Saudi Arabia is driving a huge global investment plan to create demand for its oil and gas in developing countries, an undercover investigation has revealed. Critics said the plan was designed to get countries “hooked on its harmful products”.

Little was known about the oil demand sustainability programme (ODSP) but the investigation obtained detailed information on plans to drive up the use of fossil fuel-powered cars, buses and planes in Africa and elsewhere, as rich countries increasingly switch to clean energy.

  • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    You mean to tell me a country who’s entire luxury lifestyle is based almost solely off of oil money has a vested interest in keeping that money flowing no matter the ethical implications?? - colour me shocked!

    • ExLisper@linux.communityOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The infuriating thing is not that Saudis are doing this. The infuriating part is that the west still treats then like allies and protects them.

      • Hyperreality@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        If politicians threaten Saudi Arabia’s interests, they cut production just before an election, and dumb voters blame the government trying to curtail their influence.

        So you can blame western governments, but western voters are just as much to blame.

        • BruceTwarzen@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’ll never not find it funny that americans think the president has two buttons that says: make gas expensive and make gas cheap

        • P1r4nha@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s not wrong. Voters need to demand an infrastructure and options that allow them to not compromise their values when leading a normal life.

          • Raine_Wolf@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            The thing is that most voters would be in favor of such a thing. Which is why those policies rarely find their way to polls. We don’t live in a direct democracy. We live in an oligarchy.

            Edit: Talking about the US here.

            • P1r4nha@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yeah, it was a more general comment about the West. Including back-sliding democracies like the US.

    • Doorbook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      You mean to tell me that countries who buy the products have issue when their suppliers sell to other people?

      If they UK have issue with fossil fuels they should actual act instead of pertending to care about global warming when the saudi tried to sell a product, and at the same time not doing anything to reduce their emissions.

      In fact about 12 or something UK companies sign gas extraction deals with Isreal three weeks ago from the shores of Gaza…

      You don’t see a title: Isreal (hook) UK gas companies with (multi billion deal).

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Solar is dropping in cost so fast and production is increasing so rapidly that in tandem with available modern connectivity/tech tutorials, I think the practical appeal of sustainable energy will outstrip corporate greed and national conspiracies of the sort mentioned in this article.

    • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      practical appeal of sustainable energy will outstrip corporate greed

      Nah it’ll just migrate to the battery manufacturers

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        What do you mean?

        Battery manufacturers have as much to gain as anybody else from sustainable energy.

        • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          I mean corporate greed will not die with the oil companies, it’ll live on in whomever takes their place

    • AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I reallllllly want solar. I have enough roof space that I think it might be entirely possible to offset my monthly usage and then some with the right investment.

      Unfortunately, some 3000+ kW/mo costs me ~$170/mo and currently the best solar I could price out was going to run me quadruple that at best, with concessions.

      I’m fine if it was…say…double the cost, but at the moment it just doesn’t make financial sense.

      Problem is…it comes down to timing and then it just feels like trying to time the stock market. I suppose I’ll just do it one of these days…

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Solar surplus depots is what you want.

        The solar surplus stores remove “old” large installations from warehouses or universities and replace them with the newest panels, clean and check the solar panels they removed,put them in their warehouse, and then you can buy these three-year-old panels that still have near 100% efficiency for half the price at maximum, and usually cheaper.

        I covered the roof of an RV with 200 watt panels that were $30 each and all five panels are still working today.

        150 for 5 panels, 200 for a new inverter, 120 or so for the charge controller, a couple batteries and the RV had 1000kW for about $700 for about 4 years now. You want 3000kW, so your price will go up, maybe $2000 for the equipment, and then you just add installation costs if you’re doing grid-tie.

        You can call around and see if the handymen in your area know how to do installation for a reasonable fee if you don’t want to do it yourself, but a surplus solar depot is the way to get cheap, quality solar.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Sure thing. It’s even worth it to drive a couple states over if you find a solid reseller, because the savings are so good and none of the technology has moving parts so it all works forever. Good luck, it’s so cool to have a working solar system.

      • mea_rah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Well move to Europe then. 3000kWh will usually cost you (depending on the country) somewhere between $500 and $1500.

        Is electricity subsidized where you live or something like that?

        • AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Been actually considering it!

          I don’t know. I live in a relatively rural area. The electricity is quasi-municipal. I know it was 2.5x higher when I lived closer to Portland, OR.

          • mea_rah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yeah, your prices are very cheap by the standards of my country. I mean there are “EV” plans where I could maybe get that kind of price for a couple hours a day sometimes between 1am and 5am. But the rest of the day would be significantly more expensive.

  • answersplease77@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    11 months ago

    What?! You’re trying to tell me those rich dictatorship twats don’t care about the harm they cause to the world just so they stay in power?

  • naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    The only thing that will meaningfully drive people away from fossil fuels is cheaper, greener alternatives. The lack of investment in the West into making affordable options is leaving the door wide open for big oil producers… You can’t deny a country their opportunity to develop, improve living standards, and pull people out of poverty for some nebulous “greater good” while you, with your brand new Tesla and brand new iPhone flying across the country in business on a brand new Boeing 787, talk about switching to clean energy. You need to make clean energy the economical choice in the first place.

  • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Their plan to hike up the prices is probably going to work for limited time only or they are feeling that migration to clean energy already. Could be both as well.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Little was known about theoil demand sustainability programme (ODSP) but the investigation obtained detailed information on plans to drive up the use of fossil fuel-powered cars, buses and planes in Africa and elsewhere, as rich countries increasingly switch to clean energy.

    The ODSP plans to accelerate the development of supersonic air travel, which it notes uses three times more jet fuel than conventional planes, and partner with a carmaker to mass produce a cheap combustion engine vehicle.

    The ODSP is overseen by Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, the crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, and involves its biggest organisations, such as the $700bn Public Investment Fund, the world’s largest oil company, Aramco, the petrochemicals firm Sabic, and the government’s most important ministries.

    In publicly available information, the programme is largely presented as “removing barriers” to energy and transport in poorer countries and “increasing sustainability”, for example by providing gas cooking stoves to replace wood burning.

    To achieve this, fossil fuel emission must fall rapidly and most oil and gas reserves must be kept in the ground, meaning climate policies, such as support for electric cars, pose a significant threat to the oil-rich state’s revenues.

    The ODSP is additionally targeting bus, ride-sharing and delivery services, according to the presentation: “The goal is to support the deployment of ICE fleets across developing countries to capture the increasing gasoline/diesel demand.”


    The original article contains 1,298 words, the summary contains 226 words. Saved 83%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • ExLisper@linux.communityOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Great, we have the “what about X” comment. Now we just need “China pollutes more than US” and “I can’t buy an EV because I drive 10.000 miles a day” comment and we can close this thread.

      • assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        I commute to the moon and back uphill every single day. Battery power and ion drives just won’t cut it. That’s why I need a coal powered car.

      • Hyperreality@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        What about the ‘building new cars is bad for the environment’, ‘EVs are expensive’, ‘I’d rather use a bike’, or ‘I’d prefer the government invested in affordable public transport, rather than subsidize the upper middle-class in buying an overpowered status symbol produced by a company run by an anti-semite’ argument?