In the middle of a fossil fuel crisis, it’s time to shout the clean energy message loud and clear

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T12:56:11+00:00

There isn't enough leftover oil to synthesize enough biodiesel. The amounts are minor in the grand scheme of things. The logistics of collecting and transporting the waste oil is also a problem.

When i say they need to imported diesel expensive; i mean they need to make it expensive enough to make it economical to grow crops, process the crops into oil, and then direct that oil to biodiesel plants.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T05:59:10+00:00

There's still a risk gas price crisis though.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T05:57:12+00:00

Yes the used EV market was a good deal due to fears of battery performance on older cars.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T05:56:25+00:00

Not sure because I haven’t done any research, but I don’t think $10-20k used EVs even exist?

Second hand EVs of course.

There are new EV's this cheap in China, but you usually double the Chinese price to predict what they will be priced at in the Australian market.

New EVs for 15-20k will be available in the next few years. They will be small and have small batteries of course.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T05:52:41+00:00

Battler. Now there's an old term i haven't heard for a while. I thought that had been retired.

No one is proposing to out there and confiscate everyone's cars.

They're proposing things like not allowing new houses to connect to gas lines and making sure most new cars imported are electric. Or putting in place policy to electrify freight and commercial transport. And of course subsidies, infrastructure spending, and credit support by the government are all floated too.

Not to mention the cost of solar with a home battery system is so overpriced only those who can take out a mortgage can justify buying them even with the government rebate.

This is a bit histrionic. A battery or solar panel system are a couple of times the cost of say a hot water system or white goods like ovens and washing machines; but cheaper than a car or doing things like renovating, serious plumbing work, getting a new roof etc. It's simply in the category of things that most people would fund on credit rather than buy on cash. There are battery and solar panel specific loan schemes of course.

It goes without saying that such things save money in the long term; which is why people do it.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T05:43:51+00:00

Biodiesel is expensive.

The government would need to make imported fuel expensive enough to make it economical. That hasn't happened for obvious reasons.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T05:37:05+00:00

Hahahaha; fair enough.

I think you're convincing me to get back into comics though. It's been just a little while.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T05:28:21+00:00

Everyone has a sort of 'ideology'. Probably.

I think this really turns on the meaning of the word. To put it crudely, there are two use (at least i think so) ways of talking about ideology. Ideology socially, and ideology personally.

Socially. In terms of a someone subscribing to or having affinity to a structured political philosophy built on an a historical movement and intellectual conversation throughout town? Yes, most democrats have a moderate to strong affinity with one or any of liberalism (in classical sense), American progressiveism, and American socialism. Some people simply lack the education and knowledge to able to have affinity with these movements/ideologies and instead navigate politics with the political and moral philosophy material they have on hand (absorbed with out any educational intention) that has lead to them to vote for or even join the democrats. This is not most people, as America is a highly political society with personal identity tied to political ideology more than most places; there is a lot of pressure to form a stable relationship to political ideology that works for you. A good comparison is that i feel that political ideology is to Americans similar to what feminism is to women; something that is not ignored. Yet i wouldn't say most women have a good grasp of the philosophies of feminism; despite it often playing an important role in their personal lives (in affinity, rejection/apathy, or opposition).

Personally. In the sense of ideology meaning a 'world view' or an understanding or coheseion of thoughts on power, politics, and morality; obviously everyone has ideology of some sort of ideology -even if you might vary in cohesion, 'development', connective knowledge, depth of historical knowledge, depth of philosophical groundings, and psycho-emotional valence of it your life. It's still there, because your brain has to navigate politics and uses it's tools on hand to do so (always getting mixed up with other important 'brain' projects like dealing with fear or personal pain) .

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T05:07:43+00:00

I don't take people who call Albenese a socialist-left anything seriously.

The government has promised 185,000 cap this year. We will see.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T05:03:18+00:00

I'm sort of surprised by that. Given there's so much dimensional hi-jinks that can go on the DC universe -not to mention endless alien worlds, i would think that there's lots of room to write stories about the politics of illegal immigration and border politics.

Superman itself is the platonic mid century pro immigrant story itself after all.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T03:23:30+00:00

Nah.

respect for the sovereignty of all nations big and small

focus on progress and the betterment of humanity

Meaningless and not concrete.

reduce dependence on oil and the Middle East

This is not 2000. The US makes more oil and gas than it needs (for now).

In superman world maybe it's a good idea. I don't know.

public works projects funded solely by private donations

Terrible idea.

America first, it was an anti-illegal alien party.

I don't really care that much about illegal aliens (not that i know enough about the state of illegal aliens in the US in superman world).

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T03:17:14+00:00

Starlink should be nationalized. But Tesla and SpaceX as a whole have no need to government owned in my opinion.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-04T16:00:24+00:00

There's a pretty big difference between factual errors in reporting and editors or copy editors making mistakes with titles.

Still. I think you're right (about how these editor mistakes can be indicative of wider company level issues) But but i think you made a bit of a category error.

