Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 231 posts

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#51

Post by MomoXenosaga »

some_random wrote: post #21
trasz3 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The Russian Invasion of Ukraine has been such an amazing tool for distinguishing actual anti-war people from anti-west ghouls. It's a completely indefensible war of aggression by an imperialistic power against it's former subject but since the imperialistic power is Russia suddenly all these "anti-war" activists think it's fine.

Suddenly so many people are actually pacifists, yeah I don't buy it either. And in their anti Western hatred they are willing to sacrifice a sovereign state to a Russian invasion.

A question I pose to these people- after Ukraine what other land is Putin allowed to grab?

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#52

Post by pasquinelli »

MomoXenosaga wrote: post #50
pasquinelli wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is dumping weapons into ukraine going to stop the war? is expanding the war going to stop the war? what do you propose doing about russia invading ukraine, besides war?

I am confident enough that the West is still able to decimate a middling power like Russia. They have the GDP of Italy for fuck sake they're not the USSR.

anti-war, eh?

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#53

Post by Archelaos »

"Lutzerath ... after Robert Habeck, the country’s energy minister, allowed a utility firm to mine for lignite ... In their panic to keep the lights on, policymakers across Europe and Asia are reopening coal mines ..."

The first statement is not correct and the continuation is misleading. It was not an individual descision of minister Habeck (Green party) to allow the demolition of Lützerath, but of the German federal parliament with its majority of Labour (SPD), Greens and Liberals (FDP) in the context of its Coal-fired Power Generation Termination Act ("Kohleverstromungsbeendigungsgesetz"). The previous version of the law from August 2020, enacted by a colation of the Conservatives (CDU/CSU) and Labour (SPD), provided for the demolition of five more villages and some little settlements. This was later, in March 2021, altered into its present form by a so-called guiding decision of the government (a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals) of North Rhine-Westphalia, the state in which Lüzerath is located, on which the modified federal law from December 2022 was based.

The Green Party of minister Harbeck was clearly the political force that had pushed hardest for a phase-out of coal as quickly and as extensively as possible. Of course, there are critics who believe that what has been achieved was not enough. Be that as it may, less would probably have been achieved without the participation of the Greens. For this reason it is dubious journalism to single him out.

An it is also not only very low quality journalism, but deliberate misinformation not to mention that Lützerath represents the end of coal mining in the region and instead putting it into the context of an alleged reopening of coal mines.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#54

Post by colonCapitalDee »

haswell wrote: post #38
colonCapitalDee wrote: post #31

For the many people who are criticizing the article for being pro-war: the article is simply claiming that the energy war between Russia and the West is increasing global prices for fossil fuels and is spurring concerns over energy security. Increased prices for fossil fuels makes green energy more cost competitive and concerns over energy security drive nations to find alternative energy sources. Increases in the co…

Assuming one believes your argument, a more charitable conclusion is that some people may be misguided, and a reexamination of their stance may be warranted. Calling people idiots isn’t going to change people’s minds, and people hold bad opinions about things all the time for reasons that aren’t as simplistic as “they’re an idiot”.

Idiot is me being charitable. People who believe that speech should be limited specifically because that speech may engender beliefs in others that they disagree with are idiots at best, and malicious authoritarians at worst. This isn't free speech absolutism, I'm not advocating for unrestricted misinformation, propaganda, or calls to violence. I'm stating that people who believe that "wrongthink" is not permissible are idiots, and I have zero interest in trying to change their minds (at least over the internet).

As an example, I've encountered feminists who think that the very real issues men struggle with in America should not be discussed because the very act of discussing those issues might make some people think "hey, in some ways men are worse off then women" and this would influence those people to not support feminism. I'm not trying to pick on feminism here, it's just an example. If these feminists thought that the issues men face aren't real, or that the issues women face are so immeasurably worse as to make men's issue immaterial, that would be one thing and I would be happy to explain to them why I think they're wrong (and listen to their rebuttals). But I have no interest in engaging with someone who thinks that rhetoric can be suppressed and ignored just because it's inconvenient for them and their cause.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#55

Post by jacquesm »

Just one datapoint: this war has motivated me to make at least this house as independent of external energy sources as possible within the limits of physics and my budget. Gas prices have gone up so far and so fast that freestanding houses are listed for sale all over the place here. I've installed a relatively large amount of solar (nominally a bit over 10 KW) and I'm using that to offset the gas bill as long as we have netmetering (essentially this allows us to use the grid as a battery). A relatively small air-air heatpump is providing auxiliary heat on really cold days to help limit the gas consumption. A larger one will be installed this year to help increase the self consumed portion of our generated energy so that when the netmetering days come to an end (projected: 1/1/2025) we'll still be able to use that energy efficiently and without the use of batteries.

