shawn1122, shawn1122@sh.itjust.works

Completely agree and the best way to do this is to consistently call out breaches of international law. The problem with the part of the world that is most threatened by Russia is that it tends to go quiet when its allies (the US and Israel) breach international law, which comes across as hipocrisy / a double standard. The more consistent they are the more likely they are to get global support.

Many of these countries were once colonial empires so they understand imperialism well. They should know that in order to form a coherent argument they need to be against imperialism universally, not just be against it when it’s directed their way which is a difficult case to make.

Thanks

Way too generous to Kash Patel.

Are we talking about people or governments here because many countries have to hold USD in order to buy oil.

I see a woman asserting her agency unless I have reason to believe otherwise. Who are you to decide what constitutes her freedom?

Agree that Mossadegh was imperfect but, in the eyes of many, Western meddling was a direct contributer to the revolution, opening the door for the Mullah regime. It exemplifies the hipocrisy of the US/British as they claim to stand for democracy while installing autocratic puppets around the world to meet their needs. They have dutifully deprived millions of the very self-determination they claim is one of their core values.

Agreed thanks for the insights.

This seems like an inaccurate representation of Iranian history so please feel free to elaborate. Sure Iran was an autocracy in 678 BC, not sure how that’s relevant to today, but Iran’s democracy was overthrown by Western powers when it tried to nationalize its oil in the early 50s. The West then installed an autocrat representing its interests until the revolution in 79.

In fact several Gulf countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar) had prodemocratic nationalist movements during this period that were purposefully squashed by the West.

The purportedly most democratic nations in the world have also been the most active in supressing democracy elsewhere. They’ve had to become very adept at talking through both sides of their mouths, as it’s easier to exert foreign influence / interference via an autocrat versus a messier and less predictable democratic process.

One can imagine that being told “a civilization will die tonight” will act as motivation for them to get one.

It’s not just about how useful the dollar is to Iran, it’s about making it less useful to other countries also.

If Iranian oil is back on the market there will be a lot of interested buyers. If it’s only sold in yuan or crypto.

The petrodollar wasn’t going to last forever youre right but there are many parties interested in ending it sooner than later.

But therein lies the hipocrisy. The nations that have had historically excessive CO2 emissions (especially per capita) should not be telling nations that emit significantly less per person what to do.

50% of cumulative emissions from 20% of global population. That’s the data point that captures the reality of the situation we’re in. Looking at the past 20 years or recent trends only provides a myopic perspective in my view.

Don’t get me wrong, these nations have achieved an incredible quality of life for their people through this excess but they shouldn’t be suprised when other countries work towards the same for their people, which will involve expanding utilization of conventional energy in the short term. You or I are not more worthy than a person in China, India or Africa of having a good quality of life.

Props to Norway to for the milestone but they do not manufacture EVs, they import them, and third are Teslas. Politics aside, Chinese EVs are innovating at a pace far beyond anything Tesla has been able to muster in the past 5 years. Innovation is important as it drives adoption.

I’m glad that the nations that have historically contributed the most to climate change are acting to offset that excess. I’m also very impressed with nations that are both expanding their grids and increasing proportion of renewable utilization simultaneously. Ultimately we all share this planet and what’s happened in the past is what it is. We didn’t know then what we know now. I think we both want to see overall emissions decrease and here’s hoping that we see more global collaboration towards that.

What makes you think any or even all of those modalities would meet their energy needs before people start dying?

Energy independence is key to ensuring this never happens again. Maximizing utilization of renewables is key to that on a long ye horizon. But in the short term, they need oil.

How is it a victory if the best case scenario is exactly the state of affairs prior (ie. the strait of hormuz being open) to the start of this war? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say nothing was accomplished? I wouldn’t be suprised if Iran leverages greater geopolitical influence from this, that’s how incompetent Trump and the group of great American intellectuals currently in his government are.

Sure that’s one way to look at it but it’s short sighted in my view. From the other perspective it comes across as the West saying they could pollute as much as they wanted to in order give their people a better life and now everyone else has to operate under strict constraints or get a finger wagging from the largest contributers to CO2 emissions in human history. That’s a lot of hypocrisy.

