humanspiral

Russia doesn’t own Russian speaking Ukrainians. Russia has neither the duty nor right to invade to “protect” Russian speaking minorities in any country.

NATO decided in 90s that ethnic Albanians were being abused with less overt evidence, and intervened on humanitarian basis. Russia got west to admit to Ukraine nazi problem in Minsk accords. Zelensky campaign platform was based on peace/autonomy in Donbas according to Minsk accords, and on denazifying/stopping the paramilitaries. Russia made every effort for peace. Peace was never an option for US.

Trump is Netanyahu's favorite candidate. The disrespect to Biden/Blinken ceasefire/restraint timidness is done to make Dems look bad. Blinken is a worthless POS who may not have any serious intent to stop genocide. Both Harris and Bernie, by repeating Israel's right to defend itself, are essentially ok with all Israeli evil, and the unlimited unconditional free weapon support, despite some occasional reserved statements to the contrary. Trump will just use unconditional support for a war on Iran as a means to ethnically cleanse Muslims from the USA.

The "everyone is a Russian Troll" is worse than dead internet theory. Trump is more progressive on not diminishing Russia through Ukraine proxy war. Whether or not he is paid by Russia, ordinary Americans who think diminishing Russia enriches them are victims of disinformation and emotional media manipulation that makes them think support for diminishing Russia/Putin means they care more about Russian prosperity than Russian leadership, and keeping Ukraine nazified on a path to NATO is somehow "liberal". US empire has never before reached this level of evil and recklessness. The popular normalization of this evil is a certain contributor to US decline and imminent collapse.

Actual Russian operatives from foreign ministry would see Iran as an ally, though the massive forced Russian military production increase from Ukraine proxy war on it, means massive opportunity to assist Iran in a conflict if Ukraine gets resolved. It also means ultra high oil prices/profits. A war on Iran would still be US empire emboldened. All elected political leaders in November will take loyalty oaths to Israel, and there is no indication that Harris would stop such a war, or not involve US troops. It is just more certain that Trump would.

Corporatist PR slogans and promises is not a path to human sustainability.

Plastic/FRC pipes solve the leakage problem. They are also salt water resistant. Soft steel NG distribution pipes have low leak rates as well. Converting hard steel NG transmission pipes is possible by lining them in plastic. In any near future, H2 only new pipes would be built. H2 is more valuable when it is pure because it has higher efficiency electric conversion than NG, as well as being an ingredient to several important chemicals.

Green H2 does not benefit oil industry at all. It is only basis for a H2 economy because such an economy has to be 100% clean (FF derived H2 has less net energy content than original FF), and the essential rationale for an H2 economy is one where enough renewables to provide 100% of electricity every day needs to overproduce on most days, and H2 electrolysis is an automated way of providing transportable/exportable fuel that converts to electricity at high enough efficiency. The transportation cost advantage of H2 over electric transmission is enough to overcome the efficiency loss of creating it when the electric energy is cheap enough. 2-4c/kwh is enough for cheaper energy delivery by H2.

While Toyota has made great research/development in fuel cells, I agree that they have had a “don't buy an EV until you see our next model of the Mirai”, and oil companies bs about “blue H2” potential as path to fish for more subsidies, the anti-H2 fan boys are actually EV/battery investors. H2 economy requires batteries, and does have vehicle applications, but the main reason for it is that it is only path to 100% renewable energy.

The good match for wind, and offshore wind especially, is that many places achieve full electric demand coverage from solar alone on some days. On those days, adding batteries with more solar could achieve solar coverage over 24 hours. If it is windy at the same time, no wind energy would get sold those days, and then no additional renewables would be economic in that region, and higher demand days would not get covered by renewables. H2 is path for, wind especially, to sell/monetize all of their energy produced, but also bypass, for all renewables, grid transmission bottlenecks that monopolies don't mind being bottlenecks if it increases their discretionary power in providing energy permission.

AFAIU, these are ROI/profit oriented investments. This is a better path than US subsidy approach, or its encouragement of stock buybacks.

They have no qualms about taunting a nuclear powered Russia. The return of a CIA puppet like Yeltsin is not likely, but just as Ukraine, there is not the slightest US concern for the welfare/benefit of people. Just destruction, hike price of oil, sell a lot of weapons, and buy the ruins for cheap.

thank you. additional info here is that it is a plastic-based substance, which should be cheaper and easier to work with than metal structures.

Not sure about calling renewable energy projects "junk offsets" on the basis of "the energy is already cheap enough". Forest based offsets are also subject to private ownership, logging rights, and going up in flames. The auditing for those is suspect as well. Both forests and renewables would exist without a carbon offset market, and so perhaps they are all "junk".

The right price for a carbon tax is $300/ton ($3/gallon gasoline/diesel). Tax revenue paid as dividend to residents. By far, the cheapest way to avoid paying taxes on energy is cheap renewables. But if costs of capture/sequestration are lower than $300/ton, then FF companies investing in these, lowers their taxes, and does not prevent more renewables in addition to this. They are independent industries with independent skills.

CO2 levels are likely to overshoot even with 100% energy transition by 2040.

one of the largest offset projects in Kariba, Zimbabwe, suggested that the amount reaching communities was 6%, at most.

and by "communities", they mean the "forest owner". Perhaps that is more capital to buy harvesting machinery. But in general this is an extra monetization/financialization scheme that doesn't affect actual carbon reduction. This is not money that goes towards transitioning energy systems and reducing emissions.

A carbon tax and dividend scheme can properly compensate maintained forests that don't burn. Instead of financializing corporate PR schemes.