I've been arguing with Europeans on twitter (including an environmental scientist) who believe this war shows we need to resume drilling in the North Sea and Groningen.
It feels like this collective insanity will never end
It feels like this collective insanity will never end
I might pass by but I wouldn't stand and listen to an angry man on a street corner, and I definitely wouldn't try and have a conversation nearby (or with) them. So why would I expect that to work on Twitter?
Link: https://reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics
And its sister sub NeutralNews for news article discussion (same rules): https://reddit.com/r/NeutralNews
Both subs allow users to submit new posts and comments (but spend 2 minutes checking out the rules first).
However, on every thread I checked, about 70% of comments are deleted. That means that the noise is still there, but the mods are having to work nonstop to fight it and no doubt introducing their own bias as they do so.
I wish them luck and I'll keep checking these places out but I can't help but feel that by the time you're deleting 70% of all comments (and who knows what percentage of threads), you're fighting a losing battle.
Evidence and science is one thing. What you should do with it is another entirely. Every decision is a tradeoff. Science can't tell you what to value.
I'm guessing you think otherwise? Why? Do you think the energy transition will be faster? What makes you think that?
Ember Energy: European electricity prices and costs - https://ember-energy.org/data/european-electricity-prices-an... (updated daily)
Ember Energy: Wind and solar generated more power than fossil fuels in the EU for the first time in 2025 - https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/wind-and-solar-gener... - January 22nd, 2026
Bloomberg: How Europe Ditched Russian Fossil Fuels With Spectacular Speed - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/ukraine-n... | https://archive.today/yxGp2 - February 21st, 2023
> But what the past year has shown is that it’s possible to go harder and faster in deploying solar panels and batteries, reducing energy use, and permanently swapping out entrenched sources of fossil fuel. Solar installations across Europe increased by a record 40-gigawatts last year, up 35% compared with 2021, just shy of the most optimistic scenario from researchers at BloombergNEF. That jump was driven primarily by consumers who saw cheap solar panels as a way to cut their own energy bills. It essentially pushed the solar rollout ahead by a few years, hitting a level that will be sustained by EU policies.
(Europe has enough wind potential to power the world, their energy constraints are deployment rate of renewables, battery storage, and transmission)
Heck right now, Europe is still burning coal (and worse yet - lignite coal) for electricity. Natural gas would be a huge improvement on that.
Note that drilling for oil in the North Sea is a completely different subject, because that's not used for electricity generation, nor is electricity a substitute. EV market share in Europe is still far too low for that to be a conversation for a long time.
Your comment is wishful thinking and ignores the current reality of how Europe imports and uses energy.
But even if your best case scenario were somehow possible (and it really isn't) there's still money to be made exporting fossil fuels to the developing world. So your assertion "inefficient use of capital to support more fossil exploration" is just flat wrong.
> Note that drilling for oil in the North Sea is a completely different subject, because that's not used for electricity generation, nor is electricity a substitute. EV market share in Europe is still far too low for that to be a conversation for a long time.
Europe's EV uptake will speed based on the price of oil increasing and remaining high for the foreseeable future.
> But even if your best case scenario were somehow possible (and it really isn't) there's still money to be made exporting fossil fuels to the developing world. So your assertion "inefficient use of capital to support more fossil exploration" is just flat wrong.
The developing world is leapfrogging fossil fuels and going straight to solar, batteries, and EVs. What will expensive LNG do to this market? It will force them to renewables and electric mobility faster. Ethopia's uptake of EVs after they banned combustion vehicles is an example of this. Why did they ban combustion vehicles? Because they have no domestic fossil fuel supplies and the import cost was crushing them; their EVs are powered by domestic hydro electricity production.
Citations:
Surging Gas Prices Reignite EV Interest - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-14/iran-war-... | https://archive.today/BkAfR - March 14th, 2026
Global EV sales hit 1.1 million – Europe surges while the US slides - https://electrek.co/2026/03/12/global-ev-sales-hit-1-1-milli... | https://archive.today/nhIbF - March 12th, 2026
EVs Avoided the Use of 2.3M Barrels of Oil per Day in 2025 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47420092 - March 2026
Electric Vehicle Sales Boom as Ethiopia Bans Fossil-Fuel Car Imports - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47068567 - February 2026
How we made it: will China be the first electrostate? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44101275 - May 2025
Massive global growth of renewables to 2030 is set to match entire power capacity of major economies today, moving world closer to tripling goal - https://www.iea.org/news/massive-global-growth-of-renewables... - October 9th, 2024
The World Hit ‘Peak’ Gas-Powered Vehicle Sales — in 2017 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-30/world-hit... - January 30th, 2024
You're living in a fantasy world that doesn't exist.
Global consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas all rose in 2025. We've not even peaked yet.[1]
[1] https://news.mongabay.com/short-article/2025/12/record-fossi...
Edit (to respond to your edit):
> Global consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas all rose in 2025. We've not even peaked yet.
Do you think global LNG consumption will peak considering a material amount of production has been taken offline for the next five years as of today? If I am an LNG consumer on the global market, am I re-evaluating my options today for the next half decade of energy needs? And we are not even done yet with additional potential attacks on Middle Eastern fossil infrastructure as long as the conflict continues; there are more targets available, and more capacity that could be diminished for the foreseeable future.