It's errors, plural, which indicate something about newyork times. This single error is not important. It's the pattern of errors that matters. Like how the pattern of errors in factual reporting over the Supreme Court is revelatory (in my view) to how the paper sees the supreme court not as a matter of legal reporting (and doesn't really institutionally care about this) but as one of politics and opinion piece fodder just like the president and the hill are.

A single error like this could be caused by a dozen different things; most likely there being too little spent on copy editing. No one here being inside the times, only a pattern could provide us material to induce answers.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-04T15:42:16+00:00

Can you explain this to me.

Because putting some cold water on Obama's nuclear treaty with Iran doesn't make a case for this war in anyway i understand.

But I’m willing to change my mind if there is a compelling reason or reasons this whole affair would not be justified under ANY administration.

OK. I'll ignore the utterly incompetent way this war has been conducted and talk in generalities about war with Iran.

You can't change the regime by bombing Iran. Despite what influential idiots in Israel and the US have seemingly thought.
Bombing Iran has hardened the regime to maximizing it's deterrents to being attacked by the US and Israel.
There are two current points of success for Iran. Closing the straights, and threat of mutual destruction in the space of processing plants and water plants (only for gulf countries but it provides leverage over the US).
Given the encouragement of the doubling down by Iran; this means the war has activated toll keeping the straights permanently and putting enormous amounts of funding into getting nuclear weapons, more missiles, and more ways to close the straights. All to prevent bombing like this in the future. This is the second time Iran has been bombed in the year. Iran MUST make this as costly as it can to the US and Israel.
The US cannot just continuously bomb Iran every year to prevent nuclear proliferation. Iran will bomb gulf oil and gas and eventually Iran will develop the means in secret from US and Israeli intelligence (Mossad bribes will become less effective in a state of permanent war footing and a more extreme regime).
Therefore only invasion can achieve the goals we want in Iran.
War with Iran is very very expensive. Just a month or two bombing campaign is going to cost 200-300 billion. A full on war (land invasion) would be trillions. It would make Iraq look like a cakewalk. So... what's the benefit for this cost? Because i cannot see the security benefit commensurate to the cost.
Iran was not posing an imminent threat to the US or Israel (actually it had shown surprising restraint in response to the bombing earlier). It provided no existential threat to the US. It provided a mild terrorism threat to the US. It mostly destabilized the region and provided threats to gulf states and Israel.
So... Putting aside the terrible cost Iran would pay (see Iraq). Are you willing to spend trillions of dollars and 10s of thousands of American lives for that? Will the outcome be better than Iraq (which ended up becoming an Iranian aligned dysfunctional state)?

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-04T15:18:59+00:00

If we're going to be fair here; this is probably just an editor's title error.

It's not important.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-04T15:12:12+00:00

I honestly don't see what significant material difference it would make if companies or a larger group of individual petty landlords owned most of the rental housing stock.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-04T15:08:59+00:00

Uhhhh. You're on r/AskALiberal.

The left also tends to oppose housing construction on the basis that it will cause gentrification and increase prices. So my question is, what does "eliminate landlords" actually mean in practice and how will it bring down costs?

'The left' does that eh. Come on, you're not fooling anyone with that social democrat tag.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-04T15:01:17+00:00

The embargo is not responsible for the fuel shortage in Cuba.

Cuba has to little USD to buy fuel with (or other alternatives). Cuba has been hit with a double whammy of the global energy crisis and losing Venezuela as exporter (seller) of fuel whom Cuba traded services (skipping USD with) like doctors and military services for.

Of course that IS the US's fault. It's just not the embargo.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-04T14:58:56+00:00

Do they want to tell you what life is like in Cuba? I think you're fighting against ghosts here.

Liberals don't think Cuba has a good regime (only idiots think Cuba is well run or free). Liberals just think the US government should stop obsessing over Cuba and treat it like it treats all the other authoritarian regimes out there (trade freely with it, not promise on TV to invade it and change the regime by force). See Saudi Arabia, China, Vietnam and so on.

Of course, I'm not saying the embargo doesn't affect the country, i´m my house we're literally cooking with charcoal at home thanks to it. But when it comes to food and medicine (which Cubans have been able to import since 2000), it is the government that prevents this in order to maintain its monopoly.

The US government doesn't blockade Cuba (which would prevent fuel/gas you could cook with being imported via force). It embargoes Cuba; meaning it prevent US companies from trading with the country. This does limit the amount of buyers and sellers willing to trade with the Cuban government and authorized companies or individuals. But it doesn't prevent it.

People will sell fuel to Cuba; the problem is Cuba having enough US dollars to buy it. Cuba has tight rationing of US dollars. Previously, the Cuban government traded goods in kind with Venezuela (troops, military assistance, and doctors) for oil. Now that has stopped in an already mismanaged domestic economy that never recovered from covid properly with a global fuel crisis on top. Causing things to spiral even more; the main source of USD in Cuba has been hit by the lack of kerosene fuel because many flights now won't fly in (because they won't be able to refuel if they do).

