How I have understood the article, Germany can put up with what it has taken care of quite well.
However, Germany's energy exports, which have so far supplied other neighbouring countries, are being discontinued, as I understand it, in order to secure domestic demand. All in all, I interpret the article in such a way that - at least in the short term - we will be able to meet our energy needs with existing and converted reserves and resources. Presumably, what is meant by scaremongering is deliberate, so that people do not become indifferent to their energy consumption, on the one hand, and on the other hand to justify the exorbitant price increases, which, as I understand the article, are not really adequate. I put this in the context of pushing the "green agenda" on this.

One can be divided on this. My husband said to me that if you want to educate people to be more environmentally aware, it can only be done through price, which I agree with (with some exceptions).

For me, the means by which high prices are politically justified are a mixture of fear of existential hardship and an attitude of the individual, accepted as a virtue, who feels good and just when he is pro-saving energy. The assumption in the scenarios described is that countries that have seen their supply guaranteed up to now through our activities will be the ones to lose out here. This is not to be wished on anyone, and ultimately the question of whether this could not be avoided is one that I personally find difficult to answer.

The companies where people work will confront their employees with cold rooms just because of the price increases, that much I think is certain. Except for the ones that flip the prices or can afford to flip them without losing their customers. Most of them will certainly suffer a drop in turnover, which will have a whole host of consequences for all who are not too big to fail. I think this is anything but good for our economy.

I maybe will have a look at Moon of Alabama.