21–30 of 231 posts
[flagged]
[flagged]
War and subsidies have turbocharged the LNG transition. There, I fixed the title.
War and subsidies have turbocharged the LNG and green transition.
I don’t know if this is addressed by this article (I cant read it because paywall) but I’m gonna make a leap of assumption—because this is the economist and are likely to be guilty. I’m seeing more and more of a new kind type of climate denialism pop up lately, which I like to call climate optimism . A climate optimist is aware that the climate crisis is real, is caused by humans, and is an existential threat to huma…
It makes no conclusions about the future beyond these models and does not hand-wave away climate risk at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You do realise that majority of azov are ethnic Russians who speak Russian ?
War and subsidies have turbocharged the LNG transition. There, I fixed the title.
The IEA projects "renewables are set to account for 90% of the increase in global generation capacity" between 2022 and 2027, "almost 30% higher than the agency’s forecast in 2021."
Can anyone taking issue with this article please address the substance of it?
To me the article is just economics 101. 1) Supply is constrained (by the war and sanctions), demand is fixed to rising, so price goes up. 2) Price goes up, so there is more demand for alternatives, including dirty ones (coal) but also green ones (solar, wind, etc). 3) Increased investment in green energy sources will make them more competitive faster than expected and thus spur the transition.