Is she right about Dubai?

[zeilaprime]

How many crimes must the UAE commit against other Muslim states before Somalis (who have options) stop going there? They finance the terrorist RSF in Sudan and help in the looting of their gold, they back Israel and support the ethnic cleansing of Gazans, they supported the overthrow of Gaddafi turning Libya into a failed state, they are sympathetic to the breakup of Somalia, and the independence of Somaliland, etc....

They are the fifth column in the Muslim world.

 

[Idilinaa]

People forget that Abu Dhabi bailed Dubai out in 2008 when the crash hit. They seriously could not complete the Burj because of it. It was meant to be called Burj Dubai originally. I remember when it was being built and that was the official name and the name on everyone's lips in town then the crash hit, Abu Dhabi bailed them out with oil money and they named it after the then Sheikh Khalifa in thanks. Abu Dhabi's oil wealth is often a crutch for all the other Emirates that it dangles over their heads.

It shows you how artificially proped up and unsustainable their economy is. Abu Dhabi had to step in with a $10 billion bailout to stabilize Dubai’s debts, preventing total economic collapse.

Dubai relies on Abu Dhabi’s oil money, while Dubai presents itself as a "self-sufficient" economy, it has a built-in financial safety net from Abu Dhabi’s massive oil reserves.

So imagine if that is gone?

 

[Shimbiris]

What they should have done is actually put the oil money into investing in their native human capital, local industrial base activity, and like you said improving their environment, eco-system etc to support life

But instead they did the opposite of that and built an unsustainable economy.

To put it simply they had a historic opportunity to build a truly sustainable, self-reliant economy, but they squandered it. Instead of developing their people, industries, and environment, they chose short-term, flashy, unsustainable projects that only benefit foreigners.

This is what they did wrong:

- Imported millions of foreign workers instead of training their own people.

- Created a welfare-dependent population that doesn’t work or innovate.

- Allowed expats to dominate their private sector, leaving locals without control.

What they should have done:

- Invest in world-class universities & technical schools for Gulf citizens.

- Encourage entrepreneurship so locals build businesses instead of relying on the government.

- Create a culture of innovation instead of a culture of dependence.

What They Did Wrong:

- Focused on real estate and tourism instead of manufacturing and exports.

- Became completely dependent on imports for food, technology, and consumer goods.

- Let foreign companies own and control their industries instead of developing local expertise.

What They Should Have Done:

- Develop local industries (steel, textiles, food processing, machinery, pharmaceuticals).

- Build Gulf-owned car, electronics, and defense companies instead of just buying from the West.

-Invest in local energy technology like advanced solar power, nuclear energy, or biofuels.

What they did wrong:

- Focused on building luxury cities in the desert instead of making the desert livable.

- Ignored water scarcity and food production, making themselves dependent on imports.

- Destroyed local ecosystems instead of restoring them.

What they should have done:
- Use regenerative agriculture to make parts of the desert green and farmable.

- Invest in desalination, aquaponics, and vertical farming for food security.

- Plant millions of trees to improve the climate and stop desertification.

What they did wrong:

- Built flashy megacities that consume more energy than they produce.

- Depended only on oil instead of diversifying early.

- Spent billions on Western military protection instead of creating independent defense industries.

What they should have done:

- Develop next-gen alternative fuels (algae biofuel, nuclear, hydrogen).

- Build a strong sovereign wealth fund that invests in productive industries.

- Manufacture their own weapons and defense systems instead of buying from the US and Europe.


If you compare them with the Norway example that @NidarNidar gave, it's like night and day. I think if they didn't have monarchies that dictated things with no regard for the citizens future because there is no local decision making, i think the trajectory would have gone differently.

They would have chosen long term sustainability over flash and glamour.

Oman is slowly trending in a different direction because it was influenced earlier on by socialism in the 1970s and is a constitutional monarchy in transition that increasingly allows for local decision making and inclusion.

I'll give Saudi this in that they actually did try to create some semblance of industry and Saudi Aramco is truly a behemoth of a company. I would actually read this book as it very astutely outlines why Saudi Aramco is just "built different" on the world stage in terms of getting at, refining and controlling oil reserves. They are leaps and bounds ahead of everyone at this, including the Americans and they actually very intelligently and carefully nationalized it, allowing Saudi nationals to gradually dominate the top-brass, understand the ins and outs of the company and no longer really require western hand-holding to run it.

