|
Oh yeah, Germany would give us to Russia in exchange for gas in the blink of an eye, if they could get away with it. They'd be perfectly willing to destroy us like Greece if their income was threatened in any way by us.
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
Rappaport posted:Further fiscal integration seems like the most monkey's paw method of moving towards a federal European state. The populist parties (once they have their internal struggles and/or get replacement parties due to their divorce from Vova) all over "northern" Europe will be positively thrilled at attacking the EU apparatus for throwing tax payer money to the irresponsible "south", and presumably the "south" would also argue that they cannot afford taxes levied by Brussels. The lack of widespread opposition to the EU covid fund from the populist parties to date would heavily suggest otherwise. The key to avoiding the regional divide, that has now been learnt in Brussels, is to throw money at everybody in all countries from the one fund. Then any objections cost your own country/people "free" money, which is not something populists (or voters) like. Its a lot harder to argue against that than when a fund is only directed at the PIIGs or other limited regional/economic blocs and its possible to 'other' the recipients as being exclusively feckless lazy Greeks. The taxes will be bled in very very gradually in much the same way as they were in the US (and European states) in the early modern period. A continent wide 1% VAT tax for example is almost imperceptible to the average voter but would raise very roughly €50bn a year in revenue towards paying off a €1trn Green New Deal (or similar) over a couple of decades. And the logic behind needing a €1trn Green New Deal for example is an extremely easy sell - we need to make the changes _now_, not in the future, the planet doesn't have decades to wait. And every EU citizen will benefit noticeably from these changes through cleaner air, cheaper electricity etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
Blut posted:The lack of widespread opposition to the EU covid fund from the populist parties to date would heavily suggest otherwise. No, not really? It's apples and oranges, the korona virus crisis was sold to the populace as just that, a crisis, and it is vastly different from just bailing out Italy's banks (and by extension Germania's banks who bank-roll Italy's banks) in the eye of the voter. Blut posted:The key to avoiding the regional divide, that has now been learnt in Brussels, is to throw money at everybody in all countries from the one fund. Then any objections cost your own country/people "free" money, which is not something populists (or voters) like. Its a lot harder to argue against that than when a fund is only directed at the PIIGs or other limited regional/economic blocs and its possible to 'other' the recipients as being exclusively feckless lazy Greeks. I don't know how to even respond to this bit. Our yellow press is at the moment filled with articles about "how to deal with inflation" and "what cuisine from the 80s have we gone back to now that inflation" etc., and you want to add an EU VAT, which expressly punishes the people who earn the least, on top of that? I get that we have posters here who have their heads in the clouds, but wo-wee zo-zee buddy, you sure are a prize. And by that I mean you could make seven figures writing this stuff for some integration think-tank 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 19:44
|
|
|
Nobody is talking about an EU tax sourced fund to bail out Italy's banks. Thats the entire point of my above first paragraph - future funds are going to be EU wide, like the corona fund, not localised. That lesson has been learnt. This is the first time in 50~ years that inflation has been a problem in Europe. Its not exactly a normal situation, in recent history inflation has been too low if anything in the EU. Obviously nobody is going to lobby for an EU wide 1% VAT increase in the year 2022 while its a temporary hot button topic, but once inflation returns to normal levels its a relative non-issue. If someone had tried to introduce a 1% VAT EU VAT in 2015 or 2005 or 1995 it would have had no major impact, odds are high that in 2025 it will be the same. A €1trn Green New Deal (which is the most likely next fund) would give circa €90bn, or an entire year's government tax revenue to Poland on a per capita basis. Or about €40bn to the Netherlands, about 20% of a year's tax revenue for the government. Those are astronomical figures of "free" money to give to national governments to get to dole out to their populace in the form of renewable energy, grants for electric cars, grants for home modernisation, improved public transport etc, in the immediate lifetime of an elected government (ie what national politicians care most about). And its also a hugely popular concept - very few people would object to a global warming being a valid urgent crisis these days, or that a Green New Deal would improve the daily lives of the citizens of the EU. And the number who would object are getting smaller by the year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
