There is no apt response other than for the over 50% of Americans who voted in favour of their current situation to all suddenly change their minds about gay frogs and space lasers and stolen elections. I can’t see it happening.
Uh... and Iran and the Straight of Hormuz?? Did you forget to mention that? Is that an election issue? And who funds the Houthis? And why would they want to close the straight to us? Is it something to do with supporting Israel? No? Ok.
> Even Saudis couldn't have stopped them. That's not particularly American election issue
Energy prices are absolutely an American election issue. And Iranian proxies seizing the Bab-el Mandeb–and the U.S. being unable to help Saudi Arabia respond militarily while Iran cements control of the Strait of Hormuz–is the direct result of an American foreign policy choice to, once again, blunder into a war in the Middle East.
Houthis were in a weird truce with Saudis and Yemeni government for the last few months. Without US war in Iran destabilising the area, I am pretty sure houthis diplomats wouldn't have been bombed by Saudi Arabia. They might have broken the truce anyway, Houthis still claim south Yemen (wrongly imho, South Yemen is probably the most secularised area of the middle east, probably due to its high literacy rates and Marxist leanings, this would be a really hard sell. Also, Houthis, like Saudis, and former north Yemen leaders, has a clan-based leadership, which isn't a thing at all in South Yemen).
Imho a peace over the old borders could have been possible without additional destabilisation from the US. The Iran war made that impossible. Hopefully a peaceful resolution can still be found, quickly.
I'm excited to see all the nutty takes about oil prices from the same people who don't belive in vaccines.
I kinda hope they bring back the old idea that oil is actually formed out of non-biological matter and so that means its just basically infinitly seeping up from the earth, we just have to drill a bit deeper. But I think that's a little too nerdy for them
When I was a kid in the 1980s, the scientific shows and authors all agreed that petroleum was made of dinosaurs. Triceratops and Brontosaurus had died ?? MYA and got compressed into the oil we're drilling for today.
It was only about 3 years ago when I learned that petroleum comes from almost anything organic. So, ferns and trees and moss, in addition to Velociraptor and Triceratops, I guess?
Perhaps the more accurate description would be that as a kid, you misunderstood descriptions that petroleum was from decayed organic material from long ago, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth.
You realize that vaccine hesitancy isn’t new and wasn’t a right wing thing? The right wing only has a disbelief about the covid vaccine and probably rightfully so. It went from: you can’t get it if youre vaccinated; okay you can get it but you can’t spread it; okay okay you can get it and spread but maybe the severity is reduced.
Measles was eliminated in the US by 2020. Texas had an outbreak last year with 2289 confirmed cases. They’re up to 2900 cases this year. The right-wing readily laps up all the misinformation it spews.
> There is no apt response other than for the over 50% of Americans who voted in favour of their current situation
Single-digit percentage points of turnout changes would swing the House and Senate. Double-digit percentage changes in voter turnout, as in 15 to 30 percent of unlikely-to-vote registered voters turning out for Democrats in deep-red Republican stronghods like Alabama and Mississippi, gives Democrats a Congressional supermajority.
MAGA voters aren't dropping their identity for a while. Possibly never. Most voters who aren't registered or don't vote are lazy and nihilstic and worth ignoring. But a tenth should be pitchable. In a reach, a third of them could find motivation.
You can't make it mandatory at the same time as restricting access to it. Voter participation in the US being low is a design feature. Having it on a Sunday, auto enrolling citizens, having more accessible polling places, etc would also increase participation.
> the over 50% of Americans who voted in favour of their current situation
Small nitpick: while Trump won the popular vote, he did not earn over 50% of the votes. There were enough third-party votes that he won with only 49.8%.
There will probably be a lukewarm response, delaying a reckoning in either direction. That's what keeps happening. Though that's assuming the election results aren't nullified somehow.
There won't be. Anytime the environment becomes a leading issue there are suddenly price issues which make people vote for short term solutions.
Gas is expensive. Food is expensive. Insurance is expensive. People will vote for whoever claims they'll lower prices, which usually means deregulation in the United States.
We have been borrowing against the environment for generations. Every burger we eat is a loan on the future. Every excessive piece of plastic that makes our lives more convenient is a loan on the future. No way in hell the average consumer chooses to give up anything while the rich and the politicians do nothing. Social media has convinced too many people that others are to blame and it's not their fault. Nobody will sacrifice their privilege while others carry on.
