Did Putin help Trump to prevent climate change action?

[Surface Detail]

There's speculation in this week's New Scientist that one of Putin's main reasons for allegedly helping to engineer the election of Trump may have been his and his party's man-made climate change denial. A major drive towards the development and use of renewable energy sources and energy conservation could have spelt disaster for a Russian economy dependent on exports of gas and oil, so it is very much in Russia's interest to sabotage any moves in this direction. And, of course, Russia is a country that may actually benefit from a warming climate.

Does anyone else think this is a possible or likely scenario? Are the useful idiots on the right, rather than the left, of the political divide these days?

 

[Mac77]

There's speculation in this week's New Scientist that one of Putin's main reasons for allegedly helping to engineer the election of Trump may have been his and his party's man-made climate change denial. A major drive towards the development and use of renewable energy sources and energy conservation could have spelt disaster for a Russian economy dependent on exports of gas and oil, so it is very much in Russia's interest to sabotage any moves in this direction. And, of course, Russia is a country that may actually benefit from a warming climate.

Does anyone else think this is a possible or likely scenario? Are the useful idiots on the right, rather than the left, of the political divide these days?

How new are the "New Scientists?"

Born yesterday perhaps

 

[Surface Detail]

How new are the "New Scientists?"

Born yesterday perhaps

It's a British popular science magazine.

Most of the rumours circulating about Russian interference in the US election have centred on geopolitical aspects. That's the first time I've seen speculation in print specifically about climate change as a motive for possible Russian skulduggery.

 

[Moot]

There's speculation in this week's New Scientist that one of Putin's main reasons for allegedly helping to engineer the election of Trump may have been his and his party's man-made climate change denial. A major drive towards the development and use of renewable energy sources and energy conservation could have spelt disaster for a Russian economy dependent on exports of gas and oil, so it is very much in Russia's interest to sabotage any moves in this direction. And, of course, Russia is a country that may actually benefit from a warming climate.

Does anyone else think this is a possible or likely scenario? Are the useful idiots on the right, rather than the left, of the political divide these days?

The thawing of the arctic is creating conflicts over who has rights over the new shipping channels and oil exploration. So that maybe there is some truth in the speculation.

 

[longview]

There's speculation in this week's New Scientist that one of Putin's main reasons for allegedly helping to engineer the election of Trump may have been his and his party's man-made climate change denial. A major drive towards the development and use of renewable energy sources and energy conservation could have spelt disaster for a Russian economy dependent on exports of gas and oil, so it is very much in Russia's interest to sabotage any moves in this direction. And, of course, Russia is a country that may actually benefit from a warming climate.

Does anyone else think this is a possible or likely scenario? Are the useful idiots on the right, rather than the left, of the political divide these days?

Putin may be a lot of things, but dumb does not seem to be one of them.
Trump represents an unknown, Hillary was a known, and could be had if the price were right.
Russia does have a greater interest in oil staying valuable, than say the oil companies,
Oil is after one of Russia's main exports.

 

[Mac77]

It's a British popular science magazine.

Most of the rumours circulating about Russian interference in the US election have centred on geopolitical aspects. That's the first time I've seen speculation in print specifically about climate change as a motive for possible Russian skulduggery.

The human imagination is capable of all sorts of wild ideas

If the russians are involved it is in refuting the man-made-global-warming-disaster hysteria that the environmentalists are promoting and there is nothing wrong with that

 

[Surface Detail]

Putin may be a lot of things, but dumb does not seem to be one of them.
Trump represents an unknown, Hillary was a known, and could be had if the price were right.
Russia does have a greater interest in oil staying valuable, than say the oil companies,
Oil is after one of Russia's main exports.

Rather the opposite, I'd have thought, with regard to climate change policy. Nobody was quite sure how far Hilary would go in promoting renewable energy, but Trump made no secret of his intention to abolish legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. Russia's oil revenue is secured with Trump's election, while the US is throwing away its chance to be at the forefront of the development of new energy technology.

 

[Mac77]

Rather the opposite, I'd have thought, with regard to climate change policy. Nobody was quite sure how far Hilary would go in promoting renewable energy, but Trump made no secret of his intention to abolish legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. Russia's oil revenue is secured with Trump's election, while the US is throwing away its chance to be at the forefront of the development of new energy technology.

