It'd also hit Europe very hard. Natgas is like a third of European electricity generation and much of the heating. Europe has supplies for the winter but if the conflict is extended and the embargo maintained, millions of Europeans would be under heat rationing and rolling blackouts beyond 2022. It wouldn't be a humanitarian disaster with some planning but it's certainly not going to be popular, nor particularly good for the economy.
That's too bad then. I'll drain the pipes here and we'll live without heat. Fortunately it is a relatively mild winter and we're getting towards the end of it.
Compared to what Ukraine is going through right now that's a very small price to pay, it is ridiculous to be standing there on the one hand hand wringing about the Ukrainian hardships and on the other to buy our fossil fuels from the aggressor directly financing the war.
It's a pity, but what else we can do to stop the agression? As an European, I'm ready to bear the costs if it will help to stop the agression and the war. Spring is coming and it should be enough time to prepare for the next winter.
Ukraine itself is proof of how undisruptive is lowering natural gas use as it reduced it's own imports back in 2014.
Natural gas has a lot of substitutes in electricity generation and other uses, and demand will fall as prices rise (good for global warming anyway). Energy poor households can get help, so no one will freeze to death, without subisizing the natural gas. Spring and Summer are holding which makes this the best time to act.
Advanced market economies like the ones in the EU are very resilient to supply shocks like this and Eastern European countries can be helped.
Over the long term dependence on insane dictators is also bad for the economy and diversification and decarbonization are good!
There is a good article at The Guardian, discussing replacing the Russian gas. The conclusion seem to be that this will be very hard and take a long time.
That is why it is only being contemplated in response for a brutal and unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country. It wasn't contemplated lightly. And Putin flagrantly leverages this power over Europe... paying for the privilege of enriching a neighbor that has now made it clear is your determined enemy is less unpopular than you may realize.
I don't believe it for a second. Energy prices in Europe have become extremely high and will continue to climb as Russian gas exports are sanctioned more and more. A full embargo would make it financially impossible for many European homes to get heat. Chemical processes and installations that take advantage of the generation of both CO2 and heat, like greenhouses, will be forced to either close down or increase prices, with a direct impact on the availability of affordable foods, chemicals and products.
With a full gas embargo, we're one polar vortex anomaly away from protests that will only favour politicians with Russian friends who are already calling for lower sanctions. In the short term this will have an effect, but unless American gas producers artificially lower their gas prices, the long term will only see more Russia-aligned politicians gaining prominence.
Europe's reliance on America and Russia has been a problem for a while and we're seeing the impact of it as we speak.
However, I do believe that "the economy" will be fine, but "the economy" mostly benefits the richest layers of society. That wealth doesn't trickle down.
but unless American gas producers artificially lower their gas prices
They should start producing more, and return us to being a net exporter as we were just 2 years ago; and, let the Keystone XL pipeline resume; and, expand domestic leases; ...
"Artificial" never works over time. Embracing reality is much more effective.
The price charged by the US gas producers is maybe 10% of the resulting price in Europe. It's all about the transportation costs, liquefying the gas, and shipping it is very expensive.
Easy, Russia stores around 650 billions of dollars abroad. Confiscate it to cover the EU losses. Simple as that, you act like Hitler, you got to be punished.
NATO "firing bullets" is not and has never been on the table since NATO is a defensive alliance and Ukraine is not a member.
The idea of bribing Russian soldiers radically underestimates the brutal control exerted by the Kremlin over the Russian people. It also sells the Russian people short, implying individual corruption when many are patriots who oppose war against their Ukrainian cousins but are not able to speak out.
The idea that bringing in freelance freedom fighters is going to end the war "in a week" is facile and ludicrous.
We could win the war in Ukraine by agreeing to permanently keep Ukraine out of NATO which is a fait accompli anyway since the member nations have already said they’re not going to war with Russia over Ukraine.
How did Europe not freeze to death during Cold war. It's not like it recently became cold there. I don't think this is about actual availability of Gas. It is about gas being cheap. If that is indeed the case, Germany in particular has to think hard on whther lives matter than money.
> How did Europe not freeze to death during Cold war
With Soviet gas. There was never a full Western embargo of the USSR, especially after detente. Trade directly between the USA and USSR averaged about $4 billion per year (1980 dollars) in the late 70s. Not large but also not insignificant.
