8 ms·

I've been arguing with Europeans on twitter (including an environmental scientist) who believe this war shows we need to resume drilling in the North Sea and Gr

by davedx 7mo ago

I've been arguing with Europeans on twitter (including an environmental scientist) who believe this war shows we need to resume drilling in the North Sea and Groningen. It feels like this collective insanity will never end

watwut 7mo ago
The Russian threat in the short term is very real and this is making Russia stronger. And the economic threat to Europe in the super short term is bigger then the one to America ... and will help internal fascist movements that are very much already empowered there (and sponsored and supported by BOTH Russia and America despite being very much homegrown). So, like, both I guess.
layer8 7mo ago
> It feels like this collective insanity will never end You’re referring to Twitter, right? ;)
b00ty4breakfast 7mo ago
twitter is a self-selected group these days, even assuming these are real people and not some kind of propaganda op. It's like going on stormfront and wondering why there's so many white nationalists on the internet.
devilbunny 7mo ago
> we need to resume drilling in the North Sea and Groningen Well, there's also the simple reality that the US doesn't actually need fossil fuels from the Middle East or Russia in the same way Europe does. It affects prices here, obviously, and an increase in energy prices can do severe damage to the economy, but it's not a potentially existential crisis in the same way.
- darth_avocado 7mo ago
  Funny part about oil is that it’s in everything. US is energy independent, but its supply chain is not. AI chips, for example, which prop up the entire economy need oil for the various materials needed to produce it. The other funny part about oil is that it has an inelastic demand. A 20% reduction in global supply doesn’t mean a 20% increase in prices. It means increase in prices until 20% demand collapses (which could theoretically mean orders of magnitude of increase in pricing). Which means expensive fertilizers, medicines and pretty every other bare necessity. With these two facts, pretty much every country needs the oil from the Middle East.
  - devilbunny 7mo ago
    Oh, I know, but "we are going to freeze to death in a month" is a far stronger motivator than "the economy is going to go into a tailspin".
bpodgursky 7mo ago
Yes, this is correct, Europe energy policy is catastrophically behind and needs to pursue all paths simultaneously, because the future is very murky, Europe needs a LOT of power, and it's not clear which will work best: - Continue building out solar + battery storage - Resume drilling in domestic accessible offshore locations safe from trade disruptions - Recommission and build new nuclear plants - Build LNG import terminals to eliminate dependence on Russian gas
slashdev 7mo ago
I think Europe should resume drilling in the North Sea and Groningen if they have exploitable reserves there. Europe depends on energy imports and that won't change in our lifetimes (I'm in my early forties, so at least in my lifetime.) They should take advantage of whatever resources they have. I'm guessing you think otherwise? Why? Do you think the energy transition will be faster? What makes you think that?
- toomuchtodo 7mo ago
  It would be an inefficient use of capital to support more fossil exploration considering the deployment rates and cost decline curves of renewables and storage. Ember Energy: European electricity prices and costs - https://ember-energy.org/data/european-electricity-prices-and-costs/ https://ember-energy.org/data/european-electricity-prices-an... (updated daily) Ember Energy: Wind and solar generated more power than fossil fuels in the EU for the first time in 2025 - https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/wind-and-solar-generated-more-power-than-fossil-fuels-in-the-eu-for-the-first-time-in-2025/ https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/wind-and-solar-gener... - January 22nd, 2026 Bloomberg: How Europe Ditched Russian Fossil Fuels With Spectacular Speed - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/ukraine-news-europe-ditches-russia-fossil-fuels-with-surprising-speed https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/ukraine-n... | https://archive.today/yxGp2 https://archive.today/yxGp2 - February 21st, 2023 > But what the past year has shown is that it’s possible to go harder and faster in deploying solar panels and batteries, reducing energy use, and permanently swapping out entrenched sources of fossil fuel. Solar installations across Europe increased by a record 40-gigawatts last year, up 35% compared with 2021, just shy of the most optimistic scenario from researchers at BloombergNEF. That jump was driven primarily by consumers who saw cheap solar panels as a way to cut their own energy bills. It essentially pushed the solar rollout ahead by a few years, hitting a level that will be sustained by EU policies. (Europe has enough wind potential to power the world, their energy constraints are deployment rate of renewables, battery storage, and transmission)
  - slashdev 7mo ago
    You're talking about electricity, so I assume your answer is directed to the natural gas fields at Groningen. The EU imports a lot of natural gas. Don't you think it would be better to have a domestic supply? It's better for the environment too. Heck right now, Europe is still burning coal (and worse yet - lignite coal) for electricity. Natural gas would be a huge improvement on that. Note that drilling for oil in the North Sea is a completely different subject, because that's not used for electricity generation, nor is electricity a substitute. EV market share in Europe is still far too low for that to be a conversation for a long time. Your comment is wishful thinking and ignores the current reality of how Europe imports and uses energy. But even if your best case scenario were somehow possible (and it really isn't) there's still money to be made exporting fossil fuels to the developing world. So your assertion "inefficient use of capital to support more fossil exploration" is just flat wrong.
