PPH: Renewable energy best way to fight Putin

Where does one even begin to critique this highly prejudiced and dead wrong opinion?

Fossil fuels will keep powering Russia’s ability to make war until we commit to a carbon-free economy.
By Greg Kesich Editorial Page Editor

EXCERPTS:

..........Americans are desperately looking for ways to aid Ukraine and punish Russia that fall short of war between two nuclear superpowers. The best way would be to speeding up the transition to renewable energy from fossil fuels..............

.............Our appetite for fossil fuels also makes Putin into a world power. Russia is the world’s third leading producer of oil and the second leading producer of natural gas; combined, the commodities make up the core of the country’s $1.5 trillion economy.

Since the invasion, the Biden administration and European allies have imposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia, isolating it from the world banking system in ways designed to inflict real pain on ordinary people. But the world is still buying Russian oil and gas at the same rate as before the tanks rolled across the border..................

..................There is political pressure on Congress to increase domestic production of oil and gas, and we could probably replace what we buy from Russia (but even that would take time). But we couldn’t produce enough oil and gas to displace Russia as a major exporter of the world’s energy and take away its ability to make war on its neighbors and blackmail the industrialized world.

But a big commitment to renewable energy would do just that...................

................While some of the technology is still emerging, like green hydrogen to power ships and heavy equipment, most of what we would need to wean ourselves off oil is here now, and getting cheaper all the time. Electric vehicles and wind- and solar-powered electric heating systems with battery backups could quickly eliminate the need for Russian oil if we are committed to financing the upfront costs..................

....................The transition from fossil fuels to a carbon-free economy has been a long-term strategy to fight climate change. Now it’s also the short-term tactic to fight Putin’s fossil fuel-fired ability to threaten its neighbors.

Read the full piece at:

https://www.pressherald.com/2022/03/06/the-view-from-here-7/

************************************* 


Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Views: 209

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Willem Post on March 7, 2022 at 1:08pm
Remember, ALL the brouhaha in Ukraine is due to the US/UK using NATO to not keeping the US/German pledge, made in 1990 to Gorbachev, not to expand beyond East Germany.
.
Subsequently, NATO moved its infrastructures closer to the Russian borders, under the banner of "each nation has the right to make its own arrangements regarding its security".
.
This is like Columbus aiding and abetting the spreading of Christianity to the natives, under the banner of the Holy Cross.
.
ENERGY COSTS
.
Recent energy cost increases are entirely due to the unwise "acquisition" of Ukraine by the US/UK-led NATO and a compliant EU.
.
It looks like the EU, and especially Germany, would be thoroughly screwed by the US, if Russian gas and oil would be under sanctions.
NOTE: Before Ukraine, there was sanity, after Ukraine came insanity.
NOTE:

EU natural gas prices are often stated as Euro/1000 m3

1 Euro = $1.16

1000 m3 contains 1000 x 35.315 ft3/m3 x 1000 Btu/ft3 = 35,315,000 Btu

1 MWh = 3,412,000 Btu

.

EU spot price of natural gas was $335 Euro/MWh on Mar. 7 = (335 x 1.16/3,412,000)/1,000,000 = $113.9/million Btu. See table 


US

EU

EU

          

Before Ukraine

 

 

 

 

$/million Btu

$/1000 m3

Euro/1000 m3

3.0

106

91

4.0

US long-term contract

141

122

5.0

US spot price

177

153

6.0

212

183

7.0

247

213

8.0

283

244

German long-term contract

9.0

318

274

10.0

353

304

After Ukraine

 

 

 

 

42.5

1500

1293

EU spot price

56.6

2000

1724

EU spot price

113.9

 

4022

3467

EU spot price, Mar. 7, 2022

EXCERPT from:
 

THE UKRAINE PLOT IS THICKENING WITH GERMANY AND FRANCE BARELY IN LOCKSTEP WITH US/UK-LED NATO

.

