“Britain faces a number of civilisational-ending threats” | Paul Weston

	Paul Weston ⁦‪@PWestoff‬⁩ Britain faces a number of civilisational-ending threats. I list them in numerical order of severity: 5) Native Brits becoming an ethnic minority. 4) Islam. 3) State Institutions ALL siding with Islam & native submersion. 2) Politicians siding with Islam & native submersion.   4/9/2025, 5:14 pm
This is really, really sad for me. I feel I warned of this decades ago, but have only watched the slide to calamity in Britain gain pace like a thundering mudslide.

I agree with Paul Weston. Click above for the original post on X.

My comments: Item 5) is caused by item 4). Items 2) and  3) are the weird ones that need to be explained. Very few, if any other countries, today or in history, are complicit in their own demise. Roman Empire, maybe? Even then, I'm not so sure. 

I was just listening to news of a recent report from the University of Leicester analysing a survey of its residents about hate crimes. Leicester is now just 42% white English. That is, as we say in Ingsoc, it’s “majority minority".

Given these demographics and given that we've been assured that "Diversity is our Strength", that we’ve been reassured that Multiculturalism is Wonderful and Enriching, you'd expect relations to be rosy. They're not. Not according to the UoL report. 

Every race, at every age, and of every gender, reported being harassed by hate speech, usually by a different race. Given the university is left-leaning and would have been rather keen to find the exact opposite, it's revealing that things are so bad that even the UoL had to report them. And, I guess, some kudos to the UoL for reporting these stark and gloomy findings. 

This does not bode well for the rest of Britain, growing rapidly to the same demographics as Leicester.  

The  political class, the civil service and the media will all ignore this lesson, even as it’s clear, even as it's unambiguous and even as it's right on their doorstep.  

To some, claiming Britain faces “civilisation-ending threats” may seem wildly exaggerated. I get that. But it’s not. Not to anyone doing a deep dive on the ground and across the country. To see what’s really happening to every major English city, as a result of uncontrolled illegal immigration, from countries with very different value systems, at levels never seen in British history. Those values, to be clear, are from Islam, a whole-of-life ideology that is supremacist, homophobic, misogynist, xenophobic, intolerant of free speech and of all non-Islamic religions. All of what I have just said is true, incontrovertible and not in dispute, least of all by pious Muslims. None of it is good and all of it is worsening Weston’s items 5) to 2). 

If England becomes Islamic, its English nature is finished. Its English civilisation is finished. If you don’t believe that look at the Middle East countries pre and post Islamic conquest. Just take Iran as one example, from a vibrant multi-religious civilisation pre Islamic conquest to a repressive mullah-based theocracy post Islamic conquest. 

I’m gloomy and fear it’s already too late. I do hope, hope against hope, that I’m wrong. But so far in these pages since 2009, I’ve only been wrong by not being pessimistic enough. Everything was predicable and happened far quicker that we imagined. 

Still, I do hope I’m wrong. Still. 

=========================

ADDED: Do we not remember -- I fear we do not -- that it was arch-Europeanist, arch Leftist, Angela Merkel, who said, all the way back in 2010, after Germany's most recent terrorist outrage against her citizens, "Multiculturalism has failed"? Why do we forget that? Why does Europe forget that? Why does Multiculturalism everywhere still get praised? I mean, seriously, why? 

Mind you, this was the same woman who said, about the influx of refugees "Wir schaffen das" ("we can do this"). She made that comment in 2015, so I guess, to be fair, even Merkel forgot her own conclusion about multiculturalism just five years earlier. After all, if "multiculturalism had failed" why did she think that ever more of it would make it succeed? Sigh.. 

“Islam is not the source of terrorism!” | Angela Merkel

	Imtiaz Mahmood ⁦‪@ImtiazMadmood‬⁩ "Islam is not the source of terrorism!" ~ Angela Merkel Saying otherwise will be Islamophobia. Meanwhile, in the last 30 days, there were 115 Islamic attacks in 24 countries, in which 860 people were killed and 872 injured. You don't hear about this because it does not fit… pic.x.com/epicRPJ8Td   23/2/2025, 2:00 pm

Really? 

Merkel speaks 100% nonsense here. Click above for the video of her nonsensical lies. 

Does she not realise that the reason "Islamic authorities" don't speak up to denounce "violent Islam" vs "peaceful Islam" — as she pleads for them to do - is because there is no difference between the peaceful and the violent? 

Islam is Islam. 