Arnt 7mo ago
They're wrong. A couple of years ago the last of the exploration rigs in Norway left Norwegian waters. Because nothing that could be drilled (and hasn't already) can compete on price with solar etc. Lots of people think someone should do this or that. They don't invest their own money though, they just think someone else should do, etc.
- alvah 7mo ago
  How did 40 wells get drilled in the Norwegian shelf last year, and 42 the year before? You can't just make things up.
- myrmidon 7mo ago
  This appears to directly contradict you, with exploration activity increasing in 2025 (compared to 2024) to 49 wells: https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/exploration/exploration-activity/ https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/exploration/exploration-act...
  - Arnt 7mo ago
    You're right. There must be something more to it. I notice that all the recent finds on sodir.no are close to existing fields, like 5km, or even in existing fields. My friend who told me this works in strange places, far from existing infrastructure. I assume there are different kinds of equipment, and he was talking about his kind, and I understood it to be more general.
    - roryirvine 7mo ago
      If it's anything like the situation in the UK's part of the North Sea then it'll be development of new wells in existing fields rather than entirely new exploration. The majors have effectively abandoned new drilling, leaving a bunch of smaller or independent players - but even they are mostly doing limited appraisal & development operations rather than exploration in the traditional sense. If the Iran situation drags on for more than a year then there'll likely be a temporary increase in activity, but the declining trend will almost certainly continue in the longer term even without further regulatory intervention.
tac19 7mo ago
> It feels like this collective insanity will never end They simply do not believe that the consequences will be as bad as the models predict. And a lot of trust and good will has been expended on social issues, for example the fight to allow transgender people to use whatever bathroom they choose, or to promote childhood reassignment surgery, etc. As a strategic decision, we have taken our eye off the ball, climate change is actually an existential threat, bathroom choice never was. You can argue that we can do two things at once, but there is a cost for dividing our focus and effort; even if it didn't raise the hackles of those already less predisposed to worry about the environment.
- lelanthran 7mo ago
  > And a lot of trust and good will has been expended on social issues, for example the fight to allow transgender people to use whatever bathroom they choose, or to promote childhood reassignment surgery, etc. I think a lot of people miss this: each time you take up the good fight, you spend some trust/goodwill. If you're going to expend the public's goodwill, make sure that there is nothing more important to you than what you are expending it on, or expend less of it to save some trust and goodwill for this.
- BLKNSLVR 7mo ago
  The attention to those fringe issues is brought by those conservatives and lobbyists etc who explicitly want to distract and divide attention from climate change and renewables. It's strongly my opinion that there are far fewer people championing 'wokeness' than there are 'getting outraged by it's pervasiveness'. Mainly for the fact that all media like to seize upon controversy, thus turning minor fringe issues into multiple days in a row of front page headline items. Blech. I've done the same thing... Address climate change, accelerate the shift towards renewables. It's something that actually fucking matters!
  - cogman10 7mo ago
    IMO, "wokeness" is usually a reaction to the reactionary. Being transgender wasn't some sort of political football 10 years ago even though 10 years ago basically everything that was happening WRT trans individuals that made the pearl clutchers clutch pearls was happening then and earlier. The only reason "the left" started caring about trans individuals is because right wing reactionaries decided that it was the source of all the ills of the world. It was a pretty natural "no it's not, you guys are being insane". Especially because as a result to the right losing it's mind over trans individuals, we are seeing all sorts of insane over reactions in the law (In idaho, they are passing a law with a 5 year prison sentence for a trans individual taking a shit in a public bathroom). This is basically how the cycle goes. The right targets a minority, the left defends the minority, the media capitalizes on the "both sides" of it all at the exclusion of talking about things like taxing rich people, funding public services, or addressing climate change. The only time I've seen the reverse was BLM, but it's pretty much the same outcome.
davidw 7mo ago
Well "Europeans on Twitter" are probably the kind of people who look at the owner of the site posting about a homeland for white people and that kind of thing and aren't bothered too much by it.
- nandomrumber 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - myrmidon 7mo ago
