A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
The notion that gas sales will, or should, ever recover is cancerous and omnicidal. We should've been permanently winding down fossil fuel sales quite a while ago.
Frankly, destroying as much fossil fuel infrastructure as possible is a good thing, and anybody trying to rebuild it is an enemy of humanity.
destroying as much fossil fuel infrastructure as possible is a good thing
Maybe not when doing so would release as much methane as a small country.
Oh those poor fellows.
So. Anyway... BOMB THEM HARDER!
or sanction them harder. Whatever.
Putin's war is bad for business. Maybe the oligarchs should do something about it.
Won't somebody think of the fossil fuel industry!
Well whose fault is that? Seriously, no one to blame but themselves, I hope they never recover tbh.
I Hope not, for the environment. Just three weeks before the invasion Europe declared that gas can be considered green energy because the Russian one was cheap and abundant. Putin the environmental conscious dictator immediately stepped in and reminded the EU that Russian gas is not cheap nor abundant.
Thanks to his big push now the EU is increased the share of renewable energy. Once built, we don't need gas anymore. And hopefully developing countries will leapfrog
I don't understand his goal, honestly. If he "wins" he gets a barren land acquired for huge human and monetary cost. Has to pay to rebuild everything and still sanctioned forever by the west, with limited trades. If he "loses" (example chokes, dies tonight and replaced by a decent human being) then they have to pay a lot in reparation costs and Russia would need decades to regain the trust status they had pre-war. It's a lose-lose situation
At this point Putin's goal is pure personal survival. He needs to not lose the war because that would make him look weak, which is very dangerous for a dictator. To keep himself alive and in power he is willing to throw any amount of Russian soldiers into the meat grinder.
My understanding is Ukraine is a large grain producer and exporter. So I wouldn't say the land is very barren. There's definite upsides, but you and I would probably agree its going to be a huge cost for Russia.
yes but with the immense amount on money that they literally blew in ukraine + all the money they're losing with sanctions they could have done some geoengineering megaproject to transform a similarly sized amount of land already in their possession into grain farms
Ukraine is a large grain producer and exporter. So I wouldn't say the land is very barren.
That's it. He wants the farmland, doesn't care who used to live there nor who has to farm the minefields after. They're just the subjugated 'others' like before.
sAnCtiOnS doN’T wOrK!
And then they will tell you that sanctions don't work and we should stop them 😂
"sales lost due to Putin being an incompetent genocidal maniac"
Yet another sign of the Russian economy booming and being totally unaffected by the sanctions....eh...
Get fukt
10 years, so far
“Sorry guys, we have to charge double for the next 10 years”
They already have to sell it at half price due to sanctions 😂
200% tax
I cannot make up something to be less sympathetic about.
Eh, no worries. 20 years will pass before they know it.
Edit: buuuuut the market for petroleum products is gonna keep on shrinking in the long term from here on out
gee whatever you do don't go out of business or anything
Sad thing bout that is the ones fight the war will be left unharmed with tons of money and the russian people, who suffered for years, still suffering will suffer for (atleast) another decade.
This is good. The only way it could be better is if it takes twenty or more years. How could anyone who has watched russia's fall care?
Is this a surprise? Unlike oil, gas is extremely hard to transport. China's playing hard to get with PoS 2 because the renewable transition is hitting much faster than anticipated (China is hitting their fossil fuels consumption and emissions targets years in advance)... And China doesn't see natural gas outside of PoS 1 and domestic production as a significant part of the energy mix in the future. They skipped the whole coal -> natural gas step.
Meanwhile, crossing the multiple borders to get to India would be a rather complex undertaking, and Nordstream got blown up so European revenues will be suppressed indefinitely even if the war ends (convenient, that).
Given no export target, most natural gas will have to be flared off in the process of oil production... Bad for the environment, but unavoidable given the lack of Nordstream.
Russian oil revenues are high, though, and the domestic surplus of energy has given Russian industry a kick in the butt, so the real losers in this are Germany and Europe, which have seen their industrial bases decimated.
China is hitting their fossil fuels consumption and emissions targets years in advance
Really? Is the source the same people whose Coronavirus estimates increased suspiciously geometrical rather than exponential?
According to the IEA, China's coal demand will peak in 2024.
Sinopec only claims coal peaking in 2025.
Sinopec also claims peak oil happened in 2023.
Moreover, that peak gasoline has already passed due to the EV transition.
According to CREA, China's emissions are set to fall in 2024.
The Washington Post corroborated this general message, even if it did not give an exact date.
Even intuitively, this makes sense: emissions growth are tied to economic growth (particularly in construction), so if the construction sector is in structural decline then emissions should decline with it. If the economy is not growing, then emissions should fall. If the mix of primary energy sources pivots towards renewables, emissions should fall.
This is entirely independent from whether the capacity exists: you can study this entirely from the demand-side because everyone knows renewables are the most cost-effective option on the supply-side.
Is that a surprise? Coronavirus cases around the world were limited by reporting capability. In the US, many cases were left entirely unreported because of political reasons.
China hit the peak early and only reported cases that could be tested and verified as being COVID. Thus, geometric scaling in an exponential world.
That, or China's extreme lockdowns actually did something to transmission behaviours by tuning down R0. You decide.
My mistake. They weren't supposed to be estimates, they were supposed to be actual figures, and rather than say "we haven't collected enough data" or "we don't want to give out the actual data" the decision was made to use an outdated extrapolation measure and which was then reported as fact, or if you prefer, allowed to be interpreted as fact.
That's why I was sceptical.
But another comment suggests that China might actually be struggling, and it's that which is the cause of the downturn in usage.
I'd rather it wasn't that. Recessions suck and it's the wrong people (regular citizens) who suffer.
China was always clear about how they collected their data (admittedly, moreso to the Chinese-speaking audience where they actually described this). Again, the limitations of lack of testing were very pronounced around the world at the start of the pandemic and sticking to verified cases was the only actual data available. R0 was still an open question: how would you have wanted an estimate to be made?