this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2026
525 points (99.4% liked)

World News

58310 readers
1306 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

Ask Historians !askhistorians@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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Group of Seven Nations agreed Friday to release 100 million barrels of oil from its stockpiles—following a desperate plea from the White House.

The G7 held an emergency meeting Friday morning to discuss global energy costs. The discussion came in the wake of a pressing call between Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron, during which the U.S. leader asked for assistance amid the current oil crisis and floated the idea of banning U.S. diesel exports, according to CBS Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Margaret Brennan.

Donald Trump announced after the meeting that “Europe has just agreed to release a massive amount of their heavily stocked Diesel Oil. The process will begin immediately.”

The European barrels are expected to hit the market over the next four months.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 32 points 2 days ago (3 children)
[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Of course my representatives are cowards like usual. No wonder the far right gains more traction here every day. I'm not fooled by them, but when the actual leadership is this retarded it's not hard to fool most of the idiots.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago

What they actually said:

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Foni@piefed.zip 16 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Serious question: if Europe were to fully commit to installing renewables, how much dependence on diesel would it maintain in, say, one year? I mean really putting it all in, like a war economy but with this

[–] filister@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (5 children)

The whole transportation business run on diesel. There are currently no good truck EVs and if there are they will require special charging stations, so it would be very difficult to change to renewables and EV overnight.

We will still be dependent on petrol though, but much less, but petrol is needed in the chemical industry for the production of plastic, for plane fuel, etc.

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 6 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Don't forget freight ships. A quarter or so of worldwide commerce is international shipping by sea. I'm not aware that there's any commercially viable solution for powering these ships with renewables. The closest I know of are US Navy Carriers, which don't require diesel, but they're powered by nuclear reactors, which are neither renewable nor commercially viable (not that the USN would care about profitability) and require a huge amount of expertise to maintain.

[–] SleeplessCityLights@programming.dev 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ships use bunker fuel, which varies in refinement between 1 notch above crude oil to slightly thinner.

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Then I have been misinformed, thanks for the correction. Still, they're dependent on oil for now, which is gonna become more and more of a problem than it already is.

[–] FewerWheels@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

But less of a problem for things like ships that still use fossil fuel as other means of transportation move away from fossil fuel.

A nuclear tugboat model where the shipping boat ("barge") is attached to the nuclear tugboat by some linkage is probably inevitable. It would give a way to meet security requirements of the barge crew never having access to the tugboat while still having sustainable fuel and not having to redesign all ships. If Maersk didn't have a research paper somewhere in a drawer doing cost estimates for that, a fully nuclear container ship, and a time estimate for when current fuel sources run out then their 50 year plan is probably incomplete. I'm sure there's a bunch of companies who've done stuff like that without making it public like with Exxon and climate change.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Tango@piefed.ca 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Not the whole transportation business. Most of it perhaps, but not all.

https://www.scania.com/ie/en/home/products/trucks/battery-electric-truck.html

load more comments (3 replies)

Depends on how much society is willing to sacrifice. One year isn't long, but you could conceivably get just about every car and van off diesel, get just about everyone off heating oil (which is just diesel), go crazy on electric trains, dramatically decrease construction and electrify what you can there, and switch backup generators to gas (which doesn't really help the climate of course but helps with no diesel). The biggest near term issue is likely heavy transit. You could displace some with trains and petrol/electric vans, but there's going to be serious rationing going on and supply chains will be hanging on by a thread. Farming equipment also a big issue. Hydrogen might be able to start replacing diesel for these uses but within a year is crazy ambitious. This would be hard to do in a decade.

Regardless, we need to approach this from a "war economy" standpoint, so I like the question.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Prices would plummet tomorrow if he got the fuck out of Iran.

[–] PancakesCantKillMe@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don’t know about “plummet” as they always seem to fall like a feather if that’s the trend, but you are otherwise right.

[–] bus_factor@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Which is fair, because there's a good chance we'd be back at it in three days.

Also, prices will never be the same, because the risk calculus for the Strait of Hormuz has changed forever. Insurance premiums for shipping through there will never go back down.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] im_fine_sandy@nord.pub 5 points 1 day ago

I'm genuinely asking, would getting the fuck out be enough?

He would need to capitulate. He would need to acknowledge his fuckup, to the satisfaction of Iran. I don't think he's capable of that. Not simply that he doesn't want to, although that's also true. I mean he's not equipped to negotiate an end to this hostility.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LovelyMover@lemmy.zip 13 points 2 days ago

after the midterms...course he better say thank you, the orange bish

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 5 points 1 day ago

Proof Europe wants it to happen. Simple as.

And Fotzenfritz bent right over and greased his butthole.

Draining Europe for Putin

[–] BC_viper@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Well, that will work for 3 days.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›