Russia's Gazprom Oil Wars. Why does the left let them trade blood for oil?

[Ryokan]

Exactly who is the left here? I'm a European liberal, and would be considered being in the left in the US. I don't support Russia or Putin in any way, shape or form, and wish the EU and the US had taken a stronger stance on Ukraine and the Crimea.

Obama is also considered left, right? I don't think he's pandering or bowing to Putin either. So exactly who is this thread attacking? Strawmen?

 

[Ts4EVER]

Why would a leftist support Putin? He always struck me as very rightwing, bordering on fascist.

 

[bit_pattern]

So exactly who is this thread attacking? Strawmen?

Yup. Akin to starting a "why do Rightists love killing puppies so much?" thread.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Exactly who is the left here? I'm a European liberal, and would be considered being in the left in the US. I don't support Russia or Putin in any way, shape or form, and wish the EU and the US had taken a stronger stance on Ukraine and the Crimea.

Obama is also considered left, right? I don't think he's pandering or bowing to Putin either. So exactly who is this thread attacking? Strawmen?

Me.

 

[Ryokan]

Me.

You are 'the left'? I'm sure the OP were trying to cast a wider net than one person.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You are 'the left'? I'm sure the OP were trying to cast a wider net than one person.

You're wrong. It's a classical call-out thread following my big laughing dog and his ill-taken believe that the crude article I ignored is anything but a travesty of pipelineistan.

 

[timhau]

Does that maths work?

Assuming 1990 was not too different from 1989, then you have 3*40%~70% (GDP tripling but tonnes of CO₂ per dollar falling to 40%

or have I misunderstood?

No -- it's my bad, the emissions-to-GDP numbers are PPP adjusted, not raw numbers. The source for Poland's economic growth is wikipedia which tells us that the growth from 1989 to 2007 was 177%; PPP GDP growth from 1989 to 2009 was considerably more according to their chart (which also has an interesting comparison to the Ukraine).

BTW, 1990 actually was a lot different from 1989, in terms of CO2 emissions and also in terms of Polish economy and politics. It was the year Poland started its transition from communism to a free market economy, and CO2 emissions went down some 15%, from 423,788 kt (1989) to 366,773 kt (1990). The 2009 figure is 298,905 kt.

Anyway, the point is that CO2 emissions cannot be directly linked to economic growth. And yes, the environmental record of communist countries is atrocious; I think the Marxist-Leninist religion pretty much stated that things like wear & tear and pollution just don't happen when the factories are controlled by the proletariat.

 

[bit_pattern]

Anyway, the point is that CO2 emissions cannot be directly linked to economic growth.

They can, just not in every circumstance - but the relationship is still very strong

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch12s12-2-2.html

 

[Beerina]

So, because a certain number of left-wing parties recognise climate change (including US communists) and have rightly deduced that the capitalistic economic model is inherently disposed to ignoring the problems of climate change, you run around waving your hands in the air shouting "RED DAWN! RED DAWN! RED DAWN!!!!!"

Forgive me for not being at all impressed with your logic or your debating skills.

Communism with a pristine environment is mass-murderous for humanity compared to capitalism with global warming, including moving back from the seas over 100-300 years.

There are far worse things for humanity than global warming, and one of them is massive governmental control over the economy. That's the real Inconvenient Truth.

 

[timhau]

They can, just not in every circumstance - but the relationship is still very strong

I'm not disputing that, but you can't automatically assume that economic growth means growing emissions.

In fact, when browsing this site, I noticed that in a sample of a few randomly chosen "old" Western European nations (Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, Denmark), CO2 emissions in 2009 are very close to or below early 1990s levels, despite economic growth. In a sample of a few former Eastern bloc nations (Hungary, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic), 2009 CO2 emissions are well below early 1990s levels despite tremendous economic growth. I'm not saying that a free market economy is inherently eco-friendly, but communism simply didn't give a about the environment.

 

[bit_pattern]

I'm not saying that a free market economy is inherently eco-friendly, but communism simply didn't give a about the environment.

While I certainly admire your research - and you make very good points - I don't think anyone has argued otherwise.

 

[timhau]

While I certainly admire your research - and you make very good points - I don't think anyone has argued otherwise.

Actually, I thought you came pretty close to doing so in the passage below, but maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Not only that - his original point that "communist" countries had a worse environmental record than capitalist countries, while probably true in a lot of ways, doesn't hold when it comes to climate change. CO2 emissions have historically been inextricably linked to economic growth. And capitalism is without question the most efficient means of achieving growth.

