Is she right about Dubai?

[GemState]

@Shimbiris

There were a lot of Africans in the UAE when I was there last month, ton of Ethiopians especially.

 

[NidarNidar]

Renewable and nuclear energy are both viable options. Norway, for example, meets 90-95% of its annual power needs through hydropower. While Norway has a smaller population, not every country has the geographical advantage to rely on hydropower.

During my visit to the Netherlands, I saw some of the world's largest wind farms. However, wind energy only contributes about 15-20% of the country's total energy needs.

Meanwhile, China is making significant strides in nuclear energy innovation with its thorium-based reactors. These compact reactors are designed to be safe for the public and produce no harmful waste. If this technology becomes a reality, it could revolutionize energy production allowing cities to be powered by small underground reactors strategically placed throughout urban areas, on ships, and beyond.

Fossil fuel will still be king, we haven't even reached peak demand yet.

 

[Idilinaa]

Nothing about what I said was pessimistic because I don't ascribe value judgments based on the realistic readings. Innovations will occur if Allah wills, but as things stand today, that is not going to change with whatever these guys have cooked up. The only ambitious leap on this is fusion. They can only run those experiments for seconds, and they're intensive, not net energy drivers. I'm optimistic.
View attachment 356891

Maybe pessimistic is not quite the word, rather overly rigid and dismissive of technological progress.

The global transitioning is already happening. Africa's energy demand is rising, but that does not mean oil is the only solution.

Plus many African countries lack refining capacity, importing refined oil is expensive. Most new power plants being built in Africa are renewable, not oil-based.

While fusion is not yet a viable solution, it is not the only innovation happening in energy. Battery technology is advancing, energy efficiency is improving, and storage solutions are evolving. The cost of solar and wind energy has dropped dramatically, making them more competitive.

Energy transitions are not "wishful thinking" scenarios they are driven by necessity and technological progress.

 

[Idilinaa]

I don't know howe they could force their native pouplation to work. The people have gotten used to decades of living this way. A high skilled labor pool requires a competitive society . Look at east asia . There's nothing you could do to motivate a large chunk of the native pouplation to work 40+ hours a week.

You are absolutely right. Changing the work culture of Gulf natives is nearly impossible at this point. Even when Gulf countries try to push natives into the workforce, they demand high salaries and minimal hours.

The only thing i can think of that they will try to do to save themselves, is become more over-reliant of Automation and AI.

But this is only a partial solution because even if AI replaces cashiers, you still need humans for construction, maintenance, logistics, and service industries.

Even in AI-driven economies like Japan, South Korea, and Germany, human labor is still essential. Gulf countries have weak education systems and do not produce enough engineers, programmers, or scientists.

Replacing millions of workers with robots is expensive and impractical.

 

[The alchemist]

Maybe pessimistic is not quite the word, rather overly rigid and dismissive of technological progress.

The global transitioning is already happening. Africa's energy demand is rising, but that does not mean oil is the only solution.

Plus many African countries lack refining capacity, importing refined oil is expensive. Most new power plants being built in Africa are renewable, not oil-based.

While fusion is not yet a viable solution, it is not the only innovation happening in energy. Battery technology is advancing, energy efficiency is improving, and storage solutions are evolving. The cost of solar and wind energy has dropped dramatically, making them more competitive.

Energy transitions are not "wishful thinking" scenarios they are driven by necessity and technological progress.

You can be very immature at times.

This is not the first time a woman did personalized attacks on this very topic. A Somali one at that.

Take care, walaal.

 

[Idilinaa]

You can be very immature at times.

This is not the first time a woman did personalized attacks on this very topic. A Somali one at that.

Take care, walaal.

Disagreements are not personal attacks. I didn't call you any names.

You don't have to be overly attached to a certain point of view to the point that you feel you are being personally attacked if someone disagrees with you. It's healthy to disaagree with eachother, we might learn something in the process

 

[Rayaale]

@Shimbiris @NidarNidar @Hurder @NordicSomali @Taintedlove

The Gulf Economies (UAE, Kuwait, Qatar , Saudi etc) are doomed in the long run.

Oil is running out and at the same time fossil fuel is becoming less in demand.

The attempts diversify is not even working, they try to move away from it by building tourism, finance, and tech sectors but all rely on foreign labor and expertise.

Most of their "new industries" are still funded by oil money, meaning they are not self-sustaining.

They lack local human capital, most citizens are not involved in economic productivity.

You cannot "diversify" an economy that is 80% dependent on foreign workers. Local Gulf citizens lack the work ethic, technical skills, and industrial base to sustain these economies without oil.

Their extreme dependence on foreign labour & capital is their achilees heel. The Gulf economies rely almost entirely on migrant labor from construction to service industries.

For example 90% of Dubai’s workforce is foreign, what this means is that if the expats leave, the economy collapses.

Investors are already pulling out due to political instability, corruption, and declining oil revenues. Once oil revenues drop, these economies will no longer be attractive to investors or expats.

They also are losing influence and are weak innovators. Gulf nations have little technological innovation, they mostly import expertise from the West and Asia. China and India are developing their own energy independence, meaning they will not rely on Gulf oil forever. Western countries are diversifying their energy sources, weakening the Gulf’s geopolitical leverage.

They drive massive government spending into unrealistic mega projects , that don't create real economic growth. End up in-debt. Kuwait and Bahrain for example are struggling with rising debt.
Dubai and other Gulf cities are built on real estate bubbles, not sustainable industries.