In many ways the USSR was also a petrostate. Some, then and now, have argued this propped up the USSR beyond its natural life expectancy.
Well, significant part of Europe was on the eastern side of the iron curtain, getting gas from Russia.
And note that in the past, home heating with coal (which is available locally) was common. We gradually moved from coal to gas for heating and now also for electricity generation, and that is something that cannot be reverted over one year.
How much difference would it make if everyone in Europe turned down their heating by 1°C? (Including e.g. electric heating in France or Norway, since the nuclear/hydropower can instead be used somewhere where electricity is made from gas.)
> Russia has no need of the West’s money. It has its own
The West can effectively devalue the Ruble, cripple their economy, and make them an economic pariah for generations. It would be possible to cut their economy in half in real-terms, even with China helping them.
The USSR was far mightier - both militarily and economically - than modern Russia and we economically contained them. We can break modern Russia if necessary.
And China? They're dealmakers and they will sell out Russia if presented the right deal, it's primarily a question of what they would want. The West and its affluent allies have more to offer China than Russia does by a factor of 20x.
It's possible to almost entirely isolate Russia if we need to do it.
The Soviet Union and modern Russia buoyed their economies and national programs through gas exports.
If Europe stops buying Russian gas, then there is only so much they can ship to china through existing infrastructure. Worse Europe may block the transit of Russian gas through their borders.
This would be a lose lose situation for everyone, but It’s a test of European and eventually American will to do without vs the Russian governments failure to pay its obligations. How long will the oligarchs tolerate austerity for Ukraine?
If you look strategically Russia is in trouble, their economy is brittle and heavily relies on fossils, the same fossils the west is phasing out for "clean" alternatives.
Fuel dependency will definitely drop in the coming decade, what Russia has beyond it?
And yet Russia would not get that money for their gas, which they seem to have in abundance, if they did not export it. All their surplus of gas would not get them anything.
Russia may be able to do its own thing inside Russia for a long time, but in the meantime the world moves on and leaves them behind. It would be unwise of Russia to let it come to this. But then again a madman is a madman ...
> So Russia doesn’t provide the EU with any gas in a world systemically short of gas and that’s going to hurt Russia is it.
> How exactly? They still have the gas and Europe has no fertiliser or heat.
Logistics for one thing. Where/how are they going to sell that gas? Western Canada has plenty of gas too. It cannot be used to supply Europe because of logistics.
I won't dispute the analysis, only because propaganda is hard to prove wrong. And that's the problem here, It's on sided.
It's no secret many of the economies in the West are so-so (from Covid). What short term impact will these sanctions have on the countries issuing them? What about longer term (e.g., The Fed over-compensates).
In a global economy, these sanction actions have international reactions.
Honestly, I'm surprised the Ukraine didn't respond to Russia's threats by moving demolition crews to the natural gas pipeline between Europe and Russia.
That would have drug NATO into the war, and probably acted as a deterrent.
In that scenario, wouldn't Ukraine, a non-NATO country, be the aggressor against NATO? How would that deter anything? It seems that would turn NATO against Ukraine for threatening their energy supply.
I am NOT an expert. Just an amateur. But I doubt this.
Pro Forma: To anyone who gets upset, the following is not an opinion over the war either for or against. Just some thoughts from a random person who likes energy and is a geopolitical realist.
First the good news: Europe can wean itself off Russian gas, but only over the course of a decade or more. Specifically Europe would have to:
- Build nuclear power plants
- Build LNG plants
- Build coal plants (coal is easy to store, just a pile. This gives it massive strategic importance)
- Accept even higher energy prices
- Probably accept that CO2/GDP will go up. NatGas is very clean wrt to CO2 compared to coal.
- It's also not obvious that there is gas readily available to be LNGed. (See second list below)
All of these take ten years at best given the regulatory and political realities in Europe. They are also massively expensive and it's not obvious to me that the Europeans have much money left (a lot of that money is in Russia's state coffers). These are things Europe should have done ten years ago.
But it gets worse; the available supply in the short term is tragic for the EU:
- Russian gas that isn't piped doesn't have an LNG terminal (yet). It's therefore a massive hole in global supply. Therefore, the EU would be competing with Japan, Korea, India, etc for Qatari and Australian gas. Prices would increase massively and expect the Asian countries to get very aggressive to protect their supplies.
