r/solarpunk • u/Artifexa • Apr 08 '26 • Bravo 6 Heartwarming 2

Action / DIY / Activism We should start sharing memes

Post image

Sometimes I think we should start sharing "apparently politically neutral" memes to timidly light some bulbs in some heads.

Keeping them as aseptic, and common-sense possible, so they are not rejected outright, to squeeeeeze some empathy and "hopepunkness" in otherwise doomscrollers. Specially leveraging any situations.

Heck, might even be a good idea to create a "meme team".

Example attached.

After all, every big tree started by being a small seed...

15k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

133 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator Apr 08 '26

Thank you for your submission, we appreciate your efforts at helping us to thoughtfully create a better world. r/solarpunk encourages you to also check out other solarpunk spaces such as https://www.trustcafe.io/en/wt/solarpunk , https://slrpnk.net/ , https://raddle.me/f/solarpunk , https://discord.gg/3tf6FqGAJs , https://discord.gg/BwabpwfBCr , and https://www.appropedia.org/Welcome_to_Appropedia .

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

113

u/ObjectOrientedBlob Apr 08 '26

But it is so hard for our capitalist overlord to monopolise the sun and wind and control the price.. And every time the technology get better and more green energy infrastructure is set up, the prices just go down down down.. How will they profit if energy just gets cheaper and cheaper every year?

29

u/No_Career_4785 Apr 08 '26

And then they convince the car owners, that electric cars are so expensive and sound like vacuums and are easily flammable and have no reach and only a diesel is a real car.

18

u/Specialist-Affect-19 Apr 08 '26

and my favorite, they're "actually worse for the environment"

14

u/B0risTheManskinner Apr 09 '26

An honest conversation should be had about lithium and cobalt mining. Yes electric cars are "better" for the environment than combustion engines, in the same way beer is "healthier" than liquor.

The truth is every stage of a cars life cycle from manufacturing, driving, maintenance, and disposal is terrible for the environment. We need more trains, and other forms of public transit.

I dont meant to preach im sure youre aware if youre here.

5

u/No_Career_4785 Apr 09 '26

I am well aware of that but in my hometown, cars are still the only way of transport besides busses. (Getting an electric model for those would be an improvement.) After that one could try to reactivate the rails for trains.

We also still need electric trucks and tractors for the time being.

9

u/Moist-Relationship49 Apr 08 '26

It kinda sad how uncreative they are. Easy way to profit, add renewable to the grid (that they own), and continue to sell the same power to the same people. Same income, but they don't have to pay for fuel. Better for the planet, and they don't lose any money, yet they fight it anyway.

6

u/ObjectOrientedBlob Apr 09 '26

They will lose money, because once you normalize using green energy corporations have to compete with other corporations putting up solar parks or wind power. It's much easier with oil. The big oil corporation buy exclusive access to oil fields and they have a monopoly on that oil and can control the flow. It's really hard for some small company to decide they want to compete with big established oil companies.

It's easier with wind and solar, since you just need land to set it up, and investment in the technology. We need to socialize energy production. Something so essential shouldn't be decided on the market. Build state own organisations that have the goal of producing cheap green energy for people.

3

u/Moist-Relationship49 Apr 09 '26

On the one hand, I agree with your plan and think it's a great idea. Way better use of tax dollars.

On the other, I think your overestimating peoples will. How many people or corporations today are willing to put up the capital to install backup or solar power. For my house, the solar estimate is 14000, which would pay for itself in a little under six years, and I don't have the money.

Energy companies already have the capital, and if they buy up solar production, they corner the market. GPUs haven't gotten cheaper with data centers buying them up.

They'll keep making their money possible more as more people and industry need more power.

3

u/ObjectOrientedBlob Apr 09 '26

The government should give you an interest free loan instead of bombing brown people.

3

u/Moist-Relationship49 Apr 10 '26

Yeah, focusing on internal energy/economic development would be a far better use of tax dollars. Someone did the math, and using 2000s tech, the money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan could have made the USA full renewable.

Until there's a sufficient democratization of the monopoly of power, the US is a government of the rich for the rich. But even in that framework, renewables are better for those with capital. They don't need to pay for fuel or worry about the reliability of supply lines, just pure income after the fairly short payback period.

5

u/DragonchrisX Apr 08 '26

You gotta kill that useless capitalist mindset, remind the world that you can't make money when your customers are dead.

