This week, NATO III celebrates itself As thousands descend on Washington for a anniversary summit, we posit that the alliance is broken and sleepwalking into war
Will you join my new club? Itâs going to be called the Society for Abolishing World War II Analogies.
Members must pledge never to call anyone âthe new Hitler.â They may not dismiss peace proposals as âanother Munichâ or justify attacks on other countries as efforts to prevent âanother Pearl Harbor.â Most important, they must recognize that wars usually end with messy compromise, not total victory.
Americans love hearing about World War II. The stream of books, movies, comics, video games, and other flashbacks to that conflict seems endless. Thatâs because World War II presents the United States as we want to see it: a liberating force that uses mighty power to win total victory over evil.
Very few wars, however, conclude with triumphant parades. Most end with half-decent accords shaped over the remains of devastated nations and masses of dead, wounded, and traumatized human beings. To avoid facing that reality when we launch wars, we reach instinctively back to the example of World War II. Itâs the gift that never stops giving. (...)
This year, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moves
the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward, largely (though not exclusively) because of
the mounting dangers of the war in Ukraine. The Clock now stands at 90 seconds to midnight
âthe closest to global catastrophe it has ever been.
To continue the thread jack...
Like it or not, the (capital) markets are investing heavily in alternatives (also worth mentioning how the markets contributed to our current oil supply issues by reducing exploration and production since the great recession, and again during the pandemic).
The bigger question is how do we fix our electricity infrastructure (necessary with or without the lofty alternative goals)?
We are indeed at the mercy of fossil fuels. Becoming energy independent is a dream without a radical change in the US lifestyle.
.
Like it or not, we need oil and will indefinitely. How are windmills and solar powers going to replace everything mentioned above ? A couple of years ago I posted an article that said with the currently available technology we could only reduce our dependence on oil as an energy source to 70% by 2030. I am sure that present circumstances have pushed that date back even further because of inflation and the exporting of moneys needed for development to our enemies to buy more expensive foreign oil. How far do I have to go and how many more dots do you need to see ? Obviously much farther than this, because this is the obvious that you should already know being an educated American. But evidently you have forsaken your education for pies in the sky and other ideological pipe dreams brought on by the fear of dying in 10 years from global warming. You wish.
Over time, we will indeed move away from petrochemicals for energy, but not for sustaining life. At least the kind of life I would like to have. A life filled with peaceful abundance. You may prefer caves, huts and wars, but that is you, not me ...
The higher the global standard of living, the more likely we will have peace. Our standard of living is more dependent on the price and abundance of oil than anything else.
Thanks for the novel Hemmingway. What do you call it "Ode To Oil"? ð
Ohhh, so many ignorant statements to unpack so little time... it must be Christmas already!
We are indeed at the mercy of fossil fuels. Becoming energy independent is a dream without a radical change in the US lifestyle.
No, it isn't a dream nor should it be. And starting down that path doesn't require a radical change. It does however require a commitment to change and we won't ever start down that path as long as people like you dismiss it as an unrealistic dream. Not one person believes that we just can flip some kind of switch between oil dependence and oil independence though you love to try and play that up as an imminent threat to your (and everyone's way) of life.
Like it or not, we need oil and will indefinitely. How are windmills and solar powers going to replace everything mentioned above ?
In all likelihood they will not but it is imperative and only responsible to our children and future generations that we embark upon a path that makes us less reliant on energy sources that are more damaging to the environment and shift attention and development to energy sources that are not. Global warming is only going to increase, and if left unchecked will eventually cause even greater destruction to our planet. Also, many companies are not waiting for the government to act and are acting on their own to reduce their carbon footprint or is that something you are against as well?
A couple of years ago I posted an article that said with the currently available technology we could only reduce our dependence on oil as an energy source to 70% by 2030. I am sure that present circumstances have pushed that date back even further because of inflation and the exporting of moneys needed for development to our enemies to buy more expensive foreign oil.
All the more reason to double down and refocus our effort. Or, is your suggestion we just throw up our hands and give up? We shouldn't even bother?
How far do I have to go and how many more dots do you need to see ?
You have connected absolutely zero dots in your response to me as to how access to oil or overall prosperity of nations could have prevented the Ukraine war. "Increasing the prosperity of nations is key to peace" is kind of like a sixth grader's answer to a problem. Not much different than saying making food readily available to everyone will cure world hunger. Or curing all diseases is the answer to living a longer life. Trite but not actionable unless of course you do actually have some thoughts on how any of this global prosperity can begin to be achieved that you would care to share? Would love to hear more about that than your pontification on the "history of oil".
