Hannes Loth, April 22, 2021, Solar Parks and Farm Land

Sachsen-Anhalt Landtag, Plenarprotokoll 7/124, pp. 140-142.

Right honorable Herr President. Sovereign House.

Once again Sachsen-Anhalt makes headlines with records, first with the construction of the tallest wind energy installation in Germany with a height of more than 200 meters, planned in repowering, and now shall follow the mega solar parks with more than 100 hectares in many locations in Sachsen-Anhalt.

Studying the problem of land [fläche] use according to the information of the Federal Environment Office, one must conclude that Sachsen-Anhalt in regards its land is consistently on a collision course with the climate protection plan and Federal land goals. There are some abbreviated statements which I may cite. Let us begin with the recognition that land is a limited and scarce resource for which the various types of use compete.

“The increase of housing and transportation land in Germany and Sachsen-Anhalt is fulfilled to a great extent at the cost of land in agricultural use.

The expansion of housing and transportation acreage proceeds with an increasing exhaustion of land [Bodenversiegelung]. Thereby will primarily agricultural land be over-developed and fertile land from long-term production of foodstuffs...be withdrawn.”

In that regard, the MULE [Ministry for Environment, Agriculture and Energy] – I cite: 

“From 1993 to 2010, the housing and transportation land in Sachsen-Anhalt increased about 60,700 ha, which corresponds to an average requisition of land of 9.2 ha per day. Although this trend in the last years has slowed and for 2009 to 2011 has even come to a standstill, we need to counteract, especially by means of effective land recycling, further land consumption. Particularly valuable and productive lands are to be maintained in regards their…usage.”

Thus, the MULE.

The Federal Environment Office states that the Federal government wanted to henceforth in the year 2020 to use only 30 ha of open space [freiflächen] per day for new housing and transportation land. In the year 2019, however, it was nevertheless 60 ha. Yet the land consumption is slowly reducing. This does not yet suffice; for according to the Federal government’s climate protection plan, by the year 2050 the land consumption should be reduced to a net zero and the transition to a land cycle economy [Flächenkreislaufwirtschaft] be thereby fulfilled.

A University of Darmstadt study now indicates a possible solution for the problem of land exhaustion. Instead of building new dwellings, we can for example use space at supermarket and parking garages. The garages would offer space for a total of 2.3 million to 2.7 million dwellings. Thus not only would less land be exhausted, but it would also be a savings in energy. Dwellings at garages could then, for example, use the building’s heating. So far, the University of Darmstadt. Whether this is wanted or possible is undecided for now. It is only a proposal.

Now the Federal Environment Office has also a completely different idea for which our garages could be used for problem solving; since there are already quite different ideas. In the year 1990, Nitsch and Luther ascertained a building allocation of 15,000 km² in Germany. This yielded a covered surface area of 2,850 km², of which further a southern roof surface of 650 km² could be suitable for heating water collectors or solar cells which were to be committed to electricity generation. The numbers games should call attention to possible alternatives.

We thus see, even the roof surface is hotly contested by the housing market and energy – as also the field acreage.

We see how successful that was. The surfaces were not used in Sachsen-Anhalt, there was little interest in determining these figures. For that, however, farm land will be donated which supposedly would not longer bring a return. There is a university helicopter which can do exactly this. It could fly over and measure everything. Then it could be quite precisely said which surfaces we in Sachsen-Anhalt could use to bring solar cells to the roof. We already had discussions. Since then, nothing happens.

The Federal Environment Office states that the land requisition by means of open space photo voltaic installations in Germany at the end of the year 2017 extrapolates to 27,000 ha. Clearly more than half will be taken from conversion surfaces, which is entirely right. Yet a fourth is former farm land and that I find not right. 14% is alloted to transportation land.

Now, I would have gladly heard the numbers for Sachsen-Anhalt today. Unfortunately, the Frau Minister is not here. I think that the agency will not be in a position to directly deliver the figures. Perhaps we can receive this in the follow-up.

Now let us come to some calculations of the State of Baden-Württemberg; since this has already established a guide for open space solar installations. It is clear to me here and there that this is in the pipeline in Sachsen-Anhalt from the various parties which are also in the Baden-Württemberg government.

The lifetime of a 10 MW open space solar installation amounts to 25 to 30 years. The previous EEG [Renewable Energy Law] reimbursement will be paid for twenty years. For the balance, there is till now little experience. If the installation after its calculated lifetime can continue to produce electricity, then this is extremely fortunate; since with a 10 MW installation a net revenue of approx. €300,000 per year could result. The 2% of the investment sum is still deducted and the operating costs total €10,000 for surveillance, for cleaning and for chasing the sheep.