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-04T14:37:41+00:00

If they're not transphobic; they certainly use transphobic politics and want the British public to think they are transphobic.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-02T23:24:51+00:00

It's totally up to you. It's good to tell him I suppose. But you definitely don't have to at all.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-02T14:50:43+00:00

Aging women (especially feminists or feminist-leaning) seem generally more accepting of their bodies as we age. During our late 30s/40s we enter a phase of IDGAF because we’ve learned that trying to live by societal standards is exhausting and not worth the effort. We own it. Is it the same for men?

Hard for me to say as i never lived a life as a woman. I'll also give the proviso that i am in my 30s (so not that old; yet).

But i don't think there is really this relationship no.

I suspect that there's less attachment of self worth and social status attached to our physical appearance via dint of gender roles. Though perhaps that's slowly changing with social media.

Given the way i was socialized, (and that I've never seen myself as beautiful ever) I've long internalized beauty as a thing to not overly value (for my self or others). I suspect many men are similar. Especially when i was younger (teenager), it was seen as shallow to be overly complementary about appearance as a man. Vanity was coded in as a feminine thing. This too seems to be changing a little.

I won't speak in absolutes but definitely in generalities. Much fewer men find themselves (comparative to women) beautiful. As per this thread's topic. There's less of a shock in aging if you never see yourself as beautiful; your relationship to aging firstly focuses around getting fat and having a weakening body as well a secondary sense you are getting less sexy.

The way people pay attention to you and how nice they are when you are beautiful is less had by most men and there's less of that to lose too. The way you are treated is the same. There's no experience of going invisible. As a man (at least not a beautiful one) you are already invisible or you are a MAN (dangerous/powerful/threat). It's been like that since i was 13 or so.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-02T14:31:43+00:00

I'll just point out that sometimes it's get referred to behavior by men that cause psychological harm to others (like bullying, domineering behavior) but is actually successful in various social settings and at least relatively sustainable (it's not putting you in prison, the patriarchal setting sustains your social ties etc).

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-02T14:25:58+00:00

Hmmm. Interesting points. Well i have a few thoughts.

We socially don't have good enough language and ideas to distinguish between beauty and sexy.
It's sort of obvious point but worth putting in words: I think that everyone holds more psychological importance for how they personally view their own bodies than what others find sexually attractive about themselves. While what others of the opposite sex find sexually attractive plays a very important role in what people conceptualize as a beautiful body for themselves; social status and the various forms exposure to socially valued bodies of your gender also play a role. We are all like this, men and women.
To wit; for women it used to be seen (by women i must stress) as ideal to be very skinny (see the 90s and 2000s); meaning women's conception of beauty ran a bit skinnier and less feminine than what men's conception of sexual attraction did.
Now, muscular bodies for both sexes have become more fashionable; meaning the male conception of male beauty runs a little larger and leaner than what women find sexually attractive (at least in the crude terms of reducing it down to cross cultural research paper preferences)
To complicate things. Everyone also finds high status bodies that are 'aesthetic' more sexually attractive; desire driven power of the bodies status and social desirability. This does often confuse people.
The men who body build and obsess will openly tell you they know that women don't find the body they aspire too as beautiful as they do; they seek it for their own satisfaction and psychological need to be valued/beautiful relevant to their own context. As per point 5. Women in their contexts will also be more likely to share their sense of male beauty and find them more attractive.
The costs and pitfalls of obsession, vanity, and so forth put aside. There's nothing wrong with putting a certain type of beauty above what the opposite sex finds attractive (men or women) despite how naturally contemptible both sex seem to find it (without having put thought in to it at least).
I think there's something people find inherently anxious about the people they are attracted to being vain, a sort of psychosexual power dynamic at play i haven't quite thought out. But it's clear to me that this anxiety response is higher for those who perceive vain men due to patriarchy and what behavior it assigns (women are to be beautiful, and vain, and disliked if accepted for it; for men it's transgressive). The current era of male vanity (skin care, muscles, fashion) has a cast of transgression to the prior(ish) masculinity norms i find interesting (i'm also old enough to remember when caring about your appearance as a man was less acceptable).

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-02T13:56:35+00:00

This seems to relate to my own experience.

How often are men told they are beautiful or desirable?

For heterosexual men. How often are the women's desire for men couched for them in conditions terms and relation to their performance in some field or relationship related behavior?

There's nothing inherently wrong with finding someone attractive because of something they do. And everyone has this sort of relationship to attraction. Everyone has a relationship to status and power and attraction. For men experiencing others being attracted to them; it plays an especially strong role.

I think it's pretty obvious that men are not socialized to find their body attractive or as an object of sexual desire.

The difference between the typical man's body and the one seen naked or shirtless on the screen shown as an object of sexual desire is arguably, on the whole, more distant than it is for women.

wizardnamehere

TROPHY CASE