4 ms·

Nah it's cool they got Nord Stream 2, so they good. Russia will provide them all the energy they need, and the US will provide them defense against Russia. Per

Nah it's cool they got Nord Stream 2, so they good. Russia will provide them all the energy they need, and the US will provide them defense against Russia. Perfect! - edit - Is it still morally sound if you outsource the immorality elsewhere?

president 5y ago
I imagine adversaries of the West are having the biggest laugh at us voluntarily giving up key commodity production abilities in the name of combatting climate change.
- thriftwy 5y ago
  The historical problem of Russia is inability of exporting any produce other than raw materials, on account of having Europe as neighbour which can produce anything easier and often cheaper. But now, with the carbon tax and gas prices in EU, I wonder if Russian mfg capacity will suddently become competitive. The funniest thing would be Europe pricing itself out of Russian oil due to carbon tax, and then buying now-cheap goods from Russia made based on affordable oil.
  - makerofspoons 5y ago
    Carbon tariffs would be a good way to even the playing field in that scenario.
  - jabl 5y ago
    There's been serious talks about carbon border adjustments, that is, levying an extra import tax on products from countries that don't have a sufficiently ambitious domestic climate change policy, so probably not.
    - g_sch 5y ago
      This strikes me as pretty optimistic given that exactly this kind of carbon dodge has been going on for years (e.g. Europe and the US importing goods from East Asia and other countries running on dirtier fuels)
- wolverine876 5y ago
  They may be relieved, being the people who suffer most from climate change. It's not much of a laugh.
woodpanel 5y ago
Hehe, Russia's just for heating. France for everything else. Poland, Hungary and Greece do our border checks. America does our defense. China is our only customer left and all our "dirty jobs" are done by Eastern Europeans. If that's what it takes to be morally sound - then bring it on destiny, I say, bring it on! Edit: This a German's attempt at sarcasm, please indugle me!
- selectodude 5y ago
  I laughed :)
hellbannedguy 5y ago
I'm sure we could beat Russia, and China.
ethbr0 5y ago
Is there a German version of "cutting off your nose to spite your face" [0]? I get German Greens have a very specific agenda for historical reasons, but sheesh. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_one%27s_nose_to_spite_one%27s_face https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_one%27s_nose_to_...
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  > I get German Greens have a very specific agenda for historical reasons, but sheesh. Germany has been ruled by the CDU for the last 16 years so I'm not sure what exactly the Greens have to do with the current energy policies of Germany?
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    My knowledge is as a foreigner, but I was under the impression that the Greens and FDP have both been prospective kingmakers in the last several federal elections, given the math and split between the CDU/CSU and SPD? And I'd assume that as the center, courting interests important to their voters is of outsized importance to the larger parties, in an attempt to peel off votes? But maybe I'm poorly informed?
    - formerly_proven 5y ago
      I see how you can get that impression from the outside. But for the first three Merkel administrations the CDU/CSU very firmly ruled out any coalition with the Greens, which were somewhat left-ish at the time. In that timeframe they undid most of the energy policies ("Ausstieg aus dem Atomausstieg") enacted by the SPD-Greens coalition of 1998-2005, and then later reversed parts of that because public support for nuclear energy collapsed even in the center-right part (CDU, CSU, FDP) of the political spectrum in 2011 due to Fukushima. Some call it "Ausstieg aus dem Ausstieg aus dem Atomausstieg". It's far more expensive than the original nuclear exit plan - pretty much a golden parachute for nuclear plant operators, and also caused a significant ramp-up in coal. You're right though that before the final Merkel administration the Greens, the CDU/CSU and the FDP had talks, which ultimately failed because the FDP passed the CSU (the right-wing regional appendix to the CDU) on the right, which was a bit too much for the Greens, which at the time largely occupied the same center-ish position they hold today, having shifted right considerably in the time between 2005 and 2017. Overall the impact of the Greens party has been very small on the Merkel administrations, however, some parts of the green movement (which is not closely tied to the Greens party) in Germany are the majority opinion in Germany (especially when it comes to a heavy anti nuclear stance) and that's sufficient to drive Merkel policy making. It's also important to note here that Germany has a very strong NIMBY attitude, so while the majority "wants" green energy, they don't want any of the infrastructure in sight. I'd also like to point out a fundamental difference between Bundestag culture and US Capitol culture. There are bi-partisan bills in the Capitol, but in the Bundestag it is customary for the ruling parties to unconditionally veto drafts introduced by other parties - exceptions are rare. Almost all votes in the Bundestag are under Fraktionszwang i.e. MPs deviating from the party line won't get on the election list next time around, so don't have a safe seat any more (because parties in Germany can't literally force their MPs to vote their way, they can only "incentivize" it).

