this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
235 points (96.8% liked)

World News

39046 readers
2652 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • Russia's gas giant Gazprom won't recover gas sales lost to the Ukraine war for at least a decade.
  • A study seen by the Financial Times says pre-war export volumes will return by 2035.
  • Gazprom will likely lose its leading role in Russia's energy sector over time.
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] grue@lemmy.world 98 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The notion that gas sales will, or should, ever recover is cancerous and omnicidal. We should've been permanently winding down fossil fuel sales quite a while ago.

Frankly, destroying as much fossil fuel infrastructure as possible is a good thing, and anybody trying to rebuild it is an enemy of humanity.

[–] cybersin@lemm.ee 18 points 5 months ago

destroying as much fossil fuel infrastructure as possible is a good thing

Maybe not when doing so would release as much methane as a small country.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 59 points 5 months ago
[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 34 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

So. Anyway... BOMB THEM HARDER!

or sanction them harder. Whatever.

[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 32 points 5 months ago

Putin's war is bad for business. Maybe the oligarchs should do something about it.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 24 points 5 months ago

Won't somebody think of the fossil fuel industry!

[–] Shotgun_Alice@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago

Well whose fault is that? Seriously, no one to blame but themselves, I hope they never recover tbh.

[–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 22 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I Hope not, for the environment. Just three weeks before the invasion Europe declared that gas can be considered green energy because the Russian one was cheap and abundant. Putin the environmental conscious dictator immediately stepped in and reminded the EU that Russian gas is not cheap nor abundant.

Thanks to his big push now the EU is increased the share of renewable energy. Once built, we don't need gas anymore. And hopefully developing countries will leapfrog

I don't understand his goal, honestly. If he "wins" he gets a barren land acquired for huge human and monetary cost. Has to pay to rebuild everything and still sanctioned forever by the west, with limited trades. If he "loses" (example chokes, dies tonight and replaced by a decent human being) then they have to pay a lot in reparation costs and Russia would need decades to regain the trust status they had pre-war. It's a lose-lose situation

[–] Aidinthel@reddthat.com 11 points 5 months ago

At this point Putin's goal is pure personal survival. He needs to not lose the war because that would make him look weak, which is very dangerous for a dictator. To keep himself alive and in power he is willing to throw any amount of Russian soldiers into the meat grinder.

[–] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

My understanding is Ukraine is a large grain producer and exporter. So I wouldn't say the land is very barren. There's definite upsides, but you and I would probably agree its going to be a huge cost for Russia.

[–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 7 points 5 months ago

yes but with the immense amount on money that they literally blew in ukraine + all the money they're losing with sanctions they could have done some geoengineering megaproject to transform a similarly sized amount of land already in their possession into grain farms

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Ukraine is a large grain producer and exporter. So I wouldn't say the land is very barren.

That's it. He wants the farmland, doesn't care who used to live there nor who has to farm the minefields after. They're just the subjugated 'others' like before.

[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

sAnCtiOnS doN’T wOrK!

[–] cmder@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago

And then they will tell you that sanctions don't work and we should stop them 😂

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

"sales lost due to Putin being an incompetent genocidal maniac"

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago
[–] mindlight@lemm.ee 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yet another sign of the Russian economy booming and being totally unaffected by the sanctions....eh...

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

10 years, so far

[–] tsonfeir@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

“Sorry guys, we have to charge double for the next 10 years”

[–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They already have to sell it at half price due to sanctions 😂

[–] tsonfeir@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago
[–] Mango@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

I cannot make up something to be less sympathetic about.

[–] unreasonabro@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

gee whatever you do don't go out of business or anything

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Eh, no worries. 20 years will pass before they know it.

Edit: buuuuut the market for petroleum products is gonna keep on shrinking in the long term from here on out

[–] uebquauntbez@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Sad thing bout that is the ones fight the war will be left unharmed with tons of money and the russian people, who suffered for years, still suffering will suffer for (atleast) another decade.

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

This is good. The only way it could be better is if it takes twenty or more years. How could anyone who has watched russia's fall care?

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Is this a surprise? Unlike oil, gas is extremely hard to transport. China's playing hard to get with PoS 2 because the renewable transition is hitting much faster than anticipated (China is hitting their fossil fuels consumption and emissions targets years in advance)... And China doesn't see natural gas outside of PoS 1 and domestic production as a significant part of the energy mix in the future. They skipped the whole coal -> natural gas step.

Meanwhile, crossing the multiple borders to get to India would be a rather complex undertaking, and Nordstream got blown up so European revenues will be suppressed indefinitely even if the war ends (convenient, that).

Given no export target, most natural gas will have to be flared off in the process of oil production... Bad for the environment, but unavoidable given the lack of Nordstream.

Russian oil revenues are high, though, and the domestic surplus of energy has given Russian industry a kick in the butt, so the real losers in this are Germany and Europe, which have seen their industrial bases decimated.

[–] palordrolap@kbin.run 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

China is hitting their fossil fuels consumption and emissions targets years in advance

Really? Is the source the same people whose Coronavirus estimates increased suspiciously geometrical rather than exponential?

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago

According to the IEA, China's coal demand will peak in 2024.

Sinopec only claims coal peaking in 2025.

Sinopec also claims peak oil happened in 2023.

Moreover, that peak gasoline has already passed due to the EV transition.

According to CREA, China's emissions are set to fall in 2024.

The Washington Post corroborated this general message, even if it did not give an exact date.

Even intuitively, this makes sense: emissions growth are tied to economic growth (particularly in construction), so if the construction sector is in structural decline then emissions should decline with it. If the economy is not growing, then emissions should fall. If the mix of primary energy sources pivots towards renewables, emissions should fall.

This is entirely independent from whether the capacity exists: you can study this entirely from the demand-side because everyone knows renewables are the most cost-effective option on the supply-side.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Is that a surprise? Coronavirus cases around the world were limited by reporting capability. In the US, many cases were left entirely unreported because of political reasons.

China hit the peak early and only reported cases that could be tested and verified as being COVID. Thus, geometric scaling in an exponential world.

That, or China's extreme lockdowns actually did something to transmission behaviours by tuning down R0. You decide.

[–] palordrolap@kbin.run 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

My mistake. They weren't supposed to be estimates, they were supposed to be actual figures, and rather than say "we haven't collected enough data" or "we don't want to give out the actual data" the decision was made to use an outdated extrapolation measure and which was then reported as fact, or if you prefer, allowed to be interpreted as fact.

That's why I was sceptical.

But another comment suggests that China might actually be struggling, and it's that which is the cause of the downturn in usage.

I'd rather it wasn't that. Recessions suck and it's the wrong people (regular citizens) who suffer.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml -2 points 5 months ago

China was always clear about how they collected their data (admittedly, moreso to the Chinese-speaking audience where they actually described this). Again, the limitations of lack of testing were very pronounced around the world at the start of the pandemic and sticking to verified cases was the only actual data available. R0 was still an open question: how would you have wanted an estimate to be made?