Certainly, if you look at the countries that have seen the most growth (and also the largest reductions in poverty) thanks to globalization or international free trade, you'll see dramatic increases in emissions. Some places are still worse than others; in India, even emissions-per-GDP has grown, in Brazil it's been relatively flat (and actually fairly low -- only marginally higher than Belgium) for about 50 years.

 

[jimbob]

No -- it's my bad, the emissions-to-GDP numbers are PPP adjusted, not raw numbers. The source for Poland's economic growth is wikipedia which tells us that the growth from 1989 to 2007 was 177%; PPP GDP growth from 1989 to 2009 was considerably more according to their chart (which also has an interesting comparison to the Ukraine).

BTW, 1990 actually was a lot different from 1989, in terms of CO2 emissions and also in terms of Polish economy and politics. It was the year Poland started its transition from communism to a free market economy, and CO2 emissions went down some 15%, from 423,788 kt (1989) to 366,773 kt (1990). The 2009 figure is 298,905 kt.

Anyway, the point is that CO2 emissions cannot be directly linked to economic growth. And yes, the environmental record of communist countries is atrocious; I think the Marxist-Leninist religion pretty much stated that things like wear & tear and pollution just don't happen when the factories are controlled by the proletariat.

Thanks - makes sense, and I *did* wonder about the difference between the two years because of the collapse of the Iron Curtain.

I remember a paraphrased quote from an official in the DDR talking about "the sweat of the workers... purifying" the pollution, in the context of (I think) acid rain, which supports your contention.

 

[jimbob]

Communism with a pristine environment is mass-murderous for humanity compared to capitalism with global warming, including moving back from the seas over 100-300 years.

There are far worse things for humanity than global warming, and one of them is massive governmental control over the economy. That's the real Inconvenient Truth.

What are you describing as "massive governmental control over the economy"?

Full blown laissez-faire capitalismas practiced in the UK in the early industrial revolution wasn't exactly a brilliant system either.

 

[Dcdrac]

Why would a leftist support Putin? He always struck me as very rightwing, bordering on fascist.

I totally agree ex KGB goon who likes power and will do all he can to secure it while hoping to distract the general population with seemingly successful foreign adventures.

 

[Damien Evans]

You do not understand what socialism or communism is, just as I suspected.

Hint: a few state-owned companies (especially a public utility) doesn't socialism make. Talk to me when they nationalize the food distribution companies and such. Or the farms and vegemite factories. Whatever the hell vegemite is, an industrial lubricant or something?

Vegimite is owned by an American company.

 

[Damien Evans]

This would be the 'left' of the political spectrum as laid out based solely on french revolutionary (I think) politics.

It's pointless, when 'the left' tries to define 'the right' and equally so when 'the right' tries to define 'the left'

It's an utterly impossible thing to define the full range of opinions, thoughts and emotions one person has in respect of every political topic ever by picking a single point in one dimension.

Really it's just well poisoning on a grand scale accepted by anyone and everyone doing political commentary or discussing politics. Shorthand for those that aren't nuanced enough to understand that a persons political feelings cannot be defined in one dimension.

It also ignores The Mountain, radicals sitting up the back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mountain

 

[HoverBoarder]

The most effective protest is being made by Western Investors:They simply don't want to put any more money into Russia as long as Putin's in charge. That is doing a lot more damage then the official sanctions,though I support the sanctions 100%.

Fair point, although it is rather unclear how much of this is protest for Putin's actions, and how much of it is sound economic strategy given the erratic behaviors and actions of Putin himself.


Maybe both of those still equate to the same thing, but once the price drops enough for Russian investments, it will be interesting to see who jumps back in and why.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Exactly who is the left here? I'm a European liberal, and would be considered being in the left in the US. I don't support Russia or Putin in any way, shape or form, and wish the EU and the US had taken a stronger stance on Ukraine and the Crimea.

Obama is also considered left, right? I don't think he's pandering or bowing to Putin either. So exactly who is this thread attacking? Strawmen?

The "left" is meant to be defined as the Left political spectrum in any normal political conversation.

Despite your stance on Putin, I am sure that you find that the overall response from the left to Putin's wars for oil based profit is far more muted than was the response during the 2nd Gulf war. Which is the primary purpose of discussion of the thread.

 

[dudalb]

What are you describing as "massive governmental control over the economy"?

Full blown laissez-faire capitalismas practiced in the UK in the early industrial revolution wasn't exactly a brilliant system either.

Berrina is a rabid Libertarian,so, yes, to him anything less then total laissez faire capitalism is the same as a Stalin/Mao level of Communism.

One of the reasons I am not a Libertarian.