Is NORD STREAM dangerous for Poland's natural enviroment?

Oh, you know, things like Poland closing her coal mines while Germany is opening new ones - it does look strange and incoherent but we are led to believe that it is Germany (the EU) who is pressurising Poland into closing coal mines and coal-based power-plants. Things like CO2 emision certificates, the ban on internal combustion engines since 2035 etc.


Europe (not only companies but also ordinary people who, e.g. in Poland, are paying ridiculously high energy bills - especially compared to average wages) is falling behind the USA and China precisely because the USA and China don't give a f*ck about emissions or CO2 quotas. Green Khmerism is already ruining European economy and it will only get worse.

Maybe the general idea behind it is that when we become as poor as Africa, then perhaps the immigrants from the Third World will stop flooding our countries but it's a mistake: we will ruin our industry for nothing - they will still come because of the better climate, social benefits and retarded natives who allow this mass invasion.

@GefreiterKania

I don't know about Polish coal mines, Germany is preparing to close the German ones by the 2030s.


All sensible policies. Combustion engines will most likely be dead by the early 2030s anyway. The German companies really dropped the ball there. Without those drastic measures, none of the Europeans stay competetive.


They do however give a f*ck about reneweable energy. Both countries are heavily investing into those forms of energy, and it is starting to pay off for them.

e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy

Those types of energy are the future. If we do not adapt accordingly, we will indeed poor.

Then why isn't Japan implementing those "sensible policies"? Why China and the USA don't accept CO2 emission quotas (not to mention paying for carbon allowances)? Why don't Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil or - in fact - anyone outside the EU join this scheme or adapts any similar "brilliant" idea?


It might well be that it is "starting to" pay off for them, as you say, but it is starting to do so precisely because they don't destroy their economies with idiotic CO2 emission quotas which do nothing but thwart the development of many European countries. It would definitely not even start to pay off for them if, on top of the enormous cost of transition from fossils to renewables, they were forced to pay billions upon billions for emission certificates.

The matter is doubly scandalous especially because originally the emission allowances weren't supposed to be traded and speculated upon. In the last 5-6 years, the price of emissions allowances (EUA) traded on the EU's Emissions Trading System (ETS) has increased from below €10 per metric tonne of carbon to above €100 in February 2023. At the moment the price is around €70 and it is effectively thwarting the development of most new EU members who simply cannot afford such exorbitant payments.

pursuing green policies on the economy that will doom us all and open border policy when it comes to immigration from outside?Extremely harmful to Europe.
Anything else is secondary.
If Ukraine can have a definite win with Russia that would be a good thing but I think that the US doesn't want it, and neither does Germany.
If there is going some kind of compromise, stalemate, and not complete Ukraine loss as a result of the war, Poland doesn't need a relatively strong Ukraine in any capacity.

@GefreiterKania


Those CO2 quotas are necessary for two reasons. One they put pressure on the industry to innovate and reduce CO emmission, and the need for innovation has been a driving factor of Two they put an end to the idea that CO2 are free and not directly harmful to our planet. This will hopefully be considered in our favour once the issue of reparations from the industrialized world to countries who are affected by Climate change the most will be raised (which let us be clear, will become an issue down the line and very difficult to refute).

@Ironside


That seems to be the most realistic outcome. Though I would argue that anything but an outright Russian victory - given the vast discrepancies in means and ressources at the beginning of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine - should be considered a success. A success that will be expensive, with Europe having to assist Ukraine after the war is over, but cheaper than than the alternative. Better for Poland to pay a few bn to Kiev each year than to have an almost uninterrupted border with Russia from the Baltic Sea down to Lwiv.

I simply can't explain it.

They either think that people are idiots or that we completely lost any capability for rebellion and civil disobedience. The worst thing is - they may be right...

- whose going to mass strike when trade unions are the weakest in history?
- can we hope for a coordinated action of any sort in the overwhelming "every man for himself" climate?
- how do we expect people to rebel against inflation, low wages and exorbitant energy prices when everyone is a millionaire of Facebook and Instagram?

The social matrix does seem to be intricately woven so as not to allow any sort of social unrest. Say what you want about PRL, but when commies went a bit too far with rising prices (like with food prices in 1976) they had mass strikes all over Poland - these days we can't hope for any such mass protest against the government.


