End of the Greatest Economic Era
Prior to the American Era... the Greatest Economic Era in human history... there was the Imperial Era.
Throughout the Imperial Era, and all of recorded human history prior, countries produced their own food, their own energy, and expanded out and took whatever else they needed, creating colonies or empires defended by military forces.
The American era came after WWII when all the world's navies, industries and armies had been all but destroyed, save for the Soviet Union and America.
America in particular changed how the world worked, they came together with their allies and said, essentially, you no longer need to have navies, we will patrol the waters/trade-ways all over the world for you.
Free Trade was protected by America, no matter who you were or who you wanted to trade with. This was the case for the entire world when the Soviet Union collapsed, and it lasted up until 2020 when we had the Pandemic and then the Biden election and the start of hostilities with Russia and China.
The problem now, is Globalization is not just collapsing, it has been fatally sabotaged.
Over the last 30 years, Russia, along with Ukraine and Belarus, became interwoven with Global trade. Europe became dependent on Russia's energy products Oil and Gas, while the world became dependent on products like Fertilizer, Potash, Neon, and even Wheat produced from these three nations which collectively they were the #1 producers in these categories and more.
Even if they were to find peace tomorrow, which is desperately needed so that the crippling damage that is to come to our civilization can be minimized, the severity of harm that is to come to the people of Europe and many other parts of the world cannot be averted.
Biden has ushered in the De-Globalization stage of humanity.
An age that is going to be darker for the majority of humanity than we have enjoyed in the previous 40 or 50 years.
First Biden has completely decoupled Russia (and Belarus and Ukraine) from the rest of the world. This in turn makes all those products and materials I noted that they were #1 in the world producing (some in the range of 80% of the world's supply) unavailable.
Second Biden has decoupled China from America far more than Trump ever did. This impact has not even begun to be felt. The hard turn-off of trade between the two nations only just began when Biden moved to choke off Beijing’s supply of microchips used in advanced computing and military applications, just this month.
Third Biden has impacted not just the production of energy products in America, he is cutting off the ability for Russia to supply energy as well. This in turn puts Saudi Arabia and OPEC in general in the driver's seat for energy pricing and production.
This will lead to a greater energy crisis globally than we saw in the 70s. Which in turn will impact production of everything across the globe, raising costs of food, transportation, etc.
It was the one-two punch of Russian and American production of oil and gas resources the last 20 years that had allowed us such affordable cheap energy... which in turn allowed the American economy to thrive fairly well despite exporting most of its manufacturing jobs to the rest of the world.
The damage Biden has done in just two years... is almost incomprehensible... any fears Trump haters had out there, this man is going to bring into reality, and more.As of today, many poor people are in for a long winter. There will be more deaths from cold than you can imagine due to rising energy costs. Now is the time to vote for strong candidates who understand how vital our energy industry is to this nation and poorer nations around the world.
Just watch what happens in the UK and Germany. Cold deaths will double or triple. It doesn't have to be this way. Voting for independents or moderates will not help the world at this juncture.
We must think beyond ourselves to help the poor.Amen Savvy!
It is going to be a dark, cold and deadly winter for so many and it could have been prevented!
Praying for common sense and decency to make its return, replacing the madness which has been perpetrated on us and on much of the world. {sigh}.. Just watch what happens in the UK and Germany. Cold deaths will double or triple ..
Where please? Not in Europe. European nanny states take care of this issue and avoid it. Specifically in Germany the money set aside for helping the poor through the energy and inflation crisis is roughly 5% of GDP. And this should be quite sufficient.Yep, Chris is right:
Over the first six months of this year the UK Government financial aid to help people with the energy and inflation crisis was 1.25% of GDP. Since then the UK’s Government support has substantially increased, and is likely to be in line with that of Germany e.g. at least 5% of GDP. During the covid pandemic the UK Government spend on giving financial to everyone in Britain was 10.4% of GDP (the same amount that it costs the UK Government to run the NHS); the NHS being State owned and run, and which is ‘FREE’ to all at the point of use.
The current financial packages in the UK to held households (including the poor) this winter includes:-
1. The UK Government is giving ‘All’ householders (regardless to their income) £400 ($464) towards their electricity bill this winter (which includes me).
2. The UK Government has capped energy bills until April, with the Government paying to the Utility Companies the difference between what Utility Companies are allowed to charge their customers (under the cap) and how much Utility Companies are charged for that energy from the gas suppliers.
3. The UK Government are paying £150 ($175) to all people on benefits e.g. the low paid, unemployed, and people on disability benefits (and their carers) to help towards the cost of living crisis (inflation), and that includes my wife because she gets disability benefits because of her bad back.
4. The UK Government is paying everyone on State Pension (which includes me) an additional £500 ($580) this winter to help towards paying our winter fuel costs.
5. This winter, the National Grid will be paying people with ‘smart meters’ (which includes me) to reduce their electricity usage during peak times, to avoid energy shortages e.g. during cold spells when demand for gas will be higher. The payments are generous e.g. 7 times higher than we’re charged for using electricity per kWh; it’s estimated that householders can earn up to £100 ($116) this winter by using less electricity during peak times.That sounds like a bandaid. Pay more taxes for a tiny bit of compensation for a little bit of time.
Not at all, it’s making good use of taxpayer’s money to provide help were its needed; and everyone benefits – and in the UK that is being done by a Conservative (Capitalist) Government.
It’s a difference in attitude between ‘European Culture’ and ‘American Culture’ e.g. in Europe our governments like to look after their citizens (everyone); whereas in America it’s a very much more selfish “everyone for themselves” attitude – Perhaps one reason why America has ghettos and Europe doesn’t?
Yes, and sorry that this my comment is coming late on my end side. Besides, I'm an 'outsider'.
The progressive mindset of the left/Dems will just blame it on climate change, if that doesn't fly, they'll blame it on the damage done by the previous administration or Russia!
It's what they do!
They never take responsibility for the constant damage they do; they have provided 'outs' for themselves, designed to protect them and their political careers. We the People are the last thing on their minds and YET...many of the people vote for them no matter what!
God help us!They're extremely comfortable, so what do they care?
Biden will never take responsibility for the damage he has wrought on the United States and many parts of the world. He is a narcissist. The progressives, whom he serves, believe they are "anointed" and thus know what is best for the common man. Their idiocy would be laughable if it were not so tragic.
Meanwhile, men quibble over percentages... as if that makes a difference for the elderly who will stay in bed because it is too cold to leave their room.
The unnecessary and increased suffering of the poor weighs on my mind. The only saving grace is that food organizations will do what they can to feed the poor. However, transporting needed goods to various regions, here and abroad, requires fuel which has been and will become increasingly expensive in a few short months if not weeks.
If ever there was a time to give to charities, that time is now. Thanks for listening, AB."The unnecessary and increased suffering of the poor weighs on my mind. The only saving grace is that food organizations will do what they can to feed the poor
And what have the conservatives ever done to address poverty? Homelessness? Drug addiction? Mental health issues? The exorbitant cost of prescription drugs? Our dismal foster care system? The fact that almost 3 million children are homeless in america? They vote anything to address these issues down at every turn. Don't you know, these people are supposed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, right?
What was the crown jewel of Mr Trump's administration? A nice big tax cut for the morbidly rich. It doesn't seem to have trickled down to the most needy. The conservative way seems to be that the unfortunate need to just rely on the kindness of others.You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
You have a valid point. The Democrats are much more likely to raise taxes on the working class so that they can give the money away to the homeless. The Republicans are trying to build the economy so that people are able to have jobs that pay well and they never become homeless. (Do you remember Trump telling the auto makers that if they moved the jobs to Mexico he was going to make their cars more expensive in the US? That is what making America great again is about.)
I guess it goes back to philosophy, and whether it is better to prevent or just to deal with the problem later. I could go on, as in preventing a fire or trying to throw some buckets of water on it to put it out, but I am sure you understand the point.Well here in America we sort of just keep doing the same thing and expecting that we will have a different result somehow. We continually mop up after our messes. Seems like we never learn from anyone or anything. That's pretty much my definition of stupid. How about try a little prevention for once? You know why we don't? Because it costs money. It cost nothing for politicians to rail endlessly about nonsense. It costs nothing to scaremonger. You know it's too difficult for a politician to make it these days with an actual stand on something that will make a difference in real people's lives. Politicians in our country have people baffled, bamboozled and mesmerized with bull sh*t
Unfortunately that is a worldwide issue. Our Workers Party presidential candidate shot up in the polls after he made a statement at the debates that "When I am elected, the poor will be able to afford to eat filet mignon steaks and have a beer at every meal."
He bamboozled with Bullsh*t.Well said! You are absolutely correct in that we do nothing new; just repeat the same things that have repeatedly failed in the forlorn hope that this time will be different.
Insanity, by definition.
You give some here too much credit. The female version of peoplepower, our resident CNN aficionado, will never give you the insights you need if you want the truth. Neither will Al Jazeera, one of your media outlets, which is also biased towards the Left and omits right wing perspective. Furthermore, they appeal to emotion, much like your friend.
Still didn't respond to a direct question
This is true
This is false. While they will use that excuse to take more in taxes, to fund non-profits that exist to help the homeless, to initiate new programs for free stuff... the reality is most of those taxes go to anything but the homeless.
Proof of this would be the highest taxed state (CA) with the most "progressive" politics, also has a staggering number of homeless people compared with the rest of the country. California’s homeless population last year was almost 165,000, over a quarter of the national total.
And this is the core difference between the current parties.
The Democratic Party today exists to make you dependent on them.
To determine what level of protection you need, what benefits you qualify for, to provide for you... all you need to do is be obedient to their commands and follow their rules, whatever they may be in the current year.
The Republican Party expects you to provide for yourself, do for yourself, work to make your life better, work with other organizations or groups to make the community better. They are the party of Liberty, Freedom, less government, less control pro-independence and pro-business.
Capitalism vs Communism
Freedom and Liberty vs Tyrannical rule
Thick Skin vs Safe Spaces
Hard Work vs Handouts
30 years ago, the differences didn't seem nearly so extreme save for the Pro-Workers vs Pro-Business aspects of it. Democrats abandoned the workers (Middle Class) a long time ago.California economy is actually the fourth largest in the entire world. Sooooo????
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic … ng-germanyAre you implying that it is so large because of the Democrats? I think it is in spite of the Democrats. Maybe it could have been number three.
With 10% of the countries population, California boasts 25% of it's homeless. That was the point, not that California has a lot of money.
So, let's look at the whys of it ------ Because the whys are very important.
It is factual that there are multimillionaires and billionaires in the Bay Area who skew the numbers. and have provided wealth in California. The rest of California is struggling to make ends meet, With the highest homeless rate in the country.
I must also add, if the industry continues to leave California due to high costs, continued growth will not be possible.
More and more companies are lining up wanting to take their headquarters to Texas or Florida Georgia, or somewhere. "So not only are businesses leaving the state, but a record number of people also leaving the state. So, California will see an impact on growth moving forward. The Democrats have run the big money out, so the tax coffers will suffer.
That is inaccurate, and a broad generalization of what the Republican Party stands for. A discussion for another time, perhaps.
The bigoted history of the Democrats, even to this day, will tell you much of what you need to know. Republicans, in general, are much less self-serving.What do you think is inaccurate, that the Republicans are trying to build up the economy and that the Democrats are just raising taxes to give money away to causes they feel will vote for them?
I think maybe you need to look at the response again.
"The conservative way seems to be that the unfortunate need to just rely on the kindness of others."
You're right - if the "unfortunate" don't want to hold a job and support themselves they must "rely on the kindness of others".
On the other hand, liberals will force that kindness, at gunpoint if necessary, in order to get the wealth they view the "unfortunate" are "entitled" to. Marxism is alive and well in the liberals of America.You have to admit though, wilderness, that we have a lot of folks out here that by way of developmental and mental disabilities can't pull themselves up by their bootstraps. These are the folks that I'm talking about. I think we somehow want to paint a lot of people as lazy and unmotivated. There are certainly some of those out there but we have to be careful with grouping everyone in this category.
We do. And you have to admit that we have even more that could support themselves and choose not to. Perhaps from laziness, perhaps from poor decisions the public is now expected to pay for, perhaps from an unwillingness to do what is necessary. Whatever the reason we have millions on welfare that could take care of themselves (and would) if forced to do so.
When it comes to our welfare system, it is my opinion that it is broken, and severely so. Those that need help can't get it, while those that have learned to play the system live better than I do.
Well said and too obviously true these days.
Yes, we have a huge problem with homeless, and drug addiction, as well as a large increase in the poverty rate under this administration. And it is a shame Republicans have needed to vote no on bills that if left without pork could have helped the poor. The Democrats just can't keep from piling their ridiculous pork onto bills. Republicans don't play those games, they just never have.
The problems will most likely get much worse due to the 2,4 million migrants that Biden let across our borders, we have not yet felt the sting of all the migrants, and the problems that they will bring, needing housing, health care, and education in already overcrowded substandard public schools. Plus we have a record number of drugs pouring in. So, I would assume the drug, homeless, and poverty levels will all become even far worse than they are.
Faye, I am not sure how you can blame the Republicans for the mess this administration has caused. All got so much worse under Biden, and more is yet to come. Maybe time to put the blame on who caused all to get far worse.Sharlee…You have explained truths, facts and realities more than anyone here. Furthermore, you have done so patiently.
I have also offered many specific and detailed facts on a number of issues. The problem here is that we are dealing with someone (she/they) who has no interest in facts and who question that truth exists.
Consequently, no number of facts will ever convince (them) of truth.
In short, we cannot convince those who deny that truth exists that truth exists. There is only One who can do that.
However, I respect that forums provide people with the opportunity to express themselves.Actually you have offered nothing specific or no detailed facts whatsoever
I do try to be patient, and yet not back away from my views. It is very frustrating to have a conversation when someone deflects when they become so uncomfortable with another view.
I must say I am shocked by how closed-minded some can beget, even when facts are presented. I can see one has the right to dispute one's view, but facts, I can't understand that.
It seems many are more than willing to overlook the mess the current administration has made of the country. With all our growing problems we still have some that will defend those that have caused this mess.
