You mean to tell me a country who's entire luxury lifestyle is based almost solely off of oil money has a vested interest in keeping that money flowing no matter the ethical implications?? - colour me shocked!
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
233 points (99.2% liked)
World News
39107 readers
2248 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The infuriating thing is not that Saudis are doing this. The infuriating part is that the west still treats then like allies and protects them.
If politicians threaten Saudi Arabia's interests, they cut production just before an election, and dumb voters blame the government trying to curtail their influence.
So you can blame western governments, but western voters are just as much to blame.
I'll never not find it funny that americans think the president has two buttons that says: make gas expensive and make gas cheap
It's not wrong. Voters need to demand an infrastructure and options that allow them to not compromise their values when leading a normal life.
The thing is that most voters would be in favor of such a thing. Which is why those policies rarely find their way to polls. We don't live in a direct democracy. We live in an oligarchy.
Edit: Talking about the US here.
Yeah, it was a more general comment about the West. Including back-sliding democracies like the US.
You got to protect your drug dealer...
You mean to tell me that countries who buy the products have issue when their suppliers sell to other people?
If they UK have issue with fossil fuels they should actual act instead of pertending to care about global warming when the saudi tried to sell a product, and at the same time not doing anything to reduce their emissions.
In fact about 12 or something UK companies sign gas extraction deals with Isreal three weeks ago from the shores of Gaza..
You don't see a title: Isreal (hook) UK gas companies with (multi billion deal).
Solar is dropping in cost so fast and production is increasing so rapidly that in tandem with available modern connectivity/tech tutorials, I think the practical appeal of sustainable energy will outstrip corporate greed and national conspiracies of the sort mentioned in this article.
practical appeal of sustainable energy will outstrip corporate greed
Nah it'll just migrate to the battery manufacturers
What do you mean?
Battery manufacturers have as much to gain as anybody else from sustainable energy.
I mean corporate greed will not die with the oil companies, it'll live on in whomever takes their place
Let's hope so.
I reallllllly want solar. I have enough roof space that I think it might be entirely possible to offset my monthly usage and then some with the right investment.
Unfortunately, some 3000+ kW/mo costs me ~$170/mo and currently the best solar I could price out was going to run me quadruple that at best, with concessions.
I'm fine if it was...say...double the cost, but at the moment it just doesn't make financial sense.
Problem is...it comes down to timing and then it just feels like trying to time the stock market. I suppose I'll just do it one of these days...
Solar surplus depots is what you want.
The solar surplus stores remove "old" large installations from warehouses or universities and replace them with the newest panels, clean and check the solar panels they removed,put them in their warehouse, and then you can buy these three-year-old panels that still have near 100% efficiency for half the price at maximum, and usually cheaper.
I covered the roof of an RV with 200 watt panels that were $30 each and all five panels are still working today.
150 for 5 panels, 200 for a new inverter, 120 or so for the charge controller, a couple batteries and the RV had 1000kW for about $700 for about 4 years now. You want 3000kW, so your price will go up, maybe $2000 for the equipment, and then you just add installation costs if you're doing grid-tie.
You can call around and see if the handymen in your area know how to do installation for a reasonable fee if you don't want to do it yourself, but a surplus solar depot is the way to get cheap, quality solar.
Holy crap, you are amazing. I had no idea this was a thing! Thank you.
Sure thing. It's even worth it to drive a couple states over if you find a solid reseller, because the savings are so good and none of the technology has moving parts so it all works forever. Good luck, it's so cool to have a working solar system.
Well move to Europe then. 3000kWh will usually cost you (depending on the country) somewhere between $500 and $1500.
Is electricity subsidized where you live or something like that?
Been actually considering it!
I don't know. I live in a relatively rural area. The electricity is quasi-municipal. I know it was 2.5x higher when I lived closer to Portland, OR.
Yeah, your prices are very cheap by the standards of my country. I mean there are "EV" plans where I could maybe get that kind of price for a couple hours a day sometimes between 1am and 5am. But the rest of the day would be significantly more expensive.
What?! You're trying to tell me those rich dictatorship twats don't care about the harm they cause to the world just so they stay in power?
The only thing that will meaningfully drive people away from fossil fuels is cheaper, greener alternatives. The lack of investment in the West into making affordable options is leaving the door wide open for big oil producers... You can't deny a country their opportunity to develop, improve living standards, and pull people out of poverty for some nebulous "greater good" while you, with your brand new Tesla and brand new iPhone flying across the country in business on a brand new Boeing 787, talk about switching to clean energy. You need to make clean energy the economical choice in the first place.
Their plan to hike up the prices is probably going to work for limited time only or they are feeling that migration to clean energy already. Could be both as well.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Little was known about theoil demand sustainability programme (ODSP) but the investigation obtained detailed information on plans to drive up the use of fossil fuel-powered cars, buses and planes in Africa and elsewhere, as rich countries increasingly switch to clean energy.
The ODSP plans to accelerate the development of supersonic air travel, which it notes uses three times more jet fuel than conventional planes, and partner with a carmaker to mass produce a cheap combustion engine vehicle.
The ODSP is overseen by Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, the crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, and involves its biggest organisations, such as the $700bn Public Investment Fund, the world’s largest oil company, Aramco, the petrochemicals firm Sabic, and the government’s most important ministries.
In publicly available information, the programme is largely presented as “removing barriers” to energy and transport in poorer countries and “increasing sustainability”, for example by providing gas cooking stoves to replace wood burning.
To achieve this, fossil fuel emission must fall rapidly and most oil and gas reserves must be kept in the ground, meaning climate policies, such as support for electric cars, pose a significant threat to the oil-rich state’s revenues.
The ODSP is additionally targeting bus, ride-sharing and delivery services, according to the presentation: “The goal is to support the deployment of ICE fleets across developing countries to capture the increasing gasoline/diesel demand.”
The original article contains 1,298 words, the summary contains 226 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
And what about the other companies in that vertical? Do they get a pass too?
Great, we have the "what about X" comment. Now we just need "China pollutes more than US" and "I can't buy an EV because I drive 10.000 miles a day" comment and we can close this thread.
I commute to the moon and back uphill every single day. Battery power and ion drives just won’t cut it. That’s why I need a coal powered car.
It's usually the other way around on the china argument. "but the USA does imperialism too!"
What about the 'building new cars is bad for the environment', 'EVs are expensive', 'I'd rather use a bike', or 'I'd prefer the government invested in affordable public transport, rather than subsidize the upper middle-class in buying an overpowered status symbol produced by a company run by an anti-semite' argument?