• Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Production from here will likely further displace Russian production, making their economy even worse.

      Still not great for the environment either way though.

      • palal@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Isn’t Russia just shipping everything to China and India, instead? And India is just playing the arbitrage game and reselling to Europe?

        • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Probably, but more supply pushes down the value of all gas, especially when you can just pipe it around Europe, rather than getting it from India.

      • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wait I forgot about this. Ngl I’m in favor of pumping this shit out of the ground to provide for Europe starting next year or the year after, it would be a better project than most in planning and way better than the huge boats of LNG.

    • DolphinMath@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, natural gas is less carcinogenic and less polluting of the environment than coal overall, even if the methane production is terrible for the climate. Clearly solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear energy are much better options in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and overall pollution though.

      • palal@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, absolutely, natural gas burns cleaner than coal and doesn’t need as much infrastructure to avoid dumping particulates into the air, but governments and O&G companies want you to believe that it’s reducing GHG emissions and that’s just not really true.

    • isles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, but we’re going to want something for all of our aid. We’ve never given anything for free. Probably some strong arm package where we get great rates on the LNG and also get to install key parts of their new economy. And we’ll stick around to rebuild infrastructure as long as our corporations can get some perks, too.

  • sbv@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    More fuel for the fire. Which fire? The Russian invasion? Climate change? Yes!

      • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not the point. The point is: We (all responsible humans) wan’t to use less of that … and now they find more of it and are a bit under preassure to sell it too, because they are under attack 🙁 (which is understandable, but bad timing.)

  • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Bald Eagles start screaming

    America, fuck yeah!

    Comin’ again to save the motherfuckin’ day, yeah

    America, fuck Yeah!

    Freedom is the only way, yeah