21–30 of 149 posts
Don't forget that climate change is good for Russia...
Climate change doesn't simply mean some areas get warmer. Climate change means the entire climate system changes. Air streams and water currents shift, ground water evaporates or rises, and so on.
Its sadder everyday that somehow humanity has failed to become a nuclear society. All our problems could have been solved decades ago but we are still nowhere near a solution.
Don't forget that climate change is good for Russia...
Sure, except for all the flooding, forest fires, droughts, etc. Climate change doesn't simply mean some areas get warmer. Climate change means the entire climate system changes. Air streams and water currents shift, ground water evaporates or rises, and so on.
On avg no country is better placed for overall warming then Russia, except maybe Canada.
This is the collision between imperfect (but working) versus perfect (but not working). It's more important to get emissions down now than to aim for a perfect standard that no one has yet reached, and doesn't appear reachable any time soon. The emissions matter, not the goals of activist NGOs. This cuts emissions, that's why it qualified. Results > ideology.
From an environmental point of view the biggest mistake was to cut down on the development and production of nuclear plants because now it's too late to just bet on pivoting to nuclear if we still want to reach literally any of the climate goals.
But more fossil fuels are not the answer. The most effective way to cut emissions at this point is to reduce energy use, but there is no economical incentive for the industry to do so and you can only go so far by shaming consumers.
There is political capital in talking about overconsumption. There is no political capital in talking about overproduction.
EDIT: The original slogan for recycling was "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" but you there's no money in reducing (not "buy electric" or "buy low-energy" but literally not buying) or reusing (not "buy second hand" or "buy refurbished", literally using what you already have).
Its sadder everyday that somehow humanity has failed to become a nuclear society. All our problems could have been solved decades ago but we are still nowhere near a solution.
Considering how much harm to the environment has come by the hand of green parties, I'm beginning to wonder if they aren't lobbied by fossil fuel companies.
This is the collision between imperfect (but working) versus perfect (but not working). It's more important to get emissions down now than to aim for a perfect standard that no one has yet reached, and doesn't appear reachable any time soon. The emissions matter, not the goals of activist NGOs. This cuts emissions, that's why it qualified. Results > ideology.
Don't forget that climate change is good for Russia...
Its sadder everyday that somehow humanity has failed to become a nuclear society. All our problems could have been solved decades ago but we are still nowhere near a solution.
Yesterday in Berlin pro-nuclear climate activists got attacked by the no-nuclear climate mob…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, except for all the flooding, forest fires, droughts, etc. Climate change doesn't simply mean some areas get warmer. Climate change means the entire climate system changes. Air streams and water currents shift, ground water evaporates or rises, and so on.
If everything changes it is very hard to say who benefits and who loses and how much. In some places there will be more, in others less. Some places will have more droughts in others less. On avg no country is better placed for overall warming then Russia, except maybe Canada.
Being better placed because most of your territory gets extremely cold a lot of the time doesn't mean climate change would provide a net benefit to you. This isn't Civ, you can't just reload a save file if your strategy doesn't work out.
Heck, the best strategy for Russia would be to break up large international trade blocks by destabilizing their political structures, especially in Europe, to be gain more leverage and make it easier to expand its territory further into southern Ukraine. And incidentally with Turkey provoking NATO, the UK leaving the EU, Trump being president and the rise of far-right anti-EU sentiments in other EU countries that matches what happened for several years prior to the pandemic, whether with their influence or without.
It's far more likely Russia having little interest in averting climate change is for the same reason as with everybody else including the US: it's a long-term process requiring intense international collaboration putting anyone fully committing to it at a competitive disadvantage if anyone else doesn't join in. Economically it's a game of chicken.
EDIT: I guess I struck a nerve with some people? I'm not arguing that Russia is manipulating the political climate of EU countries or the US. I'm arguing that if you want to engage in conspiracy theories like Russia intentionally accelerating climate change for strategic benefit, there are better strategies that are more plausible and don't require rolling the dice on whether your entire country will go up in flames (or drown) in ten years.