Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

The chemical industry has the largest share of gas demand at about 29%, and I hope they can adapt. Because in addition to the production of specialty chemicals and polymers, pharmaceuticals are also involved.

The chemical industry is a relatively broad sector. The problem there is also that the chemical industry needs natural gas not only as an energy supplier but also as a reagent. Simply switching to electricity is then not possible.

Whether we can also easily source all of that from abroad, I do not know.

There you fall for the misconception of some prominent economists. Basically, everything can be sourced from abroad, but that has several problems: 1. the jobs for the precursor products disappear. Abroad, that is. Along with them, the possibility to tax this part of the value chain and use it for social systems 2. there is the question where "abroad" gets the corresponding raw materials from. Under certain circumstances, exactly the gas that one wanted to boycott oneself will then be used. 3. If half of the value chain is gone, the rest could also migrate abroad. 4. In the short term, worldwide capacities are limited. We saw two years ago what happens when everyone has the plan to simply buy masks abroad in case of a pandemic... 5. Currently, container shipping also has hardly any capacity to ship any funny precursors around the world

If someone pays for it and the tenants have sufficient social skills. :) I am quite curious how our government will design the 400,000 apartments per year. I do not doubt that enormously nice solutions, which could also be an alternative for me, are possible.

The 400,000 apartments will not come in the foreseeable future. That would be an increase of more than 30% above the peak of recent years.

Anyone who claims today that the risk of accidents is not reduced by a speed limit is really out of their mind..... Ignoring facts? Having no idea about "speed differential" and its effects?

You can surely back up your claim with reputable sources? Germany has the safest roads in Europe and currently no speed limit. Measured as a percentage of kilometers driven, the fewest accidents happen on the Autobahn.
And I rather think you are the one who is out of their mind.

hm, building statistics 101. I think you should compare differently. As a previous speaker already said, preferably start with 150 or 160 first. Used to be a fast driver (cruise control at 200). Last trip was done at about 120-130 km/h. Was much less tired afterwards even though I had no air conditioning and it was 26-28°.

Measured by the percentage of kilometers driven, the fewest accidents happen on the highway.

Oh really, it's also a one-way street without intersections, without real curves, guardrails on at least one side and usually generous runoff areas on the other side, no trees or buildings in the way. Highways are preferentially cleared in snowfall, and many bridges have de-icing spray systems. The question is rather why we accept that 12% of traffic fatalities happen on such roads. If I upgrade every village road out in the sticks like that, it will hardly have accidents either.

PS: your claim regarding the "safest roads" doesn't seem to hold if you only look at highways ;)


(Source: statista)

Just about the whole debate. I find it much worse that more and more freight traffic has to go on the road because DB can’t properly plan the construction sites, resulting in significant delays. The solution is actually quite simple, even if it can’t be achieved in the short term.

1. Significantly expand freight traffic on the rails. Possibly build wider tracks (if technically possible), so that there are wagons that transport not just 1-2 containers, but 2x2. For that, significantly restrict truck freight traffic.

[..]

3. Then you can gladly introduce 130 km/h on the highways, because then you can drive much faster.

Sorry, the bit about containers and track width is complete nonsense. Containers were specially developed to fit exactly on the U.S. standard gauge in order to enable efficient rail transport between the East and West coasts. For two containers side by side, our entire rail network would have to be rebuilt, with significantly greater space consumption. Worse actually is that the size of the Euro pallets does not match the container width, so the containers cannot be fully utilized.

Why a speed limit of 120 or 130? Quite simple, somewhere in that speed range traffic flow is maximized as an optimization of driving speed and required safety distance.

I am of the opinion that we could leave the highways to the people who want to drive quickly, and the other drivers just take the country roads and federal roads, where then their desired speed applies.

Or everyone for whom 130 km/h is not fast enough pays an additional CO2 tax and higher health insurance contributions.

Not referring to your post: So honestly, the fact that there is still no serious discussion about a speed limit in Germany, but Habeck is calling on the population to change their showerhead, is pretty absurd. Denying that a speed limit brings environmental benefits (and also reduces the accident risk on the side) is also absurd, when you see in other countries that it does have an effect, and there are also clear studies on this.

It is not possible in D on highways because there is always something (construction site, traffic jam,) I would argue that this constant re-acceleration from 80 to 120-130 consumes more than driving constantly at e.g. 170.

And why do you have to brake and accelerate constantly at a speed of 130 km/h, but not at a speed of 170 km/h?