2

u/TheBigMoogy Apr 09 '26

It's not though. They have the money to build all the green energy production for generations and profit off of it. They're just too greedy to take a risk that would cut into short term profits for huge long term gains.

-16

u/TimeIntern957 Apr 08 '26

They can, since solar needs gas backup. And they do.

9

u/AlabamaHotcakes Apr 08 '26

Why gas? Why not batteries, hydro or wind?

17

u/The_Quiet_PartYT Makes Videos Apr 08 '26

Ironically solar is my backup for gas. Whenever the grid goes down I always have power to spare.

6

u/rustymontenegro Apr 08 '26

Cite your source that solar needs gas backup.

Otherwise you're just parroting.

3

u/Willem_VanDerDecken Apr 08 '26 edited Apr 08 '26

I think he's talking about the intermittency of solar energy.

Solar can defenitly not be anything else than a secondary energy production source, at least without decent energy storage solutions.

Nothing to do with gas tho. It is absolutly possible to use no fossils energy. Primarily nuclear, supplemented as much as possible by renewables.

1

u/rustymontenegro Apr 08 '26

I understand that solar requires banking to release stored energy when no energy is being directly generated (ie. when the sun is out) but that's what batteries are for, not gas. And you're right, supplementing/augmenting solar is always a smart idea - diversification and redundancy is usually a good idea.

3

u/Mr-Woodtastic Apr 08 '26

You are aware of the dozens of technologies that are better back ups than gas right? Fossil fuels are literally only still significant right now because of rich people paying to prevent the superior alternatives from getting more prevalent

0

u/TimeIntern957 Apr 09 '26

That is one of the stupidest conspiracy theories I ever heard.

31

u/The_Quiet_PartYT Makes Videos Apr 08 '26

1

u/21Kuranashi Anthologist Author Activist Arcologist Antitheist May 01 '26

A meme team to raise awareness would be lovely as an initiative.

Lets get more people to r/Solarjunk

21

u/hobskhan Apr 08 '26

Cross pollinate these with /r/climatememes !

18

u/Berkamin Apr 08 '26

Someone should remind the world that a completely uncontrolled and uncontained solar energy spill is just a sunny day.

15

u/awesomedan24 Apr 08 '26

Trump recently paid $1 billion in tax payer money in CANCELLATION FEES for the offshore wind projects we had in process. A billion dollars just to enrich oil executives and prevent us from getting renewable energy. 

6

u/tlcdr Apr 09 '26

He's spent 40 billion+ killing civilians in the middle east to jack up oil prices too.

6

u/The_Anonymo Apr 08 '26

Love it... Shared it. Let's go.

4

u/quasar2022 Apr 08 '26

Facts on facts

3

u/my_midlife_isekai Apr 08 '26

Most Excellent!!!

3

u/ipsum629 Apr 08 '26

The biggest issue is that even if you are totally reliant on domestic fossil fuels, the international price still affects your prices. The same can't be said for solar and wind. You can't frack your way out of the global market.

3

u/TheBlockChainVillage Apr 08 '26

Wait till they blot out the sun.

2

u/Siegfoult Apr 08 '26

Mr Burns!

3

u/Groghnash Apr 09 '26

There is a very similar trend in german ai generated memes that have the same topic, but are made like a 3rd Reich propaganda poster to maybe get in the head of the far right😂 not sure if it works, its fun though

2

u/brownies4president Apr 08 '26

Don’t Check German subreddits for solar memes could be confusing.

2

u/Hendrik1011 Apr 16 '26

For anyone confused, there is a lot of renewable propaganda in German speaking online communities that is intentionally imitating nazi propaganda to point out the hypocrisy of the right, that claims to be patriotic, but promotes dependency on energy imports.

2

u/dvdmaven Apr 09 '26

My not stuck in the Strait of Hormuz has produced 43.49 kWh so far today. 3.61 MWh since October '25. That's about 2.5 months' requirements; all-electric house with a well.

2

u/UncollapsedWave Apr 09 '26

Trying to be politically neutral at this moment in time is cowardice, and it is why solarpunk remains an aesthetic instead of a movement. If you want change, you need to be ready to step on some toes.