Blut posted:Nobody is talking about an EU tax sourced fund to bail out Italy's banks. Thats the entire point of my above first paragraph - future funds are going to be EU wide, like the corona fund, not localised. That lesson has been learnt. This is just such a smorgasbord of weirdness. You want a 1% VAT, from Brussels, on top of what we already have, to [waves hands around], and you simultaneously think this would not have been a bad political idea in 2015 or 1995? Okay! The "green new deal" is a US political project, right? I am not sure why you are bringing this up here, and for further insult to injury, why you are insisting it will be a huge popular success. Germania, the arguably leading figure on EU monetary policy, hates getting rid of fossil fuels. And, to make this even more confounding, you are not only speaking of this "new deal" as a given, but you are using figures (which I am assuming are straight from your colon) to inform the lesser members of the EU about how much money they'd be making! A carnival barker would be ashamed at you. People, and by this I am following your lead in apparently using that as a synonym for voters, are concerned about the environment, inasmuch as it makes them sad that David Attenborough narrates another cute animal dying of thirst, but handing over taxation rights to Brussels? I don't think so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:This is just such a smorgasbord of weirdness. A 1% VAT from Brussels is a long term cost. Its far over shadowed by the short term financial benefits to national governments, which is what politicians care far more about. The figures are all correct, and easily verifiable if you spend 5 minutes on google. A Green New Deal has become a term in political circles to describe a largescale funding project to improve a country (or region)'s environment and pollution levels. It doesn't refer to the specific US policy project that originally coined the term. If you think Germany has made no moves to get rid of fossil fuels then you obviously have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about :  And this is despite having a good chunk of the cabinet on Putin's payroll for the last two decades, and global warming being less of an issue until recently. The green energy transition, and voter for support for it, is only going to accelerate moving forwards. And you're also completely factually wrong on thinking people, and I do mean voters, don't rank climate change as a key issue: quote:A new Ipsos MORI survey released on 16 April 2019 reveals that 77% of potential voters across 11 European countries identify global warming as an important criterion when deciding who to vote for in the May European elections. https://europeanclimate.org/resources/majority-of-voters-want-political-parties-to-tackle-global-warming/ Green parties are on the rise across the continent, and almost all mainstream parties have adopted eco policy planks on top of that. Every single EU country has made significant binding climate commitments for 2030 and 2050. You should really do a lot more factual research on this issue before ranting about it. Blut fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Jul 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 20:37
|
|
|
I appreciate the condescension, it wouldn't be an interaction with a German without it. A 1% VAT, on top of the 24% VAT we already pay here, would be a huge debate issue, and I sincerely do not understand how or why you can pretend that this is somehow a figment of imagination. Need I remind you of the environmental project that Germania was so heart-set on that wound up telling Finland to cut up more of our forests? If you think a polling company's idea of what "voters would identify as an important criterion" is a compelling argument, I mean okay, sure. How does this Green New Deal of yours manifest itself in a federalized Europe? Mind you, this was my original objection, I have no problems with genuine Greens such as Linkola.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Yes, I know, and this is a good talking point against federalization! Finland (since we're both Finnish) is the Kainuu of Europe, not a single soul in Germania gives two burnt wooden pennies about our fortunes, and trying to force-feed them the idea that they should, in whatever form a federal EU would take, would be a major political no-no. And since the EU is a project aimed at keeping Germania and France from starting wars against one another, we're kind of stuck. The EU is designed to give everybody a say and not let the smaller states be dominated - it's why there are extensive veto powers and the Council. It's a balancing act and I would argue the EU leans too far towards national governments to the detriment of the EU as a whole. I see no reason to believe EU federalization would be worse for European countries than it is for US states.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:The EU is designed to give everybody a say and not let the smaller states be dominated - it's why there are extensive veto powers and the Council. It's a balancing act and I would argue the EU leans too far towards national governments to the detriment of the EU as a whole. I see no reason to believe EU federalization would be worse for European countries than it is for US states. It would be worse for Germania and France, if it were to be implemented as it is in the US, and if it were implemented in a different manner, it would mean nations such as Finland and Norway would have very little to no say at all in what transpires.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 20:50
|
|
|
Germany has tied itself to the teat of fossil fuels for decades to come, primarily natural gas, but also other fossil fuel sources, to back up wind and solar. I hear due to the natural consequences of this policy, germans are going hoo haa for pellets and wood to heat their homes, I wonder how many forests that'll cause to be mowed down elsewhere in the world to feed the german furnaces. It's just funny, nomatter which way Germany turns, it's huge rear end knocks over someone else in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