I am sorry to say my patience is wherein thin, America hangs in the balance, and I am not willing to watch America fall. You know I have encouraged us to all have faith in Americans to right the ship, and that I have great faith the majority recognize the direction we are headed, and will right the ship.
I just feel more America have realized that this administration and some media are hell-bent on ruining America. I continue to pray we rid this bunch of a platform, and that we rid ourselves of this administration.
We need to keep the faith that Americans will step up and show this corrupt bunch the door.There are sheeple who applaud Biden like those Germans who applauded Hitler although Germany was falling. The same here. There are people who praise Biden. Are these people suffering from a lack of reality? Biden, like Obama, has done absolutely nothing for this country except push insane social programs. Obama's policies were the reason I voted for Trump.
I have not interviewed 61 million people to determine for sure what there reason for voting Trump in 2016 was, but I think your reason was far from being an isolated one. I know it was my own.
The problem was that Obama, and the Democrats had no plan for America...only one to give to those that do not contribute to the country.I'd say that most politicians look at people as sheep. I think people should be insulted at the way politicians relate. I think we have a small number of politicians on either side of the aisle that have good and honest intentions. The rest are just there to profit from their office and we are in a time that they will do or say anything to keep that power. There is a whole lot that needs to change about our government. People need to wake up
Grace, you hit the nail on the head. it is very hard to watch everything go downhill, due to the lack of reality some Americans are exhibiting. I think Obama is pulling Biden's strings.
Of course Obama is the puppeteer in this.
Is Obama running the pizza parlor now??
You tell us Faye, where is he hanging around these days?
Obama had faults, but he did some good things as well.
Trump had faults, but he did some good things as well.
Biden... this guy is fast tracking the damage being done at a breakneck pace, its not incompetence, its arrogance, ego, corruption, whatever he had been in the past (if you don't believe the stories of rape, molestation, racism and think he was a swell guy)... today he is what I would term a vile callous individual that is a grave threat to America.
Sharlee, I am blaming the entire government. The entire political system. Not just your beloved Republican party but all of the entire government. I don't get behind any groupthink, cultish brand. And government has Hoodwinked all of you, red, blue and purple. Anarchy is a better solution at this point.
“Anarchy is a better solution.”
Wow.
That should tell everyone here what they need to know.
If anyone here does not understand what that means, I feel sorry.Savvy, the solution is to have an honest, mature & relatable government. Get out the politicians who really don't care about the constituents & elect people who have connection to everyday life. There need to be a grassroots movement.
Progressives, who willingly pretend to be Moderate, will always weaponize guilt effectively. It is their most effective weapon (in the beginning stages). In any event, history has proven that the Progressive agenda is destructive. Well-meaning conservatives fall for it (the guilt game) all the time and so go along and try to be "nice." Stupid.
Grassroots movements are effective, but it takes brave citizens to enact change. Today, In Iran, the common people have been protesting against their destructive government for many months. Has Joe Biden said a word to defend them? No. Instead, he is begging the Ayatollah to accept millions of dollars in exchange for compliance. Stupid.
Long story short, if we fail to understand the techniques of Progressives, we lose.
I'm curious; do you assign any blame at all to the homeless, the addicts, the poverty stricken?
Do you assign blame to the one that [chose to experiment with drugs, knowing the almost inevitable result? Do you give some blame to the one that refuses to change locations or develop a skill they can sell for a living wage? Are those that consistently, over and over, make poor decisions that end up putting them on the street?
Or is it always someone else that causes people to be addicts, to be poor or homeless, etc.? Do you assign responsibility to the people for their own life or to a bureaucratic committee somewhere in the bowels of Congress?Thank you. Most poor people in America CHOOSE to be poor.
I don't buy into playing the blame game. Let's get these people cleaned up who want to be cleaned up. We can and should do a much better job but at the same time I realize that there will be a portion who don't want to be cleaned up. And there's not much we can do about that. Ignoring these issues isn't the answer. I feel that a lot of people end up on the streets for a multitude of reasons, some of which they had no control over.
What would you do with/for those that want to be "cleaned up" (live a life of more luxury), but don't want to put out any effort to do so? Just want someone else to pay the cost, whether money, effort, work, whatever? What about them?
Nobody's talking about providing a life of luxury for anyone. But many people could get out of their situation with some assistance and that doesn't mean supporting someone their entire life. It means measures to get people on their feet so that they can quickly become self-sufficient. Sometimes it's tough for people if you're homeless to even obtain a job. A hand up, not a handout. I'd like to see more prevention though before people even get to that situation. How many out here are just a few missed paychecks from eviction? One major illness and bankruptcy? Sometimes life knocks you down and it can be awfully tough with those lacking resources to get back up.
You keep skipping over the question I keep asking. It is my opinion that the majority of the people you would "help" are there because they will not put forth the effort to change and take responsibility for themselves. Not because they need a quick hand up, not because life gave than an extra hard knock. Because they refuse to do anything to help themselves. They don't want a 40-60 hour work week. They don't want to move. They don't want to go to school. They don't want much of anything but a handout from someone that does work.
While I agree 150% with you on helping people get back on their feet, or helping those that will accept responsibility for themselves, I am sick and tired of seeing multiple generations living off of my pocketbook. I'm tired of seeing people make the same poor decisions time after time after time...because there are no consequences for those poor decisions when my pocketbook is open to them. And I am most definitely sick and tired of seeing welfare recipients living with more luxury, from my pocketbook, than I can afford to do for myself!
Yes, there are those that are just one illness away from poverty and just need a hand up. But those numbers, IMO, are dwarfed by those that are happy right where they are, at least to the point that they will not put forth the effort to improve, although they will gripe and scream if we don't support them off the efforts of someone else.
SO, IMHO, we need a drastic overhaul to our entire welfare system. We desperately need to provide more help to those that need it (both temporary and long term), we need to remove it from those that do not, and we need a major, major push on eliminating fraud. It is my opinion, from experience and simply knowing people, that there are vast numbers of people on disability of one kind or another - people that could provide for their own support or at a minimum a good percentage of it.
One response is called for here --- What have Democrats done to address your list? Offer needles offer the opportunity to live on the streets without any form of hindrance, and allow a historical amount of drugs into the country, actually bringing illegal drug prices down. And let's address foster children. Since President Joe Biden took office, 257,110 migrant children have been encountered at the nation’s borders, according to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. And we know have the responsibility to find foster care for these children.
You are ignoring how much worse all of the above has become due to an incompetent administration, and cognitively impaired President.
And in regard to the Trump taxes, that you feel have been harmful --- why has the Democratic Congress not offered new taxes? Why, because it was working to put money into a larger population of Americans.
The who you call morbidly rich were offering a record number of jobs before COVID hit, and many were starting to invest here in America.
And let me remind you Biden has talked about; lowering prescription drugs, but doing nothing to bring about these promised reductions. He has signed a couple of meaningless Zero teeth EO's. Nothing more.
Let's look at some stats, and see truely what has occurred under Biden.
Price Increases for Prescription Drugs, 2016-2022
KEY POINTS
• High prescription drug prices create affordability challenges for patients and the health care
system. Among existing products, increases in average prices over time have added to these
challenges.
• Most prescription drug price increases occur in either January or July each year, with the greatest
number taking place in January. The number of increases in both months during 2022 was higher
than in previous years.
• In January 2022, the average price increase was nearly $150 per drug (10.0 percent), and in July
2022, it was $250 (7.8 percent). The dollar increases were larger than for the same months in
previous years.
• In 2022, several drugs increased their list prices by more than $20,000 or by more than 500
percent.
• There were 1216 products whose price increases during the twelve-month period from July 2021
to July 2022 exceeded the inflation rate of 8.5 percent for that time period. The average price
increase for these drugs was31.6 percent.
• The Inflation Reduction Act introduces a new requirement for manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare for Part D drugs whose price increases exceed inflation, beginning October 1, 2022,
which was designed to reduce the frequency and size of drug price increases. ( so do you have Medicare?) Has Biden really brought prices down for all Americans? NO ---- yet he wanders around and claims he has.
Maybe instead of asking what did Trump do ask what has Biden done?
What did Trump do
https://imprintnews.org/analysis/what-a … fare/44792
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/media/press/202 … tive-orderI believe that the inflation reduction act includes several provisions to lower prescription drug costs for people with Medicare and reduce drug spending by the federal government. The government will now be able to negotiate lower drug prices on many drugs. I believe it also puts a cap on insulin at $35 a month which is great news for those who have been rationing their insulin or forgoing it all together. Wow I would like to see either party do more than has been done on all the issues previously mentioned I believe that the Democrats are generally do a better job addressing them. Democrats through time have brought us social security, medicare, medicaid, disability benefits veterans benefits, healthcare by way of Obama care.
Government, regardless of red or blue needs to continue to address these pressing issues within our country. We as voting citizens need to hold all of them accountable and stop letting them treat us like idiots. They insult our intelligence at every turn with the divisiveness, the empty rhetoric and so on. I'm growing just as tired of a segment of the American population that lets this garbage fly just as much as I am at the politicians who perpetrate it. And before you try to pin it on a group I'm targeting, I'll say that idiocy knows no boundary.Every one of your list is no more than a method of taking from one to give to another. Even SS, which was not supposed to work that way.
Is there something Democrats have done for the people that does not involve, as the root of the plan, simply giving what one person earns to someone that didn't earn it?
That's my primary beef with liberals; at the root lies Marxism and spreading the wealth from those that produce to those that do not."I believe that the inflation reduction act includes several provisions to lower prescription drug costs for people with Medicare and reduce drug spending by the federal government'
Yes, in my comment I have offered just that. However, the majority of Americans are not on Medicare. Medicare serves 63 million beneficiaries, So, not sure Biden should be misrepresenting that he will lower drug costs for all Americans. I do realize he does offer a lot of misinformation.
Well, I disagree, I do not feel Democrats have done anything on the issues you mentioned, and the Republicans win no medals either.
Yes, I can see you are as tired of one side, as I am. I believe this is where the divide is evident. I will never understand what makes you feel those on the right do not feel as strongly as you and support a different agenda altogether. It should now be very evident. I don't think conservatives were looking for such strife between the two parties, but we are concerned like never before about the direction the Country is headed.
Aren´t you largely overestimating the influence of American power? Especially in nations like China, India and Russia?
Yes, the era of globalism is faltering. But due to what? Certainly not because of some blue or red person in charge of American politics.
Supply chains were interrupted by the Corona pandemic in the first place. If the whole "productive" world is coming to a full stop for a year or so, this has massive impact on global trade.
Chinese economy has its own and purely internal problems. Russian economy the same. Huge internal problems with massive corruption. Did America initiate this? I don´t think so.Not at all, it seems you and Nathanville are woefully underestimating the impact America has had on the Global Free Trade world that exists today.
Who is it that has (or had) troops stationed in Korea, Germany, Egypt, Iceland, Philippines, and so many other places I can't remember off the top of my head, not to mention our deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
Who do you think is running this World if not America?
China would still be a backwater country with 1.5 billion rice harvesters if not for America gutting its own Industrial Base and shifting it over to China.
This of course made companies like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Black Rock obscenely wealthy and powerful, even Warren Buffett got in on the act.
Without "Western" investment into China, without AMERICA purchasing everything 'Made In China' over the last 30 years... China would be nothing.
Russia on the other hand, has had to struggle against American interference since WWII. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union efforts to thwart Russia has been ongoing.
America destroyed the countries that still relied on Russia as an ally and trade partner, America injected itself into the governmental machinations of Georgia and Ukraine, America made sure NATO let in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia back in 2002, soon after Putin first became President and Russia began breaking from Western centric 'guidance' under his leadership.
As for India, it has been a non-factor for the most part on the global trade stage as well as in the Industrial and Military sectors, only now is it beginning to become relevant, and honestly, I haven't studied it for the simple fact that it hasn't been a factor.
It certainly is.
Biden's choice to back Zelensky (I think its more that Zelensky was told to rattle his saber and start his quest) in Ukraine's effort to take back Crimea and Biden's refusal to recognize Crimea as part of the Russian Federation set us on a course for war.
Russia had done nothing until AFTER that Biden announcement to escalate "the war".
There was the Minsk Agreements, since then, Donbas has been a contested region... Ukraine could have easily asked America for aide in bringing that conflict to a resolution agreeable to bout Ukraine and Russia.
That's not what Biden wanted. Biden stated in 2014 that Russia would pay, that Russia would be forced to give up Crimea. Despite Obama not being willing to go to war over it, Biden was over in Ukraine promising it as VP.
This is all about Biden, this is all about the warhawks in DC salivating for this war. This is exactly what those who control DC today have always wanted. They loathe Trump for making them have to wait an extra 5 years to get their war.
Clearly after 8 years... 8 years... of Crimea being part of the Russian Federation, not some occupied territory, not some hell hole warzone, but a peaceful, well functioning part of Russia, there was no reason for this war.
That has nothing to do with Europe being cut off from Russian Oil and Gas.
That has nothing to do with the world being cut off from the primary supplier of Fertilizer, Neon, and many other materials critical to today's world.
That's the problem with a very integrated 'globalized' world, when you are reliant on other nations for supplies critical to your living conditions and economy, and then you decide to war against them and 'sanction' them, you end up hurting your own people, or the entire world, as much as you do them.
Thinking this war is not the PRIMARY reason why Europeans especially are going to suffer this winter is an egregious misunderstanding of the situation.
Beyond this winter, China will begin suffering immensely for it too, as they get a considerable amount of energy resources and food from Russia and Ukraine.
You know who won't suffer much from this war, and whose gas/energy and military industrial companies will probably make quit a profit from it?
America's.I don´t underestimate the military importance and influence of the USA. But it is something else with the economy.
Size matters, and that is what pushed the USA almost to the top in world trade (China is ahead though). But almost 20% of that US trade is attributed to energy resources exports. Then another portion of trade is associated to military stuff. What is left over is less than the EU contributes to world trade or is at par with countries like Germany or Japan.
The American era is coming to an end, not because of its military power, that is unchallenged, but because its impact on world trade has dwarfed from some 60% in the 60ties to less than 15% today.
It didn´t take the Corona pandemic or the Ukraine war to get there. This is a decade long process and has nothing to do with any particular American president.
