Essay by Eric Worrall
According to the IEA, consumers are unfairly blaming green policies for driving up prices, when the truth is it’s all Russia’s fault.
Strategies for Affordable and Fair Clean Energy Transitions
INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY
The last few years have been tough for many energy consumers around the world, with high energy prices putting a lot of pressure on the cost of living. The effects have been most severe for low-income countries and households. This has rightly put issues of affordability and fairness at the centre of the energy debate.
For an honest assessment of the situation, we need to be clear about where these pressures on the cost of living have come from. The global energy crisis that escalated in early 2022 was not caused by clean energy. Since the early days of the crisis, I have been speaking regularly with energy policy makers from around the world. None of them have complained of relying too much on clean energy. On the contrary, they wish they had more, because the result of investing in these technologies today is a more affordable energy system for consumers tomorrow – as well as less severe impacts from climate change, major improvements in air quality and greater energy security.
When people misleadingly blame clean energy and climate policies for the recent spikes in energy prices, they are, intentionally or not, moving the spotlight away from the main cause – the major cuts that Russia made to natural gas supply.
That said, there is still an important debate to be had about affordability and fairness in clean energy transitions – notably in terms of how the costs and benefits will be shared. And that is why we have produced this important new analysis. We wanted to provide an evidence base and actionable advice for policy makers as they consider their strategies for the future. A key risk is that poorer households, communities and countries are excluded from the new clean energy economy that is emerging around the world because they cannot pay the upfront costs of the switch to a safer and more sustainable energy system. As a result, they remain vulnerable to swings in fuel prices, which already disproportionately affect their budgets and well-being compared with their wealthier counterparts.
Well-designed policies are essential to addressing this. This special report provides examples – from across advanced, emerging and developing economies – on ways to make clean energy technologies more accessible to all. This is an important and growing area of work for the International Energy Agency (IEA), as demonstrated by our longstanding work on energy access globally and, more recently, by our Global Summit on People-Centred Clean Energy Transitions in April 2024 and our Summit on Clean Cooking in Africa in May 2024, which mobilised USD 2.2 billion in new announcements from governments and private sources to increase clean cooking access in Africa. Both summits were firsts of their kind – but they won’t be the last as we continue to address these critical issues with stakeholders from around the world and work with them to drive progress.
As we consider the energy technology pathways available for communities and countries worldwide, it is essential to keep in mind that many of the clean and efficient choices are also the most cost-effective ones – typically because they require much lower day-to-day spending on fuels to operate. Putting the world on track to reach net zero emissions by 2050 requires additional investment but also reduces the operating costs of the global energy system by more than half over the next decade compared with a trajectory based on today’s policy settings, this special report shows.
Pursuing such a path has considerable implications for economies across the globe, notably for fuel importers and exporters. This is why we have produced this special report to help all countries understand the costs, benefits, opportunities and challenges of moving rapidly towards a cleaner and more affordable energy system – and to offer strategies for doing so. I would like to thank the team of IEA colleagues who worked on this first-of-its-kind analysis, including lead authors Peter Zeniewski and Siddharth Singh, under the expert guidance of Chief Energy Economist Tim Gould. I’m also grateful to Brian Motherway and Jane Cohen, who lead the IEA’s work on inclusive energy transitions, for their valuable contributions. I’m confident that this report will provide an important foundation for productive and evidence- based discussions on ensuring that clean energy transitions benefit as many people as possible, and especially the poorest and most vulnerable.
Source: https://www.iea.org/reports/strategies-for-affordable-and-fair-clean-energy-transitions
Claiming clean energy policy is not responsible for the current European energy price crisis is absurd.
Putin might have made the decision to cut energy supplies to Europe. But the risk of Putin acting in a hostile manner was only a surprise to European greens.
The following is President Trump in 2018 warning Germany it was delivering its energy security into the hands of a hostile foreign power. The German diplomats watching Trump’s speech laughed in Trump’s face, showed utter contempt for the President of the United States.
