Posts by rustywalker82

George Robinson43 said:They aren't even leaders when it comes to accumulated emissions per capita. In Europe, they trail far behind the United Kingdom, and they fall well behind major powers like France and Italy.
The core issue remains: out of all those major players, they were the only ones who chose to let someone in The Kremlin hold their energy security hostage.
While their neighbors to the west, north, and east were busy diversifying their supply chains and investing heavily in alternative energy, they decided to bet everything on a single deck of cards.
I truly wish them luck heading into the fall of 2022, once they're told they have to lift sanctions or face the consequences...

Look, all I said was that globally, their cumulative carbon footprint per capita is well above average. I didn't say they were first, second, or whatever—when I talk about "those with the highest accumulation," I'm talking about a group, not just them specifically. And I was saying all this in the context of our forum debate about why they're ditching coal. My point was that they're donating hundreds of billions in EU funds to certain Europeans who are still basically running on coal.

They're moving away from coal and pivoting to renewables because they’re being responsible. That’s the reason. It's the same logic behind giving EU funds to some others. It's the same logic behind imposing sanctions on others and risking the fallout for themselves.

George Robinson43 said:I disagree entirely.
Just like how the US holds the top spot, China follows closely behind as the second largest source of cumulative CO2 emissions.
It is truly remarkable to see the sheer scale of such figures! Just imagine the massive impact that 416 million tons represents on a national level.
China's massive scale is truly staggering—it's like trying to measure the weight of an entire mountain range! Just imagine that kind of volume.
Russia has reached an incredible milestone of 115 billion tons! It’s truly massive, much like the sheer scale of the Texas oil fields.
Germany is looking at a staggering 93 billion tons! It’s truly massive, much like the scale of an industrial giant like ExxonMobil.
The UK reached a massive 78.16 billion tons! It’s truly an impressive milestone for them.
It is truly remarkable to consider that Japan is managing an incredible 65 billion tons! It’s much like watching a massive engine run at peak efficiency.
India's output has hit an incredible 54 billion tons! It’s truly a massive milestone for their industrial capacity.

Within at most two decades, India will likely overtake Germany, though it will probably happen much sooner than that!
It is quite fascinating to observe how Germany attempts to decarbonize while their entire economy remains tethered to whether or not a Russian valve is turned off. Meanwhile, other major powers are absolutely outperforming them in the tech sector, and frankly, they couldn't care less about Germany's green energy struggles!
The English have undergone a much deeper process of decarbonization than the Germans, though they certainly took a completely different path to get there.

Man, you're still stuck in your ways. You don't get that the nations with the highest cumulative emissions per capita carry the biggest responsibility to develop decarbonization tech. That way, the tech can actually be implemented in places with lower accumulated carbon per capita—basically, less developed nations.
So, I'm talking about how this would have to work naturally, without any massive subsidies. We aren't talking about what a Chinese or Indian transition to renewables would look like if they were handed tens of thousands of billions of dollars in EU funds (like what Poland and other Eastern European countries received on a per capita basis).

George Robinson43 said:Exactly! While Germany was busy chasing decarbonization by handing out million-dollar sinecures at companies like Rosneft and Gazprom, the global landscape shifted dramatically.

China: 3,350 million mt CO2 in 2000 —> 10,668 million mt CO2 in 2020
India: 900 million mt CO2 in 2000 —> 2,411 million mt CO2 in 2020

Germany is decarbonizing fast because they have a massive per capita share of accumulated atmospheric "carbonization." It’s nothing compared to what China and India are doing.
The problem is some self-proclaimed geniuses from the North America can't wrap their heads around that, so they just stick to their conspiracy theories. Plus, those folks might actually be the majority since they're putting way less of their own money toward this than even China—and let's face it, China was basically starving until yesterday compared to them.

