Monday, March 2, 2009

Sustainable, Green Development Means the Death of Russian Progress

First, let us give definition to these often used words: sustainable and green.

Sustainable, when used in terms of energy and industry, does not mean something that can be kept up for a long period of time, as one would think from the word. It does not mean coal from a vast vein of coal or nuclear power. What it means is green power. Green power is a mythical power that takes no energy or chemical/industrial processes to create. Of course this is nonsense.

When one points this out to an environmental leftist, which is what the majority of the Anglo-Marxists and West in general now has for leaders, they will tell you that wind turbines or solar arrays are just that. Never mind the inefficiencies of both, the amount of land they take up or how little power they actually generate, their construction alone uses up incredible amounts of energy that they never recoup. The average windmill needs 10 years of operations to make up for the natural gas and electricity in the steel production and forging of its parts and the diesel and electricity needed in its transportation and installation. The problem is, of course, the motors are burning out between 3 and 5 years and never mind in most areas they run barely 30% of the time, due to a lack of wind.

But on a more profound level, what this and Kyoto and other such regimes are made for is to keep Russia down on her knees, to keep her from rising again and leading the world. How? Simple. Let us, dear reader, start with Kyoto.

Kyoto did not recognize the Russian economy as a developing economy, unlike India and China, instead setting its maximum pollutions at the levels 1990 Soviet Union. At that time, Russia was very under industrialized as compared to where a nation like Russia was. Kyoto sought to bribe the government of Russia with carbon credits to sell to Europe in exchange for not growing Russia's economy to the level it was even under the Soviets. So, to cap this point, in exchange for taking money, Russia's leaders were to freeze Russia's economy as an underdeveloped state, while Russia's neighbors, buying these so called credits, would be able to continue growing, thus locking Russia into a position of an underdeveloped, second rate nation, bound only to sell its resources and in debt her people if they wanted any of the finished goods flowing from Europe and Japan, or for that matter from China and India, who had no bounds.

While the Russian government eventually signed up to sell those so called credits, the growth of the Russian economy barreled forward, surpassing rivals. To the uneducated minds of the Anglo-Sphere, there is no Russian industry because it does not export like China and India. They fail, in this sophomoric evaluation, to comprehend that at present Russian industry has not satisfied internal demand to allow the spill over of trade and export. This is how responsible, merchantalistic, societies grow, not the irresponsible, export model of China, SE Asia and to a smaller degree India, which then pulls them to the ocean's deep along with their customer America, when her markets finally tank and sink, as is the fact now.

Once it became obvious that Russia would not constrain her growth and the credits were pointless, the EU/US funded NGOs and UN missions started on a new course to curtail and thus cripple Russia: sustainable energy.

Russia's energy grids are under developed for the full needs of a citizenry enriched with larger apartments, new homes, money for electronics, for the new industries and businesses. As such, new power development is a priority.

In this, sustainable development, is a Western driven project to hamper and cripple Russia by focusing her energies on forms of electricity that are dangerously expensive with little real return, while by passing cost saving nuclear and coal power. If Russia was to follow the advice of the West, and judging by the results of the 1990s a grave mistake, Russians would be forced to pay a considerably higher portion of their salaries for the lights to come on, all to save the world from the hoax of man-made global warming.

In the end, it must be surmised that the country must grow to her maximum potential. Nature of Russia must be protected when ever possible, but growth and development can not be sacrificed on a Western, post-Christian fantasy alter of pagan, earth-mother Gia worship. Let those of the dieing West cling to their various fantasies as their societies in collective and individually rot, Russia must survive to preserve not only her people but the faith of Christ as embodied in the Third Rome.


David Macko said...

The Kyoto Treaty would also decimate the United States and plunge it and the rest of the world into a worse depression than Roosevelt's in the 1930s or the one which we are facing now.
Lets hope that Christian Russia will work with pro-Christian forces in the United States to oppose this dreadful anti-Christian plot.

Gunnar said...

The only way to satisfy the growing need for energy in the future is to develop nuclear plants. In the future fusion plants will satisfy our needs. In the mean time we need to develop safer fission plants around the World. Specially plants designed to "burn" thorium instead of uranium.

And I see development is ongoing.
In cooperation between Russia and India.
Norway has huge deposits of thorium, never likely to be developed due to the country's servility to the Empire.
So, a Russian-Norwegian consortium might be able to mine the mineral, export it to Russia and utilize the energy there.

Sublime Oblivion said...

Although I agree that it is unrealistic (and in some cases downright impossible) for current renewable energies to have a big influence on energy production, I disagree with Kyoto and how it will affect Russia.

Since total emissions levels are pegged at 1990 and the Russian economy collapsed soon after, it is still well short of that ceiling. Furthermore the Soviet economy was notoriously inefficient at energy usage and today far smaller amounts of energy can be used to produce much more output given a bit of investment in this area (the resources used to produce this energy can either be exported or conserved for future use).

I agree with Gunnar that nuclear fission and later fusion is the most promising avenue for the future.