A thread to talk about news and politics affecting Europe as a whole, rather than just politics within specific European countries.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
As with other OTC threads, off-topic posts may be thumped or edited by the moderators.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jan 9th 2024 at 3:24:05 PM
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Yep, because we are flawed. So we need to be the best version of ourselves and fight for the best leadership possible in our countries so that we will also get the best version of the EU.
What people need to remember, is that the EU -flawed as it may be- gives the average citizen several options to influence European decision makings, when before it was just the governments who came to arrangements with each other.
Speaking of arrangements, it looks like France and Germany brokered a compromise regarding the Nord Stream II pipeline.
As I understand it, this will clear the last legal hurdle for this project. No doubt many in Berlin will sigh with relief that the project might be out of the headlines too. While the project is legally and economically sound, one can not help but feel that Germany handled the political aspect of the project less than ideally.
I was just reading a Spiegel article saying exactly that, that the German government has mishandled Nord Stream.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I don't think anybody can claim that they handled it smartly, at the very least. If nothing else, Berlin should have realized how easily this issue could exploited against them (which was what happened) and been more upfront about it.
Thank god, I feared that the whole issue would blow up.
In the defence of Germany: They couldn't really know years ago that the US would elect a president which would blow the issue up.
Most of the discussions around North-Stream are more about money than politics anyway. The politics are just an excuse.
Money and politics are conjoined twin, one can be in sharper focus than the other but they're always together.
And wherever money is involved, so is hipocrisy. The failure of German diplomacy is however that the attention is firmly on the allegedly German hipocrisy, while the ulterior motives of those who oppose Nord Stream are largely ignored.
Lol...yeah, that pretty much sums it up.
I mean, it speaks volume about supposed commitment to the Paris Accord when a gas pipeline that isn't going to be operational before the long-term consequences of climate change fuck us all is being erected.
But hey, slow progress, Rome wasn't built in a day, the foreigners are going to get fucked before we do, let's get the gas while we can.
Edited by math792d on Feb 9th 2019 at 2:05:48 PM
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
Not sure if I follow you there…you are aware that Nord Stream 2 is mostly a back-up for Nord Stream 1, right?
Edited by Swanpride on Feb 9th 2019 at 5:36:13 AM
NSII is also supposed to be operational by the end of this year.
Both of these things absolutely make it better, yes. In this case it's not just a gas pipeline that'll be operational by the time we need to phase out most of our natural gas in order to preserve the human species, it's a pipeline that'll be operational and economically convenient right around the time we need to be making a political push to phase out fossil fuels in order to preserve the human species.
Yes, this is fabulous.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
Speaking of, Russia is responsible for about 40% of the gas used in Europe, correct? How much more will that be increased by the new pipeline?
You are aware that gas energy is cleaner than coal and therefore needed in Germany? Plus, it can be stored to a certain degree, something we still CAN'T do with renewables (though we are hopefully close)
and what exactly do you want to heat with?
For one, don't confuse gas with energy overall. Gas makes up only a small percentage of the energy we use. Two, there are different sourced for gas we can use and with which we can replace Russian gas in a heartbeat. It's just way more expensive. Russia is way more dependent on we buying their gas than the other way around. Hence there was dealing with it even during the cold war. And three, as I said, Nordstream 2 is mostly about having an alternative route for the gas we are already buying, just in case. It won't change THAT much about about the overall percentage.
Don't imagine that like "whenever Russia wants it can just turn off the gas and everyone is in trouble". Germany has gas storage which can supply the whole country for a year. During the Ukraine crises, it even pumped gas back to the Ukraine, since Russia had turned off the gas supply.
Edited by Swanpride on Feb 9th 2019 at 9:00:29 AM
I assume it is because "cleaner" is not "clean", and the amount of cash that was injected into the project could've been used into research and development of renewable sources, such as solving the problem of storage you mentioned, or safely getting rid of nuclear waste.
Edited by HailMuffins on Feb 9th 2019 at 1:55:52 PM
Well you have to prioritize SOMETHING. Germany went for the nuclear plants first and is now getting hammered for this decision. It is now focussing on replacing the coal plants.
And this is not an either or question. Germany has invested just as heavily into finding a solution for the storage problem.