Today it takes diplomatic skills and shrewedness to impose something like the oil price cap. The USA can not just snap their fingers to enforce it.I see that as well, you and I are not that far apart in what we are saying.
I am not saying America is all powerful at this moment, though it still is militarily, I am saying the Global Free Trade world that we have enjoyed for so many years... especially in the last 30+ years... has been because of America.
China became #1 in the world because American investors and American Corporations chose to develop China and use its cheap labor, chose to make obscene fortunes from "Made In China".
Without the American government giving China "Favored Nation Status" allowing their products to enter into America tariff free there would be no China today capable of rivaling America.
Without the American government allowing its Industrial base to be hollowed out allowing for all forms of production to be shifted to China so that corporations could make mad profits, China would not be near as Industrialized as it is today.
America has allowed Japan, Europe, and China especially to flourish for the last 30 to 50 years. They have provided the stability globally for trade and international corporations to flourish as much as they have.
Until now. Now who knows where our leaders today are trying to take things but escalating a war with Russia and/or China is not what I would deem good for any population of any country.
And it certainly isn't good for global trade, or cheaper better products being available.
What it is, IMO, is the onset of shortages in technologically advanced products, food products, and energy products.
I hope I am wrong, I hope things improve, but I think they are holding off just how bad things are getting until after the mid-terms... then look out America and look out world....holding off just how bad things are getting until after the mid-terms....
I think the world as a whole has gotten used to changes in American politics every 4 to 8 years.
Things are not always comfortable. But again the world got used to this and understands that mighty policeman can´t be everywhere.
By the way, they only importance of the USA for China is the US consumer market. But this is a twosided sword. If i am not totally wrong, the US imports some 2% of its GDP (some 13% of production) from China but for China this represents only 1% of exports (or some 6% of production). Cutting into Chinese flesh hurts the US more than China.
But China has problems of its own with their credit bubble and associated real estate bubble. People won´t remain quiet if the path to wealth is only open to half of its population in more remote places.
Russia is drowning in its huge corruption problems. The authoritarian style of regime doesn´t help to make this transparent and solve the problems, more likely increases it. And the war with Ukraine makes this disfunctional cleptocracy only more visible.Chris, you are talking about today.
What I am talking about is almost 50 years of America transferring its industrial base and wealth to China.
This is what allowed China to become a rival on the global stage of the world. If America had not allowed that, if America had not kept the world a relatively peaceful place to do business, China would have never become what it is today.
America bought all "Made in China" products for decades... in essence it transferred its jobs, its industrial might, and its wealth to China.
China's exports to the US were typically about 18-20% of China's total exports, before dropping lower in the Trump era trade war.
China's exports to the US were as high as 9% of China's GDP back in 2007.
Since Trump, Chinese exports to the US are less than 4% and dropping, and so too, is their economy.
China's top trading partners where China has a positive trade balance:
1. United States: $324 billion
2. Hong Kong: $295 billion
3. The Netherlands: $61 billion
4. India: $58 billion
5. The United Kingdom: $33 billion
Hong Kong technically is part of China, so, clearly if you remove Hong Kong then America is overwhelmingly, even today, China's largest inflow of wealth.
America dominated most of world trade in 1980, China has gradually taken on a greater role, surpassing the U.S. as the major trading partner in many countries around the world. None of that would have been possible without America allowing it.To describe trade relations, don´t we have to add up imports and exports and not talk about trade balance (which is actually the opposite, a subtraction)?
Anyways - world trade as a sum of imports and exports amounts to some 55 to 60% of world GDP. If this world trade is interrupted, no wonder why most economies struggle, especially those with high dependence on trade.
And here you find the real clue to the problem. USA trade(in and out) over GDP is some 20..25%, Germany´s trade (in and out) over GDP for example is some 75%. And the energy resource part is only a small piece of the trade cake. This is why the USA can sit back (be less effected) and strong trade dependend countries like Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium suffer dearly.
At the end of the day (today) the USA is at less than 15% of world trade. And this is what bends the American era to an end. Not Ukraine, not Russia, not China, not even Corona, and certainly not any American president. The world is simply changing, we might say the growing and prospering in comparison to the USA status quo. I would say this is a good thing.
And not once did you name Climate Crisis.
Overconsumption and the use of carbon resources brought us to this point.
We produce to much, ship to much and spoil to much.
It is clear that the economic growth has been a burden and a threat to humanity.
What has to be done is change our mentality. And change a growth economy into a sustainable economy.
As their simply won't be enough resources as it has a limit. A growth economy will collapse simply because resources do not grow but are finite.
What has to be done is to drastically downscale economics. And go back to local produce and manufacturing of goods.
It is not Bidens fault that we are heading to a crisis. This crisis is in the making since the 60's and probably before. As with the enormous production of goods and use of fosil fuels we changed the climate and now we are in the middle of the next extinction of animals and plants (and possibly humans too!)
So Trump is definitely not an option and all the politicians who support fossil fuels and a growth economy (And so Biden is not an option either)
The climate crisis is only getting worse causing wars and mass immigration, famine (no more fish to catch, no more bees to fertilize crops etc) and diseases (COVID was just the beginning), water shortage, more forest fires and extreme climate that will kill local species.
The biggest issue on the political has to be the climate crisis, and the party who gives it the most serious attention gets my vote. And as most of the Republicans are still in the denial stage it is simply irresponsible to vote Republican."The biggest issue on the political has to be the climate crisis"
Disagree. It isn't climate change, it isn't economics and it isn't scarcity of natural resources. It is the reproductive rate of humans; if the entire world reproduced at the rate Americans (or Brits or some others) are those problems would go away on their own.
But they won't, with the result that every year the species demands more energy, more food, more things.Although the best service to the world at the moment is not to have children, (Tell that to the anti-abortion voters...) It is not the main problem.
The main problem is how we (the West and China, India, Brasil) use our resources. How we use the land.
A child in the west uses more resources then a child born in a developing country!
It surprises me again and again how a tiny country like The Netherlands is the 2nd largest food exporter (after the US) in the world.
So I think it's not a matter of population but a matter of efficiency in production and logistics. How much food is not thrown away before it reaches the shops (because a tomatoe has to have a certain size and colour..), and how much is not thrown away if not sold? Same with other products.
To say that it's to blame for the fact that there are too many people is a dangerous argument as it gives the blame to us consumers and not the producers of fossil fuel products (which is almost everything!).
It's consumerism that needs to be stopped, and as many noticed during COVID time, we don't need all the stuff we thought we needed.*shrug* with 1/10th the world's population we would not have a problem. There wouldn't be climate change, there would be enough food, enough wood, enough steel, enough everything.
And when we reach double the current population all of those will be in very short supply. Resources, all resources, are limited and when that limit is spread among increasingly large numbers of people, well, someone is going to go without and the world as a whole will suffer at the same time.
The blame IS consumers - if they did not demand more, producers (whether fossil fuel products or food or anything else) will not be producing more. To put blame on people meeting a demand is ridiculous; without the demand those same people will find another way of supporting themselves.
Never forget that not everyone thinks as you do, not everyone has the same moral structure, not everyone has the same goals you do. People differ, and as long as there are more and more people there will be more and more people that disagree with how you think.A good answer Wilderness. Which I fully agree with.
(except for the point that it is besides consumers also producers who are to blame. It's a two way street.)
But as the climate crisis unfolds, it seems to me sensible to make this priority number one in politics. But instead you see politicians doing ostrich politics and go on if nothing out of the ordinary is taking place. It is where politics and science clash with deadly results.
That being said, I think politicians are simply incapable of understanding the science behind climate chance and what to do about it, as their background is all to often lacking any understanding of science.
And....you've got billions of dollars from all kinds of hedge funds and companies directing their decisions...
It will be a harsh world for the teenagers of today when they reach there 30-40s...My point is that you can make climate change a priority all you want to...but until you curb the population growth it isn't going to do a bit of good. Even if we eliminated 90% of fossil fuels tomorrow, they will be right back in a decade because of the increased demand for energy. People are simply not going to accept a big drop in standard of living because of dire predictions (few of which come true) from scientists in a science they do not understand.
But if you can make a priority of cutting population growth (no idea how - China tried it a failed miserably) and it works, then the rest will take care of itself.I'm afraid your right. But I think you have two options here. Accept that we are doomed and will take 70% or so of the living species with us in our downfall. Which is the probable scenario.
Or at least we give it a try and minimalize the damage, trying to buy time.
But to deny climate change and promote fossil fuel is in my opinion the worst thing you can do as a human being and politician.
But well as you say, it's difficult to change some peoples mind even if you have the facts in your side.See, now I just don't get that 70% of living species thing. That's a part of the terrible predictions from the scientists...predictions that we've seen for a decade and never come true.
Truth is that some species will die, some will be created, and life will continue. It will continue with humanity, although probably a lot fewer.
Yeah, we can buy time, and I personally agree that we need to cut fossil fuel usage. We have, and will continue to have, a much better use for oil than to burn it. But that does NOT mean that we should, tomorrow, cut usage to the point that people suffer greatly from it, and that's exactly what the greenies are demanding.Sorry Wilderness. The 70% was a matter of speaking, not a real number. I was just saying, if the shit hits the fan we will go together with a lot of other living species.
I don't think that to cut fossil fuel is what politicians want either (worldwide speaking) The decision to slow down with fosil fuel should have been made in the 70's. But nobody took science seriously. And why slow down if the problems are not during your time of service...And Climate Change had not really entered the public arena either, so it was note a thing to loose votes over. (Though I remember the talk of Acid Rain in the '90)
And now we are a bit too late. So cutting back on fossil fuels become not just a necessity but there is no alternative as we already reached peak oil in 2006. So there will only be less oil, but still more demand...
And solar, wind, nuclear and other energy won't help us. There is simply not enough to keep the world turning as it is today.
When someone comes along with this "70%" and then another comes along and qoutes it they are setting themselves up to look stupid. Do you even realize that most of the known species are insects, nematodes, and other animals that are not going to be affected by climate change? If you want to say 70% of amphibians and wild mammal species, that is fine. If you want to claim that 70% of species are going to die because of global warming, I want to remind you of the predicition that all of Florida will be underwater by the year 2000. (I read that prediction about 40 years ago.)
By making those sort of false predictions, you are giving climate change deniers an easy thing to refute. If that person has something they can easily refute, why should they accept anything you have to say?The sentence " Accept that we are doomed and will take 70% or so of the living species with us in our downfall. " was a matter of speaking. Hence the "or so". It is not a real number. Otherwise, I would have given a source.
So yes, you are right in that respect that I was wrong to use numbers in such a way as they can easily be misread.
But the claim that insects won't be affected by climate change is a false claim too.
Insects are already affected by climate change, with the result of fewer birds and fewer amphibians and reptiles. Also, crops and fruit trees have problems because of the declining population of bees. The whole ecosystem is connected.
So in that respect I could throw the ball back and say, people who say that insects won't be affected don't understand the science behind the climate crisis we are in. So why should I accept anything else you have to say?Sorry If you are having trouble understanding this, but insects Will do Just Fine If the temperature of the planet goes up 10 or even 20 degrees. You will not, but you certainly do not need tô lie awake at night worrying about the cockroaches.
I could care less If you believe me or not I was Just pointing out that making false statements, like your 70 percent comment, Just hurts your cause and gives others an easy target.
Good evening Mr. Streep, people in the post-industrialized nations are opting to having no children or very small families. That is the highly educated solidly middle, particularly upper middle, & upper classes. It is always the less educated lower, working, & lower middle classes who have the most children. You should read the book AND THE POOR HAVE CHILDREN, don't know the author-it is dated book if you can find it. The intelligent classes are using family planning while the less educated classes are out of control. Yes, there are too many people in the world which accounts for the poverty levels in many parts of the world. What is needed are stringent family planning policies which include mandatory sterilization after the second child.
"mandatory sterilization after the second child."
Yes, the Hallmark of a free society! My oh my. And the only qualifications for a forced medical procedure are being poor and dumb? Would there be an IQ test? How would these poor dumb women be rooted out to have their tubes tied? Family planning police? Morality police like they have in Iran?Are you saying you don't believe in Eugenics?
How else are we to determine who has ten children and who has none?
How are we going to find a system beneficial to human civilization and society?
Hmmm... create a Carbon Tax system rolled out world wide, where what you produce and how well you service your society equates to how much you are taxed or negates those taxes.
There may be more people in the poor countries in the world, but it is the rich world that has the most impact on climate change. One ordinary person in New York uses far more resources than 10 in a small village in China.
And oh boy, do we have the religious people who are against abortion, they don't help to solve the climate crisis with this concept."One ordinary person in New York uses far more resources than 10 in a small village in China."
Are you sure? How much does that villager in Brazil, happily felling acre after acre of rain forest, add to the problem? The island family fishing, but for hundreds/thousands of fish per day instead of a dozen or so?Yes, don't you think so? (the 1 on 10 is not a real number, it was as a matter of speaking) But if you compare all the children living in developed countries with all the children living in developing countries. Then for sure (haven't looked it up, but read an article about it) those "rich" kids will consume more and by doing so use more resources. (food, electronic stuff, clothing, electricity, stuff you have (toothbrushes, chairs, extension cords, etc.)
There may be exceptions as you point out with the villager in Brasil, but the huge majority is not having such an impact on the environment as we in the west. (and often the reason for the destruction of the environment is because we want the new iPhone built in a Chinese factory, or a beefburger from cows eating soya on a former rainforest patch.)
I think if we really want to do something, the best thing (next to not having children) is to consume less. (not every month new clothes or every year a new phone..) But well, say that to a teenager...
Climate Crisis - to me is more of a pollution crisis.
FYI we are going to die off from plastic poisoning before climate change ever has a chance to claim us. They don't talk at all about that catastrophe in the making, but the food chains in the oceans are all going to fail because of it, the level of plastics in our bloodstreams is a significant cause of disease and death, and not just in humans.
The focus of Climate Change, Carbon emissions etc. is so that the populace has been groomed to accept Carbon Tax.
This is coming, soon, to all 'industrialized nations'. Once we have gone to digital wallets (this is set to occur in America in June/July of the coming year... can't wait to see what calamity they create/use to make the excuse for it)... they can then begin tracking all we purchase, all we consume, and assign a Carbon Tax to it.