Oil and gas prices jump after Iran and Israel attack gasfields - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47441351 - March 2026
Iran attack wipes out 17% of Qatar’s LNG capacity for up to five years, QatarEnergy CEO says- https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/2026/03/19/iran-attack-... - March 19th, 2026
From your citation:
> Renewable energy continues to expand rapidly, but not fast enough for a total reduction in fossil fuels. Emissions from burning oil are projected to rise by 1% in 2025, while gas emissions are set to increase by 1.3%, and coal by 0.8%.
These increases are not material in a world where 1TW/year of solar PV is being deployed. Global solar capacity doubles every three years [!!] at current rates. If that rate holds, without accounting for increases of that rate as more PV manufacturing capacity comes online, it will replace all fossil energy globally (not just fossil electricity, all fossil energy use) in under twenty years when you consider the efficiency gains of not burning fuel for energy.
Highlights of the global energy transition in 2025 - https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/highlights-of-the-g... - December 17th, 2025
> Solar and wind are now expanding fast enough to meet all new electricity demand, a milestone reached in the first three quarters of 2025. Ember’s analysis published in November shows that these technologies are no longer just catching up; they are outpacing demand growth itself. Together, solar and wind supplied 17.6% of global electricity in the first three quarters of 2025, up from 15.2% over the same period last year, pushing the total share of low-carbon sources to 43%.
> For the first time across a sustained period, renewables, including solar, wind, hydro and smaller sources such as geothermal, generated more electricity than coal. At the heart of this shift is solar, whose growth was more than three times larger than any other source of electricity so far in 2025, confirming its role as the dominant force reshaping the global power system. Another analysis showed that the world is set to add 793 GW of renewable capacity in 2025, up 11% from the 717 GW added in 2024. At this pace, only a modest increase in annual additions is needed for the world to stay on track to triple global renewables by 2030.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capaci...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-installed-wind...
The exponential growth of solar power will change the world - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40746617 - June 2024 (66 comments)
Let's put a number on it. When do you think we reach 50% of today's consumption of fossil fuels? IEA seems to think it continues to grow until 2050. https://www.cbc.ca/news/climate/iea-energy-outlook-2025-9.69...
If that's true, I don't think we reach 50% of current levels by 2100. That's my very non-scientific WAG. I'll be long dead by then. Europe, if they continued drilling in the North Sea and Groningen would have long since exhausted them - a great capital expenditure and investment to bring things back to the original subject of conversation.
What do you think? That would give me a good window into how realistic your view is.
I think where you're going wrong is perhaps not taking into account continued increases in per-capita energy usage worldwide. But of course that will happen, not just because of population growth, not just because of the rest of the world rising slowly towards Western standards of living, but continued technological progress which depends on energy (or at least it has been that way historically.)
Doomberg (the green chicken) correctly observes that when we add a new energy source to the mix, we don't tend to decrease our consumption of previous energy sources.
For example: global wood consumption for energy is at or near all-time high levels, with approximately 2 billion cubic meters (m³) of wood fuel consumed in 2023, up from 1.5 billion m³ in 1961. While the percentage of global energy provided by wood has plummeted from over 90% in the early 19th century to around 3-6% today, the total volume burned has increased, driven by population growth in developing nations and increasing bioenergy use in developed ones.
But environmentalists in the west deny them that option because they don’t give a fuck about poor people, they can just freeze in the dark or choke on the fumes of whatever plant fibres / dung they can scavenge from the local environment.
I don’t know how else to frame it.
I spent, more like wasted, two decades of my live in the cult of environmentalism, and they literally just out and say it: some people are going to die in the transition away from fossil fuels, oh well.
That’s easy to say when it’s not you who’s going to freeze in the dark.
People have been talking about peak oil for decades, as long as I can remember, and it never happened.
I think we're technologically capable of extracting more oil, coal, and gas than we would ever want to. We would cook ourselves with the damage we'd do to the climate. I think that's the real constraint - and I hope we pay attention to it.
Here comes the kicker, though: we obviously extracted the easy-to-access resources first. While there may be counterexamples, looking at ore grades makes it clear that this is not particular to oil.
What happens next is that the economics of the wells are getting worse, which means we need a higher oil price for them to be viable. This also results in a lower energy return on energy invested (EROI), which reduces the surplus energy available to transform our environment. Consequently, this implies slower growth in the economy. Which I think is pretty obvious in the west and would explain the explosion of debt.
What you say about the economics getting worse and lower EROI may be true. It certainly seems like common sense. There are some counter-examples though.
The inflation adjusted cost of extracting oil from the oil sands in Alberta, Canada has actually decreased over time, not increased.
But generally I'd expect increasing cost of extraction to be the norm.
Your closing argument is that some far away land with no nat gas / oil reserves of their own isn’t convincing anyone with nat gas / oil reserves of their own.
Europeans need inexpensive fuels to power their existing fleet or vehicles now.
Ethiopia’s plan doesn’t generalise.
China will build every cheap EV Europe will buy if the EU cannot build them fast enough (citations on EU EV sales are in my comment you replied to), so buy them or experience economic pain and ongoing energy inflation from choosing to continue to burn fossil fuels for energy. These are straightforward choices to make. The clean energy path is the cheaper path, based on all available data as of this comment.
(from your profile, "They force us to use extremely expensive renewable energy to run our energy efficient extremely disposable appliances," so I'm unsure how effective facts and data will be in this discussion, but I am trying very hard to share the relevant facts as a shared foundation to discuss from)
Citations:
Germany's Solar Boom Eases Power Costs as Gas Price Jumps - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47323028 - March 2026
Lazard LCOE+ 2025 [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47184980 - March 2026
Wind power slashed 4.6B euros off electricity bills in Spain last year - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46622463 - January 2026
France's 2024 Power Grid Was 95% Fossil Free as Nuclear, Renewables Jumped - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42770556 - January 2025
I’ve been following you for 13 years in this site, and I really expect more intellectually honest comments from you.
