Verifying every claim you read on the internet is an impossible endeavor. It's much healthier for discourse if strong claims that aren't "general knowledge" for lack of a better term are ignored unless supplied alongside reliable sources or some sort of justification/explanation (and even then, making ridiculous claims and backing them up with heavily biased sources is a common tactic too).
This is mostly necessary in politically charged topics (energy generation (because that relates to climate change) and mentioning Russia specifically were both red flags to me) because spurious emotive bullshit and deliberate misinformation are very common.
This particular comment also didn't have enough information to be very useful - How much energy does the UK import from Russia? In what form? Has that amount changed recently? Why do you believe this is a bad thing? are all interesting questions the commenter could answer that would add to the conversation in a useful way.
Sadly, "burden of proof" has never gained traction despite its essential nature.
I really wish I were intelligent enough to systematize it, but billions of dollars have so far failed to establish procedures for sound reasoning. Or maybe just make those procedures commonplace.
This is a really interesting take I have not really thought about. Almost all internet discussions are littered with these one liner bold claims. Are they true? I have no idea but people upvote them anyway because they sound possible and important. Often they are partially true but reducing the topic to one line removes the important details.
Because it doesn't add anything except negativity to the discussion. There's no nuance, no sources, no reason why I should believe it. It's just a short, purely negative retort in the face of positive news.
Alright, these calculations aren't done at the point of consumption but instead the point of production.
The national based calculations hide the global chain of events and the interconnectedness of their economies through marketplaces.
It's a much harder calculation to figure out who's to "blame" for say, the cost of an electronics device that uses a dozen countries to manufacture or say even a food that is sourced in one country, processed in another, packaged in yet another, and then consumed in a fourth...
Do we assign everything to the point of consumption? That's not fair either. Distribute it over each?
That's what we currently do but it problematically hides the relationship. The British are still consuming textiles, they just aren't domestically manufacturing them. They may even still own the plants, they're just in, likely, Bangladesh which is seeing a ~5% annual CO2 increase.
That should matter if those things were made by the demand of British consumers but in our traditional models it doesn't go into Britain's bucket.
That makes it an accounting trick with no clear way to resolve it.
It would be like graphing the number of backyard burials for a culture that moved from the practice of backyard burials to cemeteries and mistaking it as if they somehow vanquished death and are now eternal except in a few very deadly places. We've moved towards globally centralized manufacturing.
There's lots of citations that can be made but the way things work are way different now then say in 1960.
For many reasons - primary would be the confusions of production of electricity and source of fuel to produce aforementioned electricity. Then the actually source of that Gas.
"However, in the UK, most of the natural gas imported comes by pipeline from Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium. There are no pipelines that allow Russian gas to flow to the UK from Norway (the biggest source of imports)."
