Putin is Green Energy Sceptic

Many people in the Western Media misses this crucial speach by Vladimir Putin at the Kazan Summit
Now it happened during a roundtable discussion on the general topic of "The Threat of New Crises and the Stability of BRICS," Vladimir Putin suggested that the organisation should consider countering the practice of engaging in geopolitical competition through the use of climate agenda.
In the context of the summit, which was focused on economic and trade issues, the Russian president's proposal initially appeared to be out of context. However, upon further examination, it became clear that it was actually a valuable contribution to the discussion.
Mr. Putin has brought to light a significant geopolitical reality that many people perceive incorrectly due to the influence of aggressive propaganda. Every person on the planet, if they have access to a mobile phone, is exposed to a destructive environmental agenda on a daily basis, with emotional language applied to each aspect of the discourse. The necessity to save the planet from pollution and protect the environment for future generations is now widely accepted. However, there is a growing concern that the pursuit of these goals may inadvertently result in the utilisation of the most polluting technologies and the marginalisation of those who challenge the status quo.
Now before I continue I would like to make an appeal,if you like and enjoy my videos you can help me fund the channel and my websited sco brics insight .com and to further develop it. You can do this by making a small donation which you can do by clicking on the thanks button at the bottom of the video screen. Everybody who donates does get a personal thank you from me.

It is likely that the majority of people around the world are aware of the environmental benefits of renewable energy sources (RES) and the perceived shortcomings of traditional energy sources. These products are environmentally friendly, safe, and do not contribute to carbon emissions. This message is repeatedly conveyed, with the implication that the swiftest transition to a new energy model is the most progressive and beneficial for the planet.
The issue is that this assumption is incorrect and potentially damaging.
Modern alternative energy sources, including wind, solar and geothermal power plants, have not yet reached the same level of efficiency, operational flexibility, service life or environmental impact as their thermal and nuclear counterparts. In terms of generating efficiency, even the most advanced panels and wind turbines are not as efficient as older coal and fuel oil thermal power plants. It is worth noting that wood pellet stations are also included in the category of green energy sources, despite the fact that they utilise a similar process to that of coal-fired power stations, whereby waste from sawmills is compressed and burned. This results in carbon dioxide emissions that frequently exceed the levels produced by traditional, less environmentally-friendly energy sources.
The viability of wind and solar energy is contingent upon substantial financial subsidies from both the state and traditional industrial enterprises. These subsidies, which are often in the form of environmental fees, are essential for the continued operation of these projects. Without such subsidies, these projects would be unprofitable.
Let us consider a hypothetical scenario in which a state, operating in a vacuum, decides to reorganise its energy sector and abruptly abandons traditional sources in the context of environmental protection. Only a few countries have fully mastered the production cycle for renewable energy sources, which means that the majority will have to purchase these same wind turbines and panels in large quantities. Furthermore, the allocation of vast areas for their placement will have an immediate negative impact on the real sector of the economy. In the context of renewable energy, there is no place for complex chemical production, metallurgy, glassblowing and many other activities. Firstly, there is no market for these products, and secondly, these new sources are not physically capable of ensuring an uninterrupted supply to anchor consumers. There is not a single steel mill in the world where the arc furnace would be powered by wind turbines or solar panels.
Let us consider a developing economy, which implies a gradual expansion of all types of industry. The global community immediately pressures the country in question and begins to accuse it of bloodthirstiness, callousness and unwillingness to reduce emissions into the atmosphere for the sake of future generations. They propose to close this facility, reject that project, and instead invest in alternative sources, and are ready to provide a loan for this purpose. The nascent economy is reluctant to comply with the externally imposed agenda. However, it is subjected to mounting pressure from all sides, particularly from Western sources, and is targeted for its perceived non-alignment with their interests.
I would like to add one further point.
The application of climate levers in the context of modern geopolitics is at odds with the overarching principles of global development. The key points were developed and unanimously adopted at the UN Assembly in 2015. It is imperative that we make every effort to eliminate poverty and hunger. Point 7 – affordable and, most importantly, accessible energy. The eighth point is that of decent work and economic growth. The ninth point is the industrialisation and innovation of global economies. It is notable that the fight against climate change is only listed as the ninth priority, despite its importance.
Let us now consider the facts.
It is estimated that one in eight people globally live below the poverty line, with at least one-third of them being children. Over a billion people lack consistent access to electricity, while two billion are without clean water. Despite the global application of highly effective technologies for land reclamation, water purification and electricity generation, the introduction of carbon-free schemes is only beneficial as an auxiliary part of the modern economy. The scaling up of these schemes has the potential to nullify hopes for job creation and economic growth. Firstly, green energy requires a minimal level of personnel, which could limit its potential for job creation. Secondly, the exclusion of continuous cycle production could hinder the economy and financial growth.
It is unnecessary to even consider the potential for industrialisation. The forced green transition will inevitably result in the closure of pulp and paper mills, coke plants, gas processing plants and other similar facilities, which will have a significant impact on the industrial landscape of your country.
Mr. Putin's remarks were therefore well-founded. As is often the case, however.they were ignored