18 ms·
EU Is Warned Green Label for Gas Would Be ‘Disastrous’ Mistake
- Proven 5y agoWhat's disastrous is that millions of people can't afford artificially expensive energy to heat their homes and commute to work. It's a travesty. They have no one to blame for that but themselves. Voting for various flavors of globalist socialists election after election and no one has the guts to organize a referendum to exit the EU and put an end to that madness.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 0x000000001 5y ago> artificially expensive How is it artificially expensive? Is natural gas an infinite free resource now? Do we ignore the oil/gas subsidies?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Kliment 5y agoWhile the grandparent post is clearly misguided or willfully misleading, there is a thing in Germany about artificially expensive electricity for domestic users, which subsidizes price cuts for industrial users, and subsidies to the otherwise unprofitable coal industry.
- xondono 5y agoIn Spain prices have been artificially expensive for years, after some very questionable dealings between politicians and energy companies. Being the only country in the world that taxes solar self generation does not help.
- Sharlin 5y agoAny fuel price that does not fully cover the externalities of extracting and burning said fuel is artificially low rather than artificially high. Right now, the price of hydrocarbon fuels is artificially low everywhere on Earth. Even in the EU.
- wcoenen 5y ago> Right now, the price of hydrocarbon fuels is artificially low everywhere on Earth. Even in the EU Just to provide some context to Americans: the typical price of gasoline in the EU is currently about 1.5 euro/liter, which translates to more than 6.6 dollar/gallon.
- occz 5y ago> They have no one to blame for that but themselves. Voting for various flavors of globalist socialists election after election and no one has the guts to organize a referendum to exit the EU and put an end to that madness. There was actually a country that did that. You may have heard of them, they are called the United Kingdom. Their exit from the EU has also been known as an absolutely unmitigated disaster, causing them endless amounts of losses for essentially zero benefits.
- mavhc 5y agoBillions of people can't afford the effects of artificially cheap energy. Just make everyone pay a tax to clean up the pollution whatever they're making is causing.
- Maarten88 5y ago> What's disastrous is that millions of people can't afford artificially expensive energy to heat their homes and commute to work. Do you think it would be more affordable to relocate some populations and rebuild a few cities after floodings, droughts, famines and wildfires caused by that cheaper fossil energy? 'Artificial' depends on your definition of who is paying, and when.
- vadfa 5y agoThat's a big "if"
- adrianN 5y agoThat's a big "when" at this point.
- Maarten88 5y agoThe people of Madagascar would probably contend both "when" and "if", but they don't have time to discuss climate change, they are busy trying to find food. Closer home, in California, there are 3000+ families who don't need affordable heating anymore, their home burned down due to climate-change related wildfires just this year.
- hnbad 5y agoNot going to stop you in whatever you're doing, but ironically socialists tend to dislike the EU because it is primarily a common market. The reason most of the EU's leftists don't support a Brexit-style exit is that it's economic and geopolitical suicide unless your country's economy is already fully self-sufficient (i.e. if all imports and exports were shut down the country would still flourish). Also socialists tend to be against globalization (i.e. creating a unified global market) because it strengthens multi-national corporations, which are harder to reign in than local companies (see Apple, Google and Facebook preferring to pay EU fines rather than sticking to the regulations meant to rein them in). But you didn't say they support globalization, of course, you said they support globalism, which just incidentally happens to be a right-wing dogwhistle for the Jewish conspiracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism But I'm sure that's entirely accidental. EDIT: Interesting. Not complaining but it's curious to see my comments go from slowly increasing positive scores to max negative. HN voting is certainly following interesting patterns and not at all in line with its own guidelines (obviously).
- nivenkos 5y agoYeah, the EU has been run by conservatives and neoliberals since... forever? I don't think the centre-left ever had a majority in the European Parliament, and certainly not in the European Commission (i.e. the heads of state). This is why they're considering including natural gas here, the EU is basically run by German industrialists.
- estaseuropano 5y agoCoal, oil and nuclear received gigantic subsidies and reseacrh funding over the course of five or more decades. The support given to renewables is laughable in comparison.
- Sharlin 5y agoYour comment and submission histories are interesting to read. Have you ever considered that you're wrong, and indeed obnoxiously wrong?
- eclipsetheworld 5y agoGas is a bridging technology which will facilitate industrialized economies' transitions to carbon-neutral electricity generation. It should be treated as such in its own right.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ATsch 5y agoThe gas infrastructure currently deployed is already far sufficient to serve that purpose. It is a good argument for not tearing it down, but not for building more. Conflating these two has been a great success by the fossil fuel industry.
- ATsch 5y agoSince I know someone will ask for a source, here's one: https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/2020/the-gas-trap-report/ https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/2020/the-gas-trap-repor... > Silvia Pastorelli explained that companies “have been consistently over-estimating the need for gas and basically, ENTSOG members have received something like, just short of 90% of the EU’s gas infrastructure subsidies which is a lot of money, and the fact that they basically can decide gives them lots of power.” > But according to Global Energy Monitor’s (GEM) report, ‘Gas at a Crossroads‘, the EU already has a large excess of gas infrastructure. The EU gas import capacity is nearly twice as high as EU gas consumption – according to the report, “The utilization rate in 2018 was ~60%, with ~40% spare capacity.” And GEM’s survey found €117 bn in new EU gas projects are in development, including €52 bn for gas pipelines, €12 billion for LNG import terminals, and €53 bn for gas-fired power stations.
- makomk 5y agoIn some European countries, the gas infrastructure currently deployed is probably sufficient to support the transition to green energy. In others - generally poorer Eastern European ones that are currently dependent on coal - it really isn't. The controversy is over whether the EU and those countries' governments should help change that.
- jokoon 5y agoDon't forget that climate change is good for Russia...
