Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

NobleRotter t1_iz6isnv wrote

I'm going to have very mixed feelings if this ends with history naming Putin as the saviour of the world

116

cormac596 t1_iz6tbfp wrote

Not the savior, but the catalyst. The straw that broke the camel's back as it were

82

Extension-Ad-2760 t1_iz6tpmn wrote

Similarly, Hitler really helped to eliminate antisemitism. Most of Europe was quite antisemitic (though not to... *that...*level) before the war. That changed very quickly afterwards

48

grafknives t1_iz9krrt wrote

He also helped to eradicate most vivid racism and eugenics eugenics etc from the USA. (from where he got those ideas in the first place)

To the point that is not rememberer to the proper extent.

8

onetimenative t1_iz9mx4w wrote

Neither of these topics were eliminated or eradicated ... they were temporarily reduced or regressed but they have always remained. These traits are still there, they are still a force in society, they just are not as popular as they once were. Place the right amount of propaganda around anything and you can make the public believe anything .... even in this day in age.

6

CO2_3M_Year_Peak t1_izw06bd wrote

The Holocaust exterminated most European Jews. Afterward there weren't many Jews left to be a focal point for antisemitism

1

AsFarAsItGoes t1_iz6x4f6 wrote

Adolf Hitler paradoxically lead Europe into an age of unprecedented unity (the European Union), decline of open imperialism (GB, France, Japan, and many more gave up their imperialistic ambitions), and decades of insane technological and economical advances.

Hitler is not - and of course should not - be known for “doing” all that, because it was not what he had in mind.

In the same vein, Putin will not become “the savior”, even if his actions ultimately help the global society. He did not plan on helping, and he is not going to be credited for it.

55

BadMedAdvice t1_iz76tk2 wrote

Just as Hitler created a problem that others solved, I doubt Putin will be remembered for driving innovation here.

23

TheNeverWere t1_iz6mv87 wrote

If that's the great irony that'll take to do it, I'll do it in a heartbeat.

27

u9Nails t1_iz6ofkp wrote

I'll sooner prefer his name removed from history. But if this makes him infamous, that's a second option

8

Ok-Wasabi2873 t1_iz6q3su wrote

At the beginning of the war, I had mentioned that Putin could go down as the biggest promoter of renewables, green-energy and energy independence.

13

8urnMeTwice t1_iz7kodv wrote

And Trump will go down as the President who inspired greater voter participation in even midterm elections

8

Petal_Chatoyance t1_iz8jv5m wrote

This also shows that the humans species could have, at any moment, dumped the use of unrenewable energy and switched over to entirely sustainable sources. It never required an illegal invasion by Russia to force this to happen - humanity could have done it years ago, if they wanted to.

And there is nothing stopping the world from moving over entirely in less than ten years - indeed less than two years if it was made a priority above all others.

The same is true of providing housing for all, food for all, water for all, and medicine for all. It could be done, the world could do it, and could do it easily.

They just won't until they are forced, because humanity allows oligarchs to rule them.

That this is happening proves that point, a very old point, one we have all heard our entire lives.

I am glad that the issue has been forced, but I am sad that the deaths of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians were what made it happen. I am sad that had to be the reason anything is finally changing at all - because fuel is being withheld and used as a political weapon.

Humans should be going renewable because they want to save their world, not because they want to keep profit margins up despite a brutal war.

But, take what victories one can, right?

This is a good thing.

53

BlueEmeraldX t1_izbqlpd wrote

I have always said this: humanity never tries to solve a problem until it's too late to solve it.

World hunger will be the next issue on the docket after energy, but only after all wildlife and sea life have been harvested to extinction and/or indirectly killed by industrial negligence. This event horizon is, of course, further accelerated by the continued rise in the human population.

Because humans will never, ever learn.

0

Cerwen5 t1_izc7qus wrote

we couldn't have done it though, because money.

Money determines everything. We live in a world society based on greed. Not that people are individually greedy, but our entire system is FOUNDED on greed, so people can't really live a good life without operating under that system of greed. We need to change the foundation of our societies.

0

Extension-Ad-2760 t1_iz6tzvb wrote

Fuck yeah. Let's do this. Keep fighting, it's working

27

_HappyMaskSalesman_ t1_iz7hnfs wrote

Can someone explain what it means to "limit global warming to 1.5C"?

8

LazerWolfe53 t1_iz7qkrq wrote

It means reducing greenhouse gas emissions so much that they only accumulate enough to increase the temperature of the planet 1.5C. Before the war nobody really thought pollution would stop before the planet warmed 2C or more.

13

friedcat777 t1_iz8r2do wrote

The warming of the earth another 1.5C-2C more or less is a point of no return for global warming. If that happens there is no fixing things in anyone's life time that is alive today. They have been talking about this for a decade or two and its not far off if nothing changes.

4

Lure852 t1_iz9albp wrote

What really blows my mind is the missed opportunity by China (and India to an extent). Instead of sinking trillions into building useless highways, buildings, and entire cities, all in the name of growing gdp, they could have dumped it into renewables.

Instead they're expanding the use of coal to continue to power their industry. Morons.

5

primejanus t1_izbtybk wrote

I'm pretty sure China has invested a lot into renewables but found they couldn't meet the energy demand so they built a bunch of new coal plants as well

6

Lure852 t1_izbuyb9 wrote

Yes but instead of building a ton of useless buildings that they later blew up, or the various empty cities with no purpose, they could have gone even bigger on renewables.

1

netz_pirat t1_iza9ng7 wrote

They are doing both, actually.

China has one third of the worldwide solar generation installed, and is increasing the lead.

5

mihran146 t1_iz77hcl wrote

Just goes to show you that Samuel L Jackson character from kingsman had a point.

4

halisme t1_iz9a7ud wrote

No, Jackson's character believed that humanity was a virus that needed to be culled and contained. This story is about how we could have shifted, but didn't because it was cheaper.

1

Patrick_tuning t1_iz8oiss wrote

This is not shared by any international organization. The dominant consensus is that it would be great to keep it under 2.5...

2

FrostyWhiskers t1_izae8vl wrote

I really hope these are real renewables and not greenwashed bullshit like biomass.

2

AutoModerator t1_iz6f6mj wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Delta4o t1_iz9mpij wrote

To everyone saying "it's an artificial crisis"

I say good because the last fucking 30 years we have accomplished next to nothing when it comes to preserving the climate. It hurts like hell, but at least we're doing something now...

1

rapzero t1_izhncny wrote

This is a bit too late but better too late than never...

1

bustedbuddha t1_iz9qmss wrote

Solar is the cheapest per KW source of energy, that we are not already mostly on it is purely because a very small amount of very powerful people profit from the continued use of fossil fuels.

​

Additionally it is cheaper than nuclear by similar margins and the only reason you still see people pushing nuclear energy is because of the propaganda pushed by a similar minority that stands to profit from nuclear power expanding.

0

Human_Anybody7743 t1_izbcsig wrote

Wind is marginally cheaper when capacity weighted.

Fossil fuel gas is still cheaper in some areas and coal costs less up front (but not after running it for a couple of years). These margins are rapidly shrinking though.

The overriding biggest advantage of renewables is stability, predictability and security. Sunlight doesn't suddenly jump to $1000/MWh or develop corrosion issues that take all winter to fix.

1

compaqdeskpro t1_iz9wq14 wrote

"All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban."

Never mind.

0