Islam doesn't need Islamic scholars to explain itself to us. 

Islam easily understood via the Koran, the Hadith and the Sharia law -- the Trinity of Islam. At its core it is the max supremacist religion in the world. It specifies that its supremacy shall be extended "by the sword", by terrorism, by battle, by "fighting in the way of Allah" until all the world is subjugated to the will of Allah. Until we submit, "submission" being the meaning of the word "Islam". The chaos across Europe now is not despite Islam, but because of it. 

I believe Merkel doesn't know this and is just spouting pabulum written for her. Which also happens to fit in with her world view that "wir Schaffen das", ie, "we can do this", as she said at the beginning of the migrant surge in 2015. 

It turns out Germany "cannot do this", cannot handle the supremacist hordes, as proven by multiple, ongoing, raging Islamic attacks on the German host population. And across Europe wherever there are large Islamic enclaves. 

She, Angela Merkel, is the one person most responsible for the disastrous current surge in violent crime across Germany and everywhere in Europe that's welcomed waves of illegal Islamist immigrants. 

Germany’s AfD has to renounce Nazi slogans

Click above for the video

Listen to Jonathan Tobin.

I’d thought criticism of AfD was a bit nasty and wrong. They are mostly an anti Uncontrolled Illegal Immigration Party. Which 75% of Germans favour. And 75%+ of Europeans favour. And majorities of the United States people favour. And which 75%+ of Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders favour.

But to quote Nazis? I’m  totally not at all with that. And I wonder what’s with these people who think spouting Nazi rubbish will be a vote winner. No. No. And no again. 

Criticising Tucker Carlson is right. Not only Jeffrey Sachs, he also had the Holocaust denying one Darryl Cooper, who thinks, who espouses, who spouts, that Churchill was worse than Hitler. No. No. And Nein again. 

As we say to the now-retired, and should-be-disgraced, Angela Merkel. No. Nein. Nyet. Done with you. Done with massive, uncontrolled, working-class-destroying, illegal immigration. 

“What will the world be like in 10 years” | An Occasional Reader asks

An Occasional Reader asks me:  “What will the world be like in 10 years?” 

I answer: "I don’t know". [And wonder: why should I be asked? What do I know?]

Pressed, I do answer. Kind of. Quick and Dirty. TL;DR: Avoid “Suicidal Empathy”. 

Europe and the U.K.:

I’m pessimistic about Europe and the UK. 

There are two major themes here: one is that the governments of the European Union -- in which we must include the U.K. despite Brexit -- are stubbornly bureaucratic, given to winding red tape around every industry, hostile to innovation. Count the number of new world-class companies in America. It’s easy to name a dozen or more. Count the number of new world-class companies in Europe, that aren’t the likes of Siemens, Krupps or Airbus, and see how many you can come up with. 

The second problem is that of uncontrolled immigration. And here the main issue is of Muslim immigration, because Muslims have -- by their own stated preferences -- the least tendency to integrate into the society they emigrate to, coupled with the most intense desire to get the rest of society to hew to Islam. 

Islam is an openly, unabashedly supremacist religion, which makes no secret of its desire to see the ideology of Islam spread across the globe. And that brings Sharia law. And that brings all sorts of negative values into a society: misogyny, homophobia, intolerance of minorities, anti-free speech, anti-freedom of conscience, anti-freedom of religion. That’s not the agenda of a modern tolerant liberal. 

Islam is a serious threat across Europe and the U.K. and it’s getting worse. Madame Merkel was largely responsible: in 2015 she said “Wir schaffen das” -- We can manage this. Turns out they couldn’t. Germany has become more unmanageable because of it, and so has the rest of Europe. In just ten years. 

Together, the lack of vibrant economic growth, coupled with the incursions of a supremacist ideology are going to make Europe a worse place to live over the next ten years. At least to those of us who find the freedoms and tolerance of the west rather more bracing than the values of a medieval theocracy. 

Russia/Ukraine:

More hope than prediction: in ten both are at peace. An armistice has been in place for 8 years. Whereby it was agreed in 2025 that Russia keeps occupied Donbas and Crimea and Ukraine committed to not joining NATO. 

The alternative is the super scary scenario. That the United States has so provoked Putin that he launches tactical nukes. Then all bets are off, for the world. It doesn’t bear contemplating, but must be contemplated. We would be foolish to think Putin is bluffing. 

Which of these scenarios depends a lot on the United States. 

And if the worse, the latter, the nuke, scenario, it makes all other scenarios moot. Boom goes the moot.

