Live data from Hacker News

War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

economist.com

211–220 of 231 posts

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think Russia would invade the Baltics? Or are they not west enough for you? Could you outline the difference between a Western country that Russia wouldn't dare invade vs nations that in your mind deserve to be ethnically cleansed?

No country deserves to be ethnically cleansed. I meant "western" geographically here. I'm sure Russia won't invade the Baltics. But I'm not sure that Russia will never invade Azərbaycan. (Azərbaycan has oil and is not in NATO and frome time to time they attack Armenia or Armenia attacks Azərbaycan). I remember the second (Putin's) war in Tschetschenia. I've known since 20 years that Russia/Putin is ruthless. How to d…

>How to deal with Russia? I actually opt for appeasement and containment.

Ie repeating the steps that led to the current war (and a couple of previous ones). You expect a different outcome next time?

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#212
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is about cost/benefit. This is truer then you know, the world must make the cost of Russia trying to take over another country so expensive both financially and militarily that they do not try this again. Don't forget Ukraine is not the first, Russia has invaded and sometimes even entirely annexed countries in the past. > If Ukraine would tell: We are looking for a compromise (no NATO membership, Crimea belongs…

Maybe I'm wrong. But I think John Mearsheimer got it right in 2014: "Next, Putin put massive pressure on the new government in Kiev to discourage it from siding with the West against Moscow, making it clear that he would wreck Ukraine as a functioning state before he would allow it to become a Western stronghold on Russia’s doorstep." This is happening now. "Russia wants all of Ukraine, they want to subjugate them co…

> I don't think so. Russia annexed the territory it really wants. If Ukraine demilitarizes they would make a deal.

How can you possibly make a lasting deal with a country that wipes their arse with international agreements when it’s no longer convenient for them?.

If you think a “deal” with Russia would do anything other then let it rearm itself and reinvade the rest of the country I have a bridge to sell you.

After all, Russia already promised to never invade Ukraine and to never never threaten the sovereignty of Ukraine in exchange for them giving up their nukes.

How well did that “deal” go for Ukraine?.

> I don't think so. Russia annexed the territory it really wants. If Ukraine demilitarizes they would make a deal.

Then you haven’t been listening to what the Russians have been openly saying on tv themselves.

The Russians are very open about how Ukraine is a fake state, how it is a mistake and how its cultural identity should be destroyed.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#213
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good insulation (floor, ceiling and all walls) and properly fitting doors and windows already goes a long way. My apartment was renovated this way and when you turn the heating on when you come home the place is up to temp very quickly. A lot of houses have badly fitted windows & doors. Put your ear near it and clearly hear sounds coming in through little gaps, or even feel a small air current.

Passive houses can reduce energy consumption by an order of magnitude. This video is from a guy who's had one built with factory built R-35 walls: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3NVDqH39CE

When you can design from scratch it is so much easier to make an efficient home. But where I live new construction is next to impossible because of the permitting requirements which can take years to complete, so unless you have lots of time and a plot of land already zoned as residential and approved for building you will be in the queue forever.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#214
post #58

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?

> 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?.

sometimes things are out of your hands, like when russia invades ukraine.

recall that i was responding to someone saying that anti-war folks are actually pro-genocide and anti-west. so, from the anti-war perspective, if what you want is peace, (which is what anti-war means), then "arming ukraine for a decisive victory" is what, exactly? it's giving ukraine weapons, or, to put it in other words: it's giving money to weapons manufacturers.

if you think giving money to weapons manufacturers will lead somehow to peace, then i don't know what to tell you.

you could shorten the war by aiding russia, but obviously no one wants that. that would genuinely encourage violence, like when the united states aids saudi arabia against the people of yemen.

since the rest of the world can't make choices on russia's behalf, the only thing to be done, from an anti-war perspective, is to mitigate the damage russia does to ukraine, and encourage, through non-violent means, a cessation of violence.

arming ukraine is the opposite of that.

what else could the united states do? (or whatever country, i'll just go with the united states for the sake of brevity.) the united states could invade ukraine too, to counter russia. would that end the russia-ukraine war? no, it would just start the america-russian war.

all i'm trying to convey is that anti-war people are, probably, for the most part, actually just that. conversely, if you're pro-ukraine, or anti-russia, or anti-ukraine, or pro-russia, you are, probably, for the most part, actually not anti-war. you have other priorities, which is your business, not mine. but i won't just be called pro-genocide by someone who's gotten themselves all worked up into a froth for war.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#215
post #95
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine will not win. No amount of dumping money into a country is going to help with this size difference, unless many more countries mobilise their actual military. That won't happen because then it goes from a regional conflict to a large-scale war and more countries might feel like meddling. Then there might be a world war.

They're already, slowly, winning? And I think people have forgotten that the massive size difference didn't help America win in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam - in the long term. It's going to be a long war, though. It's effectively been running for a decade already.

> They're already, slowly, winning?

but maybe they're actually not? if they're losing, this is how it'll be reported to you: they're winning -> they're winning -> they've nearly won -> *silence for years* -> ukraine is now part of russia, bringing the decades-long quagmire to an end.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#216

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…

>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.

they're saying the west is willing to sacrifice every ukrainian to weaken russia.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#217
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?.

sometimes things are out of your hands, like when russia invades ukraine. recall that i was responding to someone saying that anti-war folks are actually pro-genocide and anti-west. so, from the anti-war perspective, if what you want is peace, (which is what anti-war means), then "arming ukraine for a decisive victory" is what, exactly? it's giving ukraine weapons, or, to put it in other words: it's giving money to w…

So your response is to do literally nothing as a country gets rolled through and its civilians tortured and raped?.

If you think that sitting back and doing nothing will somehow let Ukrainians have a better life then you do not know the realities of living under Russian rule.

I find it strange that this kind of appeasement and bowing to another power to let them do what they please is so popular now just like it was in WW2.

Appeasing the fascists didn’t work then and it work now, the thing that stops countries like Russia is military defeat.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#218
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.

> completely indefensible war of aggression

For a second I thought you were describing the Ukrainian government bombing the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine since 2014.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

War progresses many industries and humanity as a whole. “War! What is it good for?” by Ian Morrison is a good read.

I don't have any reference but I expand it from any war to any crisis. Ask for a new server at work and you are ignored for years until the old server crashes and cannot be recovered. Suddenly they will be funding for new server and approvals done within the hour. It is sad humans too often need a crisis to realise what is important and focus on it. No crisis no focus everyone just pulling in different directions.

That makes a lot of sense though, to the point of being tautological. When something is a crisis, i.e. an urgent problem, you deal with it. If it's not urgent, it can wait.

The fact that it would very often be "cheaper" or more efficient to deal with any individual problem ahead of time somewhat loses it's appeal when you consider the huge amount of potential problems that are costly to even evaluate as to the benefits of dealing with them in advance.

Re: War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition

#220
post #22
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You do realise that majority of azov are ethnic Russians who speak Russian ?

They speak Russian so... they haven't been attacking Russians in eastern Ukraine since 2014, as confirmed by every related NGO operating there? Ok...
Post reply on HN