7 ms·

Yeah, right: http://www.theenergycollective.com/sites/theenergycollective.com/files/imagepicker/488516/7.jpg http://www.theenergycollective.com/sites/theenergyc

Yeah, right: http://www.theenergycollective.com/sites/theenergycollective.com/files/imagepicker/488516/7.jpg http://www.theenergycollective.com/sites/theenergycollective...

woodandsteel 10y ago
Russia is behind the US and China because it has a far smaller population and economy. Furthermore, the US and China are strongly promoting renewable energy to replace fossil fuels. Russia is doing almost nothing along these lines (think of all the renewable energy stories you see here at HN. None of them are about Russia). Here's a link on the coverage of global climate change by the state-controlled Russian media: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-russia-media-idUSKCN0SN1GI20151029 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-russi... By the way, American conservatives are completely opposed to Putin and Russia (except for Donald Trump, who is very friendly). But in this issue they are in complete agreement.
- lqdc13 10y ago
  Climate change benefits Russia though. Why would they want to do something about it? A lot more land becomes arable. Trade routes don't freeze over as much. Countries with political enemies may get destabilized from immigration.
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    Exactly. And if the rest of the world goes to hell in the process, so be it. In fact, Russia has a basically win-lose, zero-sum of international relations, so I am guessing this sort of outcome would make Putin very happy.
    - lostlogin 10y ago
      Any chance of a comment from the down voters? I'd be interested in reading the rebuttal to this comment.
      - guard-of-terra 10y ago
        It's a judging opinion, there's not much to rebute there.
        woodandsteel 10y ago
        I have a question for you, but first let me say why I think Putin has a win-lose, zero sum of international relations. To start, Putin grew up and had his career in the old communist Soviet Union, and has made clear he thought it was absolutely wonderful. Now the USSR was a superpower, with 350 million people, the world's second largest economy, a military equal to that of the US, and it controlled Eastern Europe through communist puppet governments. Then in 1989-91, the Eastern European nations threw out the communist governments and broke away, communism was abandoned, all the non-Russian republics broke away from the USSR, and the military declined drastically. Now Russia has only 145 million people, much less territory, no solid allies except Bylarus, a military about one-fifth the strength of the US, and it's economy is ranked 10th in size. Putin has made clear that he wants to get back to superpower status, and to do that he has to take back a lot of territory, either through incorporation into Russia or as allies. He can't do that with the Central Asian former Soviet republics, partly because they are semi-allies of China. So he is trying to expand westward, and doesn't care at all that most of the population of the Eastern European nations want to stay aligned with the West. And to do this he uses various means such as military threats, sending in military forces, trying to undermine democratic governments through supporting extreme left and right wing parties, and a massive internet trolling campaign. Well, that is my view. What is your view? Where do you think Putin is trying to go in the long term, and what sort of means do you think he uses?
        guard-of-terra 10y ago
        Disclosure: I'm a Russian nationalist and I'm biased but honest. Putin had a chance to take most of Ukraine back or at least try to do it. This is late '14, Ukrainians taking hold on separatist "people's republics" of Donetsk and Lugansk. They use artillery against populated areas, lots of civian casualties. The memory of Odessa massacre is still vivid. He has broad support back home to end it all. He has grassroot support in Kharkov and Odessa regions (connect them on the map and see how much of Ukraine is left). He's still holding arguably legitimate Ukrainian president for god's sake! Ukraine army was still weak and disoriented, he had a chance of dealing a massive blow and overrunning most of the country, and he blew it! Now, fast forward two years. Can we seriously talk about Putin expanding into Eastern Europe proper if he's unable to take Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine? How he would ever do that? Belarus wipes its feet with Putin, EU sanctions against it are all lifted. Kazakhstan improves ties with China and gets wary of Putin too. In the end he sublimates the inability to tackle Ukraine in his petty TV war in Syria. Yes, he does use military threats, sending in military forces, trying to undermine democratic governments through supporting extreme left and right wing parties, and a massive internet trolling campaign. No, that won't get him very far, considering he's old and didn't have balls to take a bite at Ukraine. Perhaps he never wanted to. Of course he's bitter about Russia's decline, but he likes his little throne and oligarch friends and doesn't want to risk all that. Summary: We can only talk about Putin expanding into Eastern Europe when he figures out Ukraine. Not earlier.