    > Countries that can be oil independent definitely should do that. This does not necessarily follow. Doubling down on becoming oil independent might have a massive price because the required investments into extraction and refining industry could also be spent on renewables. Furthermore, we already see renewables outcompeting fossils on price/kWh, so ending up in a really inefficient sunk-cost pit is pretty likely, with all the refinery investments not even paying back their cost because a conflict now does not guarantee that fossil prices/demand will stay high.
  - aaplok 7mo ago
    > It doesn’t matter how blue you die your hair If your intention is honest engagement with people you disagree with, you should refrain from ad-hominem attacks like this. Work with their arguments, not with their tastes or appearances. If your intention is to ridicule them and convince yourself they are not worth discussing with, then ad-hominem is fine, but not engaging at all is better.
    - dzhiurgis 7mo ago
      And why wouldn't you condemn grandparent post first? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47439266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47439266
      - aaplok 7mo ago
        GP reported on an opinion and called it insane. That's not an ad hominem. There is a difference between judging an opinion and judging a person. If the response had been something like "what is crazy is to think the world can just switch off its dependence on petrol suddenly", I would not have reacted either.
esperent 7mo ago
I wish there was somewhere I could talk about world affairs and European affairs with reasonable people, the way I can talk about tech on HN. But anywhere I've tried - Twitter, r/europe or any smaller subs I've found are just filled with reactionaries trying to stir up hate for whatever reasons they have. There are reasonable voices there, people who are capable of actual conversation, but they're just drowned out. I used to comfort myself by thinking they must all be 14 year olds, or Russian bots, or whatever, and some probably are, but now I'm convinced the large majority are just hate filled adults who've gotten stuck on Twitter, Facebook, reddit etc. and literally spend all their time there basically shouting as if they were lunatics on a street corner. I might pass by but I wouldn't stand and listen to an angry man on a street corner, and I definitely wouldn't try and have a conversation nearby (or with) them. So why would I expect that to work on Twitter?
- guyomes 7mo ago
  In this regard, the subreddit r/NeutralPolitics is interesting: it aims at evidence-based discussions on political issues. Threads are somehow in-between HN and Wikipedia. It is definitely interesting to read, and at the same time, participating in a discussion is quite daunting.
  - no-name-here 7mo ago
    I agree with the recommendation. Link: https://reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics https://reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics And its sister sub NeutralNews for news article discussion (same rules): https://reddit.com/r/NeutralNews https://reddit.com/r/NeutralNews Both subs allow users to submit new posts and comments (but spend 2 minutes checking out the rules first).
    - esperent 7mo ago
      Had a browse around and these look good, although very US focused (standard for Reddit though). However, on every thread I checked, about 70% of comments are deleted. That means that the noise is still there, but the mods are having to work nonstop to fight it and no doubt introducing their own bias as they do so. I wish them luck and I'll keep checking these places out but I can't help but feel that by the time you're deleting 70% of all comments (and who knows what percentage of threads), you're fighting a losing battle.
dzhiurgis 7mo ago
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
NoLinkToMe 7mo ago
That's not so strange is it? With respect to Groningen: 1. zero deaths reported ever 2. quakes in Groningen maxed out at 3.6 which is considered light. By comparison NL's worst earthquake wasn't in Groningen (North) but in the south of the country unrelated to the gas, a scale of 6. Again no people died. 3. the 450 billion m3 of gas left is worth 170 billion last month ('normal'), 345 billion at today's prices, and 1.6 trillion at 2022 peak prices. 4. Field used to supply 10% of EU gas, this shifted EU/Worldwide demand to Russian gas, helping them fund the cold-war against the EU and hot-war against EU's ally Ukraine. Governments routinely put a price on a human life. The Dutch government puts a price of about 3-4m on a human life. i.e. if a policy measure costs 500m and is estimated to save 100 lives, it's deemed financially irresponsible because the 5m cost per life is more than the value set by the government. Whereas if a measure costs 100m (e.g. implementing an anti drunk-driving program) and it is estimated to save 500 lives, it's financially OK'd because the cost of 200k to prevent a death is less than the value of a life. The estimates for the Groningen gas field are completely off. Even if you take another €50 billion out of the ground, experts don't expect an earthquake to kill any people. While on the contrary, if you don't, numerous people will die from alternatives (dirty coal and in russian war). Should be move as fast as possible to renewables? Yes. But green advocates severely overestimate how fast we can do that. We have broken renewable records for 10 years in a row, yet we use about 80% of the fossil energy that we used 35 years ago. We didn't replace Groningen with renewables, we replaced it with Norwegian gas and US LNG imports, and Russia picked up the slack elsewhere because we dropped Dutch supply. So yes in the long-term renewables will make Groningen unnecessary, in the short-term we continue to use gas and keeping Groningen open longer seems to be supported by an objective analysis. Of course politics aren't just objective, they're emotional, which is why Groningen was closed, not because it was the best idea.

