There are no “anti-car candidates”, there are only candidates that consider intrests of car mobility not the only interests worth to consider.

Handle all the super sensitive health data of the entire country I suppose. Why? Anything wrong with the most evil techno-fascist data company from a foreign country handling that data?

Nice whataboutism. So you are fine with the US hosting criminal and corrupt politicians that are wanted in their home countries? Polanski is really a low point but try getting a US citizen extradited from the US, for literally anything, before throwing stones. It is still less hard to get someone extradited from many European countries.

The thing is also not just extradition of a non-US citizen from the US (I guess if not a friend of the US regime they would call him a criminal immigrant) but that it appears if the US regime was actively helping that wanted corrupt politician to flee to the US.

That’s why France is serious about removing Microsoft and other US companies from any public systems. The entire EU should follow. I find it nice that Microsoft is also helping with ads, like here for Netherlands.

Poland has still a Fascist as President but he suffers because he isn’t in a presidential democracy and the government doesn’t share his hate for rule of law. Still he has enough power to keep Poland a bit in a bind and prevent undoing the anti-rule of law “reforms” of his party.

There are a lot of reasons, that issue is risking blowing up the entire contest. But it as long as some EBU members are so strongly positioned on both sides I don’t see a solution. A solution will start to be possible when one side gives in.

As funny as that story may be, I totally loved Alexandra Capitanescu’s entry… and I am not even Moldovan or Romanian ;) She really did a great singing performance, mastering so many styles at the same time and managing to sing it in a way that all those style actually fit together and the transitions being so smooth. I’ll certainly follow her career, see where she is heading from here.

At least that summary describes a dilemma that does not exist as there is a clear way out and the EU is actually investing a lot in exactly that. The chosen analogy can’t capture that or actually even misleads. You cannot slowly unscrew your arm and replace it with a new one.

The way out of course is creating or strengthening sovereign digital infrastructure. Sovereign alternatives to Visa/Mastercard are maybe 2 years away from full implementation, sovereign satellite communication too, the EU is finally also getting serious about regaining sovereignty in the software space, bit by bit. Things don’t need to be reinvented from scratch for that, Open Source is a strong launch base for that. France especially is laying the ground work for that.

Tight interdependencies can’t be undone over night without catastrophic consequences, but they can be losened, one by one. That process might be ridiculed by some, until it is progressed far enough to change the entire equation.

This disentanglement is only shortly mentioned in the article towards the end, as a future prospect but we are already in the middle of it, also in the EU

Ok, now screaming after ad hominem.

Your argument is that change is perpetually prevented by slippery slope lobbying. Yet that change is happening as we speak (within 4 years for example the share of fossil fuels in electricity production in the EU has decreased from 38% to 28%), even if it needed way too long to get started. You don’t see the contradiction? I was merely stating the fact that remaining demand has to be secured in the short term, you are not even clear about it if you deny that. Even with the most rapid change you don’t just stop using fossil fuels from one month to the next. You can come with all the slippery slope you like but that is simply a reality, unless you favor hard change with energy shutdowns etc.

It remains unclear of what you mean by faster transition. I was never saying that it is impossible to fasten the process. Unless you want to speed up transition to complete fossil fuel independence to “over night” overnight, there is need for continued fossil fuel supply.

Like I said, you can delve for ages in the past, then get nihilistic and then prevent change in the present. Or you can have a look at reality and see that the energy mix for electricity has changed massively. Fossil fuels (all of them together) stand at 25% of the mix across the EU and also absolute capacities in TWh have substantially decreased. And this is already with renewables compensating for reduced nuclear power plant output (something that can be debated on its own from various directions).

Overall energy beyond electricity is rapidly changing too. We are seeing a big rise in solar power, heat distribution systems in urban areas and a big push for heat exchanger systems running on electricity for home heating. Fossile fuels for heating are phased out in many countries entirely.

Are there lobbyists working against that? Sure. But supporting that transition doesn’t mean one has to demand the entirely polemic and unrealistic position that one should not secure fossil fuels needed even in the most rapid transition scenario. You are talking about slippery slope, yet I have yet to hear a clear word from you want alternative there is to that in the real world without running into a state of emergency with energy shortages.

Ad hominem attacks are not strengthening your case.

Slovenia is a pretty popular tourist destination, not sure about Delaware though, tax evaders not considered.

What is bland, mass produced, or Swedish pop music about the Romanian or Serbian entry? Romania did make it to the 3rd place too and even Serbia was above the bottom third where you could find bland entries like the German one.

I am not sure if Delaware has such a spectacular and diverse landscape with mountains, pristine lakes, and the sea and is located at the faultline of three major linguistic and cultural areas.

Lame excuse. Australia doesn’t

Easy, if you send a lifted middle finger to the contest, you get a lifted middle finger back in response.

Brits liked to say that one can’t perform well with serious music. I am glad about Australia.

Oh well. What an easy and completely pointless polemic to talk about what should have been done 35 years ago, when there was no feasible alternative available for electric mobility and photovoltaic and wind power were still miles away from the technological maturity they are now. As a matter of fact the oil crises did have a lot of beneficial consequences. The Netherlands for example reversed course almost 180° and instead of turning their country into a fully US style car only hell hole, they initiated the transformation that put them in a position where they have their mobility needs in many baskets. Also Austria was getting serious about hydropower back then etc. But of course much more could and should have been done also in the 90s for example.

I am talking about recent times and the future. You are calling me an idiot simply for pointing out that we need to cover fossil fuel demands during the transition as we’d otherwise face an economic crash and harsh consequences for common people too (energy limitations, maybe outages etc). Yet you are not even denying that those resources are needed also in a transition that is happening as rapidly as possible.

I am not sure in which alternative reality you are living in which there is no meaningful transition happening in Europe. Photovoltaic and wind power, especially also the much more reliable off-shore wind power output has been expanded rapidly in recent years, substantially changing the energy mix in the EU. EV adoption is more of a mixed bag while there has been counterproductive lobbying by some future Nokia companies we are moving ahead, unlike the US for example. Even if slightly trailing China.

You are ignoring the part that was about the motivations that push for the transition, which isn’t about price. Those motivations are not going away, they are only getting more urgent. The rapid transition is a thing of recent years and has not been dragging on for decades.

You are also evading the question before. The only alternative to securing transition supplies is a harsh and sudden lack of supplies with lack in alternative capacities with severe impact on economy and might even necessitate emergency shutdowns. If you oppose the one thing you are necessarily in favour of the latter or evading reality.

Not necessarily. There is a risk for that but given how the push forces for the transition are primarily not market price driven that is not necessarily happening. I assume you are not making the crazy claim that one could stop using gas over night without massive negative economic if not systemic repercussions. Are you? If you are not, you need to secure supplies for the transition time, otherwise you have that very stop overnight.

It is the logical thing to do, prices are currently high and delivering oil is indeed a matter of energy security right now. For a time, as the EU is transitioning rapidly to renewable energies.

The EU is a slow moving train, at least when the roof isn’t already burning (in which case it can move a lot faster, even if still slower than nation states). The incredible complexity of the topic and centuries of fragmented history in the business don’t help either. But we should not confuse glacial speed with nothing happening. The EU is working on harmonising railways in a lot of different ways and some have already made a meaningful difference. Interoperatibility has generally improved. New projects are constructed generally according to pan-European standards etc. The booking issue is a tough nut to crack but from the recent news I take it that even the Commission is loosing patience and ready to unpack harsher instruments towards railway operators. On one side that helps them “motivate” to find proper solutions on their own, and if not, then doing it the hard way.