Renewable energy will not make a dent in oil use in the forseeable future

If anything the russians would benefit more from democrat control because democrats want to reduce US oil production which makes Russia's oil more valuable

 

[JumpinJack]

There's speculation in this week's New Scientist that one of Putin's main reasons for allegedly helping to engineer the election of Trump may have been his and his party's man-made climate change denial. A major drive towards the development and use of renewable energy sources and energy conservation could have spelt disaster for a Russian economy dependent on exports of gas and oil, so it is very much in Russia's interest to sabotage any moves in this direction. And, of course, Russia is a country that may actually benefit from a warming climate.

Does anyone else think this is a possible or likely scenario? Are the useful idiots on the right, rather than the left, of the political divide these days?

That's too narrow.

Russia also took over Crimea and The Ukraine by "arranging" a puppet President to be elected. There were various reasons for that.

With America, there would be a LOT of reasons to have a puppet running America, the main reason being MONEY. Everything is ultimately about money. Trade, NATO votes, not interfering in Russia's political objectives in other countries (like Syria), business deals (with Trump), parking money in Russian banks, Bank Loans, anti-global warming fights, etc.

 

[Surface Detail]

Renewable energy will not make a dent in oil use in the forseeable future

If anything the russians would benefit more from democrat control because democrats want to reduce US oil production which makes Russia's oil more valuable

Not just renewables, nuclear power too. It's possible that, under a Democrat government, the US could have started making major steps towards switching to electrically powered vehicles and homes. Other countries may have followed suit. This would have slashed demand for oil and pretty much bankrupted Russia. This scenario is far less likely with the Republicans in charge.

 

[longview]

Rather the opposite, I'd have thought, with regard to climate change policy. Nobody was quite sure how far Hilary would go in promoting renewable energy, but Trump made no secret of his intention to abolish legislation aimed at mitigating climate change. Russia's oil revenue is secured with Trump's election, while the US is throwing away its chance to be at the forefront of the development of new energy technology.

Again Trump is an unknown factor, Hillary's position on any subject could be secured with an adequate donation.
Also we have no idea that the US is not already at the forefront of new energy technology.
The Oil companies do not actually publish intellectual property information.
What we do know is that at the current published efficiency, it will take oil being at about $90 a barrel
to be viable. Carbon neutral fuels could already be viable in Europe, but they are addicted to the taxes
from the fossil fuels.

 

[longview]

Not just renewables, nuclear power too. It's possible that, under a Democrat government, the US could have started making major steps towards switching to electrically powered vehicles and homes. Other countries may have followed suit. This would have slashed demand for oil and pretty much bankrupted Russia. This scenario is far less likely with the Republicans in charge.

The most likely path forward is fuels make from electricity.
The infrastructure is already in place, and the demand is present.
Electric vehicles are currently not a viable replacement for fuel powered vehicles,
and our electrical infrastructure is not prepared.
Consider we would need an additional 1300 nuclear power plants to replace the energy in fossil fuel we now
burn, Just in the US.

 

[Surface Detail]

Again Trump is an unknown factor, Hillary's position on any subject could be secured with an adequate donation.
Also we have no idea that the US is not already at the forefront of new energy technology.
The Oil companies do not actually publish intellectual property information.
What we do know is that at the current published efficiency, it will take oil being at about $90 a barrel
to be viable. Carbon neutral fuels could already be viable in Europe, but they are addicted to the taxes
from the fossil fuels.

I'm struggling to make sense of that, especially the last sentence. It is precisely because fossil fuels are highly taxed in Europe that fossil fuel consumption is lower and carbon-neutral fuels are viable at all. You don't need a degree in economics to see that!

 

[longview]

I'm struggling to make sense of that, especially the last sentence. It is precisely because fossil fuels are highly taxed in Europe that fossil fuel consumption is lower and carbon-neutral fuels are viable at all. You don't need a degree in economics to see that!

People will buy whatever is naturally cheapest and fills their requirements.
Some of the governments in Europe have very high fuel taxes, which is they waved them for carbon neutral
fuels, could make them viable now.
The £1.17 per litre in England or $5.63 per gallon, means our English friends are paying the
equivalent of $112 per barrel oil, the lions share of that is from taxes.

 

[Jack Hays]

There's speculation in this week's New Scientist that one of Putin's main reasons for allegedly helping to engineer the election of Trump may have been his and his party's man-made climate change denial. A major drive towards the development and use of renewable energy sources and energy conservation could have spelt disaster for a Russian economy dependent on exports of gas and oil, so it is very much in Russia's interest to sabotage any moves in this direction. And, of course, Russia is a country that may actually benefit from a warming climate.

