81
How's everyone's gas prices? (lemmy.world)
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
115 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Approximate location, price and date?

Edit: report back in a week any change if you remember.

E2: went up 9Β’ since I posted this morning. $3.19 now.

E3: $3.30 now. ~20Β’ in a day, 50Β’ in 4 days.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 7 months ago (19 children)

im hoping for $10, fuck Cars. It's not like this same shit hasn't happened before and the same thing repeats, had decades to navigate the changes needed and just ignored it... Insanity

My dream? an 80% reduction in private cars, and the rise of e bikes and e scoots, medium density housing, and more tree cover; quieter, friendlier, less deadly cities, you know 15 minute cities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (17 children)

    had decades to navigate the changes needed and just ignored it… Insanity

    it is insanity, but not for the lack of navigation; it was about preventing china from gaining economic leverage with affordable electric vehicles and scalable renewable technologies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (16 children)

    That makes no sense lmao

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (15 children)

    it makes perfect sense

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (14 children)

    It doesn't. If it was really a concern it'd be better to beat them to the technology

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago (13 children)

    yes, it would be better, but we didn't because we lack the industrial capacity to provide both at scale and affordably so. so instead we just doubled down on fossil fuels and carved out legal corporate & governmental protections for harming people that we predict will get fucked over by climate change.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (12 children)

    But that's just handing China the advantage without a fight, it doesn't slow them down at all. That's why it makes no sense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago* (11 children)

    we slowed them down by using super high tariffs on electric vehicles and solar panels and it makes sense from a geopolitical perspective. the united states & europe uses its economic leverage to control the world and letting people buy chinese electric vehicles, solar panels, etc. would give the chinese this same type of leverage.

    trump, biden, obama, both bushes, etc. consider china to be the enemy, so forcing people to stay dependent on fossil fuels instead of green energy is a way of making sure that the united states stays in control; the same is true for europe.

    that's also why we regime changed venezuela, libya, iran, etc. because they started selling oil using other currencies besides the american dollar and that would make the united states lose some of this leverage too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (10 children)

    But that's what im saying -- high tarrifs doesn't skow down technological innovation in China, of course they're way ahead of us now on EV technology. Yes, they did it to keep power over their United Statesian subjects, by keeping us in the dark they have more control over us. China didn't slow down at all because of that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (9 children)

    Exactly. So it wasn't that they ignored navigating, it was that their hegemony took priority.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    I guess my point is they used to have a lot more power in China than they do now. It didn't have to be this way, the oil billionaires and automobile CEO could have found a way to monopolize renewables and EV technology at home too. They just operated off of fear and laziness instead of bravery and industriousness.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (7 children)

    I'm glad they didn't; the morally bankrupt and depraved lengths to which American capitalists will go to for profit is slowly killing this world and they're in full knowledge of that fact.

    They can afford the finest talent money can buy and I bet that China's primacy had little impact on their plans. I also bet that's why they opted to delay instead of deny China; it doesn't matter anymore.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (6 children)

    I mean it's the classic revolutionary's dilemma -- does bringing the system down, which causes incredible amounts of death and suffering for the poor, worth it in the long run? IMHO it never is, because the system always finds the most painful and evil ways to go down, with no guarantee the next system is any better.

    Ideally the system itself improves over time like we saw happen in the 20th century in a lot of other countries, and social democracy takes over peacefully. But sometimes the capitalists won't let that happen and insist on a tragic and violent decline instead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    The system didn't improve itself peacefully throughout the 20th century bro wtf are you smoking

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    Yes but there's different levels of violence. Some countries had more violent deadly revolutions than others. Maybe India is the main example, yes too many people died but it wasn't on the level of some other revolutions and wars.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (1 child)

    I think your whole pov is confused. You want the system to improve itself peacefully but acknowledge to some extent that's not what improved it before. You don't want a proper revolution but instead small incremental improvements yet don't seem to understand the way things are now is a logical result of how our current system is structured. Tbh your viewpoint here just seems kind of naive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago*

    Well what I want doesn't matter because I have no power. Are you saying peaceful gradual change never works at all? I agree it's not working in the US at all. But ultimately it's because that what those in power want. It would be a lot better if they allowed peaceful improvements, like has happened in other countries, that's what I'm saying. There's also plenty of "proper revolutions" that end up with rich getting richer and poor getting poorer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent