this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)

Europe

1511 readers
357 users here now

News and information from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)

(This list may get expanded when necessary.)

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

So we need the ECB to start QE in a big way to buy back government bonds. However the Saudis do not own too many.

We also have to go electric on transportation and that much much faster. Only a third of the EUs oil comes from the US and Norway. The rest comes from mainly dictatorships. Going green means supporting democracy. Staying on fossil fuels means supporting dictatorships.

[–] meldrik@lemmy.wtf 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I’m in agreement, but who produces the batteries? China…

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There are a lot of battery factories being built in the EU right now. Even if they come from China, it is a one time purchase and not a total dependence.

[–] meldrik@lemmy.wtf 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

True, but right now, a lot of the resources come from China. Solar is also something that is mainly from China. EU dropped that ball pretty fast.

[–] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

This might change in the near future some time ago(not to sure how long exactly) I read an Article about a massive ore field of the resources needed for electrical components being discovered in ~~Denmark~~ Sweden.

[–] federalreverse@feddit.org 1 points 4 months ago

Iirc: For certain materials like Lithium as well as Rare Earths, China basically has a monopoly on processing currently. E.g. with Lithium, Australia and Chile are major sources of the raw materials but virtually all of it is processed in China. Even if the raw materials come from the EU, there may be a major piece of the supply chain missing.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yep, even if you didn't care about the environmental aspect (which you should), not having to rely on dictatorships all over the place for your energy needs should be enough reason to transition away from fossil fuels.

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Dictators all stroking eachother off

[–] Mylemmy@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago

Typical villains remind me why we are allowing them to monopolize the sporting industry

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Is that the same Saudi Arabia that did 9/11?

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

At what point will a naked war for resources with Saudi Arabia make sense? Like if a leader went to the EU/America/Japan/Korea and said, "we're gonna take the Saud's oil and sell it for $25/barrel to everyone that helps us for 25 years." And then we went to the public and said, "25 years to get off oil for good" when does that ship?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Turns out people really don't like being ruled over by nakedly colonialist regimes, and when people really don't like things they tend to blow stuff up, and when people blow stuff up, it hurts the bottom line of oil companies, i.e. the only thing you care about for some reason.

Do you want to create a second Iran? Because that's what happened there.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's why we don't take all the oil, just the offshore oil. It's significantly more difficult to conduct terrorism when you have to swim to it.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the sea, a place famous for how difficult it is to get away with crimes. I see no flaws in your plan. The seas around the Arabian Peninsula specifically haven't had any notable activity from anti-Western rebel groups in 2024.

Here's a completely unrelated graph:

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How long do you think they (the Houthis) can keep it up?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

Well, let's see, they've been fighting the Saudis (backed by the US) for the last 20 years, and your brilliant plan to subjugate the region involves attacking their main enemy, so I would say, a pretty long-ass time.

[–] Foni@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The issue is that currently, the cost of extracting oil exceeds $25/barrel. Personally, I would be glad to see the Saud family ousted from Arabia, as there are countless reasons to consign those disgusting Salafists to the dustbin of history. However, reducing the price of oil at this moment is not feasible.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 points 4 months ago

This analysis is from 2019 and it doesn't break down the cost difference for onshore vs. offshore oil. But it estimates the cost for the Saudi's at $8.98/barrel (approximately $11.01 in todays dollars).

Do you have the analysis where it says $25+/barrel. It is certainly possible that production costs have risen significantly in the last half decade.

[–] bacondragonoverlord@feddit.org 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The issue with the Gulf Wars is that we wanted to control the oil resources via local proxy. Honestly, we (the US, I realize this is on the Europe@) could use our Navy to directly control about half of Saudi Arabia's oil and buy ourselves time to get off oil.

[–] bacondragonoverlord@feddit.org 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Lol welcome to Afghanistan. It's not armies marching in a straight line that will be the problem.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The Saudis don't have a Navy. About half their reserves and a massive chunk of Iran, Kuwait and the other Gulf State's reserves are in the Gulf. We don't have to set foot on the Peninsula.

[–] bacondragonoverlord@feddit.org 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Neither does Ukraine. Still decimated the russian navy.

Also to nip this whole "argument" in the bud, and I'm not even going into how terribly colonialistic your proposal is, how many billions of euro would you propose to put into essentially propping up a already dead technology. Fossil fuels have to be eliminated by 2050. Why wage war for something we won't even need in 25 years.

We WANT to increase fossil fuel prices. To hasten the change to renewables, the higher the potential savings the better.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Fossil fuels have to be eliminated by 2050. Why wage war for something we won't even need in 25 years.

I don't think that fossil fuel usage will be eliminated in 25 years given the opposition to mass nuclear deployment. I think this would ideally be a carrot that dictates green energy buildouts in exchange for subsidized oil.

[–] bacondragonoverlord@feddit.org 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My dude, but essentially that's whats already happening. No energy is cheaper than renewable energy. Every process we thus electrify and use renewables is not using fossile fuels.

Thus we have less of a need for subsidized oil.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 points 3 months ago

My dude, but essentially that’s whats already happening.

Yes but it's happening with Natural Gas as the baseline power generation method. Which is much better than oil or coal for carbon emissions, but it's not green.