Oh, so you agree that rich countries like Germany, the Netherlands or Luxembourg should pay exactly the same price for carbon emission allowances as Poland, Romania or Bulgaria? Because that's exactly what's happening now. If you do, then we have nothing to talk about - the idea is so preposterous that I can't even start to debate it.

@GefreiterKania
Does a ton CO weigh less in Poland than in the Netherlands? Does one ton of CO2 from Poland affect the world climate less than one emitted by Luxembourg?

Poland is not a poor developing country. CO output is a resource like any other and there are costs related to it. And given Poland's dependency on coal and smog problems, there is hardly cause for leniency there.

No, but it is far poorer than Germany or the Netherlands, and yet we are forced to pay the same price for carbon emissions which effectively thwarts our economy. If the hard-headed stubbornness and blunt doctrinalism that you present on the matter remain the EU's mainstream policies, then I think PolExit might become a more real perspective than anyone dared to even imagine not so long ago.


You are arguing against your point. Precisely because there are coal and smog problems, the money should be spent on the transition to renewable energies, not on pointless CO2 emission allowances that nobody else outside the EU pays for. If the idea was so brilliant, I'm quite sure Japan, USA, China, Canada, Australia and others will quickly adapt the same or similar schemes. Somehow they don't.

@GefreiterKania

Because that approach worked so well the last 30 years...

The new approach compensates for the damage done by CO emissions and put pressure on us to innovate.


Someone has to make a start. And some of the countries have already taken more drastic steps to to reduce CO emissions in the past. If we in Europe had done the same, then some of our recent steps might not be necessary. Now the situation is getting desperate. Either we innovate or we will lose our industries. The idea that we can somehow muddle through with slow changes while China and the USA are leaving us in the dust is absurd.

Billions upon billions are spent on the transition to renewables all over the EU, and even more billions could be spent if it wasn't for the lamentable carbon emission allowances scheme.


It's hardly new, is it? The scheme started in 2005, that's almost 20 years already.


Well, it's been 20 years and still nobody outside the EU seems to have noticed what a brilliant idea it is and decided to introduce something similar.

@GefreiterKania


Could, but wouldn't. That is just humane nature. We rarely spend money on not-immedeately threatening issues. And without that pressure, it is highly unlikely we would have achieved the little success that we have.


And prices have been barely starting to go up the until recently due to various political compromises.Those half measures had negative effect on the effectivness of the certificates, though it seems now that we will finally see appropiate increases until 2030.


That is a silly strawman. There is no comparable entity to the EU elsewhere.

Anyways, I think it is vital for the EU to recognize the difference between sensible green policies and Green Khmerism. For example...

- transition to renewable energy sources and decreasing emissions to acceptable level - sensible policies;
- closing all coal mines/power plants, forcing poorer EU countries to pay the same emission prices as the rich ones, zero emissions target - Green Khmerism;

- government subsidies for electric vehicles, possible tax exemptions for companies switching their transport park to electric/hydrogen - sensible policies;
- complete ban on all vehicles using internal combustion engines starting from 2035 all over the EU with complete and utter disregard for the financial capabilities of poorer EU members and their transport companies, businesses etc. - Green Khmerism.

Sensible green policies can lead to healthier environment and more sustainable development with great advantage for the coming generations.
Green Khmerism can lead to economic downfall, social unrest and possible breakup of the EU.

It is all for the EU leaders to decide - will they decide to be sensible politicians or blunt doctrinaires? I would prefer the former but I wouldn't hold my breath.

We can argue on how to achieve this target.

But the target itself is not in question. We are legally and morally obligated to become emission neutral by 2050. Which will require effort and money. But there is no acceptable alternative.

Some people believe that migration is a pressing problem right now. I wonder how they'd react if Climate change forces a bn people from the ME and Africa to migrate to Europe because their homes become literally unliveable. And unlike now, there would be no justifiable way to refuse them.


I thought the ban was on newly built vehicles, not ones still in service?

No, we are not. If Green Khmers push towards this insanity, then the EU is history.


People are migrating from the Third World countries to the EU not because of the climate but because of the poverty, corruption and general lack of opportunities in places where they live. Instead of inviting them all to Europe we should make life better for them in their countries by...

- transferring technology (especially in farming, sanitation and health) and material support
- wiping their debt clean
- education

... certainly not by flooding them with climate reparations "free money" or by becoming poor ourselves (we will be in no position to help anyone if it happens).


Yes, my mistake - it's on the registration of new ones (which, of course, effectively means the stop of combustion engine vehicles production), so it will be a bit more spread in time.