by davedx 7mo ago

watwut 7mo ago

The Russian threat in the short term is very real and this is making Russia stronger. And the economic threat to Europe in the super short term is bigger then the one to America ... and will help internal fascist movements that are very much already empowered there (and sponsored and supported by BOTH Russia and America despite being very much homegrown). So, like, both I guess.

layer8 7mo ago

> It feels like this collective insanity will never end You’re referring to Twitter, right? ;)

b00ty4breakfast 7mo ago

twitter is a self-selected group these days, even assuming these are real people and not some kind of propaganda op. It's like going on stormfront and wondering why there's so many white nationalists on the internet.

devilbunny 7mo ago

> we need to resume drilling in the North Sea and Groningen Well, there's also the simple reality that the US doesn't actually need fossil fuels from the Middle East or Russia in the same way Europe does. It affects prices here, obviously, and an increase in energy prices can do severe damage to the economy, but it's not a potentially existential crisis in the same way.

darth_avocado 7mo ago
Funny part about oil is that it’s in everything. US is energy independent, but its supply chain is not. AI chips, for example, which prop up the entire economy need oil for the various materials needed to produce it. The other funny part about oil is that it has an inelastic demand. A 20% reduction in global supply doesn’t mean a 20% increase in prices. It means increase in prices until 20% demand collapses (which could theoretically mean orders of magnitude of increase in pricing). Which means expensive fertilizers, medicines and pretty every other bare necessity. With these two facts, pretty much every country needs the oil from the Middle East.
- devilbunny 7mo ago
  Oh, I know, but "we are going to freeze to death in a month" is a far stronger motivator than "the economy is going to go into a tailspin".

