(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Radical way for USA to have a strategy to win in Ukraine AND to fight climate change. [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.'] Date: 2023-10-09 Ok, the war in Ukraine and Climate change are linked more than you might think. And I am not talking “the seven degrees of Kevin Bacon” type linked. More like the one or two degrees of money fuels war type of link. (please excuse my very non journalism and frankly non analyst article though I was a paid strategy expert for 8 years for billions of dollars in sales in corporate finance so USED to be a paid analyst...). Oil. More specifically, expensive oil. More more specifically go to this great article that is a bit beyond me to author (www.newsweek.com/...). The “dummy” version that I need is that the higher the price of oil, the longer and more robustly Russia (specifically Putinlini) can pursue their bloody hobby in Ukraine. Net the author concludes that if oil were say 47 $/barrel, Russia would go bankrupt and struggle to continue paying for the war (a bit more complicated but the gist). Now, you say, what does that have to do with climate change? Pah! You want the easy button, you gonna have to sit on your bum a bit longer. First we talk war strategy (which article brings up for low price oil as a strategy). I am a military history buff but not good at all on micro-analyzing battles. I am a strategy guy. Like big, say what is up in one sentence, all you got. Here I go, comments ripping are really actually welcome. Ukraine strategy is (duh) war of attrition (with a twist). I call it the reverse General Grant strategy. How to win a war of attrition when you are the smaller one (I did not say “guy”, Ukraine has a lot of women fighting in this war). Methodical setting up of killing zones, opportunistic and wily use of technology and duct tape (really, duct tape is more important than drones, KIDDING!), and all the stuff folks write about here at Daily Kos Ukraine...and clearly all within framework of minimizing UKR casualties (though certainly not zero). Maybe call it maximizing the benefit of Ukraine heroes giving their lives is more accurate. What is USA strategy for war in Ukraine? Really, some folks get caught on that? Wait, USA is not in the war, right? Well, Putinlini is right about one thing, we sure as [bleep] are involved if M113’s are rolling across the trenches while Himars rain down with troops running across trained by Florida National Guard. And Biden (Yes!) asking for 100 billion dollars “for the total war”. I bring that up as it is the first hint of me seeing USA try to intentionally deploy a war strategy. Being a hack, I would sum up USA strategy to date as “how for Ukraine not to lose” strategy, as I don’t see the all in commitment for what it would take to actually support Ukraine to victory. Biden (or someone at Pentagon? Defense chief?) needs to get in front of a camera and literally say “This is our plan for how to help Ukraine WIN.” This should then lead to questions for every public conversation after that of “and will that help Win?” or “if they need long range strike capability to win how come we piecemealing this [bleep], do we want it to drag out for years?”. Net, the USA (Biden) need to agree they want to help Ukraine to win, versus simply not lose. Ok, now we are getting closer to fighting climate change but you still are too antsy. The referenced article above triggered how the USA (and allies and OPEC cronies, eck…, something better, esteemed partners) can make a strategic decision to win. As stated in the article, get the price of oil down. That simple. BTW, argument for this drains money from other horror supporting global entities, like, say, the Evil Regime of (not really religious) wing nuts in Iran / Persia (still Persia in my book). Venezuela is pretty deep into the evil oil realm as well. OPEC partners (read Saudi Arabia) need something in it for them. We could discuss how to incentivize MBS in a whole different article, but there is PLENTY we could do for MBS and his long term plans (I will give one below...) NOW we get to climate change. I will postulate (with like no support) that the sing song high low oil cycle is a MAJOR barrier to fighting climate change. And by meaning fighting, I mean actually making progress versus chaining myself to a Yugo. Cheap oil and natural gas I argue (and have worked in industry where it was true) drives less investment in green energy, harder to pay out the projects. Thus some discussion I have been involved in that higher oil prices actually help green transition. Which I will conclude is complete horse shit (pardon not using a bleep). Read this, down to the good part. (www.iea.org/...). And by “good” part I mean the absolute worst news for climate change and why we are pissing in the wind (pardon not using bleep again). Coal use is maintaining record high levels (and likely to achieve new highs). I aint’ no near one o those rockeet scieny types butt, butt, I are pretty sure record and growing coal use ain not that thar good. As in catastrophic. I will let someone else explain coal versus oil versus natural gas (of which I am a near expert being a utilities engineer). BUT, I just listed them in order of evil (evil being first). SOOOO if record oil prices drive record coal use (via substitution, I worked in corporate finance strategy for 8 years) then driving higher oil prices is BAD for the environment. We need to combat coal FIRST. If coal is not defeated, we are doing above what I did not bleep. So, to something of a hypothesis. If USA finds a way to lead oil prices down, and do it in a way that drives oil substitute for coal, we can start working down global emissions. But, but, wait? Don’t we need to fight all climate battles all at once everywhere right? (reference an expert somewhere on losing strategies). Or, lets just focus on the developed world (0.7 to 1. 0 Bn people) and worry about the other 7 Bn people later (indefinite, not defined, when world peace exists I guess). Coal must go (or be significantly reduced) as a priority. (see that thing at the end? It is called a “period”) Ok, ok, soap box guy, this is a pointless discussion. Now, try this out, still a dreamer but closer to everyone gets something (the American political way). Fund and/or lead a strategy to get more oil pumping and bring down the cost of oil. Make a commitment of some kind. Fund effort to switch actual coal plants around the world to oil. AND fund a ginormous amount of money for green energy adoption. Hey, 100 Bn for Ukraine and 100 Bn for green energy adoption. Break the cycle of green energy investment needing high oil prices (it is real, I have worked on projects for funding) or high natural gas prices. Get green electricity availability nationwide. Start working hydrogen from green electricity and the utility infrastructure needed to get it to industry. Really? Fund utilities? I might add “public” utilities used to get a butt load of subsidized support as local and state governments simply could not afford to build all that stuff we take for granted now. Read. To adopt expensive public functions requires government to subsidize, has always been that way (such as public utility bonds, backed by government). Read roads / interstate network. Read expansive electricity grid. Read the old style phone in every home system (it used to exist, really!). Read rail network. Read commercial waterways and the whole funding of the Army Corp of Engineers waterway management schtick. Public, public, and public all in their roots (though to be fair private investment has been massively important as well, but not sufficient on its own). Oh, and how to hook in Saudi Arabia? Money. Investment. Remember all those efforts by MBS and extended family to diversify? Let them in on the green energy investment bonanza. It has to be structured so that they don’t see it as wishy washy West trying to take advantage of them. Needs some laws making sure those that invest in this massive new utilities infrastructure program are not going to die on the vine with a modest change in the laws. Help Saudi Arabia stay a world energy King, whether it is green energy or oil. A real, hardcore organized push could get them down to a lower price position for oil as new revenue streams are being set up. Let them invest in the coal elimination in a matching fund scheme, this lessens our cost to get rid of coal and sets up MBS replacing lost oil sales/consumption in USA/Europe by taking market share from Coal. BAM, baby, BAM!!! So, cheap oil dries up Putinlini war slush fund which will support Russia defeat. Cheap oil has to lead to coal elimination in a meaningful way. Green energy needs to be funded as a utility and break the cycle of green energy investment tied to high oil and natural gas prices. I postulate that trying to do any one on it’s own will fail, eventually partisan winds will swing and those without skin in the game will cancel. Tie them all up together to make near impossible to unwind then we just might have a shot at sustaining an effort. Something in it for everyone versus The Revenge Plan against those idiots. Any questions? :) [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/10/9/2198413/-Radical-way-for-USA-to-have-a-strategy-to-win-in-Ukraine-AND-to-fight-climate-change?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=latest_community&pm_medium=web Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/