Hacker News Reader

Comment by rr808 | Hacker News Reader

The real issue is how the environmental cost is a real trade off now. The last few decades Europe has been closing coal mines, banned fracking, encouraged renewables over more secure but damaging sources. With Russian gas this wasn't such a big deal until it is. I think its probably a good thing overall to have the new higher prices as its just reality.

One potential solution is to send troops to Libya, to sort that country out and help it export gas. I used to be horrified at thoughts like that but maybe it makes sense for everyone? Is it just something America does?

View on HN

"Sort that country out" is an euphemism for killing tens of thousands of people on both sides of the war.

No.

No really. There is a civil war already. Helping out a legitimate government is a good thing, if you can find one. Just ignoring it and hoping for the best isn't a great strategy either.

And now that "legitimate government" is collaborating with a foreign invasion, and owes a huge debt to the foreigners who put it in power for the explicit purpose of exploiting the country's natural resources.

Will it still be seen as "legitimate"?

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-08-27/deadly... is latest news, the current governments arent that legimate right now.

Maybe I was wrong and the civil war is over, it probably doesn't need invasion but would benefit from a strong European partner to help develop the country. Libya should be a rich country. Ideally it would develop to the benefit of its citizens and Europeans who are looking for gas suppliers.

The cold may kill as many in your own country.

Right. If you want to perform a regime change, look at its historical track record in countries like... Libya, the invasion of which was called the worst mistake of his presidency by Obama.

You make it sound like the more Africans you kill, the more warmer Europe gets, which is nonsense. Last time I checked, wars only destroy.

Civilized discourse with warmongers is impossible. If you want regime change in some country thousands of miles away, go do it yourself. I am not going to send myself or my kids to die for your hubris.

I guess invading Libya is still a better alternative to checks note importing fuel from Iran.

IMO this is exactly what we should be doing. It would be a great "excuse" to re-open friendly relations with Iran, even if the Americans wouldn't like it.

Friendly relations with Iran, lol. A country completely destroyed by US with their regime change and replaced with autocratic mullahs that are far far worse for humanity, intelligence or any civilization.

Russia or Russians don't want to destroy the west unlike Iran mullahs or Saudi royals

Many of the crisis we live through are engineered, and this one is one of those. Which is why I personally will never just accept it.

What does “not accepting it” mean in this context?

It means I will continue to spread information on previously unknown ways on how to generate energy, until we can buy those devices at Walmart.

This stupidity is how we got into this mess in the first place.

Conservative/fossil fuel interests lied to us about renewables and insulation and pollution because they were getting a cut of the fossil fuel money.

We saw this coming decades ago (scandanavia went heat pump after the oil crisis, US President told people they needed to do the same)

This very article points out that we did it again the last time. Conservatives/fossil fuel interests use every high fossil fuel price event to lie to us and lock in more fossil fuel usage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com