Food for thought - Climate Change

[The-Acre]

9 minutes ago, dutchie01 said:

Interesting philosophical question. Who will we send to planet B ?

This could be a new thread but I suggest for starters Tony Blair, Bill Gates, Greta Thunderbag, and just for fun Emma Thompson!

[dutchie01]

In my idea the vast majority of people are concerned and are trying to do their best for the climate. Separate waste, turn off the tap when brushing your teeth, install solarpanels, explain your children about climate and so on. Nothing wrong here.

However, one must not underestimate the power of money. With Climate beeing a number one topic in most countries a multi billion industry has formed behind it. It would be highly interesting to follow the money in most European countries to establish the amount going round in taxes, subsidies, law firms, lobbyists, energy companies, earth saving organisations like greenpeace ( hi Greta), NGO,s and all i forgot. Maybe this has already been done if somebody knows or has a link it would be helpful.

Same for immigration. A battalion of lawyers is waiting to offer assistance, people smugglers, suppliers of boats etc. An industry is behind this.

[Linas.P]

56 minutes ago, Cotswold Pete said:

Interesting to read this thread, and my two-pence worth is Humans have been degrading the environment since we jump down from the trees, learnt we could burn them for heat, turn them into arrows and kill mega-fuana, so the burning of carbon based fuels is just the current extension of our mission to eventually ruin the places we live in.

As to governments limiting the ability of you and me to drive where ever when ever, I am kind of in support of, becuase we are all (in relative terms) selfish, and some level of control is required, a bit like speed limits, be a interesting world if no one regulated our speed in urban areas coz that was seen a a restriction of our liberties.

If we all adopted a quasi-buddhist come Quaker philosophy than maybe we would feel less need to consume and tarmac the planet, but in the meanwhile I am not in  position to give up my car and go everywhere by e-bike or shanks-pony, so I am part of the problem my kids will have to solve.

It does seem though the pace of global warming has increased in line with human population, so at a guess we are the problem as much as the earth wobbling a little bit nearer to further from the sun from time to time. (Unless of course there are some aliens just around the dark side of the moon having a larf while playing some game of SIM EARTH - and they forgot to switch off the WARM option)🤓

I am glad you have different opinion... but who isn't "selfish", is lion selfish to to hunt down gazelle? does amoeba selfish to eat other single cell organisms? What I am saying we are here to survive - AT ANY COST NECESARY. Our whole existence is kind of accident (unless we delve into conspiracy theories).

Now if we look at humans as form of life obviously we are disruptive, BUT to be honest anything we can do to this planet would be considered rather mild in geologic terms. So again I think even if we have impact on climate change, then reducing it is just a hygiene factor, we don't want to live around our own rubbish in principle.

But then this kind of explains why I am so indifferent if humans go extinct, because I myself consider us as destructive and rather dangerous (or at least capable of being dangerous).

That said - I am not too sure warming is in line with human population, it think this could be quite objectively disproved, consider below (the glaciation/interglaciation cycles, which as well corresponds to average temperatures of current ice age):

Obviously, this requires zooming in quite significantly to put human population in perspective... I have overlaid last 10,000 years of human population below:

 

Note that ~120,000 ago it was hotter despite there being absolutely no fossil fuel use and hardly any humans at all! As well human population basically exploded since ~1800, yet there is barely any noticeable increase in temperatures! In fact temperatures have slightly decreased since ~10,000 ago and end of last glaciation period of 20,000-12,000 years can't be in any way related to human activity, unless again we subscribe to some conspiracy theory about there being ancient high tech civilization or aliens. 

 

[Linas.P]

14 hours ago, dutchie01 said:

Interesting philosophical question. Who will we send to planet B ?

Volunteers? Who did we send to India, which turned out to be North America? If there is commercial gain of exploring something, there will be people who will go... on positive side we can get rid of Elon Musk! He will be first one to go by himself, in the ship he build himself, which in 100 years time will be considered to be "inflatable dingy" equivalent of space craft and people will get fascinated - "how did he reached the Mars in inflatable dingy!?"