You’re trying to tell us that developing new battery technology, new storage technology, deploying more wind / solar and replacing the entire European vehicle fleet, is cheaper than building new oil / gas infrastructure.
I’m not buying it.
Regarding the comment in my profile, I’ve done warranty repair work on home appliances. Some manufacturers have moved to assembly methods that render appliances uneconomical to repair, or impractical. Also, in Australia, electricity price increases have been double or triple that of general inflation.
The comment in my profile is an objective assessment of the facts, not an ideological screed.
I believe the failure is on your part, not my part, as I am simply providing facts. Whether you agree with facts is beyond my control. They remain facts. You keep stating, inaccurately, that renewables and batteries are expensive, when they are the cheapest combined generation technology. This is widely proven, and again, I am sorry if for whatever reason you are ignoring that fact.
> Also, in Australia, electricity price increases have been double or triple that of general inflation.
The facts do not align with your assertion. I have provided citations below to assist you in updating your mental model on the price and carbon intensity trajectory of the Australian power markets.
Power prices expected to fall by up to 10% from July, bringing ‘welcome relief’ to Australia’s east coast - https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/mar/19/power... - March 19th, 2026
> Power prices on Australia’s east coast are predicted to fall from July because of increased output from wind generation and batteries, and falling electricity contract prices, with potential savings up to $1,320 for some small businesses. In a draft decision on Thursday, the Australia Energy Regulator (AER) proposed a price reduction for customers on standing electricity plans – known as the “default market offer” – of between 1.3% to 10.1% for residential customers, and between 8.5% and 21.2% for small businesses, depending on the region. Savage said reduced wholesale prices were the “biggest driver” behind the draft decision for 2026-27. “We’ve had lots more renewables come into the market. We’ve had good wind, solar and battery performance.” The draft determination also introduces the “solar sharer” offer, an opt-in plan that includes three hours of free power in the middle of the day to take advantage of abundant solar energy. The energy minister, Chris Bowen, said the idea was designed to share the benefits of Australia’s solar success. “For households that can shift some of their usage into the free power period, this can mean real savings on bills, whether that is running the dishwasher, doing the washing, or heating hot water during the day.”
Solar is so cheap and plentiful (as there is not yet enough battery storage on the network to time shift this power), they plan to give it away for free for ~3 hours/day in parts of the Australian NEM system.
Australia's renewables boom delivers coveted power price payoff - https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/australias-renew... - February 10th, 2026 ("Australia's wholesale electricity prices fell to the lowest in four years in 2025, bucking the rising price trends seen elsewhere and validating claims that renewables-heavy power system overhauls can help lower consumer power costs.")
Near 100 pct renewable electricity for Australia’s main grid is achievable and affordable: Year 4 update - https://reneweconomy.com.au/near-100-pct-renewable-electrici... - January 29th, 2026
Big batteries oust gas in ‘transformational’ grid overhaul - https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/big-batteries-... - January 26th, 2026
Australia becomes world’s third-largest utility battery market - https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/10/21/australia-becomes-wor... - October 21st, 2025
Further data can confirm this at https://openelectricity.org.au/ (which has both carbon intensity and price data for all Australian electrical grids except the Northern Territory)
I have the invoices from my electricity bills to prove my assertion.
I used to pay 12 cents per kilowatt hour, now I pay 36 cents or more. That’s a 300% increase for electricity prices vs, if I recall correctly, 26% for general inflation over the same 25 year period.
And you’re trying to tell me I’m wrong.
Why?
I’ll believe a drop in electricity prices when I see it.
Wholesale generation costs + distribution costs + taxes = your bill.
You’re right, they don’t reduce grid costs.
They massively increase it.
We wouldn’t need much in the way of new grid infrastructure if new generation capacity was primarily combined cycle gas turbines, coal, and nuclear power plants, because these can largely be upgrades to existing generation sites.
And even where they are greenfields in new locations, gas / coal / nuclear are incredibly energy dense compared with wind or solar, thereby requiring less new high voltage transmission / distribution infrastructure.
Fact: Australia is happy to sell our gas a coal and uranium for the world to use. Why is it okay for others to burn our cheap coal, but not us? It’s the same atmosphere.
But I think you're being too optimistic about what this means for global fossil fuel usage. Definitely over the next decade, but potentially over much longer periods than that.
Right now all that's happening is the US is extracting that natural gas, and the middle east extracting that oil, and Europe is importing it. Which pollutes more and costs more. Just develop your domestic supplies.
I don't follow your logic.
People hate migrants enough as it is. Climate crisis migrations will make these "little" war migrations seem quaint.
I don’t understand why you wrote this in response to the comment you replied to.
No matter which way you slice it, the UK and Europe using the oil from wells physically closer to them has to be less energy intensive that shipping oil / gas from far away.
What bearing does externalising anything have on that fact.
Economics 101: if Europe taps new wells, global supply increases. Higher supply drives down prices. Lower prices induce more consumption.
We wouldn't just be cleanly swapping imported fuel for domestic fuel 1:1; we'd be making it cheaper to burn more fossil fuels globally. The marginal emissions saved on shipping are completely wiped out by the net increase in total carbon burned.