United States:

I’m either way about the United States: could be great, could be a huge mess. It’s not a coin toss but a matter of choices. I hope they make the right ones, in which case it’s going to be “great”. 

The big thing on America’s side is its sheer exuberance. Its passions. Its optimism. Its can-do attitude. 

America has one huge advance over its main rival China. That is a very vibrant and deep civil society. But that I mean every type of non-government institution. The church, charities, societies, human rights bodies, hobby clubs, sports clubs.... You get the picture. Everything and anything is the go in the United States, and you’re allowed to pursue any wild and wacky idea you have. 

That’s the genesis of an Elon Musk. Wanted to build Electric Vehicles. Wanted to launch rockets. That happened. It probably could only have happened in America. 

There’s a huge future in AI, in robots, it driverless cars, in private space travel. All of that can be to the benefit of America. 

The pessimistic side is what’s going on in academia -- the “long march through the institutions” by modern Marxism, aka neo-Marxism, aka cultural Marxism. That’s a real thing. We should not allow these that are infiltrating this into schools, to pretend -- as they do -- that there’s none of this happening in schools, in Universities, then out into the broader society. Because it most certainly is happening. 

The panoply of TLAs -- three letter acronyms -- the DEI, the CRT, the ESG -- all of these are poisonous and harmful to broader society. I say this as someone who witnessed the end-game of this kind of Marxism in the late stage Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution of China in the 1970s, something that they were about to overthrow, because of how harmful it had been. That’s what’s going on in so many institutions in America. It could fatally wound the country. 

The adherents to this neo-Marxist piffle, schools, Universities and woke companies, express contempt and hatred for America. They fly flags of Palestine and Pride, but burn the American flag. That hatred can only go on for so long before the wounds on the body politic -- on society, on the very nature of what it’s been to be “America”, the ideals of freedom and e pluribus unum -- become fatal injuries. 

East Asia: 

Will do pretty well, but depending on the United States. I don’t have much to say here, save that South Koreas seems in pretty good shape to me. That Japan seems to be able to keep on muddling through, although its population decline may come to bite its bum. The rest of ASEAN, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.. they seem to be in their own worlds, and fine for them. 

China: 

I’m neutral on China. That is: I think it could go either way: recover and re-grow, or fall down badly.

It’s currently in a big funk. But shorting China over the last 40 years has been a losing bet. Still, they got huge problems. And seem to be looking inwards, looking to revive Marxism, which is always a loser, in my view. So: neutral bet on China in ten years. It’ll still be there. And somewhat richer. But maybe not so much. And maybe in an ongoing funk. 

The big issue for China and the world is what happens to Taiwan. I’ve always thought the best thing, for all parties, is the status quo. Don’t do anything to change the perfectly fine relationship Taiwan has with the mainland, with cross Strait tourism and good economic exchanges. China may well try to take it back by force at some stage. Though I’d always be asking “why”? Just for pride? There can be not other reason, given that everything goes along fine as long as Taiwan doesn’t make the mistake of trying to become independent. It doesn’t need to be de jure independent, when it’s already de facto  independent. 

Australia: 

it could go either way, a bit like the U.S. It’s a matter of choices. If Australia chooses to let ideology drive its immigration policy, for example, and keep the very high levels of the last few years, and to have big increases in Muslim immigration, then that’s not going to be good for the peace, stability, unity, comity, and economic development of the country. Already we have a new “Muslim Voice” party which threatens to make Australian politics more sectarian. Not good. 

If Australia becomes a bit more robust, if we make better choices -- which, yet, includes having a more discrimination immigration policy -- it has everything it needs to be a huge ongoing success. 

And, by the way, another matter of choice is now on the table: do we go nuclear or not for our caseload electricity. In my view we must. But many are against it. Mostly on the Left, amongst the Greens. This is a matter of choice. A good choice, a wise choice, or not. 

So, toss up for Oz, like the U.S.. 

Middle East

I can’t think of much positive to say about the developments in the Middle East. Iran is moving ever closer to having a nuclear weapon. And when they have one, they may well use it in a war to extinguish Israel. 

That would be the most catastrophic thing to happen in the region, but it could. And that would be the result of policy. Specifically of western (Barack Obama and Ben Rhodes)  policy to try to buy Iranian niceness in return to cutting back on sanctions. Result: Iran has more money to pursue both the nuclear weapon policy and to fund its proxies of Hamas and Hezbollah. 