This Carbon Tax will be the new Credit Score, Social Score, perhaps even your Police Record all rolled into one. What you are allowed to do, or not allowed to do, will depend immensely on this system.
When they are actually rolled out, internationally, it likely will be named different things in different countries. But for an idea of what this will be like, one only has to look to China and its non-cash identity based system to get a glimpse of how it will work... and how a person can be totally de-personed if they do not conform.You've got a point there. Wouldn't surprise me either that instead of solving the problem, they (politicians, corp, and the powers that be) will monetize the problem.
They already have, with the huge subsidies and "help" to renewable energy sources. Sources that, somehow, get paid for but seldom built.
Don't touch that subject Wilderness.
We are here in the middle of the process to fight against huge solar farms that we will get in the backyard. Good almond and olive fields will be cut down, irrigation ways and bird habitats destroyed for huge solar farms that are not built out of ideological reasons but to speculate. The firm is Italiën and the hedge fund Israeli. So non of the profit will go to Spain. The Local area will be destroyed and a village completely surrounded by an ugly landscape of reflecting black squares.
I'm all for solar power (got it myself) but why not build it on the roofs and let everybody control their own energy...(oh no, that's far too dangerous, make people independent of energy...)
And I'm not against solar plants either, but build it in the desert. And give (well paid of course) the energy to the people. But don't use it as a speculation scheme and abandon it after 8 years when the profit is taken and the landscape and ecosystem destroyed.Are you familiar with the solar plant in Ouarzazate, Morocco? It was land that was good for almost nothing, certainly not able to handle almond or olive orchards, and it was converted into a huge solar plant. (I am not certain how much of that electricity is exported though.)
I certainly agree that the best solar plants should be on top of houses though, although for many people paying a monthly bill to the electricity company is possible, whereas investing in a solar unit for the house is not.Yes, I've seen pictures of the solar plant in Marocco. And I think it's a great opportunity to use this land in such a way.
In the Netherlands, they have a system where you generate electricity with the panels on your roof. You consume what you "harvest" and if you have more you sell it to the electricity company. (and if you fall short you buy)
So you don't have batteries. I think this is a far better solution than the massive solar plants.I see two problems with the rooftop systems.
1) It is unlikely to receive periodic, needed maintenance. From simple cleaning to minor repairs, it isn't going to get them.
2) Without storage capabilities, there will still be a need for the same level of power generation ability we now have. That's a massive waste of resources, just to be able to produce twice the power you need, and one result will inevitably be that the generation capability is allowed to fall below what is needed. Whereupon that country will see blackouts in long storms or other events that block sunlight.
Of course, its all about profit, power and control.
They want to create Digital Wallets because this allows them complete control. You will not be able to escape the system.
With cash you can work under the table, you can have cash stored in a vault that no government entity knows about, it allows freedom and liberty that a Digital Wallet will strip from you.
Once Digital Wallets are the new accepted currency system, the government will always know what funds you have available, and the government will easily be able to take those funds away from you, freeze your assets, strip you of your ability to purchase travel or food.
From there a Carbon Tax is then placed on everything you eat, everywhere you travel, every degree cooler or warmer you keep your home, nothing purchased or consumed will be private, all will be subject to the Carbon Tax.
In order to track and enforce consumptions and expenses for Carbon Tax you need to have all transactions tied to one's Digital Wallet.To be honest, I trust the government more than private companies. As private companies can bend the rules quickly and easily.
We are more controlled by companies who overrule local governments than the other way around.
But yeah, the digital wallet is a trap. In the 2008 crisis, it was thanks to work paid by cash that kept Spain afloat. There was a massive unemployment, but people still could work for some cash in the fields or do some other small jobs here and there. It would have been a complete disaster if society was only based on Digital Wallets.
Ken, Climate Crisis is more than just a pollution crisis, and is far more serious than microplastics.
Although it’s currently unknown how harmful microplastics are, research has shown that bottle-fed babies swallow millions of microplastic particles each day e.g. a similar level of exposure we all get from our food, water and the air now; and yet although hundreds of millions of bottle-fed babies have been exposed to microplastics for many decades it hasn’t caused a national crisis in any country – whereas Climate Change is destroying land and lives and causing deaths right now.
This year alone, land in parts of the third world has been lost to the sea, displacing the local population; even in Wales a village is being abandoned to the sea because of rising sea levels – and it’s only going to get worse.
This year alone, Europe, Britain and large parts of the USA suffered record breaking heatwaves that not only caused water shortages and wildfires, but also deaths from heat stroke on an unprecedented scale.
In Europe alone these summers (record breaking heatwave) led to over 53,000 excess deaths (3,271 excess deaths in Britain).
It’s not just the heatwaves, but also the droughts, wildfires, floods, and in the USA the significant increase in severity and frequency of hurricanes, all causing misery, deaths, destruction and loss to property.
So as serious as plastic poisoning is, Climate Change is far more serious. But focusing on tackling one isn’t at the exclusion of the other; governments around the world, including the UK Government are tackling both plastic pollution and Climate Change.
• 2022: Wildfires rip through the UK amid record-breaking heatwave https://youtu.be/zQ4wEx9v7_I
• 2022: UK Heatwave: Firefighters tackle 'absolute hell' https://youtu.be/H2bxvd2URQ0Not to belittle any suffering ongoing due to water erosion or other natural disasters, but this has ALWAYS been the way the world works.
It gets cold (The Little Ice Age or Mini Ice Age is an interesting study the early 1700s was one of the coldest periods in recorded Chinese history).
You can find lost cities of antiquity under water all across the world, Shicheng China, Thonis Greece, Heracleion Eqypt.
And it gets hot.
Does man have an impact on it, absolutely, humanity does.
Would the world remain stagnant, with coastal villages being safe, with temperatures remaining constant if man produced no pollution?
No it would not.
It would not come close to remaining constant.
What are we to do then... are we going to give up civilization's technologies and stop using Energy?
What we are talking about here is Energy... what powers one's home, the Internet, Hospital equipment, Communications equipment, transportation, farm equipment, the world as we know it, civilization and society as we know it, relies on the cheapest energy available to stay alive.
When it comes to Climate Change what good exactly does Carban Tax do?
Where do those proceeds go?
How does it impact global warming?The Solar Sun, is the primary form of energy for the planet Earth. All othes are secondary. Yes, look all around you...and you will see that flowering plants or vegetations, and animals (human being inclusive) depends on the Sun for energy. Fortunately, fire, instead of electricity, fosssil fuels, solar, and turbo or waterfalls is discovered first for cocking and a means of lighting at night. Fortunately again, it took thousands of years for solar and renewale energy to be discovered. Why was not carbon tax in vague when petroleum was discovered? Why now when renewable energy is about to replaced gas in 15 years time, in some advaneced economies? Why? Seriously, climate change is a reality. Unfortunately, it was the negative activities of humans that cause these changes I think we're here to stay with these climate changes?
There is old renewable energy, like wood and hydropower and new renewable energy like wind and solar.
By 2040, according to the IEA, wind and solar will cover under 5% of global energy needs.
We cannot solve climate change or energy needs with wind and solar because neither provide reliable energy. Furthermore, it is outrageously expensive.
Consequently, these high prices coming from new policies regarding renewable energy will cause the death of many people. If we cannot afford to heat our homes in the dead of a cold winter, we die.Amen Savvy, thank you for staying on point about what really matters and what is really at stake, due to progressive leftist ideology and these wacky notions and plans of theirs, the true culprit as to what makes people.....dead!!
AB, Even if the U.S. were to go to zero fossil fuels from today onward (which is impossible, actually) by 2100, we would have reduced the temperature by only 0.33 degrees Fahrenheit. So, in essence, we would have spent trillions for nothing.
It is much better to grow our GDP. Rich nations produce healthier people who live longer and more fulfilling lives.
Rich nations can also address health, energy, and education for poor nations....Rich nations produce healthier people who live longer and more fulfilling lives.
Rich nations can also address health, energy, and education for poor nations....
Why don´t we start with the USA?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … ending.jpgCorrect, even if we “were to go to zero fossil fuels from today onwards” (which would be impossible) we would not reduce global temperatures; it’s like a car putting on the brakes on ice (just continues to slide forward, and slow down slowly) e.g. it would take decades or even centuries for global temperatures to drop back.
However, for as long as we continue to pump excessive quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere global temperatures will continue to rise at an ever increasing rate; with dire consequences. And if we don’t respond quickly enough there’s the real risk of reaching a tipping point (point of no return) where nothing could stop Global Warming from going from bad to worse e.g. the droughts, floods, wildfires, heatwaves, hurricanes and rising sea levels becoming so frequent and intensive that civilisation as we know it will be in real jeopardy.Civilization as we know it will also be in real jeopardy of we go too far and too fast in cutting energy usage.
No one is talking about cutting energy usage, the emphasis isn't on reducing energy usage, but in transitioning from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy as a matter of urgency.
What will it matter if most of us are already dead, due to the holier-than-thou, unrealistic, uncompromising, often unchallenged 'go green' crusaders?
It really doesn't matter, fossil fuels are in limited supply. Their supplies will be exhausted at some point. They aren't endless. If we don't have reliable energy sources beyond that the planet will be in trouble.
Have never stated nor indicated once that there isn't a need to utilize everything at our disposal. All while continuing to navigate the field of additional energy sources. Again, in addition to, not in lieu of!
Biden coming out and saying that he's not drilling, there's no drilling, there will be no coal mining, stopping work on the pipeline on day one! That's a problem, he's a problem, the Dems/the left are a problem & NEVER a solution!.
I hope that all of America is beginning to see that right about now!Faye, can you not agree we needed a better plan than what we have seen out of this White House? Don't buy ice cream if you have no freezer. It will take many years to build a grid that can support over 340 million citizens. It would also be nice to have the kind of advanced manufacturing in the US, so we need not depend on China, and other countries for our solar equipment as well as wind turbines. Not to mention the great amount of infrastructure that would be needed to bring EV a true choice.
This White House bought a load of ice cream and it melted long ago.
We need a very good well-laid plan. This will take true problem solvers, not a bunch of people that are standing knee-deep in melted ice cream.
Biden has attacked this problem half-ass-backward in my view. Or if not Biden, whoever is telling him what to do.
There’s a choice between sticking your head in the sand and pretending there’s no issue until it’s too late; or recognising the problem and trying to do something about it: The former will destroy the lives of millions, while the latter at least has a chance of limiting the damage.
I prefer the later. One would wonder why the Ostrich, one of the fastest running birds on earth should prefer to hid his head into a sand ditch. Does he prefer to die, instead of running? RE energy? Yes. The whole world need it. But developing countries, and certain 'west' has reserved hydrocarbons that they shouldn't throw away or discard. Would technology find a way to transform these into. REnewable?
There is zero correlation between hurricanes and global warming. As for rising sea levels we can and have been dealing with that quite easily. In fact, Mother Nature takes care of this matter, in part, by naturally increasing land mass through accretion.
As stated in the article in DrMark’s comments below, hurricanes are becoming stronger, slower, wetter and wilder – which is having a devastating effect on the American economy, as the storms you get in America are happening with increased ferocity year on year; this year being the most devastating.
As regards rising sea levels, have you not been watching the news this summer of the devastation caused by rising sea levels in countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh; or is it that you just don’t care?
And it’s not just the hurricanes and rising sea levels, it’s also the dramatic increase in floods, droughts, heatwaves and wildfires caused by Climate Change e.g. up until the 1980s Britain was a cold and wet country, so we just didn’t have heatwaves and wildfires; but all that has changed, we now get heatwaves every other year, and this year (the hottest on record) saw devastating wildfires sweep across Britain.
UK Heatwave: Firefighters tackle 'absolute hell’ https://youtu.be/H2bxvd2URQ0Saying that the deaths in Bangladesh are because of the sea is a fallacy. The problem is the high population density and people building on rivers. About 75% of the housing in Bangladesh are self-built shantys.
If you had a home in England that was destroyed by flooding every few years you would build elsewhere; that does not happen in Bangladesh. (Most of the country is lowlands. Check the average elevation there and compare it to where you live.) The population continues to explode and the people continue to encroach on the environment and build cheap houses in places not fit for humans. As long as their population continues to increase beyond what the land will accept they will lose houses (and lives) secondary to flooding.
https://www.worldometers.info/world-pop … opulation/
Scare tactics do not work.
"Since then there has been no increase in the number of tropical cyclones, the rapidly spinning storms known as hurricanes in the Atlantic and typhoons and cyclones elsewhere. This suggests that global warming is not making them more frequent" https://www.economist.com/the-economist … anes-worse
There is a very similar article from NASA.Yep, I know, too many Americans are in denial, and will remain so until it’s too late.
Yep, thanks for the article, which does clarify that global warming does not make the hurricanes more frequent; but as the article states, the storms themselves are becoming stronger, slower, wetter and wilder – and this increased devastation is something we’re seeing happening in the USA with increasing ferocity year on year; this year being the most devastating.DrMark, I didn’t mention deaths in Bangladesh, I stated the fact that rising sea levels I reference the devastation in Bangladesh caused by rising sea levels – which is a fact.
I take your point about the over population of Bangladesh, but that doesn’t detract from the fact the devastation being caused, not just in Bangladesh but all around the world including in Britain, by rising sea levels.
https://www.statista.com/chart/19884/nu … r-country/
Rising Sea Levels Will Threaten 200 Million People by 2100
According to new research published by scientific magazine Nature Communications, 200 million people in the world will live below the sea level line by 2100. An additional 160 million will be affected by higher annual flooding due to rising ocean levels.
Out of the 200 million directly affected by rising sea levels 70% percent will live in just eight countries in Asia. Most people affected would live in China, Bangladesh, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Japan.
In Europe countries most at risk from rising sea levels include the UK, Germany, Turkey, France and Italy.
In North America, the USA, Canada, and Mexico are expected to see the highest numbers of impacted people, due to the size of their populations.
