aquascoot wrote on Apr 15
th, 2026 at 3:47pm:
tallowood wrote on Apr 15
th, 2026 at 1:52pm:
Quote:And what about oil for Europe.
Donny has cut them off from the middle east.
They have 2 choices.
Grovel to donny or. GROVEL TO PUTIN.
yes, they may have to suck up to Russia to keep their economy going.
Not only oil but also gas and fertilizers for EU WOKE idiots
It's inexcusable for australia, which is at the very end of long and intricate supply chains to not be energy self sufficient.
Currently renewables contribute less then 10 % of our energy needs.
If america can be self sufficient in fuel and in fertilizer, we certainly can.
The truth is oil is going to be rationed and the countries with the biggest currency reserves ( China Korea japan ) , will have the cash to buy the tankers as they fill up in Singapore and we will have to print enormous amounts of cash to compete.
This will see a massive surge in inflation at the very least , undoubtedly a recession , and probable rationing of fuel and food.
Whilst america under trump , makes cash as an oil exporter.
It's not " being in a cult " to recognize how foolish albonese and successive governments have been.
Funding BS projects like the NDIS and childcare and pumped hydro and not developing a fuel industry
You're raging about fuel security now, but where was that concern when Bill Shorten took a policy to the election to expand domestic fuel reserves to 90 days and begin rebuilding local refining capacity, the very vulnerability you're suddenly pretending to care about?
Those refineries didn't vanish by accident. They were hollowed out under the exact "free market" settings you've spent years defending, where companies offshore production to chase margins and leave the country exposed. That's not some unforeseeable failure, it's the direct outcome of the model you backed.
So which is it?
You can't demand energy self-sufficiency while opposing the kind of state intervention required to achieve it. Rebuilding refining, mandating reserves, restructuring supply chains, all of that requires regulation, public investment, and government direction. The very things you routinely rail against.
And if for some reason you did get on board, if you lived long enough, you'd demand the entities created to achive this be privatised and we've be back to square one.
Spare the attempt to blame Anthony Albanese for structural issues that were ignored, or actively entrenched, long before he took office.
If this actually mattered to you, you'd have supported the policies designed to address it when they were on the table. You didn't. You backed the alternative, and now you're complaining about the consequences.
Make it make sense.