To me it is like giving crack to a crack feind. Takes care of the problem short term but still stuck in the same spot. Basically the US is an oil fiend and will do anything and I mean anything to get our hands on it. For the long term prupose I have no idea …do you?

  • Jhex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    They are not trying to wean off oil… the Orange pedophile regime is actually looking at paying a BILLION dollar to cancel existing wind farms so that the USA depends harder on fossil fuels

    That is the equivalent of a terminal alcoholic deciding coffee is woke and switching it with bourbon for breakfast

  • redsand@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    This isn’t about oil. This is about “Greater Israel”, zionism and the most powerful blackmail ring in the world run by Mossad and the CIA.

  • Devolution@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Get rid of Conservatives. That’s your first step. Their regressive nature makes moving past fossil fuels next to impossible.

    • Ttangko@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Imo the two party system basically always devolves into two pro-authoritarian parties, sponsored by capital owners.

      like I’d say the “democrats” are just a GOP-light version in terms of representing and realizing progressive topics. Even in parliament systems I feel like this is an issue, greens become more and more conservative in some countries, and esp a certain middle-left party, I have in mind, is basically just doing what the conservatives want with no own agenda anymore… so in 2 party systems this overton-window shift seems even easier to establish idk

  • zxqwas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 hours ago

    The US have been a net exporter of oil since 2020 something due to domestic shale oil. The meme about US starting wars to get more oil was probably valid in 2003 but not in 2026.

    What they can do is try to cause a 1970s oil crisis in China, who is a net importer. China can and does invest massively in EV, solar and wind to reduce this vulnerability.

    • village604@adultswim.fan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      We export it because it’s harder to refine, not because of a domestic oil surplus. We’ve already depleted our reserves.

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Yep, even in 2003 it was about controlling/disrupting the oil markets a lot more than the US personally wanting more oil. But that’s a more difficult concept to grasp than “US wants peoples oil!” so that’s the message that spread!

  • Janx@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    To me it is like giving crack to a crack feind. Takes care of the problem short term

    What are you talking about? In what reality is supplying an addict with their addiction “taking care of the problem”, either short, medium, or long-term?? Obviously there’s parallels to America’s oil addiction, but that sentence doesn’t make any sense…