(no title)
thematrixturtle | 3 years ago
Unfortunately it also took around 17 years to build the thing, so this playbook is not going to be particularly useful to anybody else who needs to wean themselves off Russian energy now.
thematrixturtle | 3 years ago
Unfortunately it also took around 17 years to build the thing, so this playbook is not going to be particularly useful to anybody else who needs to wean themselves off Russian energy now.
roenxi|3 years ago
At some point, stubborn commitment to terrible policy can't be recovered from.
But it is nevertheless always a good time to admit wrong and start working to correct mistakes. It would be very wise to admit that the Western powers haven't been seriously focusing on energy security for decades now and that really needs to change. If we want to be in a good spot 17 years from now we need to start ASAP.
And people could probably also get some nuclear plants built in less than 17 years if they demanded that they be an order of magnitude safer than coal plants/gas rather than the absurdist standards that are presently applied.
CraigJPerry|3 years ago
Would it be fair to summarise that policy as “bilateral trade will stop countries killing each other”?
>> Western powers haven't been seriously focusing on energy security
By security you mean self sufficiency? The opposite of stopping further world wars by opening global trade?
The idea a world historically proven to relish excuses for killing each other, would have been better served by following the ideals of self sufficiency rather than trade, it just doesn’t really hold up to any inspection. Are there any exceptions to the rule globally that conflict deaths decrease as trade intensity increases?
Almost all dead civilisations share a common marker before their death: greater self sufficiency (and consequently a loss of skills - which was counter intuitive to me but easily researched since it doesn’t appear to be a disputed finding as far as i can see).