This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
He says it's actually the Russians funding the German Green party, not even hedging or speculating.
Greens were pushing for no fossil fuels, of which Russia is the default European supplier. Greens were pushing for continued war in Ukraine. These are policies that benefit the US.
Surely he knows this. I can't think of it as anything other than a blatantly dishonest narrative in the usual vein of 'Europeans are incompetent, not pulling their own weight, Russians doing with them as they please, they need a savior, that's us (again!)'. Genuinely infuriating. Sobering, too.
It was going around in the news a while back:
It shouldn't really be surprising, as this is the straight-forward result of everyone's incentive's on the issue.
The Greens were pushing first and foremost for shutting down nuclear power, at which they have succeeded last year. They would have done so sooner, but the Ukraine war erupted just as they were first scheduled to shutdown their last reactors, and the uncertainty over energy security made it impossible to shout down people raising questions like "uh... is this really the best moment for that?". Which doesn't mean they didn't try. They first said the shutdown process is in motion, and impossible to reverse for technical reasons, to which the staff of the last functioning power plant said "uh... we can run this as long as you want, it's just a question of getting more fuel", to which they tried to say "well, we can't get nuclear fuel on such short notice", to which the US said "we'll gladly sell it to you, with Amazon Prime next day delivery included", to which they finally had to say "fine... we'll keep it running for one more year, but don't think this will avoid the shutdown!".
They have done so with full knowledge it will increase carbon emissions, and only offering the excuse that a switch to renewable sources will drive it back down later on, in the long term.
More options
Context Copy link
He wasn’t saying they were the sole source of funding.
Moreover, he made the point that the Greens attacked nuclear while trying to replace with wind and solar. But as a result they had a base power problem so turned to natural gas thereby benefiting Russia.
It isn’t quite the Baptist and Bootleggers combo but similar.
Can you explain how the green policy helped the US?
The European gas crisis more than quadrupled the US LNG export business, which started as a subsidized foreign policy tool and suddenly became very profitable (the ports were super expensive and were not competitive with pipeline gas before). 60% of US LNG now goes to Europe, totaling more than we send to Mexico and Canada via pipeline.
Biden just ended all new LNG export construction for "environmental" reasons, hugely enriching the existing owners (the government's partners) by granting them a monopoly.
So in one move they made Europe more economically and politically dependent on the US, paid off the party's cronies, gave their green wing a fake win with some payouts, and put an entire security-critical industry under the thumb of the party. It was a stroke of absolute genius.
And the most impressive part is how long range the plan was. Iirc the government started those then-unprofitable LNG export terminal partnerships over a decade ago, all for this moment when the strategy to split the EU and Russia came to fruition.
More options
Context Copy link
Fair question. Germany adding a ton of solar/wind (before it is economically reasonable) shifts their willingness to conflict themselves with Russia and accept some pipes being blown as a nothingburger after all. To the extent the reduced dependence is real, good for Germans. To the extent it is only an impression that will resolve into a crisis, 'unexpected' costs, too bad.
I also think reduced German/European competitiveness is something the US is pursuing. Drains the talent, conflicts European nations with each other, generally makes us easier to manage.
Yes, they added baseload natgas over nuclear, as others pointed out. Not as much as I thought, something between 50-100% increase since 2000, looking at some charts? And fossil fuels suppliers are fungible (at significant cost), some more natgas does not anchor them to Russia permanently, as we've seen. But fair enough, I should have done more hedging myself, was thinking of last few years too much.
But the point was the greens pushed (oddly) for replacing nuclear (a very clean energy that is cheap after built) with unreliable solar and wind. The natural result is more Natgas which means Russia benefits.
The greens should’ve pushed for nuclear and solar and that would’ve been aligned.
They don't work together, especially in Germany. On summer days solar is producing over 100% of demand and spot prices go negative, then spike at 5pm depending on literally which way the wind is blowing. In winter solar produces zilch and wind stays variable, plummeting to nothing during those climatically stable dead-still cold spells where energy demand is highest.
