Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden - Comparing Environmental Policies in 16 Countries - page 66

shortfall in energy. This in turn would lead to an economic recession that
would cost 1.6 million additional jobs. At first, the Federation of German
Trade Unions came out against the moratorium, too. But later it revised its
position to ask that safety be assured and that coal plants be constructed
to prevent a shortage of electricity and unemployment. 20 In effect, it now
endorsed the moratorium.
Until this point the political parties had said little about nuclear energy.
In April 1977, the Social Democratic Party held a conference solely on
energy policy. The moderate wing, including Chancellor Helmut Schmidt,
did not want the moratorium because it seemed likely to hurt the economy
and raise unemployment. Those on the ideological left favored the morato-
rium. They wanted to protect the environment and believed energy conser-
vation measures could make up any shortfalls. The small Free Democratic
Party, which was in coalition with the Socialists, split along the same lines.
A few months later parties voted, both by narrow margins, to back the
moratorium, but after a few more months, they edged away from it. The
Socialists feared alienating its core labor union support. The opposition
party, the Christian Democrats, criticized the equivocation of the Socialist
and Free Democrat parties, but not being in office, they did not have to do
anything. All politicians began to focus on the 1980 election.
Nuclear politics was about to become the catalyst for the Green Party.
By the late 1970s many opponents of nuclear power and nuclear weapons
believed they had reached the limits of their effectiveness. In spite of dra-
matic mass demonstrations, construction of reactors was continuing.
Moreover, weapons were being deployed by both NATO and the Soviet
Union. An alternative was to enter electoral politics. This is easier in
Germany than in many countries because it uses proportional represen-
tation, whereby citizens vote for party lists, and after the election, the
parties are entitled to a number of seats in proportion to their vote. For
example, if the Socialists win 40% of the votes, they get 40% of the seats
in parliament. This contrasts with Britain and the United States where
every candidate for Parliament or Congress runs in a district with a single
member, and the winner is the one with a plurality, that is, more than his
or her opponent. In other words, the candidate who gets the most votes
wins. In fact, the German system is a hybrid, with half the members of
the Bundestag (lower house) elected proportionately and half elected by
single member districts. Additionally, it requires a minimum of 5%, as
a means of preventing very small parties. The advantage of proportional