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

141–150 of 231 posts

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#141

Post by krageon »

colonCapitalDee wrote: post #90
krageon wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How is asserting that you're angry an ad hominem attack? Has it somehow become a crime to have emotions, or to express them instead of pure cold logic? There was no ad hominem.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#142

Post by stuaxo »

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."

Has the IEA got any better at predicting renewables than it has been over the last 20+ years when it grossly underestimated them ?

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#143

Post by wkat4242 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #94
wkat4242 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 demo…

> plotting and long-term scheming, less brute force like Russia The way Xi screwed the pooch on Hong Kong, something Beijing was without controversy entitled to, looks more like an impatient dictator than the China of decades prior.

That's true, Xi is really changing the game. It's a bit surprising because he's set himself up as dictator for life.

However his life is finite and I wonder if he wanted some legacy. Similar to the reason why Putin attacked Ukraine.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#144

Post by cpursley »

lm28469 wrote: post #136
cpursley wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you wanna have your mind blown, start looking into who bought up a lot of that farmland (and agricultural enterprise) starting after the 2014 uh, government restructuring. Hint: it’s not the Ukrainians. And they were changing laws to allow more foreign takeover of Ukrainian agriculture by multinationals all the way up to the invasion.

You mean that? : https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/09/13/fact... Looks like the type of comment you'd find on a boomer conspiracy theorists facebook group

“Cargill, which owns a majority stake in a deep-sea port near Odessa”

https://www.world-grain.com/articles/16539-ports-grain-facil...

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/7480

https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/...

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-agriculture-farmland-economy...

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#145

Post by stuaxo »

elzbardico wrote: post #11
user3939382 wrote: post #6

[flagged]

90s Economist was more of a neoliberal front preaching privatization and austerity programs for third-world countries. While heavily ideologized, it tried to keep things from going too extreme, not it is just another sensationalist brown paper.

It hasn't dropped neoliberalism - it's just had to row back on bits that where it would is impossible to deny how wrong it went.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#146

Post by scythe »

lm28469 wrote: post #136
cpursley wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you wanna have your mind blown, start looking into who bought up a lot of that farmland (and agricultural enterprise) starting after the 2014 uh, government restructuring. Hint: it’s not the Ukrainians. And they were changing laws to allow more foreign takeover of Ukrainian agriculture by multinationals all the way up to the invasion.

You mean that? : https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/09/13/fact... Looks like the type of comment you'd find on a boomer conspiracy theorists facebook group

Even the article you posted admits they're relying on a technicality:

>in 2014 Cargill did buy a 5% share in UkrLandFarming, one of the largest landholders in Ukraine

>Despite the moratorium on private land transfers, more than two million hectares — or about 7,700 square miles — of land have ended up being controlled by foreign companies through leases, Mousseau said. The largest investors are companies from Cyprus, the U.S. and the Netherlands.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#147

Post by diordiderot »

cpursley wrote: post #134
talideon wrote: post #131

Just kind of a pity that some of the most productive farmland in the world now resembles the surface of Mars, along with hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced.

If you wanna have your mind blown, start looking into who bought up a lot of that farmland (and agricultural enterprise) starting after the 2014 uh, government restructuring. Hint: it’s not the Ukrainians. And they were changing laws to allow more foreign takeover of Ukrainian agriculture by multinationals all the way up to the invasion.

Ukraine has strict agricultural laws prohibiting foreign companies from owning land.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#148

Post by oblio »

cpursley wrote: post #134
talideon wrote: post #131

Just kind of a pity that some of the most productive farmland in the world now resembles the surface of Mars, along with hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced.

If you wanna have your mind blown, start looking into who bought up a lot of that farmland (and agricultural enterprise) starting after the 2014 uh, government restructuring. Hint: it’s not the Ukrainians. And they were changing laws to allow more foreign takeover of Ukrainian agriculture by multinationals all the way up to the invasion.

> If you wanna have your mind blown, start looking into who bought up a lot of that farmland (and agricultural enterprise) starting after the 2014 uh, government restructuring. Hint: it’s not the Ukrainians. And they were changing laws to allow more foreign takeover of Ukrainian agriculture up to the invasion.

I'm not sure I understand the comment. Is what you're presenting negative?

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#149

Post by scythe »

qikInNdOutReply wrote: post #101

Stupid question: But were does a normal citizen buy redox flow batteries? I googled far and wide, and those are just not sold in my area to end consumers (germany). Has somebody else a website were you can order those? I can order normal battery packs just fine, but the chemical storage ones ( https://redflow.com/ ) are vannishing into silence here in germany, for unknown reasons.

Such batteries are not really marketed. The economic case for them relies on the market for lithium being saturated — but the market is not saturated. You can't make a profit selling lithium alternatives when we're not presently close to being out of lithium, even if we might hit a supply crunch at some point.

Gelion in Australia makes a zinc-bromine battery with an 87% RTE per their IPO filings. I've been watching them closely, but I've been hesitant to invest in a company whose products probably have years before they're in serious demand. Most flow batteries are well below 87% RTE.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#150

Post by Tade0 »

runarberg wrote: post #57
luckylion wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Technology won’t progress at the rate needed to prevent the worst of the climate disaster,

Thing is, it already did. RCP8.5 is not going to happen, because it overestimated China's current-day coal usage by 500%.

Meanwhile events like the COVID pandemic and Russian invasion ultimately prevented the world from breaking the 2019 CO2 emissions record of 40.9Gt.

I'm not saying we should sit back and relax, but perhaps it's not all doom and gloom.

Post reply on HN