Edited by Swanpride on Feb 9th 2019 at 9:02:38 AM
Uh, wasn't it internal opposition within Germany that sunk the Nuclear power plan?
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Why? Nuclear is the cleanest, most efficient method of electricity generation. Once people figure it out how to deal with nuclear waste, there's pretty much no downside aside from badly designed plant.
At least, that's my understanding of it.
I wasn't talking about just Germany, but Europe as a whole.
Sure, Germany probably doesn't need to worry about any gas shortages, but the same can't be said of every country in Europe, and from what I know, and granted I'm most likely talking out of my ass here, the Nord Stream is where the biggest chunk of the gas supply in Europe comes from.
Hence, I imagine, why the EU got rather finicky about the new pipeline, but Germany did not.
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
Also tons of people with deep pockets are putting as many barriers as possible into a more widespread adoption of nuclear energy.
Not to give the impression I believe nuclear reactors are this miracle solution to the problem of energy crisis and climate change, but it is the closest to it we currently have.
Edited by HailMuffins on Feb 9th 2019 at 2:17:34 PM
At least, that's my understanding of it.
Because the environmentalist left has accepted the fossil fuel companies' propaganda hook line and sinker, also because the general population sees the word "nuclear" and thinks Chernobyl or Hiroshima.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 9th 2019 at 12:13:43 PM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
There are still people who think that nuclear energy is "clean"? If you only care about CO 2 perhaps, but it is simply not a cost-efficient energy source, and that leaves out the problems of safe storage and how it might affect future generations. I guess many people still swallow the propaganda from the nuclear lobby.
Europe will have to rely on gas for the forseeable future, and with the fields in Norway depleting we need an alternative source. Which are either from Russia via a pipeline or LNG from the USA. The Russian option is cheaper and also makes more sense politically. Especially since we can not be sure how the American government' s attitude towards Europe might be in the future.
Edited by Zarastro on Feb 9th 2019 at 7:27:11 PM
There are still people who think that nuclear energy is "clean"? If you only care about CO 2 perhaps, but it is simply not a cost-efficient energy source, and that leaves out the problems of safe storage and how it might affect future generations. I guess many people still swallow the propaganda from the nuclear lobby.
Europe will have to rely on gas for the forseeable future, and with the fields in Norway depleting we need an alternative source. Which are either from Russia via a pipeline or LNG from the USA. The Russian option is cheaper and also makes more sense politically. Especially since we can not be sure how the American government' s attitude towards Europe might be in the future.
Nice strawman.
I did not say it was "clean".
Simply that opposing nuclear power while also wanting to move away from fossil fuels is idiotic.
I posted the Vox article on the viability 100% renewable energy in the US politics thread but I think it's appropriate here.
To quote a relevant portion from the article:
“It is notable,” the review says, “that of the 30 papers surveyed here, the only deep decarbonization scenarios that do not include a significant contribution from nuclear, biomass, hydropower, and/or CCS exclude those resources from consideration a priori.”
To summarize: Most of today’s models place high value on large dispatchable power sources for deep decarbonization, and it’s difficult to muster enough large dispatchable power sources without nuclear and CCS.
So no, I'm not the one listening to incorrect propaganda. That would be the anti-nuclear environmentalists.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 9th 2019 at 1:44:35 PM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
I agree, those who want to get rid of both nuclear and fossil energy at the same time are very short-sighted. You need a plan which you want to phase out first, and then plan how to replace the latter down the line. Both nuclear and fossil energy have huge drawbacks that justify their replacement, it largely depends on the circumstances of each country what should be prioritized.
Agreed, it's one thing to want Nuclear power to be phased out but worrying about it when fossil fuels dominate is like being concerned with a shady man on the corner when you're being murdered.
It's just terrible priorities.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
People call nuclear energy clean because it is. Less concrete, less toxic chemicals, less steel used than any renewable energy source. Nuclear waste is a contained, and solved problem - just copy the Swedish/Finn approach.
The only problem it has is that using it involves far, far too many people eating crows the approximate size of the Elephant eating Roc of legend. - The enviormental movements founders consider stopping it a major accomplishment, and admitting error on that point would be.. well, identity shattering. So it gets fought. It gets fought with insane intensity, because noone wants to consider themselves monsters.