The time to take meaningful action was 40+ years ago. We are long past voters making a difference. Society needs to change drastically and now. That simply is not going to happen.
I’m guessing their solution is for us to be even more dependent upon oil?
The issue here is that we based our entire economy around a substance that is incredibly price-volatile, run by a cartel, and is plentiful mostly in places that are unstable or hostile to us. I think it’s crazy that we’ve completely normalized the idea that fuel needs to have prices listed outside a gas station because it changes so frequently. Imagine if supermarkets had to list the price of a loaf of bread outside because it kept changing so often.
And it’s really our own fault (or at least the fault of politicians bought by oil companies) because the dangers of oil dependence were obvious at least back in the 70s.
Braess's/Pigou's Paradox that more car lanes cause more traffic was found in the 1920's. We massively overbuilt for the car regardless and keep getting worse traffic to this day.
> Braess's/Pigou's Paradox that more car lanes cause more traffic was found in the 1920's.
The paradox is that it _can_ cause worse traffic, not that it always does. American cities are built like shit for transport, but it's not as simple as "roads too big, therefore traffic". Sprawl is a much bigger (and more difficult to do ~anything about) issue.
Faster CPUs cause people to run larger programs. Egad! Nobody needs more than 100 MHz! Ban FLOP inflation now before Big Silicon makes us burn any more electricity.
The enmity between "the West" and "the middle east" goes back to the islamic colonisation era which created a religious incentive to "fight the infidels" and/or plunder and enslave them.
I challenge you to find one time period or some states/tribes which did not plunder and enslave each other throughout history. I'm fed up with all this "oh but they did it first" - everybody did it first and that's still no reason to continue doing it with the children of their children.
In ancient times everyone plundered each other unless they were allies, it was just how the world operated at the time I think it was probably more of a survival tactic "plunder or get plundered".
> guessing their solution is for us to be even more dependent upon oil?
They're competent enough to be able to model the demand destruction occuring globally.
In the meantime, I believe 60% of American oil imports come from Canada, to the point that the net budget effects of Trump's trade war plus war in Iran is looking likely to swing between negligible to positive for Canadian public finances.
Really. When answering the "Qui Bono?" question the lion's share of the profits go to ... the governments of countries where the oil is sold (ie. EU governments, US, ...). A little under half the price is pure taxes, which adds nothing to the product.
Pretty sure at the moment their solution is to shout about this far and wide so when it actually happens they don't get lynched by the crowd.
This has never worked before. Why not? Because the government, who are responsible this time and previous times, are going to blame them because they "set the price" (except of course they set the last 1% or so of the price, which makes them a very nice profit, the 99% is the government, for example, there isn't a single EU country that doesn't levy a 80% tax on fuel, so the government could just halve the price. Could ... but won't. And let NOBODY ask "if 1% gives a very nice profit ... doesn't that mean 50% ...")
This is disregarding that obviously one way to look both wars, in Ukraine, the problem is EU governments failing to come to a workable relationship with Russia, and Iran and Trump, well does it even need to be said? Despite the news, I will say that the Ukraine war in Europe is by far the bigger factor. Obviously both wars fundamentally are failures of politicians to do what they're supposedly good at, come to acceptable solutions for everyone. And this accounts for ~60% of the price of oil before any other tax ...
These taxes are part of the reason Russia and Iran are making war and every other oil nation complains constantly. They find this unfair, given that it's their oil that's being sold. They're still bound by market forces, meaning the price is determined by supply and demand like any other product, BUT supply is artificially and drastically made more expensive than it really is, and that money doesn't benefit who it benefits for every other product (ie. not the producer, not even the producer country's government). Per liter the costs are about:
~€0.25 exceptional current refining/product scarcity spread
~€0.05 ethanol/blending/product logistics/etc.
€0.23 Belgian distribution
€0.014 strategic stocks
€0.60 excise
€0.382 VAT
Who profits?