[Cotswold Pete]

12 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

 get rid of Elon Musk!

On that note when I was with my sales team the other day, I told them I wanted them to sell lots of Business Starlink (as we now can) only so that we can make sure Elon has enough cash to naff off to Mars ASAP.

[GMB]

 

 

I quite fancy going to live here - looks nice. Now all I need is my new matter teleporter/transporter and a wormhole. Beam me up Scotty.

 

Kepler-62 e is a Super-Earth exoplanet that orbits in the inner habitable zone of its star, Kepler-62 (which is slightly smaller and cooler than our sun). This exoplanet which is believed to be a water world lies just about 1,200 light years away from us in the constellation Lyra making it one of the most potentially habitable planets. It completes one orbit every 122 days and is 1.6 times larger than Earth.

 

[Bluemarlin]

On 9/6/2023 at 1:50 PM, Boomer54 said:

"the most sensible and cost effective way is up for debate." Not really. See above. Now bring to play Paretos Law and frame the issue within that context. Under that spotlight ,what we (the UK) are doing makes no strategic sense whatsoever.

For clarity, if you are not familiar with Pareto I refer you to ;

Pareto analysis is a decision-making technique used to statistically separate the data entries into groups with the most or least effect on the data. It is commonly used in business to find the best strategies or problems to pursue.

Of course it's up for debate, especially if you bring Pareto's Law into play. The outcome of any Pareto analysis is not fixed and, like anything else, is subject to the data, criteria and goals that are set.

So, if you merely look at short term climate change as a cost/benefit analysis for the UK, then yes, it would make no sense for the UK to follow any such strategy, either from a financial point of view, or one of effect on the global environment.

However, if you look at it in the context of a world shifting towards renewables and clean energy, then the short term cost is irrelevant compared to the massive cost of playing catch up 20/30/40 years down the road, if other countries have already transitioned.

Additionally, whilst our environmental impact may be minuscule compared to the likes of China or India, it's impossible to put any pressure on them if we aren't doing anything ourselves.

In a financial context Pareto anylysis cares less about the science, and only about the best course of action. So, in a purely economic sense, the best long term strategy may well be to follow the global trends and try be ahead of the curve, or at least keep up with it, rather than be left behind. In that context, the most successful economic strategy might be based on taking the political temperature, rather than that of the planet.

In short, the UK has little impact on what the rest of world does. We could do nothing and benefit financially in the short term, but risk being dependent on others for our energy further down the line; or we could accept the costs of following the trends, in an attempt to ensure some measure of independence and security. It's no longer about the veracity of the science, that's just something for internet debaters to throw back and forth in an idle moment. Politically that ship has sailed, as most governments seemed to have accepted it. It's now about political change, rather than climate change, and the economic effects of getting onboard or waiting at the station.

That's just my opinion, and how I see it though.

 

[Malc1]

London ULEZ and Congestion Charge and Pollution   ...  what about a " new and refreshing "  NON - SCRAPPAGE " scheme to keep good decent older cars on the road to save the need to deplete the planet of rare and other minerals , mining etc, making brand new vehicles ..............

Lexus V8s ( older varieties )  would then live forever maybe 🤫

😇

Malc

[Phil xxkr]

7 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

London ULEZ and Congestion Charge and Pollution   ...  what about a " new and refreshing "  NON - SCRAPPAGE " scheme to keep good decent older cars on the road to save the need to deplete the planet of rare and other minerals , mining etc, making brand new vehicles ..............

Lexus V8s ( older varieties )  would then live forever maybe 🤫

😇

Malc

There is one Malc, it's called Classic Cars as an investment as they appreciate in value,but only if you own a classic. 

[Boomer54]

51 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Of course it's up for debate, especially if you bring Pareto's Law into play. The outcome of any Pareto analysis is not fixed and, like anything else, is subject to the data, criteria and goals that are set.

