|
is sideshow bob qatar or the EU?
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
Qatar, it's amazing how they could have just sat this one out but thought "we bought her, we can buy some more"
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 07:59
|
|
|
Kikas posted:Qatar, it's amazing how they could have just sat this one out but thought "we bought her, we can buy some more" would qatar or europe be worse off right now if they halted imports? i think they can "buy some more" tbh
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 10:59
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:would qatar or europe be worse off right now if they halted imports? Price of gas would go up? So probably European politicians would be worse off...
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 11:00
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Price of gas would go up? So probably European politicians would be worse off... right. sideshow bob is the eu's energy situation right now
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 11:01
|
|
|
Its a terrible shame this came at the same time as the Russian gas crisis. Europe's dependence on Qatari oil for the next couple of years really limits the opportunity to punish them properly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 11:02
|
|
|
That investor interview predicted a state directed "decoupling" "friendshoring" investment boom. But this is the US agenda. EU agenda is still on the green energy COP26 27 28 narrative. Germany big companies just invest 100+ billions in China. When it comes to energy transition, EU and China are on the cooperation trajectory.
stephenthinkpad fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Dec 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 11:36
|
|
|
Blut posted:Its a terrible shame this came at the same time as the Russian gas crisis. Europe's dependence on Qatari oil for the next couple of years really limits the opportunity to punish them properly. Almost like energy independence is a matter of sovereignty and foreign policy. I still find it unfathomable that the EU made itself so vulnerable since the 90’s. You’d think the 1970’s energy crises would have hammered the point home
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 11:39
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:right. sideshow bob is the eu's energy situation right now "We should buy gas and oil only from nice countries like..." "Norway!" "Right, yeah! AWESOME functioning democracies like Norway and..." "Canada!" "Yes, Canada! Who has anything bad to say about Canada?! But besides those two we have..." "..." "...Norway?" "Right, we already had them, but yeah!" Turns out it probably would have been better to hasten the switch to nuclear and renewables a generation or two back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 13:35
|
|
|
"Punish" Qatar?? Hahahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 14:17
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Almost like energy independence is a matter of sovereignty and foreign policy. I still find it unfathomable that the EU made itself so vulnerable since the 90’s. You’d think the 1970’s energy crises would have hammered the point home "Short-sighted liberals, in MY ruling class?!" The easy answer is that, after the cold war, our elites believed that history was over, and that they were still in charge. They didn't think something like the energy crisis of the '70s would happen again, and if it did, that they would nip it in the bud. Of course people were concerned with these things, but those would also be the people most opposed to the EU as a political project.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 14:22
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Almost like energy independence is a matter of sovereignty and foreign policy. I still find it unfathomable that the EU made itself so vulnerable since the 90’s. You’d think the 1970’s energy crises would have hammered the point home
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
We should invade Qatar and let the majority migrant population take over, in return for cheap gas. The country is only 12% citizens, about equal to South Africa's white population in 1995.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 16:50
|
|
|
ted hitler hunter posted:I don't find it unfathomable that U.S. vassals with a limited set of options available to them acted the way they did. The people and parties who wanted a different arrangement with the United States were neutralized. The US very publicly opposed European dependence on Russian gas. What arrangement with the US would have fixed European energy policy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 16:56
|
|
|
We should maybe also account for the fact that this is what some European political leaders consider to be economic sovereignity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_a_Nation
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
persopolis posted:We should maybe also account for the fact that this is what some European political leaders consider to be economic sovereignity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_a_Nation which european leaders, specifically
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:which european leaders, specifically far-right ideologue Francois Mitterrand
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:far-right ideologue Francois Mitterrand He was in far right circles until he got big in politics, very strangely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 19:12
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Almost like energy independence is a matter of sovereignty and foreign policy. I still find it unfathomable that the EU made itself so vulnerable since the 90’s. You’d think the 1970’s energy crises would have hammered the point home This goes back all the way to the 70s, when West Germany first started importing gas from the Soviet Union. Long before the EU existed or neo-liberalism took hold.( the US was throwing a poo poo fit about it back then too and tried to(unsuccessfully) prevent German capital and equipment going to the USSR to expand gas production infrastructure there). But yeah, there should definitely have been a policy to keep the share of Russian gas imports below 20% or something, especially after 2014. Letting it stay at ~40% was a huge miscalculation by European governments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
What if you don't build Nordsteam2 and buy most of the energy from middle east but Saudi Arabia and Qatar (Iran) start fighting a war against each other and kill alot of civilians? What's your argument of continue buying energy from these countries?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:
It was pretty good to Gerhardt Schroeder's post-public service employment prospects.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
The thought experiment is technically superfluous as the Saudis and Emiratis have been genociding Yemen going on a decade now and have experienced zero pushback on it.