The only reason expanding that supply looks like a "win" on a balance sheet today is exactly because the long-term climate cost of burning that newly available fuel is still being passed on to the future.
That’s not science.
That’s wishful thinking.
We can’t actually know the long term climate-costs of burning fossil fuels.
It’s unfalsifiable.
We don’t have a second identical Earth we can use as a control.
Expending the fossil fuel supply today (months) reduces the impact of global oil / gas shocks to people suffering high prices today.
Waiting for your team to invent new battery and storage technology, and littering the countryside with wind turbines and replacing the entire existing vehicle fleet does nothing to help people now.
If they started right now, that would help with this current oil/ gas shock in the market? They wouldn't come online until far after this is over.
You know you're being disingenuous. This is not a discussion you're having in good faith so I'm going to just going to end it here.
And it turns out that we actually live on a shared planet with a common atmosphere; sourcing your fuels from abroad does nothing to prevent climate change. But it does mean that you are unable to secure some of the most fundamental inputs to your economy.
They're actually worse off, and they pay more for it instead of creating jobs and keeping the money in their own economy. Meaning less money for e.g. green programs to move away from fossil fuels.
It's just a losing proposition in every way.
Obviously not, as we're closing these fields and haven't stopped yet. Someone will have to stop using it, yes.
Shifting sources of carbon to outside the country is just passing the buck.
That’s not since.
That’s brainwashing, and it’s not even good brainwashing.
What exactly do you mean with "unfalsifiable"? We actually measure atmospheric CO2, sea level and temperature; that's plenty falsifiability to me. And the greenhouse effect itself is not even in question.
Fossil emissions are sacrificing people not just from climate change in the future, but right now from air pollution, too (about 5M deaths per year actually, according to https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38030155/).
A cubic kilometre of lava at 1200 degrees C is enough energy for thirty (30!) hurricanes.
It’s entirely possible that sea temperature rise is a result of geologic processes at or near the sea bed, and when you warm a liquid dissolved gasses are liberated.
But climate science wants us to ignore all that and place the blame entirely on human caused CO2 emissions and cow farts, while we are literally living through and ice age.
You're mistaking possible for probable. There's no evidence to suggest that's the case, and lot's of evidence that it's from climate change. In science you follow the evidence, not your pet theory.
> But climate science wants us to ignore all that and place the blame entirely on human caused CO2 emissions and cow farts, while we are literally living through and ice age.
I don't think you understand either science or ice ages.
If you think that the greenhouse effect is real (CO2 contributes to warming), why would human emissions not have any effect? we currently emits tons of it per year and person for a substance only in the 400ppm range-- even if you split a single humans emissions over a whole cubic kilometer it makes a substantial concentration difference already.
> It’s entirely possible that sea temperature rise is a result of geologic processes at or near the sea bed, and when you warm a liquid dissolved gasses are liberated.
No, this is not remotely plausible, because we have a pretty solid understanding of how much heat is transferred from the earths interior (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget), and this is completely negligible (and off by many orders of magnitude) compared to the oceanic warming that we already observe (for a 0.5K increase in oceanic surface temperature you'd need thousands of times the total heat that we get from the planet itself).
The decision to stop using fossil fuels is not tied to the decision to stop one of the sources of fossil fuels. They're divorced.
Stopping fossil fuels requires investments in alternatives, and price mechanisms that disfavour fossils. Absent those mechanisms, closing one source of fossil just shifts demand to another source of fossil, which is exactly what happened.
Meanwhile closing the gas source cost the NL a few hundred billion euros, the amount of money it needs to transition to renewables. Instead it is spending that on US LNG and Norwegian gas.
The field shouldn't have been closed in 2023, it should've remained open until e.g. 2030 and all proceeds earmarked for massive energy transition subsidies. Instead we're just importing expensive fossil now and have insufficient money to meet our green ambitions.
That was getting out of the ground and burned by someone anyway.
They simply do not believe that the consequences will be as bad as the models predict. And a lot of trust and good will has been expended on social issues, for example the fight to allow transgender people to use whatever bathroom they choose, or to promote childhood reassignment surgery, etc. As a strategic decision, we have taken our eye off the ball, climate change is actually an existential threat, bathroom choice never was. You can argue that we can do two things at once, but there is a cost for dividing our focus and effort; even if it didn't raise the hackles of those already less predisposed to worry about the environment.
I think a lot of people miss this: each time you take up the good fight, you spend some trust/goodwill. If you're going to expend the public's goodwill, make sure that there is nothing more important to you than what you are expending it on, or expend less of it to save some trust and goodwill for this.
It's strongly my opinion that there are far fewer people championing 'wokeness' than there are 'getting outraged by it's pervasiveness'. Mainly for the fact that all media like to seize upon controversy, thus turning minor fringe issues into multiple days in a row of front page headline items.
Blech. I've done the same thing...
Address climate change, accelerate the shift towards renewables. It's something that actually fucking matters!
Being transgender wasn't some sort of political football 10 years ago even though 10 years ago basically everything that was happening WRT trans individuals that made the pearl clutchers clutch pearls was happening then and earlier.
The only reason "the left" started caring about trans individuals is because right wing reactionaries decided that it was the source of all the ills of the world. It was a pretty natural "no it's not, you guys are being insane". Especially because as a result to the right losing it's mind over trans individuals, we are seeing all sorts of insane over reactions in the law (In idaho, they are passing a law with a 5 year prison sentence for a trans individual taking a shit in a public bathroom).