So, if you merely look at short term climate change as a cost/benefit analysis for the UK, then yes, it would make no sense for the UK to follow any such strategy, either from a financial point of view, or one of effect on the global environment.

However, if you look at it in the context of a world shifting towards renewables and clean energy, then the short term cost is irrelevant compared to the massive cost of playing catch up 20/30/40 years down the road, if other countries have already transitioned.

Additionally, whilst our environmental impact may be minuscule compared to the likes of China or India, it's impossible to put any pressure on them if we aren't doing anything ourselves.

In a financial context Pareto anylysis cares less about the science, and only about the best course of action. So, in a purely economic sense, the best long term strategy may well be to follow the global trends and try be ahead of the curve, or at least keep up with it, rather than be left behind. In that context, the most successful economic strategy might be based on taking the political temperature, rather than that of the planet.

In short, the UK has little impact on what the rest of world does. We could do nothing and benefit financially in the short term, but risk being dependent on others for our energy further down the line; or we could accept the costs of following the trends, in an attempt to ensure some measure of independence and security. It's no longer about the veracity of the science, that's just something for internet debaters to throw back and forth in an idle moment. Politically that ship has sailed, as most governments seemed to have accepted it. It's now about political change, rather than climate change, and the economic effects of getting onboard or waiting at the station.

That's just my opinion, and how I see it though.

 

Without writing War & Peace length posts it's hard to capture ALL of the argument we would like to make. On that note I would be in agreement with most of what you have written. The optimum economic strategy will not account for other desireable goals such as energy independency. Putin has already given us a timely reminder why that would be worth pursuing.

The only thing I did not get onboard with was 'Additionally, whilst our environmental impact may be minuscule compared to the likes of China or India, it's impossible to put any pressure on them if we aren't doing anything ourselves.' I sincerely believe that such dialogue is worthless. They will do what they want and to believe we have any meaningful leverage is delusional. There may be many reasons to act ,but that isn't one of them.

[Phil xxkr]

43 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Of course it's up for debate, especially if you bring Pareto's Law into play. The outcome of any Pareto analysis is not fixed and, like anything else, is subject to the data, criteria and goals that are set.

So, if you merely look at short term climate change as a cost/benefit analysis for the UK, then yes, it would make no sense for the UK to follow any such strategy, either from a financial point of view, or one of effect on the global environment.

However, if you look at it in the context of a world shifting towards renewables and clean energy, then the short term cost is irrelevant compared to the massive cost of playing catch up 20/30/40 years down the road, if other countries have already transitioned.

Additionally, whilst our environmental impact may be minuscule compared to the likes of China or India, it's impossible to put any pressure on them if we aren't doing anything ourselves.

In a financial context Pareto anylysis cares less about the science, and only about the best course of action. So, in a purely economic sense, the best long term strategy may well be to follow the global trends and try be ahead of the curve, or at least keep up with it, rather than be left behind. In that context, the most successful economic strategy might be based on taking the political temperature, rather than that of the planet.

In short, the UK has little impact on what the rest of world does. We could do nothing and benefit financially in the short term, but risk being dependent on others for our energy further down the line; or we could accept the costs of following the trends, in an attempt to ensure some measure of independence and security. It's no longer about the veracity of the science, that's just something for internet debaters to throw back and forth in an idle moment. Politically that ship has sailed, as most governments seemed to have accepted it. It's now about political change, rather than climate change, and the economic effects of getting onboard or waiting at the station.

That's just my opinion, and how I see it though.

 

Interesting opinion Bill but don't lose heart, even tankers get turned around given time. Todays auction failure is yet another indication of commercial firms coming to terms with the reality of real word costs and associated risks. There are dire warnings coming out of Germany as to their direction of travel and it ain't uppards. Also today the City of London claim the UK can be the powerhouse of fintech and green finance. You will note no mention of the manufacturing jobs that means to other than Asia. 