If Trump’s warning wasn’t enough, the following (with subtitles) is part of a widely circulated video which was broadcast on Russian TV in 2010, of President Putin laughing at how Europe’s energy policy stupidity and rejection of nuclear was delivering total European reliance on Russian energy supplies.
Putin starting a war should also not have been a surprise. Back in 2005 and probably earlier, President Putin was describing the collapse of the Soviet Union as a “geopolitical tragedy”, something he would like to rectify.
The inescapable truth is the 2022 European energy price crisis was entirely the fault of European politicians and their ruinous obsession with renewable energy, which left Europe vulnerable to a foreign power which made no secret of its hostility and geopolitical ambitions.
Europe could easily have buffered itself against external supply shocks by encouraging domestic fossil fuel resource development, or going nuclear. They did neither, instead frittering capital on useless renewables, which when tested by the Russian gas embargo proved hopelessly inadequate for the task of maintaining European energy security.
All attempts to deny this unequivocal European failure to apply basic common sense to a crisis which was no surprise to anyone with a brain deserve our derision and contempt.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Now that’s a lie if there ever was one.
Who do these jokers think they are kidding?
Can’t blame Putin. He’s simply laughing all the way to the bank at the EU policies of restricting reliable energy sources in favor of ruinable part time unreliables. He’s more than happy to sell energy to the EU prophets at a tidy profit. What’s the EU gonna do…allow fracking???
It’s becoming more apparent who the dummies are.
If Russia is guilty for cutting supply then is Biden not also guilty for cutting supply? Keystone cancelled, drilling on federal lands curtailed, leases on off shore drilling dragged out with paperwork. Those all cut supply too.
Nordstream blow-up ?
Russia really errored when they blew up their own natural gas pipeline. That’s sarcasm, btw.
“errored”????
Is “error” now in the dictionary as a verb?
Miriam Webster are stll regarding ‘error’ as a noun and not as a verb. Same with the Cambridge University Dictionary.
Erred is the verb.
Nordstream wasn’t carrying any fuel when it was blown up.
The pipeline wasn’t blown up, a small hole was blown into it.
When Russia decides it’s worth it, the repair to the pipeline will be quick and cheap.
Russia has gotten way more in propaganda value than any repairs will cost.
The only people who benefit from the attack on the pipeline is the Russians.
I think it’ll be a very long time before that pipeline will be carrying gas from Russia to the EU. Decades, unless the current Russian regime collapses.
Yes indeed a long time! Russia redesigned to ship this gas to China. Re “energy price hikes” EU members, having learned late in the year that their “cheap” energy doesn’t work without full despatchable fossil fuel backup (having shut down nuclear). They first destroyed the nat gas industry by denying access to resources and their intention to shut them down, tax the hell out of them, regulate them out of business… Then, in fear of pitchforks and torches from citizens suffering a terrible winter, they ran all over the globe signing up for gas at record high spot price.
Actually, Putin did a big favor for EU by invading. It gave the EU the opportunity to use Putin as a scapegoat for the abysmal failure of their trillions of dollars of unworkable renewables. Their zeal and joy for the war and the distraction from their massive electricity and heating fuel stupidity is palpable. Thinking people foresaw this when the war started. The smile on EU leader faces, which hadn’t been seen for a decade is an essay on this deliverance.
And that collapse will not happen, because China needs to have Russia as an highly functional ally.
Both are founding members of BRICS, which now has 11 members with more than 20 pending applications
One line to China is already operating. The “loop” line is under construction, Russia stays the same, China wins, and Europe loses.
We don’t want a revival of the Soviet Empire. It’s going to be a long struggle.
Nordstream 1 was out of function because of a repair problem, Nordstream 2 was ready to start, one tube is still ok.
Biden said it will not work, we have the possibilities to stop it.
“Possibilities” includes many options, of which physical damage is merely one.
Doesn’t prove that the US was responsible for the damage, as so many desperately want to believe.
It was ready to start, but since the embargo was already in force, it wasn’t going to. As you point out, one tube is still OK. Had the US “blown it up”, we would have made sure to take out both tubes. Taking out one tube but leaving the other sounds more someone trying to maximize propaganda value while minimizing physical damage.
