this species, according to 2016 calculations Zhang Wenbo contributed to.

But cutting back on feed-grade fish use in China won’t be easy. Fishers catch a wide range of fish with a wide range of gear. At the local level there is a lack of fisher associations that can impose rules on the sector, making management tricky. Zhejiang’s success can be ascribed to strong local regulations. “There are no successful [international] examples that China can apply,” said Fang Qing. Alongside legislation to bolster oversight of the feed-grade fish catch, he also suggests developing feeds which will be more palatable to fish, and labelling products according to their use of feed-grade fish or compound feed, so consumers can make an informed choice.

Increasing the efficiency of fish inputs

The use of compound feed isn’t the end of the story. At least for now, fishmeal and fish oil are essential ingredients in those feeds. And while the global supply of fishmeal and fish oil has fallen from its peak in 2000 to a fairly stable level, the demand for aquaculture feeds has been increasing. That requires the development of feeds containing less meal and oil.

Plans announced by Norway to boost salmon farming have led to concerns about the supply of fishmeal and fish oil as well as vegetable ingredients. The country has started researching the use of mesopelagic fish (which inhabit the middle depths of the ocean), algae and farmed insects to meet that need and make feed more efficient. A more complete solution would be to develop entirely vegetarian feeds, with no fishmeal at all. However, as things stand that would only be suitable for a few species.

“Fishmeal is the most expensive of the ingredients found in bulk feeds. Reducing the amount in those feeds is the best way to make them cheaper,” Zhang Wenbo points out. A tonne of fishmeal costs around 10,000 yuan (US$1,500), compared to 1,000–4,000 yuan for bran or soybean meal, he added. “Feed conversion ratios are also affected by the type of aquaculture, the make-up of the feed, and genetic selection – the breeding of strains more suited to compound feeds,” he said. This is more difficult in China, with its wide range of farmed species, than in Norway, where salmon dominates. But progress is still being made, and associated targets have been set in the 14th Five Year Plan (2021–25).

Increasing the efficiency of fishmeal and fish oil use in China will also ease global pressures on the supply and help protect juvenile fish. China is the world’s biggest consumer of fishmeal, with the largest part being used in aquaculture, and the second largest being fed to pigs. But the country only produces 400,000–700,000 tonnes of fishmeal a year – not even close to meeting domestic demand. Fishmeal imports have held steady since 2017, at about 1.4 million tonnes, but jumped to 1.82 million tonnes in 2021, with experts ascribing the change to the recovery in pig farming. The extra fishmeal came from the Americas and elsewhere in Asia.

Zhang Wenbo explains that China’s fishmeal and fish oil imports come from forage fish, caught specifically to be turned into fishmeal, and Peru is the main supplier. Relatively little of China’s fishmeal is made from feed-grade fish. “Imports of by-product processed fishmeal from Vietnam and Thailand have been increasing in recent years,” he said.

Minimizing the feed-grade fish catch

Cutting back on the use of feed-grade fish is good for the sustainable development of both wild fishing and aquaculture. It will also help protect already vulnerable ocean ecosystems. In 1959, fishing vessels in China’s Bohai Sea caught 420 kg of fish per net for every hour they worked. By 1993, that had fallen to 30 kg, and only 8 kg between 1998 and 2011. The above-mentioned research into China’s feed-grade fish catch found that a long-term stable total catch has masked trends including falling biomass and changes in end use.

The losses to biodiversity and ecological services cannot be measured in financial terms, and the fishing industry needs more than simply output. Wang Songlin, president and founder of the Qingdao Marine Conservation Society, believes the industry needs to work towards a balance of ecological, economic and social benefits. He told China Dialogue that even if total catch may still be the same by volume, the underlying destruction to the integrity of ecosystems and the environment should not be ignored.

Management of the sector in China has acquired a new ecological focus. Alongside the use of compound feeds, some provinces are providing fishery stewardship subsidies for the protection of rare and endangered species and for keeping down feed-grade fish catch volumes.

Protecting juvenile fish isn’t just a matter for China – it’s crucial for ocean ecosystems around the world. Rashid Sumalia said: “If you look at the economies and the ecology at the higher level, you don’t want to [catch feed-grade fish] because the losses are too high” to be sustainable. Sumalia acknowledges that many people rely on that fishing for their livelihoods but says: “We need to take it down as far as we can.”

Zhang Chun is a senior researcher at China Dialogue. This article appears courtesy of China Dialogue Ocean and may be found in its original form here

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.

Additionally, some feeds may contain pigments like astaxanthin to enhance the color of the salmon flesh, making it more appealing to consumers.