 

[Bluemarlin]

3 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

Without writing War & Peace length posts it's hard to capture ALL of the argument we would like to make. On that note I would be in agreement with most of what you have written. The optimum economic strategy will not account for other desireable goals such as energy independency. Putin has already given us a timely reminder why that would be worth pursuing.

The only thing I did not get onboard with was 'Additionally, whilst our environmental impact may be minuscule compared to the likes of China or India, it's impossible to put any pressure on them if we aren't doing anything ourselves.' I sincerely believe that such dialogue is worthless. They will do what they want and to believe we have any meaningful leverage is delusional. There may be many reasons to act ,but that isn't one of them.

Fair commnet, as in practice I agree with you on the last paragraph. In theory, it was more a point of principle, however futile.

[Bluemarlin]

2 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Interesting opinion Bill but don't lose heart, even tankers get turned around given time. Todays auction failure is yet another indication of commercial firms coming to terms with the reality of real word costs and associated risks. There are dire warnings coming out of Germany as to their direction of travel and it ain't uppards. Also today the City of London claim the UK can be the powerhouse of fintech and green finance. You will note no mention of the manufacturing jobs that means to other than Asia. 

 

Thanks Phil, I won't lose heart at all. Another thing the Pareto principle has taught me is that the most successful strategy is to put most of my energies into changing the things I have the power to change, and adapting as quickly as possible to those I can't.

 

[Malc1]

16 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

There is one Malc, it's called Classic Cars as an investment as they appreciate in value,but only if you own a classic. 

Not quite  .....  not all Classic Cars appreciate in value and as that starts at age 40 there's a good deal to be achieved by keeping older cars from being " scrapped "    imho

say a £4000 Non Scrappage Scheme  

Malc

[Phil xxkr]

4 hours ago, Bluemarlin said:

Thanks Phil, I won't lose heart at all. Another thing the Pareto principle has taught me is that the most successful strategy is to put most of my energies into changing the things I have the power to change, and adapting as quickly as possible to those I can't.

 

I think a Greek said something similar a few years ago 😎*Stop the excuses and the procrastination. This is your life! You aren’t a child anymore…. The longer you wait, the more you’ll be vulnerable to mediocrity and feel filled with shame and regret, because you know you are capable of better. From this instant on, vow to stop disappointing yourself. Separate yourself from the mob. Decide to be extraordinary and do what you need to do – now.” – Epictetus

[Phil xxkr]

4 hours ago, Malc1 said:

Not quite  .....  not all Classic Cars appreciate in value and as that starts at age 40 there's a good deal to be achieved by keeping older cars from being " scrapped "    imho

say a £4000 Non Scrappage Scheme  

Malc

Interesting point Malc, are you saying a 40 +year old car, assuming well cared for, would fetch less today than then?

I do recall being offered in the seventies a CKD E-type, released from the Suez canal embargo for £1500 which I declined , one of my many errors of judgement 🤣

[Linas.P]

5 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

playing catch up 20/30/40 years down the road

Just don't forget to add thousands ... 20 thousands, 30 thousands, 40 thousands ... 🙂 

Note as well CO2 is not pollutant... lead, arsenic, soot are examples of pollutants, CO2 isn't greenhouse gas, but it isn't actually pollutant, it is inert gas and actually vital for survival of most of plants. So we need to separate - global warming from pollution in this case.

So again green energy transition is more about "keeping it tidy around us", the comparison could be made with banana peel, imagine you eating banana in the park, it would not hurt the nature id you just throw the peel into the grass, natural fertiliser, but it is just unsightly and would look bad for other visitors, so you put it in the bin, or take it with you.

[Bluemarlin]

18 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Just don't forget to add thousands ... 20 thousands, 30 thousands, 40 thousands ... 🙂 

Note as well CO2 is not pollutant... lead, arsenic, soot are examples of pollutants, CO2 isn't greenhouse gas, but it isn't actually pollutant, it is inert gas and actually vital for survival of most of plants. So we need to separate - global warming from pollution in this case.

