Althea
Althea told me...
I'm not going to argue that taking away Russia's role as sole provider isn't a great idea. It just isn't trump's idea, and the market will determine where the gas goes....not trump.
Trump sticks it to Vladie Boy
- Thread starter Darth Omar
- Start date
Althea
Althea told me...
Obama created the U.S energy independence. trump cannot force gas companies to direct exports to a specific country.
U.S. Soldiers Deployed to Poland's Border with Russia As Trump Changes NATO Views
The first U.S. soldiers arrived Thursday in Poland as part of NATO's international initiative to secure Europe's borders with Russia amid recent escalations between the West and Moscow.
The NATO battalion consisted of more than 1,100 soldiers with 900 coming from the U.S., 150 from the U.K. and 120 from Romania. Upon their arrival in the small town of Orzysz, only 35 miles south of Russia's militarized Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad, Polish President Andrzej Duda greeted the troops and praised NATO's efforts to bolster the nation's defenses. Duda said the event was a "historic moment" that would answer Warsaw's recent calls for greater security in light of Moscow's expanding political influence in the region.
http://www.newsweek.com/us-soldiers-poland-border-russia-trump-nato-584256
The first U.S. soldiers arrived Thursday in Poland as part of NATO's international initiative to secure Europe's borders with Russia amid recent escalations between the West and Moscow.
The NATO battalion consisted of more than 1,100 soldiers with 900 coming from the U.S., 150 from the U.K. and 120 from Romania. Upon their arrival in the small town of Orzysz, only 35 miles south of Russia's militarized Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad, Polish President Andrzej Duda greeted the troops and praised NATO's efforts to bolster the nation's defenses. Duda said the event was a "historic moment" that would answer Warsaw's recent calls for greater security in light of Moscow's expanding political influence in the region.
http://www.newsweek.com/us-soldiers-poland-border-russia-trump-nato-584256
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Fracking caused US energy independence.
Trump wants to take the next step and make us dominant. Only a fool would stand in his way.
Step aside, please.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I feel left out, why isn't my name on McAwlful's list?
Sent from my iPhone 25S with cherries on top
Darth Omar
Russian asset
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You were saved by you sensible position on 911, and that alone.
the market is not the sole determiner. If Trump felt strongly about it the US can always buy the gas and resell it to strategic targets.
And yes this is on Trump. Obama curtailed US natural gas production with his policies.
Heil Trump sister althea : )
GazzaQueen
Verified User
I am! I did!
The transition to clean energy is fait accompli. With Washington outside looking in, the global rules will be made to our disadvantage. China will take the leadership role. I am doubting without the US targets for decarbonization will increase. Using all tools, Obama accomplished amazing things. Just add Paris to Dumps growing list of fail.
no. More than anything the reason why China and Germany will not take global leadership is that they are net producer nations. They are the sellers. THe US is a net consumer nation. We buy the stuff. The rules are already in their favor.
FYI US CHINA INDIA and GERMANY. Only one of those decreased emissions last year. Care to guess which one?
..Of course Green will improve. "da rules" are what each nation wants to do.
India needs more coal plants /China is halting construction ( I think) because of pollution, but still has a voracious appetite for coal.
Coal is nasty and dirty -carbon aside- so naturally it will get phased out; a major reason China is halting production
The point is market forces are the organic determination of where we all go, as it should be
A mixed economy is best. Market forces are not organic in the sense of more natural than government policy. The difference in approach is that between making intelligent or unintelligent top down rules and order under which business operates and allocation occurs, versus a chaos where inevitable anticompetitive oligopolies thrive.
So I resist your real versus imposed dichotomy. Both are real anybthe products of humans ordering their affairs.
Back to the issue, Trump has no economic or strategic vision whatsoever in economics or security. He has no doctrine. He is ruttrless and will therefore be entirely reactive while the rest of the world makes the rules that we will have to play by in the future. His narrow short sighted proclivity and aptitude fails to see the future and leaves the us open to a blindsided attack.
by market forces I mean what sources of energy are used, and that is determined by the best match for each use.
Trump's policy is one of "all in"
Increase all types of energy/ Right now there is a fossil fuel glut, but for ex LNG is still needed in Europe
and market forces could sell US nat gas ( although I think the new NORD STREAM pipleline will take care of that..
