alternative energy = resilient energy.
No amount of energy generation can stop blackouts if the power grid is tanking missiles and drones 3 times a week (on a good week). Sure, I’d love more green energy but I’ll settle for any energy right now.
TLDR we need more sanctions on russia so they run out of ammo, then we can go net positive on repairs.
The argument of this article is specifically pointing out that solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy are inherently less centralized, more resilient and less easy to knock out with one or two strikes by russia.
This isn’t about making a hard choice between the environmental thing to do and the thing that is going to help the most during a war, they are the same choice.
Not exclusively, obviously the answer is everything Ukraine can get right now but I think you are missing the point of the article if you are taking away from it that it is arguing for NOT utilizing fossil fuels to the fullest extent they are available for Ukraine right now. The point of the article is to emphasize that when it comes time to decide between investing in fossil fuel centralized infrastructure and alternative energy infrastructure the cold hard reality is that fossil fuel reliance makes Ukraine’s energy grid incredibly fragile.
This isn’t a specific criticism of Ukraine, it is just a point about why alternative energy is so much more valuable than brittle energy systems built on outdated, difficult to maintain and repair infrastructure that a terrorist state can target easily.