Saudi government (much better than almost all other producers): 0.46 euro per liter (of that, you can never be absolutely sure, but arguably about 0.3 euro per liter is due to EU and US politicians not managing to prevent wars with oil producers)
Oil companies REVENUE (of which 6% or so is profit): 0.25 (this 0.25 is ENTIRELY due to the wars as well, not because supply is limited but because oil companies are forced to start from inferior products) + 0.23 + 0.05 = 0.52
The total amount of the 2 above is constant, because global market, but the split between oil companies and governments varies, and is generally much worse to oil producer governments.
Standard EU government cut, taking Belgium example (because Brussels = Belgium): 0.60 + 0.382 + 0.014
The "real" oil price RIGHT NOW (with the war price hikes) is about 0.5 euros per liter. That includes the massive oil company profits. 0.46 (or less) goes to governments of oil producing nations, 0.99 goes to the government where the oil is sold as fuel.
A great gesture would be to, say, limit the excise tax to 0.4 (which is still more than the government got 1st Jan 2023, before the governments' failures)
Okay, you want my frank opinion on that? The job of EU politicians is to either:
1) "suck up to Russia" (or let's put it politely: have a working economic relationship with Russia)
2) actually END THE WAR, as in honestly say to people that we're going to war, because that's exactly what EU sanctions are going to accomplish, and understand that this is what 10% or more of the economy will be dedicated to that for let's say a decade, and of course, missiles will be coming in for that time.
I would even go so far to say that it seems to me likely in the extreme that Germany, and by that I mean Schroeder and Merkel, promised Russia they would be allowed to conquer Ukraine (look at their UN votes after the Crimea annexation for example) ... and obviously they didn't deliver, and that, combined with Ukraine actually managing to save themselves against German wishes, is what's making the Ukraine war happen.
The reaction of Germany to this? To prepare for war, of course. Note: war, as in marching German soldiers into war. NOT defending Ukraine.
Like in any war I've ever seen, all actors in the Ukraine war have despicable behavior. They're not "equal" morally in any shape or form, but none of the actors are behaving morally, even judged by their own morals. Russia is by far the worst, then Germany, and Ukraine is mostly a victim (but that hasn't stopped them from making a few very questionable decisions either)
My problem with sanctions is the following. Russia, when push comes to shove, is trading oil with the EU because it economically benefits them. Why do they go to war? Frankly, to avoid these taxes. If you look deep down, that's the reason.
Let's assume sanctions aren't more than Russia can handle (as in, strong enough to bring the Russian state down), and EU sanctions aren't, then what do sanctions actually do?
They increase Russia's reasons to go to war with the EU while still allowing Russia's army to become stronger. Increasing both the ability and the appetite of the Kremlin to attack. Hence, why I'm saying the sanctions are effectively trying to get Russia to start a war with the EU.
And you're not telling me anyone who's good enough of a negotiator to get into parliament or government doesn't understand this DAMN well.
Germany is purposefully causing a war between the EU and Russia because
1) it doesn't require a budget item to be approved. It's cheap.
2) they don't look like that's what they're doing. Especially not to young Germans (who will be doing all the dying)
How is Russia's army becoming stronger? They have lost so much people and equipment. Why would they attack EU when they can't defeat Ukraine after so many years? Are you suggesting they will perform a suicide attack against EU, cause as much damage as they can, and get absolutely destroyed in return?
Russia is making a profit under EU sanctions with oil sales to the EU, especially to Greece and Spain. If they're not using that to become stronger they are complete morons.
Please remind me quickly, who invaded who already? Germany what? Maybe in 1939, but definitely not in 2014. And there was no Ribbentrop-Molotov pact between Merkel and Putin, let's stop inventing things for the sake of an imaginary argument. So on short: Russia invaded the Ukraine because why not, the Eastern Europe and more is now on fire thanks to that, and I must read here funny numbers and how Russia doesn't like sanctions (duh, that's the whole point of sanctions).
You want to assign blame through an absolute moral standard? My God. The problem is that this is war. Nobody is behaving morally, in an absolute standard (frankly even outside of war that's the case). And I can't believe a rational person would actually say that:
"So on short: Russia invaded the Ukraine because why not, ..."
Believe it or not, Putin is a mass murderer. But even a mass murderer needs a good reason to spend 70%+ of a country's total income on destroying everything in sight for 8 years flat.
And as for guilt. "Why not" in your argument, includes France, US, UK and Germany vetoing any kind of serious reaction to Russia invading and annexing Crimea despite having signed agreements they would ... and then modifying those agreements afterward.
