5 ms·

I understand that. However, the political aspect will be the dominant factor. You can have all the links to international suppliers, but it won't help if they w

I understand that. However, the political aspect will be the dominant factor. You can have all the links to international suppliers, but it won't help if they won't sell to you. Russia has already decided to f** with Europe, and in a way that I can't see making any (short-term) financial sense for their own economy. France may decide to stop exporting quite so much of its nuclear-generated electricity. The UK could decide that it needs to slow exports of its gas, and keep it back for its own citizens. Germany will basically have to turn back to its own brown coal reserves for electricity generation, although that won't help its citizens heat their homes.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
None of that really helps though, it's just a type of "Beggar-thy-neighbour“ game theory failure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggar_thy_neighbour https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggar_thy_neighbour Working together obviously makes it easier for everyone. But we have whole political parties built on ignoring that principle and blaming foreigners for everything. What does help, is everyone using less natural gas. edit: some green Tory ideas that accept that reality: https://www.cen.uk.com/press/2022/8/16/green-tories-propose-industry-led-plan-to-combat-winter-gas-crisis https://www.cen.uk.com/press/2022/8/16/green-tories-propose-...
- rewrewrewqf 4y ago
  >it's just a type of "Beggar-thy-neighbour“ game theory failure Funny how much international politics looks like a "game theory failure", right? If only we could get along! I'm mostly looking at this from the perspective of the "begger" - hence me originally pointing out that, in the current narrative of countries that are doing badly with energy geopolitics, Germany is in much bigger trouble than the UK. You can be the nicest country in the world, but you can't really predict or change what others will do. For that matter, why should other EU countries bail out (in the form of energy exports) another country that has become absurdly reliant on energy imports from a hostile neighbour? >What does help, is everyone using less natural gas. Humans have burned stuff to heat their homes since the dawn of humanity - it's hard to see what could possibly replace that, unless we go nuclear. Heat-pumps require quite specific circumstances to function efficiently.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    We don't have to replace it, well not in the short term. Just turning thermostats down a little, increasing insulation, stopping doing low value things with gas that we don't need to do, shifting electricity use to times when we have wind/nuclear available etc. is enough to ride this winter out. And the whole point of "begger thy neighbour" is that it hurts you. So saying "I still really want to punish my neighbour because this is his fault" is literally punishing yourself. It doesn't make sense. As I said, not a technical problem, a political problem.
    - rewrewrewqf 4y ago
      Your solutions are essentially what I've been doing for years - short of a benevolent government paying for people's lack of discretion when it comes to longer-term financial and energy planning, I don't see what could make people do any of that unless energy suddenly became more expensive. >And the whole point of "begger thy neighbour" is that it hurts you Not necessarily, and not necessarily across differing timeframes. Using the scenario at hand - Germany is reliant on a hostile regime to keep its lights and heating on. Why is it necessarily in some other country's own self-interest to send some of its own energy supply based purely on international economics, and not the needs of its own citizens? A blind application of this "principle" would mean that less wealthy countries would be obliged to help out a wealthy neighbour in a time of distress, and just hope that the wealthy neighbour will be nice to them when they can. It assumes best intentions all around, which is nice but unrealistic.
      - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        Okay, I see this reality isn't politically correct for you so I'll not push it too much. If actual Conservatives can't convince you this is in your best interest then I have no chance. But this is a good example of why the UK is and probably will continue to be hit hardest by this. The EU will be working together, and UK businesses will be selling out to them for profit, and the only politically acceptable solutions will be economic self-harm, leaving the UK with the worst possible outcome.
Mindwipe 4y ago
Ultimately if the UK were to start protecting it's gas output then a) the value of British currency would likely drop even further, pushing up inflation and prices further and b) the UK can't cover it's peak electrical supply, and it is unlikely the rest of Europe would continue to sell it electricity to cover peak if the UK was entering into that sort of protectionism.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  Not to mention all the other things we rely on our neighbours to sell to us like food and medicine...
- rewrewrewqf 4y ago
  >the value of British currency would likely drop even further, pushing up inflation and prices further Why? Examining a relatively similar historical record of exporting scarce resources that are in high domestic demand, are you telling me the Irish potato famine was the best that could have happened?
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    In economic terms, if they could sell the produce for more money to the UK and use that money to buy food to feed themselves, then they'd come out ahead. Instead, very similar to what the UK is doing with gas, they sell the gas to the EU and keep the profits in private hands and let the poor people starve/freeze. The key missing element is a government that cares about your life if you are poor and can't be bought off by fossil fuel interests.
    - rewrewrewqf 4y ago
      Ah I see - the idea is sound, it's just the implementation that was faulty. Tell me, how do sellers access international markets without several layers of collective bargaining?
  - Mindwipe 4y ago
    Because currency markets are generally negative towards government intervention and economic protectionism. You can say that's reasonable or unreasonable, but it's unquestionably true. The UK has suffered over the last six months for example from not increasing interest rates faster. An increase in interest rates would have been unpleasant for homeowners (I know, I am one), but it would have strengthened the value of the pound against the dollar, and that would have helped with energy costs significantly as it would have increased the UK's ability to buy. I'm not really sure the Irish Potato Famine is relevant, given Ireland barely had it's own currency at the time (British pounds were in widespread use, and the value of the Irish pound was fixed to the British one).

