6 ms·

The U.S. acts in its own best interests, as do all countries. If they happen to coincide with UK and EU interests, then great. If not, tough luck. The surprisin

by Veen 4y ago

The U.S. acts in its own best interests, as do all countries. If they happen to coincide with UK and EU interests, then great. If not, tough luck. The surprising thing is that politicians on this side of the Atlantic are naive enough to believe otherwise.

constantcrying 4y ago
>The U.S. acts in its own best interests, as do all countries. Please inform me how Germany is acting in its best interest in terms of its energy policy.
- Veen 4y ago
  That's a symptom of the naiveté. We have a generation of politicians who have utterly failed to plan for local energy resources because they assumed they could rely on external sources and so it was in their economic interests to invest elsewhere. Perhaps I should have said 'all countries act in what their elites believe is their best interest'.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  How about becoming dependent on known bad actor Russia for gas, and having an ex-Chancellor on the board of Rozneft? https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/20/ex-german-chancellor-nord-stream-ceo-resign-from-rosneft-board-a77749 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/20/ex-german-chancell...
  - TurboHaskal 4y ago
    Germans could be dumb or corrupt. It could also be that they intended to make Russia dependent on them by becoming a customer too essential to lose. These kinds of relationships go both ways. Either way, this made Uncle Sam mad.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    How is the German government responsible for what an ex-Chancellor does? Was this position granted directly by the German government or is it some sort of diplomatic thing?
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      Wow, he's really scrambling to find some way to spin this, folks. The three stages of spin: 1. It's not true. 2. It's true, but it's not important. 3. It's true, and it's important, but we weren't responsible.
    - gitanovic 4y ago
      The problem here is not the current government responsible of what the ex-Cancellor does, it is more what he did when he was in power.
    - hnbad 4y ago
      Schröder was cozy with Russia/Gazprom before he was an "ex-chancellor". This level of corruption was seen as "business savvy" at the time and he was coming in as the leader of an opposition government on the tail end of 16 years of Kohl, who took his corruption secrets to his grave after being fondly remembered for bringing about the reunification while being less remembered for enabling the massive firesale of East Germany to private investors and speculators. This was of course also helped by the Greens, Schröder's coalition partner, being religiously anti-nuclear but too cowardly/dishonest to also demonize gas, coal and oil to the same degree. Of course another factor in this is EU liberal market reforms which promoted austerity and cutting public investments, effectively laying the groundwork for the eventual shutdown of solar subsidies at a time when Germany was seeing massive interest and business development in solar technology (and to be clear: coal, oil and gas continue to be heavily subsidized to this day). The German government has repeatedly shat the bed when it comes to energy independency, green energy and averting the climate crisis. The only thing we accomplished to date was shutting off all nuclear plants (which is nonsensical if the goal is to reduce the impact of the climate crisis while we still run on coal, gas and oil) and despite all their campaigning this was achieved by a conservative-led government without the involvement of the Greens. This is not to say that the conservatives aren't corrupt. In fact from what we do know about ties to lobbying groups and direct business deals, the conservatives are even more corrupt, if only by the number of corrupt politicians. But either way this is very much on the German government, not an "ex-chancellor". His post-chancellor business ties were set up when he was still in office if not well in advance and the rest of the government played along (and continued to do so well past his term).
  - constantcrying 4y ago
    That is not the issue. The issue is the combination of: - Germany is at best mediocre for solar - Hydropower is very difficult in Germany - Germany shutting down coal power plants - Germany is shutting down nuclear power plants - Germany is cutting down forrests to find places for wind power - Germany is destroying its relation to an important partner in terms of natural resources, especially energy Any one of them would be a non factor. Even multiple ones could be managed. The combination is what lead to Germany becomming the place in the world with the highest energy prices. How long can this go on? How long can a nation which is entirely reliant on its industrial capacity exist under those conditions?
- kulahan 4y ago
  "best interest" doesn't inherently mean "decision with no difficulties whatsoever". Moving away from Russian energy, even if it's painful in the interim, is in Germany's best interests.
  - constantcrying 4y ago
    >Moving away from Russian energy Whatever. Russian energy is just one part of the energy supply. If it is not Russian gas, what is the alternative? Coal? No. Nuclear? No. Solar? Mediocre at best and very hard to make viable at large scales, especially in Germany. Hydro? Geographically very hard. Wind? Hard to place, lots of space required, invasive to nature. Even if you believe that Germany should stop all trade relations to Russia, the consequence has to be that you need to choose another option.
    - kulahan 4y ago
      Well Nuclear is obviously the solution, assuming we can get politicians to stop perplexingly fearmongering around it.
      - constantcrying 4y ago
        A reentry into nuclear under the a partly green government would be some of the greatest loss of face a political party has ever experienced. Of course a massive reentry into nuclear is needed if you want a long term solution that is neither coal nor gas. But how can a party, which formed itself around anti-nuclear protest, be the one which causes a 180 degree back to nuclear energy?
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Among the many other deal breakers to mass expansion of nuclear is the exact opposite of your point. https://cleantechnica.com/2022/11/05/how-does-russia-keep-signing-nuclear-power-contracts/ https://cleantechnica.com/2022/11/05/how-does-russia-keep-si...
        4y ago
boringg 4y ago
Its politicians politicking. They know, they are just using it to their own advantage either about to sell new policies are trying to soften a US stance.
lm28469 4y ago
> The U.S. acts in its own best interests, as do all countries. With allies like that... Nothing new though: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/02/global-battle-coronavirus-equipment-masks-tests https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/02/global-battle-...
miguelazo 4y ago
Not naïve. Just too weak and compromised to do anything about it. And they will eventually pay a price when their populations are fed up. Given the history of how those moments have played out before, not a great outlook.

by Veen 4y ago

constantcrying 4y ago

>The U.S. acts in its own best interests, as do all countries. Please inform me how Germany is acting in its best interest in terms of its energy policy.