What are some of the additives that are added to salmon feeds in salmon farms?

What are the purposes of adding pigments to the feed in salmon farms?

There are also concerns about the accumulation of toxins such as PCBs and mercury in fishmeal, which can pose health risks to consumers.

Title:

Content: Whitewashing ‘Blue Food’ Won’t Make the World More Green

Recent public messaging encouraging people to eat more seafood conveniently omits information about the environmental impact of fishing.

Marine wildlife is in a state of global emergency. Ninety percent of fish populations are at or below half their historical levels, and more fish species appear on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list of threatened species than any other class of animals. Since 1970 alone, global shark and ray populations have declined by more than 70 percent. The vaquita porpoise will be extinct in a matter of years, with the Māui dolphin and North Atlantic right whale likely following close behind. The primary driver of this aquatic extinction crisis is not climate change or plastic pollution but fishing, and conservation biologists around the world have warned that addressing this crisis requires overhauling traditional notions of fisheries management and implementing significant restrictions on catch limits.

Recently, however, calls have emerged not for less fishing, but more, under the banner of a new term encompassing all seafood and aquaculture products: “blue food.” The Blue Food Alliance, launched ahead of the UN Food Systems Summit, has brought together academics, policymakers, and corporate donors focused on increasing the consumption of sustainable seafood. The project was introduced with much fanfare, including a set of papers in the journal Nature Food, an editorial in its parent journal Nature, a number of well-placed op-eds by important academics and members of industry, and even a promotional video. According to the group’s report, titled “The Blue Food Assessment,” seafood and aquaculture often have lower environmental impact and provide greater nutritional benefits than terrestrial foods while contributing to food security, making it economically and ecologically sustainable.

But this blue-food narrative relies on generalizations and omissions that obscure the facts about the impacts of seafood. Just as harmful industries such as Big Oil and Big Livestock have promoted superficial production tweaks and embraced the language of sustainability, so too has the seafood industry. While the Blue Food Alliance boasts the membership of sustainability nonprofits like EAT, it also includes seafood titans like the Walton Family Foundation. As countless unsustainable industries claim to go green, public messaging on blue food bears all the hallmarks of a branding pivot—call it a “bluewash.”

It’s not that the message of this campaign and others like it are predicated on bad science, it’s that they deploy scientific claims selectively. In doing so, “The Blue Food Assessment” omits many of the harms of fishing and fish farming, and makes it seem far more sustainable than it actually is. Take the idea that consuming seafood is generally more environmentally friendly than eating land-based meat. To substantiate this, the authors use sustainability metrics from previous studies to score the greenhouse gas, nitrogen, and phosphorus emissions, as well as land and fresh water use, of various seafood and aquaculture products. This leads to the conclusion that these foods’ environmental impacts are lower than those of many agricultural products, particularly chicken, the least environmentally impactful industrially raised meat. The problem is that this is an apples-to-oranges comparison—it applies criteria designed for terrestrial agriculture to the oceans, while omitting environmental impacts specific to marine life. Eating wild fish may use virtually no land or freshwater, but it also depletes marine life populations, disrupts food webs, dredges up reefs and algal beds, and litters the ocean with ghost nets. The report is equally selective in its discussion of the health benefits of seafood. Fish may be rich in various vitamins and dietary minerals, but it can also be laden with microplastics and bioaccumulative toxins such as PCBs, PBDEs, and mercury. While these various shortcomings are acknowledged in some of the blue food manuscripts, they are all but absent from promotional materials, overstating the benefits of blue food while underplaying its shortcomings.

Specific claims aside, the nomenclature in this campaign is also concerning. While lumping all marine foods into the new category of “blue food” does little to facilitate comparison to other food groups, it does quite a bit to conflate species- and region-specific impact assessments. For example, while advocates boast that “the BFA assessment emphasizes the enormous diversity of blue foods,” the data are actually quite vague, with wide margins of error and broad categorizations like “miscellaneous marine fishes.” Even more problematically, this tactic also obscures the different producers and production processes within the seafood industry. For one thing, although it doesn’t explicitly advocate expanding industrial fishing, it is effusive about growing industrialized forms of fish production like aquaculture. But aquaculture does not take pressure off wild fisheries as much as it complements them, often requiring hundreds of wild-caught bait fish to feed a single farmed salmon or tuna. It also brings with it a range of risks and harms, including effluent pollution, mangrove deforestation, and viral proliferation both within aquaculture farms and spreading to wild fish. Yet “The Blue Food Assessment” recommends expansion of aquaculture despite these risks.