- freeflight 5y agoThe same could be said about the US as the warming will also make natural resources in Alaska more approachable.
- refurb 5y agoPretty sure transportation and drilling/mining is harder when the ground thaws and is a swampy mess.
- freeflight 5y agoWhich is exactly what's gonna happen to the permafrost in Siberia, yet that's apparently "good" for Russia? Why wouldn't it also be good for the US in Alaska? Or could it rather be that this "Climate change good for Russia!" talk is just the same old American jingoism merely adopting modern environmentalism? Why would Russia be the only country for which climate change is "good"?
- hnbad 5y agoSure, except for all the flooding, forest fires, droughts, etc. Climate change doesn't simply mean some areas get warmer. Climate change means the entire climate system changes. Air streams and water currents shift, ground water evaporates or rises, and so on.
- panick21 5y agoIf everything changes it is very hard to say who benefits and who loses and how much. In some places there will be more, in others less. Some places will have more droughts in others less. On avg no country is better placed for overall warming then Russia, except maybe Canada.
- hamilyon2 5y agohttps://archive.is/mzfWa https://archive.is/mzfWa
- chapium 5y agoWe can’t just ignore the fact that a carbon problem will not be solved by releasing more carbon into the atmosphere. We have half a dozen sources of carbon free energy. The EU is right here. Including gas power in the green book is laughable.
- nivenkos 5y ago> he EU is right here. Including gas power in the green book is laughable. The EU is the one considering including it...
- estaseuropano 5y agoYou should read the article. The EU administration and most countries don't want to include it but some countries (FR, PL, CZ) want to do so. The EU however has to find a position that bridges these views in order for the legislation to pass through both ttje European Parliament and the Council (=27 governments). The result is likely either a compromise in the middle (s.g. phase-out clauses) or a pay-off of some kind (e.g. additional funding programme for the countries most affected by the ban).
- drran 5y agoIMHO, Russia wants to make their Nord Stream 2 gas pipe "green" to circumvent sanctions. Gazprom must be worth €1 trillion at any cost.
- Wolfenstein98k 5y agoThis is the collision between imperfect (but working) versus perfect (but not working). It's more important to get emissions down now than to aim for a perfect standard that no one has yet reached, and doesn't appear reachable any time soon. The emissions matter, not the goals of activist NGOs. This cuts emissions, that's why it qualified. Results > ideology.
- hnbad 5y agoSure, and if you ask German conservatives lignite is practically green energy too. From an environmental point of view the biggest mistake was to cut down on the development and production of nuclear plants because now it's too late to just bet on pivoting to nuclear if we still want to reach literally any of the climate goals. But more fossil fuels are not the answer. The most effective way to cut emissions at this point is to reduce energy use, but there is no economical incentive for the industry to do so and you can only go so far by shaming consumers. There is political capital in talking about overconsumption. There is no political capital in talking about overproduction. EDIT: The original slogan for recycling was "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" but you there's no money in reducing (not "buy electric" or "buy low-energy" but literally not buying) or reusing (not "buy second hand" or "buy refurbished", literally using what you already have).
- m4rtink 5y agoHow do you remove all the extra CO2 no to mention cleanup all the various toxoc waste sites while reducing energy consumption?
- DennisP 5y agoGas cuts emissions if you're only looking at CO2, but accounting for methane leaks it has about the same climate impact as coal.
- Wolfenstein98k 5y agoI see this criticism every now and then but surely it can't be that simple, that all the professionals are just forgetting methane. The argument reminds me of "sceptics" who appeal to "the effect of the sun cycles", as I'd climate scientists wouldn't have thought of that.
- panick21 5y agoIts sadder everyday that somehow humanity has failed to become a nuclear society. All our problems could have been solved decades ago but we are still nowhere near a solution.
- axiosgunnar 5y agoYesterday in Berlin pro-nuclear climate activists got attacked by the no-nuclear climate mob…
- thriftwy 5y agoI can never understand why attacks by "activists" do not result in dozens of arrests and convictions for multiple years of prison every time they happen. Isn't it basically what any sovereign law says?
- ChrisKnott 5y agoIn most Western countries you won't go to prison at all, let alone for several years, for common assault. Maybe if you caused serious injury.
- MichaelZuo 5y agoThis is the first time I’ve heard of that. Which countries specifically won’t prosecute for randomly attacking and lightly injuring someone standing on the sidewalk or in a public park or some other gathering place?
- rndgermandude 5y agoIt's not about not prosecuting at all[0]. The sentences just are either fines or suspended prison sentences, so people stay out of prison, which I remarked about in my sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28653514 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28653514 [0] Which may happen if the state thinks it cannot prove the allegation or the act was so minor, it would be a waste of everybody's time. But the "case dropped because too minor" doesn't usually happen in assaults, but more for non-violent things like riding the bus without a valid ticket or illegally downloading a few songs.
- rasz 5y ago"There is absolutely no health justification for such a regulation," "The whole proceeding against an industry that has made invaluable contributions to the American economy for more than fifty years is the worst example of fanaticism since the New England witch hunts in the Seventeenth Century." "no person has ever been found having an identifiable toxic effect from the amount of lead in the atmosphere today." "Tetraethyl lead had saved the American economy billions. It made the modern automobile, the entire car-centric structure of American life, possible. A phase-down would emasculate car engines, cause octane numbers to plummet, and waste crude oil. They might as well burn the money of the American people." Larry Blanchard, Ethyl’s executive vice president https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson-scientist-who-determined-age-earth-and-then-saved-it https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson-sc...
- agilob 5y ago>"There is absolutely no health justification for such a regulation," What about Nord Stream 2? I bet they will find enough money and political influence to justify it
- bitxbitxbitcoin 5y agoGreen gas is already propane plus silicone in some circles.