Currently russian war is eating close to 50% of their federal budget. That's WW2 levels of militarism for nearly zero gain (current battlefield status, not 2022-2025) and huge manpower and infrastructure losses.
> Germany is purposefully causing a war between the EU and Russia because
No, Germany does what it does because it has no strong or even good leaders and failed to adapt to current circumstances. There is no purpose.
I can't even thank you enough. Just for speaking the truth about the complexity of it all.
Politicians are failing because majority can't even acknowledge the complexity. More worried about saving themselves then speaking candidly. There are a few that do, but sabotaged by the rest.
> run by a cartel, and is plentiful mostly in places that are unstable or hostile to us.
If by "we" you mean the United States, it's worth noting that the US is a net exporter of fuel products and our net imports of crude oil have dropped a lot.
> Imagine if supermarkets had to list the price of a loaf of bread outside because it kept changing so often.
This actually happens when prices become volatile. Not long ago I could see the prices of eggs posted outside different stores on my drive home.
OK you got 4 years of tenure to rebase economy on something else.
First step - you'll need copper so we can have enough generators, power for DCs, EVs, etc. Current world capacity 23 million tones per year and supplies are shaky due to concentration in rocks going down, but we need additional 10 million tons of capacity by 2035. How many copper mines are you opening? Are you going to subsidize the workers to a tune of $100 per hour?
I can't read the article either, but my understanding of the various factors is this:
* Houthis have taken control of all of the Yemeni coastline along the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait (and an island in the middle of it), which gives them the ability to effectively interdict trade through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, just as Iran has shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
* Not that it matters that much, because the Saudi pipeline that lets it export crude via Yanbu, in the Red Sea, has been disabled, and current estimates suggest that the recovery time is in weeks-to-months. That's about 4-5mbpd of crude oil that's down for the near feature, or about 4% of global crude oil production.
* Now that the summer driving season is over, US refineries are starting to switch from summer blends to winter blends, and this is one of the periods that refineries go down for maintenance. So US refinery capacity is down.
* The supply shock has been mitigated for the past several months by drawing down reserves (note that reserves were relatively high when the war started). This includes both national strategic petroleum reserves, but also corporate reserves (e.g., tanks on-site at refineries). It seems some of these reserves are starting to hit effective 0.
* On top of this, Trump is making it more and more clear that he has no intention of actually doing anything to end to the crisis. For example, he's effectively said that he's not going to do anything before the midterm elections, two months away. Which means the market optimism that the war is going to be over, like, tomorrow is fading.
How much land, time, and money, per citizen, would it take to put down enough solar cells to generate each person's basic electrical supply? Is it less than $5K?
Our house is all-electric. We have a 60 panel, 24 kw array that would probably cover all of our needs if it weren't shaded in the afternoon, and we have a real winter here, so the heat pump runs hard, and we use a substantial amount of electricity. About 1250 square feet of panels in total. Equipment costs about $20k-$30k in the US, not including batteries or electrician install. The actual array was pretty easy to set up.
On the global market, you can get the equipment for much less, the same inverter is a fraction of the cost that the UL listed American company version costs, the panels are a good bit less. But in the US, this stuff gets marked up pretty hard.
If your main load is for summer A/C, with a mild winter, the generation and usage line up much better.
Yeah things are very frugal here (my wife is especially frugal) so without AC it's pretty much just PC, two fridges, water heater, knickknacks like toaster, foodprocessor, etc. Stove and grill is gas, and kerosene heaters for when it drops below 10c. We could easily get by with a grid well below 10k usd I'm guessing
It looks like solar can already power about a third of American household demand, and is on track to get to two thirds within five years [1]. (Commercial and utility is leading the acceleration, even into Q2 2026.)
Electrical generation is largely separate from imported crude oil (what the article is about).
It takes a lot more than $5K to build a system that can replace a household's energy use. For 24 hour coverage you need substantial battery capacity, too.
To cover theoretical EV charging it gets even more expensive.
Prices continue to come down, but it still takes a lot to actually replace all of a household's energy usage with solar.
Civilisations will end before all oils underground is completely extracted, obviously. Because the harder to extract will remain were it stands, and civilisations will turn attention to other forms of energy.