I wonder about that actually.....all the young men who should fight their corrupt govs for freedom and prosperity.....instead they look elsewhere, in far away places, for a better (and easier) life.

Their govs surely won't stop the masses, they are glad when the potential troublemakers are leaving....I'm somewhat sure all the western goody-two-shoes don't think about that at all, but who should make these poor countries better when the young generation just quits?

Maybe stopping the immigration from Africa and Arabia would long term do more for these countries than inviting their people into our western lands....just saying!

Oh, definitely! Western Europe has been robbing Africa of its precious natural resources for centuries, and now they are robbing them of their young generation. Despicable.

As I said. Mass immigration policies must change into mass deportation. Those young people are needed in their respective countries!

....I guess with more and more rightist/nationalist govs winning european elections that will be a main topic for the next ten years, or so.....

There is a counter-movement to all that globalism of the last decades growing!

And about bloody time!

@GefreiterKania


Yea we are. The EU and its' member states are legally commited to the 2050 target.


As of right now, maybe. But with the onset of climate change and its' negative consequences, it will become impossible to differ between those two causes. It is entirely possible that large parts of Africa and the Middle East will become inhospitable. If you look carefully, there are even parts of Spain, France and Italy that are threatened by desertification. Right now you can justify sending economic migrants back to e.g. Namibia or Ghana, since they "only" face poverty there, not threats to their very survival. Once simple water becomes scarce, that justification goes out the window. We either get serious about fighting climate change, or we'll have to learn sharing our continent for real. In the latter case we won't get away with "only" 3-4 million migrants per year.


Reparations will become a part of it. And really, it is hard to deny them from a moral point of view to e.g. people who lived on island that disappear due to climate change. Technology and education is nice and all, but of little use if the very land you are standing on disappears.

....but that happened before! Climate changes....continental shiftings....today's green grass plain is tomorrows ice....today's deserts are tomorrows seas and lakes....islands drown or get born.....neither land borders nor climates have ever been steady or "forever" in our planets history!

Wanting to get paid for it is a bad joke!

@Bratwurst Boy


Yeah, but now it is happening due to our own actions. And much faster than it used to.


Really? Our socities grew rich due to using fossil fuels for centuries. Some countries are still poor, and are facing extinction due to our actions and those of our ancestors. If there is a case for reparations, it is this one.

Keep feeding them our money and make sure they stay poor! Why should those with the full pockets change a thing?

It has become just a convenient excuse to blame everybody else and his western grandmom when one gov is to unskilled or mostly just to corrupt!

The much better idea would be let their smart heads, their young ones wanting a better life, their trouble makers there and not inviting them here! That might have a bigger chance of success for the big, so necessary changes, than paying the corrupt govs with lotsa so called "Entwicklungshilfe" and stealing their young generation!

Leave them alone!

@Bratwurst Boy
.
You might wanna look up the predicted consequences of climate change on parts of the world if we can not limit it to a certain threshold. We are not talking about government corruption or a few more hot days per year.


Trouble is, they may not leave us alone at a certain point. And if things really come to happen as experts fear, then there will be no way for us to refuse them.

Why not?

Alone the territories imprisoned under full ice today will be tomorrows green plains because of the experts global warming....that's alot more empty space waiting to be filled than Europe ever had!
Not to mention the resources under the former ice waiting to be found...

@Bratwurst Boy


Morally. Because we grew rich by causing their homes to be destroyed. Legally because of the treaties we signed to limit our carbon emissions and as a consequence they'll have strong cases if they sue us. Practically there are so many of them.

CO certificates seem cheap in comparison.

I'm surely not.....in my family nobody either, nor in my 'hood....I think there should be a debate about that with a following plebiscite about that!

Oh let's not pretend it is about some moral values, it is not and never was, it is a complete mix of a political and ideological concoction with the same money added to fuel the process.
If they don't want to be robbed, they should form a governing body able to facilitate their resources and defend them. not having 50 kids each not being able to feed them all sending them to other countries. which is kind of barbaric and invasive in a way.
F them! As they would care about Poland.
---

boo hoo, so what, regardless of those changes the had happened before and humans can do nothing about climate policies are bonkers and a con nothing more...

@Bratwurst Boy


Just look at your carbon footprint.

is that contagious?

I think it is evident now that Tacitus is a Green Khmer. If his ilk prevails in the EU, Poland will have no other choice but to leave the union.

#saynotogreencommunism