Even as they push for more aquaculture, blue food proponents do raise legitimate concerns about seafood being central to many cultures, food systems, and economies, especially among coastal communities in the Global South. However, while the BFA states that small-scale fishers haul in “over half the world’s fish catch,” reports indicate that subsistence fisheries account for less than 3 percent of the global catch and so-called “artisanal” fishing for another 20, meaning that three-quarters comes from industrial-scale operations like trawlers, seiners, and longliners that are widely condemned as unsustainable. By conflating industrial fishing practices that feed high-end consumers with subsistence fishing traditions, the blue food category creates needless confusion about the specific needs of coastal communities.

This follows a long history of using humanitarianism to disguise exploitation by the fishing industry. The Blue Food Alliance invokes human rights in the context of nutrition, but it omits the impacts of the aquaculture and fishing industries on marginalized peoples. Its press materials feature images of subsistence fishing communities hanging their catches to dry on modest clothing lines and selling them in hand-weaved baskets, a common marketing angle for seafood, used heavily by sustainability certification programs such as the Marine Stewardship Council. A recent analysis found that the MSC featured small-scale, low-impact fishing methods in roughly half of its promotional content, despite these methods representing only 7 percent of the products it certified.

The reality is that traditional fishing communities are the ones that suffer most from the impacts of the global fishing industry. But in “The Blue Food Assessment,” you won’t find photos of West African artisanal fishermen drowning in deep water after collisions with illegal supertrawlers, Salish chiefs decrying the cultural genocide of industrial herring extraction, or the tens of thousands people enslaved on up to a quarter of the global fishing fleet. The seafood industry wants its consumers to associate seafood with modest subsistence fishing traditions, but the truth is that the vast majority of seafood—and especially that which is sold in industrialized nations—is obtained by methods that pose a direct threat to those ways of life.

While the discourse around sustainable seafood can be heated, there are still fundamental solutions on which conservation biologists and fisheries scientists agree. As the renowned fisheries scientist Daniel Pauly puts it, “Fisheries issues are not difficult or intractable problems. We need to fish less and to create sanctuaries where fish populations can revive.” While policy should protect the food security and economic viability of coastal communities, especially in the Global South, it also must massively reduce subsidies and permits for both fishing and aquaculture and expand marine reserves to protect our marine ecosystems. Consumers should also be aware of the major impacts associated with consuming species like tuna at the top of food chains or those like crabs that live in sensitive ecosystems on the ocean floor, and realize that farmed fish aren’t necessarily low-impact either. Notably, the only “blue foods” with negative emissions impacts aren’t fish at all, but farmed algae and bivalves. However, the biggest environmental benefits of outplanting these species might be as building blocks for rewilding coastal ecosystems, which is also one of our most effective tools for drawing down atmospheric carbon. The truth is, transitioning to a sustainable food system will require people in industrialized nations to eat far fewer animals, both farmed and wild, terrestrial and aquatic.

However, rather than clarifying these diverse environmental stakes, the “blue food” narrative risks muddying the waters of the seafood sustainability debate by suggesting to consumers that a deeply destructive industry is actually sustainable, perhaps as an environmentally friendly alternative to factory-farmed meat. But it’s not that simple. The main beneficiaries of this sort of discourse are the big players in the fishing industry, who escape direct critique and benefit from a bluewashing bonanza that lifts all boats.

While the science underlying “The Blue Food Assessment” is reputable, its lens is narrow, removing blue food from the ecological context it comes from. The blue parts of our planet cycle our nutrients, stabilize our climate, produce half the oxygen in the air we breathe, and provide a home to millions of marine species—functions we risk disrupting if we value them simply as a source of food.

WIRED Opinion publishes articles by outside contributors representing a wide range of viewpoints. Read more opinions here, and see our submission guidelines here. Submit an op-ed at opinion@wired.com.

More Great WIRED Stories

What health concerns are there specifically related to additives in farmed salmon feed?

In Canada, for instance, the use of pesticides like SLICE (emamectin benzoate) is regulated, although there are concerns about its decreasing effectiveness and the development of resistance in sea lice.