This is basically how the cycle goes. The right targets a minority, the left defends the minority, the media capitalizes on the "both sides" of it all at the exclusion of talking about things like taxing rich people, funding public services, or addressing climate change.
The only time I've seen the reverse was BLM, but it's pretty much the same outcome.
It's not "insane" to question whether males should be allowed to access female-only spaces, or to resist the erosion of sex categories in law. Many women on the left have done exactly that, and have been vilified and harassed for it.
You fight this by keeping your own ranks in check. The right condemns nazis and racists, so you wont find any open racists and nazis in their ranks. The left doesn't do the same, so they leave themselves open to attacks based on having bad apples in their ranks.
You could argue the right is still worse, but you don't decide that the voters decide, so you have to clean up the ranks until the voters are happy with what you present, otherwise you leave yourself open to attack like this.
This is flagrantly inaccurate.
Ugh, I'm going to regret commenting here, but it really seems like this obsession is almost entirely on the right wing. In the US, the centrist Dems have been banging the appeasement drum for my entire political life, and it's gotten us nowhere.
Like... the right isn't going to wake up and start caring about climate change if everyone just shuts up and lets them discriminate against the hate group of the moment. The bathroom thing is also such a bait and switch, same as sports. In my state, we removed protections for housing and employment discrimination against trans people because... one trans athlete existed?
The real question we need to answer is why the right is so obsessed with other peoples' genitals, to the point that they have to make up stories and generate AI videos to get mad at.
I for one am sick of people focusing on a tiny fraction of the population and making them a scapegoat for everything. You're absolutely right that climate change is a bigger issue - so why can't we focus on it?
We can't focus on it because the anti-reality reactionaries are using trans people as a distraction. It's all one big malignant tumor on society, not a collection of unrelated issues.
Republicans in the late 60s were the party of the EPA. What changed? People like the Koch brothers dumped literal millions into rightwing outlets big and small to talk about how awesome it is to burn oil.
A similar thing happened with smoking. Rush Limbaugh, even as he had lung cancer, was talking about what a myth it was that smoking caused lung cancer almost right up until his death.
Whenever you find highly monied interests, you can find a right wing propagandist that will tell you black is white.
And the insidious thing is that they don't spend their entire broadcast talking about the glories of oil or smoking. No, the best ones just insert it in as little throw away lines while talking about feminazis, gay people, trans people, black people, mexicans, etc.
That's effectively how the propaganda works. Get people highly tuned up on an emotional topic and then just slip in here and there lies that you don't even think about.
As a kid, I listened to probably a thousand hours of rightwing talkshow hosts because of my parents. Once I started viewing things with a more critical mind it became beyond obvious what game they are playing. Unfortunately, not everyone picks up on this game.
The world is burning before our eyes. It is unconscionable to use the rights and the bodies of the marginalized to put out the fire. What would be the point of making a better society if it requires leaving the most vulnerable behind? How would that even be a better society? We must be cognizant of who the real enemy is and never do the oppressor's work for them. Billionaires have class solidarity; for our planet’s survival, we must build solidarity as well. Fight the class war, and you fight climate change, transphobia, and all threats to life and liberty.
We're capable of fighting more than one political war at a time. All evidence points to the donor class actually being vested in these culture war issues. Democrat donors prioritise Gaza and trans issues. MAGA donors prioritise Israel and Bible thumping. The Adelsons aren't donating to GOP candidates to distract anyome class issues, they're donating because they have non-economic policy preferences to push.
What it needed was for strong left-wing people to stand up and denounce the distraction. To claim loud and proudly that transgender issues were not important when compared to climate change. To refocus the public on climate change and take the wind out of the fringe issue.
Instead, we took to the street for BLM, when it wasn't an important issue, when compared to climate change. You can't blame the right-wing for the number of people who filled the streets for BLM... during a pandemic where we were supposed to socially distance. It cost us doubly. And not one important left-wing voice stood up and said so.
"Those who turn hoses on water protеctors
Are those who cage "Stop Cop City" protеstors
And enforce the brutality of the border
Same ones who enforce bans on drag performers
Same ones who enforce bans
On crossing state lines for abortions
Some of those that work forces
Are the same that burn crosses
Are the same that burn everything
For the bosses"
I don't think we totally disagree, but I come down differently on where to point the blame.
> What it needed was for strong left-wing people to stand up and denounce the distraction.
I mean, that did happen.
> To claim loud and proudly that transgender issues were not important when compared to climate change.
That was said, along with housing prices/inflation/corruption.
> Instead, we took to the street for BLM, when it wasn't an important issue
Here's where you're really, really losing me. You're:
1. Pivoting to a totally different issue
2. Ignoring the role of the media in promoting the most controversial takes and presentation of both issues. It sucks to blame people for having values when the real problem is for-profit engagement-based media.
3. Ick - it really rubs me the wrong way to see people say "BLM wasn't an important issue when compared to climate change". That seems really easy to say if you're not under routine threat of state violence, but BLM was a reaction to a very real epidemic of state violence against black people. To those people, that kind of immediate threat IS as big a deal as climate change. If anything, criticize the branding of "defund the police" (which was so bad I half wonder if it was a psyop).
Moreover, part of my original point was that climate change isn't a separate thing - it's a problem because the same systems that use wedge issues to divide us all benefit from the unsustainable status-quo.
The realpolitik take on this seems so short sighted - it takes for granted that some progress can be made on climate change by ignoring our values, while also ignoring that alienating the affected groups makes it harder to change our society enough to do anything about climate change.