Saudi will stumble along, I guess. 

Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, all stumbling along, too, all still killing their own people while denouncing Israeli “genocide”, no matter there’s a war or not. And not at all improving the quality of life of their citizens, for their obsession with Jew hatred and the desire to obliterate Israel. Which may have happened via their friend and mentor, the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

I guess one very different outcome might be that there’s a popular revolt in Iran, that overthrows the horrid theocratic government. There are a few straws flowing in the wind that could lead to that. A resurgence of Persia, of the non-Arab, non--Islamic republic of independent Persia, would be a game changer. The United States should be on the lookout for this, and not let the opportunity to slide by, as did Obama with the Iranian Green Movement of 2009-10

All up, for the Middle East, I guess it all comes down to how Iran acts, and that, to quite a degree, comes down to how the west treats it, and that in turn comes down to how the United States treats it. Being “nice” to Iran, the basis Obama strategy, pushed by his aide Ben Rhodes, has backfired. A be tough to Iran policy is in order.

================

A Norwegian politician was once asked what accounted for the success of Norway. He answered: “Norway and Venezuela have the same amount of oil and gas. We are successful and Venezuela is not. The difference is we made better choices”. 

Norway chose to use the money from oil and gas to establish a National Wealth Fund. Which is now the largest in the world. And is there to help with the retirements of its citizens. Venezuela chose to elect a Marxist to head the country -- Hugo Chavez -- who set about looting the country’s resource wealth. His successor Maduro has done the same. Result: penury. 

================

It’s all down to choices. We all have choices. Countries have choices. Those choices should be driven by self-interest. We need to have empathy for foreigners who want to migrate to successful western countries. But we also need to have justice for our citizens, the ones already living in our countries. If we have so much empathy for others that we lose our sense of justice for our own, we end up destroying our successful countries. 

That’s “Suicidal Empathy”. 

Japan reclaims sanity: reopens Nuclear power stations

Note the highlight; “No deaths have been directly ascribed to the nuclear accident,...”. [Fukushima]

Some people died in the mad rush to escape the area: a mad rush that turns out was unnecessary. Many more people in Japan have died in the twelve years since the accident... as a result of cold weather... as a result of no heating... as a result of closing down nuclear power stations throughout Japan. Closures that were totally unnecessary, but just panic after the accident. 

This is not hindsight. We knew at the time. Yet panic won. Scientists knew Japan didn’t need to close all its nuclear stations. But panic set in. Fukushima proved how safe nuclear power is. The station was built in the seventies, using technology of the slide rule. And it faced a thousand-year tsunami. Yet.. still.. not a single death. But still, panic reigned. It was too good an opportunity for the Greens and the anti-New Clear crowd to make hay out of the accident and to tell us, yet again -- and yet again incorrectly -- “how dangerous nuclear power is”. So dangerous that the worst nuclear power station accident since Chernobyl had zero deaths. 

It was even crazier in Germany, for Mad Mutti Merkel to shut down all Germany’s reactors, when not a single one of them faced the dangers of a Tsunami. Crazy. Even now, the Greens in Germany are refusing to allow the existing, clean, safe operating-just-fine, nuclear power stations to stay open, when Germany has a serious energy shortage. These people are mental. That’s it. Mental. 

ADDED:

My case for nuclear. 

And the chart of safety and cleanliness of New Clear energy. From Our World in Data:

"Nuclear Shutdowns Have Already Harmed the Planet"

Click above for the related article

Like I said before: Green groups, especially Greenpeace, are responsible for our having more CO₂ in the atmosphere than we should -- because they demonised nuclear power from the 1960s. Until today. If we’d kept on building nuclear power plants, by now we would have net-zero electricity. Without a doubt. The reason we still use fossil-based electricity instead of clean energy is down to the Green lobby. Gotta give it to them, their powers of persuasion are formidable!

Notes a Twitterato:

Green activists are continuing to increase emissions.

Nuclear phaseout policies, due to pressure from Greens, has added 800 million tons of CO₂ to the world — equal to a full 2 years of nationwide fossil CO2 emissions from a medium-sized country like Turkey, Australia, or the UK. H/t

Related: a long ago article of mine.

ADDED: Germany is the best example. They have shutdown perfectly functioning Nuclear power stations and had to open or reopen coal-fired plants as a result. Because they have not been able to make renewables plug the gap, for various reasons including intermittency and grid issues. At the same time they are shutting down fracking for gas, which gas is lower CO₂ than coal. Sheer, bloody-minded madness. Which I put down to the genius of that Mad Mutti Merkel. 