Title:

Content: Skip to Content

Drug-resistant sea lice an increasing problem for B.C. fish farms, new study finds

By Melanie Nagy

Click here for updates on this story

    May 14, 2022 (CTV Network) — Every spring, endangered juvenile wild salmon migrate from B.C.’s rivers to the Pacific Ocean, but their numbers are dwindling and some fear sea lice parasites are increasingly to blame. Sea lice are tiny, oval shaped crustaceans that can cling to the backs of wild salmon, feeding on their skin, muscle tissue and blood. Adult fish are generally not harmed when a few lice attach themselves, but juveniles with underdeveloped scales can be harmed or killed when heavily infested. While the parasite occurs naturally in the waters off B.C.’s coast, there’s long been concern over outbreaks on aquaculture farms where open-net pens make it possible for lice to move from farmed fish to young migrating salmon. “Salmon farms act as this year-round reservoir for sea lice, potentially providing sea lice to wild juvenile salmon when they wouldn’t normally get them,” conservation biologist Sean Godwin said. Godwin is the lead author in a recent study that looked at the state of sea lice in the Pacific Ocean. Along with his fellow researchers, he found the parasite is increasingly becoming resistant to one of the main tools the industry relies on to combat the problem. “Our paper found that this tool, which is a pesticide known [as] SLICE, or emamectin benzoate, is becoming less effective and that sea lice are developing resistance to it on farms here,” Godwin said. To assess parasite resistance, “bioassay, treatment and salmon-louse count data from 2010 to 2021” were analyzed. During that time, the researchers found a notable decrease in the effectiveness of SLICE. “It is going to be more difficult for salmon farms to control sea lice outbreaks on their farms,” said Godwin. In the province’s stunning Clayoquot Sound, Bonny Glambeck routinely uses a fine-mesh net and a sample cup to test the waters near fish farms. Glambeck heads the Tofino-based conservation society known as Clayoquot Action and every year she monitors industry lice counts and tracks wild salmon infestations. “The control of sea lice on fish farms is something I do not believe the industry has ever been able to crack,” she said. “Parasites like these sea lice proliferate on these farms and then they can pass them on to wild salmon. With that, we feel that every year that goes by and these farms are allowed to pollute the waters with these infestations, they are just wiping out another generation of wild salmon.” Fisheries and Oceans Canada requires all fish farms in Canadian coastal waters to have a sea lice management plan. The federal department also places a limit of three lice per salmon during the spring when young salmon are out-migrating and are most vulnerable. In addition to that, the industry publicly reports lice counts on individual company websites every month. “The worry is that those lice levels might accumulate and then be released back to affect wild migratory salmon. The science doesn’t support that, but the concern exists so the industry responds to that,” said Brian Kingzett. Kingzett is the science and policy director with the BC Salmon Farmers Association. He says the industry has warned the federal government for years about the waning efficacy of SLICE, and has long called on Ottawa to approve new pesticide options. “There are other anti-parasite agents that have been approved in other areas of the world and we would certainly like to add that to our toolbox.” While SLICE is the only approved pesticide in Canada, it is not the only option for a fish farm struggling with a lice infestation. Kingzett says other environmentally friendly methods include the use of specialized delousing boats. One readily used vessel can suck fish from ocean-based pens into tanks where pressurized water is used to forcibly remove any attached lice. According to the industry, any dislodged bugs are collected by filters for disposal so they are not reintroduced to the marine environment. “During the last five years, the industry has spent about $100 million on importing new technologies,” Kingzett said. “Fish farming is an important industry in B.C. because we are facing a global seafood shortage and the farming sector is looking to provide sustainable, high-quality product.” The industry, however, is controversial and there’s been an ongoing battle to have all fish farms in the province removed. Earlier this month, there was a large protest in Tofino involving Indigenous leaders, conservationists and environmentalists. The group took to the waters near a local fish farm to voice their opposition to the industry and call on Ottawa to evict them. “It is a do-or-die moment for the salmon farming industry,” said Alexandra Morton, who is an independent biologist and longtime wild salmon activist. “We need to do whatever we can to save wild salmon populations because they are sadly on the verge of extinction.” In response, those in support of fish farms argue they are not a direct threat to wild salmon and are a vital industry. According to the BC Salmon Farmers Association, there are nearly 5,000 jobs linked to fish farms and at least $1 billion “in economic activity” is generated annually. Despite that, Ottawa has previously announced that it’s committed to phasing out open-net salmon farms in B.C. by 2025. In addition, it’s uncertain if 79 federal fish farm licenses expiring in June will be renewed.

Please note: This content carries a strict local market embargo. If you share the same market as the contributor of this article, you may not use it on any platform.

Matthew Talbot
matthew.talbot@bellmedia.ca

CNN Newsource

Skip to content

What countries or jurisdictions have regulations concerning additives in salmon feed?

What countries or jurisdictions have regulations concerning antibiotics in farmes salmon?

The European Union has standards for aquaculture that emphasize sustainability, but there are criticisms regarding the lack of clear indicators for environmental sustainability.

