In capitalistic societies all kinds of crazy ideas are beng sold as though they were the truth. Take the new laws for the energy industry in Germany for example, where the consumers now have the chance to choose between yellow (Yello = Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg), blue (RWE) and green (e.g. Naturstrom AG) electricity.At first sight the tedious commodity electricity has become colourful and shrill. It will be very interesting to watch how the other suppliers will try to sell their commodities. But seen in a sober light one might be inclined to think that electricity still comes out of the same sockets as always, affects the environment through its production and has no color whatsoever.

The competition on the market for electricity was started by a new law for the energy industry: the national conversion of the European Directive for the internal market of electricity. The aim of this directive is to "strengthen the safety of supply and the competitiveness of the European economy while combining this with the protection of the environment and the increase of the efficiency of the production, transfer and distribution of this product." Meaning that we will strengthen the industry site Europe by lowering the prices of electricity, realising a higher efficiency by firing workers and if all that should have a positive outcome for the environment, that's fine with us. The regional monopolies of the energy suppliers don't exist any more, since the electricity market has been opened for competition. Different to other European countries, the voted out conservative-liberal government chose a radical and accelerated model for the liberalisation of the market. The opening of the market is also not accompanied by a regulation authority - like in the market for telecommunication - and liberalisation took place entirely without a transitional period. The regulation is done by the industry itself. Therefore the Association of the German Industry (BDI), the Association of the Industrial Users of Energy and Power VIK) and the Association of the German Electricity Suppliers (VDEW) signed an agreement in April 1998 that contains the rules for the access to the net and for the fees charged. In other European countries only the bulk consumers can choose their suppliers and the relevant limit for that will be lowered step by step.

Some environmental organisations have big hopes in establishing a market for "green electricity". Greenpeace for example collected the addresses of people who would like to get "green electricity" during its campaign "change electricity (Stromwechsel)". They will organise an offer for these people and may get a commission for the negotiation in return. The European Association for Sun Energy EUROSOLAR, the Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND, German section of Friends of the Earth), the Naturschutzbund Deutschland and other associations founded the society "Gruener Strom Label e.V." (green electricity label) to work together on the problems of a definition of "green electricity" and to develop a label for that kind of electricity. In a statement of the society it says that "green electricity" consists of renewable energies, that means wind power, biomass, solar energy (photoelectric cells), small water power stations and geothermal constructions. They want to develop another label for electricity with 50% electricity produced combined with heat. The quality of this eco-commodity is that it's production emits less greenhouse-gases, the use of fossil energy is very economical and more renewable energies are used. The environmental organisations hope that a great amount of customers will accept a higher price for "green electricity" to get a clear consumer conscience. In the end you surf smoother with a computer run by "green electricity", don't you?

But the potential of a market for "green electricity" is very low, since for example on the food-market, organic products have a share of only 1% in Germany. The bigger problem is that the environmental organisations support the fiction of "leading through" and that they accept the neoliberal policy represented by the new energy laws described above. The tradability of the commodity electricity is, as it is the case for the commodity communication as well, hindered by the net, which stands between the supplier and the consumer. That's why the net is a natural monopoly. Following the new energy law, if one makes a contract with a supplier of wind power in Schleswig-Holstein, it is said that this electricity is "led through" the power supply network straight to the socket of the consumer. But this is a legal and economic fiction which is necessary for establishing a new market and just one example for the crazy ideas of capitalism mentioned above. Physically the electricity cannot be "led through". The power supply network doesn't work like a pipeline, transporting the electricity from the place of production to the place of consumption, which is suggested by the expression "leading through". Actually, you can compare the net more to a sea, where water is taken out from many places and at other places water fed back into the sea. Decisive is only the steady level, meaning that the water level must be regulated. Now, if you pay for more expensive wind power from Schleswig-Holstein, you will still get the same electricity-mix at home, only the flow of money is diverted from the old to the new supplier. So if many consumers did this, the producer wouldn't be competitive any more and he would have to close his power plants. Only then would the electricity-mix from the socket change. But even in that case, the supply would still come from the nearest power station. The claim of "leading through" the net is deceptive to the consumer and it is actually obstructing the way for the break-through of renewable energies: One of their special qualities is the possibility to produce near the place of consumption, e.g. with a solar cell on the roof or with a small power station for biomass in the cellar.

