A new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of experts convened by the United Nations, warns once again that time is growing short to avert global climate and environmental disaster.
The war in Ukraine has been a mixed bag as far as climate change is concerned. Russian targeting of Ukrainian power generating stations, for example, has released considerable amounts of fossil fuels while the lack of availability of Russian natural gas in Europe has forced Europeans to use alternative energy sources such as solar.
Perhaps the war against Ukraine is the death knell for globalism.
In the first place, the war is pointing out to all of us that continued dependence on fossil fuels make us all vulnerable to blackmail.
In addition, the war is demonstrating the importance of creating sustainable economies. If we are not locally self sufficient in the things we need for survival, then we are at risk, just as Ukraine and Moldova are at risk right now.
Locally sustainable economics are essential if we are to stop global warming.
We should hope that the US and Europe will stay the course. A successful conclusion of the war will lead to movements for sustainable economic systems everywhere.
Yes, war is definitely bad and I wish there was no war in Ukraine. But Putin caused it. Now Putin and Xi Jinping are partnering up to go against the west. Xi doesn’t like the US efforts of “containment” of China. I translate that to mean that if China wants to invade another country (say Taiwan) or control another country say by proxy, they don’t want the US or the west to interfere with that. These two dictators are only interested in expanding their power and, of course, both are nuclear armed. I fear that we are living in a very dangerous time.
Both Russia and NATO bear responsibility for the war.
Why do you put "containment" in quotes. On what basis does the U.S. get to "contain" anybody and apart from your translation, It is the United States that has 700 military bases around the world. China has eight.
When it comes to invading other countries, the U.S. over the past 70 years owns the record, only just recently being forced out of Afghanistan.
As for Taiwan, even the United States agrees there is one China and Taiwan is part of China. The United States' One-China policy was first stated in the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972: "the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position."
Only Putin (not even most of the Russian people because most have been brainwashed) is responsible for the war in Ukraine.
Actually, The NY Times put containment is quotes but I agree with them. Taiwan is a freely elected democracy and if Taiwan were to vote to be a part of China, I would have no problem with it being incorporated into China but I think we both know that would not be the case. The so-called “one-China policy” is just an example of real-politic from when Nixon was opening up the US to China.
When we invade countries, our motivation is to remove undemocratic forces and to help set up a democracy. When Putin and Xi invade countries, it’s only for one reason and one reason only, to expand their own power. Period!
Granted, these days they don’t always turn out the way we wish them to but that’s our goal. Recently, we usually go in overestimating our ability to change things for the better. Only in simple cases, like Grenada, does it work. But it worked during WW II, where we played a major role in ridding the world of Fascism at that time.
By contrast, Putin and Xi Jinping, like all autocrats, are only interested in expanding their power to feed their enormous egos. Trump was, of course, of the same stripe but he ran into a country with strong democratic traditions and institutions. But people all over have the same capability of being fooled so he’s still dangerous.
The war in Ukraine has been a mixed bag as far as climate change is concerned. Russian targeting of Ukrainian power generating stations, for example, has released considerable amounts of fossil fuels while the lack of availability of Russian natural gas in Europe has forced Europeans to use alternative energy sources such as solar.
A mixed bag? Perhaps. But war is mostly bad for people and the environment.
Perhaps the war against Ukraine is the death knell for globalism.
In the first place, the war is pointing out to all of us that continued dependence on fossil fuels make us all vulnerable to blackmail.
In addition, the war is demonstrating the importance of creating sustainable economies. If we are not locally self sufficient in the things we need for survival, then we are at risk, just as Ukraine and Moldova are at risk right now.
Locally sustainable economics are essential if we are to stop global warming.
We should hope that the US and Europe will stay the course. A successful conclusion of the war will lead to movements for sustainable economic systems everywhere.
Even Russia will be forced to follow suit.
Yes, war is definitely bad and I wish there was no war in Ukraine. But Putin caused it. Now Putin and Xi Jinping are partnering up to go against the west. Xi doesn’t like the US efforts of “containment” of China. I translate that to mean that if China wants to invade another country (say Taiwan) or control another country say by proxy, they don’t want the US or the west to interfere with that. These two dictators are only interested in expanding their power and, of course, both are nuclear armed. I fear that we are living in a very dangerous time.
Both Russia and NATO bear responsibility for the war.
Why do you put "containment" in quotes. On what basis does the U.S. get to "contain" anybody and apart from your translation, It is the United States that has 700 military bases around the world. China has eight.
When it comes to invading other countries, the U.S. over the past 70 years owns the record, only just recently being forced out of Afghanistan.
As for Taiwan, even the United States agrees there is one China and Taiwan is part of China. The United States' One-China policy was first stated in the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972: "the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position."
A country cannot invade itself.
Only Putin (not even most of the Russian people because most have been brainwashed) is responsible for the war in Ukraine.
Actually, The NY Times put containment is quotes but I agree with them. Taiwan is a freely elected democracy and if Taiwan were to vote to be a part of China, I would have no problem with it being incorporated into China but I think we both know that would not be the case. The so-called “one-China policy” is just an example of real-politic from when Nixon was opening up the US to China.
When we invade countries, our motivation is to remove undemocratic forces and to help set up a democracy. When Putin and Xi invade countries, it’s only for one reason and one reason only, to expand their own power. Period!
Our invasions of other countries is good. Their invasions are bad. Pretzel logic.
Granted, these days they don’t always turn out the way we wish them to but that’s our goal. Recently, we usually go in overestimating our ability to change things for the better. Only in simple cases, like Grenada, does it work. But it worked during WW II, where we played a major role in ridding the world of Fascism at that time.
By contrast, Putin and Xi Jinping, like all autocrats, are only interested in expanding their power to feed their enormous egos. Trump was, of course, of the same stripe but he ran into a country with strong democratic traditions and institutions. But people all over have the same capability of being fooled so he’s still dangerous.