I do not think government planning is superior here. There is a wide variety of sources and uses,and with a competitive market, it will sort itself out.
Nord Stream 2: a test of German Power
https://www.ft.com/content/4875c9ff-0868-3798-8f66-4efa667eb5ba?mhq5j=e1
Power in Europe speaks with a German accent. With the UK at the exit door of the EU and France still economically weak Germany is uncomfortably dominant. The latest example of this is the plan for the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline which will bring natural gas from Russia across the Baltic to the North German coast and then onwards to Central and Western Europe.
The question is how Germany will use its power.
13 EU member states have protested against the Nord Stream project, saying it will divert trade and transit revenues away from them and increase European dependence on Russian gas for decades to come. The protesting states want the European Commission to take control of negotiations of the project away from Germany and to set gas trade in the context of the Energy Union – a concept agreed in 2014 but never implemented.
The Energy Union was designed to diversify sources of supply and build pan European infrastructure in the interests of security of supply. Most of the 13 are former members of the Soviet bloc and remain overwhelmingly dependent on Russia for supplies of both gas and electricity provided through grids built in the Comecon era.
In the words of the former Polish Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek, now Chair of the Industry Committee of the European Parliament, Nord Stream 2 and the Energy Union cannot coexist.
At the same time the US Senate, by a majority of 97 to 2 agreed three weeks ago to impose sanctions on companies involved in funding Russian export pipeline projects – the latest in a series of steps designed to use Russian economic interests as leverage over Kremlin policy on Ukraine.
In Berlin the official line is that Nord Stream 2 is just a straightforward commercial venture in which neither the EU or the US should interfere. The $10bn project not only cements the sensitive relationship between Germany and Russia but also establishes Germany as an entrepot in the European gas market, replacing the declining gas production from the Dutch and British sectors of the North Sea.
Seen from Russia the logic of Nord Stream 2 is clear.
The country remains dependent on oil and gas revenue which provided, even with low prices, almost half of its total export revenues in 2016. With the oil price beyond control, Russia has every incentive to maximise its revenue from gas sales and to maintain its share of the European gas market by whatever means.
From a European perspective the benefits are far less clear.
If built Nord Stream 2 will entrench Russian dominance of the European market. Russia currently supplies 34 per cent of European gas. With Nord Stream 2 that will rise perhaps to more than 40 per cent. The project destroys the concept of diversifying supplies.
There are numerous potential sources of supply, some of which could have provided much needed revenue to Europe’s neighbours across the Mediterranean such as Algeria and Libya where stabilisation through economic development is necessary to halt the flow of refugees.
With Nord Stream 2 in place Russia will be able to divert gas trade away from Ukraine, reducing the country’s income from transit fees and making Ukraine ever more dependent on EU subsidies. Even if a short term offer is made to cushion the impact of Nord Stream 2 on Ukraine, the longer term threat will remain.
Of course, Germany has the power to push aside the objections of the smaller European states. Berlin can impose any decision it wants on Brussels. But to press ahead and force the project through would have consequences.
The latest results from the fascinating Pew study of international opinion show that Germany is regarded as having too much power in Europe already – particularly in Southern Europe where Mrs Merkel is blamed for imposing unending austerity.
In Germany itself Nord Stream 2 is seen as the creation of the Social Democratic party – and in particular the former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder who just happens to be the chairman of the project. Mrs Merkel would lose little by allowing the project to stall and would win respect in the serious parts of the US administration and Congress who are looking for support against Russian behaviour in Ukraine and Syria and alleged Russian interference in the US election.
A political solution would be to allow Nord Stream 2 to fall into the hands of the European Commission lawyers who could find good reasons for not proceeding – many of them set out in some excellent recent articles by Professor Alan Riley.
The gas would not be missed.
Indigenous supplies are certainly declining but demand for gas is also falling – 12.5% down across the EU over the last decade according to the latest BP Statistical Review. Surging renewable supplies could push gas demand down further in the future. With a global gas glut European importers could sign long term deals with suppliers from around the world.
Nord Stream 2 is anything but a simple commercial project. What happens next matters for Russia and for the US. But most significant of all is what is what the decision on Nord Stream 2 will tell us about how Germany intends to handle its economic and political dominance of Europe.
https://www.ft.com/content/4875c9ff-0868-3798-8f66-4efa667eb5ba?mhq5j=e1
Power in Europe speaks with a German accent. With the UK at the exit door of the EU and France still economically weak Germany is uncomfortably dominant. The latest example of this is the plan for the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline which will bring natural gas from Russia across the Baltic to the North German coast and then onwards to Central and Western Europe.