Oil is as oil does: aka Things I don’t get. Aka hypocrisy at large

In the category of “things I don’t get”.

Joe Biden cuts oil production in the US. Because climate change — therefore needs to eliminate all fossil fuels. Cuts production, runs out of oil. Gas prices spike. Then he goes cap in hand to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela asking them for oil. And gets cranky when they refuse!

So how does this add up? How does this make sense? How is he not being quizzed on it? How is the media not calling him out for his hypocrisy? 

Instead his spokeswoman, Karine Jean-Pierre is sounding off at OPEC for cutting output! Naughty OPEC! Not playing along with our hypocrisy. Doing Russia's bidding.

Germany is/was the same. Until Russia invaded Ukraine. Berlin cut oil and gas production at home.Thus pleasing Germany’s Greens. Then it bought under-the-counter oil and gas from Russia. Until Ukraine. Again, how is this not called out? How is this not quizzed by German media? It may cut Germany’s emission — but not the global emissions. It’s plain cheating. 

But Germany was even more non-sensical and hypocritical than the US. It closed down perfectly good nuclear plants, providing 20% of its clean, reliable, safe energy. But because mad Mutti Merkel was in hock to hyper-emotional German Greens, operational nuclear power plants had to be shut down. A policy continued by the Green Robert Habeck, the current Minister of Industry. Crazy is as crazy does. Huh?

I just don’t get it.

Can anyone explain the logic to me? 

Germany national suicide

Snip:

…Yet Germany’s political leaders seem to be putting their commitment to green orthodoxy above all else – including the need to tackle the multiple crises Germany now faces.

Take Cem Özdemir, the German food and agriculture minister. In an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, he said that ‘hunger should not be abused as an argument to make compromises regarding biodiversity or protection of the climate’. SPIKED

Germany is unlikely to extend the life of its three remaining nuclear power stations due to the energy crisis, said Economy Minister Robert Habeck. However, he added, one power station in Bavaria may stay open if needed. 

Germany now:

It’s time to go Nuclear

Click for the video, 14:00

Kyle Hill looks like a bit of a retro hippie, but he’s a bona fide science educator and knows whereof he speaks.

Which is the simple message I’ve been banging on for ages: Nuclear is safe; nuclear is secure; nuclear is cheap and nuclear is clean. 

We are letting fear of nuclear stop what’s the simplest path forward to substantial, carbon free baseload power. Fear of fission trumping fear of climate change. 

Shame on us. Shame on the Greens. As the Germans commit national suicide because of the German Greens influence. Mad Mutti Merkel has herself a lot to answer for. Closing nuclear after Fukushima! Which made no sense then and even less now. Truly shocking is: the Minster of Industry in Germany appears to give not a single hoot that his closing nuclear stations is going to shutter industries. And his Food Industry collegue doesn’t give a single hoot that his cutting fertiliser production will lead to hunger. “Criminals for a thousand years” as the Chinese would say. Crimes against humanity, in the sake of ideology. 

When you look at energy prices you have to look at the “Levelised Costs"

I keep hearing that “Nuclear is too expensive”.

To which there ought be two immediate responses: 

1.  But it’s a climate emergency! Does it really matter what it costs?  After all, we’re willing to subsidise Rooftop Solar across the world through high mandated Feed-in-Tariffs, making it the most expensive form of renewable energy. But, we do it. Because: looming climate catastrophe. Why single out Nuclear -- a reliable carbon-free source -- for being “too expensive"? (Disclosure: we have Rooftop Solar on our house here in Hong Kong).

2.  You have to consider the total costs. Not just the Upfront Costs. As the chart above says “Upfront costs do not paint a complete picture”. 

The whole picture is “Levelised Cost of Energy” or LCOE. The US Department of Energy explains it in this short paper. In simple terms it is: Upfront costs PLUS ongoing costs DIVIDED by Electricity Output in kWh. 

Consider all that and Nuclear comes out amongst the cheapest forms. Note, in the chart below, that “nuclear” has been snuck in at the end, as the paper is mainly about renewables, but it’s there and it puts the lie to the charge that “nuclear is too expensive”. It’s not. Not only is it not: over the life of a nuclear plant’s production Nuclear power is amongst the very cheapest forms of electricity generation. 

The cost -- the levelised cost -- of Nuclear is below that of the most efficient Solar, and about the same as the cheapest form of Wind power, circled above. This gives lie to the claim we often hear that “solar and wind” are the cheapest forms of electricity”. Well, sort of, but Nuclear is in there as well. Not “very expensive”, but “amongst the cheapest”. According to LCOE. According to the Department of Energy itself. 

I’ve posted elsewhere about how Nuclear is amongst the very safest and very  cleanest of generation options, despite the scaremongering of the Greens. 

And yet -- ignoring the evidence of cost, safety and cleanness --  governors like Gavin Newsome of California, under pressure from the Greens, is closing down the few remaining Nuclear Plants in California, plants that have decades of useful lie ahead of them. It’s madness. 

And as Germany reopens shuttered coal stations, because -- again! -- the Greens shut down their perfectly operational Nuclear power stations. It’s madness. BTW, this is not “with the benefit of hindsight”. We all knew at the time this was a silly and dangerous policy. Only Mutti Merkel and the Greens were in the dark. Now they’re going to be literally in the dark!

(Both charts above from the paper by the U.S. Department of Energy)

They’re not laughing now

	Tony Wright ⁦‪@TonyWri19025006‬⁩ Not laughing now   7/3/2022, 6:28 pm

This was so blindingly obvious even Trump saw it. That Germany, let alone Europe, should not make itself reliant on Russian gas. Speech to the United Nations. Where the German delegation smirked. 

So blindingly obvious that everyone saw it. Just not those German geniuses, acolytes of Mad Mutti Merkle under the thumb of the Greenies.

A study by the non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research suggests 1,110 people a year in Germany alone have died, each year, from increased particulates in the air, resulting from closing nuclear power stations, by Mutti Merkle, and having to make up the shortfall with coal. And cost some $12 billion a year. But it's Green, you know.

‘Environmental experts should map out a long-term carbon strategy for Hong Kong’| SCMP LETTERS

Soup in the harbour, Jan ‘19. China has committed to
Carbon neutral by 2060. HK has no target, AFAIK

RE: The letter on carbon-neutral energy. (My comment at the site):

Why rule out nuclear? Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents were 42 and 35 years ago. Fukushima was 1960s technology. New nuclear is vastly safer.*

We ought welcome Bill Gates' TerraPower to set up a trial plant in Hong Kong. It prioritises safety, while generating carbon-free power. (Would lso move us along the high-tech road).

Germany closing down nuclear is a mistake. It has led to it increasing CO2 emissions, as they use coal-fired power to make up the shortfall in baseload power. [Link…]

********

*ADDED: In Netflix’s hagiography “Inside Bill’s Brain” someone - maybe Bill - says “Fukushima was designed before computers. It was designed using slide rules!” The bio talks a lot about TerraPower and what drove Gates to invest in it. It was just about to build a trial plant when Fukushima blew up, blowing up TerraPower’s plans with it. Still, it might get up somewhere. We’d be wise to consider it for Hong Kong. I reckon. 

Nuclear: Costs of German shut down of its industry way higher than expected

We know some of the costs of Merkel’s panicky decision to close Germany’s nuclear power stations in the wake of Fukushima: higher electricity prices and higher carbon dioxide emissions.  I did the calculations recently, here.
A recent study of the National Bureau of Economic Research, finds that the costs of closure are way more than that.  Mainly the costs are higher death rates, as a result of having to keep coal burning stations online for far longer than would be if nuclear plants had not been closed down: death by particulates.
Here is the money shot from the study:

The social cost of this shift from nuclear to coal is approximately 12 billion dollars per year. Over 70% of this cost comes from the increased mortality risk associated with exposure to the local air pollution emitted when burning fossil fuels. Even the largest estimates of the reduction in the costs associated with nuclear accident risk and waste disposal due to the phase-out are far smaller than 12 billion dollars.

The NBER is a reputable think tank, founded one hundred years ago and chock full of Nobel laureates.  It’s non-partisan and most certainly not a “climate denier”.
The whole reason for Mad Mutti Merkel deciding to shut down the nuclear plants -- clean, green, reliable and safe -- is down to Germany’s Green Party scaremongering. When Fukushima happened, all rational thought went out the window...welcome meltdown mania!
Nuclear is the only energy industry where the measure is: "there can be zero risk". Clearly that’s unachievable. The risk of meltdown -- slight and declining -- has to be set against the benefits, and the risks of deaths from other sources: coal (hundreds of thousands a year, from particulates and mining accidents), from hydro-power flooding (170,000 in one accident alone), and so on. No energy source is zero risk. And for nuclear, the balance risk vs benefits, is about the best there is for all the alternatives including renewables. But, to be clear, I’m not saying nuclear instead of renewables. I’m saying -- and increasing numbers are also saying -- it must be nuclear in addition to renewables.
A separate report on the issue, here.