Mark, you have to be a liberal, believing what you want to believe instead of reality. The line was fully packed and ready to deliver months before the embargo. Do you really think that if you repeat that lie often enough it will be considered true? The 35% of the population with your belief structure already “know” you are right. The rest of us know better. Give it up.
There were 4 pipelines, 2 old, 2 new, all were pressurized.
Three were blown up, not by “Ukraine with a rented yacht”, but likely by UK, Norway and US professional navy diving/detonation experts.
One was not blown up, because the explosive charge had deteriorated.
The 2 new ones had not started pumping, because they were held up by German environmental paperwork
Russia is not allowed to inspect its own gas lines at the site.
Norway and the US benefitted, by their increased gas exports to the EU
The 2 old ones were not pumping, because the Siemens compressors were in Canada being overhauled, and Canada did not want to ship them to Russia, because of sanctions.
Russia, which has a lot of STEM people, designed its own pumps, which means Siemens lost a huge market, aka blowback.
Siemens was also in line for high-speed rail lines, but those contracts will go to China; more blowback
Wilpost, internal environmental paperwork or political pressure from the wind and solar industry?
you are talking bollox!
You clearly know nothing about chinese or russian railways. I have travelled on BOTH.
Siemens/Germany supplied the high speed trains for Russia decades ago “The Sapsan high–speed train is produced by the German company Siemens.”
Chinese high speed was also constructed ages ago…BUT
The Europeans signed away their rights to the Chinese for good and provided them with the latest tech too! stupidity on steroids….
“Alstom’s 2004 contract to supply the country with 60 passenger trains and 180 freight locomotives was celebrated with an announcement touting the 1 billion euro ($1.14 billion) contract value and the French company’s prospects for future growth there. A similar contract from Siemens for 300 kilometers-per-hour trains was announced a year later during a state visit to Germany by then Chinese President Hu Jintao.”…..
then ooops!
“Thanks to the technology-transfer terms written into both contracts, the two European industrial giants signed away some of their core technology to state-owned rolling stock manufacturer China CNR Corp. That’s since been merged with CSR Corp. to create CRRC Corp., now the world’s largest train-maker with revenues that dwarf what either Alstom or Siemens makes from railways.”
NOW
“few could have predicted that by 2017 China would have 20,000km of high-speed route, zig-zagging across the country.To put it in perspective, that’s more than the rest of the world combined. Where once it followed, China now leads.
The country competes, mainly with Japan, to sell its expertise worldwide, from Europe to closer to home in Asia. It is actively, and rapidly, developing its own technology, designed to better what the best and brightest European firms can offer.”
“Siemens was also in line for high-speed rail lines, but those contracts will go to China”
Mark. The line was fully line-packed and ready to deliver for months before the terrorist damage but Germany for internal political reasons wouldn’t allow the receiving valves located on German soil to be opened. Haven’t you seen the photos showing the gas bubbling to the surface? There were three locations where the pipe was blown open. Corrosive salt water has replaced the natural gas, the pipeline is, to use a little German lingo, “Kaput”. One third of the construction cost was from private European capital. Since they aren’t screaming their insurance must have covered it.
No Russia did not destroy its own strategic asset.
Neither did Biden.
Ukraine did it so Russia could not have the leverage over Europe.
Ukraine was certainely a cover-up for Bidens activity as some researchers believe to have found out.
Ukraine was the CIA ruse
Cutting supply to Europe.
David, if Biden had followed Trump with a “drill baby drill” policy would this not have massively counteracted whatever happened because of the Ukraine war? This would have encouraged both the completion of the Keystone pipeline as well as other pipepiles and building new gas terminals. Trump’s policies would also have encouraged the replacement of oil with gas to generate electricity that produces less CO2 – a win-win situation.