- The US has little LNG presence. This is because (I believe) until recently it was illegal to export nat gas. Therefore LNG terminals have to be built in the US.
- The export ban and lack of LNG terminals in the US has shielded nat gas users in the US. It's also, effectively, a massive subsidy to American industry. It's not obvious what political support exporting gas will have from the non energy-sector. Heavy industry needs gas and American's want to get back to "building things".
- Currently the US energy sector isn't benefitting from the high energy prices because production is tapped out due to lack of investment in the last five years. Specifically, the US' industry is not obviously sustainable (financially) and banks are getting shy. Expect them to get more shy if interest rates rise.
- On top of that there is a shortage of "shale sand" needed to extract shale oil. US gas is a byproduct of oil extraction.
- Keystone. Or the lack thereof. Oil and gas are somewhat exchangeable goods (in an expensive pinch, you can burn oil in many gas plants. You can also crack oil. The EU is in an expensive pinch). The more oil you make available into the market, the lower nat gas prices gets. Keystone is dead, limiting Canada's ability to export oil
So the EU is not in a good place strategically. How about the Ruskies?
I believe that Russia can more readily wean itself off of the European consumer than vice versa.
- Russian financial reserves are massive. Much larger with respect to her needs than the EU's gas reserves wrt to EU's needs. Look up Russian foreign reserves wrt to Russia's GDP. Remember, Russia only has to supplant 3% (?) of her GDP, not all of it. It appears to me that Russia can stay solvent far longer than EU can stay thawed.
- China is not going to stop buying Russian gas. Neither is India. Or Korea. Or Japan.
- Russia can have LNG terminals too. A short pipeline and a LNG terminal in Murmansk and a lot of the gas that would have gone to Germany can be shipped out.
- Russia has a lot of gas. Gas production requires continual investments. It appears to me that Russia's capacity to produce gas is not resource limited but capital goods limited. By redirecting investments (again, not financial investments, excavator time) to gas fields west of the Urals to those east of the Urals, Russia can tack east.
I'd love to have ppl comment on which ever of those points they disagree with.
I think your take for solving this is somewhat wrong. The big issue isn't gas for electricity (only around 14% of gas in Germany is used for electricity) but gas for heating as well as industry, fertilizer and the likes.
This means the steps to solving this should begin with addressing those:
- Move heating systems away from gas (and oil). Heat Pumps are probably the best way moving forward.
- Moving the industry of gas and oil. Parts can probably be somewhat easily electrified, but parts like fertilizer and other chemical production probably should be converted to hydrogen. (Hydrogen generated from electricity, not gas, since that's a bit useless)
This means quite a bit more need for electricity where some of your proposals come in:
- Building nuclear power plants. Will probably take >15 years, so probably not helping much. Extending the runtime of existing plants might help, but I'm not sure how much.
- More coal. Will likely work. Capital costs are likely too high to use them instead of gas plants for filling gaps in renewable supply instead of investing in storage.
Some further important steps:
- Massive expansion of renewables. Very cheap and possible intermittency issues are likely not as important for producing hydrogen and gas. With sufficient overproduction and interconnection in europe the need for storage can be greatly reduced.
- Storage including Power to Gas. Meshes well with renewables. Especially Power-to-Gas will benefit from existing, then less used, infrastructure.
In general, LNG terminals are likely very helpful, especially for the next few years and high energy prices are probably going to happen.
I doubt that Russia can wean itself of Europe that easily. China won't be able to (fully) fill the gap (around 70% of russian gas is exported to europe) and is likely not that interested on heavily depending on foreign energy. LNG terminals are also very limited in capacity compared to pipelines and with europe switching more to LNG terminals a lot of new ships need to be built. Furthermore, if europe is successful in weaning off of fossil fuels, other countries are likely also going to reduce the need for gas due to scaling and learning effects (Renewables, especially solar, have seen huge cost reductions in the last 20 years and are killing of coal plants in Australia and electric cars are very likely going to kill of combustion engine cars in the next 10 years).
Stop trading with murderers. Rally the people to conserve energy. Rally allies to shore up LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) supply into Europe. Maneuver the subsidies so that the western world shows solidarity and stands united in sacrificing and sharing the burden. Putin invades because he thinks the west doesn't have the strength to cut gas. Reinstate when Russian attacks stop on Ukraine. Show him he's wrong and we have a much better chance at reversing this atrocity.