You’re right that solar panels do exist now. It should be noted that China has done more with renewables and getting ICE vehicles off the road than any Western country, many of which seem to be stuck in old habits. Nations like India and China are developing on a massive scale, actively integrating renewables into their expanding grids as they pull hundreds of millions out of poverty.

The average person in India and China contributes substantially less to global emissions than the average Westerner. So as their emissions increase, rather than seeing it as them cancelling out your efforts, you should be flattered that they want to live with the luxuries and privileges youve had for some time now. They are in no way less worthy of that.

Perhaps Western nations should be made to contribute less per capita than developing nations, as a way to offset their historically disproportionate contribution.

Tough argument to make. Nation states are a somewhat arbitrary construct. What if China or India were each four countries instead of one? Should we take geographical area into account? This is why the per capita measure is important.

The UAE is land mass less than 2% the size of India and China and relies on desalination plants for habitibillity. Why would either India or China have populations that small, while not having such limitations?

It’s easy to say less humans is the solution (and don’t worry, the world is clearly headed that direction looking at global fertility rates) but saying a specific country having less people is part of the solution, especially when it’s a country with lower per capita emissions, seems difficult to justify.

Even this type of data is overly decontextualized without considering cumulative (not annual) emissions since the industrial revolution (globally), proportion of corporate contribution and off shoring. Per capita is important too.

With regard to developing nations, emissions will go up as people get pulled out of poverty and have lifestyles more like people in developed nations. It’s hard to ask them not to pursue that or to delay it without coming across as hypocritical. Especially since developed nations are responsible for 50% of cumulative emissions, historically, despite being 20% of the global population (and have a higher quality of life so show for it).

Now with the US/Israel’s war in Iran more nations in Asia will be burning coal due to oil supply constraints. It’s easy to show a graph blaming those nations for resorting to that but several are already rationing gasoline (Americans would lose their minds lol) and the people are absolutely struggling for it.

This is the type of decontextualization that Western nations employ to pressure nations in Africa, Latin America, and Asia and its often is not received well, understandably.

This is absolutely true.

Even with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, Britain initially struggled to compete with the sheer quality and cost-effectiveness of Indian hand-woven fabrics.

They instituted a 100% tariff on importation of Indian fabric to support their nascent mechanized textile manufacturing.

This allowed them to hone the machinery by creating a sandbox to grow their new expertise in. The quality could not match what was produced by hand but the sheer volume and efficiency could easily outdo manual methods.

Over time as they gained political influence, they were able to point guns at and break the thumbs of the right people in India effectively eradicating Indias domestic textile industry.

They then forced Indian markets to accept British cloth with no tariff, making that consumer sandbox bigger.

Minus the colonial / coercive economics at the end there, this is an example of Britain using tariffs very effectively to grow their own industry while taking down a global leader in textiles (one that even the Romans wrote of 1500 years prior).

May well have played out the same without supportive policy, but the protectionism certainly helped them grow their own industry faster and the violent / coercive colonial element helped them remove a traditional, higher quality though analog/manual competitor sooner.

What America is doing is more of a dying empire vibe. Protection for the sake of clinging to the old and familiar way, with no plan or strategy to adapt for the future.

Depends how much the average consumer is paying attention. Many probably don’t know that every EV can use the Tesla chargers now.

The competition here is certainly constrained. Most car manufacturers are making less EVs due to decreasing overall demand and expirarion of federal EV tax credits.

The real competition is on the other side of the Pacific. Europe and Canada have accepted that on some level while the US continues to artificially prop up its EV market ex-China.

There are legitimate concerns don’t get me wrong. But the US won’t be able to hide from a more dynamic and competitive product forever.

Tesla has 35% market share in Norway.

France saw an increase in Tesla registrations by 203% year over year.

Sweden had a 144% increase in registrations. Denmark had a 96% increase.

In the US, the core demographic remains white male, ~48 years old, with a household income exceeding $140,000, particularly in conservative states (Texas/Florida).

Part of the problem is that competition is still lacking in many ways especially when it comes to charging infrastructure.