president 5y ago

I imagine adversaries of the West are having the biggest laugh at us voluntarily giving up key commodity production abilities in the name of combatting climate change.

thriftwy 5y ago
The historical problem of Russia is inability of exporting any produce other than raw materials, on account of having Europe as neighbour which can produce anything easier and often cheaper. But now, with the carbon tax and gas prices in EU, I wonder if Russian mfg capacity will suddently become competitive. The funniest thing would be Europe pricing itself out of Russian oil due to carbon tax, and then buying now-cheap goods from Russia made based on affordable oil.
- makerofspoons 5y ago
  Carbon tariffs would be a good way to even the playing field in that scenario.
- jabl 5y ago
  There's been serious talks about carbon border adjustments, that is, levying an extra import tax on products from countries that don't have a sufficiently ambitious domestic climate change policy, so probably not.
  - g_sch 5y ago
    This strikes me as pretty optimistic given that exactly this kind of carbon dodge has been going on for years (e.g. Europe and the US importing goods from East Asia and other countries running on dirtier fuels)
wolverine876 5y ago
They may be relieved, being the people who suffer most from climate change. It's not much of a laugh.

woodpanel 5y ago

Hehe, Russia's just for heating. France for everything else. Poland, Hungary and Greece do our border checks. America does our defense. China is our only customer left and all our "dirty jobs" are done by Eastern Europeans. If that's what it takes to be morally sound - then bring it on destiny, I say, bring it on! Edit: This a German's attempt at sarcasm, please indugle me!

selectodude 5y ago
I laughed :)

hellbannedguy 5y ago

I'm sure we could beat Russia, and China.

ethbr0 5y ago

Is there a German version of "cutting off your nose to spite your face" [0]? I get German Greens have a very specific agenda for historical reasons, but sheesh. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_one%27s_nose_to_spite_one%27s_face https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_one%27s_nose_to_...

formerly_proven 5y ago
> I get German Greens have a very specific agenda for historical reasons, but sheesh. Germany has been ruled by the CDU for the last 16 years so I'm not sure what exactly the Greens have to do with the current energy policies of Germany?
- ethbr0 5y ago
  My knowledge is as a foreigner, but I was under the impression that the Greens and FDP have both been prospective kingmakers in the last several federal elections, given the math and split between the CDU/CSU and SPD? And I'd assume that as the center, courting interests important to their voters is of outsized importance to the larger parties, in an attempt to peel off votes? But maybe I'm poorly informed?
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    I see how you can get that impression from the outside. But for the first three Merkel administrations the CDU/CSU very firmly ruled out any coalition with the Greens, which were somewhat left-ish at the time. In that timeframe they undid most of the energy policies ("Ausstieg aus dem Atomausstieg") enacted by the SPD-Greens coalition of 1998-2005, and then later reversed parts of that because public support for nuclear energy collapsed even in the center-right part (CDU, CSU, FDP) of the political spectrum in 2011 due to Fukushima. Some call it "Ausstieg aus dem Ausstieg aus dem Atomausstieg". It's far more expensive than the original nuclear exit plan - pretty much a golden parachute for nuclear plant operators, and also caused a significant ramp-up in coal. You're right though that before the final Merkel administration the Greens, the CDU/CSU and the FDP had talks, which ultimately failed because the FDP passed the CSU (the right-wing regional appendix to the CDU) on the right, which was a bit too much for the Greens, which at the time largely occupied the same center-ish position they hold today, having shifted right considerably in the time between 2005 and 2017. Overall the impact of the Greens party has been very small on the Merkel administrations, however, some parts of the green movement (which is not closely tied to the Greens party) in Germany are the majority opinion in Germany (especially when it comes to a heavy anti nuclear stance) and that's sufficient to drive Merkel policy making. It's also important to note here that Germany has a very strong NIMBY attitude, so while the majority "wants" green energy, they don't want any of the infrastructure in sight. I'd also like to point out a fundamental difference between Bundestag culture and US Capitol culture. There are bi-partisan bills in the Capitol, but in the Bundestag it is customary for the ruling parties to unconditionally veto drafts introduced by other parties - exceptions are rare. Almost all votes in the Bundestag are under Fraktionszwang i.e. MPs deviating from the party line won't get on the election list next time around, so don't have a safe seat any more (because parties in Germany can't literally force their MPs to vote their way, they can only "incentivize" it).