[+] [-] retrac|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|4 years ago|reply
Compared to what Ukraine is going through right now that's a very small price to pay, it is ridiculous to be standing there on the one hand hand wringing about the Ukrainian hardships and on the other to buy our fossil fuels from the aggressor directly financing the war.
[+] [-] zihotki|4 years ago|reply
edit: spelling
[+] [-] martinko|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw0101a|4 years ago|reply
By percentage of their gas imports that come from Russia: DE, LT, PL, and IT at about 50%; FR and NL at about 20%.
* https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/15/business/ener...
* https://archive.fo/iUJ7j
By volume, mostly Germany and Italy:
* https://i.redd.it/qs12fw6kmdj81.jpg
[+] [-] dimitar|4 years ago|reply
Natural gas has a lot of substitutes in electricity generation and other uses, and demand will fall as prices rise (good for global warming anyway). Energy poor households can get help, so no one will freeze to death, without subisizing the natural gas. Spring and Summer are holding which makes this the best time to act.
Advanced market economies like the ones in the EU are very resilient to supply shocks like this and Eastern European countries can be helped.
Over the long term dependence on insane dictators is also bad for the economy and diversification and decarbonization are good!
[+] [-] dtx1|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bjelkeman-again|4 years ago|reply
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/25/how-can-eur...
[+] [-] throwaway5752|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] axiosgunnar|4 years ago|reply
If I lived in Europe I wouldn't care.
No matter the cost (taxes etc.), no matter if I would have to wear multiple jackets at home.
I would still be in favor.
[+] [-] bobthechef|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] moltar|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeroenhd|4 years ago|reply
With a full gas embargo, we're one polar vortex anomaly away from protests that will only favour politicians with Russian friends who are already calling for lower sanctions. In the short term this will have an effect, but unless American gas producers artificially lower their gas prices, the long term will only see more Russia-aligned politicians gaining prominence.
Europe's reliance on America and Russia has been a problem for a while and we're seeing the impact of it as we speak.
However, I do believe that "the economy" will be fine, but "the economy" mostly benefits the richest layers of society. That wealth doesn't trickle down.
[+] [-] kerneloftruth|4 years ago|reply
"Artificial" never works over time. Embracing reality is much more effective.
[+] [-] 988747|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rectang|4 years ago|reply
Is that an option? Through US government subsidies or something similar?
[+] [-] user432678|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hourislate|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ClumsyPilot|4 years ago|reply
1. Provide any deserting Russian soldiers with refugee status and $3,000 in cash
2. Enable willing fighters from accross the world to reach Ukraine to defend it
3. Provide Ukraine with real SAM systems like patriots
Thats it, thw war would be over in a week without NATO firing a single bullet.
[+] [-] rectang|4 years ago|reply
The idea of bribing Russian soldiers radically underestimates the brutal control exerted by the Kremlin over the Russian people. It also sells the Russian people short, implying individual corruption when many are patriots who oppose war against their Ukrainian cousins but are not able to speak out.
The idea that bringing in freelance freedom fighters is going to end the war "in a week" is facile and ludicrous.
This post is unserious and offtopic.
[+] [-] user3939382|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] caseysoftware|4 years ago|reply
> without NATO firing a single bullet
"Not technically NATO" but "organized by NATO-member countries" is an exceptionally dangerous line to tread.
[+] [-] gabea|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] allisdust|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] retrac|4 years ago|reply
With Soviet gas. There was never a full Western embargo of the USSR, especially after detente. Trade directly between the USA and USSR averaged about $4 billion per year (1980 dollars) in the late 70s. Not large but also not insignificant.
In many ways the USSR was also a petrostate. Some, then and now, have argued this propped up the USSR beyond its natural life expectancy.
[+] [-] zajio1am|4 years ago|reply
And note that in the past, home heating with coal (which is available locally) was common. We gradually moved from coal to gas for heating and now also for electricity generation, and that is something that cannot be reverted over one year.
[+] [-] londons_explore|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] politician|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Symbiote|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] politician|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ClumsyPilot|4 years ago|reply
We need to mass produce and build designs we already have
[+] [-] neilwilson|4 years ago|reply
How exactly? They still have the gas and Europe has no fertiliser or heat.
