> "Told you so" always feels cheap, even more so when it's right.
"Told you so" doesn't solve anything in the short term, but it might spur stronger future efforts.
> America won the landgrab lottery and sits on plenty of oil and gas, which makes this kind of talk really cheap right now.
I think that misses a key point: There's a big difference between potential and actual advantages.
In the 1970s the US imported a huge amount of energy, making it vulnerable to external extortion... just like Europe now. Then OPEC pulled the trigger, and it was devastating to the US. Ordinary citizens waited in long lines to get just a little gas... which galvanized the public as well as its government. The 1970s energy crisis caused a fundamental shift in US policy. It caused a top-to-bottom focus in the US on ensuring energy and food independence. You couldn't breathe in the 1970s or 1980s without hearing about energy. Walt Disney's Epcot center had at least one pavilion dedicated to the topic. Often the US can't keep a focus on one topic over many years (it often acts like a kid with ADHD), but this is an area where it did focus continuous resources over a lengthy time.
Yes, the US has some geographic advantages, but it couldn't take advantage of many of them decades ago; investment was necessary. The US couldn't use shale in the 1970s, for example, so its "geographic advantage" was not an advantage at the time without investment. The US created an entire branch of government (Department of Energy, founded August 4, 1977) to have a long-term focus on the issue. It invested crazy sums of money, including in research, and as I noted those investments finally resulted in independence about 30-40 years later.
> Having a democratic neighbor like Canada with equal resources and 1/10th of the population also helps. Europe is not in that position and I wish people would understand that.
Yes, the US and Canada work together, and that has led to lots of benefits for both. But it is NOT true that manna fell from heaven; massive multi-decade investments were planned and executed specifically to produce these advantages.
Europe is different, but it has its own advantages. Europe has an extremely well-educated workforce and has incredible technical prowess. It also has lots of capital. And Europe has lots of countries with different strengths and weaknesses, which often leads European countries to be really good at international cooperation. Europe could have used those advantages to improve its energy security. The most obvious is nuclear: Germany is in real trouble for energy, while France has lots of nuclear power plans and simply doesn't have the same level of risk. Or drill offshore, or whatever. No option is perfect, but Europe does have lots going for it.
It's not that Europe wasn't warned. The US did so, repeatedly. After all, the US had experienced a shock, so it knew what such shocks could do. And while I think altruism played a part, it's not just that. The US & Europe are deeply linked, so serious harms to Europe also harm the US. The US has great incentive to ensure Europe doesn't spiral into a situation where many Europeans are dying from freezing or starvation. The US has repeatedly begged Europe to deal with its dependency on Russia. But in the end, the Europeans have to decide what they're going to do. I can imagine the US trying to help Europe with some energy issues, but the Atlantic is big; the US can only do so much now to help Europe in the short term.
It's possible that this will spur changes in Europe today, just like the 1970s energy crisis spurred changes in the US. But it may be a painful process in the meantime.
And yes, there should be more nuclear power plants online in France during winter. But some projections say that it won't be enough and France will depend on other countries until next year.
> It's not that Europe wasn't warned.
That may be so. However, most proposed solutions were not to be come independent, but to import oil/gas from other countries. Which is why public opinion never really changed. And its very hard to encourage people to become climate neutral if others (americans) are some much worse in respect to climate change.
Also, many Europeans have personal connections to Russia and don't trust the US. It's not all just corrupt politicians (which is obviously contributing, but its not just that). Similar story with Iran, btw.
"Told you so" doesn't solve anything in the short term, but it might spur stronger future efforts.
> America won the landgrab lottery and sits on plenty of oil and gas, which makes this kind of talk really cheap right now.
I think that misses a key point: There's a big difference between potential and actual advantages.
In the 1970s the US imported a huge amount of energy, making it vulnerable to external extortion... just like Europe now. Then OPEC pulled the trigger, and it was devastating to the US. Ordinary citizens waited in long lines to get just a little gas... which galvanized the public as well as its government. The 1970s energy crisis caused a fundamental shift in US policy. It caused a top-to-bottom focus in the US on ensuring energy and food independence. You couldn't breathe in the 1970s or 1980s without hearing about energy. Walt Disney's Epcot center had at least one pavilion dedicated to the topic. Often the US can't keep a focus on one topic over many years (it often acts like a kid with ADHD), but this is an area where it did focus continuous resources over a lengthy time.
Yes, the US has some geographic advantages, but it couldn't take advantage of many of them decades ago; investment was necessary. The US couldn't use shale in the 1970s, for example, so its "geographic advantage" was not an advantage at the time without investment. The US created an entire branch of government (Department of Energy, founded August 4, 1977) to have a long-term focus on the issue. It invested crazy sums of money, including in research, and as I noted those investments finally resulted in independence about 30-40 years later.
> Having a democratic neighbor like Canada with equal resources and 1/10th of the population also helps. Europe is not in that position and I wish people would understand that.
Yes, the US and Canada work together, and that has led to lots of benefits for both. But it is NOT true that manna fell from heaven; massive multi-decade investments were planned and executed specifically to produce these advantages.
Europe is different, but it has its own advantages. Europe has an extremely well-educated workforce and has incredible technical prowess. It also has lots of capital. And Europe has lots of countries with different strengths and weaknesses, which often leads European countries to be really good at international cooperation. Europe could have used those advantages to improve its energy security. The most obvious is nuclear: Germany is in real trouble for energy, while France has lots of nuclear power plans and simply doesn't have the same level of risk. Or drill offshore, or whatever. No option is perfect, but Europe does have lots going for it.
It's not that Europe wasn't warned. The US did so, repeatedly. After all, the US had experienced a shock, so it knew what such shocks could do. And while I think altruism played a part, it's not just that. The US & Europe are deeply linked, so serious harms to Europe also harm the US. The US has great incentive to ensure Europe doesn't spiral into a situation where many Europeans are dying from freezing or starvation. The US has repeatedly begged Europe to deal with its dependency on Russia. But in the end, the Europeans have to decide what they're going to do. I can imagine the US trying to help Europe with some energy issues, but the Atlantic is big; the US can only do so much now to help Europe in the short term.
It's possible that this will spur changes in Europe today, just like the 1970s energy crisis spurred changes in the US. But it may be a painful process in the meantime.