faz.net
German Public Backs Energy Transition Despite Growing Concerns
A new poll shows 60% of Germans support the energy transition despite concerns; 35% see more risks than benefits, linked to the Ukraine war shifting public focus from climate change.
- What is the immediate impact of public perception on Germany's energy transition, considering the conflicting views on its risks and benefits?
- A recent Allensbach Institute poll reveals that 60% of Germans support the energy transition, despite 35% viewing it as riskier than beneficial. Only 15% oppose the transition, highlighting significant public backing despite concerns.
- How has the Ukraine war influenced the German public's priorities regarding climate change and energy security, affecting support for the energy transition?
- The survey, commissioned by BMW Foundation Herbert Quandt and Fraunhofer Institute, links the shift in public perception to Russia's war in Ukraine. Concerns about energy security, amplified by the war, have overshadowed climate change worries, dropping from 51% in 2019 to 36% currently.
- What are the long-term economic and social consequences of the energy transition in Germany, given the concerns about competitiveness, job losses, and costs?
- The poll indicates a potential long-term challenge for Germany's energy transition. While majority support exists, rising concerns about economic competitiveness (up from 17% in 2014 to 36%), job losses (33%), and high costs for citizens (77%) and the economy (79%) suggest considerable hurdles ahead.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the risks and challenges associated with the energy transition, potentially overshadowing the overall public support for it. The headline (if there was one) and lead paragraphs focus on concerns and anxieties. The sequencing of information, starting with declining climate change worries and then detailing the perceived risks, contributes to this negative framing. This disproportionate emphasis could create a perception that the transition is primarily problematic, even though a majority of people support it.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral; however, the repeated emphasis on "risks," "concerns," and "negative consequences" subtly shapes the reader's perception. Phrases like "gravierende Veränderung des Landschaftsbilds" (serious change in the landscape) contribute to a sense of alarm. More neutral alternatives could include describing potential negative impacts more factually rather than emotionally.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the risks and concerns surrounding Germany's energy transition, potentially omitting positive aspects or successful implementations of renewable energy projects. While it mentions the majority supporting the transition, it doesn't delve into the reasons for that support or detail successful initiatives. The lack of information on the economic benefits of renewable energy and job creation in the sector might also constitute bias by omission. Further, the article highlights the decrease in concern over climate change without exploring reasons for continued support for the energy transition beyond climate concerns.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by repeatedly framing the energy transition as a choice between risks and benefits, without adequately exploring the complex interplay between the two. It implies that supporting the transition necessarily means accepting significant risks, neglecting the possibility of mitigating those risks through effective planning and policy.
Sustainable Development Goals
The survey shows majority support for the Energiewende (energy transition) in Germany, indicating a positive impact on climate action goals. Although concerns exist regarding economic impacts and visual changes to the landscape, the significant public backing for climate-friendly energy system transformation demonstrates progress towards climate action.