Bine Kordež

Energetika je zadnja leta nedvomno ena najbolj aktualnih tem v razmišljanjih in pisanjih politike, medijske scene in tudi večine državljanov. Glede na razmere lahko ocenimo, da bo tako tudi vnaprej, da se bomo vsi ukvarjali s tem področjem, ki pomembno kroji naše življenje. Pri tem se srečujemo s težavo, da je navajanje stališč in mnenj vsakogar, ki navaja argumente v prid eni ali drugi strani, hitro okarakterizirano kot zagovornik jedrskega lobija, šaleškega lobija, eko-terorist in podobno, ne glede na predstavljene argumente. Temu se ne moremo izogniti tudi v tem prispevku, a vseeno naj poskusim navesti nekaj nespornih dejstev in v njih poiskati zaključke.

Vsekakor je danes električna energija najpomembnejši energent in v bodoče, z opuščanjem fosilnih goriv, bo njena vloga v energetski preskrbi države samo še večja. Kot najpomembnejši energent imamo v mislih to, da se brez elektrike država dobesedno ustavi, od gospodarstva do življenja posameznika. Ostali energenti imajo alternativo, elektrika je nima. Zaradi tega je ključno načrtovanje preskrbe z električno energijo v prihodnjih desetletjih, ko jo bomo s predvidenim opuščanjem fosilnih goriv za transport in ogrevanje, nedvomno potrebovali še več.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

The first thing you want to remember is that Putin has a triple-digit IQ, and anybody with a triple-digit IQ can quickly figure out that this all makes no sense.

So, I think that Putin is probably going to spend maybe one, two, or three minutes thinking about this and then spend the rest of his time dealing with serious issues like winning the war.

The idea that this peace conference is going to affect the course of this conflict between Ukraine and Russia is not a serious argument.

This is the kind of nonsense that the West engages in from time to time because it’s so desperate to find some sort of way to win this war.

But the fact is, there is no way at this point in time to win this war.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Zabaven komentar Matthewa Robersona v GQ o zlobi Luke Dončića (strojni prevod z nekaj malega editiranja):

Mladi Slovenec se po lastnem priznanju ne zna hitro gibati. Izjemno spoštuje nachose v Hard Rock Cafe. Ni povsem jasno, ali trenira izven košarke ali ne, kar je v redu, pošteno [..]. Toda ena stvar, ki jo Dončić lahko naredi, kar je vedno znova dokazal med tem svetim nizom v končnici, je, da vas polije z bencinom, mimogrede prižge vžigalico in vam vrže 35 košev na glavo.

…

Toda način, na katerega to počne, je tako osupljiv za gledanje. Kot gledalec izkusiš mešanico želje, da bi popustil nasprotniku – da bi prenehal z lopato odmetavati zemljo na že izkopan grob –, hkrati pa želiš videti, kakšen sadistični trik bo izvedel naslednjič. Morda je bil ključni trenutek te končnice ta, ko Dončić športno lovi Rudyja Goberta na vrhu črte za tri točke, preden je zadel met, ki mu je uradno utrdil mesto enega najbolj zlobnih igralcev NBA vseh časov. To je bila čista zloba.

Še več – vsaj če vam je všeč peklensko, gladiatorsko uničenje nemočnega človeka – bilo je namerno zlobno. Dončić je posebej želel igrati na Goberta, ki ima štiri trofeje za najboljšega obrambnega igralca leta (vključno z letošnjim) in ima dokumentirano zgodovino enega najmanj priljubljenih igralcev lige NBA. Ne samo to, Dončiću je to uspelo na Gobertovem domačem parketu in se odločil za strel, ki bi Dallasu prinesel zmago, ne le izenačenje. Kar je sledilo, je bila legenda. Rjovečemu “mamojebec, ne moreš me kriti” je sledilo srečanje z ekipo Inside the NBA, kjer je mirno pojasnil, da je Gobert branilec, ki si ga želi. Tudi to je že storil: prvič je proti visokemu Francozu režiral »ne moreš me kriti« pred dvema letoma v končnici, po drugačnem, nekoliko manj ponižujočem ponižanju Goberta. Bilo je skoraj tako, kot da bi leta skrbno pripravljal drugega v letošnji končnici, svojo najbolj umazano potezo pa prihranil za večji oder. Sranje serijskega morilca, res.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Deklaracija progresivnih ekonomistov glede potrebnih sprememb v ekonomskih politikah, da bi zagotovili višjo rast in bolj pravično razdelitev sadov rasti ter tako ponovno pridobili zaupanje ljudi. Na prvih mestih so industrijska politika (za tehnološko prestrukturiranje), socialne in podnebne politike ter predlog bolj zdrave oblike globalizacije:

Liberal democracies are today confronted with a wave of popular distrust in their ability to serve the majority of their citizens and solve the multiple crises that threaten our future. This threatens to lead us into a world of dangerous populist policies exploiting the anger without addressing the real risks, ranging from climate change to unbearable inequalities, or major global conflicts. To avert major damages to humanity and the planet, we must urgently get to the root causes of people’s resentment.