Well Biden had to deal with the consequences of Trump pressurizing OPEC and Russia to reduce production of Oil by 10%. Oil price in April 2020 when he got them to cut production $23, by Feb 2021 it was $73.
https://thehill.com/homenews/4696216-vermont-becomes-first-state-to-require-oil-companies-to-pay-for-climate-change-damage/
More insanity!
That won’t hold up in courts.
Have you looked at the courts lately?
The prices for gas etc started to increase before any Russian action in Ukraine.
They’re just looking to shift the blame for their own lame stupidity
OPEC+ has implemented a series of output cuts since late 2022, in part as a response to increased American production. So there was a reason for rising prices prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. They’d also cut production for a few months in Summer 2020 also with the objective of firming prices.
The OPEC cuts in April 2020 was in response to Trump’s pressure for them to do so.
Although fairly well trained in statistics, economics not. Nevertheless, I check these out as part of my interest is that I live in Texas where whirlers ‘provide’ some energy and found this strange. Chart available for download which I did. However– “Breakdown of annual average global energy bill, 2019-2023 . The data from this chart is not available for download” The summary chart based on “Billion USD” for fuel has four categories – Oil; Electricity; Natural Gas; Other. I once roomed in college with an electrical engineer major, quite an intellect. I don’t think he classified electricity that way.
Nobody in the west goes nuclear. And most countries are sane enough to protect their ground water from short lived fracking.
IEA is right. Renewables helped reducing the energy prices, and with the speed up in their deployment russia sure isn’t laughing now.
Altough Trumps diplomatic abilities are something else, that’s for sure.
You should show a video of the whole exchange if you’re honest.
Meanwhile Biden now sends US weapons to Ukraine to be used against targets within Russia. Such escalation is brilliant if you root for nuclear war.
Invading Germany in WW2 also escalated the war. Stupid allies, should have only fought in their own country and leave German industrial capacity alone!
Although resisting the liberation of Ukraine might also anger russia. Best to just bend over and hand Europe to them.
Why don’t you go to Putin and apologize for your stupid countrymen. He might even have a job for you, because he pays for such comments.
Presumably you mean the invasions prior to June 1944.
Had you said the Treaty of Versailles was the cause of a European war 20 years later you might have had history on your side.
In fact The Third Reich had to exploit the resources of other nations in Europe in order to maintain the wellbeing of the Third Reich regime.
‘He might even have a job for you, because he pays for such comments.’
And who pays for yours?
for once I agree with you
Project much? Your dishonesty is showing.
No one had atomic weapons until the end of WWII. Obviously the calculus for war and its escalation is different now.
Heard of Operation Barbarossa?
You are one sick ideologue.
Be more careful … true colors and all.
(who, specifically, will pay me even if my trolling origin becomes so blatently apparent? Have your guys contact me … how much can I make?)
So you’re saying that groundwater is not “renewable”?
Fracking has never contaminated ground water.
Is there any lie you aren’t stupid enough to believe?
Just how does using more expensive wind and solar make energy cheaper?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/
Sadly no whales live there, else cfact would be fighting tooth and nail against it.
There are absolutely zero cases of fracking contaminating groundwater.
The ScIAm report..
“After numerous rounds of testing by both the state of Wyoming and EPA, there is no evidence that the water quality in domestic wells in the Pavillion Field has changed as a result of oil and gas operations; no oil and gas constituents were found to exceed drinking water standards in any samples taken,””
Fracking occurs thousands of feet below where ground water is found.
It is impossible for fracking to contaminate ground water.
The case that you cite had to do with improperly contained waste products on the surface. In this case, the product that was being stored came from a well that had been cracked, but it could have been waste material from anything.
Despite what you have been told to believe, this was not a case of fracking contaminating ground water.
Do you ever bother to actually read the articles you cite?
Did you read the whole report? While he states orally to reporters that there is a connection, his actual written reports say only that there could be. He doesn’t know! He calls for monitoring wells to see if there is a problem. Afterall, well water should taste the same after all (especially if you’re a city dweller with no knowledge of rural areas and well water everywhere).
