• BertramDitore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    Your logic makes sense, and I’m sure most people in power agree with you, but this still seems like a situational excuse to me. There will always be a reason not to ditch dangerous extraction methods. Right now it may be Russia, next time maybe it’s a Gulf state. While it might matter to this moment’s geopolitical situation, the safety, health, and longevity of the planet and all its inhabitants are significantly more important than our ability to temporarily harm Russia’s economy. I’m also not convinced this is causing as much pain to Russia as we might like. They always seem to have a way of avoiding the worst of our economic warfare.

    • Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      True. But reforming the Russian economy is a necessary pre-requisite to stopping climate change, something very seldom discussed because of how frankly near-impossible it is. This might be our only opportunity.

      They’re one of the few countries that might actually benefit significantly from climate change, due to opening arctic seaways and ports, and the massive disruptions it would cause to all their rivals. Their government style makes the migrations it would cause a minimal risk for them, and suffering and death does not seem to concern them much.

      • futatorius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        If reform is infeasible, there are other ways to lessen the impact of Russian exports. All are brutal and will hurt ordinary Russian people. But if necessary for the survival of humankind, someone will attempt them.