And now for the stupidest statement you have ever made...
Over time, we will indeed move away from petrochemicals for energy, but not for sustaining life. At least the kind of life I would like to have. A life filled with peaceful abundance. You may prefer caves, huts and wars, but that is you, not me ...
God forbid your life should ever be inconvenienced by any hiccup to your peaceful abundance... future generations living in climate extremes be damned! Pivoting back to my previous statement above: Not one person believes that we just can flip some kind of switch between oil dependence and oil independence though you love to try and play that up as an imminent threat to (your) and everyone's way of life. Also "newsflash", you'll note that I have not said word one about eliminating oil from the manufacture of products that sustain our life. I don't think there will ever be a suitable replacement for oil in something like the manufacture of tires but if engineers and chemists somehow do find one (with no real change in cost and performance)... more power to them. Don't be afraid Kurt, that would be called innovation.
I prefer caves, huts & wars? Did you just drop some acid or is that just after-effects from an acid filled adolescence? Where did I ever say this and who in the world connects the emergence of alternate energy sources to result in such extremes? If you are naive to think that, then I guess you must have actually believed Trump when he claimed in 2020 that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were secretly plotting to ban cows in the United States. Maybe you also believe Trump when he said windmills cause cancer too? We can and will continue to maintain our way of life... no huts, stone tools necessary.
Oh, and I prefer wars? Let me tell you what my answer to you on that is⦠and it would be the same thing I would say to Trump if ever I found myself in his presence... "Stop saying stupid sh*t".
The more that you share the more that you remind me of my late father. Someone who is inflexible, antiquated and too stuck in the past to envision a different future.
The U.S.A. Patriot Act, which was passed in response to the 9/11 attacks, granted the government vast new powers to combat terrorism. One provision gave the Treasury Department the authority to designate a foreign jurisdiction or financial institution a âprimary money laundering concern,â and to force American banks and other institutions to cut the entity off from the American financial system. Because the U.S. plays such a dominant role in global finance, this kind of order is usually devastating to the target. âAll of a sudden, the Treasury Department found itself thrust into the biggest issue of the day,â said Daniel Glaser, who worked on those sanctions and, during the Obama Administration, became the Assistant Treasury Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes. âWe were going to bankrupt Osama bin Laden. When I look back on it, Iâm almost embarrassed by the stridency of it. But this idea of targeted sanctions became ingrained in the international communityâs response to terrorism.â (...)
Nicholas Mulder, the historian, believes that the use of sanctions fundamentally altered the meaning of war and peace. Although often presented as a way to prevent military conflict through deterrence, sanctions are themselves akin to a brutal form of warfare whose effects fall most directly on civilian populations. âA nation put under comprehensive blockade was on the road to social collapse,â Mulder writes. âThe experience of material isolation left its mark on society for decades afterward, as the effects of poor health, hunger, and malnutrition were transmitted to unborn generations. Weakened mothers gave birth to underdeveloped and stunted children. The economic weapon thereby cast a long-lasting socioeconomic and biological shadow over targeted societies, not unlike radioactive fallout.â
Members of the Biden Administration, including the sanctions experts in the Treasury Department, take pains to note that the economic weapons theyâve deployed have exemptions for food, humanitarian aid, and medicine. But Adeyemo and his team have had to confront a range of unintended consequences, from global inflation to crop shortfalls in impoverished countries. For instance, in disrupting supplies of certain fertilizers of which Russia is a major producer, E.U. sanctions could exacerbate already acute food insecurity in Tunisia and other parts of Africa.
Daniel Glaser, the former Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, said that itâs important not to be coy about the damage sanctions do, collaterally or head-on. âWhen you talk about trying to raise inflation, or raise unemployment, or damage the G.D.P.âwhat do you think that is? Those are numerical representations of ways youâre hurting the people.â He went on, âI think we need to own it. Iâm not saying I donât understand the criticism. Itâs tragic that someone like Vladimir Putin puts us in a position where we have no choice but to do this. But I do agree that the world sucks, and you often have to do things that are the lesser of two evils.â
Weaponizing finance/capital vs. weaponizing fossil fuels.
