I agree fossil fuels are bad and renewables are good, but electric heat pumps aren’t going to be deployed in every house over the summer no matter how violent the price shock. To go green we need industrial capacity, lots of it, and a ton of political will that the far-right simply does not possess because they’d rather buy Russian gas in exchange for campaign financing.
No-one “needs” anyone but economics aren’t a zero-sum game and both the EU and the US benefited enormously from our economic and military ties, and cutting those ties will be painful and the faster it happens the more painful it will be.
If we employ the economic nukes against the US right now, we will lose most digital payment systems for a few weeks as countries and bunks rush to implement Wero and the digital Euro, and we will face strong gas shortages as we currently rely on the US to make up for Russia’s. Europe and NA would immediately enter into a deep recession.
The payment systems are a hugely understated threat but are being worked on actively. The fossil fuels aren’t understated but we also lack short-term solutions as electrification takes time (but also we aren’t doing nearly enough).
However it is true that the EU is profoundly neoliberal and that ideology is very ill-equipped to deal with a fragmented world order in which free trade is no longer the default. Those assumptions are being challenged, however the far-right seems primed to bring about the populist “solution” of turning Europe into a bunch of mini-Russias.
Are we already forgetting that trump invaded Venezuela for oil, then the oil companies said “excuse me but we can’t profitably exploit their notoriously shitty oil”?
Part of being a literal Nazi is that the o.g. Nazis got themselves stuck in an increasing number of military quagmires not because they had to but because they refused to do consider the obvious peaceful solutions for their problems. The war machine had to be fed even at the cost of their own self-destruction.
Except this time they have a nuclear arsenal capable of wiping all civilization and somehow people aren’t freaking out nearly enough about that.
I mean, Nestlé killed hundreds of thousands in impoverished countries. I think the Oracle service APIs can’t be that bad, though I’m sure they would be if it made Larry Ellison $50.
Compared to which alternative?
We know exactly what they are doing already. Watching the trains go by to Dachau saying “better them than me”. Watching their sons and daughters go to war saying “well I’m not really political”.
Feckless cowards. They bear full responsibility for the current situation yet you can’t count on them to do anything they aren’t made to do.
Netanyahu did not show up at the border unannounced saying “let me through or else”. He got permission ahead of time. Had he not gotten permission, he would have had to find another country who did or gone around. Especially for Greece and Italy which don’t really stand in his way, the Mediterranean is right there!
Even assuming that Netanyahu calls the bluff and flies through, there are a lot of options ahead of all-out war. For instance sending jets to “intercept” his plane and escort him out saying “he refused to follow orders to land and we did not deem it worth it to escalate the situation”. It’s not like his airliner is armed or anything. But it would send a very different diplomatic message.
For France in particular, this is far from the first time he flies over its territory unimpeded. This is not a matter of military concerns, this is pro-Israel Macron taking a stance to show support for his ally. He’s not been very outspoken on Gaza because the domestic political situation is very delicate and anything he says can only weaken his support further, but his personal stance is hardly a secret and the military interceptors are under his full control.
… and? What is the Kremlin going to do, declare war?
Military officers are legitimate targets. Either Ukrainian Special Ops performed yet another successful mission within Moscow, or Russia unlawfully merced one of its own generals. Either way it’s a bad look for Russia.
All three of your examples were known to cause ill effects for centuries. The ancient Romans knew the asbestos mines were killing their slaves. Their overuse during the 20th century was not due to ignorance but corporate lobbying and political complacency.
The lobbyist play is to fund counter-studies to sow FUD even though the scientific consensus that [X Bad] is well established, because it gives an easy out for bought out politicians. However the tatoo lobby is certainly not one that I expect to be have the pull to fund FUD scientific studies to delay legislation, and if they are doing that it should be pretty easy to point to.
That’s treading dangerously close to a specific kind of conspiracy theory there.
The EBU has pretty strong financial ties to Israel, not least of which their main sponsor Moroccan Oil. But at the end of the day you can count on the ghouls in charge to always find the coward’s way out and follow the money. It’s the exact same pattern of behavior they had with Russia in 2022, which they initially allowed to compete before backpedalling.
Pretending that this is an issue solely because of some conspiracy is not only baseless, but it also unfairly lets most European broadcasters off the hook for refusing to uphold the set the same hard lines with Israel that they set with Russia. Israel competed because European broadcasters were happy enough to include Israel. Simple as.
Well to be fair if my electoral choices directly and irrefutably contributed to the death of thousands, I’d be going cuckoo-crazy from the cognitive dissonance too.
Eeeeeh. I mean sure, we do have stricter requirements, but not nearly as much as fantasized by Americans. My grandpa still has a license that he got where the whole test was saying “I solemnly swear that I can drive”. Here in Belgium the country is extremely car-dependent so license suspensions are actually vanishingly rare, requiring you to get caught red-handed more than 40 km/h above the speed limit (50 in practice due to radar correction), and even then the suspension is only temporary; I have never heard of anyone who lost theirs permanently. Most people here do consider driving to be a right. Until a few short years ago temporary license suspensions could even be scheduled only on weekends and holidays!