Below: the top 20 countries most at risk from rising sea levels, with both the number of people in danger and the percentage of the country as a whole are:-
Ranking by country (from most affected first)
1. China
2. Vietnam
3. Japan
4. India
5. Bangladesh
6. Indonesia
7. Thailand
8. Netherlands
9. Philippines
10. Myanmar
11. USA
12. UK
13. Brazil
14. Germany
15. France
16. Malaysia
17. Taiwan
18. South Korea
19. Nigeria
20. Italy
Also, 9 small populated island states at risk of disappearing altogether due to global warming (rising sea levels) are:
1. Kiribati
2. The Maldives
3. Vanuatu
4. Tuvalu
5. Solomon Islands
6. Samoa
7. Nauru
8. Fiji Islands
9. Marshall Islands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Presure group must be pressurized to mount Legislature against those bad political policies in the form of protest and civil unrest. Energy whether solar or renewable, is not produced and reserved for the rich alone. That's telling me that the poor shouldn't ride in any bus or car.
My point is that wind and solar energy are pretty much ineffective for both rich and poor.
We would be better off finding other energy solutions. For now, we need fossil fuels.Really? At 12:45pm today 56.3% of our electricity in Britian is generated from Renewable Energy (7.1% from solar, and 47.7% from wind), and only 23.2% of our electricity is generated from fossil fuels - See screen dump below from the British National Grid 'Live' website:-
Really? I’d like to see where “By 2040, according to the IEA, wind and solar will cover under 5% of global energy needs.”
According to this link to the IEA website, the IEA paint a different, more positive, picture: https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/renewables
We can solve climate change and meet our energy needs with wind and solar power as part of the Green Energy Mix; we are already doing it in the UK, and many EU countries – part of the secret is building resilience into the system, such as by storing energy when there’s a surplus and releasing the stored energy when required – the technology for this in Europe is far more sophisticated and advanced than you can imagine e.g. Green hydrogen and the Electric mountain in Wales etc.
Britain's Largest Battery https://youtu.be/McByJeX2evM
And FYI, Renewable Energy in Europe is no longer outrageously expensive; in fact since 2016 in Europe it’s become cheaper than fossil fuels. Yeah, when first developing the technology, the systems, the infrastructure and supply chains, and upgrading the National Grid, there is a lot of Initial Capital Investment; but once established unlike conventional fossil fuel power stations that burn coal, oil or gas, the energy from the sun and wind is FREE – windfarms and solar farms don’t need to keep feeding them with expensive fuel to generate electricity, the sun and wind is free; whereas, to keep the fossil fuel power stations fed you need to constantly supply them with gas, oil or coal to keep them burning.How much sun do you have in the UK? Are you not concerned about your upcoming cold winter? How will solar help you then?
In the UK wind is far more important than solar power, for the obvious reason that we get a lot of wind out at sea, off our coast (off shore windfarms); and as you may know Britain is a wet climate so it is often cloudy and overcast.
However, I had solar panels and a wall battery fitted to our house last year; and even during mid-winter our solar panels and wall battery slashed our electricity bill by 50% e.g. even on cloudy days the solar panels still produce some electricity.
In spite of our wet climate and with winter approaching, yesterday 7.1% of the electricity on the National Grid in Britain came from solar power; which I think is quite impressive.
In fact, at the moment, although it’s only dawn (the sun not up yet) so the solar panels have not kicked in yet; at this precise moment on the National Grid ‘Live’ website (7:15am) 46.5% of our nation’s electricity is coming from Wind, while only 33.9% is coming from fossil fuels; again, I thinks that’s quite impressive when you consider that just 10 years ago (2012) only 2% of our electricity in the UK came from Renewable Energy.Renewables have a significant part in European electricity supply. I add a graph that displays the main energy sources (nuclear, fossile, renewable).
As you may see it does not really matter, summer or winter. What is more important is the surge for electricity during the workdays of a week. You may notice a regular weekly pattern and dayly spikes of green (solar) energy.
Over the weekends industry slows down and demand for fossile energy is lower. Wind and sun are available all year long and don´t care for weekends.
The issue is the 30 some percent of fossile energy. Because fossiles have to step in on short notice if demand rises.
How much sun in central Europe? Roughly the equivalent of 900 to 1.000 hours per year.
Thanks for your comments Miebakagh. Actually, in general we should work towards discarding hydrocarbons; the biproduct of extracting and burning hydrocarbons is the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that causes climate change and leads to global warming.
And discarding hydrocarbons can be done. For example, the Conservative Government in the UK in the 1980s closed down the coal mining industry, so now Britain sits on huge reserves of coals that will never get used; the Scottish Government banned fracking in Scotland in 2015 and the UK Government banned fracking in England in 2019, so currently the UK is sitting on huge reserves of oil and gas that may never get used.Arthur, I've hint moments ago that these reserves of hydrocarbon fuels may need sort of technology to work them into another energy or renewable? But Nigeria is still sitting on huge coal reserves as Britain, since the steam engine was phased out more than 3 decades ago. Nevertheless, coal as a domestic fuel was presently used by roast food makers...corn-on-the-cob, plantain, yam, fresh fish, etc. Your inputs found me well.
Yeah, "carbon capture" is the only technology that could be used with hydrocarbon fuels to prevent CO2 from escaping into the atmosphere; but it's an expensive technology that's in its early stages of development, and then you've got the problem of how and where to store the CO2 to prevent it from leaking into the atmosphere - Renewable Energy is much cleaner and much cheaper, and good for the economy because of all the jobs it creates e.g. Renewable Energy is big business in Europe and China, creating a lot of wealth.
Yeah, yeah, yeah…. I’m not talking about natural disasters – Anthropogenic Climate Change.
There’s little we can do about natural climate change – But there is a lot we could do about Anthropogenic Climate Change; specifically reduce the burning of fossil fuels by transitioning to Renewable Energy before we reach the tipping point of no return.
The Earth’s wobbles on its spin-axis (obliquity) is a 26,000 year cycle, and the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit around the sun changes shape every 100,000 (both of which are well understood by scientists) and both of which has a dramatic effect on climate change. Yes, it was a lot hotter when the dinosaurs and a lot colder during the ice ages: Neither extreme would be conducive to humans, survival would be harsh, modern civilisation wouldn’t flourish, and potentially the risk of becoming extinct, as so many of the other humanoid species, including Neanderthal, have done in the past.
Obviously we’ve always had coastal erosions and changes in sea levels, with human communities being lost to the sea; that is something humans had no control over. What we have now is accelerated rising sea levels, and weather events, as a direct result of burning fossil fuels; and it’s a disaster that could be limited by quickly transitioning from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy.
I take it you’re oblivious to the climate change disasters in countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan this year; or is it that you just don’t care?
Where you say “What are we to do then... are we going to give up civilization's technologies and stop using Energy?” No of course not: We need to transition away from fossil fuels and towards Renewable Energy as a matter of urgency. And FYI, since 2016 Renewable Energy has become the cheapest energy available in Europe, including the UK.
No we are not talking about just ‘Energy’; we are talking about fossil fuels catastrophic impact on climate, and endanger our survival - as opposed to Renewable Energy, which doesn’t endanger our survival.
CARBON TAX
It seems to me that you are putting too much emphasis on carbon tax; currently only 25 countries have implemented carbon tax (the stick); while the UK and EU countries use a different strategy (the carrot) e.g. the ‘cap and trade’ approach to offset carbon emissions.
I haven’t looked into the Carbon Tax because it doesn’t affect Europe, but the European (and UK) approach of ‘off-set’ carbon is a positive step towards reducing global warming."And FYI, since 2016 Renewable Energy has become the cheapest energy available in Europe, including the UK."
Asked in another thread as well: is it actually cheaper or is it cheaper because govt. has fingers in setting prices and subsidizing it?It is actually cheaper because in Europe we’ve gone through the expensive ‘Development’ stage and have laid out the initial ‘Capital Investment’ to build the factories (creating jobs), supply chains (creating jobs), and infrastructures including upgrading the National Grid; these being the most expensive phase of setting up a new industry: So now the investment is just for mass production (creating jobs), and Exports in technologies and skills (Good for the Economy).
And with any new technology, it’s always far more expensive initially, but it gets cheaper once the initial Capital Investment is paid for, and when we reach the stage of ‘mass production’ (the profitable stage, which creates jobs, exports and good for the economy).
And interestingly, British Oil Companies, like SHELL and BP are now investing heavily in, and promoting, Renewable Energy.
Shell’s (British Oil Company) Climate Ambition: https://youtu.be/UQ2A1F05j38
Unfortunately the UK is not the EU... they have reversed course and gone from Nuclear energy to relying on cheap Russian oil and gas.
In general the world is not the UK, countries are looking for cheap energy and will take it anywhere and anyway they can get it.
That the UK and America are moving toward Renewable energy will matter little, because the developing nations, and nations like China, will use up every bit of fossil fuels that America and the UK do not.
This intense emphasis on Carbon, on Carbon Tax, on reducing energy usage in the Western world will do nothing. Countries like India, China, all of Africa, South America will use whatever we don't... their demand will never abate, it will only grow.
I have no problem with renewable energy. I will have a solar system put in my home within a year, I am currently reviewing a multitude of bids and quotes for the project.
I am not doing this because I think it will help reduce Carbon however, I am doing this because I know energy prices will go up 100% in just the next two years. Past that, they will continue to go up, whether it be because of scarcity or inflation or devaluation of the dollar.
So, knowing this, having my own source of energy becomes important if I want to be able to maintain a decent standard of living in the future.
I also own two EVs, one is a much higher expense than I preferred to invest in an EV, but I realize the prices for EVs are only going to go up as the demand increases... the demand will increase because gas prices are going to rise dramatically now that the midterm elections are over.
Fortunately buying an EV today is more of an investment into an asset than an expense, as I know I will be able to sell either vehicle in the future for more than I paid for them.
Not to mention the fact that I do not have to pay for gas, oil or other components that need replacement on a ICE vehicle. It is again, more of an economic decision for me. Climate change has little to do with it.Your first sentence shows how ill-informed you are of what’s happening in the EU and the UK.
FYI the EU has NOT reversed course and gone from nuclear energy to replying on cheap Russian oil and gas: It was Germany who closed down most of their nuclear power plants with immediate effect in 2011 in reaction to the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, with the intention to phase out the last of their nuclear power plants in 2022. And instead of using nuclear power Germany switched to importing gas from Russia.
However, due to the war in Ukraine, the Germany Government has temporarily halted the phasing-out of their last two nuclear power plants in an effort to shore up energy security after Russia cut supplies of gas to Europe's largest economy.
And contrary to what you might think, only about 30% of Germany's electricity comes from fossil fuels, most of it these days comes from Renewable Energy.
Also, FYI 13 of the 27 EU countries uses nuclear power as part of their energy mix, so it’s incorrect to say “the EU have reversed course and gone from Nuclear energy to relying on cheap Russian oil and gas.”
Natural gas makes up 27% of Germany’s energy mix, and before the start of the war in Ukraine 55% of the gas consumed in Germany was imported from Russia.
FYI information, before the Ukraine war Germany did not get the bulk of its oil from Russia. Prior to the Ukraine war, the supply of Germany’s oil came from:-
• Russia = 29%
• Extracting its own oil in Germany = 27%
• USA = 9%
• Norway = 8%
• UK = 7%
• Saudi Arabia = 7%
• Kazakhstan = 6%
• Nigeria = 6 %
Your second sentence is only partially correct: “Countries around the world are looking for cheap energy”, but many countries will not “take it anywhere and anyway they can get it”. FYI, Renewable Energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels in most countries around the world; so you will find many countries hastening their transition away from fossil fuels. Also, we know the damage that burning fossils is doing to the planet, so many countries (including China), especially in the EU, have put a lot of investment into developing and rolling out Renewable Energy, in spite of that fact that until 2016 it was more expensive that fossil fuels e.g. as of 2021 35.8% (over a third) of the world’s solar panels, and almost 50% (half) of the world’s wind power were installed in China. So it’s untrue to say “many countries will take their energy anywhere and anyway they can get it”.
Your 3rd sentence is inaccurate; the EU and UK, and China are moving towards Renewable Energy at a far faster rate than the USA. If the USA was keeping up with the rest of the developed countries then we wouldn’t be having these discussions.
Yeah, the developing nations will use energy from where ever they can get it; but with Renewable Energy now being the cheaper option, even these developing countries will have a desire to transition from fossil fuels to Renewable energy as soon as is feasible; so they will not use up every bit of fossil fuels.
Besides, it’s neither China nor India that is the major cause of carbon emissions into the atmosphere, it the USA:-
China with a population 4.35 times the population of the USA releases half the carbon emission than the USA per capita.
CO2 Emissions by Country (as a percentage of the world) the top 10 worst countries:-
1. China =29.18%
2. USA = 14.02%
3. India = 7.09%
4. Russia = 4.65%
5. Japan =3.47%
6. Germany = 2.17%
7. Canada = 1.89%
8. Iran = 1.8%
9. South Korea = 1.69%
10. Indonesia = 1.48%
The UK is 17th, with just 1.03%
Your 4th sentence is incorrect for the reasons given above e.g. Renewable Energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels across most of the world, and it’s not these countries that are the major cause of the CO2 emissions – the USA is the main culprit, see table above.
It’s good to hear that you’re getting solar panels and are using EVs. I had solar panels and a wall battery installed last year, and it’s made a big difference to my energy bills. We are thinking of getting an EV within a few years, and we’ll have to anyway as fossil fuel cars will be banned in the UK by 2030, but we’re biding our time for the prices to fall (in real terms) to an acceptable level; once mass production kicks in to lower the unit price, as always happens with new technology.
I don’t know about the USA market, but actually in Europe, and across most of the world, the cost of EV’s (in real terms) is not increasing, but decreasing; as always happens with new technology e.g. increased mass production always makes the unit cost cheaper (standard economics).
Yeah, and I know that you have little care for the climate change; and that you are not likely to change your views until it’s too late....Countries like India, China, all of Africa, South America will use whatever we don't... their demand will never abate, it will only grow....
Are you sure?
World consumption of oil and coal is fairly constant over the past 15 years.
However natural gas consumption has been rising continuously. Possibly because it was considered a clean energy source, compared to other fossiles.
The attitude towards natural gas is changing, nontheless due to the Ukraine war and lack of Russian reliability.