Blut posted:A Green New Deal has become a term in political circles to describe a largescale funding project to improve a country (or region)'s environment and pollution levels. It doesn't refer to the specific US policy project that originally coined the term. If you think Germany has made no moves to get rid of fossil fuels then you obviously have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about : Blut posted:A 1% VAT from Brussels is a long term cost. Its far over shadowed by the short term financial benefits to national governments, which is what politicians care far more about. The figures are all correct, and easily verifiable if you spend 5 minutes on google. It would make infinitely more sense if the taxes were on international corporations, since that's where the EU actually has an advantage in terms of clawing in that money, plus very few people would be mad about taking Alphabet, Meta and Tencent money to pay for EU infrastructure. Like, the EU could legit play the nationalist card to get people on board with that poo poo, "forcing foreign companies to finally pay taxes on the billions of euros they make in Europe."
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:We just need to break up Germany and France first. No state larger than 10 million. The optimal EU granularity would be 5 to 6 million people per member state. BG, DK, FI, IR and SK can stay as they are, AT, BE, CZ, GR, HU, PT, SE are split in two, NL and RO in three, PL is partioned into 7 states, ES into 9, IT into 11, FR into 13, DE into 16. SL and HR are reunited, same as EE, LT and LV. Finally, LU and MT are declared EU territories. Voilà, the bigger countries can't throw their weight around anymore, the smaller countries can't hide behind them anymore when supporting unpopular decisions and we might get independent Holland, Flanders, Wallonia, Catalonia and Basque states, even the Scots would fit right in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 21:41
|
|
|
Blut posted:If you think Germany has made no moves to get rid of fossil fuels then you obviously have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about : this is one of the best posts ever made in d&d, I'm dying
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:It would be worse for Germania and France, if it were to be implemented as it is in the US, and if it were implemented in a different manner, it would mean nations such as Finland and Norway would have very little to no say at all in what transpires. what's your reasoning for letting norway have a say what the EU does with political apportionment?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:I appreciate the condescension, it wouldn't be an interaction with a German without it. I'm not German, hth You don't seem to have any basic level of economic knowledge and apparently don't like being educated on real world facts so I'll simply recommend you go read some research papers on the impact of a 1% VAT increase in isolation. Spoiler: its barely measurable. Votes for Green parties have increased by 74% between 2004 and 2019 in Europe if you don't think polls showing voters care about environmental issues are "compelling". Though I'd love to hear you explain that piece of illogical belief. The incipient plans for an EU Green New Deal are for up to €1trn of funding to be spread across the union on a per capita basis to fund green transition goals. Grants for electric cars, subsidies for home modernization, improvements in public transport, development of cycling infrastructure, construction of renewable energy sources etc. There are very broad categories of approved uses and national governments get to decide how exactly/best to spend it. Parts of the covid fund already adhere exactly to this formula. A Buttery Pastry posted:Energy from fossil fuels on that graph are up in 2021 compared to 2002. Fossil fuel energy generation in Germany has declined from approx 65% of total power generation to approx 35% of total in 20 years. Thats a monumental change, far more than most countries have achieved in the same time period. If politicians wanted that money they could double a country's tax revenue instantly (ie Poland mentioned above), or add 20% (ie Netherlands ditto)? Good luck with that. The joy of EU level funding is one-off absolutely massive amounts of money can be distributed quickly that would be politically impossible to justify from domestic tax increases. A 1% VAT increase is almost imperceptible in normal economic times (ie not 2022). A small EU-wide corporate tax levy is also under serious discussion as a funding source, and it would absolutely be preferable, but it unfortunately has far more lobbyists and interest groups arguing against it so its the less likely of the two. Thats capitalist owned democracy sadly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
That chart says installed capacity, so the actual generation is probably 1/5th for solar and a bit better for wind. As for the tax, at least here they gently caress around with them all the time to the point I've lost track. One percent wouldn't matter much, plus we're already people are paying "green" taxes anyway as part of income taxes, fuel taxes, or special green electricity subsidies as part of the power bill. Get rid of those and people would be ok with 1% imo. mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Jul 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:People, and by this I am following your lead in apparently using that as a synonym for voters, are concerned about the environment, inasmuch as it makes them sad that David Attenborough narrates another cute animal dying of thirst That's maybe people in Finland. The rest of us are watching the world burn around us. I hear about the climate change literally every day, from people of all social backgrounds and education levels.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/07/26/world/ukraine-russia-war?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur#eu-russia-ukraine-gas-deal