Germany tries to destroy the world; Part 4

Part I, World War I.

Part II: World War II
Part III: Open Borders 2015
That's three efforts to destroy the world. Not even counting Germanic machinations in the European project.
And now... and now...
Part IV: The Environment.
Let's destroy the environment. Decide Merkel and the Greenies.
Mad Mutti Merkel decides to close all of Germany's nuclear power. This is rather like you scrap your Merchant Navy because the Titanic hit an iceberg.
And so Germany has increased its carbon emissions.
No worry, renewables will take up the slack. Oh wait... people - environmentalists mainly - are against wind power because they kill birds and are noisy.  Oh horrible irony. (And recall that when the Right made these exact critiques they were dismissed as "climate deniers").
Meantime there are reports that if Germany had spent the same amount of money it has spent on renewables on nuclear instead, it would BY NOW, be carbon neutral in electricity production.
So go figure.

It's a "climate crisis" but you don't use your single most potent weapon - nuclear - to fight it.
You're in a War, but only use your pop guns. Because you're afraid of your big guns.
Pathetic Germany. Pathetic Mad Angela.  Pathetic German Greens.

The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant To

Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine "Hero of the Environment," Green Book Award Winner, and President of Environmental Progress, a research and policy organization. His writings have appeared in The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, Nature Energy, and PLOS Biology. His TED talks have been viewed over 1.5 million times.

And Der Spiegel is the largest circulation weekly magazine in Europe, known for its investigative journalism. 

For the proposed cost of $4 trillion on renewables, mention d in the article, which will actually not be enough to wean off coal, Germany could build twice as many reliable nuclear power stations, as it needs. In other words money left over, after installing clean and reliable long term energy.

But no. Mad Mutti Merkel has set Germany on a path to get OFF nuclear power entirely. This is insanity of the first order. 

Merkel's legacy: 

The dangerous and costly decision in 2015 to allow in millions of undocumented migrants, regardless of claims or background. 

The decision after Fukushima meltdown to take nuclear power out of the mix. 

Way to go Mad Mutti! Here.

Good riddance mad mutti Merkel

Merkel, the mad mutti of Berlin. Sympathiser of Islamism

I've often had a go against "Mad Mutti Merkel".  She's responsible -- she, she alone -- for the uncontrolled immigration into Europe of millions of Muslims, many of whom are anti-western and some of whom ("some" being a not insignificant number) are violently anti-western.
Ross Douthat, in today's New York Times says:

That [leader-of-the-free-world] mystique is undeserved because it is too kind to her decision, lauded for its idealism but ultimately deeply reckless and destabilizing, to swiftly admit a million-odd migrants into the heart of Europe in 2015. No recent move has so clearly highlighted the undemocratic, Berlin-dominated nature of European decision making and the gulf between the elite consensus and popular opinion. And no move has contributed so much to the disturbances since — the worsening of Europe’s terrorism problem, the shock of Brexit and the rise of Trump, and the growing divide between the E.U.’s Franco-German core and its eastern nations.

Read the rest here.

I've said before: Germany had two goes at ruining Europe in the 20th Century.
Their third go, thanks to Mad Mutti Merkel in the 21st Century, may just be the one that ruins Europe. For a Europe dominated by Islam is not Europe.  It's Al-Andalus writ large.  And that's the best it could be: Muslims in charge, non-Muslims treated as dhimmis.
Way to go, Angela; not.

Angela Merkel & Europe: Legacy Includes Brexit, Rise of Far Right | National Review

Merkel at the EU summit in April this year

Her legacy includes Brexit, the rise of far-right parties, and border walls

In the National Review

Merkel has practiced what Business Insider's Josh Barro calls "no-choice politics." During the euro crisis, she relied on there being no choice to exit the currency union. During the run-up to Brexit, she relied on the fact that Cameron had no choice but to argue for Remain, no matter how little she offered. She relied on there being no choice to her right in Germany. It hasn't worked. Merkel took responsibility for Europe over the last decade. And Brexit, her party's diminished majority, the border walls rising, and the advent of populist alternatives are her legacy.

I've excoriated Mad Mutti Merkel before.  And here, Merkel ignores the problems of ordinary Germans, in favour of virtue-signalling for refugees. 