Germany is out here handing out hundreds of billions of euros to less developed nations across Europe, all while pushing hard on decarbonization—which, let's be real, is absolutely vital if we want human civilization to actually make it through the century:

Germany's energy mix looks like this:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/site...?itok=k2BK48jz

Meanwhile, check out the energy mix for the biggest player in the European Union that keeps getting those massive handouts for underdeveloped regions (like Poland):



But hey, at least they have access to LNG (you know, blue gas). 😁

hollowdriver13 said:And people act like the dream of landing a sweet government gig where you do absolutely nothing is just some weird thing in the North America. 🕺 😬

Look, even here in the States, you've got people coasting on taxpayer money throughout their entire careers. And then you have these "geniuses" who act like shutting down coal plants is some grand political statement meant to make them look important—or maybe it's just another broken promise from corrupt politicians to an uninformed public. You find all kinds of nonsense everywhere. 🙂

Christian Torres3 said:There is.

It doesn't have to be all LNG replacing everything. They'll ramp up domestic drilling and import from other countries; Norway and Algeria have already said they're increasing capacity. If things keep moving this way, Russian gas will be nothing but a memory in a few years.

Oh yeah, thanks a ton for them already saying that. It’s been eight years since the Russian occupation of Crimea and Donbas.
And I guess those folks at OPEC will just swoop in and save Ukraine too, since they also said eight years after its occupation that they'd bump up oil production by maybe half a liter next year...

David Torres2 said:I think you've got it backwards here, not me. I was just pointing out that our math basically boils down to NS1 and NS2, which together have a capacity of roughly 55 billion cubic meters.
Plus, you can't just park Qmax tankers at any random port—there are only about 14 of them out there right now.
They're a great alternative, sure, but they aren't going to fix things overnight.
And yeah, as of right now, Germany has zero LNG terminals.

Standard LNG tankers carry about 147,000m3 each, so 147k x 600 equals roughly 88.2 million cubic meters of gas.
If NS1 and NS2 provide 55 billion, then dividing that by 88.2 million per tanker means you'd need about 620 tankers.

Germany produces 5% of its own gas and imports the other 95%. Half of that 95% comes from Russia. Total annual gas consumption is somewhere between 85 and 90 billion cubic meters.

To pull off the whole European Union's gas imports from Russia—we're talking about 155 billion cubic meters—you'd need to have something like 2,000 tankers out on the water every single year. That's a massive amount of logistics.
By the way, right now, spot market LNG prices are absolutely insane. If you're looking at those big shipments heading out to places like Asia, the costs are sitting at about 11 times higher than the four-year average we saw back between 2017 and 2020. It’s wild.
It’s honestly wild how they play these games. They’re out here making all these speculative threats about gas sanctions just to line Putin's pockets, and if those threats actually turn into reality, we’re basically handing over Ukrainian transit revenue on a silver platter for nothing. It's a lose-lose situation.

You know that old saying? Sometimes, the smartest move you can make is just keeping your mouth shut.

Look, nowhere does it actually say it's a total one-to-one replacement; it just says it's partially replaceable.
That’s exactly what I’m getting at here... we might see less gas coming in from Russia, but we're paying a massive premium for it (the big guys basically ate the little guys alive).
If you want sanctions that actually work, you’ve gotta use some actual brainpower.

Bryan Booth82 said:The issue with the "problem" you've laid out is quite simple: Russia isn't the world's only gas producer, and those massive gas reserves aren't confined to Russian borders alone.
We could very well reach a point where the West stops buying Russian gas entirely—simply because they refuse to settle the bill in rubles. If that happens, Russia ends up sitting on a mountain of surplus gas, which China will undoubtedly notice. Once China steps in to undercut them, gas prices globally could actually plummet.

Isn't that exactly the kind of economic squeeze that helped bring down the USSR?

Best regards,

Look, a total cutoff of Russian gas is only going to happen if Russia pulls the trigger themselves (since the West doesn't have any rubles to play with). This wouldn't be some big move by Europe; it’d be a Russian move.
And honestly? Gas wouldn't get cheaper. It’d stay way more expensive than it was before the crisis or the war started. We'd still be importing from Russia because, let's face it, they're basically irreplaceable right now (plus, we'd be scrambling to fire up old coal or fuel oil plants that have been sitting cold for years).

There's just no easy way to swap out major suppliers—especially when you're looking at places halfway across the world—without both the old providers and the new ones, along with the logistics companies, hiking up their rates.

There are definitely ways to seriously cripple the Russian economy without all this nonsense about people shooting themselves in the foot (which would just cause a crash even harder than the one the Russians are facing).