Do you remember the old Coors ad? “It’s the water – and a lot more!” Water tastes different everywhere. Not just well water – even city water. To assume your water is contaminated because you don’t like the taste is to be stupid.
I’m not accusing you of being stupid. I know you just get off on seeing people react to your stupid statements. Something else is wrong with your head.
I don’t always open links from stupid people, but when I do it’s always easy to spot the stupid mistakes in the links.
copy
“One such chemical was methanol. The simplest alcohol, it can trigger permanent nerve damage and blindness in humans when consumed in sufficient quantities. It was used in fracking in Pavillion as workers pumped thousands of gallons of water and chemicals at high pressure into the wells they were drilling. About 10 percent of the mixture contained methanol, DiGiulio said.”.
Comment. DiGuilio is most certainly correct in his statement, “workers pumped thousands of gallons of water and chemicals at high pressure into the wells they were drilling”. Yes, the wells being fracked were in an existing oil field and the water used in the drilling mud and after the drilling the same sourced frack water used to complete the well had trace amounts of chemicals including methanol from oil development over the preceding decades.
The fracking simply transported the non-toxic water with trace chemical contaminate, sand and surfactant (to reduce friction) down the well to total depth. The pressurized frack water was then forced through perforations in the casing in the oil-bearing formation into 1/10-inch diameter by <1000 feet length openings created by the pressurized frack water.
The sand props open the tiny openings to allow oil, gas, formation water, and frack water to at first flow and later pumped back to the surface. At the surface oil, gas and water are separated and the water pumped back to deep saltwater formations with similar pH.
In essence prior contaminated frack water ultimately ended up thousands of feet below any freshwater aquifer reducing “pollution”. No surprise the EPA gave up the case to the State and the State found no evidence of fracking contaminating a freshwater aquifer. The eco-alarmists have since this 2016 paper given up the fracking causes freshwater contamination nonsense.
There’s plenty of coal in the ground in Germany. It’s not the renewables which did the damage, it was the restrictions on fossil fuel. Europe chose to pretend they don’t need fossil fuel, while importing vast quantities of gas from Russia.
The renewables were just the fake energy prop Europe used to convince themselves they were eliminating their dependence on fossil fuels.
And they do eliminate their dependence.
Any day now, just a few extra trillion and a David Attenborough moonshot required right?
Seriously feel free to put your own numbers in. If you want your own post outlining your position I’ll ask Anthony and Charles to keep an eye out.
ROFLMAO, Wrong as always.
Germany still relies on Coal, Oil and Gas for nearly 75% of their energy needs.
They are the one “reliable” sources that have.
Nobody in the world can “rely” or “depend” on wind and solar, because they are inherently UNRELIABLE.
Ah, they eliminate their dependence from France and Norway ?
You are the first telling from 😀
The problem is that renewables don’t actually reduce the use of fossil fuels.
My username,
no they do not. Conventional generation is required, with a capacity to more or less match that of renewables, or the grid will fail.
So how can renewables eliminate their dependence and also be cheaper as you claim. Runing two systems in parallel is more expensive. We can do without renewables, we cannot do away with essential conventional generators.
Go away and find out how an electrical grid works and what technical deficiencies renewables have and how they de stabilise a grid. When wind is strong conventional output drops but with them running even at low levels they provide the technical requirements (Inertia, reactive power for example) to stabilise frequency and voltage.
Fracking does not jeopardize the water table. Fracking occurs thousands of feet below the water tables.
google said:
In February 2022 France announced plans to build six new reactors and to consider building a further eight. France is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this. The country has been very active in developing nuclear technology.
Krishna,
Originally Macron said he would reduce nuclear and increase wind. I suggest some body advised against it and sense prevailed. Remember France’s nuclear plants are nearing end of life so it makes sense to replace them.
Wind is illegal in France, since some weeks 😀
It is not just “renewables”, but green policies in general. Rejecting nuclear, and not fracking, that led to higher energy prices. Indeed, raising prices was an intent of green policies, not a side effect.