It thereby already amounts to a considerable pile of money, a fine matter for investors in and around Sachsen-Anhalt who have the appropriate means to let dream yields become true. A project is quickly developed, in which the Federal network authority has taken part in the write-off. Discussions will be appointed and the project will be quickly presented in the city or local council with the advice: The day-care could use a new coat of paint, perhaps we may also have new playground equipment. Then it will be approved quite quickly in the city council – oftentimes.

Responsibility for the energy transition will then be spoken of, for saving the world climate in the village, so that the last local councilor really is convinced: With this installation on 100 ha, we really have done something important for the world climate and to save our country and the Earth.

Out on the farm land, it runs similarly; since as a result of a completely failed farm policy, the recent foodstuff prices, which will passed on to the producer, have further dropped. Operations are given up daily because the costs can no longer be economized and because the banks can or will give no operating credit, or because the operation is no longer green enough to fulfill the European guidelines for granting credit to an agricultural undertaking.

The farmer in Germany thus stands before the end, and then the well-heeled investor comes around the corner and right to it with the tempting promises. It is nevertheless not a rescue; for they come to exploit the farmer’s state of emergency.

Many citizens in rural areas have seen through this and therefore no longer participate. Ever more citizens’ initiatives are organized. Even the local councils re-think it, one way or another. I think, for example, of the former CDU member from the Anhalt-Bitterfeld Landkreis who left the CDU, who has a quite clear opinion on the open space solar installations and who, in committee, as I understood it, previously always voted against. Thus, some thereby do right.

Yet here in the Landtag, the murmuring is heard ever louder, one must go into the State development plan, it needs to be made better, priority areas need be created, a better balance should be struck to thereby be able to more easily make these investments. Yes, you naturally can do this. For me, it is wrong, I would not do this.

Yet it thus needs be considered that the decision for the erecting of such installations still lies with the localities. If it is thought at the State level that the State development plan needs to be changed in some way, and we could then prevent or alter at the local level precisely this project, then that is simply just false. That does not go. Since, for this are, a) the regional planning communities appropriate and b) the local community council, the city council, which pass the resolution or not. It is thus eyewash to assert that only the development plan needs be changed and then everything is OK. That is dishonest.

            Dorothea Frederking (Greens): What is he saying then? These are                                            just insinuations!

The formula “more wind and solar energy in the State, less self-determination in the local governments and a marginal say for the citizens” leads ever more often not to the desired result. Instead of fulfilling the yield dreams, it comes to a rejection of these projects.

It is now finally time to thwart [unterbinden] the selling-out of agricultural use land to foreign investors of every kind and to put the solar installations where they sensibly belong; namely, on the roof. Therefore, vote for our motion [Drucksache 7/7562]. Help us thereby to defend our farmers, to defend our land and to bring our energy transition, which we all in some way want, to the roof. Help us to thereby bring forward our State.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lothar Maier, April 21, 2021, Western Sahara

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/223, p. 28316.

Right honorable President. Ladies and gentlemen.

To enforce international law – that subsumes two of the three motions upon which we are consulting here. This naturally puts the questions: Of which international law is it a question in this case, and who are the people thereby affected?

To better understand the conflict in its essence, let us go back a piece in history; 120, 130 years. The territory of today’s western Sahara was then a no man’s land. It belonged to none of the regimes in the entire region of northwestern Africa.Yet it was not an economic and it was also not a cultural no man’s land; it was to an extent evidently aligned with the sultanate in Morocco. Besides: Scarcely anyone lived there. It was a sand heap, a colossal, 250,000 square kilometer, giant heap of sand. This changed somewhat when the Spanish opened up the territory for their colonial endeavors, initially for strategic reasons and then, not till much later, when they sought oil there, found none – but phosphates for sure.

The Spanish colony Saguia el Hamra – so it is called since 1912 – carved up this once economically, culturally and religiously closed area. When you look at the borders of today’s western Sahara, which were also those of the Saguia el Hamra colony, then you will ascertain: They were drawn with a ruler. And this was known from the beginning: There was no notice taken of ethnic concerns.

With the territory’s de-colonization, there was in no way a conclusion. When the Spanish withdrew, the large, northern part of western Sahara went to Morocco, the south nevertheless to Mauritania. Mauritania withdrew following armed conflicts with the Polisario movement. Morocco followed up and now occupies the entire area. The Polisario nevertheless rose up and, as far is known to me, at the bidding of elements of the Mauritanians.

The population figure meanwhile has become somewhat larger. It is estimated on the whole at approximately 150,000 – that is not much; that is a German mid-sized city – , in a territory as large as the old, western Federal Republic. Of these, 40,000 people moreover do not live in this territory, but in camps in Algeria, where they form the recruitment potential for the Polisarios.