Another angle to see this problem: I see Dutch people driving in Belgium daily. And they’re absolute menaces. But they’re so chill when they drive in Holland! What gives? Well most roads around here have more in common with American roads than Dutch ones… Give a dutchie in a BMW a wide straight line and he will do 75 km/h in a school zone without a second thought before changing lanes without signalling, then barrel through a roundabout while ignoring right-of-way. They aren’t better drivers, they just have such good road infrastructure that forces them to drive one very specific way: slowly and carefully.
It’s multifactorial. Cities like Helsinki and Amsterdam are poster children, but Europe also has plenty of areas (especially suburbs) that are as car-dependent as equivalent US cities.
However traffic deaths remain much lower than in the US thanks to less idiotically-designed streets.
Step 0, by far the biggest impact-to-cost ratio, is narrow the damn streets. Take the biggest road-legal vehicle allowed on that street, mark down the path of travel, and put some plastic bollards a few inches on either side. Watch as everybody instinctively slows down even though the flow of traffic is not even impeded or redirected in any way. This policy - by itself - doesn’t even reduce car dependence! If you do it as part of the regular road repair schedule, it’s literally free.
America’s wide-ass roads constantly astound me with their profound stupidity. There’s literally no tangible gain, and so many downsides to public safety. I understand (though I strongly disagree with) the usual refrains for why the US is car-centric, but making streets too wide is simply inexcusable and unconscionable.
And I want a unicorn for Christmas.
Look, right now I don’t even have a good reason to hope that Israel will be stopped before they finish their genocide. But step 1 is to get a permanent ceasefire in place. Whatever fantasies we might have beyond that is a moot point. But recognizing both parties as sovereign would go some way towards facilitating the terms and enforcement of that ceasefire.
If you’ve got a plan to achieve that and doesn’t involve genociding israel, shoot for it. But I don’t think “unrecognizing” Israel is a particularly productive step towards that.
In this context? Someone who is currently on the good side of the current apartheid system in Israel/Palestine.
Don’t play dumb with me, you know full well what I meant. If you have a point, make it.
So no Israel, just Palestine? That would leave Israelis a majority population in Palestine. Do you expect Israelis to magically not outvote the Palestinians, or are you proposing an autocracy or an apartheid system stripping Israelis of their voting rights?
I would also strongly suggest you do some reading on the factors leading up to the Rwandan genocide. A “just” peace isn’t enough; after generations of life under apartheid, there are no easy or quick paths to lasting peace. I won’t commit the hubris of pretending I have a definitive solution, and I think it’s important to underline that as outsiders to the conflict, the best we can do is offer to safeguard peace. That’s what the Two-State Solution was meant to do, that’s what arms sanctions are meant to do, that’s what the threat of economic retaliation would be meant to do (granted each with their own significant shortcomings). Denying the practical existence of either Israel or Palestine is antithetical to building a path towards lasting peace and a meaningful international effort towards safeguarding said peace.
For a practical example, assuming a peace treaty ever gets signed, sending UN Blue Helmets would be diplomatically easier if all parties involved recognized Palestine and Israel as sovereign states. Even if that all seems like a moot point right now what when neither Israel nor most Western nations are actually looking forward to peace.
So there are two interpretations I could make of your comment, one of which is more charitable than the other.
To be clear, Israel is committing genocide and every single member of its government and of the IDF should be tried at The Hague. But laws and international order exist for a reason, and trying to circumvent them like this is a very bad look that Israel has been rightfully criticized for for decades.
The first part applies to… Most of the world outside of Europe?
The second part applies, to lesser degrees, to a large part of the world. Such as the USA.
What even is this argument. Israel’s not a state? Well fucking great, so following that logic which state should we hold responsible for Israel’s crimes then?
Europe’s colonial past is a whole-ass subject but amongst all the potential ways to try to make up for it, “stop formally recognizing former colonies because we fucked it up too badly” is one of the worst takes I’ve heard.
Love the technosolutionist mindset, but the parties trying to made that happen lost BIG TIME in the 2024 elections and neither you nor I are in charge of the energy policy. Feel free to found a startup to explore all your big ideas but our problem is neither a lack of ways to decarbonize our energy nor a lack of reasons to go off of fossil fuels.
What I’m not hearing is a solution to the problem that the European far-right is now directly funded and supported by Putin, Musk, Thiel, Zuck, that the parties currently in power have no interest in curbing this obvious foreign interference, and all that is all but guaranteeing that the far right will take full control of the region within the next few years in exchange for a few favors like – among other things – handing out to the oil barrons a blank check. That’s not a technical issue to be engineered out, that’s a political landmine the size of a continent that we’re barreling towards. Well, if we don’t get dragged into WW3 before that, at any rate.