The question is how Germany will use its power.
13 EU member states have protested against the Nord Stream project, saying it will divert trade and transit revenues away from them and increase European dependence on Russian gas for decades to come. The protesting states want the European Commission to take control of negotiations of the project away from Germany and to set gas trade in the context of the Energy Union – a concept agreed in 2014 but never implemented.
The Energy Union was designed to diversify sources of supply and build pan European infrastructure in the interests of security of supply. Most of the 13 are former members of the Soviet bloc and remain overwhelmingly dependent on Russia for supplies of both gas and electricity provided through grids built in the Comecon era.
In the words of the former Polish Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek, now Chair of the Industry Committee of the European Parliament, Nord Stream 2 and the Energy Union cannot coexist.
At the same time the US Senate, by a majority of 97 to 2 agreed three weeks ago to impose sanctions on companies involved in funding Russian export pipeline projects – the latest in a series of steps designed to use Russian economic interests as leverage over Kremlin policy on Ukraine.
In Berlin the official line is that Nord Stream 2 is just a straightforward commercial venture in which neither the EU or the US should interfere. The $10bn project not only cements the sensitive relationship between Germany and Russia but also establishes Germany as an entrepot in the European gas market, replacing the declining gas production from the Dutch and British sectors of the North Sea.
Seen from Russia the logic of Nord Stream 2 is clear.
The country remains dependent on oil and gas revenue which provided, even with low prices, almost half of its total export revenues in 2016. With the oil price beyond control, Russia has every incentive to maximise its revenue from gas sales and to maintain its share of the European gas market by whatever means.
From a European perspective the benefits are far less clear.
If built Nord Stream 2 will entrench Russian dominance of the European market. Russia currently supplies 34 per cent of European gas. With Nord Stream 2 that will rise perhaps to more than 40 per cent. The project destroys the concept of diversifying supplies.
There are numerous potential sources of supply, some of which could have provided much needed revenue to Europe’s neighbours across the Mediterranean such as Algeria and Libya where stabilisation through economic development is necessary to halt the flow of refugees.
With Nord Stream 2 in place Russia will be able to divert gas trade away from Ukraine, reducing the country’s income from transit fees and making Ukraine ever more dependent on EU subsidies. Even if a short term offer is made to cushion the impact of Nord Stream 2 on Ukraine, the longer term threat will remain.
Of course, Germany has the power to push aside the objections of the smaller European states. Berlin can impose any decision it wants on Brussels. But to press ahead and force the project through would have consequences.
The latest results from the fascinating Pew study of international opinion show that Germany is regarded as having too much power in Europe already – particularly in Southern Europe where Mrs Merkel is blamed for imposing unending austerity.
In Germany itself Nord Stream 2 is seen as the creation of the Social Democratic party – and in particular the former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder who just happens to be the chairman of the project. Mrs Merkel would lose little by allowing the project to stall and would win respect in the serious parts of the US administration and Congress who are looking for support against Russian behaviour in Ukraine and Syria and alleged Russian interference in the US election.
A political solution would be to allow Nord Stream 2 to fall into the hands of the European Commission lawyers who could find good reasons for not proceeding – many of them set out in some excellent recent articles by Professor Alan Riley.
The gas would not be missed.
Indigenous supplies are certainly declining but demand for gas is also falling – 12.5% down across the EU over the last decade according to the latest BP Statistical Review. Surging renewable supplies could push gas demand down further in the future. With a global gas glut European importers could sign long term deals with suppliers from around the world.
Nord Stream 2 is anything but a simple commercial project. What happens next matters for Russia and for the US. But most significant of all is what is what the decision on Nord Stream 2 will tell us about how Germany intends to handle its economic and political dominance of Europe.
Your logic eats itself. You think suppliers call the shots and direct the economy. Therefore you do not believe in free markets at a fundamental level. Frankly, neither do I, but my solution is consistent with my premises. Yours not so much.
no the consumers do. The suppliers have to compete for their patronage.
Are you really claiming Putin has done no invading you bought and paid for proRussian Shill?
Wipe Trumps cum off your chin, fag.