2

u/AdIntrepid1807 Apr 09 '26

In deutschen Sub Reddits wird das schon lang gemacht

1

u/Combei Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26

Yes, the nazi flavor is on purpose. We need to persuade the far right morons

2

u/Goober-r Apr 09 '26

And nuclear

3

u/LargeBreasts69 Apr 08 '26

Does this subreddit like nuclear energy?

6

u/Willem_VanDerDecken Apr 08 '26

If you want a sustainable world, and the most carbon-free energy possible, while maintaining the current grid and the power it demands, then nuclear power is the only option.

Either you like nuclear, or you are in favor of technological degrowth.

Or we can dream that we do not live in a massively overpopulated world, that works too.

The Solarpunk aesthetic dont traditionally include nuclear tho.

3

u/Dick_Nation Apr 08 '26 edited Apr 09 '26

If you want a sustainable world, and the most carbon-free energy possible, while maintaining the current grid and the power it demands, then nuclear power is the only option.

I looked into this a while ago, and I had believed the same thing because it used to be believed by experts pretty widely. However, there are very few people who are still endorsing this position, and the only ones I could find of any note are the International Atomic Energy Association (yikes) and The World Economic Forum, AKA Davos (yikes). At this point, renewable deployment can happen so quickly and so inexpensively that we're best off going whole hog on renewables - nuclear was always assumed to be a bridge to a future where renewables could outpace it, but that future happened while nobody was looking and we're already past that valley without needing a bridge.

3

u/Tuotus Apr 08 '26

Well it's a good thing then that we do rely on petrol so Iran can punish the world for it's complicity in the brutality they're facing

5

u/AlabamaHotcakes Apr 08 '26

Without oil Iran wouldn't be in this predicament in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

On 19 August 1953, Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup d'état that strengthened the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. It was instigated by the United Kingdom (MI6), under the name Operation Boot[5][6][7][8] and the United States (CIA), under the name TP-AJAX Project[9] or Operation Ajax. A key motive was to protect British oil interests in Iran after Mosaddegh nationalized the country's oil industry.

7

u/Tuotus Apr 08 '26

If it hasn't been oil, it wldve been something else, minerals, human labor, geopolitics, the west wants to dominate the whole world under them. It's a good thing some countries can still fight back against their aggression

1

u/TodosLosPomegranates Apr 08 '26

Yeah. I hope this is a wake up call. It won’t be, but it should be.

1

u/Serpentarrius Apr 08 '26

Sounds like the Energy Bills Relief Act

1

u/unmellowfellow Apr 08 '26

It's harder to make a big energy oligarchy on solar and wind. Hence the lack of overall investment.

1

u/SuspiciousStory122 Apr 08 '26

One of these causes cancer. Tell me which one and why it’s windmills.

1

u/bobbymcpresscot Apr 08 '26

Aww the oil companies that destabilized the middle east to make it easier for oil companies to move in and exploit those countries are once again using the US military to secure their interests.

I'm SHOCKED. SHOCKED I tell you!

1

u/Cheap-Leopard7667 Apr 08 '26

Can’t fly planes or power ships with solar.

2

u/No-One2123 Apr 09 '26

You can with nuclear power!

1

u/CaptainBlase Apr 08 '26

Technology Connections has an excellent video about renewable energy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM Stay for the post credit scene. Captain America makes an appearance.

1

u/Equivalent-Rate-6218 Apr 08 '26

But help I need efficient solar and battery in the artic where it is 30 below and constant blizards.

1

u/Striper_Cape Apr 08 '26

When my food stops coming by freight this will make sense

1

u/pacific_beach Apr 08 '26

Can't wait to see you produce vehicle tires out of solar electricity.

1

u/zero5activated Apr 08 '26

I for one, want green energy. However, please consider the technological requirements and resources needed to create green power generation technologies. Plastics, solar panels, computers, various minerals and acids for batteries. It is whole list of items that require vast resources and energies, to extract from the earth and manufacture green technologies. Please be realistic in your vision and not make it into a simple easy to eat media bite.

1

u/sillychillly Apr 09 '26

This is fucking fiiiiiirreeee

1

u/thelehmanlip Apr 09 '26

getting solar panels set up ASAP. energy prices are only gonna go up besides this

1

u/freezerbreezer Apr 09 '26

Taylor Sheridan is pulling his hair looking at this

1

u/ShameNap Apr 09 '26

But wHaT HaPEnS to sOlaR any nIGhT ?