mortons stork fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Dec 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
mortons stork posted:The thought experiment is technically superfluous as the Saudis and Emiratis have been genociding Yemen going on a decade now and have experienced zero pushback on it. 100%. The reactions from Europe concerning Yemen and Ukraine is complete whiplash
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Almost like energy independence is a matter of sovereignty and foreign policy. I still find it unfathomable that the EU made itself so vulnerable since the 90’s. You’d think the 1970’s energy crises would have hammered the point home Becoming dependent on Russian gas was the easy thing to do for European politicians. No large domestic voting blocks were really against it in the 90s/00s, if anything you had the opposite with left-wing Germans especially wanting deeper links to Russia. And not only that but Russia was actively influencing politicians like Schröder and big business in favour of it. All of the other options had fairly significant domestic pushback in major European polities: - More investment in nuclear - opposed by Greens in a lot of countries - More investment in local EU gas fields - opposed by NIMBYs and environmentalists in a lot of countries, most notably the Netherlands - More reliance on America - opposed by both left wing and far right parties, most notably people like Orban or the left in Germany In an ideal (and more realpolitik savvy) world we'd have far more European nuclear power, much higher local European gas production, and a lot more European LNG capacity to import from places like the US. But if you'd tried to sell that investment combination to voters in 2005 or 2015 there would have been uproar against it, mostly from Green/left-wing/"anti-imperialist" voters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:which european leaders, specifically That weird "garden vs jungle"-speech Borrel gave a short while back seems to match the vibe. https://youtu.be/f8SKblpc7kY
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
Blut posted:Becoming dependent on Russian gas was the easy thing to do for European politicians. No large domestic voting blocks were really against it in the 90s/00s, if anything you had the opposite with left-wing Germans especially wanting deeper links to Russia. And not only that but Russia was actively influencing politicians like Schröder and big business in favour of it. german energy policy has not been driven by the left wing since, at best, the days of willy brandt. importing LNG is more expensive, more environmentally damaging and carries with it more political strings (in that the americans have a grip on your balls *and* your throat instead of just one of those). the anti-american left specifically has been so totally isolated from power that they had to stop being anti-american to get to join governments. you absolutely don't get to pin this one on "irresponsible populists" or whatever. since the invasion, the most conciliatory western leader on the question of russia has been emmanuel macron, european technocratic centrism incarnate. buying from russia made sense *for europe*, but it was in clear conflict with the NATO-based security arrangement in europe which was structurally geared towards confrontation with russia. schröder and merkel gambled that they could keep a lid on that conflict until they'd managed their energiewende policy. they just about managed it in the 2014-15 crisis (at which point it was clear that russia was going to get more belligerent, and at which point a lot of connections were cut which made russia less dependent on europe), but with the failure of the minsk peace accords and the crystallisation of a very hard line from both russia and america - under the new scholz administration, composed in no small part of very atlanticist Greens, which made the germans even less able to put a lid on things - it was a painfully lost bet. so now we're going to return to something like your proposed scenario; there will be a huge increase in LNG facilities, europe will be tied more closely to the US, power will be permanently more expensive, environmental regulations will be relaxed to allow for fracking and other quick energy sources, european industry will be less competitive and european institutions less able to tell american companies to piss off and face regulation. you win; conditions get significantly worse. Deltasquid posted:Almost like energy independence is a matter of sovereignty and foreign policy. I still find it unfathomable that the EU made itself so vulnerable since the 90’s. You’d think the 1970’s energy crises would have hammered the point home basically, if you consume more energy than you produce you need to be able to import that energy in a reliable way. that means either having political control of the energy producers (i.e. colonialism or neocolonialism) or having some kind of long-term ties. russia was a very straightforward partner in this little dance; they got to do their thing in their back yard, and then kept to the bargain. they signed long-term contracts and honoured them. having russia as a solution here gave leverage to a power with *a lot* of counterbalances and added some welcome counterbalances to other parties, which worked for everyone (well, for the