Oil tankers move about as fast a bicycle. If fuel prices start really spiking tomorrow and the conflict is resolved the very next day, the crisis will still last as long as it takes for bicycles to fan out across the globe. i.e. Probably a month or two. At least.
If a resolution to the conflict is not reached in very short order (i.e. days, not weeks), the crisis will be in full swing right when the midterms are going on. Of course, foresight and the ability to understand consequences do not seem to be strong points of this administration.
80 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 41.1 ms ] threadA single molecule of water isn't wet. But wouldn't it be correct to say that a collection of them are? They're "wetting" each other...
E10 petrol is £1.64/L, for ref.
Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil refineries. That's not particularly American election issue.
Energy prices are absolutely an American election issue. And Iranian proxies seizing the Bab-el Mandeb–and the U.S. being unable to help Saudi Arabia respond militarily while Iran cements control of the Strait of Hormuz–is the direct result of an American foreign policy choice to, once again, blunder into a war in the Middle East.
Imho a peace over the old borders could have been possible without additional destabilisation from the US. The Iran war made that impossible. Hopefully a peaceful resolution can still be found, quickly.
I kinda hope they bring back the old idea that oil is actually formed out of non-biological matter and so that means its just basically infinitly seeping up from the earth, we just have to drill a bit deeper. But I think that's a little too nerdy for them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
It was only about 3 years ago when I learned that petroleum comes from almost anything organic. So, ferns and trees and moss, in addition to Velociraptor and Triceratops, I guess?
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED343791.pdf?utm_source=c...
Single-digit percentage points of turnout changes would swing the House and Senate. Double-digit percentage changes in voter turnout, as in 15 to 30 percent of unlikely-to-vote registered voters turning out for Democrats in deep-red Republican stronghods like Alabama and Mississippi, gives Democrats a Congressional supermajority.
MAGA voters aren't dropping their identity for a while. Possibly never. Most voters who aren't registered or don't vote are lazy and nihilstic and worth ignoring. But a tenth should be pitchable. In a reach, a third of them could find motivation.
i swear to gods, the australian method of mandatory voting is the benchmark best way to do it.
Small nitpick: while Trump won the popular vote, he did not earn over 50% of the votes. There were enough third-party votes that he won with only 49.8%.
Gas is expensive. Food is expensive. Insurance is expensive. People will vote for whoever claims they'll lower prices, which usually means deregulation in the United States.
We have been borrowing against the environment for generations. Every burger we eat is a loan on the future. Every excessive piece of plastic that makes our lives more convenient is a loan on the future. No way in hell the average consumer chooses to give up anything while the rich and the politicians do nothing. Social media has convinced too many people that others are to blame and it's not their fault. Nobody will sacrifice their privilege while others carry on.
The time to take meaningful action was 40+ years ago. We are long past voters making a difference. Society needs to change drastically and now. That simply is not going to happen.
The issue here is that we based our entire economy around a substance that is incredibly price-volatile, run by a cartel, and is plentiful mostly in places that are unstable or hostile to us. I think it’s crazy that we’ve completely normalized the idea that fuel needs to have prices listed outside a gas station because it changes so frequently. Imagine if supermarkets had to list the price of a loaf of bread outside because it kept changing so often.
And it’s really our own fault (or at least the fault of politicians bought by oil companies) because the dangers of oil dependence were obvious at least back in the 70s.
The paradox is that it _can_ cause worse traffic, not that it always does. American cities are built like shit for transport, but it's not as simple as "roads too big, therefore traffic". Sprawl is a much bigger (and more difficult to do ~anything about) issue.
Plentiful in places we keep making unstable and hostile to us by bombing.
https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-...
The enmity between "the West" and "the middle east" goes back to the islamic colonisation era which created a religious incentive to "fight the infidels" and/or plunder and enslave them.
Some it was true, but most times it also cost your life. Never simple.
They're competent enough to be able to model the demand destruction occuring globally.
In the meantime, I believe 60% of American oil imports come from Canada, to the point that the net budget effects of Trump's trade war plus war in Iran is looking likely to swing between negligible to positive for Canadian public finances.
Pretty sure at the moment their solution is to shout about this far and wide so when it actually happens they don't get lynched by the crowd.