NATO Expansions Starting in 1999 

 

The US Government/US Media Complex has a standard “unprovoked, unjustified” descriptor of the Ukraine War, which hides a long history of provocative actions by the US/UK regarding Ukraine. This history is important to understand: 1) how we got here, and 2) what responsibility the US bears for the current attack on Ukraine.

https://fair.org/home/calling-russias-attack-unprovoked-lets-us-off-the-hook/

 

Unprovoked?

- NATO expanded its military personnel and infrastructures beyond East Germany to Russian borders, after promising not to expand beyond East Germany in 1990. 

- NATO claims innocence, because each country has a right to make its own security arrangements, which is OK, except it should not be dome at the expense of the security of other countries. 

- However, NATO has no right to claim innocence, because it pledged not to expand beyond East Germany in 1990

 

Unjustified?

- NATO would have AEGIS systems, with hypersonic missiles, in Poland, Ukraine and Romania that would, if equipped with nuclear bombs, would have the potential to destroy all of Moscow and East Russia within minutes. 

- Russia could have a proper counter protection, but it would have to place similar missiles on Cuba and in Mexico.

 

This article also summarizes statements by prominent people in the UK, US, and Europe opposing NATO expansions.

 

In 1997, dozens of foreign policy veterans (including former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and former CIA Director Stansfield Turner) sent a joint letter to then-President Bill Clinton calling “the current US-led effort to expand NATO…a policy error of historic proportions.” 

 

In 1998, NYT columnist Thomas Friedman (5/2/98) asked George Kennan—architect of the US Cold War strategy of containment—about NATO expansion. Kennan’s response:

 

I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely, and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.

 

Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are—but this is just wrong.

 

Despite these warnings, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were added to NATO in 1999, with Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia following in 2004.

 

In 2008, US planners were warned by US Ambassador to Moscow William Burns (now director of the CIA under Joe Biden). WikiLeaks leaked a cable from Burns titled “Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines” that included another prophetic warning worth quoting in full (emphasis added):

Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region.  Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. 

 

Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war.  In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.

 

Even without officially being in NATO, Ukraine has become a de facto NATO ally—and Russia has paid close attention to these developments. 

 

In December 2021 Putin expressed his concerns:

 

Over the past few years, military contingents of NATO countries have been almost constantly present on Ukrainian territory under the pretext of exercises. The Ukrainian troop control system has already been integrated into NATO. This means that NATO headquarters can issue direct commands to the Ukrainian armed forces, even to their separate units and squads….

 

Kiev has long proclaimed a strategic course on joining NATO. Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.” 

 

International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one’s own security at the expense of the security of other states….

 

In other words, the choice of pathways towards ensuring security should not pose a threat to other states, whereas Ukraine joining NATO is a direct threat to Russia’s security.

 

In 2014, Ukraine experienced a color revolution, called the Maiden Coup, largely instigated by the US. The US involvement was part of a campaign aimed at exploiting divisions in Ukrainian society, to push the country into the US sphere of influence, pulling it out of the Russian sphere (FAIR.org1/28/22). In the aftermath of the illegal overthrow, Russia illegally annexed Crimea from Ukraine, in part to secure a major naval base from the new Ukrainian government.

 

Broken Pledges and Geo-Strategic Objectives: All this would have been avoided, if the US/UK/EU/NATO had kept their promises, made in 1990, not to expand beyond East Germany

 

George Kennan, former US ambassador to the Soviet Union, suggested to the US government in 1990s, expanding NATO up to Russia’s borders would be the most fateful error of American policy. Regrettably, the US government turned a deaf ear to this. 

 

Thomas Friedman, a famous US expert on international relations, wrote in a recent article that ill-considered decision by the US to expand NATO has undermined the relations with Russia and the US government in early years deserves much of the blame. 

 

Tulsi Gabbard, former member of the US House of Representatives, said the crisis could have been ended, and the war easily avoided, if President Biden had simply promised not to accept Ukraine’s becoming a member of NATO. But they chose not to do so.

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/202203/t20220303_10647695.html

 

Leading experts warned NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Why did no one listen?

From Kennan to Kissinger, Western foreign-policy thinkers saw NATO’s eastward march was a dangerous game

https://www.rt.com/news/551225-nato-expansion-lead-conflict/

 

US Department of Defense 5-y Plan: Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz issued a US DoD plan for 1994 to 1999, that included the expansion of NATO, i.e., expand US geo-strategic objectives at the expense of Russia. 