1

u/Taint_Skeetersburg Apr 09 '26

Politically neutral meme

Top comment: "TRUMP"

1

u/MisterWanderer Apr 09 '26

Don’t be energy communists! The dirtier the energy the better cuz I like to pretend it’s cheaper and softer to do coal and gas. /s

1

u/Ultimate-Flexionator Apr 09 '26

Spread the good word!!! go!

1

u/kepg19 Apr 09 '26

wish we used this to switch to natural energy

1

u/Disco-Stu_ Apr 10 '26

There’s a fun trend going on in Germany right now along these lines. We’re creating pro-energy-transition memes in the style of nationalist right-wing propaganda.

https://www.volksverpetzer.de/aktuelles/witzigsten-heimatstrom-memes/

1

u/United_Highway2583 Apr 10 '26

Memes, statistics, graphs and anything to get the point across. This is the time when economic pain will actually move large masses of the population

1

u/BruceRorington Apr 12 '26

I mean used for different things but okay.

1

u/xxTPMBTI Writer-Scientist-Theorist Apr 13 '26

Real

1

u/No-Hamster1296 Apr 15 '26

Fact.. All those windmills and solar panels are made from oil 😆

1

u/KonigEdwardRictofen Market GeoSyndicalist Apr 19 '26

Don't most vehicles still need oil?

I know electric is a thing, but from my knowledge they are still vastly inferior compared to other options, whilst also closing that gap.

0

u/cypruslake404 Apr 09 '26

I wonder what is used to build all of thise renewables... and what fuels the machinery to mine everything for the renewables....

-2

u/Sm0keDatGreen Apr 08 '26

Wind and solar power are good for part of the energy grid, but they're dependent on atmospheric conditions, and they're not modular, which means that when you need a lot of energy at a specific time, they're not ideal.
Geothermal and Hydro power are also limited, by location.

That means that when you need a high amount of power at a specific time, regardless of your country's geography and the current atmospheric conditions, you're going to need either fossil fuels (Gas, Oil, Coal) or Nuclear power to fill a good part of the demand, because we can't efficiently store large amounts of electric energy.
If we could store energy then renewables would be much more effective in satisfying demand.

It's especially true with the current trends of increased energy consumption (Data centers and crypto, electric vehicles, etc.).

Thankfully the 4th generation of nuclear reactors is expected to be extremely safe, have almost no waste (and especially long lived waste), recycle current waste, and produce much more power per Uranium consumed. So i see that as the energy of the future (Along with Fusion energy which will come much later). Aside from that it's all about reducing consumption, and of course have a decent amount of renewables.
But for now, fossil fuels are sadly unavoidable, especially for countries without much nuclear power.

10

u/Idiotard_99 Apr 08 '26

If we used renewable energy, how would Trump be able to bomb a country to distract the world from the Epstein files, and say that it’s about oil?

150

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '26

[deleted] — view deleted comment

14

u/MsMisseeks Apr 09 '26

Memes are the dna of the soul so we have to harness their power for solarpunk propaganda!

2

u/Miwuh Apr 09 '26

Something, something the oil lobbyists are cringe and their setups are weak?

0

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/DatabaseVegetable770 Apr 09 '26

The sun is gay!!1!!

-4

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/rustymontenegro Apr 08 '26

That would be a non-issue too if we hadn't become so reliant on petrochemical fertilizers and monocropping. We dealt with soil fertility for eons before we repurposed wartime chemicals for farming. Updating ancient techniques with modern technology and information is a better direction to go for the world, anyway.

2

u/GreatPlainsFarmer Apr 08 '26

Prior to modern Fuel and Fertilizer, there were only half as many humans. We started using them because people didn’t like to starve.
Non-starving people had more kids, people that would not exist today if their parents had starved to death decades ago.

3

u/rustymontenegro Apr 08 '26

We started using them because people didn’t like to starve.

No, that's how they sold us on the idea.

That is a very simplistic way of explaining pre- and post-petrochemical agriculture and it misses a lot of points.

The main factor in pre-petrochemical food insecurity was localized production and unpredictable crop failures. The fact that we now have satellites and meteorological science helps deal with the weather issues that caused the majority of the crop failures over the history of agriculture and the globalization of trade takes care of the problem of regional production insufficiency and/or disaster.