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 03:19
|
|
|
Blut posted:I'm not German, hth "I am not one of THEM" is always a good defence, keep that up.  Votes for Green parties, you say? Isn't it the Greens in GERMANIA currently keeping them in check and in thrall to vova? I mean, aside from all the shady deals and personal contracts previous You state as absolute fact that a 1% addition to a VAT would not be noticeable, completely dismissing the idea that this would be grist to the mill of populist parties both in the south and the north of the EU. Which makes sense, since your entire line of argument hinges on not confronting the myriad of obstacles, real and "merely" "perceived", blocking further integration of the EU. Again, I point you to the inflation-obsessed media. People, who buy groceries and petrol, notice. I will give you this, though, it is exceptionally precious that you out-right stated at the start of your post that all your ideas henceforth work "in a vacuum", and the rest of the audience is just too dumb to follow through i say swears online posted:what's your reasoning for letting norway have a say what the EU does with political apportionment? That I am an idiot who forgot that our good friends in the West didn't actually sign in to this insanity at keeping Fritz in check?  Doctor Malaver posted:That's maybe people in Finland. The rest of us are watching the world burn around us. I hear about the climate change literally every day, from people of all social backgrounds and education levels. Yes, so do I! And presumably so does Fritz, but yet somehow a joint energy policy resembles pulling teeth. Or, if you prefer, herding kitties who are wet in a bag. Either way!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 03:21
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:That chart says installed capacity, so the actual generation is probably 1/5th for solar and a bit better for wind. Figures, that kind of number fudging is so common with renewables that my mind has automatically thinking it's fake numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 07:09
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Yes, so do I! And presumably so does Fritz, but yet somehow a joint energy policy resembles pulling teeth. Or, if you prefer, herding kitties who are wet in a bag. Either way! First you claimed that voters don't care about the environment, now that turned into "joint energy policy is difficult". Of course it is, every joint policy is more or less difficult, but that doesn't disprove the fact that voter support for green policies is already substantial and will probably only rise. Also, this discussion would be easier if you didn't try to put Mad Burns into literally every other sentence of your posts. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 08:02
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:First you claimed that voters don't care about the environment, now that turned into "joint energy policy is difficult". Of course it is, every joint policy is more or less difficult, but that doesn't disprove the fact that voter support for green policies is already substantial and will probably only rise. I don't think I've contradicted myself? If getting the coalition governments of democratic Europe to agree on a luke-warm (pun unintended) self-imposed restriction of gas is difficult, does that not in turn demonstrate that the voters of the self-same governments desire cheap energy and balk at environmental difficulties? I won't go into some Marxist tirade about colonialism since you disapprove of Mister Burns and his nuclear power plants, but it remains to be seen whether the voter support for "Greens" is about idpol, or about adhering to the ideas of mister Linkola. I'm open either way, but right now it looks pretty grim for the birds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 08:17
|
|
|
Jesus dude, we get it. You've owned everyone in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 09:08
|
|
|
II.D.1
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 09:33
|
|
|
Blut posted:Fossil fuel energy generation in Germany has declined from approx 65% of total power generation to approx 35% of total in 20 years. Thats a monumental change, far more than most countries have achieved in the same time period. There are certainly graphs to argue what you're arguing, but the one you chose isn't it. Blut posted:If politicians wanted that money they could double a country's tax revenue instantly (ie Poland mentioned above), or add 20% (ie Netherlands ditto)? Good luck with that. The joy of EU level funding is one-off absolutely massive amounts of money can be distributed quickly that would be politically impossible to justify from domestic tax increases. A 1% VAT increase is almost imperceptible in normal economic times (ie not 2022). Blut posted:A small EU-wide corporate tax levy is also under serious discussion as a funding source, and it would absolutely be preferable, but it unfortunately has far more lobbyists and interest groups arguing against it so its the less likely of the two. Thats capitalist owned democracy sadly. Tax on EU citizens that could cause the union to fall apart even faster: "Feasible, easily achievable."