There's no place for high-fixed-zero-variable cost nuclear in that environment, but it's ideal for cheap gas plants that can be turned off half the time but print money when electricity prices spike. And for gas heating.
There's honestly no explanation for Germany's energy plan but suicidal national insanity. It's as bad as their war plans.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Am I completely wrong in my guess that the Greens don't want nuclear weapons stationed on German soil?
More options
Context Copy link
Degrowth Greens are getting absolutely crazy, easily 10x as radical as any far-right European party. More radical than Putin too.
A (biased) source on what one German Greens thought leader wants to see, noting that it isn't all Greens but a formidable brand of Green thought: https://www.eugyppius.com/p/in-which-a-leading-green-intellectual
New construction banned, train travel rationed, 50 sqm living space per person, meat rationed, end of banking (because money is basically worthless since everything is rationed)... This from an apparently respectable political voice, editor of a newspaper, who basically wants to destroy the Western way of life. These people have influence in the real world, their fellow compatriots get into power and start shutting down nuclear plants for no good reason.
It's in the UK too. Some imbeciles passed a law mandating net zero emissions by 2050. A think tank gave serious thought as to what that would actually look like if we take the laws and climate scientists seriously:
https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/api/core/bitstreams/75916920-51f6-4f9c-ade5-52cbf55d5e73/content
TLDR, they conclude that technology is too unreliable, the only path to success is crushing austerity. No air travel for 30 years. No shipping for 30 years. 40% less heating. No meat.
What I find most revealing is the mindset of 'well we don't really have any known methods to get CO2 out of the atmosphere besides planting trees and there's not much space for more trees so let's take a low-risk path to absolute zero, using only known technologies'. And then the low-risk path they propose is shooting yourself in the foot with a 50 cal. No shipping and no air travel ON AN ISLAND? Famine is locked in - they add that 'fertilizer use is greatly reduced'. This mindset is absolutely toxic.
The correct solution to climate change is directly controlling the temperature by releasing sulfate aerosols in the upper atmosphere. At a cost of $5-20 billion per year we can hold temperatures in place or reduce them, even as CO2 levels rise. These people want to destroy industrial civilization over a glorified nothingburger.
And I think Russia might be trying to assist them. These Degrowth Greens can be viewed as purely destructive agents, Stalin's mythic wreckers that were deliberately harming the economy by submitting false instructions or damaging machinery. If you want to induce chaos and dysfunction in Europe, help them out! They might shut down a nuclear plant or commit some other blunder and cause right-thinking people to panic-buy more natural gas or oil (which in a global market will increase Russian income). Russia probably doesn't have much ability to help them and doesn't spend much time doing so but I think it's part of their agenda.
Suffice to say that with no air travel and no shipping, the VDV could probably take over Britain by themselves. Inducing stupidity and self-sabotage in your rivals is usually a good move, even if it hurts you occasionally. Just because Russia exports fossil fuels, it doesn't mean they don't want division and incompetence in their targets. Nuclear power is still the primary threat to their energy exports IMO. Nuclear France produces fewer emissions than 'Green' Germany' per $ of GDP.
That won't work forever. Those aerosols don't stay in the air nearly as long as CO2 does. So if we depend on them, we'll likely continue to raise the CO2 to dangerous levels while temporarily covering it up with the aerosols. It'll work for a while, but on historical timescales sooner or later something will happen that will disrupt the flights that deliver the aerosols. It could be a war, natural disaster, oil depletion, or anything that disrupts modern civilization and trade. Then the temperature will shoot up to where it would have been without the aerosols, but it will be worse because it will happen much quicker with no chance for people to adapt, and it will compound with whatever crisis caused the disruption.
But the alternative doesn't work at all. If we commit to green energy, that does nothing about all the CO2 already in the atmosphere, it only mildly decreases the rate at which the CO2 concentration rises. It's like taking your foot off a little bit off the accelerator and saying 'well we did our best'. We need to use the brakes.
Sulphates aren't a perfect solution. They do distort weather patterns. They do cause acid rain. But they are a solution to the temperature problem.