Unlike countries like Japan, Singapore, or Norway, they did not build strong local industries.

I am also pretty sure they bit their own tail by entangling themselves into regional geo-politicial conflicts and threats, by playing manipulators and infighting. So it will all just converge into them once they don't have the wealth and influence defend against it.

Also Internal dissatisfaction will rise, since the native citizens are used to easy wealth but are now being forced to work harder. The elite ruling families will not survive and economic hardship will spread, they will all fall like domino.

Looks like UAE is the only gulf country which can survive, they have diversified their economy and were one of the first countries to open up

 

[NordicSomali]

I don't know howe they could force their native pouplation to work. The people have gotten used to decades of living this way. A high skilled labor pool requires a competitive society . Look at east asia . There's nothing you could do to motivate a large chunk of the native pouplation to work 40+ hours a week.

Necessity is the mother of invention, they will be bound to to work hard when the oil revenues start falling, but that’s a long time. The gulfs are not dumb, UAE alone has about $2 trillion invested in financial assets. If they curb their spending they will live good for decades, maybe a century.

 

[The alchemist]

Disagreements are not personal attacks. I didn't call you any names.

You don't have to be overly attached to a certain point of view to the point that you feel you are being personally attacked if someone disagrees with you. It's healthy to disaagree with eachother, we might learn something in the process

Now you're just being insincere.

I said you made it personal, as in, rather than conceding like a mature person, you in a desperate attempt tried to frame it like I have personal issues that stand central to this disagreement. If you understand the English language, that is a personal reframing. This is very simple.

It's not about me telling basic facts, it's that I am pessimistic, cynical or lack imagination and knowledge about technological progress, or apathetic to the dynamics of potentiality in the world; I'm rigid. This is not about the topic but personal.

Again, I have seen this kind of behavior in this very topic by another Somali woman and it is a tactic for the disingenuous and immature when they don't get their way in a discussion.

Part of the problem is that you approach this conversation through an ideological value-judgment of the modern Western environmentalism that wants to dominate the discourse by spreading a lot of unchecked nonsense that wants to monopolize an agenda that centers the West and their concerns first. That is what stands at the center of this disagreement. I question that by asking "is this true." Your responses to me were not.

By the way, this is not some global warming is a hoax thing. So don't even go there, although I know you'd love to do that typical pigeonholding. I've read a study measuring the deep-time environmental change in temperature in the Americas, and it showed human migration and occupation suddenly spiked the warming of the environment very quickly relative to 100s of thousands of years. So climate change is real, but the damage potential and the time-scale are something up for discussion. Needless to say, the scaremongering environmentalists that say the world is over in the next decade, every decade are wrong.

Ironically, the biggest capitalists will be the types to spearhead environmentalists' solutions. So this whole process is not totally genuine. Many of them want to control business paths and capitalize on them. You have regulatory capture, where Western elites sit in forums, dictating policies that are going to burden poor countries that are yet economically robust while they fit an agenda that is simple to transition and control for themselves, that is not going to be cost-effective for the developing world.

We have studies showing how climate change will affect developing countries more than countries that produce the highest carbon emissions:

The question is, if these so-called nice countries that care so much about the environment -- being that they're the ones that did almost all the damage -- why are they not taking up most of the burdens on themselves to fix the issue and the externalities that they caused in countries that will get ecological problems?

We have studies proving that environmental problems will not be big for Western countries:

"While climate change vulnerability has no statistically significant effect on income distribution in advanced economies, the coefficient on climate change vulnerability is seven times greater and statistically highly significant in the case of developing countries due largely to weaker capacity for climate change adaptation and mitigation."

If they were true, they would pay for the cost of the damage on poor countries as they not only produced these emission burdens but also live in countries where they will not have severe problems. Instead, they rather put economic burdens on poor countries that set equal carbon emission regulations, hurting industry productivity in poor countries that have not even reached the strong middle-income range.

Poor countries are in an impossible situation because these rich countries say (what they say in truth), "you will have to get new systemic disadvantages that limit growth." Yet poor countries need to become richer to deal with potential big problems in the first place, which means they have to increase their carbon emissions to get there.

The only way to fix the problems is to do a global restructuring. Rich countries reduce their emissions to a fraction of what they have in ways that don't hurt their economies (meaning they have to improve their science and technology), they pay the annual costs of problems that occur in the third world, then they allow poor countries to expand their emission levels to reach a set economic size, while the richer countries also delve into ways to replace fuel. This is one way to do it that balances the fairness and burdens while doing a realistic approach.

I know they are not going to do it, so we have to stop the nonsense peddling and see it for what it is. They do these kinds of bullshit:

"Fifteen years ago, wealthy nations pledged to channel $100 billion in climate aid to poorer countries by 2020. New analyses find that not only were rich nations two years late in meeting this goal, but much of the money was existing aid that had been relabeled as climate assistance, or it took the form of loans."

I'm not speaking from pessimism but merely the facts.

Long term, this will cause massive migrations in countries that are more stable, that have not been affected much because some regions might be too dry, and this will mean Europe and America will have millions upon millions of immigrants from countries in the future.

But keep deluding yourself into thinking I am just some guy with uninformed opinions. I have a more nuanced take based on what I see to be true than most people I have encountered in this topic (though, many try in sincerity because of environmentalist-centric worldview). Most people peddle uncritical aspects of this, based on goodwill, but they don't talk about the true realities.