I will skip a full translation, but he compared the promise to get rid of nuclear energy in ten years with a promise to go to Mars in ten years. And he said that just stating a goal is meaningless without stating the plan for getting there.
As anybody paying attention knows, Germany will phase out nuclear in ten years. And comparing that to a Mars mission is an interesting thought.
If true, Germany would really have something to boast about when actually pulling the energy transition off. On the other hand, I am afraid phasing out nuclear is easier done by many orders of magnitude, so that part of the comparison may be not quite correct if taken literally.
But the other point is also of interest. And I disagree.
There is nothing wrong with setting a long term goal and leaving the question of how it will be done open for later discussion. That happens all the time. I recall that the Kyoto protocol did exactly that, requiring reductions in CO2 emissions from developed nations while leaving the question on how to do that for later.
The Desertec vision is another example. Getting to a large desert installation in the next couple of decades is the vision. It is a valid idea, even if there is no plan yet on how to exactly proceed in June of 2026, which would not make any sense now anyway. Who knows how the situation will have changed until then?
Anyway, I like this comparison to a Mars mission. If we don’t get it right, we may be headed for Venus instead.