Interesting and persuasive argument. But I think you exaggerate the impact of the war on climate. This is an acute phenomenon, not a century-spanning process.
Fascinating--I appreciate your perspective and with my limited but somewhat informed knowledge, tend to agree.
As long as we're talking about cumulative effects, do you suppose there's any relationship to the meeting trump had before the election with oil and gas executives--imploring them to fund his campaign--and the war he has started with Iran?
This Boomer has learned to not trust the promised release dates of classified documents. Besides, being nearly 120 years old at that time, I am unlikely to be able to read books or hear audiorecordings. (But I do have 50 years to learn Braille, so maybe I'll go that route).
Fascinating, somewhat counterintuitive take. The shale part makes sense, shifting the balance of potential costs and risks somewhat. But I have a hard time believing the folks making these decisions in the current administration (can't quite manage to call them strategists) were thinking along these second-order, around-the-corner lines. I think the frame was more immediate and completely other. As for the unintended third-order potential climate impact you mention in connection with the PRC's strategic coal reserves, presumably to these folks this would be a matter of complete indifference.
Another thing to throw into the equation is that there are offshore, commercialized, natural gas fields in the Eastern Mediterranean in particular off the coasts of Cyprus and Israel.
This is a very interesting connection that I had not considered. There are a lot of cause and effects related to international trade and national and globalist strategies. Just consider the US invention and development of computing and networking technology. For example, it was the UK and US that first invented drones. The US invented the GPS system that drones rely on. This technology is exploited by Iran in its feeble attempts to prevent the US and Israel from taking out its terrorist regime.
Strategisches Denken und wirtschaftliche Vorteilsname töten. Oder in diesem Fall besser: morden. Es wäre angemessen über diesen Sachverhalt nicht zu referieren wie ein Buchhalter, sondern auch die Immoralität des Handelns in den Blick zu nehmen. Mord ist und bleibt ein Verbrechen, gleichgültig ob er von einem staatlichen Akteur oder einem menschlichen Individuum verübt wird. Ich vermisse bei dem klugen Autor die notwendige menschliche Reife, die seinem Urteil Recht geben könnten.
The author is not arguing for a course of action so much as he is describing the situation as it has evolved over the past 50 years. How can you question his morality for merely describing what he sees?
Ob die Arbeit eines Buchhalters mit moralischen Maßstäben bewertet werden kann, ist eine interessante Frage. Seit den großen Völkermorden des 20. Jahrhunderts ist sie allerdings gültig beantwortet. Und im Falle einer kritischen Betrachtung von Kriegen ist kein Urteil frei von moralischen Implikationen. Auf Sachverhalte reduzierte Beschreibungen von Rechtsverletzungen ohne Wertung sind mir nur schwer erträglich. Deshalb mein harsches Urteil.
Thanks for explaining your position. Though I disagree with you, your stance is consistent and worthy of respect. Thanks for giving me another perspective to ponder.
Interesting and persuasive argument. But I think you exaggerate the impact of the war on climate. This is an acute phenomenon, not a century-spanning process.
Exactly 👍 it’s a tactic not a strategy 😎
Fascinating--I appreciate your perspective and with my limited but somewhat informed knowledge, tend to agree.
As long as we're talking about cumulative effects, do you suppose there's any relationship to the meeting trump had before the election with oil and gas executives--imploring them to fund his campaign--and the war he has started with Iran?
Suspect we’ll learn the answer to this question in 2076 when the files are declassified…
This Boomer has learned to not trust the promised release dates of classified documents. Besides, being nearly 120 years old at that time, I am unlikely to be able to read books or hear audiorecordings. (But I do have 50 years to learn Braille, so maybe I'll go that route).
Fascinating, somewhat counterintuitive take. The shale part makes sense, shifting the balance of potential costs and risks somewhat. But I have a hard time believing the folks making these decisions in the current administration (can't quite manage to call them strategists) were thinking along these second-order, around-the-corner lines. I think the frame was more immediate and completely other. As for the unintended third-order potential climate impact you mention in connection with the PRC's strategic coal reserves, presumably to these folks this would be a matter of complete indifference.
The Chinese did one more thing. They moved aggressively to electric vehicles, which can use these coal fired plants for fuel.
Another thing to throw into the equation is that there are offshore, commercialized, natural gas fields in the Eastern Mediterranean in particular off the coasts of Cyprus and Israel.
So with George P. Mitchell dead for over ten years, on whom will the mullahs issue the fatwa for fracking?
The economics of coal are increasingly marginal. But it is tough to kill off like an old coal miner…
This is a very interesting connection that I had not considered. There are a lot of cause and effects related to international trade and national and globalist strategies. Just consider the US invention and development of computing and networking technology. For example, it was the UK and US that first invented drones. The US invented the GPS system that drones rely on. This technology is exploited by Iran in its feeble attempts to prevent the US and Israel from taking out its terrorist regime.
Strategisches Denken und wirtschaftliche Vorteilsname töten. Oder in diesem Fall besser: morden. Es wäre angemessen über diesen Sachverhalt nicht zu referieren wie ein Buchhalter, sondern auch die Immoralität des Handelns in den Blick zu nehmen. Mord ist und bleibt ein Verbrechen, gleichgültig ob er von einem staatlichen Akteur oder einem menschlichen Individuum verübt wird. Ich vermisse bei dem klugen Autor die notwendige menschliche Reife, die seinem Urteil Recht geben könnten.
The author is not arguing for a course of action so much as he is describing the situation as it has evolved over the past 50 years. How can you question his morality for merely describing what he sees?
Ob die Arbeit eines Buchhalters mit moralischen Maßstäben bewertet werden kann, ist eine interessante Frage. Seit den großen Völkermorden des 20. Jahrhunderts ist sie allerdings gültig beantwortet. Und im Falle einer kritischen Betrachtung von Kriegen ist kein Urteil frei von moralischen Implikationen. Auf Sachverhalte reduzierte Beschreibungen von Rechtsverletzungen ohne Wertung sind mir nur schwer erträglich. Deshalb mein harsches Urteil.
Thanks for explaining your position. Though I disagree with you, your stance is consistent and worthy of respect. Thanks for giving me another perspective to ponder.