This has never worked before. Why not? Because the government, who are responsible this time and previous times, are going to blame them because they "set the price" (except of course they set the last 1% or so of the price, which makes them a very nice profit, the 99% is the government, for example, there isn't a single EU country that doesn't levy a 80% tax on fuel, so the government could just halve the price. Could ... but won't. And let NOBODY ask "if 1% gives a very nice profit ... doesn't that mean 50% ...")
This is disregarding that obviously one way to look both wars, in Ukraine, the problem is EU governments failing to come to a workable relationship with Russia, and Iran and Trump, well does it even need to be said? Despite the news, I will say that the Ukraine war in Europe is by far the bigger factor. Obviously both wars fundamentally are failures of politicians to do what they're supposedly good at, come to acceptable solutions for everyone. And this accounts for ~60% of the price of oil before any other tax ...
These taxes are part of the reason Russia and Iran are making war and every other oil nation complains constantly. They find this unfair, given that it's their oil that's being sold. They're still bound by market forces, meaning the price is determined by supply and demand like any other product, BUT supply is artificially and drastically made more expensive than it really is, and that money doesn't benefit who it benefits for every other product (ie. not the producer, not even the producer country's government). Per liter the costs are about:
€0.02 Saudi lifting
€0.04 Saudi upstream investment
€0.52 crude resource/market value
€0.05–0.07 physical refining
€0.02–0.04 refinery capital/maintenance/compliance
~€0.25 exceptional current refining/product scarcity spread
~€0.05 ethanol/blending/product logistics/etc.
€0.23 Belgian distribution
€0.014 strategic stocks
€0.60 excise
€0.382 VAT
Who profits?
Saudi government (much better than almost all other producers): 0.46 euro per liter (of that, you can never be absolutely sure, but arguably about 0.3 euro per liter is due to EU and US politicians not managing to prevent wars with oil producers)
Oil companies REVENUE (of which 6% or so is profit): 0.25 (this 0.25 is ENTIRELY due to the wars as well, not because supply is limited but because oil companies are forced to start from inferior products) + 0.23 + 0.05 = 0.52
The total amount of the 2 above is constant, because global market, but the split between oil companies and governments varies, and is generally much worse to oil producer governments.
Standard EU government cut, taking Belgium example (because Brussels = Belgium): 0.60 + 0.382 + 0.014
The "real" oil price RIGHT NOW (with the war price hikes) is about 0.5 euros per liter. That includes the massive oil company profits. 0.46 (or less) goes to governments of oil producing nations, 0.99 goes to the government where the oil is sold as fuel.
A great gesture would be to, say, limit the excise tax to 0.4 (which is still more than the government got 1st Jan 2023, before the governments' failures)
1) "suck up to Russia" (or let's put it politely: have a working economic relationship with Russia)
2) actually END THE WAR, as in honestly say to people that we're going to war, because that's exactly what EU sanctions are going to accomplish, and understand that this is what 10% or more of the economy will be dedicated to that for let's say a decade, and of course, missiles will be coming in for that time.
I would even go so far to say that it seems to me likely in the extreme that Germany, and by that I mean Schroeder and Merkel, promised Russia they would be allowed to conquer Ukraine (look at their UN votes after the Crimea annexation for example) ... and obviously they didn't deliver, and that, combined with Ukraine actually managing to save themselves against German wishes, is what's making the Ukraine war happen.
The reaction of Germany to this? To prepare for war, of course. Note: war, as in marching German soldiers into war. NOT defending Ukraine.
Like in any war I've ever seen, all actors in the Ukraine war have despicable behavior. They're not "equal" morally in any shape or form, but none of the actors are behaving morally, even judged by their own morals. Russia is by far the worst, then Germany, and Ukraine is mostly a victim (but that hasn't stopped them from making a few very questionable decisions either)
My problem with sanctions is the following. Russia, when push comes to shove, is trading oil with the EU because it economically benefits them. Why do they go to war? Frankly, to avoid these taxes. If you look deep down, that's the reason.
Let's assume sanctions aren't more than Russia can handle (as in, strong enough to bring the Russian state down), and EU sanctions aren't, then what do sanctions actually do?
They increase Russia's reasons to go to war with the EU while still allowing Russia's army to become stronger. Increasing both the ability and the appetite of the Kremlin to attack. Hence, why I'm saying the sanctions are effectively trying to get Russia to start a war with the EU.