No, i am not. It's the exact same issue. If you honestly believe that climate change is an existential crisis, then ALL other issues are by definition less important. That might be difficult to accept, because it feels like saying other issues aren't important. But that's not what i'm saying at all.
What i'm saying is, if something is about to destroy the entire world, then every other concern is a distraction. What does it matter what bathrooms we use, or if the police are using violence too much, etc?
Our actions speak to people who don't believe that climate change is real. Every time we take to the streets for ANY OTHER ISSUE, we re-affirm their belief that climate change isn't something to worry about.
You are showing exactly why we have been less effective at convincing people than we could have been. Because even you are diminishing the importance of climate change. Why should "they" give up any freedom, or luxury, in the name of climate change, if we give ourselves permission to assemble in public during a pandemic for a BLM protest, that let's face it, accomplished little.
You're using a very superficial argument and ignoring several of my points. If your literal home is on fire, is putting it out or running to safety less important than climate change? If you need to change an entire economic system to solve climate change, can you cavalierly ignore inconvenient members of that system that might be needed for a sufficiently motivated coalition? If you're worried about distractions, how can you blame the victims instead of the people committing the distraction?
> What does it matter what bathrooms we use
It ISNT about the bathrooms - that's the propaganda framing that you seem to have uncritically accepted. It's about random people trying to live their lives, and being denied housing and employment because of who they are. It's about the fact that we're talking about these people ONLY because of the propaganda machine.
> if the police are using violence too much
Must be nice that you apparently don't face the sharp end of this. To avoid triggering you with the "P" word, I'd suggest that your life experience is not universal and you should consider trying to understand a little bit about other peoples' lives.
> Our actions speak to people who don't believe that climate change is real.
And ignoring our values isn't going to convince those people, and those people will still think we're a bunch of woke idiots because their media has captured their minds.
> Every time we take to the streets for ANY OTHER ISSUE, we re-affirm their belief that climate change isn't something to worry about.
[all sorts of citations needed for unsupported reasoning]
This isn't about propaganda, well not in the sense you're using it. The argument, which you seem to disagree with, is the importance of focusing on a single existential issue, and ignoring everything else. To actually prove to people that are doubters, that WE actually BELIEVE what we're saying. That this really is the key thing to be worried about.
Everything else you're saying all amounts to the same argument, that climate change isn't important enough to take focus away from these other important issues. We just fundamentally disagree. And I contend your attitude is exactly why we have had so much trouble convincing the doubters that we're serious about climate change... when we're so willing to give just as much (if not more) energy to these other "distractions"
I don't see you responding anywhere to the general categories of criticisms I raised:
1. Climate change isn't one thing - it's a systemic problem in a system with lots of problems. 2. It seems ludicrous to assume that suddenly people will listen to us about climate change if we ignore other issues, ESPECIALLY because doing so would make us (or at least, me) moral hypocrites. We haven't even discussed direct causal issues, like political corruption. I honestly think no meaningful action is possible in the US on climate change until we have major reforms of our electoral and media systems - where does that put me in your oversimplified schema? 3. You're completely ignoring my argument about immediate needs. This is actually kind of funny:
> If your house is on fire, then put it out. But DON'T start a social movement that distracts from climate change.
The fire in this metaphor IS a social problem! Putting the fire out IS a social movement!!
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, but either way - here's hoping we can do something meaningful about climate change. Have a good day.
If you honestly believe that it is an existential crisis, then you must accept that NOTHING WILL EXIST if we fail to address climate change. So any social gain we make fighting fires will be wiped out anyway if we fail to deal with climate change. That you don't see this, and that you are willing for all these other issues to share the stage with climate change, is a big problem. You want to blame the media, and the right-wing, and perhaps other things for the lack of progress, without fully comprehending your own part.
Here's the reality: very few people actually believe climate change is an existential problem. As you say, this is abundantly signalled by very few folks being willing to compromise on other beliefs to advance it.
Want to build infrastructure? Cut taxes? Suddenly, people can put their differences aside. Want to do anything on the climate? Everyone has a policy bogeyman to attach, whether it be union requirements and gender issues or immigration and religious tests.
I think you're sort of proving the parent's point - when you're in an existential fight, is it really that important that you use the limited attention of the public to fight for the rights of a single person?
Trans rights ain't even that popular; most people are okay with "you think you're someone else? Well, fine, no skin off my nose". OTOH, the majority of people globally aren't okay with "It must be a crime if you don't treat me as a member of the opposite sex".
The identity politics, of all forms, sucked out much of the air from the room leaving precious little left for discussing things like climate change.
Whether we like it or not, human attention is a limited resource. If you're going to allow a few vocal nutters to direct the course of your discussion, then you can't very well complain, now can you?
I mean, that's what leaders are supposed to do - direct the discussion. When the opposition says "They want to let men into women's changing rooms", then you say "No, we don't support that at all".
I mean, voters find some things distasteful - you have to choose which of those things you are going to argue for, and which you are going to back down from.
Diluting your message so that you mention a little bit of everything is just dumb politics, because human attention is a limited resource!
This is a thing that basically does not exist. This is, again, more right-wing culture war bullshit that was cooked up in a meth lab. It's not real.
Can you get fired if you purposefully antagonize your boss at work? Yes. That's always been the case. Guess what, if I call my boss a jackass I'm probably getting shown the door, and that's not even a pronoun.
Can you get in trouble for discriminating based on gender and sexual orientation? Yes, and that's been the case for a while.