bpodgursky 7mo ago

Yes, this is correct, Europe energy policy is catastrophically behind and needs to pursue all paths simultaneously, because the future is very murky, Europe needs a LOT of power, and it's not clear which will work best: - Continue building out solar + battery storage - Resume drilling in domestic accessible offshore locations safe from trade disruptions - Recommission and build new nuclear plants - Build LNG import terminals to eliminate dependence on Russian gas

slashdev 7mo ago

I think Europe should resume drilling in the North Sea and Groningen if they have exploitable reserves there. Europe depends on energy imports and that won't change in our lifetimes (I'm in my early forties, so at least in my lifetime.) They should take advantage of whatever resources they have. I'm guessing you think otherwise? Why? Do you think the energy transition will be faster? What makes you think that?

toomuchtodo 7mo ago
It would be an inefficient use of capital to support more fossil exploration considering the deployment rates and cost decline curves of renewables and storage. Ember Energy: European electricity prices and costs - https://ember-energy.org/data/european-electricity-prices-and-costs/ https://ember-energy.org/data/european-electricity-prices-an... (updated daily) Ember Energy: Wind and solar generated more power than fossil fuels in the EU for the first time in 2025 - https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/wind-and-solar-generated-more-power-than-fossil-fuels-in-the-eu-for-the-first-time-in-2025/ https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/wind-and-solar-gener... - January 22nd, 2026 Bloomberg: How Europe Ditched Russian Fossil Fuels With Spectacular Speed - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/ukraine-news-europe-ditches-russia-fossil-fuels-with-surprising-speed https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/ukraine-n... | https://archive.today/yxGp2 https://archive.today/yxGp2 - February 21st, 2023 > But what the past year has shown is that it’s possible to go harder and faster in deploying solar panels and batteries, reducing energy use, and permanently swapping out entrenched sources of fossil fuel. Solar installations across Europe increased by a record 40-gigawatts last year, up 35% compared with 2021, just shy of the most optimistic scenario from researchers at BloombergNEF. That jump was driven primarily by consumers who saw cheap solar panels as a way to cut their own energy bills. It essentially pushed the solar rollout ahead by a few years, hitting a level that will be sustained by EU policies. (Europe has enough wind potential to power the world, their energy constraints are deployment rate of renewables, battery storage, and transmission)
- slashdev 7mo ago
  You're talking about electricity, so I assume your answer is directed to the natural gas fields at Groningen. The EU imports a lot of natural gas. Don't you think it would be better to have a domestic supply? It's better for the environment too. Heck right now, Europe is still burning coal (and worse yet - lignite coal) for electricity. Natural gas would be a huge improvement on that. Note that drilling for oil in the North Sea is a completely different subject, because that's not used for electricity generation, nor is electricity a substitute. EV market share in Europe is still far too low for that to be a conversation for a long time. Your comment is wishful thinking and ignores the current reality of how Europe imports and uses energy. But even if your best case scenario were somehow possible (and it really isn't) there's still money to be made exporting fossil fuels to the developing world. So your assertion "inefficient use of capital to support more fossil exploration" is just flat wrong.

Arnt 7mo ago

They're wrong. A couple of years ago the last of the exploration rigs in Norway left Norwegian waters. Because nothing that could be drilled (and hasn't already) can compete on price with solar etc. Lots of people think someone should do this or that. They don't invest their own money though, they just think someone else should do, etc.

alvah 7mo ago
How did 40 wells get drilled in the Norwegian shelf last year, and 42 the year before? You can't just make things up.
myrmidon 7mo ago
This appears to directly contradict you, with exploration activity increasing in 2025 (compared to 2024) to 49 wells: https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/exploration/exploration-activity/ https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/exploration/exploration-act...
- Arnt 7mo ago
  You're right. There must be something more to it. I notice that all the recent finds on sodir.no are close to existing fields, like 5km, or even in existing fields. My friend who told me this works in strange places, far from existing infrastructure. I assume there are different kinds of equipment, and he was talking about his kind, and I understood it to be more general.
  - roryirvine 7mo ago
    If it's anything like the situation in the UK's part of the North Sea then it'll be development of new wells in existing fields rather than entirely new exploration. The majors have effectively abandoned new drilling, leaving a bunch of smaller or independent players - but even they are mostly doing limited appraisal & development operations rather than exploration in the traditional sense. If the Iran situation drags on for more than a year then there'll likely be a temporary increase in activity, but the declining trend will almost certainly continue in the longer term even without further regulatory intervention.

