this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2026
203 points (100.0% liked)

World News

56110 readers
1896 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 39 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Hopefully a push further into renewable energy will be a silver lining to come from all this.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago

You're not thinking like a bully with a $900 billion / year military!

[–] gressen@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Exactly, you cannot really affect a distributed source of energy the same way as oil.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In a way it already has been. China has invested so heavily into solar for two reasons: one was the crippling air pollution they were suffering but the other is that they rely almost entirely on foreign oil, and the Strait has long been a strategic weakness for them.

Their huge push into solar has driven down prices and improved efficiency for panels around the world, helping renewables actually become cheaper than coal, and a larger share of our energy generation than coal.

So to quote AI “you’re absolutely right!” And I think just the risk of what we’re now seeing has already driven this.

[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

True, there are other compelling reasons some countries have leaned heavily into renewables. China, like you say. Also Spain and a few other European countries. Probably other ones around the world too.

I just wish that movement had more momentum to it. A massive factor in why it hasn't taken hold more is because of lobbyists, corporate power, fear of change, and general inertia. Hopefully this situation with Iran is a fucking huge wakeup call to many with influence on this topic. Though I'm not going to hold my breath on that.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think people don’t know just how successful renewables are. Taken together, they are now the single largest global source of energy, having displaced coal.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2rz08en2po

Of course, we want to see even more momentum, because while renewables have surged, so has energy demand, so fossil fuel consumption isn’t quite falling yet.

But I think you may have more reason for optimism than your comment suggests. Conservative lobbyists are not succeeding in killing renewables, except perhaps in shithole countries like Texas.

[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They'll still use it to make tons of plastic though.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children)

And animal cruelty will be totally unaffected.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

When oil is 200/barrel industry will switch out of simple necessity.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The switch won't be instant though. There will be a lot more suffering from this kind of unplanned shift than there would have been from the kind of planned one environmentalists have been advocating for

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 4 points 1 month ago

We're way past a smooth transition. War is never something that should be cheered on, but if this if the kick in the pants humanity needs to break free from oil, that would be quite the silver lining

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

When it’s that high for years their hand may be forced. It’s a very slow ship to try to turn around.

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 38 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's not the Strait of Hormuz crisis, it's Trump's Epstein war

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 month ago

Yeah, I hate the word "crisis" here.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Yeah wow isn’t it crazy how the terminology just drifts… news outlets feel an obligation to be objective but in the face of pure stupid evil, that neutrality makes them an enabler.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

We essentally eat fossil fuels (fertilizer, mechanized tilling and harvesting, transformation, packaging, transportation), right? That's how bad this is. But green/regenerative/low-processing/local can mitigate the risk of these disruptions.

[–] 0tan0d@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We don't have to use as much. Manure still works its more work though and farmers love to optimize.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 1 points 1 month ago

But for manure you need the animals in first place, which we should also be trying to reduce, unless you mean goats 🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

With how the title is phrased, I'm tickled by the implication that we should eat sunlight and air instead.

[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We essentially already do, there are just a whole bunch of steps in between

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Sure but that's all transformative in nature. Unlike rocks which we do just eat outright.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Four billion people are fed by fossil fuels

Society has been built upon a house of cards. When a basic requirement of life (i.e. food) is dependent on a non-renewable resource, we set ourselves up for an inevitable breakdown unless we change course.

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

TBH I thought it was closer to 9 billion but that could be a rounding error.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago

It's probably that in some areas, they need to use fertiliser that's based on biproducts of fossil fuel production, or that's the electricity the farms use.

Though honestly pretty much every farm uses tractors and stuff that runs on fossil fuels too

[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I thought the Covid pandemic taught us that shorter, local supply chains were more robust and reliable in times of crisis. Have we forgotten that already?

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

didn't forget. you have to learn something in order to forget it.

the fact that as soon as there was a vaccine all corporate interests aligned and forced a return to office mandate should be enough to show that nothing was learned...well...at least nothing that valuable.

however, those of us who were paying attention learned something just as valuable.

you don't matter.

it's freeing frankly. I stopped putting in 16-20 hour days. now I only put in 2-3 hours of actual work and fill the rest with hobby projects.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Fuck me, I wish I still had the capacity to put in 16-20 hour days, just for a year, hell, half a year. I'd have all my debt paid off that my ex got into.

Instead I've been working 10 hour weeks. It's been helping me recover, but no progress on getting out of debt.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Supply chains exist so first world country can subsidize an industry they excel in and then export their manufacturng to emerging markets.

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago

And we were going to produce green hydrogen so we could produce the ammonia we need for fertiliser without fossil fuels. What ever happens from now on, the price of methane gas will be a lot higher, at least for a while.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

We don’t learn very well. If we did, we wouldn’t be in 90% of the messes we’re currently in. Human beings are largely very stupid, and I say that confidently because there are many of us who seem to be able to at least mostly handle this crazy, high-tech world, with our monket brains and all, just fine, so the rest of these idiots can absolutely go fuck themselves.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I hope this pushes the world towards alternative fuel sources

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If that could work, why did it take fossil fuels to reach 8 billion in the first place?

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I don't mean this in the "I'm just hurling an insult" way, but that is a genuinely stupid question.

It's stupid in the "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" way.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Yeah between fossil fuels, plastics, and petroleum based fertilizers, sometimes it seems like our entire world is made of oil.

[–] lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com 3 points 1 month ago

Don't worry! Trump will freshly tar the strait of Hormus and solve the problem that way. /s

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This sounds like exaggeration or media hype to me, just because the cheapest producer of the material has been knocked out doesn't mean the capacity for other countries to make more isn't there

Markets are elastic, that's part of how capitalism works, we compete against each other to sell a product and if the cheapest producer of goods in the market is out and prices go up then that gives others an incentive to come in and compete

In particular it would be good to see green ammonia expanded and higher prices may be just the incentive needed to push it along

I also highly doubt there will be any major famines out of this

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 month ago

Factories aren’t built overnight. Chemical processing equipment needs to be designed, ordered, built, and shipped. Capitalists need to be assured their return on capital, and this is still viewed as a temporary setback. Why spend a few billion to build a factory that might not be needed by the time it’s finished?

Production capacity of 1/4 of the world’s fertilizer is not something we just keep turned off. I expect there will be a lot of extra shifts but the price, make no mistake, will be significantly higher. Farmers won’t plant certain crops, market prices will go up, and some people will go hungry.

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 1 points 1 month ago

I just keep thinking of how Stalin and Mao were stupid and violent and killed tens of millions of their countrymen with famine through ignorant farming policies.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

What!? I thought we can feed ourselves with renewable electricity and wind power??

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

We can, but we actually have to use renewable energy for that to happen.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

we could use the magats as fertilizer but they would make everything taste like shit.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Who said we have fully extracted ourselves, worldwide, from fossil fuels...?

load more comments
view more: next ›