We’ve got a bit of a headache situation with gas right now. See, any revenue Russia loses from cutting back their exports to the European Union could easily be offset by just cranking up the price for everyone else in Europe. Meanwhile, Ukraine is getting hit directly because they lose out on those transit fees, which are all about volume. Plus, if cutting ties with Russian gas leads to people burning way more coal to compensate...

By the way, if you want to see how messy the European energy crisis really is, just look at Poland. They've pulled in hundreds of billions in EU funds over the last fifteen years, yet they’re still relying on coal for about 40% of their total energy needs—and yeah, that includes transportation too. But honestly, it wouldn't have mattered much if the European Union had been smarter back when the USA, China, or Russia were being even more reckless about decarbonization.
Now we're dealing with wars on top of decarbonization... you can probably guess who's actually going to give a damn about that stuff...

Ural oil is trading at a discount compared to Brent right now, mostly because of things like war risks and all those other sanctions hitting quality standards.
Plus, all this speculation about poorly designed sanctions has actually pushed the value of that stuff up—honestly, it should be way cheaper than it is.
So, even though there are logistics risks from the war that usually drag the price of Ural down, all this speculative nonsense regarding ineffective sanctions has bumped up the value of Ural oil, and especially the gas tied to Brent prices.

George Robinson43 said:You argue that these sanctions are essentially funding the aggressor. While true, they are actually providing about 15-20% less funding than if there were no sanctions at all, and that percentage is steadily climbing every single year.
Regarding hydrocarbons, the very fact that Vladimir Putin launched his attack in the dead of winter proves they genuinely believed this would be over in a matter of days and that the West would simply look the other way.
Had the invasion occurred in early autumn, the European Union and the West would have been completely paralyzed. Instead, they were given ample time to make those crucial initial adjustments.
This whole Germany-Qatar deal is effectively him digging his own grave for a few years down the road.

Alright, listen, for the third time now—I’m not talking about just any random sanctions. I’m specifically talking about how speculating on bans for Russian energy imports ended up driving their revenues through the roof because the market spiked the value of those commodities.

George Robinson43, look, I’m not even touching on those half-baked energy sanctions or making claims about their GDP not crashing.

Honestly, all this talk about slapping sudden, massive sanctions on energy supplies is just a messy soup of different interests from supposed allies. It’s basically just empty threats—brandishing tools you don't actually want the enemy to grab hold of right now.
Plus, it feels pretty hypocritical. For instance, the US was leading the charge in importing Russian gas back in 2022, and let's be real, nobody in the West actually turned down their heat or started living like they were broke just to squeeze the Russians' profits.

Joseph Clark37 said:So we should all just stop the sanctions so our tourism industry doesn't suffer, right? And maybe the Ukrainians should just surrender so the fighting stops and we can have a record-breaking travel season...

Just speculating about massive sanctions on Russian energy might actually push Ukraine closer to surrendering, because right now they’re basically funding the aggressor who is selling it back to them at much higher prices.
It would be even more expensive if every single country didn't jump on board with these sanctions. If everyone implements them before other producers can fix the tech or logistics to fill the gap, these sanctions will mostly just hurt the countries that don't have the infrastructure to find new suppliers. For example, if there's pressure on someone like Canada to support this, then the shortages should be spread out equally among all nations.

The tactic being played here could actually boost Putin's revenue while driving third-world countries into an economic abyss—some might even face famine if they can't afford to plant crops because everything got too pricey. That's a huge fail, because effective sanctions are supposed to drive down the value of the target goods, not make them more expensive.

All this nonsense regarding sanctions is going to look incredibly stupid if things escalate and Putin suddenly cuts off all exports to the West right before he falls. Then, the same people demanding sanctions today will be the ones writing articles saying we need to level Moscow to the ground because people in developing nations are starving.
Basically, it's total madness to speculate like this before relations improve or before oil and gas production ramps up in places like Venezuela or Iran... plus, replacing Russian coal takes time (that should have happened a long time ago).

neonpuma30 said:Why on earth would the West challenge rights that were already in those countries' constitutions, especially when even Russia didn't push back against their independence?🤔

I'm just speaking hypothetically here, because let’s face it—the West could easily have been just as undemocratic if things had gone differently. He’s basically saying he won't recognize anything left behind by the USSR, but then he turns around and claims to accept things like the imperialism that existed there before that, all under the guise of "de-Sovietization."