western europeans and the russians): the russians got a nice, stable source of foreign currency and a lot of contacts in western europe; the europeans got affordable, stable energy supply from a country which didn't do stuff like say "well we bribed this politician, but we also own you right now so suck it up" the issue arose when the russians decided that playing by the rules wasn't working for them whereas *not* playing by the rules *was* working for them, while completely misjudging the mood in europe. they misplayed their pre-invasion diplomatic effort (they really shouldn't have expected anything except a complete refusal by NATO to take their demands seriously - NATO had absolutely nothing to gain by engaging) and when they escalated to an invasion they made it impossible to justify further ties. it is worth noting that this never seemed targetted at western europe - they kept exporting gas through NS1 until that whole turbine kerfuffle, and then they made up a bunch of excuses until someone blew up the pipeline - clearly they were not planning for this relationship to just end over the invasion. so long as things didn't fall apart in this precise way, it was a good arrangement. unfortunately for everyone (other than the arms industry, the chinese and the americans, i guess), they did fall apart and so here we are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 01:29
|
|
|
Yeah it's pretty galling to attribute fault to the gosh darn hippie tree-hugging lefties when responsibility for all this poo poo lands square on the shoulders of the enlightened centrists who have been running the game and have gotten 100% of what they wanted for the past 2-3 decades, lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 10:03
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:"Canada!" Ask in that one in CanPol. Then duck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 19:24
|
|
|
mortons stork posted:Yeah it's pretty galling to attribute fault to the gosh darn hippie tree-hugging lefties when responsibility for all this poo poo lands square on the shoulders of the enlightened centrists who have been running the game and have gotten 100% of what they wanted for the past 2-3 decades, lol It won't stop especially right-wing dipshits from trying to pin the blame on green politicians though. In Belgium (Flanders, specifically), the N-VA in particular (think British Conservatives but more openly racist) has been pushing that line hard, despite the Greens having only been a federal governing party between 1999 and 2003 and now again since 2021. It's prepostrous to see the most smooth-brained and nakedly dumb Belgian neoliberals try and blame inflation and exploding energy prices in all of Europe on a local party with a 7% electoral vote and two modest stints of power, while their own has been part of the Flemish government for 17 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
it's not entirely unreasonable to talk about the german Greens in the case of german energy policy - they have been at the forefront of anti-nuclear sentiment, and it's not clear that the energiewende policy would've been embraced if not for the presence of the german Greens - who also would oppose measures to increase fossil fuel extraction domestically, which is a real thing i do not think that the geopolitical considerations have been influenced to any significant extent by the anti-american/anti-imperialist left, however, especially not in germany where the radical left is almost paralysed by its disagreement specifically on this kind of issue (and largely discredited by their historical associations with the old Soviet bloc anyway)
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 05:17
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:That investor interview predicted a state directed "decoupling" "friendshoring" investment boom. But this is the US agenda. EU agenda is still on the green energy COP26 27 28 narrative. Germany big companies just invest 100+ billions in China. When it comes to energy transition, EU and China are on the cooperation trajectory. friendshoring is the most ridiculous term I've heard since the last time i read an article written by an MBA
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 05:27
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:german energy policy has not been driven by the left wing since, at best, the days of willy brandt. importing LNG is more expensive, more environmentally damaging and carries with it more political strings (in that the americans have a grip on your balls *and* your throat instead of just one of those). the anti-american left specifically has been so totally isolated from power that they had to stop being anti-american to get to join governments. you absolutely don't get to pin this one on "irresponsible populists" or whatever. since the invasion, the most conciliatory western leader on the question of russia has been emmanuel macron, european technocratic centrism incarnate. What? German energy policy has been very much driven by the left wing. The Greens have been a huge influence in pushing anti-nuclear sentiment and anti-fracking policies in Germany over the last 50 years. And Schröder's SPD was the most influential driving force behind the reliance on Russian gas. All of those are completely accepted facts, and all of those have been hugely damaging, terrible policies. Buying a huge % of Europe's supply of gas from Putin's Russia was always a dangerous gamble and likely to go against Europe's energy security interests. It was highly questionable from 2008 when Putin began his invasions, and completely indefensible since 2014 - almost a decade ago. My "proposed scenario" is the only real world scenario for supplying Europe with the gas it requires that doesn't involve being totally dependent on evil regimes like Russia or Qatar. For all of America's faults its a far, far more reliable, ethical, supplier than Russia or any of the Middle Eastern gas states.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 14:38