So again green energy transition is more about "keeping it tidy around us", the comparison could be made with banana peel, imagine you eating banana in the park, it would not hurt the nature id you just throw the peel into the grass, natural fertiliser, but it is just unsightly and would look bad for other visitors, so you put it in the bin, or take it with you.

No need to add thousands Linas. If other countries move forward with the transition to greener energy, and we do nothing, we'll be a long way behind in 40 years, and it will be expensive to catch up. As I said above, right now it's more about politics and economics than it is the environment and, as a small nation, the least risk course would be to follow those trends. Doesn't mean it's the only course, or even the right one, but a bookie would probably make it a 3/1 shot, with doing nothing a 50/1 outsider.

Yes, CO2 is vital for survival, as is water, but too much of either is detrimental. Once we reach a level of CO2 that exceeds what plants can absord and recycle, which we have, then it starts to have negative effects. That might be in the form of reducing the planet's ability to dissipate heat, or it might be acidification of the oceans, as excess CO2 is absorbed into them. If both of these happen too quickly, which is the claim, then it doesn't allow enough time for marine life, or those of us on land, to adapt to the environmental changes.

To reiterate though, one can argue the science till the cows come home, but that battle seems to have already been decided, and the war has moved on to if and how to address it.

To be honest, what probably matters most, at least from a UK long term perspective, is whether it's realitsic to assume that we can generate more of our own energy from renewable sources than we can from fossil fuels. As is stands, we're at the mercy of a small number of countries, banded together in a cartel, who manipulate supply in order to drive up prices. To turn it back to a motoring perspective, this means that it's not only drivers of ICE vehicles who are having to pay in the order of £100 to fill up, but even EV drivers face higher costs, because the electricity they need is generated from fossil fuels.

So, even if the climate and environmental arguments are red herrings, they've been a catalyst to drive a determined shift away from dependence on fossil fuels, and the virtual monoplolies that are in control of their supply. It may not turn out to be the best, or right answer, but to my mind it's a pretty good goal to strive for.

[Linas.P]

That is fine, but then why brainwash people about "climate emergency" when there is none?

Energy independence is good enough goal on itself, it is strategic goal as well, so why bother with distraction? I guess my argument is - treat people like adults and give them real reasons, instead of trying to deliver energy independence under false pretence of climate change. And what about opportunity costs? How can we even decide what opportunities we have when we being lied to? Why not ask question - "do you want to spend A. 10 years and £ 1 Trillion on nuclear fusion which will mean unlimited clean energy and energy independence for all, B. 10 years and £ 1 Trillion on Mars settlement, which will mean preserving human life in case of catastrophe on earth, or C. 10 years £ 1 Trillion on getting to 'net zero' emissions, which will severely worsen your quality of life, but will make pink-haired Karen ecomentalist happier". 

We we are talking about CO2 levels, again it all comes down to same questions - "since when". Current, ~400ppm CO2 level in atmosphere is quite low and even burning all fossil fuels won't be enough to get us to 2000ppm which was once the norm on this planet. Note as well - when the CO2 level was very high, the earth looked jungle like with giant plants growing everywhere. The higher is atmospheric CO2 the quicker the plants and trees grow and the bigger they grow, so it is kind of self-mitigating (as long as we don't cut those trees down). Oceans can't absorb more CO2, hence why we have increasing level of atmospheric CO2 since 1950s when it is theorised the maximum level of ocean absorption was exceeded. In short - there is no risk of ocean acidification past certain point and that is before we even consider the constant melting of ice in the poles which are diluting the water anyway.