The US Congress approved the expansion of NATO in 1998. 

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were admitted to NATO in March 1999

 

NATO marched towards Russian borders, saying sovereign nations can apply and NATO members will decide, somewhat similar to becoming a member of a golf, or yacht club. 

 

That whole approach regarding the indivisibility of security in the nuclear age is totally bonkers. It ultimately led to the Ukraine situation.

 

At present, the US Government-US Media complex is repeating, ad nauseum: All this has nothing to do with NATO expansion, but everything to do with evil Putin, who: 

 

1) Aims to deny Ukraine’s right to exist; 

2) Aims to reestablish the greatness of Russia, 

3) Hates freedom and democracy

 

If Russia’s attack on Ukraine has nothing to do with decades NATO expansions, how come so many western experts have spent decades warning NATO expansions would lead to an attack on Ukraine?

 

Spinmeister and former Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, falsely claims: “This thing (i.e., NATO expansions), we were warned about for decades, was never anything anyone ever mentioned, until the end of last year” (i.e., 2021). 

 

That statement is false, because numerous prominent people had warned against expanding NATO, because no one was threatening anybody, at that time.

Comment by Willem Post on March 7, 2022 at 6:53am

Sleazy, stumbling, grifting and grafting Joe is also giving our enemies IRAN AND VENEZUELA a free pass, if they sell more oil on the world market, so Russian oil exports, about 5 million metric ton per day, would not be needed; that would put downward pressure on world oil prices to help Europe and hurt Russia, and help Dem/Progs in the November 2022 Election 

In the US, sleazy Joe is posturing as a FAUX environmentalist by closing down parts of the US oil, gas, and coal infrastructures, and pushing 30,000 MW of OFFSHORE wind turbines by 2030, which is physically impossible, and would mostly benefit Europe, which has already built 22,000 MW of offshore wind turbines, vs the US 30 MW in Long Island Sound. 

And there is the economic and social and cultural disaster of the just-walk-in, anyone-is-welcome, open border, ($tens of $billions per year)

All of this would further burden the US economy with much higher energy costs, which also would be to the advantage of Europe;

TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE, WITH THE US GIVING THEM (the Europeans) THE STONE

Comment by Jim Wiegand on March 6, 2022 at 7:18pm

Joe would rather buy oil from his old "reset" buddy in Russia.

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on March 6, 2022 at 6:44pm

Comment by Willem Post on March 6, 2022 at 3:58pm

You cannot fight wars with wind and solar, with electricity-powered weapons systems, navies, air forces, armies, because BOTH could be at minimum levels for 5 to 7 days.

PLUS, fighting such an electric war would be 2 to 3 times more expensive, on an A-to-Z, lifetime basis

There would be a ceasefire for those days?

Comment by Jim Wiegand on March 6, 2022 at 1:13pm

Green Fraud will never fight Putin, climate or anything else but it will stuff international bank accounts. They post lies like this because most people are suckers. 

Comment by Robert Feller on March 6, 2022 at 12:49pm

I'm just shaking my head repeating that you can't fix stupid or democrats/socialist's even with facts and an education.  The indoctrination is complete and there is no room for logic or any other opinion that would be correct.  The most unreliable form of energy anywhere on this planet that is incapable of existing with subsidies is what this moron is expressing will keep us out of war.  How in the bloody hell does this idiot get published?  Useful idiots like him are what keep me up at night because this liberal mindset is a mental illness.  With any luck he got the covid shot(s) and booster and will soon be departing the planet anyway.  Probably better if he was not allowed to propagate the species as the liberal mindset might be a genetic trait not something that can be breed out easily.

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on March 6, 2022 at 12:01pm

Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us. Seriously, why should we believe what the media and power elite are telling us after they have done nothing but lie to us over so many things?

Here’s Your “Red Pill” Moment About the Russia-Ukraine War

https://rootforamerica.com/heres-your-red-pill-moment-about-the-rus...

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service