"Zelensky says allies asked him to scale back attacks on Russian energy"
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0e7lrxrelwo
Yeah, fuck that
Fuck any country in Europe still stuck on #oil and #gas
Fuck bigot Americans in giant low fuel economy pickup trucks whining
Fuck you India, Fuck you China
Fuck you all
All countries:
Get the fuck off oil and gas. Period. End of story
Addressing the #climatecrisis and defunding vile regimes is job #1
Ukraine is leading the way on freedom from fossil fuel fascism...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9qdwpnwzwpo
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-oil-drone-attack-fire-export/33719116.html
Excellent! Keep hitting Russia's oil infrastructure until Ukraine is whole again.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/03/30/ukraine-russia-putin-zelensky-drones/
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260330-russia-expels-uk-diplomat-on-spying-allegations
https://www.axios.com/2026/03/30/zelensky-russia-iran-war-ukraine
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/100-Oil-Is-Solving-Russias-Budget-Problem.html
Ukraine launched a series of drone attacks on Russia's top export hubs, including Novorossiysk on the Black Sea as well as Primorsk and Ust-Luga on the Baltic Sea.
Uruguay did what most nations still call impossible: it built a power grid that runs almost entirely on renewables—at half the cost of fossil fuels. The physicist who led that transformation says the same playbook could work anywhere—if governments have the courage to change the rules.
@roblosricos @Npars01 @benroyce Good for them, but here is the big 80-point asterisk. Renewables are cheaper if you do not have any fossil fuels. Which the article points out, they don't.
For Russia or the USA, not so much.
We should still be putting solar on everything flat, just because it's silly not to at this point.
@mike805 @roblosricos @Npars01
the cost of the climate crisis and vile regimes matter too
you fund russia, russia kills people, you have a couple of EF5s in nebraska, you kill people
of course, the "decision makers" don't know or don't care, but that remains the truth
@benroyce @roblosricos @Npars01 Well yeah. But military power still relies on fossil fuels (and gas -> Haber process -> explosives) so warlike regimes are going to be pro-dinosaur for the foreseeable future.
We might have a green utopia someday, but there will never be a green empire!
@mike805 @roblosricos @Npars01
you're still going to consume fossil fuels no matter what
obviously if you get the civilian transportation and heating infrastructure off it you make a big dent. make it cheaper too
the goal isn't perfection mike, that's an invalid perspective
@mike805 @roblosricos @Npars01 @benroyce
Most petro-state's primary benefit from having fossil fuels is the ability to export them. If the non petro-states transition to renewables (which provides both environmental and national security benefits to them) it cuts off the export markets the petro-states rely on and that will force the petro-states to adopt green technology in turn.
@RantingCanuck @roblosricos @Npars01 @benroyce The problem with being a petroleum exporter is that money goes to the rulers of the nation, which therefore do not have to care about their populations.
They can spend on either security forces to keep a boot on the public's neck, or handouts to keep them pacified, or some mixture. The rest they just use to live large.
They also spend money to manipulate politics elsewhere and keep that game going. The USA is easy to manipulate with money.
@mike805 @roblosricos @Npars01 @benroyce
There are a few asterisks. Uruguay's peak demand is below 2GW. They've about 1.5GW of hydro capacity. They've added some 1.6GW of biomass capacity which they use to generate about .3GW baseline – this in itself brings extra questions.
And about 1.5GW of wind capacity which they use to supplement hydro.
During peaks they still use oil power, like right at this moment.
In the region there's for example Paraguay that uses virtually pure hydro.
@mike805 You mention Russia as if anyone here had even the faintest impression that they are part of this discussion.
This is about bombing the shit out of Russia's oil infrastructure, not asking what *they* think about renewables.
@Photo55 A blown up barrel of oil has a value of zero dollars, so I agree with you there!
@txtx @Photo55 @roblosricos @Npars01 @benroyce Not only that but they are going to pump another barrel somewhere to replace it. So you double the environmental impact.
Probably more than double. There is no clean tech on an explosion.
@mike805 Well Russia should stop their stupid war then shouldn't they — Putin can then unleash the environmentalist hidden deep inside him and stop pumping all that extra oil.
@txtx @Photo55 @roblosricos @Npars01 @benroyce Yeah, not likely. There is no environmentalist inside Putin. He is the best current example of a hard power, militarist, fossil fuel dinosaur powered leader.
Green utopia, if it ever exists, will have to figure out how to defend itself against such people. Because both warlike pricks and the dinosaur juice to power their forces will always exist.
@mike805 @txtx @Photo55 @roblosricos @Npars01
fuck green utopia
we're just talking about transitioning off fossil fuels, which will never be 100%
please stop using some vision of perfection as a basis for your words. it's not honest about what the real topic is here
if we make russia be able to field only 10 tanks instead of 100, that matters. that's the point of *transition*. fuck perfection
@benroyce @txtx @Photo55 @roblosricos @Npars01 My point is, installing solar panels is all well and good. But anyone who actually gives up producing and refining fossil fuels is militarily at the mercy of anyone who does not do that.
Using solar for civilian power to free up oil and gas for military preparedness is a good idea.
This fuel shortage will make small scale panel and battery systems very popular in places where people used to use generators. That will have benefits after it's over.
@mike805
"Fossil".
Finite resource, on the downslope.
Hydrocarbons: a convenient dense energy store.
Alcohols: likewise
Terpenes and so on, likewise.
Ammonia: no CO2, electrosynthetic and biological processes to produce; toxic; feedstock for explosive
Hydrazine: denser; more toxic; atmospheric CO2 plus N2; but, not keen.
Point 1: none, including first, are even synonymous with "fossil".
Point 2: all except NH3 remove CO2 from atmosphere.
@mike805 @roblosricos @Npars01 @benroyce
The damage to the climate is already expensive.
More so than not burning oil for heat and traction.
Electrochemical nitrogen fixation is in early stages, and feeding the world may require fossil feedstock for a while yet. Alas.
ᴮᵉⁿ ᴿᵒʸᶜᵉVOTE IN THE PRIMARIES
Nicole Parsons
rob los ricos
mike805
RantingCanuck
klegdixal
txtx 🇪🇺
MidgePhoto