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 09:39
|
|
|
If public opinion or polls or reality matered, then the greens wouldnt be anti-nuclear, yet they are backing the reactivation of coal plants. Now you might say those are the compromises one has to make to keep the lights on, unfortunetly thats also the same logic that kept germany suckling on russias gas teat since 2014 and doing absolutely gently caress all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 12:12
|
|
|
The coal thing is what really fucks my head because burning coal releases a poo poo ton of radioactive material into the atmosphere. It's literally worse if you're worried about radiation than the nuclear power plants.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 12:15
|
|
|
Also demanding a eu wide reduction of 15% for all countries to build up capacity and storage, while a bunch of countries dont even use russian gas is rich.maybe germany should have planned ahead with some forethough and care, instead of relying on cheap energy to boost its export industry. Im sorry, im sympathetic but this is just a bunch of chickens coming home to roost and its a bit funny.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 12:16
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:The coal thing is what really fucks my head because burning coal releases a poo poo ton of radioactive material into the atmosphere. It's literally worse if you're worried about radiation than the nuclear power plants.  It's all the other day to day damage of pollution and extraction and needing to dig up thousands of tons of flammable solids to shove into a big hot thing with a smokestack that makes coal power garbage. The worst civil radiological incident in the world at Chernobyl killed less people and caused less environmental damage than a coal power plant of the same capacity running normally for the same period of time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 12:30
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Per capita fossil fuel capacity has increased by 4% over that period. Based on that graph, Germany hasn't reduced fossil fuel energy generation, it has inflated renewable power generation to make fossil fuel generation a smaller piece of a larger pie. Germany has reduced fossil fuel energy generation's % of capacity significantly in that time period which the chart very clearly shows, despite the huge damage of Merkel's idiotic decision to get rid of nuclear power in the same time period. If anti fossil fuel policies hadn't been in place, and the same proportions from 2002 had been maintained (but with nuclear decreasing) as capacity expanded, then fossil fuel generation capacity would have increased massively in the time period. The influence of pro-environmental policies is very clear. I'm not making the point that Germany is doing some stellar best in class job, I was (with hindsight probably wasting my time) responding to Rappaport claiming that "Germany hates getting rid of fossil fuels". Which is just blatantly untrue when you look at any of the facts - energy generation changes, polling of voters showing support for environmental issues, increasing support for Green parties etc quote:Please explain how the EU can do this poo poo but an individual member state can't. The 1% VAT is the same, and the state can choose for itself how to spend it. The only way it'd be able to marshal money to the level you're talking about is if it all gets thrown at specific countries, which gets right back to the original issue of countries paying to fix things in other countries. In this case in a very visible way directly targeted at the people with the least to lose from the EU falling apart. In exactly the same way the EU was able to implement a monstrous €800bn+ covid recovery fund that proportionally national governments would have found extremely hard to justify to voters if the measures added to national debt or required increased taxes. I'm not arguing for some wild theoretical system here, its literally already in place and has been used successfully. The mechanism and operations of the EU corona fund are what will be used for the next "crisis" fund, likely to be a Green New Deal one within a few years as I said. Its not going to be ringfenced for use in specific countries because we've seen with the financial crisis how direct regional transfers, that only benefit certain regions, are anathema to the frugal four and others. The lesson has been learnt that to have full support for largescale spending measures the money has to be spread across all countries so that everyone benefits. quote:Tax on foreign corporations: "Not feasible, the capitalist class would be pissed off." Yeah this is a hot take and all but unfortunately what I laid out is just how things work in the real world of policy making. If policy A (or tax) has a strong, organised, powerful lobbying industry deadset against it and policy B doesn't then you can bet your rear end policy B is whats going to happen. Blut fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Jul 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 12:36
|
|
|
Thats seems like a really lovely way to run a polity, or a democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 12:44