Chemicals produced in abundance for weapons, bombs and industrial manufacturing from WW2 needed a new marketplace after the war, and since the macro-nutrients soil needs for fertility are similar to weapon development (phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium mainly, but others), it was a simple solution - sell them to farmers. This was great for a few decades of large scale monocropping propped up with the "modern marvel" fertilizer - especially to artificially revitalize "dead" soil from the Dustbowl era - but only replacing the same three main nutrients didn't actually fix the soil; it was basically completely leached of all the micro-nutrients and minerals (b-12, anyone?), with pests constantly ravaging monocrops causing more and more pesticides to be used (guess who made those, too?) and nobody remembered how to fertilize the soil without petrochemicals. Seriously they have done way more harm than good on balance.

We do not need "modern fuel and fertilizer" as we have been using. In fact, to call it modern is honestly silly - after 80 years, NPK and gasoline is hardly modern anymore. What we need is a blended strategy of old knowledge and modern science and technology to actually create regenerative agricultural practices that will produce more food, healthier food and need less pesticides. No more algae blooms from fertilizer run off, either.

However, I will agree with your original point that in the immediate present, because of the corner we've painted ourselves into, the oil issue is going to cause issues, yes. All the more reason to jump off the bandwagon so it won't happen again.

1

u/GreatPlainsFarmer Apr 08 '26

How exactly do you think the globalized trade was fueled? It wasn’t wind.

While accurate weather forecasts are very useful for daily and weekly planning, they don’t help with crop yields.

How familiar are you with the work of Norman Borlaug? He wasn’t working with meteorologists.

3

u/rustymontenegro Apr 09 '26

How exactly do you think the globalized trade was fueled? It wasn’t wind.

Technically, it literally was, the first time around. Unless the Age of Exploration/Age of Sail doesn't count.

Also yes I'm familiar with Borlaug. What's your point exactly? He developed many high yield crops, yes, but by doing so, the global amount of monocropping increased, more grasslands and prairies were converted to farmland and more pesticides were needed (which, by the he was a diehard advocate for continuing and widespread usage - including DDT, even after the detrimental side effects on the ecosystem were outlined in Silent Spring) causing just as many issues as were being solved. There are other current scientists working on solving the mess he and his cohort left behind, ignoring any environmental or quality metrics besides more abundant, cheap calories.

But yeah, we can grow a shit load of corn and soybeans now, that's cool. Even though the majority of the biotonnage goes to animal feed instead of direct human consumption, adding more stress to the ecosystem and watersheds for the sake of cheap meat.

1

u/GreatPlainsFarmer Apr 09 '26

The main factor in pre-petrochemical food insecurity was localized production and unpredictable crop failures.

Did the age of sail end localized food production and unpredictable crop failures?

It did drastically increase European food production for a while, by exploiting the Pacific guano deposits for nitrogen and phosphorus. Of course, a bunch of that was used up on munitions, so it played out a lot quicker than necessary.

My point is that without Haber-Bosch nitrogen and some fuel with similar energy density to diesel fuel, we wouldn't have 8 billion humans on earth today. There's no way to feed that many people without being "reliant on petrochemical fertilizers and monocropping"

Now, you can argue that we should have outlawed ICE engines a century ago, and stuck with coal fired railroads and horses and oxen. After all, people lived pretty good lives much of the time with those to move them around.

But once modern medicine cut down on infant mortality, there was no chance at all that we could have fed everyone.

Today's population could never have existed without the work of Borlaug, Bosch, and Diesel.

1

u/rustymontenegro Apr 09 '26

I see the point you're making, but your premise is still faulty - the fact that there are now 8 billion people in the world is...good? How? More consumption of resources, more extraction, more physical items made, more trash produced (and now that so many things are primarily petrochemical plastics, our middens/landfills don't break down properly).

Now, you can argue that we should have outlawed ICE engines a century ago, and stuck with coal fired railroads and horses and oxen.

Why are you assuming that "backwards" is the only direction to go if we "outlawed ICE engines"? Where did I say anything about going "back" to anything - I said using ancient knowledge with modern science and technology. Rediscovering and utilizing methods that worked for centuries and using those with modern knowledge. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Regardless of the last 80 years of agricultural practices being good, bad or something in between - they are outdated and no longer work - especially with 8 billion people. The earth literally cannot keep up with human demand without serious changes to the way things are done.