Why the Germans continue to vote for her is beyond me.

“Snag for green energy” | NYT Print. (Online: "Germany’s Shift to Green Power Stalls, Despite Huge Investments")

Not all of Germany's move to renewables has worked.  In fact most has not.

I'm all in favour of greener energy.  One of those is nuclear, and Mad Mutti Merkel did away with those for Germany on the stupidly spurious ground of Fukushima which, recall, killed not one person, despite being a once in a generation tsunami hitting a 70s era facility.  If Fukushima proved anything it was not that nuclear energy is dangerous, but that nuclear energy is safe -- even in the worst circumstances and they have only got much safer in the 40 years since Fukushima was built.  Result of closing all its nuclear plants, Germany now has growing carbon dioxide emissions.  Smart, mad mutti!

 Over the past two decades, Germany has focused its political will and treasure on a world-leading effort to wean its powerful economy off the traditional energy sources blamed for climate change. The benefits of the program have not been universally felt, however. A de facto class system has emerged, saddling a group of have-nots with higher electricity bills that help subsidize the installation of solar panels and wind turbines elsewhere.

Germany has spent an estimated 189 billion euros, or about $222 billion, since 2000 on renewable energy subsidies. But emissions have been stuck at roughly 2009 levels, and rose last year, as coal-fired plants fill a void left by Germany’s decision to abandon nuclear power. That has raised questions — and anger — over a program meant to make the country’s power sector greener.

Germany’s Shift to Green Power Stalls, Despite Huge Investments

German Towns Filled With Refugees Ask, ‘Who Is Integrating Whom?’ | WSJ

Nadine Langer's two daughters are the German-born in their class
in Lebenstedt

In the comments, to this article:

Douglas Murray reckons ("The Strange Death of Europe") that the reason Mad Mutti Merkel said "we can do it", and let them come in willy nilly, was that she -- and her fellow travellers -- were worried about what it would look like to have German soldiers at the borders turning back refugees.
Sounds about right to me....
I recall seeing her in a Town Hall, a few years ago, when this whole refugee disaster was unfolding, and a fellow shared his concern about the refugees, their uncontrolled numbers, their different culture, etc, and her response was to sneer about "who are we to say our culture is better than theirs" (or words very close to that effect).  She *sneered* at him.  No-one picked her up on that. So..... result: Germans were horrid to Jews 70 years ago, so now their children and grandchildren and great grandchildren have to put up with the results of Merkel's guilt feelings.
What a way to make policy!! Especially when it's so consequential.

The article is behind a paywall, but PDF is here.
LATER: text below the fold.....

The West’s Schism Over Liberal Values - NYTimes.com

"To save the Enlightenment, we had to destroy it" (apologies to Ben Tre)

LETTER TO NEW YORK TIMES:

Sylvie Kauffmann hammers the leaders of Hungary and Poland for the "offence"' of undermining multiculturalism and betraying the Enlightenment. (The West's schism over liberal values. September 23-24). [Archive].

But wasn't it Merkel who said in 2010 that attempts to build a multicultural society had been "a complete failure"?

And wasn't it Merkel who in 2015, in a spectacular display of cognitive dissonance, opened the doors to millions of Muslim migrants (all illegal, by the way), whose progenitors had become the failed multicultural experiment she had excoriated five years prior?

And isn't it now also Merkel, who in her latest "pivot" is trying to stem the tide she herself had unleashed? 

This is the paragon Kauffmann claims now has donned the mantle of "leader of the free world"?

Meantime Macron. Surely there is no better example of hubris and hypocrisy than this grandiloquent statement of his, quoted by Ms Kauffmann: 

"Is there any other continent with such a commitment to freedom, democracy and the social balances that hold us together, to this reconciliation of justice and freedom which are at last combined.... In Europe today, sovereignty, democracy and trust are in danger". 

Yes, but who are they in danger from?  Surely as much from the likes of Merkel and Macron who see no problems in opening the doors to millions who have no interest in "freedom, democracy and social balances". Whose core ideology is in direct opposition to those values.

Thus it is that very many concerned citizens, not of the Alt-right, believe it is the precisely the likes of Merkel and Macron who are imperilling "sovereignty, democracy and trust". They are not saving us and the Enlightenment. They are imperilling us by imperilling it.

It is very unlikely that allowing unprecedented millions into Europe who despise the West and its Enlightenment will contribute to its lustre. 

Pf, etc