Here is my Ukraine peace proposal:
1. Putin is sent to The Hague.
2. Russian soldiers leave Ukraine including Crimea.
3. Russia returns all kidnapped Ukrainian children.
4. Russia releases all Ukrainian prisoners.
5. Russia pays damages for everything their war has destroyed.
6. Russia pays damages to Ukrainian families who have lost family members.
7. Russia pays damages to every person who has been tortured, abducted or otherwise criminally mistreated.
8. Ukraine becomes a member of the EU.
@PierreM @randahl
The far right aren't inevitable, just opportunistic. When people push back, scrutinise what they're saying, and most importantly, address the economic problems the far right want to make into racial problems, the far right lose.
Besides, they've been sponsored and supported by Putin to undermine democracy. In a scenario where Putin loses the war he started, they won't have a strongman at their back. There's no perks to being an ex-dictator's lackey.
@Bluabirdo @PierreM @randahl
Trump is a gross and loud man, but not a strong man, and he and more coherent members of his regime, as far as policy towards Europe is concerned, are lackeys of Putin too. They also have a domestic agenda, but that's another discussion.
It's still not inevitable that millions of people will let a handful of creepy billionaires and their cosplay gestapo types take over just because the newspapers are angry about brown people. We could just not.
Here's another:
Accelerate the switch away from fossil fuels. Enough with the oil wars.
Putin can't fund a war if people don't buy his toxic fossil fuel products.
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/10/08/eu-unites-to-phase-out-russian-oil-and-gas-imports/
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2025)775863
Trump can't wreck the planet on behalf of his oil oligarchs if people switch to cheaper solar & wind instead.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-oil-industry-donations
@Archivist @Npars01 @randahl @PierreM
there's tidal, wind, solar, geothermal, etc
"Switching to more hydro is incredibly impopular (and very dangerous)"
what does that mean?
@Archivist @Npars01 @randahl @PierreM
sure but it's not the only option, that's my point
and you can assemble all the dangers with hydro, all the dangers with nuclear, etc...
and fossil fuels are still way more dangerous than all of that
(in terms of climate change, funding putin and other nasty regimes, etc)
it's never valid to say an energy option isn't perfect. none of them are. we pick the options that are least harmful
@benroyce @Npars01 @randahl @PierreM
oh I do not disagree with that. But politicians want to avoid the issue because it will make them impopular. My opinion is that we need more nuclear right now and a tighter bond with Australia for fuel, and to start thinking of 10 to 30 valleys in Europe to sacrifice to hydro in 50 years
That does not exclude setting up more renewable, it is part of doing that, the goal is to run pilotable sources as low as possible. A nuclear reactor running at 30% is far more reliable and durable than one running at 100%, and can still ramp up production in times of need
@Archivist @Npars01 @randahl @PierreM
in addition to that nuclear tech has advance to where- of course nothing is 100% safe, but orders of magnitude safer than 1960s era tech that led to our accidents
things like pebble bed reactors, passively safe, where you can just shut off power and walk away from them and they just slow down, they don't meltdown
pebble bed reactors, ironically, pioneered by germany
which gave it all up to suck at the russian fossil fuel teat
we see how that turned out
@painting_squirrel @Archivist @Npars01 @randahl @PierreM
plenty of thorium though
You are partially correct.
There is a limited supply of Uranium that can be mined on land.
But there is a 4.5 billion ton supply in the worlds oceans and for each ton you remove more leaches out of sediments to replace it. It is estimated there is a supply of about 40 trillion tons in the crust of the planet.
Only 0.3% is U235 but if you breed U238 to PU239 you can use all of it.
It is inexhaustible.
If you use Molten Salt Reactors you can get 100% burn up leaving short and medium life waste products that are fully decayed after about 500 years. You can also burn "waste" (mostly unused fuel) from other reactors.
The MSR is very old tech, first developed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 60s. Only the first phase of development was funded for various political reasons.
You are right, MSRs won't be ready in time to be part of getting us to net zero CO2, or whatever you want to call it, within 20 years or less.
But net zero is just stage 1 and when/if it is reached, if we want to fix global warming we (as a species) will need to implement stage 2.
The removal and storage of at least 1000 Gigatons of surplus CO2 from the biosphere. The current surplus is about 2400 Gigatons over pre 1850 levels. 1000 Gigatons would take us back to about 312ppm from the current 424.
That will require a vast amount of energy over a long period and that can only come from Nuclear and MSRs are the safest, most efficient nuclear tech we have.
I won't assume we'll ever crack fusion.
Randahl Fink
Pierre
Pete Alex Harris🦡🕸️🌲/∞🪐∫
Birdo de Todon
Markus Quandt
Nicole Parsons
Ludovic Archivist Lagouardette
ᴮᵉⁿ ᴿᵒʸᶜᵉVOTE IN THE PRIMARIES
Orava
Kingsley Bugarin PLY OAM 🇦🇺
yetzt
scheichsbeutel