EU Directive 94/62/EC requires recycling to various degrees depending on the material (plastic (50%), wood, paper and cardboard (75%), glass, iron, aluminum) instead of incineration or dumping in a landfill.

This percentage increased in 2025 and will increase again in 2030.
And the directive will be replaced by a new one in 2026.

Aren't we living in a satire?

To emphasize what others have answered.

Imperial College London did a study that claimed that 52% of road particulate emissions came from tires and brakes, and that most of it goes into water and only 18% ends in the air. The solution to these emissions is better materials in tires and filtration, and there are tires on all cars.

But these are not carbon dioxide emissions causing global warming.

Transportation accounts for about a quarter of global greenhouse gases, and of that, 70% comes from road traffic. And as for electric cars, they can of course get their energy from coal-fired electricity, but only in a few extreme cases, like in Poland, is it significant. Even Poland has been decreasing coal power recently and will in the planned future. And as for Norway, they have very little CO2 in their electricity generation. 93.6% comes from hydropower.

The EU's greenhouse gas emissions fell by 31% between 1990 and 2022, and fell by a further 8% in 1923. The US also saw emissions fall by around 3% between 1990 and 2022.

But then there's China and Asia, and now we're finding that the effects of GHG are worse than we thought. :(

What are you arguing about?

After years of resistance, Germany has opened up to treating nuclear power as a low-carbon energy source, a rejection of previously strong ideologically driven opposition to nuclear power. I hope that is clear enough, and if you disagree, please be more clear. I'll leave this old discussion unless something new comes up.

The report is based on information from several companies. This is explicitly stated, and some companies are listed in a summary. We are obviously talking about different reports.

And yes, there are shortcomings in LCOE, which is admitted, such as not taking into account the issue of whether electricity production is plannable.
But all comparison methods have their pros and cons. LFSCOE assumes that a single source supplies all the necessary electricity.

Nuclear power works well and is plannable, but it is expensive and takes a long time to build, and Denmark does well with a considerable amount of wind power. We may not agree on everything, but it has been a nice discussion, and now I will move on.

Sigh. These resulting figures are cost ranges and are calculated by researchers, who pull data from a variety of companies who are behind an assorted range of energy sources. A certain skepticism is always good, but there is no reason to suspect dishonesty here.
Someone who doesn't like statistics and science should perhaps stick to superstition.

LCOE takes into account all costs for planning, financing and building the power plant and operating and decommissioning it, and the costs over its entire life are compared to how many kWh the power plant is expected to deliver. LCOE does not take into account certain factors that are important to individual producers. These do not play a significant role for a country, though, and the comparison I gave is from a science report.

I think we are talking about the same thing and probably agree. Merz has criticized the decision to close Germany's last nuclear power plant by his predecessor Olaf Scholz, and agreed with France's demand that nuclear power be treated equally with renewables within EU energy and environmental laws and regulations. See https://oilprice.com/Latest-En...

Sure, France has the largest share of nuclear electricity in the world, almost 75% I think. And they are investing in renewable energy to increase it from 19% to 32%, which should reduce carbon emissions.

Meanwhile, Denmark gets about 16% from biofuel, 12% from coal and 4% from gas, but has halved its carbon emissions from 2020 to 2023. And has several large offshore wind projects planned, in an attempt to reach 100% renewable energy by 2030.

The new German government has a new policy that nuclear power should be treated equally with renewable energy.

In 2022, Denmark's wind and solar power accounted for 59.6 percent of the county's electricity production.

Onshore wind and solar power provide the most energy for the money, and nuclear power clearly takes the longest to build.
There is an international standard for calculating the cost called the Levelized Cost of Electricity, or LCOE, which is used as a comparison.
LCOE takes into account much more than just the cost of building the plant.
But the problem with wind and solar power is dealing with the variable amount of wind and sun.
Hydropower and nuclear power work well for that, although battery storage is an increasing possibility.

Europa was also a space rocket from the precursor to ESA. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Other European rockets: Black Arrow, Diamant (French for "diamond"), Vega, and Ariane 1-6.

That requires a lot of batteries, and will take time to create and plug in. Storing large amounts of energy is difficult, and the excess must be handled immediately.

Wind and solar power fluctuate a lot. So when electricity production is high the price drops, and the producer has to choose between stopping production, which is difficult, or selling at a negative price.

This has led to negative prices for electricity generation becoming more common in the US and Europe. Negative electricity prices mean that energy producers pay money to supply the extra energy. But what we see here in the UK is that grid operators sometimes pay producers to turn off production, which is expensive.

What happens to consumers of negatively priced energy? Most, not all, consumers have fixed-price contracts and are not directly effected. In Northern Europe, many have contracts that reflect fluctuating production prices. Prices still are positive, and not free, due to other costs. But it should hopefully lead to better consumption habits, such as charging electric cars when prices are low.