They're also a regional leader for various industrial products through SABIC and other companies where I remember growing up in Dubai and Sharjah and our house being filled with dairy products, shampoos, soaps, detergents and whatever else that were manufactured in Saudi Arabia. But here too you will likely correctly point out that the problem is still oil dependence. Even when they built other thriving industries like a dairy industry and even a decent enough food export industry; it was all built on oil infrastructure being its lifeline and unsustainable practices.

For example, their agricultural projects were basically taking vast oil money to drill into aquifers in the desert then just use those aquifers until they ran out to create temporary farmland whereas they could have tried to long-term, slowly and sustainably green the land instead:



This is what I meant about MBS. It's not just him, it's Saudis in general. There's quite a bit of brilliance going on then just weird short-term thinking that sabotages that brilliance and renders it a bit moot and, at the end of the day, they can't seem to help but keep making oil the center piece of everything.

But I think this could be their saving grace and buy them time in that they could leverage Saudi Aramco and SABIC's unparalleled efficiency and offer countries like ours the opportunity to drill for us at a price then pivot into the more intelligent diversification and investment strategies you outlined. I'm genuinely confused at why they don't try to do this and are so focused on nonsense like Sports-washing the tourism. I'd be up HSM's fuuto right now if I were them and running around Africa, South America and SE Asia offering them China-like contracts.

 

[Idilinaa]

I'll give Saudi this in that they actually did try to create some semblance of industry and Saudi Aramco is truly a behemoth of a company. I would actually read this book as it very astutely outlines why Saudi Aramco is just "built different" on the world stage in terms of getting at, refining and controlling oil reserves and they actually very intelligently and carefully nationalized it, allowing Saudi nationals to gradually dominate the top-brass, understand the ins and outs of the company and no longer really require western hand-holding to run it.

They're also a regional leader for various industrial products through SABIC and other companies where I remember growing up in Dubai and Sharjah and our house being filled with dairy products, shampoos, soaps, detergents and whatever else that were manufactured in Saudi Arabia. But here too you will likely correctly point out that the problem is still oil dependence. Even when they built other thriving industries like a dairy industry and even a decent enough food export industry; it was all built on oil infrastructure being its lifeline and unsustainable practices.

For example, their agricultural projects were basically taking vast oil money to drill into aquifers in the desert then just use those aquifers until they ran out to create temporary farmland whereas they could have tried to long-term, slowly and sustainably green the land instead:



This is what I meant about MBS. It's not just him, it's Saudis in general. There's quite a bit of brilliance going on then just weird short-term thinking that sabotages that brilliance and renders it a bit moot and, at the end of the day, they can't seem to help but keep making oil the center piece of everything.

It's impossible and unrealistic for the gulf nations to become agriculturally self-sufficient, largely because of the water scarcity. Agriculture requires massive amounts of water.

Desalination is expensive and cannot fully support large-scale irrigation without enormous costs.

The desert soil in the Gulf is nutrient-poor, sandy, and lacks organic matter, making it difficult to grow crops. Artificial soil improvement is costly and requires heavy use of fertilizers, which can harm the environment.

Extreme heat (45–50°C in summer) kills most crops, even with irrigation, plants struggle to survive. High evaporation rates mean that water use must be doubled or tripled compared to normal climates. Sandstorms can destroy crops and infrastructure, adding even more challenges.

So it's actually high cost and low economic return. They should actually instead buy farmland abroad and import the food back. Djibouti has done this btw. It would be much cheaper to import food than to grow it locally.

What you will see like that video you showed is that Gulf states will continue using high-tech farming for limited crops but will always rely on food imports.

 

[Midas]

I don't know howe they could force their native pouplation to work. The people have gotten used to decades of living this way. A high skilled labor pool requires a competitive society . Look at east asia . There's nothing you could do to motivate a large chunk of the native pouplation to work 40+ hours a week.

 

[Shimbiris]

It's impossible and unrealistic for the gulf nations to become agriculturally self-sufficient, largely because of the water scarcity

Desalination is expensive and cannot fully support large-scale irrigation without enormous costs.

The desert soil in the Gulf is nutrient-poor, sandy, and lacks organic matter, making it difficult to grow crops. Artificial soil improvement is costly and requires heavy use of fertilizers, which can harm the environment.