As always, before you shift into reverse gear, you have to come to a stop. This seems to have been achieved for coal and oil. Natural gas will be next, at least to limit consumption growth. Politics (at least in EU/UK) is amplifying this. Of course with consequences: Gas prices are very volatile.
No matter if you believe in climate change or not, something is changing and that is the decreasing availability of cheap energy. Drives up prices and opens markets to alternative energy sources.
Everyone better adapt to this, on the personal level and on a corporate level. Ken, while i don´t follow you on future fossile fuel use predictions, i am with you concerning the financial effects.A good example of how other nations will purchase and consume what we do not is India.
They are buying up every bit of energy being produced by Russia that the West will not.
The more India and other nations become more industrialized the more energy they will consume.
And yes, prices are going to go up, especially in the Western nations due to taxation and regulation if for no other reason.This is terrible. Seems it's a competition of fuel between human body and industry. Food security (energy for the body) and that for the industries seems alike. But while governments within constitutional powers and the frame work of law will do whatever it can to protect industries, and to a lesser extend domestic use of say gas, and other REnergy, not much will be paid to food production, harvesting, and storage. Oddly, hunger is prevailing in most third world countries, like India, and their government is buying fuel(machine food) their industries. Yet India has high poverty rates, and her people which are impoverished lives penury. Critically, human resource and industries, which are more vital? It'll took humans with a well fed body to man any enterprise.
Yes, the more India and other nations become more industrialised the more energy they will consume.
However, FYI India is not buying up every bit of energy produced by Russia that they can; that is an exaggeration. In fact, while India’s energy consumption has increased by 10% over the past two years, their increase in oil consumption has increased by just 4%, compared to Renewable Energy which increased by an impressive 13% in 2 years.
FYI, Renewable Energy is NOW cheaper than fossil fuels, and FYI India is transitioning away from fossil fuels towards Renewable Energy at quite a rapid pace; as shown in the data below.
Fuel Mix in Power Generation in India: Present and Future
In 2021 (last year) India’s energy mix was:-
• Coal and Gas = 74%
• Renewable Energy = 11.9%
• Hydropower =10.36%
• Nuclear power = 3.15%
As on 15 September 2022, India’s installed power generation capacity was:-
• Coal and Gas = 57.9%
• Renewable Energy = 29%
• Hydropower = 11.5%
• Natural gas = 6%
• Nuclear power = 1.7%
Projected Energy mix in India for 2027 (5 years’ time):-
• Renewable Energy 48.5%
• Coal = 37.9%
• Natural gas = 6.2%
• Hydropower = 9.2%
• Nuclear power = 2.2%
Projected Energy mix in India for 2032 (10 years’ time):-
• Renewable Energy = 60%
• Coal = 28.3%
• Natural gas = 2.9%
• Hydropower = 7.9%
• Nuclear power = 2.5%
So within the next 5 to 10 years Renewable Energy will account for over 50% of India’s Energy.Thanks; and you. This weekend I’ll be busy finishing off the video editing from the Bridgwater Carnival that we went to last weekend. Bridgwater carnival, an annual even every 5th November to raise money for local charities stems back to the gunpowder plot of 1605 when Guy Fawkes (a Catholic) tried to assassinate the king and Government (Protestant) by blowing up Parliament; in the hope of putting a Catholic king on the throne e.g. in those days Catholics were persecuted in England.
However, Guy Fawkes was discovered as he was just about to set light to the gunpowder; and ever since 5th November has been a national holiday.
Here are some of the highlights from last weekend’s Carnival: https://youtu.be/q3YnlaZFtqc
Six years ago the Parliament building as it was in 1605 was faithfully reconstructed, and the same quantity of gunpowder barrels placed in the same location as done by Guy Fawkes, as an experiment to see if Guy Fawkes would have been successful in his assassination attempt if he had not been caught at the last moment:
Gunpowder Plot reconstruction https://youtu.be/e2G8k7zXhkIThank you, for the information. Enjoy the lideo editing.
India aggressively ramped up its purchases of Russian oil in recent weeks, attracted by the highly discounted price compared to soaring rates for other kinds of crude. India's government has ordered at least 13 million barrels since the war broke out in late February, according to Reuters.
and
India is planning to expand its energy sector footprint in Russia through additional joint hydrocarbon projects in the Far East and the Arctic Shelf to meet the rising domestic demand amid the geopolitical upheaval.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne … 411642.cms
Nathanville loves to throw up "facts" that are often out-of-date, hypothetical projections, or just plain ignore the events of the moment.
Like when I said the EU shut down Nuclear Plants and became more dependent on Russian energy. He did not disprove that, he only affirmed that statement. Germany is part of EU... a big part.
Not all of the EU did so, but that is nitpicking. That Germany did so because of what occurred in Japan is irrelevant.Ken, I hold both you and Nathanvilli in very high esteem here. Facts are facts, and I've got to cross-check these before making an opinion, and concluding. That said, no one is an island of knowledge to him/her self. Even the famed Britannica or Americana is being challenged. Thanks, Ken.
This is true.
And Nathanville can often bring forth a wealth of knowledge.
However, it is knowledge that I often find very skewed, geared toward a pro-Socialist pro-UK perspective.
On the one hand, the ability to bring forth such information shows a sound foundation for his arguments. On the other hand, those arguments often exclude critical elements.
In this case, by the one example given of what India is currently doing (not projected to do, not what they were doing prior to the war in Ukraine) I disprove his arguments.
Nations will do what they feel is in their best interests... cheap energy from Russia is in their best interests, so they will buy all of it and use it.
BRICS is far more unified in supporting one another than pursuing the West's agendas for Climate Change mitigation.
Understanding that we are on the precipice of global transition, where the West loses its grip of dominance, where the Dollar loses its hegemony, where global conflict may be inevitable is critical.
It is in direct opposition to reality that China, India, and other developing countries are going to abstain from increasing use of fossil fuels to defer to renewable energy resources.
Those nations will increase their use of fossil fuels, while also using and developing renewable energy, nuclear energy and anything else they can to lower the costs of energy while producing more of it.
In 2014, fossil fuel energy consumption for China was 87.7 %. Fossil fuel energy consumption of China increased from 78.4 % in 1995 to 87.7 % in 2014 growing at an average annual rate of 0.59%.
https://fossilfuel.com/chinas-increasin … sil-fuels/
India's dependence on imported fossil fuels rose continuously due to limited domestic petroleum resources. India ranked as the fourth-largest petroleum consumer in the world following China, the United States, and Russia. The country's energy demand continues to climb as a result of its dynamic economic growth and modernization.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=17551
Africa as well is set to increase its consumption of fossil fuels, not decline in its use.
https://www.africa.com/fossil-fuels-to- … ough-2030/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment … ssil-fuelsThank you, Ken, for all your inputs. The links are educating and enlightening. They found me well. The way we expressed our study, research, opinion, and concluding remarks seems to differ. When I was a student in secondary school, I try presenting answers to current realities. I 'gain credit' and lead. But those who present 'facts as facts' also gain marks that make them above average. Nigeria, at present has plenty of petroluem and coal reserves. The former is the main energy source, follow by natural gas. Hydro-electricity is past tense. Dissel is cursent to power electricity, and had took the place of the Kaiji Dam and others. Solar's for your handy device, not phone. But you can instal it on your house if you have the money. Thanks.
... BRICS is far more unified in supporting one another than pursuing the West's agendas for Climate Change mitigation....
Well, it may look like it from a western perspective of today. But if we look more closely then we have 1 producing country (Russia) and 4 consuming countries (China, India, Brazil, South Africa).
If we look further with respect to climate change, then 2 of the 4 consuming countries (India and Brazil) will be most heavily affected by climate change. Hotter and more humid conditions make life miserable for our species. https://makewealthhistory.files.wordpre … 2070-1.jpg
We already see this development unfolding by large refugee streams from South and Central America to the USA and from Africa to Europe.
Sooner or later, better sooner countries like India will have to balance their economic growth goals with the survival of their people.
If we look at this map (University of Notre Dame) https://gain.nd.edu/our-work/country-index/
then the world will be split more into those countries in the green (better prepared for climate change challenges) and those in the orange/red (poorly prepared).
Most/all of the West is green. Lets me think: the West will prevail, and climate change even assists in this, even with increasing refugee streams.
Ken, I might be a socialist and live in Britain; but the information I provide in these discussions on Climate Change is not pro-Socialist; the UK Government is Conservative, and many of the countries in the Western World forging ahead with Renewable Energy while they phase out the use of fossil fuels are run by Conservative Governments. Outside of the USA Climate Change is not a partisan issue, it’s an issue that’s taken seriously by Governments of all political persuasions.
Also, I’m pro-UK perspective where I agree with it (which if you’ve seen some of my other comments on these forums, isn’t always the case); and besides it seems to be the “pot calling the kettle black” e.g. you are always pro-USA perspective.
On the contrary, I do NOT “throw up ‘facts’ that are often out-of-date, and I no more make ‘hypothetical projections’ more than you do, and I certainly don’t’ “just plain ignore the events of the moment” – if anything you often choose to ignore relevant facts, and give just “one side of the story” rather than giving a balanced view.
Talking about “facts that are out-of-date”, you did that in your 2nd link, which links to an old report from 2014, giving out-of-date data as it was in India in 2012 (10 years ago) e.g. 10 years ago Renewable Energy in the UK accounted for just 4.1% of our Energy Mix, now (10 years later) it accounts for over half our Energy Mix.
Where you said:-
“Like when I said the EU shut down Nuclear Plants and became more dependent on Russian energy. He did not disprove that, he only affirmed that statement. Germany is part of EU... a big part.” “Not all of the EU did so, but that is nit-picking. That Germany did so because of what occurred in Japan is irrelevant.”
You missed the point entirely, Germany is not the EU, it’s a Member State, and while Germany closed down its Nuclear Power Plants, 14 other countries in the EU (at the time) have continued to use and build more Nuclear Power Plants, including the UK and France. Germany’s decision to switch from nuclear power and become more dependent on Russian energy had little impact on the rest of the EU.
Getting back to your other points: In all these discussions not only do you talk as if America is the centre of the world, but you also only give one side of the picture (biased view), rather than a balanced view, to further your argument that its futile for the USA to transition from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy as a matter of urgency, because no one else is. Where in actual fact the rest of the world is transitioning towards Renewable Energy, but it’s not something that can be done overnight, it takes time.
The UK and many European countries have got half way there in just 10 years, it’s going to take countries like India, China and Africa much longer; but at least India and China in particular are year on year making big strides in doing so.
Even Africa, who, as your 3rd link highlights, does have a desire to move to Renewable Energy, and although they’ll make little progress over the next 8 years, as the report inters that, may change by 2030.
In all your arguments, you cite that developing countries like China and India are buying more oil and gas, not less, and they are now buying far more from Russia since the Ukrainian war. Yeah, they are now buying more of their oil and gas from Russia because currently Russian gas and oil is a lot cheaper than world market prices (non-Russian gas and oil), so it makes it more affordable for them – that’s common sense.
And yeah over the next five to ten years India’s consumption of fossil fuels will increase, as demand for energy increases; but the important point is that the production of Renewable Energy is increasing at ever faster rate, and is rapidly becoming the more prominent energy source. So, on current progress, by 2030 India’s will be less reliant on fossil fuels. China is heading in the same Greener direction, but with a much larger population it’s going to take longer before they can turn the corner, and become less dependent on fossil fuels. At least these countries are committed to transitioning towards Renewable Energy, and are doing so, but it’s a process that cannot be done overnight and will time.
You need to look at both sides of the picture, not just increases in use of fossil fuels as energy demands increase, but also the more dramatic increase in Renewable Energy which will largely replace fossil fuels over the next decade e.g. look at the positive side, the progress being made by developing countries to transition from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy. For example, half the world’s wind turbines are installed in China, which must say something.This is a positive projection toward the future and the development of renewable energy, but I can agree with it, because you also state that fossil fuel usage is going to increase in the future in MANY nations outside of the EU/UK.
Which is essentially what I stated, that you felt a need to counter:
"A good example of how other nations will purchase and consume what we do not is India.
They are buying up every bit of energy being produced by Russia that the West will not.
The more India and other nations become more industrialized the more energy they will consume. "
It appears the "they are buying up every bit of energy being produced by Russia that the West will not" set you off.
While a simplification of the facts, it is nonetheless fact, India, China, Turkey and who-ever else can get Russia's energy will buy as much as they can produce.
And if anything, that new cheaper source of energy will slow their progress toward renewable energy, not hasten it.
How about putting some perspective on your claim; you make it sounds as if Russia is India’s only main source of oil? Up-to-date data is that in October (last month) the main suppliers of India’s oil imports were:-
• Russia = 22% of India’s total oil imports.
• Iraq = 20.5% of India’s total oil imports.
• Saudi Arabia = 16% of India’s oil imports.
And all because Russian oil is now 7% cheaper than world market prices.Ken, where you say you find my knowledge is “geared toward a pro-Socialist … perspective”:
• How is the fact that the UK Conservative Government (right-wing) banned fracking in England in 2019 related to a pro-Socialist perspective?
• How is the fact that over the past 10 years, Renewable Energy has increased from just 2% to over 50% of the UK’s Energy Mix under a Conservative Government, related to pro-Socialist perspective?
• How is the fact that 10 years ago coal accounted for 40% of the UK's power generation, dropping dramatically to only 1.8% in 2020 under a Conservative (right-wing) Government related to pro-Socialist perspective?
It seems to me that you like to belittle any view that is contrary to your view; rather than accepting a more balanced view!Nathanville how does that information correlate to this 'discussion'?
That is a UK centric assortment of facts. Your post is proving my point.
You make very detailed, fact driven arguments that are based on the UK perspective of things, or skewed based on UK information, which doesn't always correlate to the actual realities (or truth) of what is going on, based on the larger pool of information I come across.
This debate was essentially about the statement I made:
"...Countries like India, China, all of Africa, South America will use whatever we don't... their demand will never abate, it will only grow...."
Perhaps the word "never" was misused, perhaps a statement of "over the next decade" would have been better suited to making my point.
Ken, in reading your last two comments, perhaps we are getting a little closer to understanding each other?