Nobody is getting into legal trouble because they don't personally believe trans women aren't "real" women, whatever "real" might mean to them. Nobody, not a soul. It's just a non-issue.
What's going on is there is a set of people who are basically just doing nothing who are under constant new and innovative threats from the right. And, when they say, "hey, don't do that", we somehow have the gall to point at them and yell "Culture war! Culture war!"
It's not that people's goodwill is being burnt on trans people. It's that the right has been playing to the populist messaging they have in order to continue their crusade.
While the economy is burning down, and the climate is worsening, and we are entering wars, they are trying to convince you the problem is some set of people who are doing nothing. And, that the solution is simple: beat down this set of people.
This includes immigrants, trans people, gay people. Of course, it's just not true. But humans are stupid. We're already pre-wired to be uneasy around people we don't understand who are different from us, especially visibly different. And, humans understand and have high confidence in simple solutions.
I mean, God, look at the border wall. Will that work? Did that work? Of course not. But it's such a simple, almost child-like understanding of the problem that people had very high confidence in it.
Trans people haven't done nothing, there are many reforms that have moved the trans issue a lot that were pushed by trans people, that is not nothing. The right isn't innovating anything by rolling back those, they are just being conservative which is in their name.
You could argue those reforms are good, but you can't argue it is the right that is changing things here, the right just undo change they don't do the changing on these issues.
And you can't fault the right for trying to win the election. You have to try to win the election as well, throwing it away by sticking to unpopular policies such as trans in sports is just ignorant. It isn't just the right that doesn't want trans in sports, it is a large majority of the entire population that doesn't want that.
Literally conservatives did that. THEY made this focus of the debate. Democrats reaction do not even matter here. It is ultimately irrelevant, because people like you then obsess over imaginary democrats positions democratic party never really had.
It was a bad move to put themselves in such a position that they can't defend when conservatives attacks it, that was moving too fast and therefore we ended up with a conservative government.
You can say it was conservative that is to blame since they used this vulnerability of the liberals position, but you can also say that it was the liberals fault for doing things that is unpopular with a large part of their supporters so they are now in a vulnerable spot.
Not true. Conservatives are creating this point, because it makes their base afraid and more radical. It has nothing to do with what liberals do or don't do. It is not about splintering liberals, it is about creating a weak enemy so you can beat him. Liberals have two choices: join trans hate and gain no votes or do not join trans hate.
> it was conservative that is to blame since they used this vulnerability
I think conservatives are to blame, because they picked someone weak to bully him and use as political cudgel. Also because they lie.
> liberals fault for doing things that is unpopular
Except that it did not happened. There was no comparable democratic pro-trans campaign. You are just doing that funny thing where if there is a single person opposed to conservative agenda, then conservatives are absolved of everything.
> we ended up with a conservative government.
Conservative movement becoming fascists personality cult is the issue. In an alternative universe, there could have been pro-democratic lawful conservative government. Conservative did not had to imply what it does today. And conservative movement turning into what it is now is fully fault of conservatives.
It does indeed matter - they were the ones who were insufficiently convinced of their nominees messages. Not convinced enough to vote for them, at any rate.
The opposition does not matter when your "supporters" don't vote for you because the message they received is different from the message you think you transmitted.
Yes. That's what rights are. If we don't support them for one person, we don't have them for any person.
That's not the question that was asked. The question is whether it is wise to dilute your message when the message is warning of existential threat?
The binary question of fighting for a rights was never contended. The question was weighting that specific right against an existential threat.
There's more nuance here than you're willing to admit (hence the resounding loss of the left).
Interestingly it's a bit different in the UK. Both the main left and right parties had been promoting gender identity based policy for years, and it was only though the dedicated efforts of feminists who pointed out all the problems with this, and particularly the negative impacts on women and girls, that it recently started to be reversed.
For example, in the UK, it was Theresa May's right-wing Conservative government who planned to reform the law to make it easier, and with fewer medical requirements, for people to acquire a Gender Recognition Certificate. They had a public consultation too. This move was supported by the left-wing Labour Party.
And in recent years, legal action and advocacy by feminist groups has been a highly significant factor in policy changes around this area, most notably For Women Scotland who took their legal challenge all the way to the UK's Supreme Court, winning the case with a statutory reinterpretation of the Equality Act.
It is a distraction and a useful one for MAGA. Among the Democrats, we keep getting tripped up by it and nominate candidates who don't realize the political land mine that it is. I am for gender equality, for racial equality, for renewables, for nuclear energy. But please win the election by prioritizing talking about jobs, jobs, jobs, economic disopportunity, and naked corruption. After winning the election, then you can address gender issues along with the full slate of Democratic platform priorities.
Democrats talking about jobs, economic disopportunity, and naked corruption gets no votes, because republican voters are not motivated by those. They are using those as talking point against democrats, but that is about it.
No. But a lot of people in the center will listen to academics again if they don't think they're being lectured on a new definition of bigotry every fifteen minutes.
Also, from what I can tell, the issue of trans rights caused issues in the centre when it lept to kids' sports. Even the bathrooms were mostly the edges of the political spectrum screaming at each other. But when it touched kids' sports, a lot of folks got off their couches, and that was–given the stakes–a sort of needless battle.
I get annoyed by some performative language games too, but I just don't see any evidence that your broader claim here is true.
> Also, from what I can tell, the issue of trans rights caused issues in the centre when it lept to kids' sports.