Betty Murphy3 said:Back in the 1990s, Russia needed a fundamental overhaul of its leadership—de-Sovietization should have been a non-negotiable prerequisite for any meaningful cooperation with the West.

Because that didn't happen, we ended up with Putin.

And because of that failure, "brilliant" Americans effectively disarmed Ukraine to the benefit of Russia. Looking at the nuclear situation today, we can see just how "wise" that move was—assuming, of course, their goal was to trigger this exact war with a twenty-five-year delay.

Now we're seeing the fallout. It turns out they were simply turning a blind eye, and now it’s too late to sharpen the claws; when it actually mattered, the response was nowhere to be found.

They practically fed them, allowing them to evolve into this particular evil. It will be a miracle if this conflict in Ukraine doesn't spill over into the rest of Europe.

Even Hiccup didn't rush across the entire continent immediately; everything moved in stages. You could say Ukraine is the precursor to a Polish scenario—a prelude to much broader conflicts. The Czech Republic was sacrificed like a lamb just to feed a hungry wolf.

As these examples show, the more you feed a wolf, the hungrier it gets.

It’s just nature. With a wolf, you either stay out of its way or you lure it into a trap and kill it. There is no third option.

The problem is, nobody can lure Putin into a trap. He isn't stepping foot in the West while this war continues, and until he has security guarantees, it's doubtful he'll ever visit a Western nation again—regardless of his status as the Russian President.

The USSR set up these national republics like Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and the rest (using that classic "good vs. evil" ideological balancing act), and later the West recognized them as sovereign states. Instead of pushing for democracy, the West could have easily backed dictators and just said, "Eh, we don't care about what these people actually want." They had the choice, but they didn't take it.
So, I actually think it's the exact opposite of your point—democratic values from the West have actually helped spread freedom across much of the world over the last few decades.
It's just that people don't seem to realize it because they act like their rights were just handed to them on a silver platter.

boldotter2 said:It all comes down to human suffering, and honestly, even more so if things start wrecking the global economy.
I guess what China actually wants is for the West to pivot all that cash toward beefing up NATO and churning out weapons instead of investing in Chinese industry. For example, Americans are asking for $6.5 billion from the budget to help Ukraine. That’s basically $6.5 billion less flowing into China's pockets.

BTW, the Chinese people were pretty restrained at the Security Council today during the vote on the Ukraine resolution. It was a resolution drafted by Americans that mentions the word "aggression" about a million times. Russia used their veto, obviously. Nobody else was against it, though.

They might actually show up as a "yes" vote on some future roll call. They could play it smart by giving Ukraine some quiet support while trying to push some post-communist types in Russia who cause less trouble, all while keeping the path clear for China to grow.
The Russians are going to have to listen to someone eventually, and nothing in this world comes for free.

boldotter2 said:I suspect China gave him a deadline. Basically, grab what you can by then, and then head straight to the negotiating table, while Ukraine stays whole. That means he’s got to install a puppet government and take the capital (whether it's Kyiv or Kharkiv) before that clock runs out.

It seems nobody even talks about an independent Donetsk or Luhansk anymore... everyone is just talking about a unified Ukraine.

That’s probably why they're attempting these suicidal landing operations—it's a total race against the clock.

Today, China released their five-point plan regarding Ukraine:

https://www.axios.com/china-russia-u...7f0c60593.html

Following a call with his British, EU and French counterparts, China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi outlined Beijing's position on Ukraine in five points:

1.China "firmly advocates" abiding by the UN Charter and respecting the territorial integrity of all countries, including Ukraine.
2.The security of one country cannot be strengthened at the expense of another, and Russia is justified to have concerns about five rounds of NATO expansion.
3.China believes "all parties" should exercise restraint and protect civilian life and property to prevent a large-scale humanitarian crisis.
4.China supports "direct dialogue and negotiation between Russia and Ukraine as soon as possible" and believes Ukraine "should be a bridge between East and West, not a frontier of great power confrontation."
5.The UN Security Council should be used to "facilitate a diplomatic solution" and "cool tensions rather than fuel them." China Has always opposed UN resolutions that invoke Chapter VII of The UN Charter, which authorizes military and non-military steps to "restore international peace and security."