The gas shortage price spike triggered by low wind happened well before Russian action. In fact it gave Russia a lever over the EU that prompted the Ukraine invasion. Low wind did all of that.
Sure. Except that Europe would have been far worse off without renewables.
Correction –
“Europe
would have beenis far worse off withoutrenewables.”https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-june-2023/how-much-money-are-european-consumers-saving-thanks-to-renewables
I don’t see a great deal of relief for Germany’s Electricity prices: Medium size households
IEA is a shill for unreliable energy supplies.
Why is it that EVERY country will more than a tiny amount of wind and solar in their grid, has SKYROCKETING PRICES.
The cost to meet the 2050 deadline is $US200 trillion according to Bloomberg’s Green Energy Team, other estimates are similar.
There are about 2 billion households in the world, so that is $100,000 per household.
Ninety percent of households can’t afford anything additional so that means the households in developed countries will have to pay $1 million each to meet the goal.
That will mean an electric bill of about $3,300.00 per month or equivalent taxes or fees for 25 years.
That IEA is shilling for renewables is now clear. I think the Chair of House Energy sent them a letter telling them to stop doing that.
My Username,
International Energy Agency, long in name and stature but very short in accurate information. It is not to be relied on!!
So shifting away from energy sources that are cheap and reliable towards ones that are expensive and unreliable makes one better off.
Just where did you get your economics degree?
No they would have had a good gas storage supply if they were depending on gas. They were only short because they planned on wind that did not blow.
Yes,
To summarize the IEA’s position, it’s basically that they can’t source enough fossil-fuel gas to make up for the non-performance of wind & solar.
Russia, Russia, Russia!
Despite having large amounts of shale gas all Western European countries have banned fracking prefering to import. Those with coal have virtually stopped exploiting that too, Germany was forced into using coal by Russia.
The linatics are in charge, why the only people on the streets are JSO and XR and politicians aren’t on lamp posts is beyond me.
After reading the IEA’s statement, the takeaway is –
“goddam, we need more gas, less wind & solar”
Energy prices have been rising since the renewable energy nonsense started. Long, long before the current crisis from Russia.
Secondly Russia is selling almost as much gas and oil as they were before the “crisis” started, so Europe is still getting the energy, it’s just being routed through third parties.
Much of that gas is going to China and other Asian nations.
To complete the scenario, for those who can’t or won’t.
China and other Asian countries, use more Russian gas. Which means they are buying less energy from other sources.
These other source now have more gas available for sale.
European countries buy this gas.
Same total amount of gas sold.
Same total amount of gas burned.
China and India and others are paying less than Russia was getting from Europe and it costs more for Russia to ship it to those nations- compared to piping it.
And, yet, it seems few politicians in Europe get it. Other than that new Dutch prime minister. Any others?
UK and Sweden have announced plans to increase nuclear. Perhaps others as well.
Apparently, that’s the answer to everything, the Russians did it. Nothing to see here, move along.
International Energy Agency, yet another international organization that has lost it’s way and outlived it purpose. It should be disbanded immediately.
Along with the WMO “Bomb Cyclones”, “Atmospheric Rivers”, and “climate” is only 30 years now.
Are they bored and just renaming everything for fun?
As evidenced here, IEA long ago stopped being a reliable source of energy information. Paris based, EU climate alarm infected.
IEA has become a shill for unreliable energy…
… their statement should not surprise anybody.
First of all, this
>> the result of investing in these technologies today is a more affordable energy system for consumers tomorrow
Is not necessarily true! You might end up with an expensive inefficient wind park like Germany while basically everybody else benefits from your wasted money or even buy something soon to be obsolete if for example electric mobility were to shift from lithium to sodium batteries.
I believe it is true that many European countries were not prepared for the war initiated by Putin at all and that put some politicians into a crisis mode and affected energy prices in 2022 and even now.
But over all the article as well as Eric´s comment are weak and conflagrating two issues (that war and climate related policies), which could and should be separated!