Eventually mainstream economists will realise that you only export to import and that imports are a real benefit whereas exports are a real cost.
To win in international trade you want as many imports for as few exports as possible.
If Russia isn’t importing anything then it has no need to export at all.
There are plenty of jobs going making armaments and equipment for the Russian war machine, so nobody in Russia is going to be short of a job either.
Russia has no need of the West’s money. It has its own and can ensure people need to obtain it by imposing the necessary level of taxation.
Which if you don’t pay in roubles gets you a stretch in the gulag.
It really is time for some people to re-read Keynes’s “How to pay for the war”
[+] [-] adventured|4 years ago|reply
The West can effectively devalue the Ruble, cripple their economy, and make them an economic pariah for generations. It would be possible to cut their economy in half in real-terms, even with China helping them.
The USSR was far mightier - both militarily and economically - than modern Russia and we economically contained them. We can break modern Russia if necessary.
And China? They're dealmakers and they will sell out Russia if presented the right deal, it's primarily a question of what they would want. The West and its affluent allies have more to offer China than Russia does by a factor of 20x.
It's possible to almost entirely isolate Russia if we need to do it.
[+] [-] lumost|4 years ago|reply
If Europe stops buying Russian gas, then there is only so much they can ship to china through existing infrastructure. Worse Europe may block the transit of Russian gas through their borders.
This would be a lose lose situation for everyone, but It’s a test of European and eventually American will to do without vs the Russian governments failure to pay its obligations. How long will the oligarchs tolerate austerity for Ukraine?
[+] [-] CyberRage|4 years ago|reply
Fuel dependency will definitely drop in the coming decade, what Russia has beyond it?
[+] [-] zelphirkalt|4 years ago|reply
Russia may be able to do its own thing inside Russia for a long time, but in the meantime the world moves on and leaves them behind. It would be unwise of Russia to let it come to this. But then again a madman is a madman ...
[+] [-] MattGaiser|4 years ago|reply
Logistics for one thing. Where/how are they going to sell that gas? Western Canada has plenty of gas too. It cannot be used to supply Europe because of logistics.
[+] [-] chiefalchemist|4 years ago|reply
It's no secret many of the economies in the West are so-so (from Covid). What short term impact will these sanctions have on the countries issuing them? What about longer term (e.g., The Fed over-compensates).
In a global economy, these sanction actions have international reactions.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hedora|4 years ago|reply
That would have drug NATO into the war, and probably acted as a deterrent.
[+] [-] rectang|4 years ago|reply
FYI: today "Ukraine" is preferred over "The Ukraine" because "The Ukraine" can be understood to imply a region rather than a country.
[+] [-] cronix|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] norswap|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cromka|4 years ago|reply
No, it wouldn't. Unless a NATO country is attacked, NATO cannot do anything. Individual countries can, though.
[+] [-] onenukecourse|4 years ago|reply
Pro Forma: To anyone who gets upset, the following is not an opinion over the war either for or against. Just some thoughts from a random person who likes energy and is a geopolitical realist.
First the good news: Europe can wean itself off Russian gas, but only over the course of a decade or more. Specifically Europe would have to:
- Build nuclear power plants
- Build LNG plants
- Build coal plants (coal is easy to store, just a pile. This gives it massive strategic importance)
- Accept even higher energy prices
- Probably accept that CO2/GDP will go up. NatGas is very clean wrt to CO2 compared to coal.
- It's also not obvious that there is gas readily available to be LNGed. (See second list below)
All of these take ten years at best given the regulatory and political realities in Europe. They are also massively expensive and it's not obvious to me that the Europeans have much money left (a lot of that money is in Russia's state coffers). These are things Europe should have done ten years ago.
But it gets worse; the available supply in the short term is tragic for the EU:
- Russian gas that isn't piped doesn't have an LNG terminal (yet). It's therefore a massive hole in global supply. Therefore, the EU would be competing with Japan, Korea, India, etc for Qatari and Australian gas. Prices would increase massively and expect the Asian countries to get very aggressive to protect their supplies.
- The US has little LNG presence. This is because (I believe) until recently it was illegal to export nat gas. Therefore LNG terminals have to be built in the US.