|
|
|
It most certainly is. But its also how every capitalist democracy works in the year 2022.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 12:58
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Yet if we want the smaller members to be able to defend themselves from utter domination by germany and france, something like that is kinda required. Even if it makes people complain a lot. Break up Germany and France then the individual provinces and states can be independent microstate EU members
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 13:19
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Blut posted:
ITT we learn that means tested bullshit is just as bad in international politics as it is in doling out benefits to poor people
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 13:45
|
|
|
Blut posted:Germany has reduced fossil fuel energy generation's % of capacity significantly in that time period which the chart very clearly shows, despite the huge damage of Merkel's idiotic decision to get rid of nuclear power in the same time period. If anti fossil fuel policies hadn't been in place, and the same proportions from 2002 had been maintained (but with nuclear decreasing) as capacity expanded, then fossil fuel generation capacity would have increased massively in the time period. The influence of pro-environmental policies is very clear. Anyway, the relevant number is the 30% reduction in fossil fuels in power production over the last three decades, or the 20% reduction in primary energy consumption, not the capacity. Of course the former could've been 50% if they hadn't hosed with nuclear. Blut posted:In exactly the same way the EU was able to implement a monstrous €800bn+ covid recovery fund that proportionally national governments would have found extremely hard to justify to voters if the measures added to national debt or required increased taxes. I'm not arguing for some wild theoretical system here, its literally already in place and has been used successfully. The mechanism and operations of the EU corona fund are what will be used for the next "crisis" fund, likely to be a Green New Deal one within a few years as I said. Blut posted:Yeah this is a hot take and all but unfortunately what I laid out is just how things work in the real world of policy making. If policy A (or tax) has a strong, organised, powerful lobbying industry deadset against it and policy B doesn't then you can bet your rear end policy B is whats going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 14:57
|
|
|
Blut posted:A 1% VAT from Brussels is a long term cost. Its far over shadowed by the short term financial benefits to national governments, which is what politicians care far more about. The figures are all correct, and easily verifiable if you spend 5 minutes on google. Your graph shows fossil fuel usage increasing over time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 15:06
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:But the graph you posted clearly showed that it didn't get rid of fossil fuels, and in fact increased them. Also, you're ignoring a pretty relevant question: Why would per capita capacity increase, if it wasn't for renewables? There's no reason for it to increase, as energy consumption should be going down over the same period. I never said Germany got rid of fossil fuels, thats a rather odd strawman of your own creation. I said that Germany didn't, in fact, "hate getting rid of fossil fuels" and had taken major steps along the process of doing so. quote:Yeah, and the EU blowing up "because of how things work in the real world of policy making" is also how things work in the real world. And since we only have like one person (openly) being involved in EU policy, or at least involved with the people who make it, we might at least try to argue our positions from a better place than "that's just how it is". I'm sorry if it doesn't fit your apparently rather naive world view but "real world policy making decisions are driven by lobbying" isn't an argument, its very literally a statement of fact in the year 2022 in every capitalist democracy. You might as well complain that someone saying water is wet is only saying "that's just how it is".
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 15:11
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Your graph shows fossil fuel usage increasing over time. It shows fossil fuel capacity increasing over time. It shows nothing about usage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
Kassad posted:There's no expulsion mechanism, only suspension. And it needs to be a unanimous decision by the other member states. It would just get blocked by Poland at the very least. Since the war in Ukraine, I wouldn't count so much on Poland's support for Hungary. Hungary has seemed to do their utmost best at pissing off the Poles by openly trying to see how far they can get in licking Vova's balls.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
Owling Howl posted:It shows fossil fuel capacity increasing over time. It shows nothing about usage. Now that would be an interesting graph.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 19:21
|
|