top of page

Energy costs, social insecurity, climate measures


To put it bluntly: climate change was and is a FACT, whether man-made or natural. The climate is constantly changing.

You don't have to be a “climate change denier” to critically question current climate policy:

- what is its use?

- what types of damage to nature, the environment and biodiversity is it causing?

- what social damage is it causing?

We know that the following argument, namely “what is China doing, what is India doing and what is our contribution to CO2 emissions”, is not a valid argument. It is necessary to give a good example.

But still: Luxembourg gets credit for its “fuel tourism”. How absurd. Whether it's a refuelling in Arlon, or Perl, or Thionville: it doesn't change the emissions.

The FACT is that only about a quarter of our fuel sales are for domestic consumption.

Luxembourg does not have a coal-fired power station!

In the whole of the EU, there are 1,179 of them (as of March 2022). In China 946, in the USA 286, in India 253.

Coal-fired power plants produce 882 grams of CO2 per kilowatt of electricity. Natural gas only 440 grammes. Nuclear power plants produce almost none.

While the “shining example”, Germany, liquidates coal and nuclear power plants, new nuclear power plants are built: they do not increase the CO2 balance either... Here, Czechia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Holland, Sweden, Poland and France are following this path.

As long as we import cheap electricity from France, the German decision does us little harm..…




It is different with gasoline, diesel, gasoline, etc.: incredibly high taxes (more than 60% of the price goes to the state) make life difficult for many citizens. In rural areas, there are simply no public transport alternatives. This also is a FACT.

The ecological damage caused by “climate measures” is enormous!

Mercury, cadmium, and lead are toxic substances for the environment contained in each battery or accumulator.

The production of an electric car results in significant CO2 emissions. A Swedish study calculated that the production of a TESLA-S battery generates 15 to 20 tonnes of CO2.

The electricity consumed is also not “CO2 neutral” (unless it comes from nuclear power).

If an electric car does not use “eco-electricity”, but therefore “carbon electricity”, the CO2 balance is only positive after more than 300,000 kilometres have been travelled.

But the very production of “eco-electricity” is problematic!




A wind turbine also uses resources such as rare earths, tons of climate-damaging concrete (depending on size 1300 m3 per wheel), metal (180 tons of steel per wind turbine), green spaces (and now even forests!).

Let's not even talk about the destruction of our landscapes. Even worse is the shredding of birds, insects and bats. (But they are only protected if a person does something in the green zone...)

The science is complex. Studies (Climatic Impacts of Wind Powers, Miller et al.) calculate that if the United States were to cover all of its electricity needs with wind turbines, this would result in a temperature increase of 0.24C° from the heating of the air they cause.

Let’s take a look at the social consequences of “climate policy”:

The burden imposed on citizens by high prices, the CO2 tax, costly energy standards for new constructions, not to mention the forced replacement of heating appliances with heat pumps, etc., lead to a situation of social insecurity.

This is compounded by supply chain bottlenecks, Russian sanctions (particularly in the energy sector) and high interest rates.

Climate measures must not lead to situations of ecological and social insecurity.

We need a sensible policy which, in addition to climate protection, also does not forget the protection of nature and species and above all the SOCIAL dimension: we do not want eco-Marxism!


Solar collector
bottom of page