Most people are willing to acknowledge that the sports issue is a bit complicated, but it's also such an incredibly niche issue and so much lower stakes than everything else. People got off their couches for the sports thing because it's a "safe" environment in which to express hatred towards an out group. You can tell that it was never about sports by the actions taken by the loudest complainers on the issue (enshrining housing and employment discrimination, weird laws about forcing teachers to report violations of religious principles to parents, creepy nonsense like the bill to make lists of all trans people or mass cancel all of their drivers licenses etc.)
Then the strategists who think like you got in her ear. Told her to stop attacking corporations to protect donations. Had her campaign with Cheney and talk about shooting home invaders. Then of course she refused to take a strong stand on the genocide in Gaza.
Her momentum faded and she lost. In the aftermath some braindead analysts tried to blame words like Latinx and transgender rights.
She didn't campaign on that shit. She campaigned as Republican lite and it fucked her.
The fascists aren't going to rewards you with good environmental policy just because you throw trans people under the bus. They'll just demand another sacrifice. Meanwhile gender affirming surgery on minors is so fleetingly rare that it basically only exists in right wing propaganda and here you are repeating it like it's a valid concern.
Had she not campaigned towards conservative voters, I think she could have won. Really strong campaign positions like medicare for all or taxing the rich have pretty broad appeal. Heck, she even could have campaigned on abortion access and rights and that would have been pretty decent. She didn't need to touch or address immigration. And her "no tax on tips, me too" thing was just embarrassing.
Gaza was a major issue, and a major misstep of hers was to say that none of her policies would be different from Biden's. Even if that were true, she had a whole lot of popular policies and positions from Biden's cabinet she could have ran on (like breaking up monopolies).
She ditched all of that to run like you said and it absolutely crushed the giant boost she got from Biden stepping down and Walz calling Vance a weirdo.
This is entirely made up right wing hysteria. Complain to them for beating that drum constantly, because the more people hate the more they vote for them.
A couple of years ago the last of the exploration rigs in Norway left Norwegian waters. Because nothing that could be drilled (and hasn't already) can compete on price with solar etc.
Lots of people think someone should do this or that. They don't invest their own money though, they just think someone else should do, etc.
https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/exploration/exploration-act...
I notice that all the recent finds on sodir.no are close to existing fields, like 5km, or even in existing fields. My friend who told me this works in strange places, far from existing infrastructure. I assume there are different kinds of equipment, and he was talking about his kind, and I understood it to be more general.
The majors have effectively abandoned new drilling, leaving a bunch of smaller or independent players - but even they are mostly doing limited appraisal & development operations rather than exploration in the traditional sense.
If the Iran situation drags on for more than a year then there'll likely be a temporary increase in activity, but the declining trend will almost certainly continue in the longer term even without further regulatory intervention.
With respect to Groningen: 1. zero deaths reported ever 2. quakes in Groningen maxed out at 3.6 which is considered light. By comparison NL's worst earthquake wasn't in Groningen (North) but in the south of the country unrelated to the gas, a scale of 6. Again no people died. 3. the 450 billion m3 of gas left is worth 170 billion last month ('normal'), 345 billion at today's prices, and 1.6 trillion at 2022 peak prices. 4. Field used to supply 10% of EU gas, this shifted EU/Worldwide demand to Russian gas, helping them fund the cold-war against the EU and hot-war against EU's ally Ukraine.
Governments routinely put a price on a human life. The Dutch government puts a price of about 3-4m on a human life. i.e. if a policy measure costs 500m and is estimated to save 100 lives, it's deemed financially irresponsible because the 5m cost per life is more than the value set by the government. Whereas if a measure costs 100m (e.g. implementing an anti drunk-driving program) and it is estimated to save 500 lives, it's financially OK'd because the cost of 200k to prevent a death is less than the value of a life.
The estimates for the Groningen gas field are completely off. Even if you take another €50 billion out of the ground, experts don't expect an earthquake to kill any people. While on the contrary, if you don't, numerous people will die from alternatives (dirty coal and in russian war).
Should be move as fast as possible to renewables? Yes. But green advocates severely overestimate how fast we can do that. We have broken renewable records for 10 years in a row, yet we use about 80% of the fossil energy that we used 35 years ago. We didn't replace Groningen with renewables, we replaced it with Norwegian gas and US LNG imports, and Russia picked up the slack elsewhere because we dropped Dutch supply. So yes in the long-term renewables will make Groningen unnecessary, in the short-term we continue to use gas and keeping Groningen open longer seems to be supported by an objective analysis. Of course politics aren't just objective, they're emotional, which is why Groningen was closed, not because it was the best idea.
It's like going on stormfront and wondering why there's so many white nationalists on the internet.
- Continue building out solar + battery storage
- Resume drilling in domestic accessible offshore locations safe from trade disruptions
- Recommission and build new nuclear plants
- Build LNG import terminals to eliminate dependence on Russian gas
Well, there's also the simple reality that the US doesn't actually need fossil fuels from the Middle East or Russia in the same way Europe does. It affects prices here, obviously, and an increase in energy prices can do severe damage to the economy, but it's not a potentially existential crisis in the same way.
The other funny part about oil is that it has an inelastic demand. A 20% reduction in global supply doesn’t mean a 20% increase in prices. It means increase in prices until 20% demand collapses (which could theoretically mean orders of magnitude of increase in pricing). Which means expensive fertilizers, medicines and pretty every other bare necessity.
With these two facts, pretty much every country needs the oil from the Middle East.
You’re referring to Twitter, right? ;)
So, like, both I guess.