Title:

Content: Ad

The EU must not support intensive fish farming — it's not sustainable

Free Article

The Hungarian presidency of the Council of the European Union, which will run between 1 July and 31 December 2024, has announced in its programme that it will pay particular attention to the development of “sustainable and competitive aquaculture”, arguing that “it is the animal protein production sector with the smallest environmental footprint.”

Beyond a supposedly low carbon footprint, aquaculture is also presented as an alternative to mitigate declining wild fish catches. However, under the term “aquaculture” we find various production models – some of which are more environmentally benign when conducted at appropriate scale, such as the cultivation of mussels, clams, and oysters, and some of which come with significant damaging impacts.

Many European consumers who want to eat fish from sustainable sources believe farmed salmon, trout and seabass are sustainable choices. But the intensive farming of carnivorous fin fish is neither socially nor environmentally sustainable.

The environmental impacts of this industrial production model include an increase in harmful algal blooms, a negative impact on sea grass meadows due to the accumulation of organic matter around farms, mass fish die-offs, the use of the harmful substances such as carcinogenic formaldehyde or antibiotics, and water pollution, creating dead zones on the sea bed underneath the farms. Adding to this, carnivorous farmed fish such as salmon and seabass require high volumes of fishmeal and fish oil from wild-caught fish in their feed.

In Europe, industrial aquaculture of carnivorous fish at sea is damaging the environment and displacing traditional activities such as coastal small-scale fisheries.

On the island of Poros, Greece, for example, the plan is to increase the area dedicated to open net pen carnivorous fish farms by 28 times. Yet, underwater video depicts that marine ecosystem near the current small-scale pens is completely dead from the waste and pollution of the farms, and local professional fishermen attest to a loss of wild fish since the influx of fish farms.

Beyond Europe, the production of fishmeal and fish oil necessary to feed carnivorous farmed fish is depleting wild fish stocks. This is the case in West Africa where the overfishing of small pelagics such as sardines and mackerel for industrial fish farms in Europe is undermining food security and the livelihoods of small-scale fishers and women fish-processors. Fish is taken away from people in low-income countries to feed the farmed fish which will be consumed in wealthy nations.

The UN special rapporteur on the right to food acknowledged this in his report to the Human Rights Council in early 2024: “Many farmed fish are carnivorous species that require feed products harvested from wild fish stock, thereby creating another source of pressure on wild fish stocks and disrupting ecosystems.

Moreover, global feed companies are exacerbating food insecurity in some communities. For example, over half a million tons of pelagic fish that could feed over 33 million people in the region are instead extracted from the ocean along the coast of West Africa and converted to fishmeal and fish oil, primarily in order to feed farmed fish and livestock, mostly in Asia and Europe.”

The current EU strategy for aquaculture does not respond to the social and environmental challenges posed by this sector and fails to clearly define what “sustainable” aquaculture is. In fact, in a special report on aquaculture, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) found that the European Union has been pouring funds into the development of aquaculture with little proof that this has contributed to the sector’s “environmental and social sustainability or its competitiveness.” The ECA report further highlights that “there are currently no indicators available to monitor the environmental sustainability of EU aquaculture.”

Under the agriculture and fisheries agenda, Hungary has reaffirmed its wish to support farmers, and fish farmers, through a “farmer-friendly European food system.” Rather they should support low impact small-scale fishers as primary food producers.

Under the Hungarian presidency, the EU should discontinue support for industrial aquaculture of carnivorous species and instead promote more sustainable small-scale aquaculture options that can co-exist instead of negatively affecting small-scale fisheries in Europe and beyond. If Europe wants to be a model in sustainable ocean governance, it must place small-scale, low-impact fisheries and aquaculture at the heart of its food policy.

This is an open letter signed by the following organisations from Africa and Europe: African Confederation of Artisanal Fisheries Organisations (CAOPA), Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements (CFFA), Feedback Europe, Low Impact Fishers of Europe (LIFE), Compassion in World Farming and the Rauch Foundation.

Disclaimer

This article is sponsored by a third party. All opinions in this article reflect the views of the author and not of EUobserver.

Author Bio

The Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements is a platform of European and African organisations that raises awareness about the impacts of the EU-Africa fisheries agreements on artisanal fishing communities.

Tags

Author Bio

The Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements is a platform of European and African organisations that raises awareness about the impacts of the EU-Africa fisheries agreements on artisanal fishing communities.

Ad

Related articles

Ad
Ad

In China, efforts are being made to reduce the use of feed-grade fish and promote compound feeds to protect wild fish stocks and improve sustainability.