I only see here lots of words and no numbers that would actually provide criticism of my plan. Even though I left an opening with the mention of strategic reserves !
What numbers you have and what numbers you want? I imaging you did know that most cars, trucks, ships, airplanes, many industries run on oil. Cheap oil is obviously a nice thing to have also to build the Green New Deal. I imaging you have seen the food provisioning issues. The skyrocketing prices sold as "caused by the war" but skyrocketed before the war and caused by financial speculation not by the evil Russian bear and so on.
What's your plan? Produce fertilizers without gas + without animals since the Green New deal dislike meat? Produce the electric revolution without energy? BTW strategic reserves are for emergencies, using them without a plan to replenish them means consume anything and remain without anything and no plan.
I've built my new house few years ago, well insulated, with p.v. etc I do not own EVs because so far a far from being a good idea but when neoliberals will push, because they'll do, gasoline to 4 euros/liter than an EV will be needed and I can recharge it, but industries can't and I do not produce such systems in my garage. While vast majority of population can't even afford a new home.
When I posted my first comment, numbers in the link, I expected at least some of the answers to be in the vein of "lol no, we've been caught with our pants down, see this [source], we would have horrible shortages of X Y months before even the next winter", or maybe "ok, looks like we'll make it up to Z date[source], but that's quite the risk to take !"
But nope, it's mostly been what looks like posturing about how I'm in denial of how the economy needs energy to run or something, even though I've explicitly based my first post on those considerations ! Really disappointed about HN here... (Jancovici, anyone ?)
Numbers in modern managerial-driven society are consider The Absolute Truth while reality is "just a defective instance of our model", they are not. You can't have real tangible numbers, just generic approximations that might be more or less true.
Climate change is evidently an emergency and evidently the Green New Deal public answers are not answers, their green color is dollar green not spring-grass ones. Actual shortage are probably 30% due to climate change, the rest due to artificial speculations and maneuvers to push "World Government" [1] green deal/great reset. But try to analyze it: from what they published so far if you want a realistic scenario you need to kill around 4 billion of humans, pushing too many more in extreme poverty. Did you really want numbers?
> Numbers in modern managerial-driven society are consider The Absolute Truth while reality is "just a defective instance of our model", they are not. You can't have real tangible numbers, just generic approximations that might be more or less true.
Yet again, why do you assume that I'm guilty of this ? I didn't ask for precise numbers, and you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
I'm talking about the (new) Russian invasion of Ukraine being an emergency.
(And the issues of overpopulation/pollution/depletion of natural resources aren't new - King Hubbert predicted in 1956 that US oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970 - and it did in 1970 - and it's not like he pulled those numbers out of his ass, but he based them on known numbers about production rates and discovery trends. And these topics were discussed quite extensively in the 70's, before we decided that we didn't care about the future - if anything, a forced reduction of EU reliance on hydrocarbons is also a good way to finally prepare us to the inevitable shortages that we're going to face anyway in the next decades.)
It's not something to be guilty :-) it's just a common way of thinking. Like when you read "that's X temperature outside" thinking that's a real temperature not a local and punctual measure witch give some insight but just at a short distance it can be really different.
Ukrainian war for instance is an emergency in certain terms:
- first for the people living there, on both sides, and that's more a tragedy than an emergency but not a new tragedy, it's start formally in 2013-14;
- secondly for countries that depend on Ukrainian and Russian's grains and poultry like Turkey, Middle-est in general, large part of Africa etc, that's new, but that's not a thing can be solved without ANNIHILATING NATO witch means that the EU en-mass say: we are out, we are interesting in entering CSTO and EAEU as partners, something not going to happen seen actual élites and mean population;
- an emergency because it's the first start of WWIII, witch is a tragedy by itself, and a special one since we have nukes and some in the NATO area think they can be used as offensive means not just as a last resort suicide since the '60s. Again the sole way to stop that is erasing neoliberals, not something going to happen;
- climate change is another tragedy, but not something can be changes by us in little time, we can only adapt, and Green New Deal is not really a way to adapt, it's just a way to replicate a Chinese society in the west, some tech aspects are good of course, but they can't work on scale and more important they can't work if not managed by States NOT by public-private criminal associations, pardon, partnerships, another things that can't be politically fixed soon;
- resources are a big issue that will bring all to war, as always, again not something solvable.
So what? So the sole rational choice I see, seen the mean population, is try to protect ourselves individually, hoping the new "20+years nazi-fasists regimes at war" will not last more than the old ones and that at the end when enough population revolt we still have means not only to revolt but to live correcting the errors of WWII revolts witch means annihilating not just the public puppets but the puppet masters.
Oh, BTW there is NO EU preparation to reduce the reliance on fossils, there is just a push toward impoverishing again and destroying again Europe switching from Russian sold resources to USA sold ones. If you really read the actual state of thing and you try very simple mental calculus that's the sole conclusion you can draw. Even if we start to put all industrial power in p.v. and eolic now we can't really reduce reliance on fossils for decades. We can't really run on p.v. or eolic for industry so without nuclear only fossils remain. As they remain for aviation. The logic path for EU is keeping buying Russian fossils (as it happen) but with a public trial and lifetime sentences to those in EU Energy and EU Commission who choose to transform an inter-State public market in a financial one in Holland, with Dutch TTf etc. clearly saying that now energy sector is back to the public and all managers and politicians involved will discover how hard Democratic justice can be. In the practical side pushing renewables, relocalization, etc BUT nothing done by the private under public-private partnerships. And pushing fusion research with ONLY public bodies involved.
I can't really know how terrible is the actual situations but in any case the sole hope for humans is changing capitalism, not in the Schwab-ian way but in a classic European democratic way, with so hard actions against neoliberals that no one for a century will even though a night to imitate them again.