    - tsukikage 10y ago
      The Reddit is strong in this thread...
  - ivan_gammel 10y ago
    Ok, looks like you have no idea about what are you talking about. First of all, no one cares about "a lot more land becomes arable", because even existing arable land is not fully used - there's already a lot of it, which allowed after transition to market economy after collapse of Soviet Union to increase agricultural production significantly and there are still unused thousands of square kilometers on Far East. 60% of Russian territory is a permafrost zone. Global warming dramatically changes the geology of this area, which has a lot of complications for construction and may severely damage existing infrastructure (including oil and gas pipes). This is well-known and recognized danger here. Then, immigration. There's already water crisis in Middle Asia, which with population growth and rising Islamism in countries like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan is a huge problem for Russian security. Remember, we have open borders and visa-free travel with them. Plus millions of Chinese guest workers on Far East (and that's even bigger security issue, because on Chinese side of the border situation with ecology is much worse). Immigration is a real concern for Russia itself and any global factors that affect everything are not really useful.
    - woodandsteel 10y ago
      You make some good arguments. The problem is you are assuming that Putin is rational on this topic.
      - woodandsteel 10y ago
        According to a Reuter's article, "Putin told an international climate conference that warmer temperatures would mean Russians "spend less on fur coats" while "agricultural specialists say our grain production will increase, and thank God for that". http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-russia-media-idUSKCN0SN1GI20151029 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-russi...
        ivan_gammel 10y ago
        He did say that once, but it's not a policy statement apparently.
- ivan_gammel 10y ago
  Russia does promote renewable energy and invest in it, but it may not receive much coverage in English. You can read Wikipedia article at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Russia The link you've provided is an example of primitive and one-sided picture of Russia painted by some Western media, that does not even show any signs of fact-checking (interviewing few people from opposition and not asking for comments from Ministry of Environment - is that the way media work in USA or UK?). Please, note that I'm not a Putin's fan and never voted for him or his cronies. I'm writing this comment to help, because you were fed with BS and here's the advice: do not trust even well-known and respected media, when they are writing about "the rest of the world". They simply don't care to write the truth, because they will not be caught and sued.
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    That wikipedia article actually says just the opposite. According to it the hydro power was almost all built in the Soviet era, the wind is small agricultural units also built long ago with no large, modern installations, and there is virtually no solar power.
    - ivan_gammel 10y ago
      So what? Germany moved from 6% to 30% of renewable energy in 15 years, because they had policy and they invested. Russia started 10 years later. Every section of that article mentions investment projects in that kind of renewable energy that became possible only in recent years for economical reasons. And the investments in solar are not limited just to building of plants - government wants to build a manufacturing industry for them, which to me is the clear sign of interest and commitment.
      - woodandsteel 10y ago
        No, the article, talks about government intentions and plants that are being built, but almost nothing has been completed, and so at present there is virtually no solar energy in Russia, and virtually no new wind energy. The problem here is that what the article talks about are government plans in an authoritarian regime, and as we all know from the history of Russia and many other authoritarian nations, it is quite common for such plans to never be actually carried out. You know, you yourself said you don't like Putin, but you seem to trust the stories his tightly-controlled media put out on what Russia is doing about the environment and renewable energy. It seems to me that is rather contradictory.

