[rewrewrewqf]

>it's just a type of "Beggar-thy-neighbour“ game theory failure

Funny how much international politics looks like a "game theory failure", right? If only we could get along!

I'm mostly looking at this from the perspective of the "begger" - hence me originally pointing out that, in the current narrative of countries that are doing badly with energy geopolitics, Germany is in much bigger trouble than the UK. You can be the nicest country in the world, but you can't really predict or change what others will do.

For that matter, why should other EU countries bail out (in the form of energy exports) another country that has become absurdly reliant on energy imports from a hostile neighbour?

>What does help, is everyone using less natural gas.

Humans have burned stuff to heat their homes since the dawn of humanity - it's hard to see what could possibly replace that, unless we go nuclear. Heat-pumps require quite specific circumstances to function efficiently.

[ZeroGravitas]

We don't have to replace it, well not in the short term. Just turning thermostats down a little, increasing insulation, stopping doing low value things with gas that we don't need to do, shifting electricity use to times when we have wind/nuclear available etc. is enough to ride this winter out.

And the whole point of "begger thy neighbour" is that it hurts you. So saying "I still really want to punish my neighbour because this is his fault" is literally punishing yourself. It doesn't make sense.

As I said, not a technical problem, a political problem.

[rewrewrewqf]

Your solutions are essentially what I've been doing for years - short of a benevolent government paying for people's lack of discretion when it comes to longer-term financial and energy planning, I don't see what could make people do any of that unless energy suddenly became more expensive.

>And the whole point of "begger thy neighbour" is that it hurts you

Not necessarily, and not necessarily across differing timeframes. Using the scenario at hand - Germany is reliant on a hostile regime to keep its lights and heating on. Why is it necessarily in some other country's own self-interest to send some of its own energy supply based purely on international economics, and not the needs of its own citizens?

A blind application of this "principle" would mean that less wealthy countries would be obliged to help out a wealthy neighbour in a time of distress, and just hope that the wealthy neighbour will be nice to them when they can. It assumes best intentions all around, which is nice but unrealistic.

[ZeroGravitas]

Okay, I see this reality isn't politically correct for you so I'll not push it too much.

If actual Conservatives can't convince you this is in your best interest then I have no chance.

But this is a good example of why the UK is and probably will continue to be hit hardest by this. The EU will be working together, and UK businesses will be selling out to them for profit, and the only politically acceptable solutions will be economic self-harm, leaving the UK with the worst possible outcome.

[rewrewrewqf]

>Okay, I see this reality isn't politically correct for you so I'll not push it too much.

You mean this idea that "beggar thy neighbour" is not in someone's self interest? You haven't explained why that is necessarily true. The (very short) wikipedia article you linked also does not talk about "punishing other countries", and in fact is specifically focussed on reducing imports. In the context of our original discussion, we were talking about how Germany is now being screwed by the country it has signed up to gas deals with. How does that fit with your "be nice to everyone" idea?