Actually, four out of those five points don't really help the Russian aggression. Especially not if they want this to be anything other than a long, drawn-out mess.

Yeah, it could be similar to how the U.S. gives the green light to Israelis during those periodic incursions into Palestine.
My take depends entirely on the body count. If we start seeing mass casualties, then my theory goes out the window and this war won't have an end in sight.

The intelligence folks who nailed the timing on when the Russian invasion of Ukraine would kick off were actually predicting that Kyiv would fall in just three days.
It’d be some kind of miracle if that intel meant the madman decides to call an end to the invasion in three days—at least outside those lines in the Donbas. Whatever he's managed to kill out of pure, insane spite in the meantime, he's already done it. Even if he calls it quits now, he's already set Russia on a path toward becoming a permanent criminal state. We're right on the edge here, and I feel like we're getting closer to the drop with every passing hour.

rustywalker82 said:That’s a fair question.
Looking at the data from where things first kicked off, the hospitalization rate is about half of what we saw with Delta—not the 10% being suggested. It might be because they're only looking at the very start of the surge across South Africa, so those folks haven't even hit the hospitals yet.
Interestingly, in that same area, deaths are sitting at about 10% compared to Delta. But honestly, it’s too early to call it. That curve is still climbing fast.

New FT chart update for Gauteng:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FGvHiDjV...jpg&name=large

rustywalker82 said:JAR, Tshwane Metro, Gauteng Province, chart showing mortality rates among hospitalized patients by age group, omikron vs older strains:

https://www.datawrapper.de/_/wx1ag/
Quick heads-up:
In City of Tshwane Metro, between November-8 December 2021, there were 1,633 admissions and 39 deaths recorded across both public and private healthcare facilities.
...during the early stages, things can get a bit skewed. When numbers are still low, we tend to see more mild cases getting admitted just to be safe. Plus, some folks might test positive for SARS-CoV-2 incidentally while being treated for something else entirely. Also, you haven't really had enough time to see how severe the outcomes actually turn out to be.

The chart is slika 15, found in the full pdf, (NICD Covid-19 Hospital Surveillance Update: Week 48, 2021):

https://www.nicd.ac.za/wp-content/up...8-2021_rev.pdf

While we’re all just sitting around waiting for that next FT graph update, I gotta say, the latest data from the last couple of days hasn't exactly been looking great. Not exactly the news we wanted to see.
So, looking at the numbers from Monday through Saturday, we saw about 130 COVID deaths in California. Then, after those 50 reported on Sunday, they’re just now dropping another 50 for yesterday. It kind of messes with how the data looks when you try to compare it to that top graph and the image above.
I can't write anything yet because you haven't provided the data! Drop the details below and I'll get to work on it.
I was digging through some recent health data reports from the CDC today, and man, there’s a lot to unpack regarding how different diseases are moving through the country right now. It’s one of those things where you think you have a handle on what's going on, then you see the actual numbers and realize the landscape is shifting under your feet. The report breaks down a ton of stuff—everything from seasonal flu trends to more specific outbreaks. It’s pretty heavy reading if you're looking for raw data, but the takeaways are huge for anyone trying to make sense of public health in America. One thing that really jumped out at me was how much the patterns change depending on which region you're looking at. It’s not just one big wave hitting everyone at once; it's more like a series of smaller, localized surges that move across the states. It reminds me of back when we were all dealing with the Delta variant. Everything felt so unpredictable, and seeing these kinds of granular breakdowns makes me realize how much we still rely on this constant stream of surveillance to stay ahead of the curve. You can't just wing it when it comes to something this massive. Anyway, I know **mellownomad7** mentioned something similar about tracking local trends last week, and they were spot on. It’s all about staying informed. If you have a second, it's worth glancing through the summary sections. It’s eye-opening stuff.

The next big indicator to watch is New York City, where the Delta variant is already making up about 90% of all new cases. Hospitalizations are starting to climb quite a bit, too. We'll probably have a much clearer picture of what we're dealing with pretty soon.