More options
Context Copy link
It doesn't have to work forever, just until we can get nuclear plants built and direct CO2 extraction running.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My understanding was that the German Green party's core policy objective was to see Germany divest itself of locally produced coal and nuclear power in favor of what was sold as "renewables" on paper but was natural gas supplied by Russia in actual practice.
I also recall reading something back in 2019 (when there was all that talk about Germany wasnt pulling its weight in NATO was in news) about how the German left in general and the Greens in particular was rife with ex-Soviet/DDR apparatchiks and thier kids.
The invasion of Ukraine may have been an inflection point that flipped a bunch of incentives, but it seems to me that the Green Party being a bunch of watermelons (outwardly Green but Reds/Communists under the skin) and the Russians quietly looking to sow political dissent amongs thier nieghbors isn't a crazy conspiracy theory as much as it is a solid prior.
And then the Americans, who realize that a Germany (and by extension, a Europe) weakened by environmentalism (and migrationism) is good for America [currently going its own economic contraction], and are more than happy to encourage that/refusing to interrupt an enemy making a mistake.
Now Europe is strategically dependent on costly American gas rather than cheap Russian gas. (If you were wondering how Europe actually contributes to NATO, that's the way it happens.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It’s entirely compatible with active measures or just general FUD tactics for a state to fund groups that have multiple ideological goals at odds with their own. And that’s without considering the possibility of miscalculations; the US funded bin Laden for decades, after all.
More options
Context Copy link
Isn’t Russian funding for the German Green Party actually literally true, just as it is for most everyone else on a political fringe somewhere?
More options
Context Copy link
If the Russians were funding the Greens it would be because they wanted to push for shutting down coal and nuclear power plants which would increase Germany's reliance on natural gas as a way to fill the gap when the baseload becomes more unreliable.
The weird thing is I thought there was a thing about the German secret service infiltrating the Green party due to Russian ties. The problem is I don't know when this happened. In my head this must have happened after the collapse of the Soviet Union because of my age but also in my head my thoughts were 'I hate the Greens. I hate the Communists. But you really shouldn't be doing this in a democracy'. [weirdly enough the USA did the same thing to the Republican party 16 year later]. Also, if I search for the terms 'scandal over germany secret service green party' in Google I can't find it so maybe I'm hallucintating. I asked chat gpt and apparently it happened in 2000 which make sense to me but maybe this is chat gpt hallucinating as well. Chat GPT wouldn't supply me with links and I can't find anything on google in the front page.
this is the closest i could find to what i remember: https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/german-spies-target-left-wing-party but that doesn't mention Russia or the Green party. i could have misremembered and thought it was the green party when it was a leftist party.
More options
Context Copy link
The greens were hardly pushing against fossil fuels except being violently against fracking (partly because they overlap with pro-coal labor unions). They were campaigning against nuclear and for vast investments in solar, both of which cripple the German grid and help Russia sell more gas at higher prices in the winter.
I'm not excusing German greens by saying they were just rational foreign agents (because I think they're legitimately insane), but Russian sponsorship of their activism goes back to the anti-nuclear campaigns by communist front orgs in the 60s. Today's senior greens literally had KGB handlers when they were young radicals. And that's not counting the ones who were actual East German officials
Like the least sketchy German green politician I can think of at this point was the one who wrote about having sex with kindergarteners. At least he probably wasn't being paid to do it unless he was part of that one social agency in Berlin.
More options
Context Copy link
Think you've missed a trick here. The russians did fund the German green movement, and mostly because of the dynamics re imports and exports of energy. If you look at the Petra Kelly/Gert Bastian situation for example, the whole thing glows as bright as the sun. And it doesn't take rocket science to work out why. If you're pro green energy, at least at the time with 90s/00s level tech, then you're going to need (even if you don't acknowledge it) some stable energy source to make up the down periods. And at the time gas was by far the best option other than nuclear. You essentially had a domestic production of nuclear/coal which could be demonised as dirty and possibly even evil. The anti domestic side didn't say "and we'd like russian gas to smooth out the gaps" but this was an inevitability.
Basically yes, Vance is trivially correct that the German greens were funded by the Russians, and for relatively sensible reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link