For us the subsidies never came into play (they have always been maxed out and besides the payback time is short enough that I don't think subsidies should be there at all), but the war certainly did.

Finally, dropping the temperature a bit also really helped, unfortunately people have different comfort levels so this is a bit of an issue but by keeping one part of the house at a slightly higher temp everybody gets theirs and we still save a bundle.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#56

Post by some_random »

pasquinelli wrote: post #45
some_random wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Russian Invasion of Ukraine has been such an amazing tool for distinguishing actual anti-war people from anti-west ghouls. It's a completely indefensible war of aggression by an imperialistic power against it's former subject but since the imperialistic power is Russia suddenly all these "anti-war" activists think it's fine.

is dumping weapons into ukraine going to stop the war? is expanding the war going to stop the war? what do you propose doing about russia invading ukraine, besides war?

Yes actually, a Ukrainian victory will in fact stop the war. Furthermore, an ending to the invasion that results in Ukrainians being ethnically cleansed and Russia in a position to pursue more invasions is not a better outcome than war (specifically the one that Russia chose and continues to choose to pursue) for quite a few very obvious reasons.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#57

Post by runarberg »

luckylion wrote: post #44
runarberg wrote: post #12

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…

I'm not sure what your position is. Technology won't progress? Investing money into research and scaling up production doesn't lower the marginal cost? Monetary incentives aren't better at getting things done? We can't "avert the crisis" without going back to adopting pre-industrial lifestyles/communism/veganism or wear sheep wool clothes? What's the "appropriate" response that you'd feel okay with?

My position is pretty much “yes” to all of these questions. Technology won’t progress at the rate needed to prevent the worst of the climate disaster, we need to sink way more money into research and production, not only to lower the cost, but to flat out dump infrastructure where it is needed (yes this means Germany should pay for solar plants and high voltage powerlines in Tanzania and not expect anything in return). This is a crisis which was caused by government inaction, and it won’t go away until government takes action. If they had acted in the late 90s or the early 2000s (like they were asked to; and according to popular opinion at the time) then perhaps the steps wouldn’t need to be as drastic, but as it stands, we will probably need to print a bunch of money to build out the infrastructure, subsidize the home improvements, etc. and enforce a hard limit on polluting industries. I’m aware that printing money causes inflation, but because of government inaction we simply are running out of options, the climate disaster is infinitely worse than inflation.

I don’t think communism will save us actually (and we don’t have time to wait for a communist revolution anyway), and forcing people to adopt veganism or pre-industrial lifestyles isn’t gonna work either. But we do have to put a limit to carbon entitled behavior. We do have to limit the number of private cars on the roads, and the amount of meat in the western dinner plate. We could have done it gradually but at this point there is no option left but a hefty carbon tax which will prove fatal to many of these industries.

What is the appropriate response I feel okay with? Not denying the severity of the situation. Claiming that we’ve solved the climate crisis is a simple lie (this article doesn’t do that by the way; I think it is important to mention that).

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#58

Post by _kbh_ »

pasquinelli wrote: post #45
some_random wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Russian Invasion of Ukraine has been such an amazing tool for distinguishing actual anti-war people from anti-west ghouls. It's a completely indefensible war of aggression by an imperialistic power against it's former subject but since the imperialistic power is Russia suddenly all these "anti-war" activists think it's fine.

is dumping weapons into ukraine going to stop the war? is expanding the war going to stop the war? what do you propose doing about russia invading ukraine, besides war?

> is dumping weapons into ukraine going to stop the war? is expanding the war going to stop the war?

Aside from arming Ukraine for a decisive victory what do you propose the rest of the world do?.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#59

Post by landemva »

jacquesm wrote: post #55

Just one datapoint: this war has motivated me to make at least this house as independent of external energy sources as possible within the limits of physics and my budget. Gas prices have gone up so far and so fast that freestanding houses are listed for sale all over the place here. I've installed a relatively large amount of solar (nominally a bit over 10 KW) and I'm using that to offset the gas bill as long as we…

I would have started with energy audit including blower door test and infrared pictures. Next I would have got busy sealing and insulating.

New solar installs or heaters would then be considered.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#60

Post by landemva »

pasquinelli wrote: post #45
some_random wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Russian Invasion of Ukraine has been such an amazing tool for distinguishing actual anti-war people from anti-west ghouls. It's a completely indefensible war of aggression by an imperialistic power against it's former subject but since the imperialistic power is Russia suddenly all these "anti-war" activists think it's fine.

is dumping weapons into ukraine going to stop the war? is expanding the war going to stop the war? what do you propose doing about russia invading ukraine, besides war?

They could let the Donbas vote, as was pledged in Minsk Agreement.
Post reply on HN