Morocco has quite considerably developed the territory economically; that has just been mentioned. Phosphate production continues, fisheries play a large role.

What however is now the solution for this conflict? One thing needs to be made clear: Morocco will no longer withdraw from this territory without a war. Spain has recognized this. France has recognized this. The U.S.A. has recognized this. Morocco offers a solution which I hold to be entirely acceptable; namely, an autonomy, one which permits all political areas pertaining to a Saharan government with the exception of defense and foreign policy. Much more is, at the moment, not to be attained. The Polisario will need to give up their maximalism which they in the past have practiced here. The Federal Republic should also orient itself on this. Pragmatism is demanded and not the adherence to old dogmas.

Thank you.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Joana Cotar, April 23, 2021, IT Security Law

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/225, pp. 28687-28688.

Herr President. Esteemed colleagues.

Completely insufficient, in its present state already obsolete, falsely focused, lacking a strategy, a poor integration of science and civil society, a bureaucracy monster, an insecurity law – these are not my words; these are citations from the commentaries of experts on the IT Security Law 2.0, which today shall be passed here and now in the Bundestag.

Seldom was a law so torn to pieces in a public hearing as this one. Even the experts of the CDU/CSU and the SPD left not a hair in the proposals. Imagine: For over two years, professionals tinker with a law and there comes a draft over which their own experts throw up their hands, ladies and gentlemen. Naturally also arose constitutional considerations. That is, ja, a dismal trend of this government. It has nothing to so with the Basic Law; that we have also seen on Wednesday with the passing of the Infection Defense Law.

But back to the so-called Security Law. This law will pertain to all, only not to a consistent elevation of the IT system’s level of security. The proposals of the interested parties were scarcely accepted, and then only in weakened form. This government in this matter is straightaway resistant to advice, and that in this case endangers the security of our country.

…The first IT Security Law prescribes a permanent evaluation. The AfD demanded precisely this in its motion. Yet you, esteemed Federal government, have neglected to learn from experience, analyzing on the basis of the preceding laws what works and what not, what makes sense and what not. The result is now a law which, because the foundation is lacking, is in no way suitable for digital consumer protection.

Since we of the AfD not only criticize but also want to form, we have, as was announced, brought in numerous motions and motions to amend – in contrast to the Greens who indeed have grumbled a lot, yet in the end have delivered nothing.

            Konstantin von Notz (Greens): That is not true, Frau Cotar!

You here in fact make available an old motion from the year 2018; it amounted to nothing more. And in this motion you demand of the government to put forward a new IT security law, thus precisely that which we here are just concluding. That is not only a bit embarrassing, esteemed colleagues, that is really embarrassing. Yet where Green is, is simply much show, much appearance and little authentic, responsible policy, ladies and gentlemen.

Irresponsible also is besides the government’s waiver in the matter of network construction. You have in this draft neglected to reach a distinct political decision as whether to allow network construction firms close to the state in undemocratic countries to participate in the construction of our critical 5G infrastructure.

            Christoph Bernstiel (CDU/CSU): Reading helps! It’s quite clearly in the law!

Precisely this decision we however require of you, in accordance with our digital sovereignty.

In addition, we demand inter alia a precise definition of “critical components“ by means of reference to TKG. The state of technology should not only be developed from the BSI [Federal Cyber Security Authority], but in common with the DIN [German Standardization Institute], ISO [International Standardization Organization], ETSI [European Organization for Standardization], etc.

            Christoph Bernstiel (CDU/CSU): That is exactly so in the law!

The BMI [Federal Interior Ministry] must prohibit critical components when a manufacturer is not trustworthy. A “can“ in this situation does not suffice, Herr Seehofer. The BSI must be built up into a strong consumer protection authority and should work out crisis reaction plans for IT catastrophes. We want a consolidation of the meantime very numerous IT security laws, the inter-workings of which meantime become too complex and which in turn threaten IT security and economics.

In conclusion, for the IT Security Law 3.0, for which discussions are already running, we want to safeguard that as early and comprehensively as possible all interested circles will be included and that the formation of the regulatory framework for the future IT security will be conveyed to a responsible Federal ministry for digitalization and cyber security.

Dear governing parties, interesting is your resolution motion, which reads in parts as if you in fact had understood it. But a declaration of intent to do it better in the future plainly does not suffice. That would have needed to occur in this law, and it is not that. I therefore unfortunately can only say: An opportunity given away, dear government. With this law, you will not set right IT security in Germany. On the contrary: In many places, you even endanger it. Therefore we of the AfD reject this draft law.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]