Veen 4y ago
That's a symptom of the naiveté. We have a generation of politicians who have utterly failed to plan for local energy resources because they assumed they could rely on external sources and so it was in their economic interests to invest elsewhere. Perhaps I should have said 'all countries act in what their elites believe is their best interest'.
AlbertCory 4y ago
How about becoming dependent on known bad actor Russia for gas, and having an ex-Chancellor on the board of Rozneft? https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/20/ex-german-chancellor-nord-stream-ceo-resign-from-rosneft-board-a77749 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/20/ex-german-chancell...
- TurboHaskal 4y ago
  Germans could be dumb or corrupt. It could also be that they intended to make Russia dependent on them by becoming a customer too essential to lose. These kinds of relationships go both ways. Either way, this made Uncle Sam mad.
- themitigating 4y ago
  How is the German government responsible for what an ex-Chancellor does? Was this position granted directly by the German government or is it some sort of diplomatic thing?
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    Wow, he's really scrambling to find some way to spin this, folks. The three stages of spin: 1. It's not true. 2. It's true, but it's not important. 3. It's true, and it's important, but we weren't responsible.
  - gitanovic 4y ago
    The problem here is not the current government responsible of what the ex-Cancellor does, it is more what he did when he was in power.
  - hnbad 4y ago
    Schröder was cozy with Russia/Gazprom before he was an "ex-chancellor". This level of corruption was seen as "business savvy" at the time and he was coming in as the leader of an opposition government on the tail end of 16 years of Kohl, who took his corruption secrets to his grave after being fondly remembered for bringing about the reunification while being less remembered for enabling the massive firesale of East Germany to private investors and speculators. This was of course also helped by the Greens, Schröder's coalition partner, being religiously anti-nuclear but too cowardly/dishonest to also demonize gas, coal and oil to the same degree. Of course another factor in this is EU liberal market reforms which promoted austerity and cutting public investments, effectively laying the groundwork for the eventual shutdown of solar subsidies at a time when Germany was seeing massive interest and business development in solar technology (and to be clear: coal, oil and gas continue to be heavily subsidized to this day). The German government has repeatedly shat the bed when it comes to energy independency, green energy and averting the climate crisis. The only thing we accomplished to date was shutting off all nuclear plants (which is nonsensical if the goal is to reduce the impact of the climate crisis while we still run on coal, gas and oil) and despite all their campaigning this was achieved by a conservative-led government without the involvement of the Greens. This is not to say that the conservatives aren't corrupt. In fact from what we do know about ties to lobbying groups and direct business deals, the conservatives are even more corrupt, if only by the number of corrupt politicians. But either way this is very much on the German government, not an "ex-chancellor". His post-chancellor business ties were set up when he was still in office if not well in advance and the rest of the government played along (and continued to do so well past his term).
- constantcrying 4y ago
  That is not the issue. The issue is the combination of: - Germany is at best mediocre for solar - Hydropower is very difficult in Germany - Germany shutting down coal power plants - Germany is shutting down nuclear power plants - Germany is cutting down forrests to find places for wind power - Germany is destroying its relation to an important partner in terms of natural resources, especially energy Any one of them would be a non factor. Even multiple ones could be managed. The combination is what lead to Germany becomming the place in the world with the highest energy prices. How long can this go on? How long can a nation which is entirely reliant on its industrial capacity exist under those conditions?
kulahan 4y ago
"best interest" doesn't inherently mean "decision with no difficulties whatsoever". Moving away from Russian energy, even if it's painful in the interim, is in Germany's best interests.
- constantcrying 4y ago
  >Moving away from Russian energy Whatever. Russian energy is just one part of the energy supply. If it is not Russian gas, what is the alternative? Coal? No. Nuclear? No. Solar? Mediocre at best and very hard to make viable at large scales, especially in Germany. Hydro? Geographically very hard. Wind? Hard to place, lots of space required, invasive to nature. Even if you believe that Germany should stop all trade relations to Russia, the consequence has to be that you need to choose another option.
  - kulahan 4y ago
    Well Nuclear is obviously the solution, assuming we can get politicians to stop perplexingly fearmongering around it.
    - constantcrying 4y ago
      A reentry into nuclear under the a partly green government would be some of the greatest loss of face a political party has ever experienced. Of course a massive reentry into nuclear is needed if you want a long term solution that is neither coal nor gas. But how can a party, which formed itself around anti-nuclear protest, be the one which causes a 180 degree back to nuclear energy?
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Among the many other deal breakers to mass expansion of nuclear is the exact opposite of your point. https://cleantechnica.com/2022/11/05/how-does-russia-keep-signing-nuclear-power-contracts/ https://cleantechnica.com/2022/11/05/how-does-russia-keep-si...
      - 4y ago

boringg 4y ago

Its politicians politicking. They know, they are just using it to their own advantage either about to sell new policies are trying to soften a US stance.

lm28469 4y ago

> The U.S. acts in its own best interests, as do all countries. With allies like that... Nothing new though: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/02/global-battle-coronavirus-equipment-masks-tests https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/02/global-battle-...

miguelazo 4y ago

Not naïve. Just too weak and compromised to do anything about it. And they will eventually pay a price when their populations are fed up. Given the history of how those moments have played out before, not a great outlook.