We should call this the "enable Putin" and "destroy the climate" plan.

Honestly, I think we should declare a 50% tax on the gas going through the new Putin Nordstream 2 pipeline and direct the proceeds to NATO. Prices in externalities of gas usage and gets the EU closer to their NATO commitment.

Why waste money on military? Couldn't it be used much better ways like to decarbon various areas in infrastructure?

A bully (Russia) comes up to a child (Ukraine) and kicks them in the shin really hard (Crimea). Then grabs them by the shirt and rears back like they're about to punch the kid.

You're right, why waste money teaching the kid Aikido when we could instead spend that money on school tutors to try to get them into schools that don't have bullies.

What good would a military do? The US has a more powerful military than russia, China and Europe put together, yet lost in iraq and afghanistan.

A better solution would be to stop giving russia money for its gas. That means not shutting down nuclear plants, and instead building many many more power plants to make Europe energy independent

Right, playing world police should be right at the top of Europe's plan for saving the climate.

Why not both?

Build renewables and nuclear instead of increasing dependency on gas from a geopolitical bully?

Why not just mix human rights in China also into the discussion? Make everybody into vegans cause animal cruelty? Police brutality? School crisis?

Obviously different problems are always best tackled in combination! Practically guarantees success. /s

And obviously geopolitical bullies should just not be talked to. Hm so let's see who is left to talk to then. Russia, China, U.S., NATO, none of those won't an option anymore. Good to keep your principles. And good luck doing anything good to the climate with the strategy of only talking to yourself (assuming your country isn't a geopolitical bully itself, which is likely quite a stretch, given the odds.)

This makes no sense. The gas going through the pipeline is already expensive and it's already used to heat poor peoples homes. Meanwhile, Nato's military power is pretty much irrelevant if the countries of Nato can't piss of Russia because of fear that Putin will close down the pipeline in the middle of winter and watch pensioners freeze to death in their homes.

The single most important move to save the EU from Putin and to decarbonise is to fund green energy like wind, solar and particularly invest in energy storage solutions to smooth out unreliable sources. It's very difficult to compete with Gas turbines in terms of supply and responsiveness.

And closer to war. Great solution! It's going to do so much good for the climate!

It is, once all the apes on the space rock are gone... Sorry, I let the cynicist out.

Basically all energy could be covered by renewables, if people would stop complaining that they don't want them build near them.

Please provide a source to substantiate your claim, because it flies in the face of everything I’ve read.

A friend of mine sells wind turbines and said it's a nightmare to sell these things in Germany. All the land owners hate them.

It's like the anti-vax crowd.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I’m not challenging the idea that people don’t want turbines built on or near their property. That might well be the case.

I specifically want a source to substantiate the claim you made with your first eight words.

The world uses less energy than arrives from solar, so clearly it could be, if you had enough generation and storage.

It’s not a great line, what is needed is how much generation and how much storage is needed.

> if you had enough generation and storage.

If.

Goalpost moving