- The export ban and lack of LNG terminals in the US has shielded nat gas users in the US. It's also, effectively, a massive subsidy to American industry. It's not obvious what political support exporting gas will have from the non energy-sector. Heavy industry needs gas and American's want to get back to "building things".
- Currently the US energy sector isn't benefitting from the high energy prices because production is tapped out due to lack of investment in the last five years. Specifically, the US' industry is not obviously sustainable (financially) and banks are getting shy. Expect them to get more shy if interest rates rise.
- On top of that there is a shortage of "shale sand" needed to extract shale oil. US gas is a byproduct of oil extraction.
- Keystone. Or the lack thereof. Oil and gas are somewhat exchangeable goods (in an expensive pinch, you can burn oil in many gas plants. You can also crack oil. The EU is in an expensive pinch). The more oil you make available into the market, the lower nat gas prices gets. Keystone is dead, limiting Canada's ability to export oil
So the EU is not in a good place strategically. How about the Ruskies?
I believe that Russia can more readily wean itself off of the European consumer than vice versa.
- Russian financial reserves are massive. Much larger with respect to her needs than the EU's gas reserves wrt to EU's needs. Look up Russian foreign reserves wrt to Russia's GDP. Remember, Russia only has to supplant 3% (?) of her GDP, not all of it. It appears to me that Russia can stay solvent far longer than EU can stay thawed.
- China is not going to stop buying Russian gas. Neither is India. Or Korea. Or Japan.
- Russia can have LNG terminals too. A short pipeline and a LNG terminal in Murmansk and a lot of the gas that would have gone to Germany can be shipped out.
- Russia has a lot of gas. Gas production requires continual investments. It appears to me that Russia's capacity to produce gas is not resource limited but capital goods limited. By redirecting investments (again, not financial investments, excavator time) to gas fields west of the Urals to those east of the Urals, Russia can tack east.
I'd love to have ppl comment on which ever of those points they disagree with.
[+] [-] danhor|4 years ago|reply
This means the steps to solving this should begin with addressing those:
- Move heating systems away from gas (and oil). Heat Pumps are probably the best way moving forward.
- Moving the industry of gas and oil. Parts can probably be somewhat easily electrified, but parts like fertilizer and other chemical production probably should be converted to hydrogen. (Hydrogen generated from electricity, not gas, since that's a bit useless)
This means quite a bit more need for electricity where some of your proposals come in:
- Building nuclear power plants. Will probably take >15 years, so probably not helping much. Extending the runtime of existing plants might help, but I'm not sure how much.
- More coal. Will likely work. Capital costs are likely too high to use them instead of gas plants for filling gaps in renewable supply instead of investing in storage.
Some further important steps:
- Massive expansion of renewables. Very cheap and possible intermittency issues are likely not as important for producing hydrogen and gas. With sufficient overproduction and interconnection in europe the need for storage can be greatly reduced.
- Storage including Power to Gas. Meshes well with renewables. Especially Power-to-Gas will benefit from existing, then less used, infrastructure.
In general, LNG terminals are likely very helpful, especially for the next few years and high energy prices are probably going to happen.
I doubt that Russia can wean itself of Europe that easily. China won't be able to (fully) fill the gap (around 70% of russian gas is exported to europe) and is likely not that interested on heavily depending on foreign energy. LNG terminals are also very limited in capacity compared to pipelines and with europe switching more to LNG terminals a lot of new ships need to be built. Furthermore, if europe is successful in weaning off of fossil fuels, other countries are likely also going to reduce the need for gas due to scaling and learning effects (Renewables, especially solar, have seen huge cost reductions in the last 20 years and are killing of coal plants in Australia and electric cars are very likely going to kill of combustion engine cars in the next 10 years).
It's going to be very hard for both.
[+] [-] reducesuffering|4 years ago|reply
Stop trading with murderers. Rally the people to conserve energy. Rally allies to shore up LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) supply into Europe. Maneuver the subsidies so that the western world shows solidarity and stands united in sacrificing and sharing the burden. Putin invades because he thinks the west doesn't have the strength to cut gas. Reinstate when Russian attacks stop on Ukraine. Show him he's wrong and we have a much better chance at reversing this atrocity.
[+] [-] Friday_|4 years ago|reply