And you're not telling me anyone who's good enough of a negotiator to get into parliament or government doesn't understand this DAMN well.
Germany is purposefully causing a war between the EU and Russia because
1) it doesn't require a budget item to be approved. It's cheap.
2) they don't look like that's what they're doing. Especially not to young Germans (who will be doing all the dying)
"So on short: Russia invaded the Ukraine because why not, ..."
Believe it or not, Putin is a mass murderer. But even a mass murderer needs a good reason to spend 70%+ of a country's total income on destroying everything in sight for 8 years flat.
And as for guilt. "Why not" in your argument, includes France, US, UK and Germany vetoing any kind of serious reaction to Russia invading and annexing Crimea despite having signed agreements they would ... and then modifying those agreements afterward.
Currently russian war is eating close to 50% of their federal budget. That's WW2 levels of militarism for nearly zero gain (current battlefield status, not 2022-2025) and huge manpower and infrastructure losses.
> Germany is purposefully causing a war between the EU and Russia because
No, Germany does what it does because it has no strong or even good leaders and failed to adapt to current circumstances. There is no purpose.
> young Germans (who will be doing all the dying)
They won't.
Politicians are failing because majority can't even acknowledge the complexity. More worried about saving themselves then speaking candidly. There are a few that do, but sabotaged by the rest.
If by "we" you mean the United States, it's worth noting that the US is a net exporter of fuel products and our net imports of crude oil have dropped a lot.
> Imagine if supermarkets had to list the price of a loaf of bread outside because it kept changing so often.
This actually happens when prices become volatile. Not long ago I could see the prices of eggs posted outside different stores on my drive home.
I don't think they'll post bread prices outside, they'll just use e-ink digital price tags.
But you won't have to wait long for food prices to become wildly volatile in the upward direction...
As the price of diesel fuel continues to skyrocket, so will the the price of bread (and every other physical item you buy).
People think inflation is bad now, later this year and in 2027 it is going to be so, so much worse on the current trajectory.
First step - you'll need copper so we can have enough generators, power for DCs, EVs, etc. Current world capacity 23 million tones per year and supplies are shaky due to concentration in rocks going down, but we need additional 10 million tons of capacity by 2035. How many copper mines are you opening? Are you going to subsidize the workers to a tune of $100 per hour?
https://wixx.com/2026/09/11/chevron-ceo-says-depleted-crude-...
* Houthis have taken control of all of the Yemeni coastline along the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait (and an island in the middle of it), which gives them the ability to effectively interdict trade through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, just as Iran has shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
* Not that it matters that much, because the Saudi pipeline that lets it export crude via Yanbu, in the Red Sea, has been disabled, and current estimates suggest that the recovery time is in weeks-to-months. That's about 4-5mbpd of crude oil that's down for the near feature, or about 4% of global crude oil production.
* Now that the summer driving season is over, US refineries are starting to switch from summer blends to winter blends, and this is one of the periods that refineries go down for maintenance. So US refinery capacity is down.
* The supply shock has been mitigated for the past several months by drawing down reserves (note that reserves were relatively high when the war started). This includes both national strategic petroleum reserves, but also corporate reserves (e.g., tanks on-site at refineries). It seems some of these reserves are starting to hit effective 0.
* On top of this, Trump is making it more and more clear that he has no intention of actually doing anything to end to the crisis. For example, he's effectively said that he's not going to do anything before the midterm elections, two months away. Which means the market optimism that the war is going to be over, like, tomorrow is fading.
On the global market, you can get the equipment for much less, the same inverter is a fraction of the cost that the UL listed American company version costs, the panels are a good bit less. But in the US, this stuff gets marked up pretty hard.
If your main load is for summer A/C, with a mild winter, the generation and usage line up much better.
[1] https://seia.org/research-resources/us-solar-market-insight/
It takes a lot more than $5K to build a system that can replace a household's energy use. For 24 hour coverage you need substantial battery capacity, too.
To cover theoretical EV charging it gets even more expensive.
Prices continue to come down, but it still takes a lot to actually replace all of a household's energy usage with solar.
If a resolution to the conflict is not reached in very short order (i.e. days, not weeks), the crisis will be in full swing right when the midterms are going on. Of course, foresight and the ability to understand consequences do not seem to be strong points of this administration.