With regards to your first comment, I generally agree with most of what you say except for your last statement:
“And if anything, that new cheaper source of energy will slow their progress toward renewable energy, not hasten it.”
Your statement insinuates that Russian oil is now cheaper than it has ever been, which if true would add validation to your statement – However, when you consider these facts, it’s not as simple as that:-
• Oil prices were rising globally even prior to the full escalation of the war. However, when Russia attacked Ukraine, the price of crude oil in the global market skyrocketed from around $76 per barrel at the start of January 2022 to over $110 per barrel on 4 March 2022. Currently (when I checked a few minutes ago) the price of crude oil on the world market stands at $88.96 per barrel.
• Crude oil peaked at $144 per barrel in 1980, and again at $168 per barrel in 2008.
• Prior to the Ukraine war Urals (Russian crude oil) was generally the same price as world markets e.g. around $76 per barrel at the start of January 2022, but has fallen to $70.60 per barrel since, making it cheaper than world markets, but not any cheaper to what it was prior to the pandemic.
And that’s the point, although Russian oil is now cheaper than world market prices, it’s no cheaper than it was prior to the pandemic, and therefore there is no added incentive for India to slow their progress towards Renewable Energy e.g. Renewable Energy is still cheaper than fossil fuels.
In your 2nd comment, you ask how the information I gave correlate to this discussion. The information I gave demonstrates that just because I’m a Socialist I don’t always ‘spin’ my comments towards a Socialist perspective – which is what you accused me of. I gave three examples of “giving credit where credit is due”, by praising a Conservative (right-wing) Government for its achievements - which is something I don’t see from Americans e.g. Americans seem very partisan and never give credit to the achievements of opposing political leaders!
Yeah, I am British and European and so I know at first hand what’s happing in the UK and EU; while many Americans show their ignorance of what’s actually happing on this side of the pond e.g. your comments are just as USA centric as mine are UK/EU centric; and that should be no a surprise considering we’re on opposite sides of the pond!
Your third point in your 2nd comment demonstrates my above point e.g. your lack of first-hand information of Europe (including the UK) e.g. the pool of information you come across is often skewed to reflect the American perspective and distorts the realities of Europe.
Yep, replacing the word “never” with “over the next decade” does bring our viewpoints much closer in agreement - which is good.
Although perhaps the phase “their demand will never abate, it will only grow” might be an over dramatization; although I get the drift of what you are trying to say.
Yes, it’s not ideal, but looking at the bigger picture:
• The population of China is over 1.4 billion.
• The population of India is over 1.3 billion.
• The population of USA is only 330 million
Although USA’s population is 4 times smaller than Indian’s the USA CO2 emissions into the atmosphere is double that of India; and in spite of the fact that China’s population is 4.5 times larger than the USA’s China’s CO2 emissions is only double.
So even if India’s (or China’s) CO2 emissions do increase dramatically (even double) over the next decade because of increased energy demand, per capita the USA will remain the worst offender than developing countries like China and India towards contributing towards ‘climate change’ (global warming).
CO2 Emissions per Capita
• USA = 15.52 CO2 Emissions per capita (tons).
• China = 7.38 CO2 Emissions per capita (tons).
• South Africa = 6.95 CO2 Emissions per capita (tons).
• UK = 5.5 CO2 Emissions per capita (tons)
• India = 1.91 CO2 Emissions per capita (tons).All over the world, each country has it's national culture. That's the point ex-.President 'real' Donald Trump, try to expressed in 'America First'. Besides, these cultures can be copy or ignored though they're trending. I believe those who go outside their country and copy others are not sinners. Adopting that outside culture...has both it's merits and demerits. That said, let's have a balanced mindset and learn from one another.
World Trade
In response to your last post to me; what you say is a matter of opinion.
I don’t hold the same view as you:
The war in Ukraine is NOT about world trade, it’s about Ukrainians fighting for their freedom against an aggressor (Russia). The Russian Empire collapsed in 1989, and most of the former Russian States who gained their freedom have since joined the EU, and some of them joined NATO.
Yeah, the USA has its desires for nationalism in preference to globalism; that’s obvious e.g. the USA’s trade wars with China and the EU under Trump, and the lack of trade agreements compared to the EU; the USA has trade agreements with just 20 counties, the EU has trade agreements with 72 countries.
The EU believes in globalism just as much as China does; so there isn’t a BRICS and Western Nations split in trade – from a European perceptive it’s the USA that’s isolating itself by contracting its globalism (nationalism).
From a European perspective (including the UK) China is an important trading partner with the West (far more important than the USA) e.g. the reestablishment of the old ‘Silk Road’, which now also includes trains linking China with mainland Europe and England for trade.
Bottom line is: While the USA is turning its back on ‘international trade with China’, Europe, the EU and UK are all embracing international trade with China.
First 'Silk Road' train from China reaches London (2017): https://youtu.be/9GQrO6kAMcAAll hostilities are about trade, energy, resources, control.
America's involvement in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Ukraine are all about energy, trade, control.
If there were no energy resources to take from Libya, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine/Russia, we would have never involved ourselves.
If you think there is anything else about this that matters, then you do not understand the real motivations behind those that make the decisions in DC.
As to the split of world trade and economic forces, I will leave it to someone who explains it in better detail than I could type it (without a books worth of detail):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SEUU9Ti7Wk
Thanks for the link, but I think you’re reading too much into it, and being too alarmist – The video didn’t highlight any split between BRICS and the Western Nations, it mentioned in passing a growing distrust between East and West, but mainly it talked about increased diversity in the gold market whereby the USA has less of the share than it did in the past, and whereby the USA’s dollar market is not as big as it was.
Quoting from the video: “After the 2nd world war the $ was over 40% of global GDP, but as other countries have risen to power (the EU as much as China) we live in a more multipolar world”; note, a more ‘multipolar world’ (which includes the rise in influence of the EU as much as China) “so the USA $ is now closer to 20% of global GDP”. So what, does it really matter; the world has changed since WW2, the EU has become more powerful, just as China has? But there's no reason why that should adversely affect your standard of living.
However, when you look at the actual ‘gold reserves’, it’s not as dramatic as you seem to be claiming:-
• The USA by far the largest Gold Reserve in the world (8,133.5 tonnes) = 66.3% share of its forex (foreign exchange reserve)
• Germany has the 2nd largest Gold Reserve (3,359.1 tonnes) = 66% share of its forex.
• The IMF has the 3rd largest Gold Reserve (2,814 tonnes).
• Russia has the 6th largest Gold Reserve (2,298.5 tonnes) =21.4% share of its forex.
• China has the 7th largest Gold Reserve (1,948.3 tonnes) = 3.3% share of its forex.
• India has the 10th largest Gold Reserve (754.1 tonnes) = 6.9% share of its forex.
• The EU has the 12th largest Gold Reserve (504.8 tonnes) = 34.3% share of its forex.
• The UK has the 19th largest Gold Reserve (310.3 tonnes) = 9.3% share of its forex.
There you go again, USA Centric. All your comments are all about America as if it’s the centre of the world e.g. where you say “…..you do not understand the real motivations behind those that make the decisions in DC.” DC is not the world; DC is not part of the UK. The decision making in the UK and other ally countries is not based on just ‘trade, energy, resources, control’; that is a very cynical view e.g. NATO’s liberation of Yugoslavia in 1999 wasn’t just about ‘trade, energy, resources, control’.
I agree Miebakagh, we should be striving to “have a balanced mind-set and learn from one another”; and I have learnt more about other cultures since participating in these forums.
In response to your last post to me, a rather large one, lets consider what appears to be occurring on the global stage.
There is a split occurring, the "one world" "globalized free trade" that has benefited us all since the collapse of the USSR appears to be splitting.
Lets call this a split between BRICS and Western Nations, the world will be divvied up between these two trade systems. There will no longer be a one-world system that uses the Dollar as its Reserve and depends on American systems to transfer wealth.
That is what the Ukraine war is about, tensions with China are about, and the economic pains we are seeing the world over are about.
Western nations exported the majority of their manufacturing and production to nations with cheap labor and stable (strict) governments.
If the West wants to survive past this decade, it needs to return those industries and find those resources of materials back in the nations that choose to side with it.
We can see this continued fracturing between these two systems continuing to grow. Such as Biden's recent decision to ban top quality chip and semiconductors being allowed to China.
We also see this in Biden's orders and funding policies to have production of chips, semiconductors, batteries, etc. be made in North America.
Which was the point of this thread, that the greatest economic era in human history is over.
We will not be returning to an imperial style separatism, but the world seems primed to split into at least two competing factions.
A well-presented article, but some inaccuracies in your statements, including:-
#1: “America in particular changed how the world worked, they came together with their allies and said, essentially, you no longer need to have navies, we will patrol the waters/trade-ways all over the world for you.”
A reference to NATO, of which the UK is a member, and we along with all other NATO countries do have our navies; the agreement being that all NATO members should spend at least 2% of their GDP on Defence – with the USA being the biggest contributor because it has the biggest GDP.
However, of the 30 NATO countries, only 10 are meeting or exceeding that 2% of GDP expenditure on Defence; those countries being (as at 2021):-
1. Greece = 3.82% of GDP
2. USA = 3.52% of GDP
3. Croatia = 2.79% of GDP
4. UK = 2.29% of GDP
5. Estonia = 2.28% of GDP
6. Latvia = 2.27% of GDP
7. Poland = 2.10% of GDP
8. Lithuania = 2.03% of GDP
9. Romania = 2.02% of GDP
10. France = 2.01% of GDP
#2: Free Trade protected by America?
The fall-back position of ‘Free Trade’ is the WTO (World Trade Organisation). The EU has ‘trade agreements’ with over 70 countries (about a third of the world); the USA has trade agreements with just 14 countries.
Neither the EU nor the UK has a trade agreement with the USA. The UK’s main trading partner is the EU, which has been severely crippled by Brexit.
#3: Over the last 30 years, Russia, along with Ukraine and Belarus, became interwoven with Global trade. Europe became dependent on Russia's energy products Oil and Gas, while the world became dependent on products like Fertilizer, Potash, Neon, and even Wheat produced from these three nations which collectively they were the #1 producer in these categories and more.
It’s China that has become interwoven with Global trade, not Russia; the only main export of Russia is natural gas to mainland Europe.
Yes, mainland Europe, particular Germany, has become dependent on Russia for natural gas; over 50% of Germany’s natural gas came from Russia.
However, Europe is not dependent on Russian oil; most of Russia’s oil is exported to China.
The main countries for the production and export of nitrogen fertilizer are:-
1. China
2. USA
3. India
4. Russia
The main countries for the production and export of potash fertilizer are:-
1. Canada – exports about 50% more than Russia
2. Russia
3. Belarus
4. China
5. Germany
6. Israel
7. Jordon
8. Chile
9. Spain
10. UK
11. Poland
12. USA – exports about a 3rd of Russia
Ukraine exports about 90% of the world’s neon.
The main countries for the export of wheat are:-
1. Russia – 13.1% of the world’s total wheat exports
2. USA – 13.1% of the world’s total wheat exports
3. Australia – 13% of the world’s total wheat exports
4. Canada – 11.9% of the world’s total wheat exports
5. Ukraine – 8.5% of the world’s total wheat exports
6. France – 8.2% of the world’s total wheat exports
7. Argentina – 5.3% of the world’s total wheat exports
8. Germany – 3.6% of the world’s total wheat exports
9. Romania – 3.3% of the world’s total wheat exports
10. India – 3.1% of the world’s total wheat exports
#4: Biden has ushered in the De-Globalization stage of humanity.
Trump was the one that was anti-globalisation; his withdrawal of the Paris Agreement, his withdrawal from various ‘trade agreements’, his threat to withdraw from NATO, his dismissal of the WHO, and his trade wars not with just China, but with the EO as well.
#5: First Biden has completely decoupled Russia (and Belarus and Ukraine) from the rest of the world. This in turn makes all those products and materials I noted that they were #1 in the world producing (some in the range of 80% of the world's supply) unavailable.
The only product that I can see that is over 80% from the above-mentioned countries is Neon from Ukraine; only 13.1% of the world’s wheat comes from Russia, which matches the 13.1% that comes from the USA. The only other main product from Russia (exported to mainland Europe, mainly Germany) is natural gas. 50% of Germany’s natural gas came from Russia, but because of the war, Germany and the rest of Europe will break its dependency on Russian gas; sooner rather than later.
#6: Third Biden has impacted not just the production of energy products in America; he is cutting off the ability for Russia to supply energy as well. This in turn puts Saudi Arabia and OPEC in general in the driver's seat for energy pricing and production.
Well, while the USA basks in the use of fossil fuels, China and Europe, and other countries around the world are rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels in favour of Renewable Energy; so within the next 10 years or so, OPEC’s importance in the energy pricing and production will diminish.
#7: This will lead to a greater energy crisis globally than we saw in the 70s. Which in turn will impact production of everything across the globe, raising costs of food, transportation, etc.
In the interim, yes: But in the longer term, as we become more dependent on Renewable Energy that will change.
#8: It was the one-two punch of Russian and American production of oil and gas resources the last 20 years that had allowed us such affordable cheap energy... which in turn allowed the American economy to thrive fairly well despite exporting most of its manufacturing jobs to the rest of the world.
Yep, that’s the past; but in the future it’s going to be Renewable Energy where the wealth, prosperity and job creation is going to be; and China and Europe, including the UK are leading the way in that new technology, creating jobs, exports and wealth, while the USA seems to be missing out on a golden opportunity as it clings to fossil fuels.
The Global Renewable Energy Market (as at 2021) was worth $881.7 billion (of which 5% is in the UK); China alone invested $83.4 billion into Renewable Energy investments in 2019.
#9: The damage Biden has done in just two years... is almost incomprehensible... any fears Trump haters had out there, this man is going to bring into reality, and more.
As an outsider, I don’t see it; most of what you describe is world events that no single country has any control over; we’re all in the same boat. Although in the UK the situation has been made much worse because of Brexit – but that has nothing to do with America.When I got to the part where you tried to dispute what I noted about the products and materials Russia and that region produce, I knew you were on another one of your rants.
Some of the facts you spin have nothing to do at all with the points I made.