By helping to establish a market for "green electricity", the environmental organisations simply follow the logic of neoliberalism. The object of the European Directive for the electricity market and of the new energy laws in Germany obviously isn't support for renewable energies, but rather reduction of the prices of energy in the name of competitiveness, especially for bulk consumers. In the last months the prices for bulk consumers have been falling already, now the same game will start in the realm of private households. The sinking costs of electricity will make it more difficult to be successful with the concept of energy saving. The "eco-tax" on electricity, a fraudulent labelling as well, will be at least balanced by the sinking prices. With the sinking prices, the fee for feeding in renewable energies will go down, too, because it is legally bound to the prices for consumers. To support a market for "green electricity" depoliticizes the question of a sustainable energy economy. It alleges that the consumers can actually buy a solar energy economy. The costs for these changes are supposed to be met by a few idealists, who can afford the higher expenses. Following this logic, a political becomes a private question once more. The whole society - although with differing causes and contamination - is affected by the effects of the fossil-nuclear energy system. This can be seen by the increase of cancer and lung diseases, damage done to buildings and the possible outcomes of the climate-change. This is why social and political answers must be found. The environmental organisations internalised the logic of neoliberalism to such an extent that they don't see their arguments for a "green electricity"-market are at the same time arguments against the fee (see above) for feeding renewable energies into the net (Einspeisevergütung). The law of feeding in renewable energies obliges the net's operator to accept the electricity of renewable energies produced in his area and to pay a legal fixed minimum for that. The minimum is bound to the prices paid by the consumers, which will sink according to the new energy-laws in Germany.

Another disadvantage for renewable energies connected to the new energy laws is that the share of electricity paid following the feeding-in-law was limited to 5% of the sold electricity. In the paper for the exit of nuclear energy proposed by the minister of economy, Mueller, the share of renewable energies shall be raised to 10%. This limit would be valid for the whole exit period! The advantage of the fee for renewable energies is that the energy companies mix the costs into their price. All consumers have to meet the costs of renewable energy. However, private households carry a heavier burden, since bulk consumers pay a lower price.

The boom of wind power shows the success of the instrument feedin-in-law. Almost 80% of the newly installed wind power systems in the EU was build in countries with such a law in different forms. From the beginning, the energy companies wanted to supersede this law, because step by step, it had made renewable energies microeconomically competitive to nuclear and fossil fuels. Following the logic of the new energy law, the companies now argue that the law-of-feeding-in is a national disadvantage for trade. From their point of view, the fee for feeding in constitutes a state intervention that is an obstacle for competition within the scope of a liberal market for electricity. Instead of trying to establish a niche-market of "green electricity", for environmental-policy reasons it would be necessary to expand the instrument of feeding in and to adapt it to the different forms of renewable energies. Whoever takes part in the advertisement of "green electricity" deceives the public about the fiction of "leading through" and delivers arguments against the fee for feeding in. Instead of going astray on neoliberal grounds, the environmental movement should work for the expansion of the feeding in law. This would pave the way for a solar energy system. But it is also necessary to see the problems of this instrument. For example, the question arises how tenants and people with low income can produce their electricity environmentally friendly with renewable energies, because they neither own the roof of their house nor do they have the capital for buying e.g. a solar system. The existing form of the feeding in law supports the middle class only. This leads to the question whether the net shouldn't be taken into public ownership to adapt it to the necessities of renewable energies. Since until now the net corresponds to the fordistic phase of capitalism with bulk-production and bulk-consumption. It was made for big power stations, but renewable energies need the net, with the exemption of wind power, much less than fossil and nuclear energy does. Therefore the regional nets could be smaller, if renewable energies were used more.

The examination of the consequences of the liberalisation of the European electricity market brings other questions to light than the one about the color of electricity. There is no such thing as green electricity, it is just a mix of yellow and blue, and more expensive as well. Everything else is metaphysics. Sloterdijk, please take over!