Now what is true... some animals and plants will go extinct due to changes, others will survive... again that just adds to 99%+ of all species that have gone extinct. I just don't really understand the problem here - is human caused extinction any worse than extinction caused by something else? a meteorite strike? What if humans one day will be capable of deflecting meteorite that would otherwise end life on earth, would that allow us to live comfortably and consider that we prevented enough extinction to cause a little bit of it ourselves.

This is by the way not an attack on anyone in particular, I am just trying to establish where is the red line for our morale?! What level of extinction is good enough, what level of pollution is good enough, what level of emissions and climate change is acceptable? Because every human alive creates emissions, pollution and potentially climate change, and when we have 8.1 billion of us, it is simply impossible to avoid it. So one ultimate line could be that we do not care, live comfortable live, drive 9.2L V10 lifted pick-up trucks, burn coal for everything, flatten all the forests, and throw our plastic waste directly into ocean, or simply burn it in the middle of the street and other ultimate line is that we have to do Seppuku to ourselves and don't live at all, because no human caused climate change is incompatible with our life altogether.

I think it is quite clear that compromise is needed between those two ultimate options, so what is required for humans to live? Do we need comfortable clothing, rich diet, internet connection and modern electronics? Do we need personal vehicles, freedom to travel and air conditioned homes with heated swimming pool? I reckon we do, especially heated swimming pool, and preferably helipad as well. I think we should be able to live very comfortable life, every 8.1 or 12 billion of us. Because the life where one can't eat meat, or where one can't drive in their safe, clean and comfortable car to work is not worth living. There are things which we can get rid off thought - fast fashion, excess packaging, polluting the rivers/oceans with plastic, cheap import toys, electronics from china that fail within week and becomes landfill, climate protesters throwing paint, damaging property and their non-sensical signs, other inefficiencies like insufficient road infrastructure created traffic jams and causing extra pollution. We can certainly do some trimming down, but it should not include anything that meaningfully restricts our comfort, unless somebody wants to do it voluntarily. What I mean - I don't mind people being hippies, living in the forest off grid and eating their own *******, as long as they don't expect me to join them... and if our comfortable existence means that 1 out of 2500 species of flea will go extinct so be it... in fact I do not care if any particular animal would go extinct (just to be clear they all not going to be extinct), I like dolphins, I love all big cats and it would be sad if they would go, but if the choice is between them and heated pool... then heated pool it is. I reckon we can sacrifice 20% of ~8 million species of life there is and there will still be plenty left, and more new ones to come. I can certainly sleep well knowing we have 1 million less species of insects. Again this is question of where we draw the line? Remember the meteorite? Well that bugger drawn the line on ~75% species destroyed some 66 million years ago... and that was just one of many such events. So if we assume that we can protect planet from meteorite strike, could we say we have moral right to enjoy our lives as long as extinction we causing is below say 50% (although we most likely not yet capable of diverting 9 miles wide asteroid)?! An by the way - human extinction due to climate change is impossible, so we talking only about extinction of other species.

So question is - where is this moral line and who is to decide? Should the pink haired, retarded just stop oil ecoterrorist have a say? Or should we simply set the upper limit of destruction one could cause (let's say things like burning tyres and pouring used engine oil into the rivers begin banned, or overhunting of endangered species) and leave the rest for people to individually and voluntarily to decide for themselves (like whenever they have kids, or heated pool, or both - simple matter is, having kids is probably more detrimental for climate than heated pools)? I an fact I think we had enough environment protection since early 2000s, current policies are already overreach and overreaction. So if we just go back to say 2010, make sure that we enforce existing restrictions we should be good... no? 

[VFR]

On 9/8/2023 at 2:35 PM, Boomer54 said:

Without writing War & Peace length posts it's hard to capture ALL of the argument we would like to make. On that note I would be in agreement with most of what you have written. The optimum economic strategy will not account for other desireable goals such as energy independency. Putin has already given us a timely reminder why that would be worth pursuing.