Others are just snippets that are unrelated or are eurocentric. Europe is an increasingly smaller part of the world. It has no military power or navy to speak of, America was always the real military force in the world since WWII.Very dismissive and condescending attitude; the facts I gave are very relevant to the points you made, they show that you are over dramatizing and inflating the situation to make it appear that the USA is ‘the all mighty’ and that the rest of the world are just gnats. The facts I’ve given you puts things into prospective. The fact is the world does not revolve around the USA; the USA is a part of the world - albeit an important player (but not the only player).
And for Your Information: The navy forces across Europe is far larger, and far more powerful than you imagine:-
FYI the USA has 490 Naval ships; while Europe has 261, just over half the size of the American navy, so not so small as you thought – the UK alone has 38 naval vessels, including 4 submarines that are armed with nuclear warheads at all times.
It’s also reflected in the expenditure e.g. the USA spends over $800,000 a year on defence; and European countries in NATO spends over $300,000 a year on defence; which is a sizable slice of the cake (contribution).
UK Nuclear deterrent: https://youtu.be/aUnoGsJnyc0The us, with half the population of Europe, fields nearly double the number of Naval ships, and presumably it is about the same for planes, tanks, warriors, etc.
What are your thoughts on why that is? Does Europe feel that a strong military is not needed (will Ukraine change their mind)? Or is it simply that the US is responsible, somehow, for the bulk of European military deterrent in spite of having a much lower population?Absolutely, I agree with you; the USA does spend almost double on defence compared with Europe, in spite of having almost half the population. That’s not what I was quibbling about, it’s the fact that Ken said, to quote “Europe ….has no military power or navy to speak of….” Etc.
Europe does have a large military power, and a strong navy (especially countries like the UK); it's just not quite as large as the USA, but it's not insignificant, as Ken would like to have us believe.
Getting onto your other points, the NATO agreement is that each NATO member ‘should’ spend at least 2% of their GDP on Defence; and if each NATO member did then it would be equitable. However, it's unfortunate and despicable, that (with the exception of the UK and France) most of the wealthy countries in Western Europe (who could afford the 2%) don’t spend that much on Defence.
Of the 30 NATO members, only 10 stick to the agreement, including the UK, France and the USA, the other 7 NATO members who do pay more than 2% on their Defence are all the less wealthy countries in Eastern Europe (who can least afford to pay), mostly NATO members who until the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1992 were part of the Russian Empire. Greece, a poor county, spends the most in relation to their GDP, 3.82% on Defence, which is even more than the USA spends, which is 3.52% of its GDP.
Europe does feel that a strong military is needed, but regrettably most of the wealthy countries in Western Europe have been too reliant on the USA as a back-up; albeit, since 2019 France has been trying to change that e.g. the French are pushing for the creation of an EU Army so that the EU can be more self-reliant militarily – but it’s a political process that will take time.
As regards Ukraine, on the 30th September 2022 it formally applied to join NATO, but obviously its application cannot be processed until/unless Ukraine wins the war against Russia. And if/when Ukraine does win the war and is accepted into NATO then I’m confident that Ukraine, like all the other Eastern European countries who used to be part of the Russian Empire will want to contribute as much as it can to Defence, and will strive to spend more than the 2% of its GDP on Defence.
One interesting development is that unlike the rest of Western Europe, who have been a little too complacent, France and the UK have been working together since 2010 to build up their military forces, and expertise e.g. a joint Anglo-French military force called ‘Griffin’; as briefly explained in this short video: https://youtu.be/p-Vnjv0jZ64
The 10 of the 30 NATO members who do pay their fair share on Defence:-
1. Greece = 3.82% of GDP
2. USA = 3.52% of GDP
3. Croatia = 2.79% of GDP
4. UK = 2.29% of GDP
5. Estonia = 2.28% of GDP
6. Latvia = 2.27% of GDP
7. Poland = 2.10% of GDP
8. Lithuania = 2.03% of GDP
9. Romania = 2.02% of GDP
10. France = 2.01% of GDPQuick question, and off subject, but please entertain answering.
If the US does declare an open war on Russia, will NATO Countries condone and enter into a war with Russia, over Ukraine?
From what I have read, NATO would not condone a war with Russia over what is happening in Ukraine. I do realize things could truly change if Russia threatens or uses weapons of mass destruction.
But, Ken has a point, it looks as if the US could push forward and declare war, without provocation.America won't declare war, that takes an act of Congress.
Biden will use some excuse and send troops in. We didn't declare war on Libya, yet we took that nation down. Heck we didn't declare war on Iraq or Afghanistan but I seem to remember America being involved in those countries for a while.I thought about that, but with the current Congress, they might be persuaded to declare war, but on the other hand, the Dems are jumping ship and after the elections next week, more will take that dive.
So, do you think if Biden orders troops and war with Russia in Ukraine, will NATO cave and support such a war?
I don't think they will... I can see the US going it alone, but man will we appear as slim around the world.UK will go along with it, Poland seems interested in seeing Russia defeated as well.
I wouldn't put my money on anyone else in NATO being particularly wanting to escalate this war.
I think it was Ronald Reagan, that pioneer that?
For clarity, the USA would only declare war on Russia if Russia made a direct attack on America, or perhaps may consider taking retaliatory action against Russia if Russia used nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Under the NATO agreement, an attack on one NATO country is an attack on ‘all’ NATO countries, so if Russia did make a direct attack on America, the rest of the NATO countries would automatically become involved.
For clarity, the USA will not take unilateral military action against Russia without the consent of NATO.
For clarity, consensus and consultation are part of NATO's DNA. All member countries are represented in NATO Council, where decisions are taken by consensus; which means unanimously e.g. expressing the collective will of all the nations. So NATO will not declare war on Russia, nor send NATO troops in Ukraine unless ‘all’ NATO countries unanimously agree to do so, as happed in Yugoslavia in 1999 when NATO went to war in Yugoslavia and overthrew the Yugoslavia Government.It would seem here in the US many feel Biden will send in troops, for a reason other than Russia using WMD. So, I see you have a definite feeling about what NATO would do. I would not be so sure what the US may do, Ken has laid out a scenario that makes sense. He pointed out our Congress would most likely not declare war.
However, Biden will use some excuse and send troops in. We didn't declare war on Libya, yet we took that nation down. He pointed out, we didn't declare war on Iraq or Afghanistan but I seem to remember America being involved in those countries with troops.As regards Libya - All NATO members were in agreement to invade Libya (air strikes only, no military on the ground). To make it legal under International Law NATO sought consent from the UN Security Council, which includes Russia and China. In March 2011 when the UN Security Council voted on it, 10 nations voted in favour of military action, and 5 nations (including Russia and China) abstained; if China or Russia had voted against the ‘Security Council Resolution 1973’ then NATOs war with Libya would have been illegal.
In that conflict, for clarity, it wasn’t just the USA; in fact the French were the first to make an air strike in Libya. American and British naval forces fired over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles, while the French Air Force, British Royal Air Force, and Royal Canadian Air Force undertook sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces. French jets launched air strikes against Libyan Army tanks and vehicles, and the intervention did not employ foreign ground troops.
As regards the invasion of Iraq, there were a total of 48 countries who participated in the war, which militarily was jointly led by the USA, UK, Australia, Italy, Spain and Poland – one interesting fact is that whenever the UK goes to war Australia is always keen to join in!
With Afghanistan, what sparked NATO to invade Afghanistan was the 9/11 terrorist attack in the USA; the terrorist operating from Afghanistan. Thus the NATO core principle that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on ‘all’ NATO countries automatically meant that NATO would respond e.g. NATO’s invasion of Afghanistan.Thank you for the information, I certainly learn something.
Yes he laid out in pretty good detail how Congress is bypassed.
How the interests or will of the American people are easily bypassed.
How America through unconstitutional means, is dragged into one war after another.
So, how does Biden get his direct war with Russia?
Very simple, they say Russia attacked a NATO member... That is amazingly easy to accomplish in the 'fog of war'.
Ukraine has captured a lot of Russian equipment, they have a lot of reasons to want NATO directly involved.
Like the WMDs excuse to invade Iraq, it is easy to manufacture a reason to destroy a nation.
Right now Russia is in the crosshairs and we currently have a President psychopathic enough to risk nuclear war.
Nathanville didn't give you a reason not to worry, he laid out the reason why you should be terrified of what the Biden Administration is about to bring about.
'Except those days be shorten, they shall no flesh be saved. But for the elected sake, those days shall be shorten'.-Jesus. Yes, there's hope. While as a student in a chemistry class. I was told any time you drink a glass of water, you also drink an insignificant micro-percentage of the glass that was erode into the water. Likewise, this apply to tin, ceramic, copper, and others. But our bodies are so strongly build to ward off the polluting elements. But smoke pollution from hydro carbon fuels will kill one in 2 or 3 minutes in closed doors. Critically, the immediate environment is what we should take care of. Plant a tree every day.
Is International Trade on the same tract as 'globalization'? Is not China ambtious of becoming the 'sole trader' of the world'? What d' you say?
Good question. I guess it could be argued that Globalisation could mean 'world domination' e.g. China becoming the 'sole trader' of the world; but Globalisation can also mean 'International Trade' as opposed to 'Nationalism' (where a country tries to become self-sufficient and shuns away from trading with the rest of the world.
But in economics it "takes two to tango" - if China were to become the 'sole trader; of the world China would have no one to trade with because if the rest of the world couldn't trade (to balance the books) then they wouldn't be able to afford to buy from China e.g. Trade has to be two-way for it to work (economic growth).
Hence why the new silk road (railway) between China and Europe, including Britain, is so popular e.g. it increases the EU's and UK's exports, as well as China's - So it's a win-win for everyone.
China's New Silk Road By Train https://youtu.be/g1XVNKMP_FEArthur, you have a some sound body of the. Principles of Economicrs and it's analysis. (Editing v
America and China are decoupling from each other.
For thirty years Wall St. Investment Firms grew rich on shutting down business in America and shipping them to China.
Even today, America's most recognizable and largest company (in terms of worth) is heavily dependent on its devices being made in China, only now is Apple slowly moving manufacturing away from China.
Production centers are popping up in Mexico, India, Vietnam, as well as the US, according to a new report in the Wall Street Journal. But no country can yet match the scale of operations Apple built in China.
Apple, Wall Mart, Nike, Gillette, a majority of top brand names and businesses have flourished by having their products produced and assembled in China.
This will be a painful time for both Nations, it will also be a time of choosing sides for many nations.
Saudi Arabia has come to terms with China recently and will be selling China oil in Yuan, not Dollars. And why not? They can buy more goods from China, the world's leading Industrial nation, than they can from America.
Russia is forcing nations to buy its resources, from oil to wheat, in Rubles not Dollars.
World Trade will be split into Dollar and Yuan, at the least, more if Russia succeeds in breaking free from the Dollar Reserve and survives its war with Ukraine.
Russia's ties to OPEC and its alliance with China will also have an impact.
The thirty+ years of stability and global trade as we have known it is over.
The fourty years of prosperity America has seen, since it was pulled out of a recession and double digit interest rates back in the early 80s is now over... we may be returning to such difficult times again, everything from power and gas shortages to rampant unemployment is possible.
It will be worse for the EU and many other parts of the world.You can only trade, what can be produced in one place and then be sent to another place, produced by one entity and then sold to another entity.
The general dependence on global trade is simply that some countries produce less than necessary for their own status quo and others produce more than they need for their situation. Kind of to help those countries in need and at the same time help themselves of emptying the shelves from overproduced products.
The USA had chosen long time ago (in the 70ties, 80ties) to be a service oriented economy. Was it a deliberate act to reduce own producing capability? Nevertheless others had to step in and provide all goods necessary for maintaining status quo. We can argue which hen, which egg was first..
Today we have the situation that reflects directly to the retreat of the USA from making stuff. Today workbenches of the world are China and a handful of other countries in Asia and Europe.
Imho this development has little to do with the currency that trading is done with. Would be the same in kind of a bartering system.
Another story is reserve currency. Much wealth was accumulated in USD after WWII. This is what makes the USD a reserve currency. I could argue the USD as reserve currency would even exist if the USA would cease to exist. Well - a little provocative..
Related Discussions
- 84
America Ready to Enter Into War with Russia - After November Elections
by Ken Burgess 21 months ago
The U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division has been deployed to Europe for the first time in almost 80 years amid soaring tension between Russia and the American-led NATO military alliance. The light infantry unit, nicknamed the "Screaming Eagles," is trained to deploy on any battlefield in...
- 46
Biden's Climate War He Is Taking No Prisoners
by Sharlee 3 weeks ago
For months now gas prices have topped $4 per gallon – The fact is this is more than double what we were paying just two years ago. Electricity costs are soaring as well, and are costing many from 25% to 40% more this summer. Let's face it these energy costs eat up a larger share of our...
- 299
Is Russia Going to Invade Ukraine? Should America care if they do?
by Readmikenow 6 days ago
I guess in this situation I do have a bias. I'm Ukrainian. I have relatives in Ukraine. I've been to Ukraine more than once. I have a bias, but I may also have a bit more insight into the situation.Russa invaded Ukraine in 2014. The propaganda will say it was Ukrainian...
- 733
What to do About Russia and Ukraine?
by Scott Belford 2 months ago
The consequences of how this aggression by Putin unfolds are enormous. The worst, of course, is the possibility of nuclear war. The best (which would be negatively consequential to Putin) is that Russia has an epiphany and removes its troops from the Ukrainian border. Any move at...
- 11
Reviewing the Biden Administration's horrible destructive decisions
by Ken Burgess 8 weeks ago
Lets Start with the worst, the one that has the World 5 seconds away from Nuclear War and total devastation.Attacks from Ukraine now strike within Russia regularly, the latest was a series of missile strikes against ICBM Radar Stations whose intent is to protect Russia from long range nuclear...
- 88
US says Russian warplane hits American drone over Black Sea
by Sharlee 16 months ago
"KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A Russian fighter jet struck the propeller of a U.S. surveillance drone over the Black Sea on Tuesday in a “brazen violation of international law,” causing American forces to bring down the unmanned aerial vehicle, the U.S. said.Moscow said the U.S. drone maneuvered...