|
|
|
Blut posted:What? German energy policy has been very much driven by the left wing. The Greens have been a huge influence in pushing anti-nuclear sentiment and anti-fracking policies in Germany over the last 50 years. And Schröder's SPD was the most influential driving force behind the reliance on Russian gas. All of those are completely accepted facts, and all of those have been hugely damaging, terrible policies. Which German parties would you consider not "left wing" in either 2008 or 2014? And do you think they would have implemented the policies you propose if they had been elected, instead of the "left wing" CDU?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 15:09
|
|
|
Markel was going to extend the lives of the nuclear power plants, and then decided against it. That was a big moment in Germany energy history, as big as Nordstream blowing up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 15:20
|
|
|
Blut posted:What? German energy policy has been very much driven by the left wing. lmao. Angela Merkel, Michael Glos, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, Philipp Rösler, Sigmar Gabriel, Peter Altmaier; famously left wing politicians.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
Anti-nuclear sentiment is sadly pretty widerspread in Germany, cutting across ideological lines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 16:43
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Markel was going to extend the lives of the nuclear power plants, and then decided against it. That was a big moment in Germany energy history, as big as Nordstream blowing up. No, she actually extended the lives of the nuclear plants. Then she hopped on the post Fukushima hype and reduced the lives again. But, she did it in a pro-nuclear way. By which I mean she also assigned massive amounts of bailout money to the nuclear industry. And that absolutely changed German energy history. Specifically by making sure that everybody who argues pro-nuclear (or anti-Green) in the German context is actually arguing that we should pay more money to the nuclear industry in exchange for them doing absolutely nothing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
I was also under the impression that Gerhard Schröder was the point where the right-wingers who call themselves 'centrists' took over the SPD, similar to Blair over here and Clinton in the US.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 16:51
|
|
|
Blut posted:Buying a huge % of Europe's supply of gas from Putin's Russia was always a dangerous gamble and likely to go against Europe's energy security interests. It was highly questionable from 2008 when Putin began his invasions, and completely indefensible since 2014 - almost a decade ago. The idea of economic integration "fixing" Russia seems like an appealing one, if we consider European leaders. Germany and France haven't been shooting at each other for longer than I've been alive, and that's kind of a rare thing historically. By integrating the European core in a market-oriented way, it has created a peace that has held up for some time, and that makes the idea of generalizing that to other nations appealing, I think. And while Russia has now demonstrated it is not the heir to a super-power except in terms of projecting violence, Russia still is a lasting problem for Europe, which is made obvious by taking a glance at a map. And people want to solve that problem somehow. Now, obviously this was a fantastically naive approach, and as you say it should have been clear that Putin's Russia would not somehow "democratize" itself no matter how much money Europe threw at them. There was a really, really painful to watch conversation this year among Finnish politicians, some of whom supported the energy policy of "let's just buy poo poo from Russia" with ridiculous arguments around that 2014 time period where they more or less flatly said that "this could not impact security policy, it is purely an economical transaction", and their critics at the time suggested this might be less than wise. Now when these same people were asked about this stuff this year, well, you can imagine what kind of pretzels the first group had to twist themselves into in order to at least try to look credible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
VictualSquid posted:No, she actually extended the lives of the nuclear plants. Do Germans actually believe pro nuclear is "anti green"? Maybe they should just nationalize the NPP so they don't have to argue about putting money in the nuclear future. Or do a "Airbus" jointed venture with France but on the NPP industry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 17:31
|
|