The only thing I did not get onboard with was 'Additionally, whilst our environmental impact may be minuscule compared to the likes of China or India, it's impossible to put any pressure on them if we aren't doing anything ourselves.' I sincerely believe that such dialogue is worthless. They will do what they want and to believe we have any meaningful leverage is delusional. There may be many reasons to act ,but that isn't one of them.

Do you not mean the US as Putin was happy to supply cheap gas but Uncle Sam did not like that one bit (and said so) so they bullied the EU puppets to back their sanctions as impose more of their own.

Just to be sure the blew up the pipe lines (and again said so) so there could be no change of mind.

 

[Malc1]

I think it's about time we, the UK befriended a sensible huge democratic nation like Brazil  .  to encourage BP et all to assist them in nurturing development of their enormous oil and gas reserves in their ocean areas .  and stretch that down to OUR UK areas similarly around our Falklands .  then see the price, cost, value of these energy elements collapse for sure .  why give all the money to Putin and Saudi the USA whatever  ............  and with it bring benevolence and education in the sensible use of these fuels for the benefit of mankind, oh, and us too of course

Malc

[Boomer54]

35 minutes ago, VFR said:

Do you not mean the US as Putin was happy to supply cheap gas but Uncle Sam did not like that one bit (and said so) so they bullied the EU puppets to back their sanctions as impose more of their own.

Just to be sure the blew up the pipe lines (and again said so) so there could be no change of mind.

 

I think you might need to join the meeting behind the shed. No offence 😉

[Linas.P]

42 minutes ago, VFR said:

Putin was happy to supply cheap gas 

There is saying for a reason - "what is too good to be true..."

Clearly there was a catch, he was happy to supply gas as long as Europe was happy to accept unprovoked invasions to the countries bordering his regime, genocide and all other usual ruzzists past times, like ra*pe, summary killings, sending people to Siberia to die (sadly we 10,000 years before it has turned into tropical place) etc.

So I really cannot see your point here - Europe, especially few countries like Germany were short-sighted and were financing their own demise. 

[Boomer54]

20 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

There is saying for a reason - "what is too good to be true..."

Clearly there was a catch, he was happy to supply gas as long as Europe was happy to accept unprovoked invasions to the countries bordering his regime, genocide and all other usual ruzzists past times, like ra*pe, summary killings, sending people to Siberia to die (sadly we 10,000 years before it has turned into tropical place) etc.

So I really cannot see your point here - Europe, especially few countries like Germany were short-sighted and were financing their own demise. 

On a serious note it always concerns me if there is just one person in a democratic society who appears to paint Putin and his actions as anything other than what they are, criminal. No one (the EU) should need any persuasion from the US, or anyoneelse, to get aligned with sanctions against such action just because it is the right thing to do ! THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Sometimes there is such a thing.

[Linas.P]

10 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

On a serious note it always concerns me if there is just one person in a democratic society who appears to paint Putin and his actions as anything other than what they are, criminal. No one (the EU) should need any persuasion from the US, or anyoneelse, to get aligned with sanctions against such action just because it is the right thing to do ! THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Sometimes there is such a thing.

And second serious concern is that in democratic society we even needed persuasion from US (or whom ever) to do that right thing... as if somehow hospitals and civilians being deliberately targeted and bombed was by itself not persuasive enough to take that step. 

I agree with you - even single putkins defender seems like one too many, I just fail to see how people can justify it... and to be fair when pressed they usually confess they are not honest with themselves e.g. they start by saying that they think "West/US made mistakes and maybe provoked ruzzists", but when countered with comparison with nazis and massive mistake of appeasement policy throughout 30's that LED into WW2 and identical mistake we made since 2014, then they suddenly switch to argument that they are simply afraid of nukes... which is fine, I think there is reason to be afraid, but then don't defend the actions of deranged fascists dictator, or create cover story and excuses for his action. Simply say "I am too weak and too afraid and I rather see all war crimes known in humanity to be unleashed on Ukraine, than I would stand a risk of nukes being used". 

I guess this is developing to another thread...