tac19 7mo ago

> It feels like this collective insanity will never end They simply do not believe that the consequences will be as bad as the models predict. And a lot of trust and good will has been expended on social issues, for example the fight to allow transgender people to use whatever bathroom they choose, or to promote childhood reassignment surgery, etc. As a strategic decision, we have taken our eye off the ball, climate change is actually an existential threat, bathroom choice never was. You can argue that we can do two things at once, but there is a cost for dividing our focus and effort; even if it didn't raise the hackles of those already less predisposed to worry about the environment.

lelanthran 7mo ago
> And a lot of trust and good will has been expended on social issues, for example the fight to allow transgender people to use whatever bathroom they choose, or to promote childhood reassignment surgery, etc. I think a lot of people miss this: each time you take up the good fight, you spend some trust/goodwill. If you're going to expend the public's goodwill, make sure that there is nothing more important to you than what you are expending it on, or expend less of it to save some trust and goodwill for this.
BLKNSLVR 7mo ago
The attention to those fringe issues is brought by those conservatives and lobbyists etc who explicitly want to distract and divide attention from climate change and renewables. It's strongly my opinion that there are far fewer people championing 'wokeness' than there are 'getting outraged by it's pervasiveness'. Mainly for the fact that all media like to seize upon controversy, thus turning minor fringe issues into multiple days in a row of front page headline items. Blech. I've done the same thing... Address climate change, accelerate the shift towards renewables. It's something that actually fucking matters!
- cogman10 7mo ago
  IMO, "wokeness" is usually a reaction to the reactionary. Being transgender wasn't some sort of political football 10 years ago even though 10 years ago basically everything that was happening WRT trans individuals that made the pearl clutchers clutch pearls was happening then and earlier. The only reason "the left" started caring about trans individuals is because right wing reactionaries decided that it was the source of all the ills of the world. It was a pretty natural "no it's not, you guys are being insane". Especially because as a result to the right losing it's mind over trans individuals, we are seeing all sorts of insane over reactions in the law (In idaho, they are passing a law with a 5 year prison sentence for a trans individual taking a shit in a public bathroom). This is basically how the cycle goes. The right targets a minority, the left defends the minority, the media capitalizes on the "both sides" of it all at the exclusion of talking about things like taxing rich people, funding public services, or addressing climate change. The only time I've seen the reverse was BLM, but it's pretty much the same outcome.

davidw 7mo ago

Well "Europeans on Twitter" are probably the kind of people who look at the owner of the site posting about a homeland for white people and that kind of thing and aren't bothered too much by it.

nandomrumber 7mo ago
[flagged]
- myrmidon 7mo ago
  > Countries that can be oil independent definitely should do that. This does not necessarily follow. Doubling down on becoming oil independent might have a massive price because the required investments into extraction and refining industry could also be spent on renewables. Furthermore, we already see renewables outcompeting fossils on price/kWh, so ending up in a really inefficient sunk-cost pit is pretty likely, with all the refinery investments not even paying back their cost because a conflict now does not guarantee that fossil prices/demand will stay high.
- aaplok 7mo ago
  > It doesn’t matter how blue you die your hair If your intention is honest engagement with people you disagree with, you should refrain from ad-hominem attacks like this. Work with their arguments, not with their tastes or appearances. If your intention is to ridicule them and convince yourself they are not worth discussing with, then ad-hominem is fine, but not engaging at all is better.
  - dzhiurgis 7mo ago
    And why wouldn't you condemn grandparent post first? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47439266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47439266
    - aaplok 7mo ago
      GP reported on an opinion and called it insane. That's not an ad hominem. There is a difference between judging an opinion and judging a person. If the response had been something like "what is crazy is to think the world can just switch off its dependence on petrol suddenly", I would not have reacted either.

