The claim is that while rich countries don't really care enough about the climate to seriously pursue a "green transition", many now realized that they do care about energy self-sufficiency to accelerate it. Do you disagree? Do you think the article says something different?
The Economist might as well write an article about the long-term positive impact on the planet of humans being obliterated by the nuclear war them and their neocon buddies are happy to risk.
95% of the people I've discussed this war with have absolutely no clue about the politics and history behind the current conflict and are repeating headlines they got from US corporate (propaganda) media outlets.
In another comment I did try to engage with the content and it got buried harder than this one shrug
This is like writing an article about how plant life is thriving in a field because they were fertilized by the blood of hundreds of soldiers and you're saying, "Yeah, but what do you think about the plants growing better?"
Jesus Christ people do you even listen to yourself?
You're shocked because the information you have about the situation is wrong and incomplete. Not that I blame anyone for that, western corporate media is a tool of the arms industry that's profiting from this war and they're good at what they do - manufacture consent for war.
In fact, Ukraine just spent years violating a peace treaty (at the behest of the western powers) and bombing ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine which is what prompted this war. I'm not going to make it my job to educate everyone on HN on 20 years of eastern European history, but if you'd like to take that upon yourself you can start by looking up the Minsk agreement and Merkel's comments on it, and Victoria Nuland on tape hand picking the new Ukraine government after a coup.
There is plenty of room to disagree with Russia's actions /and/ be informed on the history, but it wouldn't be a position of shock. That's coming from getting your education from western (corporate) propaganda.
Western propaganda pretends that the East and South of Ukraine had zero agency or will to decide its own future. This is why they called the crimean referendum a sham despite trustworthy western polls validating painfully clearly that it was accurate.
The Minsk agreements gave limited independence to the Donbass. Apparently the regimes in Kiev couldn't handle that which is why they signed the agreements and then broke them.
Care to explain how exactly the US is to blame for Putin invading Ukraine due to Ukrainians ousting Yanukovych 8 years ago?
I did in a cousin comment but no answer your question, not really, no. 95% of the time people aren't looking for information with an open mind, they're looking to argue/debate and defend their foregone conclusions that have become part of their identity and so are immutable. Carl Sagan has a lot of good commentary on this problem.