In the above paragraph about “well-designed policies” is no word about them being cheaper than existing alternatives, which seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
For most situations (including transportation and electric energy production) an energy mix dominated by conventional fossil fuel and nuclear resources is still by far the most efficient, reliable and cheapest option. Any policy changing well established ratios creates extra cost!
Innovation might change that, but the only prudent way of thinking for that is to invent first and then apply a policy reflecting the new technology, not the other way around!
Back in the mid 1800s when kerosene was developed nobody cared about the cost of switching from whale oil to kerosene because of the genuine cost savings from switching. There was no need for a policy to drive the switch.
As for conflating renewables and the 2022 energy crisis, my response was to an IEA article which also conflated these issues, in the sense of denying they are related issues, so it would not make sense in this case to respond to conflation without discussing the conflation.
Just think.
If not for the cheaper fossil fuels such as coal-oil and kerosene, there’d likely be no more whales to now be a thorn in side of off the shore windmills that are going to save the planet from fossil fuels.
(Not mention cutting down trees to feed the Drax monster.)
Biden’s policies put hard cash into Putin’s coffers. Net-Zero enriches China.
Let’s see now.
Brandon (and the Democrats) shuts down as much coal, oil and gas drilling as they can.
Brandon (and the Democrats) sells off as much as the US’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve as they can. (To China)
Supply artificially goes down. Prices go up. Cost of everything goes up that needs be transported from the source to the consumer goes up. (Yes, printing money like it grows on trees is also involved.) (That reminds of AOC’s answer to how the The Green New Deal would be funded, “Just pay for it.)
So how is the eagerness of Brandon (and the Democrats) to restrict the supply of fossil fuels Putin’s fault?
Of course I’m speaking from a US perspective. Other nation’s have their own versions of “Brandon (and the Democrats) and AOCs”.
The world was almost at peace until Biden gave terrorist nation Iran billions of dollars and then made Russian oil valuable enough to make invading Ukraine affordable. The U.S.(Biden) is responsible for both wars.
So those nice renewable energy companies are making obscene profits because it is fossil fuel’s fault. 😉
No Putin’s fault – everything is Russia remember? 🙂
Not climate change ?
😀
Don’t agree. Russia has always been a reliable partner. It’s the EU and US who have been hostile against Russia. Under US pressure the EU refused to create economical partnership with Russia. So if you are dependent on Russia for energy then it’s not a good idea to be hostile and try to destroy Russia. The EU could easily buy Russian gas again, 4 times cheaper than the US. But now, after all EU hostilities, Russia might say no and wish them good luck while their economy collapse.
And energy prices, including inflation, was before Russias invasion. Billions in worthless renewables drove energy prices up.
Putin didn’t start the war. The escalation of NATO and a CIA-backed coup did. I doubt the USA would react any differently if China orchestrated an overthrow of the Canadian or Mexican government and threatened to place tactical and strategic missiles there. As for any “Soviet” reconstruction ambitions, I think the statements about Putin’s regrets lack context and do not suggest a desire for re-conquest.
I suggest that the real threat from Russia is economic competition to a dollar-backed energy boondoggle and an empire stretched beyond stability.
Yes, the USA was over there meddling around with another CIA color revolution back in 2004.
Mark, agree, according to my counting there are now three of us posting on WUWT and Quora that the escalation of NATO, especially by Bill Clinton for campaign contributions from the defense industry, and a CIA backed coup was “less than helpful in preserving the peace”.
But in fairness, Russia needed to correct the mistaken 1954 concession to Ukraine by Khrushchev for partial control of Crimea. With the collapse of the USSR the last 30+ years has left Russia without a secure land corridor to their naval fleet port on Crimea. If Biden hadn’t decided to use Ukraine military to conduct a proxy war with Russia the conflict would still have happened, but it would have been resolved in months, not years. The result will be the same, Russia will have their corridor.
It’s not insidious it’s a major feature of fickle energy stoopids-
Energy retailers’ ‘insidious’ power pricing charges households based on highest point of use (msn.com)
It’s why they keep de-Watting all your household appliances to spread the load and take up your weekend using your washing machine and vacuum cleaner etc.