Are we talking "invasion of Ukraine" levels of disruption or "right wing politicians not getting bribes as large as they are used to from fossil fuel producers" level disruption?
30% of Europe's gas and also a significant portion of Europe's oil (40%?) comes from Russia.
So we're talking significant economic and social disruption to European countries.
This would also be the consequence of cutting off Russia from SWIFT since it would then not be possible to pay for Russian imports, which would stop. You'll notice that the most vocal supporter of cutting off Russia from SWIFT is the UK, which just happens not to use Russian gas... And of course the US would not be impacted and would even probably benefit. Countries look after themselves first.
Oil, gas and more widely electricity are pretty fungible commodities.
Are you saying that we can't source that amount from other places? That we can't substitute alternatives? That we can't cut back usage? All three? Or just ominously warning that anything that is done to put pressure on Putin will have terrible but vague consequences for the people trying to apply the pressure?
And simultaneously alleging that other governments (the ones not invading their neighbours) aren't good guys? What's that got to do with the ability of the EU to put economic sanctions on Putin for invading Ukraine and achieve their own climate goals at the same time? If it's of selfish benefit to not have wars and invasion and climate catastrophe then good.
Russian gas is currently one of the least climate friendly gas options due to methane leaks in production.
A simple, fair, carbon price that included those costs (as well as the costs of burning the gas itself) would hurt Russia, give them a clear path to improve in future under more democratic rule, shift investment to insulation, heat pumps and other boring cheap tech.
The only part that is needed in the short term is to redirect some of the tax money to poor people and businesses affected by the sudden price increase, which we should be doing anyway, it's a no regret strategy.
In particular, the way electricity markets are organised, high gas prices mean we pay more to nuclear, coal, wind and solar producers too. We should just capture that as a windfall tax and use it to roll out more gas alternatives. It's just an accounting fiction, not a real cost increase and it's foolish to let politicians in foreign countries (or domestic producers as happened in Australia) dictate the price of electricity to their benefit when it's not linked to real world factors.
I find it curious how interconnected the "sins" of humanity are. Failing to do the "right thing" often seems to result in consequences that come back to bite us in unexpected ways:
We know we shouldn't be burning fossil fuels because it's bad for the planet - but it turns out it's bad for ourselves too, because fossil fuels fund cruel and corrupt regimes like Russia and Saudi Arabia.
We know we should provide social safety nets for people, as a general moral principle - but it also turns out that people on the edge of survival can't afford to follow government guidelines like "stay home and isolate" during a pandemic, so we all collectively suffer.
Our aesthetic sense recoils at the destruction of the ecosystems of the natural world - but it turns out that we also rely on them in subtle ways that science is still unpacking, and their destruction leads to tangible negative consequences like the collapse of seemingly unrelated food sources (for example the near-extinction of whales has resulted in a huge nitrogen sequestration problem in the world's oceans, leading to a collapse in krill population, leading to a collapse in many species of fish).
Our aesthetic sense also recoils at factory farming, and the clear moral issues with keeping large numbers of animals suffering in close proximity - but it turns out that this also leads to less nutritious food, food packed with antibiotics (leading to resistance, leading to superbugs), and even an increase in zoonotic viral transmission events (leading to global pandemics killing many people).
It's as if our sense of ethics and aesthetics is in some sense pragmatically correct. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised - they evolved for a reason.
8 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 29.9 ms ] threadSo we're talking significant economic and social disruption to European countries.
This would also be the consequence of cutting off Russia from SWIFT since it would then not be possible to pay for Russian imports, which would stop. You'll notice that the most vocal supporter of cutting off Russia from SWIFT is the UK, which just happens not to use Russian gas... And of course the US would not be impacted and would even probably benefit. Countries look after themselves first.
Are you saying that we can't source that amount from other places? That we can't substitute alternatives? That we can't cut back usage? All three? Or just ominously warning that anything that is done to put pressure on Putin will have terrible but vague consequences for the people trying to apply the pressure?
And simultaneously alleging that other governments (the ones not invading their neighbours) aren't good guys? What's that got to do with the ability of the EU to put economic sanctions on Putin for invading Ukraine and achieve their own climate goals at the same time? If it's of selfish benefit to not have wars and invasion and climate catastrophe then good.
A simple, fair, carbon price that included those costs (as well as the costs of burning the gas itself) would hurt Russia, give them a clear path to improve in future under more democratic rule, shift investment to insulation, heat pumps and other boring cheap tech.
The only part that is needed in the short term is to redirect some of the tax money to poor people and businesses affected by the sudden price increase, which we should be doing anyway, it's a no regret strategy.
In particular, the way electricity markets are organised, high gas prices mean we pay more to nuclear, coal, wind and solar producers too. We should just capture that as a windfall tax and use it to roll out more gas alternatives. It's just an accounting fiction, not a real cost increase and it's foolish to let politicians in foreign countries (or domestic producers as happened in Australia) dictate the price of electricity to their benefit when it's not linked to real world factors.
We know we shouldn't be burning fossil fuels because it's bad for the planet - but it turns out it's bad for ourselves too, because fossil fuels fund cruel and corrupt regimes like Russia and Saudi Arabia.
We know we should provide social safety nets for people, as a general moral principle - but it also turns out that people on the edge of survival can't afford to follow government guidelines like "stay home and isolate" during a pandemic, so we all collectively suffer.
Our aesthetic sense recoils at the destruction of the ecosystems of the natural world - but it turns out that we also rely on them in subtle ways that science is still unpacking, and their destruction leads to tangible negative consequences like the collapse of seemingly unrelated food sources (for example the near-extinction of whales has resulted in a huge nitrogen sequestration problem in the world's oceans, leading to a collapse in krill population, leading to a collapse in many species of fish).
Our aesthetic sense also recoils at factory farming, and the clear moral issues with keeping large numbers of animals suffering in close proximity - but it turns out that this also leads to less nutritious food, food packed with antibiotics (leading to resistance, leading to superbugs), and even an increase in zoonotic viral transmission events (leading to global pandemics killing many people).
It's as if our sense of ethics and aesthetics is in some sense pragmatically correct. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised - they evolved for a reason.