esperent 7mo ago

I wish there was somewhere I could talk about world affairs and European affairs with reasonable people, the way I can talk about tech on HN. But anywhere I've tried - Twitter, r/europe or any smaller subs I've found are just filled with reactionaries trying to stir up hate for whatever reasons they have. There are reasonable voices there, people who are capable of actual conversation, but they're just drowned out. I used to comfort myself by thinking they must all be 14 year olds, or Russian bots, or whatever, and some probably are, but now I'm convinced the large majority are just hate filled adults who've gotten stuck on Twitter, Facebook, reddit etc. and literally spend all their time there basically shouting as if they were lunatics on a street corner. I might pass by but I wouldn't stand and listen to an angry man on a street corner, and I definitely wouldn't try and have a conversation nearby (or with) them. So why would I expect that to work on Twitter?

guyomes 7mo ago
In this regard, the subreddit r/NeutralPolitics is interesting: it aims at evidence-based discussions on political issues. Threads are somehow in-between HN and Wikipedia. It is definitely interesting to read, and at the same time, participating in a discussion is quite daunting.
- no-name-here 7mo ago
  I agree with the recommendation. Link: https://reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics https://reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics And its sister sub NeutralNews for news article discussion (same rules): https://reddit.com/r/NeutralNews https://reddit.com/r/NeutralNews Both subs allow users to submit new posts and comments (but spend 2 minutes checking out the rules first).
  - esperent 7mo ago
    Had a browse around and these look good, although very US focused (standard for Reddit though). However, on every thread I checked, about 70% of comments are deleted. That means that the noise is still there, but the mods are having to work nonstop to fight it and no doubt introducing their own bias as they do so. I wish them luck and I'll keep checking these places out but I can't help but feel that by the time you're deleting 70% of all comments (and who knows what percentage of threads), you're fighting a losing battle.

dzhiurgis 7mo ago

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

NoLinkToMe 7mo ago

That's not so strange is it? With respect to Groningen: 1. zero deaths reported ever 2. quakes in Groningen maxed out at 3.6 which is considered light. By comparison NL's worst earthquake wasn't in Groningen (North) but in the south of the country unrelated to the gas, a scale of 6. Again no people died. 3. the 450 billion m3 of gas left is worth 170 billion last month ('normal'), 345 billion at today's prices, and 1.6 trillion at 2022 peak prices. 4. Field used to supply 10% of EU gas, this shifted EU/Worldwide demand to Russian gas, helping them fund the cold-war against the EU and hot-war against EU's ally Ukraine. Governments routinely put a price on a human life. The Dutch government puts a price of about 3-4m on a human life. i.e. if a policy measure costs 500m and is estimated to save 100 lives, it's deemed financially irresponsible because the 5m cost per life is more than the value set by the government. Whereas if a measure costs 100m (e.g. implementing an anti drunk-driving program) and it is estimated to save 500 lives, it's financially OK'd because the cost of 200k to prevent a death is less than the value of a life. The estimates for the Groningen gas field are completely off. Even if you take another €50 billion out of the ground, experts don't expect an earthquake to kill any people. While on the contrary, if you don't, numerous people will die from alternatives (dirty coal and in russian war). Should be move as fast as possible to renewables? Yes. But green advocates severely overestimate how fast we can do that. We have broken renewable records for 10 years in a row, yet we use about 80% of the fossil energy that we used 35 years ago. We didn't replace Groningen with renewables, we replaced it with Norwegian gas and US LNG imports, and Russia picked up the slack elsewhere because we dropped Dutch supply. So yes in the long-term renewables will make Groningen unnecessary, in the short-term we continue to use gas and keeping Groningen open longer seems to be supported by an objective analysis. Of course politics aren't just objective, they're emotional, which is why Groningen was closed, not because it was the best idea.