tech

Europe plan for floating gas terminals raises climate fears

20 Comments
By CATHY BUSSEWITZ

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


20 Comments
Login to comment

If American have to compete with Europe and pay higher fuel bill,all hell will break lose,and Congress will pass legislation, stopping it

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

If American have to compete with Europe and pay higher fuel bill,all hell will break lose,and Congress will pass legislation, stopping it

US energy prices are higher. Gasoline prices almost doubled from February to June but have been edging lower since June. The prices for oil and gas are global, nothing the US Congress can do to change that.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

While I support their overall goals I think sometimes the environmental movement doesn't see how most of us live and work or refuses to acknowledge our lives. They are purists and most people who are frazzled by trying to make a living, raise kids, juggle bills and debt have other priorities and don't want to also suffer from lack of heat or other necessities for vaguely perceived environmental benefits. A German looking at a snowy winter wants to know they can heat their home and cook food. The changes the environmental community wants are not going to happen between now and the coming winter.

And obtw, the recent huge fire in the oil storage tanks of a Cuban power plant or an earlier oil leak and contamination from the oil storage tanks of a Syrian coastal power plant reminds us that there are still a lot of nations burning oil, not natural gas, to generate power. If a couple of years from now those ships are no longer needed in Europe I cannot see how replacing oil with natural gas for power generation abroad is somehow a bad thing.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Europe will need natural gas and fossil fuels for power generation and heating until a way to use renewables can replace them.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I do not know why it was obvious to me, an American, and it was not obvious to the Europeans; how did they think their reliance on Russian natural gas was going to end up?

Putin has had 20 years of oil profits to put into rebuilding the Russian military, and Europe is open to blackmail from Russia. A year from now things could be very different, but this winter is challenging.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The "environmental movement" wants people to have well insulated and sealed houses that do not need heating. It does not want to replace fossil fuel you buy from Shell to heat your house with "renewable" electricity you also buy from Shell.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As winter nears, European nations, desperate to replace the natural gas they once bought from Russia, have embraced a short-term fix

They're the ones who put in place sanctions.

They probably didn't expect the war would last this long

0 ( +1 / -1 )

These are the same countries in Europe who imposed their green energy zero carbon policy to other countries are now eating their own words and are turning back to fossil fuel and coal for the long cold winter days ahead.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Better start cutting more trees.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Business booming for the USA but citizens also affected

0 ( +1 / -1 )

There is no alternative really. although I guess Germany could turn its nukes back on to try and bridge the power gap.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

These are the same countries in Europe who imposed their green energy zero carbon policy to other countries are now eating their own words and are turning back to fossil fuel and coal for the long cold winter days ahead.

Eating their own words, yes, but could be deliberate.

They put in oil sanctions knowing there is no alternative in place.

They could have created the energy crisis deliberately to use as an excuse to walk back on their green policies.

The most important thing is they wean themselves off Russian oil

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that continuing to use the fossil fuel infrastructure already in place would cause global warming to exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit). At that level, heat would be expected to worsen the flash floods, extreme heat, intense hurricanes and longer-burning wildfires that have resulted from climate change and have cost lives.

I guess they would have to reset the date of the apocalypse now

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Again

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

good that the planet understands the situation we're in and cooperates.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Europe's gas scarcity has escalated global LNG prices, leading buyers in China and elsewhere to sign long-term contracts with suppliers in the United States. American LNG exports will likely grow by 10 million tons over the next year, said Bromander, the Rystad analyst.

.

Thought China would offer to buy more gas from Russia at a decent price and keep their friend Putin happy and China gas powered stations running costs lower.

.

More likely they are signing long-term contracts to rise prices and reduce supply to western countries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One message refers to the environmental movement as "purists". There is nothing puristic in trying to protect the environment. The inference is that the environmental movement has no sympathy with people "frazzled trying to make a living, raise kids, juggle bills.......". For example, a low-income German trying to pay for heating in winter. Yeah, I am on a low income, but I live in a rich country too, called Japan, where people have plenty of support from government and local aid resources. Those involved in the environmental movement have a much wider vision. If we can't stop global warming, everyone will suffer, but the first and worst to suffer will be those in poor countries. For example, think of the hundreds of thousands people whose lives are being destroyed by floods in Pakistan. Over 1100 killed already. Floods, droughts, famine, etc. Africa, Asia, S. America. It's a bit of an insult to suggest that those involved in the environmental movement don't care about people a the lower end of the food chain. They are the ones who are prepared to suffer some hardship, along with everyone else, to try and save the planet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Basically Ytou could end up any article title with "... raises climate fears"and not sound out of place.. it's so easy to act like the concerned citizen with fears about climate..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I do not know why it was obvious to me, an American, and it was not obvious to the Europeans; how did they think their reliance on Russian natural gas was going to end up?

Sequential US administrations have warned European nations since the end of WWII not to become dependent upon Soviet oil and gas. They didn't listen. Joe Stalin needed to rebuild the USSR from the destruction of WWII and selling Caspian Sea oil and gas was his method of earning foreign reserves to permit rebuilding. That oil and gas habit only accelerated after the USSR fell and the newly formed Russian government allowed for the first time since 1918 foreign oil firms in to develop Russian oil and gas reserves.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

One message refers to the environmental movement as "purists". There is nothing puristic in trying to protect the environment. The inference is that the environmental movement has no sympathy with people "frazzled trying to make a living, raise kids, juggle bills.......". For example, a low-income German trying to pay for heating in winter. Yeah, I am on a low income, but I live in a rich country too, called Japan, where people have plenty of support from government and local aid resources. Those involved in the environmental movement have a much wider vision. If we can't stop global warming, everyone will suffer, but the first and worst to suffer will be those in poor countries

What people need to understand is that this problem will not be solved quickly. About a quarter of energy produced goes into making cement, steel which requires coal for coaking, ammonia for fertilizer which comes primarily from natural gas, and plastics which are also synthesized mostly from natural gas. Without ammonia based fertilizers we cannot feed the world. What happened in Sri Lanka is a warning that the world is not ready to go 100% organic. Without steel and concrete we cannot build anything either. Think about all the things you come into contact every day made from plastics, including furniture, appliances, auto parts including most of the interior, your computer, etc. What are the alternatives? None that are mass producible right now. Eliminating plastic food packaging is a good step but is only chipping at maybe one edge. It doesn't solve the problem.

Change will come slowly but change can happen. A little but constant drip of water can cut rock over time. What really has to happen is a major change in consumption habits to less consumption. Do you need all that stuff you own? No really? Do you need a huge house that requires a lot energy to heat and cool? Do you really need a crew cab four wheel drive pick up truck to drive just yourself around in, or would a small car get the job done? How much of that pick up is ego and not really practicality talking? Etc. You get the point I hope. Change will come but it will take many decades, maybe a century to happen. It took us several centuries to get here and unwinding all the technologies linked to carbon based energy is not going to happen fast.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites