I find it a huge red flag that the article tries to combine together several “woke” talking points. It often indicates that each points is a product of ideology more than anything else:
- the strange, I am quite sure straight up false, self-referring point about African and Asian metallurgists of the past, which basically add nothing to the core message
- A strong “degrowth” orientation based on a reduction of the demand, because steel production emits CO2. It seems to be the core message. It doesn’t address the issue the author himself raise that most steel is used for machinery or buildings
- A digression which tries to find an additional reason to reduce steel production: reducing potential war output. If someone needs two reasons for something it usually smells fishy, plus I would love to hear what the Ukrainians and NATO members have to say about reducing the already failing western arm production.
- A strong “degrowth” orientation based on a reduction of the demand, because steel production emits CO2. It seems to be the core message. It doesn’t address the issue the author himself raise that most steel is used for machinery or buildings
- A digression which tries to find an additional reason to reduce steel production: reducing potential war output. If someone needs two reasons for something it usually smells fishy, plus I would love to hear what the Ukrainians and NATO members have to say about reducing the already failing western arm production.