this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
732 points (99.3% liked)

World News

38968 readers
2644 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


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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron held a call to discuss the potential implications of Donald Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency for Europe.

The leaders pledged to strengthen cooperation for a “more united, stronger, more sovereign Europe” in light of this possibility. Macron emphasized a commitment to European sovereignty while maintaining cooperation with the U.S. Additionally, German and French defense ministers plan to meet to coordinate on defense policies.

Trump’s ambiguous stance on Russia’s war in Ukraine and his critical view of NATO burden-sharing raise concerns in Europe about future U.S.-Europe relations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kautau@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Last year the US imported ~8 million barrels of oil per day from 86 countries and exported about ~10 million barrels per day to 160 countries. Why didn’t we simply net it out at 2 million and stop all imports? Setting up additional drilling infrastructure not only takes time, but it’s often far more profitable to import/export over sea. Why would we stop the profitable export of oil and prevent the profitable purchase of oil to spend time and money just moving oil across the country?

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 4 hours ago

You're moving goalposts. You claimed that we'd pay MORE (dollar on the dime). Drilling locally means supply increases considerably. Supply going up with demand staying in place means price drops, there's no reason to pay "dollar on the dime"... and doing so would actually mean price increases.

Also, most exports are of the crude for processing where we purchase the refined for use. We had a decent deal with Canada to make a boatload of oil export/import in that exact purpose. But then Biden shut down the pipeline that would have made that much more efficient.