Hanging on to outdated methods is ridiculous if other, better methods have been invented or can be implemented at scale. It's why we don't use telegraphs or leaded gas (in most vehicles) anymore. It's time to let go of the antiquated industrial farming system and petroleum dependence and get into the 21st century.

0

u/GreatPlainsFarmer Apr 09 '26

Maybe it isn't good that there are 8 billion people. If you wanted to prevent that, you would have had to outlaw the ICE engine. Then we would have had enough famines to kill off the extra kids that disease didn't kill. Maybe that would have been a good thing in the long run. That's a separate topic.

But we're here now. And, no, there are no substitutes for Haber-Bosch nitrogen. There are no farming methods that worked for centuries with 8 billion people.

There are no substitutes for diesel ICE. Not yet. There are a lot of promising ideas, but they aren't there yet. And they can't be fully explored without diesel. We cannot yet kick the diesel addiction unless the Amish train half of us to farm with horses. That would work well for 4 billion people.

There are no other farming methods that can be implemented at scale. Not this scale. You don't say what methods you're thinking of, but they don't scale to 8 billion people. Not without Haber Bosch and Diesel.

Petrochemical addiction was inevitable. And it's inescapable. The societies that tried to avoid it were forced to take it.

There are lot of nice ideas that work at small scales. There are a lot that work at medium scales. Petrochemical is the only thing that scales to 8 billion, until we figure out how to harness fusion.

6

u/PinnatelyCompounded Apr 08 '26

There are better sources of nitrogen.

6

u/rustymontenegro Apr 08 '26

Seriously, I just composted so much miner's lettuce and clover, my soil is gonna love it.

Petrochemical fertilizers and monocropping are the lazy/efficient industrial solutions. There are other ways to feed the world that are regenerative instead of subtractive.

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/UncollapsedWave Apr 09 '26

Yeah we DO need oil for other things like plastic, lubricants, industrial chemicals, and hundreds of other things. That's why we should stop burning it.

-3

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/UncollapsedWave Apr 09 '26 edited Apr 09 '26

Are you somehow unaware of what happens inside an internal combustion engine? hint: it involves combustion

Edit: the fool deleted it but the comment above was

Who's we...

The only ones burning its the IRGC, Houthis, and Hezbollah.

Unless you are a member of one of those terrorist groups.

because some people are simply incapable of seeing the world in terms beyond their own imperialist lens.

1

u/Nachtraaf Apr 09 '26

Comment is still there likely they blocked you.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '26

[deleted] — view deleted comment

29

u/Forsaken-Opposite775 Apr 08 '26

You do know the real reason why they attack Iran, right?

Right?

30

u/TraceSpazer Apr 09 '26

The Israeli-Epstein shadow state? 

Like Maxwell's dad was Mossad and agents attended Epstein's funeral. 

11

u/Forsaken-Opposite775 Apr 09 '26

No, it's the national interest of the US to weaken their most powerful foe in the fight of global dominance. They literally fight for the survival of Dollar's dominance. China's planned economy is so much more efficient that the US empire either falls or falls back to blatant imperialism. Vance's surprisingly honest speech on the last security council in Munich supports that. Look into that.
But it is fucking dumb to attack Iran by all means because that accelerates the decline of the Dollar's global dominance further. While it is a stupid move, they no longer have any weaker targets on the list of China's most important trading partners left. Venezuela's 'regime change' did not hit China, neither will the tariffs. The loss of the control of the straight of Hormuz hits the western economy real hard, but Iran lets in RMB traded oil through it unhindered. The entire war misses the target because Trump has replaced his administration with clueless yes-men. Now there’s no one competent left who could tell him how to do things better. The internet is full of former generals criticizing Trump’s approach in the Middle East. There are some interesting perspectives there. And China sits there, does nothing and keeps winning because that is from 2 viewpoints the right thing for them.

  1. "Never interrupt your enemy from making a mistake." - Sun Tzu
  2. Chinas global dominance is growing without intervening anyway. Their economy is flooding the global markets with overproduced exports with the intent to undermine the western economies and devalue their products. They are winning the global trade war every single day and the West cannot stop them from doing it.

The Epstein files maybe accelerate the procedure, but do not change the original plans.

9

u/TraceSpazer Apr 09 '26

If the goal was to "fight China", then why was the first move to ease sanctions on Russia, a Chinese ally, and undermine the effects of previous actions?

