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

81–90 of 231 posts

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#81

Post by wkat4242 »

redeeman wrote: post #71
some_random wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

okay.. but at this point ukraine has recieved more money/material than years worth of russian military budgets. Where is the victory? Also, what is it? is russia 100% incompetent, or is it a fiendish foe? We have had to hear for a year now about how russia is so totally inept that ukranian farmers are victorious against them using nothing both farming tractors, but at the same time the west must send ungodly amounts…

We haven't sent them that much of actual material and most of that is outdated. A lot has been promised but deliveries outfit scheduled years from now. Money is useful but you can't shoot it, and a lot of Ukrainian capital is lost because of the war. And the most important resource, soldiers, is the one thing we can't send them. And Russia can just conscript as many as they want.

And it's Ukraine itself that wants their territories back, including Crimea and Donbass. Making it hard to negotiate. But also understandable, once you start giving in, you're giving Russia an incentive to do it all over again and capture now territory.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#82

Post by imtringued »

redeeman wrote: post #71
some_random wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

okay.. but at this point ukraine has recieved more money/material than years worth of russian military budgets. Where is the victory? Also, what is it? is russia 100% incompetent, or is it a fiendish foe? We have had to hear for a year now about how russia is so totally inept that ukranian farmers are victorious against them using nothing both farming tractors, but at the same time the west must send ungodly amounts…

>It seems the west is willing to fight to the last ukranian.

"The west" isn't fighting unless you mean "the west" = Ukraine and nothing else.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#83

Post by bootsmann »

redeeman wrote: post #72
MomoXenosaga wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

heres the deal: not intervening is not the same thing as agreeing. Not wanting to throw gasoline on the fire is not the same as thinking the fire is great, or having put it in the first place.

This is a trolley problem, the train is on the track to genocide and oppression of 40 million people with the other track being uncertain and you're standing here arguing that we should not touch the lever and that this position is somehow radically distinct from some other guy who is arguing that we shouldn't flip the lever.

It might work for your conscience but if we put either of you in charge the outcome for those 40 million people is functionally the same. Distinct maybe, different no.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#84

Post by glogla »

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.

I think there's basically two explanations:

1) Most startup people are just evil

2) HN is heavily controlled by Russia

The latter is pretty obvious (we're talking English discussion platform where you can create account in ten seconds with no verification and I'm not sure if there's any anti-bot measures).

The former ... most programmers are rich and they are convinced they are rich because they are awesome instead of lucky. Most programmers aren't very social or have emotional intelligence. Most programmers think they are better than others and are prone to "fuck you, got mine" thinking. And look how many startups are based on doing extremely exploitative and illegal things - Uber with illegal cabs, Airbnb with illegal hotels, and so on. Of course those people don't give a shit about suffering.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#85

Post by glogla »

wkat4242 wrote: post #81
redeeman wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

okay.. but at this point ukraine has recieved more money/material than years worth of russian military budgets. Where is the victory? Also, what is it? is russia 100% incompetent, or is it a fiendish foe? We have had to hear for a year now about how russia is so totally inept that ukranian farmers are victorious against them using nothing both farming tractors, but at the same time the west must send ungodly amounts…

We haven't sent them that much of actual material and most of that is outdated. A lot has been promised but deliveries outfit scheduled years from now. Money is useful but you can't shoot it, and a lot of Ukrainian capital is lost because of the war. And the most important resource, soldiers, is the one thing we can't send them. And Russia can just conscript as many as they want. And it's Ukraine itself that wants th…

> But also understandable, once you start giving in, you're giving Russia an incentive to do it all over again and capture now territory.

Not just Russia. If Russia succeeds, China is invading Taiwan next, and the whole global economy is grinding to a halt because like 80 % of world semiconductor industry is there.

Saving Ukraine means saving the world.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#86

Post by HPsquared »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #27
whatever1 wrote: post #2

War and subsidies have turbocharged the LNG transition. There, I fixed the title.

> War and subsidies have turbocharged the LNG transition 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."

That's nameplate capacity; what about production?

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#87

Post by imtringued »

glogla wrote: post #80
redeeman wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

heres the deal: not intervening is not the same thing as agreeing. Not wanting to throw gasoline on the fire is not the same as thinking the fire is great, or having put it in the first place.

I like how you refer to people being able to defend from being enslaved and murdered as "throwing gasoline on the fire". If I started torturing and killing your family, would you let me do it because trying to stop is throwing gasoline on the fire? Just how inhuman can you people be?

Also, Russia repeatedly invaded Poland with two other allies (Prussia, Austria) and divided it three times and the polish didn't get their country back by being nice. (I didn't even talk about ww2).

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#88

Post by wkat4242 »

glogla wrote: post #85
wkat4242 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We haven't sent them that much of actual material and most of that is outdated. A lot has been promised but deliveries outfit scheduled years from now. Money is useful but you can't shoot it, and a lot of Ukrainian capital is lost because of the war. And the most important resource, soldiers, is the one thing we can't send them. And Russia can just conscript as many as they want. And it's Ukraine itself that wants th…

> But also understandable, once you start giving in, you're giving Russia an incentive to do it all over again and capture now territory. Not just Russia. If Russia succeeds, China is invading Taiwan next, and the whole global economy is grinding to a halt because like 80 % of world semiconductor industry is there. Saving Ukraine means saving the world.

I don't think these issues are linked to be honest. China has a very different strategy. More plotting and long-term scheming, less brute force like Russia.

They'll sneak their way in just like they're rapidly expanding their influence in Africa, buying European ports and airports etc. Their tactics are completely different and our response must be as well. Of course long-term planning is the biggest weakness of democracies and the CCP's strength. So I doubt we'll be able to prevent it.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#89

Post by pjc50 »

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”.

There's an entire subsection of politics that's appeared, made entirely from the worst possible misreadings of sensible boring policy wonkery. The most recent example is people going bananas about "15-minute cities", as if being able to walk to the shops is some sort of communist plot.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#90

Post by colonCapitalDee »

krageon wrote: post #69
colonCapitalDee wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You say it is not free speech absolutism, but in the same paragraph you say that any sort of limitation of speech or belief that some thoughts are simply bad is something only idiots want or have. It doesn't read as a well-rounded belief that came about from measured, reasonable thinking. It just reads as if you're angry.

You failed to understand my comment and then made an ad hominem attack, how impressive
Post reply on HN