Yeah, why care for the poor population even when Europe is busy buying oil for itself. It’s not like per capita consumption of the west is 10x or greater.
For blame: all this pales in comparison to the US, which consumes over twice the oil per capita (27 kWh/capita) vs. EU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-oil?tab=table which make 27 kWh * 334M = 9000 BWh from oil alone and is barely reducing their total co2 emmissions. They reduced it by a whopping 1% 2009-2019
But at the end, poor + middle class of India suffer due to this. Sure the rich world ruined environment, but that cannot be reason to say India can do similar. The first to get affected will be the poor world (yes, incl. India) and then only the poor people in the west.
I understand this is a sensitive issue, as my wife is from India, and people do not like complaining about India (especially they do not like foreign news organisations like BBC/CNN/NYtimes posting negative news).
Please start thinking as global citizens (heck your people are running Twitter, Google, MS).
I wonder how much more effective in economically damaging Russia it would be to push solar (and efficiency, insulation etc.) in regions on its southern border.
EU should do it at home too, as its the smart thing to do regardless, but bang-for-buck probably depends more on a) geography, b) growth rate of electricity usage, c) displacement of coal power, followed by poorly regulated methane extraction.
Morocco gets cheap, clean energy independence and industrial investment, the world gets less fossil co2 and even if they get taken over by Martians in the future that don't respect human laws, the climate benefit is already delivered and can’t be "cut off".
However, the same groups that have poisoned the well on carbon "taxes", seem to have really done a number on the whole concept of offsets and emissions trading.
Free market economics? Not acceptable if it hurts fossil fuels and helps the poor, only vice versa it seems.
https://www.goldstandard.org/our-story/gold-standard-feature...
But fossil fuels oligarchies destroy society and civilization just as much as they destroy the environment.
Faith in government, science, rule of law, democracy and economics have been polluted as thoroughly as the air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta... sort by year and by capacity for highlights.
But that gain, unlike the carbon output, will be bounded by the national border, unless there's some way of exporting it for cash.
EU carbon tariffs will have a similar effect, making Indian goods relatively cheaper on the export market if they invest in solar.
This comes up again and again. The famous "Renewable Energy Without the Hot Air" for example is about how the UK could generate it's own power cleanly.
Which is effectively irrelevant in a global context of 60 Million vs 11 Billion people, but it makes phasing out fossil fuels seem harder so there's a lot of people pushing it as an unstated assumption.
It does, but similar risks have come by before (in S Asia). India & Pakistan had a full confrontation in 1990s, when they were both nuclear capable & backed by Russia and US respectively. People at the helm of warcraft perhaps know where to draw the line. It is highly unlikely Putin will use tactical nukes or pre-emptively strike US/EU, no matter how grim the war looks.
People do not realize that the game of brinksmanship has played out several times in the past. We empathize Ukraine because news coverage & social media have brought the sounds of guns and rocket right to our doorstep. Horrific war crimes have happened, countless people died & children orphaned in Kosovo, Palestine, Kashmir etc. - but we can't connect with it because we don't see it flashed in the daily news.
My gut tells me that the balance of power is not at all as "equal" as it's claimed ("both sides have nukes") but there is enough uncertainly on all sides to want to test it.
The "usual" rules of gradual escalation probably apply. Of course, it's best to avoid any escalation because it can be an uncontrollable situation.
If a country is experiencing mass psychosis and wants to commit murder-suicide, it doesn’t really help that the other countries have nukes too
I wouldn't be so sure about this. He has working hypersonics and this advantage would last very short time. Currently those hypersonics can't be even detected in time before they hit their targets and there is no real defense against them. He might just launch 100-200 of them with 100kT payload at military/strategic targets in Europe at the same time, level down parts of countries without any response outside submarines or US strategic nukes (their flight time is in minutes anywhere in Europe, insufficient time to react), and then given Europe would be written off for a century, he can try to negotiate terms with the US, assuming MAD is given if diplomacy fails and there is a proof already (destroyed Europe).
He perceives UA effectively in NATO (given heavy arm supplies) as an existential risk for Russia, so he might go all in.
India is paying attention but India also knows that Russia has been good partner in the past, lot of Indian military has Russian equipment. You dont want to piss off your military partner.
US killed millions of Iraqis and Afghans, yet Europeans still support the US, is it because Europeans are slaves and the US is master or is it because brown lives are worth less than white lives?
If you cannot agree on that, or negotiate and compromise on that right or wrong, or influence your partner when you think things are going wrong, then ... it's not a partnership.
Sorry you couldn't stick with it.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/9/infographic-which-co...
When half of your military weapons depend on another country you don't really risk angering them over some inconsequential vote.