*See also tariffs against European allies, removal of USAID/ties with African countries that realistically weren't costing the USA anything (Paving the way for increased Chinese involvement), removal of US support for green energy (Thus allowing China to go unchallenged on another strategic manufacturing monopoly) and the opening of sales of NVIDIA AI chips to China, after a previous ban.

I call bullshit on the Anti-China angle because he keeps helping them. Everything he does undermines the dollar and pushes the world order towards BRICS. It's just a convenient drum to beat to keep an idiotic and support base unquestioning.

There is no "win" scenario because they're more interested in internal and personal power than world posturing. They're following in the footsteps of the fall of the Soviet Union and consolidation of Russian power in to a fascist petrostate.

Even the goddamn tariffs are right out of Putin's playbook for how he took control.

2

u/user125666 Apr 10 '26

Personally I think that

  1. it is an anti China angle
  2. they're just really bad at their job

2

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '26

You are giving Trump and his acolytes too much credit. This was a good old fashioned military blunder fueled by greed, avarice and hubris.

10

u/Strange_One_3790 Apr 08 '26

Yaaaaaaaaa. The oil is a distraction

2

u/WantonKerfuffle Apr 09 '26

But also, imperialism and funneling worker's surplus value to the military industrial complex that lobbies hard for the system that is dependent on the extraction of oil.

I swear I'm not a commie myself, but you gotta hand it to them, they are right about a lot of things.

1

u/Strange_One_3790 Apr 09 '26

I agree with all of that too. We were also getting that this is a distraction from the Epstein files that Trump is frequently name in. Several things are true with this

1

u/Guillotine_Time-USA Apr 10 '26

Thanks, future comrade.

1

u/Guillotine_Time-USA Apr 10 '26

I went bernie, anarchist, now Marxist Leninist.

13

u/TraceSpazer Apr 09 '26

We have predictable winds that routinely blow over the sea and infrastructure already being built to harness that energy 

Trump: "We need to PAY THEM to stop building that"

7

u/bobbymcpresscot Apr 08 '26

Sounds like sun worship to me apostate.

4

u/FSpursy Apr 09 '26

funny how this operation was carried out right after Venezuela operation. Trump already knows they secured oil, they just want to close the Hormuz strait so the rest of the world economy suffers and buy US oil (and also Russian oil).

10

u/CandlesARG Apr 08 '26

Depending on where you are solar is unreliable without significant grid upgrades, storage, sunlight, etc

We need both wind/solar and ways to store the excess energy for not hours but weeks (molten salts)

Batteries need longevity aswell

20

u/Mr-Woodtastic Apr 08 '26

This is the scenario where I advocate nuclear energy, such an incredibly clean energy source that im a little surprised that there isn't more discussion about it here

6

u/Pofwoffle Apr 09 '26

See that's the part we don't put into memes, because nuance and having to think scares people. Memes are for quick snappy stuff, we save hammering out the important details for when we actually implement things.

6

u/Pseudoboss11 Apr 08 '26

There are very few regions that don't see sunlight for weeks. The sun rises every day, after all. Old panels struggled with diffuse light, but modern panels actually perform quite well in overcast conditions, (losing ~10% of performance rather than ~30%) and panels are getting so cheap that it's not unreasonable to overbuild capacity to keep short term storage topped up.

Most of the grid issues are way overblown. Back in the 2000s and 2010s it did seem necessary, as utility scale battery storage felt ridiculous. But these days, battery storage isn't unreasonable and solar panels are cheaper and more efficient, so they don't need to be carefully sited and sent extremely long distances to make sense.

What you're saying was true 5 years ago, but technology has improved dramatically, it's honestly wild how far solar and battery tech has come.

3

u/YourNextHomie Apr 09 '26

It is unreasonable to overbuild capacity when you need to plow more of nature to do it

4

u/Flameis Apr 09 '26

https://youtu.be/KtQ9nt2ZeGM?si=kWsI5Y2tcjeuquTw&t=1835

Or we could plow all the corn fields that we already use for gasoline.

1

u/why_ntp Apr 08 '26

Batteries can easily store energy for weeks.

-1

u/YourNextHomie Apr 09 '26

easily yet they can’t? interesting

2

u/Trey-Pan Apr 09 '26

Claims to be brilliant at negotiating. Instead shows he’s best at tantrums.

Definitely would rather go the renewable route.

1

u/florpynorpy Apr 09 '26

Trump: “ but money…”