Does anyone else think this is a possible or likely scenario? Are the useful idiots on the right, rather than the left, of the political divide these days?

A new benchmark in silliness.

 

[Surface Detail]

People will buy whatever is naturally cheapest and fills their requirements.
Some of the governments in Europe have very high fuel taxes, which is they waved them for carbon neutral
fuels, could make them viable now.
The £1.17 per litre in England or $5.63 per gallon, means our English friends are paying the
equivalent of $112 per barrel oil, the lions share of that is from taxes.

I am one of your English friends

The high fuel taxes apply only to fossil fuels. Electric cars, for example, pay no fuel taxes. As a result, the use of electric cars is increasing rapidly here, albeit from a low base. If taxes on petrol (US: gas) and diesel were lowered, electric cars would become much less attractive.

 

[Surface Detail]

A new benchmark in silliness.

Thank you for your usual carefully considered response.

 

[Mycroft]

There's speculation in this week's New Scientist that one of Putin's main reasons for allegedly helping to engineer the election of Trump may have been his and his party's man-made climate change denial. A major drive towards the development and use of renewable energy sources and energy conservation could have spelt disaster for a Russian economy dependent on exports of gas and oil, so it is very much in Russia's interest to sabotage any moves in this direction. And, of course, Russia is a country that may actually benefit from a warming climate.

Does anyone else think this is a possible or likely scenario? Are the useful idiots on the right, rather than the left, of the political divide these days?

So...

We have a thread created in "General Political Discussion" that mentions some speculation in something called "New Scientist" that uses the Democratic/Mainstream Media-created false narrative about some mythical help that Putin gave to Trump and an imagined connection to that ultimate left-wing nut-job construct...climate change.

Wow...if there ever was a thread that belongs in the "Conspiracy Theory" forum...this one is it.

Surface Detail...to answer your question...the idiots are anyone who even THINKS about this stuff.

 

[Jack Hays]

Thank you for your usual carefully considered response.

The premise is ridiculous. Neither Putin nor Trump now opposes the Paris climate change treaty.

The Russian Farce
Victor Davis Hanson, National Review

 

[Surface Detail]

So...

We have a thread created in "General Political Discussion" that mentions some speculation in something called "New Scientist" that uses the Democratic/Mainstream Media-created false narrative about some mythical help that Putin gave to Trump and an imagined connection to that ultimate left-wing nut-job construct...climate change.

Wow...if there ever was a thread that belongs in the "Conspiracy Theory" forum...this one is it.

Surface Detail...to answer your question...the idiots are anyone who even THINKS about this stuff.

I'd say that the possibility that the Russians interfered with the US election process partly in order to get an AGW-denying president is considerably more plausible than the worldwide scientific conspiracy typically proposed by the AGW deniers.

 

[Mac77]

Not just renewables, nuclear power too. It's possible that, under a Democrat government, the US could have started making major steps towards switching to electrically powered vehicles and homes. Other countries may have followed suit. This would have slashed demand for oil and pretty much bankrupted Russia. This scenario is far less likely with the Republicans in charge.

There is nothing stopping rich liberals from building and selling alternative energy and electric cars

They just wont be subsidized by Uncle Sam

 

[Jack Hays]

. . . . the worldwide scientific conspiracy typically proposed by the AGW deniers.

Fake news. No such conspiracy is alleged.

 

[Mycroft]

I'd say that the possibility that the Russians interfered with the US election process partly in order to get an AGW-denying president is considerably more plausible than the worldwide scientific conspiracy typically proposed by the AGW deniers.

Except...like this blather about climate change, there was no Russian interference.

 

[Surface Detail]

There is nothing stopping rich liberals from building and selling alternative energy and electric cars

They just wont be subsidized by Uncle Sam

I'm not in favour of subsides either; it's not the government's job to pick winners. What the government should be doing is taxing negative externalities (aka Pigovian tax) so as to place an appropriate cost on the damage caused to the environment by the use of fossil fuels. If this were done, then alternative energy and electric cars could compete on a level playing field.

 

[Mac77]

I'm not in favour of subsides either;

it's not the government's job to pick winners. What the government should be doing is taxing negative externalities (aka Pigovian tax) so as to place an appropriate cost on the damage caused to the environment by the use of fossil fuels. If this were done, then alternative energy and electric cars could compete on a level playing field.

I think subsidies and forcing alternative energy on consumers is what the fight is all about

Because there are no conservative laws in the works prohibiting alternatve energy energy or electric cars