Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.world

21 replies

lemm.ee

Production from here will likely further displace Russian production, making their economy even worse.

Still not great for the environment either way though.

24
palalreply
lemmy.ml

Isn't Russia just shipping everything to China and India, instead? And India is just playing the arbitrage game and reselling to Europe?

7

Probably, but more supply pushes down the value of all gas, especially when you can just pipe it around Europe, rather than getting it from India.

3

Wait I forgot about this. Ngl I'm in favor of pumping this shit out of the ground to provide for Europe starting next year or the year after, it would be a better project than most in planning and way better than the huge boats of LNG.

3
slrpnk.net

I mean, natural gas is less carcinogenic and less polluting of the environment than coal overall, even if the methane production is terrible for the climate. Clearly solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear energy are much better options in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and overall pollution though.

9

Sure, absolutely, natural gas burns cleaner than coal and doesn't need as much infrastructure to avoid dumping particulates into the air, but governments and O&G companies want you to believe that it's reducing GHG emissions and that's just not really true.

6

No, but we're going to want something for all of our aid. We've never given anything for free. Probably some strong arm package where we get great rates on the LNG and also get to install key parts of their new economy. And we'll stick around to rebuild infrastructure as long as our corporations can get some perks, too.

3
sbv
sh.itjust.works

More fuel for the fire. Which fire? The Russian invasion? Climate change? Yes!

15

Bald Eagles start screaming

America, fuck yeah!

Comin' again to save the motherfuckin' day, yeah

America, fuck Yeah!

Freedom is the only way, yeah

7

You reached the end