• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Putin and MBS are Laughing at Us

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Joined
Dec 15, 2017
Messages
6,918
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
sarcasm
The latest N.Y. Times offers an interesting opinion — "Putin and MBS are Laughing at Us". (I wasn't sure whether to put this in Ukraine thread or Energy Politics, but went for broke and gave it its own thread.) I hope my excerpts are brief enough to comply with copyright rules.

Thomas L. Friedman said:
Wars bring together surprising alliances.

Today, we have America and its NATO allies backing the brave Ukrainians fighting to save their country from being torn to shreds by Vladimir Putin.

And we have Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Bernie Sanders, the House progressive caucus and the whole G.O.P. all working -- deliberately or because they are dupes -- to ensure that Putin has more oil revenue than ever to kill Ukrainians and freeze the Europeans this winter until they abandon Kyiv.

In another dark corner, Putin and Saudi de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman are also probably hoping that the soaring energy inflation unleashed since Russia's invasion helps the Donald Trump-led Republicans to regain control of at least the House of Representatives in next month's elections. That would be icing on the cake for both, who view Trump as a president who still loves black crude over green solar and knows how to look the other way when bad things happen to good people.

Too cynical, you say? No, sorry, you can't be too cynical with this cast of brutes, bandits and useful idiots. Just look at the facts.
. . .
Putin's strategy is neither crazy nor without hope because of two decades of Western nations' failing to think strategically about energy. They willed the ends -- a world no longer dependent on fossil fuels as soon as possible. But they did not will the means to reach that goal in a stable way -- by maximizing their climate security, their energy security and their economic security all at the same time.

Instead, they pretended.

In Europe they pretended -- with Putin's covert encouragement -- that they could abandon large-scale, largely emissions-free energy like nuclear power, as the Germans did, and just jump directly to intermittent wind, solar and other renewables and everything would be just peachy. Oh, my goodness. The Germans felt so virtuous in doing so -- without acknowledging that the only reason they were getting away with this pipe dream was that Putin was selling them cheap gas to make up the difference.

In America, we did our own version of this green virtue signaling. Green progressives demonized the oil and gas industry .... At a House committee hearing two weeks ago, Representative Rashida Tlaib demanded to know if JPMorgan Chase C.E.O. Jamie Dimon ... had any policies "against funding new oil and gas products."

Dimon answered, "Absolutely not, and that would be the road to hell for America."

Tlaib then told Dimon that any students who had student loans and bank accounts with JPMorgan should retaliate by closing their accounts. Have no doubt: This kind of juvenile moral preening by Tlaib surely made Vladimir Putin's day. She's nowhere nearly as bad as the G.O.P. senators who were inspired for years by ExxonMobil lies that climate change is a hoax, and then used that to block our transition to clean energy. But Tlaib still made Putin's day.
...
All in all, Putin had a bad month in Ukraine -- but a good month in the U.S. Congress.
 
Well it certainly makes a pleasant change to see someone else recognise, however tangentially and cautiously, that nuclear power was and is the only workable option to replace fossil fuels.

Right now, there are three strategies available; Nuclear, fossil, and renewable. Our adversarial political systems only allow for two to be seriously championed, and so we are stuck with a choice: Support the insane loons who think we can destroy the atmosphere and pander to to oil, coal, and gas barons without disastrous consequences; or support the insane loons who think we can replace reliable high density energy sources with unreliable low density sources without disastrous consequences.

Nobody is getting rich from nuclear power; It doesn't encourage the creation of mulitibillionaires, nor of dictatorships propped up by energy exports. That's not necessarily a bug, it's a valuable feature. But it does rob the technology of powerful individual supporters.
 
Can you highlight what you think is the interesting part of this?
 
Well it certainly makes a pleasant change to see someone else recognise, however tangentially and cautiously, that nuclear power was and is the only workable option to replace fossil fuels.
I'm totally with you that nuclear power is great and it's a shame that it has been vilified. However, it's not an option to replace fossil fuels (well, maybe, coal). The recent hurriane in Florida showed quite clearly that those gas-powered utilitiy trucks were infinitely more practical than the stranded powerless Teslas.
 
Can you highlight what you think is the interesting part of this?
Trump promoted US energy independance. But he made mean Tweets. So, now we've got Biden, who looks to foreigners to supply our oil.
 
Can you highlight what you think is the interesting part of this?
Trump promoted US energy independance. But he made mean Tweets. So, now we've got Biden, who looks to foreigners to supply our oil.
Trump promoted oil, but in a typically ignorant failure to grasp that it is a global commodity, he believed that it would be possible to use US oil production to make the US independent of foreign production.

Anyone who thinks that oil can and should be made cheap and plentiful enough that Americans can continue using it in vast quantities is a fucking liability. So that's basically every politician in America, and most of the voters too.

Choosing the dangerous liability who has no grasp on reality at all, over the dangerous liability who might be persuaded to apply reason and logic when it finally becomes clear that their "solution" is a fucking disaster, would be monumentally stupid, so I can see why you would do that.

Any energy policy that doesn't involve massive reductions in the use of oil, coal, and gas, to be replaced by massive investment in nuclear power, is ultimately going to be disastrous. Either it will lead to widespread energy poverty; Or massive climatic disruptions; Or both. And it will do so while making a handful of the least pleasant humans on the planet even richer and more powerful than they currently are.
 