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

None of that really helps though, it's just a type of "Beggar-thy-neighbour“ game theory failure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggar_thy_neighbour https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggar_thy_neighbour Working together obviously makes it easier for everyone. But we have whole political parties built on ignoring that principle and blaming foreigners for everything. What does help, is everyone using less natural gas. edit: some green Tory ideas that accept that reality: https://www.cen.uk.com/press/2022/8/16/green-tories-propose-industry-led-plan-to-combat-winter-gas-crisis https://www.cen.uk.com/press/2022/8/16/green-tories-propose-...

rewrewrewqf 4y ago
>it's just a type of "Beggar-thy-neighbour“ game theory failure Funny how much international politics looks like a "game theory failure", right? If only we could get along! I'm mostly looking at this from the perspective of the "begger" - hence me originally pointing out that, in the current narrative of countries that are doing badly with energy geopolitics, Germany is in much bigger trouble than the UK. You can be the nicest country in the world, but you can't really predict or change what others will do. For that matter, why should other EU countries bail out (in the form of energy exports) another country that has become absurdly reliant on energy imports from a hostile neighbour? >What does help, is everyone using less natural gas. Humans have burned stuff to heat their homes since the dawn of humanity - it's hard to see what could possibly replace that, unless we go nuclear. Heat-pumps require quite specific circumstances to function efficiently.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  We don't have to replace it, well not in the short term. Just turning thermostats down a little, increasing insulation, stopping doing low value things with gas that we don't need to do, shifting electricity use to times when we have wind/nuclear available etc. is enough to ride this winter out. And the whole point of "begger thy neighbour" is that it hurts you. So saying "I still really want to punish my neighbour because this is his fault" is literally punishing yourself. It doesn't make sense. As I said, not a technical problem, a political problem.
  - rewrewrewqf 4y ago
    Your solutions are essentially what I've been doing for years - short of a benevolent government paying for people's lack of discretion when it comes to longer-term financial and energy planning, I don't see what could make people do any of that unless energy suddenly became more expensive. >And the whole point of "begger thy neighbour" is that it hurts you Not necessarily, and not necessarily across differing timeframes. Using the scenario at hand - Germany is reliant on a hostile regime to keep its lights and heating on. Why is it necessarily in some other country's own self-interest to send some of its own energy supply based purely on international economics, and not the needs of its own citizens? A blind application of this "principle" would mean that less wealthy countries would be obliged to help out a wealthy neighbour in a time of distress, and just hope that the wealthy neighbour will be nice to them when they can. It assumes best intentions all around, which is nice but unrealistic.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      Okay, I see this reality isn't politically correct for you so I'll not push it too much. If actual Conservatives can't convince you this is in your best interest then I have no chance. But this is a good example of why the UK is and probably will continue to be hit hardest by this. The EU will be working together, and UK businesses will be selling out to them for profit, and the only politically acceptable solutions will be economic self-harm, leaving the UK with the worst possible outcome.

Mindwipe 4y ago

Ultimately if the UK were to start protecting it's gas output then a) the value of British currency would likely drop even further, pushing up inflation and prices further and b) the UK can't cover it's peak electrical supply, and it is unlikely the rest of Europe would continue to sell it electricity to cover peak if the UK was entering into that sort of protectionism.

LatteLazy 4y ago
Not to mention all the other things we rely on our neighbours to sell to us like food and medicine...
rewrewrewqf 4y ago
>the value of British currency would likely drop even further, pushing up inflation and prices further Why? Examining a relatively similar historical record of exporting scarce resources that are in high domestic demand, are you telling me the Irish potato famine was the best that could have happened?
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  In economic terms, if they could sell the produce for more money to the UK and use that money to buy food to feed themselves, then they'd come out ahead. Instead, very similar to what the UK is doing with gas, they sell the gas to the EU and keep the profits in private hands and let the poor people starve/freeze. The key missing element is a government that cares about your life if you are poor and can't be bought off by fossil fuel interests.
  - rewrewrewqf 4y ago
    Ah I see - the idea is sound, it's just the implementation that was faulty. Tell me, how do sellers access international markets without several layers of collective bargaining?
- Mindwipe 4y ago
  Because currency markets are generally negative towards government intervention and economic protectionism. You can say that's reasonable or unreasonable, but it's unquestionably true. The UK has suffered over the last six months for example from not increasing interest rates faster. An increase in interest rates would have been unpleasant for homeowners (I know, I am one), but it would have strengthened the value of the pound against the dollar, and that would have helped with energy costs significantly as it would have increased the UK's ability to buy. I'm not really sure the Irish Potato Famine is relevant, given Ireland barely had it's own currency at the time (British pounds were in widespread use, and the value of the Irish pound was fixed to the British one).