There is ample evidence today that this distrust is not only, but to a large extent, driven by the widely shared experience of a real or perceived loss of control over one’s own livelihood and the trajectory of societal changes. This sense of powerlessness has been triggered by shocks stemming from globalization and technological shifts, now amplified by climate change, AI and the inflation shock. And, decades of poorly managed globalization, overconfidence in the self-regulation of markets and austerity have hollowed out the ability of governments to respond to such crises effectively.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Jeffrey Sachs je za Lancet, vodilno akademsko revijo na področju medicine, vodil komisijo za preučitev izvora virusa Covid-19 (ali je šlo za naravno evolucijo virusa ali v laboratoriju ustvarjen virus).

Za razumevanje azijske geoplitike se splača pogledati spodnji pogovor s singapurskim politikom Georgeom Yeojem in nato še komentar Arnauda Bertranda. Pove zelo jasno, da se azijske države ne želijo odločati med ZDA in Kitajsko in da želijo sodelovati z obema, toda če jih Washington postavi pred zid, da se morajo odločiti za enega izmed njiju, se bodo odločile za tistega, ki jim “reže in maže kruh”. In to je Kitajska. In ker ZDA tega ne razumejo in nočejo razumeti, bodo to igro izgubile. Po nepotrebnem.

If you want to understand Asian geopolitics today, this is an absolute must-watch.

This is George Yeo, who was a Singaporean cabinet minister during 21 years, including Minister for Foreign Affairs during 7 years. In my humble opinion, very few people out there have such a subtle understanding of geopolitics in Asia as he does.

Here’s a quick summary of what he says:

The US has little knowledge of China

He says that “the US political system is decentralized and because of the need to win votes, it goes through emotional phases and is entering such a phase now where China is demonized out of mass emotion. There’s some manipulation behind the scenes, but it’s not based on knowledge.”

To him, the US “don’t understand the nature of China”, the fact that China “is constantly building walls around itself because it is happy in its own homogeneity”. He says it is wrong for the US to believe that “China wants to displace them as the top dog in the world” and “trying to contain China, even pull it down” as a result. Not only is this a wrong understanding of China’s objectives but the US “may exhaust itself in the process and I don’t think it will succeed”. He says that with its tariffs and sanctions the US risks making the same mistake as China’s Qing dynasty and “become very weak”.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Gideon Rachman je v Financial Timesu podal eno najbolj pritlehnih, da ne rečem zavržnih, argumentacij glede “izstopne klavzule” ZDA in drugih zahodnih držav iz sicer zavezujočih pravil mednarodnega pravnega reda. Njegovo stališče je, da lahko ZDA in druge zahodne države kadarkoli odstopijo od “globalnih pravil“, saj s svojimi dejanji po definiciji zgolj “branijo svobodni svet“. In tega jih (dobesedno) ni treba biti nič sram.

Rachman svoj komentar lepo začne z opisom očitnega kršenja mednarodnih pravil s strani ZDA:

As an organising principle for western foreign policy, the “rules-based international order” has long suffered from some disastrous flaws. It is a phrase that means nothing to a normal person. As a result, it is a deeply uninspiring concept. People might go to war to defend freedom or the motherland. Nobody is going to fight and die for the RBIO.

Nonetheless, senior western policymakers seem to be in love with the concept. Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, is fond of appealing to the rules-based international order when he visits China. Rishi Sunak, Britain’s prime minister, has put the RBIO at the centre of UK foreign policy. His likely successor, Sir Keir Starmer, a former lawyer, will be just as committed to the idea.

In opposing Russian aggression, Blinken argues that the US is standing up for a world based on rules rather than raw power. That is an attractive idea. But rules are meant to be consistent. And America’s own actions are undermining vital parts of the rules-based order.

The past fortnight has brutally exposed these contradictions. The 100 per cent tariffs that the Biden administration has imposed on Chinese electric vehicles are virtually impossible to reconcile with international rules on trade. As a paper for Bruegel, a think-tank, puts it: “The tariffs . . . quash any notion that the US intends to abide by World Trade Organization rules.”

America’s response to the prospect that the International Criminal Court will bring war crimes charges against Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, was also telling. Rather than supporting the court’s effort to enforce international law, Blinken told the US Congress that the administration would consider imposing sanctions on the ICC.

No, po tem lepem uvodu, s katerim se zaradi njegove evidentnosti v praksi lahko strinja celotna svetovna populacija, pa Rachman nato zaide v iskanje »escape clause«, torej v iskanje opravičila, zakaj naj bi bile ZDA upravičene v kršenje »globalnih pravil«, ki so jih same postavile in jih tako rade zagovarjajo nasproti tretjim državam … ko jim to ustreza. In to opravičilo Rachman najde v tem, da naj se ZDA namesto na »mednarodni red« oziroma »globalna pravila« v svojem ravnanju raje sklicujejo na to, da »branijo svobodni svet«:

So what can be salvaged from this mess? One answer is for Blinken and co to talk less about the rules-based international order and more about defending the free world. That is a more accurate and comprehensible description of what western foreign policy is actually about.

Nadaljujte z branjem→