Yeah, right: http://www.theenergycollective.com/sites/theenergycollective.com/files/imagepicker/488516/7.jpg http://www.theenergycollective.com/sites/theenergycollective...

woodandsteel 10y ago

Russia is behind the US and China because it has a far smaller population and economy. Furthermore, the US and China are strongly promoting renewable energy to replace fossil fuels. Russia is doing almost nothing along these lines (think of all the renewable energy stories you see here at HN. None of them are about Russia). Here's a link on the coverage of global climate change by the state-controlled Russian media: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-russia-media-idUSKCN0SN1GI20151029 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-russi... By the way, American conservatives are completely opposed to Putin and Russia (except for Donald Trump, who is very friendly). But in this issue they are in complete agreement.

lqdc13 10y ago
Climate change benefits Russia though. Why would they want to do something about it? A lot more land becomes arable. Trade routes don't freeze over as much. Countries with political enemies may get destabilized from immigration.
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  Exactly. And if the rest of the world goes to hell in the process, so be it. In fact, Russia has a basically win-lose, zero-sum of international relations, so I am guessing this sort of outcome would make Putin very happy.
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    Any chance of a comment from the down voters? I'd be interested in reading the rebuttal to this comment.
    - guard-of-terra 10y ago
      It's a judging opinion, there's not much to rebute there.
      - woodandsteel 10y ago
        I have a question for you, but first let me say why I think Putin has a win-lose, zero sum of international relations. To start, Putin grew up and had his career in the old communist Soviet Union, and has made clear he thought it was absolutely wonderful. Now the USSR was a superpower, with 350 million people, the world's second largest economy, a military equal to that of the US, and it controlled Eastern Europe through communist puppet governments. Then in 1989-91, the Eastern European nations threw out the communist governments and broke away, communism was abandoned, all the non-Russian republics broke away from the USSR, and the military declined drastically. Now Russia has only 145 million people, much less territory, no solid allies except Bylarus, a military about one-fifth the strength of the US, and it's economy is ranked 10th in size. Putin has made clear that he wants to get back to superpower status, and to do that he has to take back a lot of territory, either through incorporation into Russia or as allies. He can't do that with the Central Asian former Soviet republics, partly because they are semi-allies of China. So he is trying to expand westward, and doesn't care at all that most of the population of the Eastern European nations want to stay aligned with the West. And to do this he uses various means such as military threats, sending in military forces, trying to undermine democratic governments through supporting extreme left and right wing parties, and a massive internet trolling campaign. Well, that is my view. What is your view? Where do you think Putin is trying to go in the long term, and what sort of means do you think he uses?
        guard-of-terra 10y ago
        Disclosure: I'm a Russian nationalist and I'm biased but honest. Putin had a chance to take most of Ukraine back or at least try to do it. This is late '14, Ukrainians taking hold on separatist "people's republics" of Donetsk and Lugansk. They use artillery against populated areas, lots of civian casualties. The memory of Odessa massacre is still vivid. He has broad support back home to end it all. He has grassroot support in Kharkov and Odessa regions (connect them on the map and see how much of Ukraine is left). He's still holding arguably legitimate Ukrainian president for god's sake! Ukraine army was still weak and disoriented, he had a chance of dealing a massive blow and overrunning most of the country, and he blew it! Now, fast forward two years. Can we seriously talk about Putin expanding into Eastern Europe proper if he's unable to take Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine? How he would ever do that? Belarus wipes its feet with Putin, EU sanctions against it are all lifted. Kazakhstan improves ties with China and gets wary of Putin too. In the end he sublimates the inability to tackle Ukraine in his petty TV war in Syria. Yes, he does use military threats, sending in military forces, trying to undermine democratic governments through supporting extreme left and right wing parties, and a massive internet trolling campaign. No, that won't get him very far, considering he's old and didn't have balls to take a bite at Ukraine. Perhaps he never wanted to. Of course he's bitter about Russia's decline, but he likes his little throne and oligarch friends and doesn't want to risk all that. Summary: We can only talk about Putin expanding into Eastern Europe when he figures out Ukraine. Not earlier.
  - tsukikage 10y ago
    The Reddit is strong in this thread...
- ivan_gammel 10y ago
  Ok, looks like you have no idea about what are you talking about. First of all, no one cares about "a lot more land becomes arable", because even existing arable land is not fully used - there's already a lot of it, which allowed after transition to market economy after collapse of Soviet Union to increase agricultural production significantly and there are still unused thousands of square kilometers on Far East. 60% of Russian territory is a permafrost zone. Global warming dramatically changes the geology of this area, which has a lot of complications for construction and may severely damage existing infrastructure (including oil and gas pipes). This is well-known and recognized danger here. Then, immigration. There's already water crisis in Middle Asia, which with population growth and rising Islamism in countries like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan is a huge problem for Russian security. Remember, we have open borders and visa-free travel with them. Plus millions of Chinese guest workers on Far East (and that's even bigger security issue, because on Chinese side of the border situation with ecology is much worse). Immigration is a real concern for Russia itself and any global factors that affect everything are not really useful.
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    You make some good arguments. The problem is you are assuming that Putin is rational on this topic.
    - woodandsteel 10y ago
      According to a Reuter's article, "Putin told an international climate conference that warmer temperatures would mean Russians "spend less on fur coats" while "agricultural specialists say our grain production will increase, and thank God for that". http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-russia-media-idUSKCN0SN1GI20151029 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-russi...
      - ivan_gammel 10y ago
        He did say that once, but it's not a policy statement apparently.
ivan_gammel 10y ago
Russia does promote renewable energy and invest in it, but it may not receive much coverage in English. You can read Wikipedia article at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Russia The link you've provided is an example of primitive and one-sided picture of Russia painted by some Western media, that does not even show any signs of fact-checking (interviewing few people from opposition and not asking for comments from Ministry of Environment - is that the way media work in USA or UK?). Please, note that I'm not a Putin's fan and never voted for him or his cronies. I'm writing this comment to help, because you were fed with BS and here's the advice: do not trust even well-known and respected media, when they are writing about "the rest of the world". They simply don't care to write the truth, because they will not be caught and sued.
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  That wikipedia article actually says just the opposite. According to it the hydro power was almost all built in the Soviet era, the wind is small agricultural units also built long ago with no large, modern installations, and there is virtually no solar power.
  - ivan_gammel 10y ago
    So what? Germany moved from 6% to 30% of renewable energy in 15 years, because they had policy and they invested. Russia started 10 years later. Every section of that article mentions investment projects in that kind of renewable energy that became possible only in recent years for economical reasons. And the investments in solar are not limited just to building of plants - government wants to build a manufacturing industry for them, which to me is the clear sign of interest and commitment.
    - woodandsteel 10y ago
      No, the article, talks about government intentions and plants that are being built, but almost nothing has been completed, and so at present there is virtually no solar energy in Russia, and virtually no new wind energy. The problem here is that what the article talks about are government plans in an authoritarian regime, and as we all know from the history of Russia and many other authoritarian nations, it is quite common for such plans to never be actually carried out. You know, you yourself said you don't like Putin, but you seem to trust the stories his tightly-controlled media put out on what Russia is doing about the environment and renewable energy. It seems to me that is rather contradictory.