Anyone who thinks that oil can and should be made cheap and plentiful enough that Americans can continue using it in vast quantities is a fucking liability.
Yes, how horrible for a politician to do what is best for his country. Enough with this lefty okiophobia shit.
 
Anyone who thinks that oil can and should be made cheap and plentiful enough that Americans can continue using it in vast quantities is a fucking liability.
Yes, how horrible for a politician to do what is best for his country. Enough with this lefty okiophobia shit.
What makes people happy in the short term, while dooming them to a disastrous future, is not "what is best".

Oil is an addiction to the developed world. Giving an addict more and cheaper drugs today is popular; But it's surely not what is best for them.

Short term answers have a lot of appeal to simpletons. Which is why we're probably fucked.

And as I live about as far away from the US as it's possible to get without joining the space program, it's assuredly not okiophobia to point out how idiotic your nation is being.
 
When a hurricane has torn down poles, electrical lines et al, it does not matter if you are depending on wind, nuclear, or coal, you ain't getting nothing. No gasoline either as the pumps don't work and possible your underground tanks at the local Quicky Mart are contaminated with flood water. Even nuclear won't save our asses. Same up north when ice has downed your high voltage power lines.
 
Anyone who thinks that oil can and should be made cheap and plentiful enough that Americans can continue using it in vast quantities is a fucking liability.
Yes, how horrible for a politician to do what is best for his country. Enough with this lefty okiophobia shit.
How would any sane person think Mr Trump was doing what is best for the US? Really, the notion tht Mr. Trump thought about anything but himself is wishful horseshit.
 
When a hurricane has torn down poles, electrical lines et al, it does not matter if you are depending on wind, nuclear, or coal, you ain't getting nothing. No gasoline either as the pumps don't work and possible your underground tanks at the local Quicky Mart are contaminated with flood water. Even nuclear won't save our asses. Same up north when ice has downed your high voltage power lines.
Sure; Without robust transmission infrastructure, everything is fucked.

There's two complementary things you can do about this: Harden the infrastructure against severe weather (eg by using underground cables); And/or reduce the incidence of severe weather events by reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels - for example by replacing coal, oil, and gas with nuclear power.
 
Frankly, I don't care if Mr. Putin is laughing at the West because I suspect he is not going to be laughing much longer.
 
Can you highlight what you think is the interesting part of this?
I found the entire article INTERESTING.
What is most AMUSING is to read a useless response from a QAnon supporter who, unable to find anything interesting to contribute or comment on, hopes to provoke a round of 6th-grade-level partisan whingeing.
 
And as I live about as far away from the US as it's possible to get without joining the space program, it's assuredly not okiophobia to point out how idiotic your nation is being.
That doesn't really follow when your country is making exactly the same choices. No nukes! Coal forever!

When a hurricane has torn down poles, electrical lines et al, it does not matter if you are depending on wind, nuclear, or coal, you ain't getting nothing. No gasoline either as the pumps don't work and possible your underground tanks at the local Quicky Mart are contaminated with flood water. Even nuclear won't save our asses. Same up north when ice has downed your high voltage power lines.
Except with nuclear, you can power atmospheric carbon capture, and then after the hurricane you can drive your FEMA trucks around using carbon-neutral hydrocarbons.
 
Can you highlight what you think is the interesting part of this?
Trump promoted US energy independance. But he made mean Tweets. So, now we've got Biden, who looks to foreigners to supply our oil.
Trump "promoted" many things. But he didn't get shit done. Oil production is higher today than what it was during Trump's time.
 
And as I live about as far away from the US as it's possible to get without joining the space program, it's assuredly not okiophobia to point out how idiotic your nation is being.
That doesn't really follow when your country is making exactly the same choices. No nukes! Coal forever!
Why the tu quoque? bilby has made the exact same criticism about his own country's choices, and every other country's that rejects nuclear reactors as sources of electricity as well.
 
And as I live about as far away from the US as it's possible to get without joining the space program, it's assuredly not okiophobia to point out how idiotic your nation is being.
That doesn't really follow when your country is making exactly the same choices. No nukes! Coal forever!
Why the tu quoque? bilby has made the exact same criticism about his own country's choices, and every other country's that rejects nuclear reactors as sources of electricity as well.
It's also worth pointing out that the party that promotes the attitude Bomb#20 (Liberal/National) describes has had their arse handed to them in the last Federal election, Western Australian election, Queensland election, Victorian election, South Australian election, Northern Territory and the ACT. That's the federal government and 5 out of 7 states and territories.

Simply put, something is being done about the politicians Bomb#20 feels oh so clever pointing out exists.
 
What makes people happy in the short term, while dooming them to a disastrous future, is not "what is best".

QFT.
But making people happy in the short term is what gets them re-elected.
The divide here is between people who say "we should look out for our children's future" and "fuck the next generation - nobody set my generation up in a bed of roses either!", Broadly speaking, the two groups can be respectively described as Democrats and Republicans.
 
Can you highlight what you think is the interesting part of this?
I will try my best to simplify for you. At the end of the day inspite of our proclamations of being the greatest on Earth we are our own worse enemy.

Saudi Arabia plays us like a fiddle. Both Biden and GWB went to SA and pleaded for more oil, SA said fuck off.


It is idiotic to not aggressively increase our oil production while we make a sesible pkanned and control trasition to non fossil fuels. .

We are culturally and politically unable o form any coherent practical energy policy.


Upgrading the grid and transportation.
 
Back
Top Bottom