Extreme heat (45–50°C in summer) kills most crops—even with irrigation, plants struggle to survive. High evaporation rates mean that water use must be doubled or tripled compared to normal climates. Sandstorms can destroy crops and infrastructure, adding even more challenges.

It's actually high cost and low economic return. They should actually instead buy farmland abroad and import the food back. Djibouti has done this btw. It would be much cheaper to import food than to grow it locally.

What you will see like that video you showed is that Gulf states will continue using high-tech farming for limited crops but will always rely on food imports.

What do you make of this last bit I added:

But I think this could be their saving grace and buy them time in that they could leverage Saudi Aramco and SABIC's unparalleled efficiency and offer countries like ours the opportunity to drill for us at a price then pivot into the more intelligent diversification and investment strategies you outlined. I'm genuinely confused at why they don't try to do this and are so focused on nonsense like Sports-washing the tourism. I'd be up HSM's fuuto right now if I were them and running around Africa, South America and SE Asia offering them China-like contracts.

I'm not joking, walaal, these guys drill and process shidaal like no one else.

 

[The alchemist]

@Shimbiris @NidarNidar @Hurder @NordicSomali @Taintedlove

The Gulf Economies (UAE, Kuwait, Qatar , Saudi etc) are doomed in the long run.

Oil is running out and at the same time fossil fuel is becoming less in demand.

The attempts diversify is not even working, they try to move away from it by building tourism, finance, and tech sectors but all rely on foreign labor and expertise.

Most of their "new industries" are still funded by oil money, meaning they are not self-sustaining.

They lack local human capital, most citizens are not involved in economic productivity.

You cannot "diversify" an economy that is 80% dependent on foreign workers. Local Gulf citizens lack the work ethic, technical skills, and industrial base to sustain these economies without oil.

Their extreme dependence on foreign labour & capital is their achilees heel. The Gulf economies rely almost entirely on migrant labor from construction to service industries.

For example 90% of Dubai’s workforce is foreign, what this means is that if the expats leave, the economy collapses.

Investors are already pulling out due to political instability, corruption, and declining oil revenues. Once oil revenues drop, these economies will no longer be attractive to investors or expats.

They also are losing influence and are weak innovators. Gulf nations have little technological innovation, they mostly import expertise from the West and Asia. China and India are developing their own energy independence, meaning they will not rely on Gulf oil forever. Western countries are diversifying their energy sources, weakening the Gulf’s geopolitical leverage.

They drive massive government spending into unrealistic mega projects , that don't create real economic growth. End up in-debt. Kuwait and Bahrain for example are struggling with rising debt.
Dubai and other Gulf cities are built on real estate bubbles, not sustainable industries.

Unlike countries like Japan, Singapore, or Norway, they did not build strong local industries.

I am also pretty sure they bit their own tail by entangling themselves into regional geo-politicial conflicts and threats, by playing manipulators and infighting. So it will all just converge into them once they don't have the wealth and influence defend against it.

Also Internal dissatisfaction will rise, since the native citizens are used to easy wealth but are now being forced to work harder. The elite ruling families will not survive and economic hardship will spread, they will all fall like domino.

I think we have to be a bit realistic. Energy needs are rising while alternative systems are not produced, efficient, or cost-effective enough to replace the growing need, so fossil fuel for all its fluctuations of its currency-based trade value is going to stay for a long while. Look guys, KSA for example have speculated over 200 years of oil in the current rate of production including potential hidden reserves. A lot of people talk as if oil is obsolete when nothing has changed as far as demand goes, and that things will be depleted in a decade or three.

Saudi Arabia Oil Reserves, Production and Consumption Statistics - Worldometer

Current and historical Reserves, Production, and Consumption of Oil in Saudi Arabia. Global rank and share of world's total. Data, Statistics and Charts.

www.worldometers.info

Trust me, the world would have been in extreme panic if we only had a couple of decades left of oil in a mainly oil-driven economy. All global supply chain and logistics are based on oil. Diversifications mean nothing if you can't move material from A to B.

Diversification of the economy is generally good for an economy regardless, but Saudi Arabia and UAE are not in extreme stress because of fuel reliance.

"We expect oil consumption to rise during the current decade, as do the other three forecasters, but opinions differ on the level of growth. OPEC remains the most bullish on oil demand, expecting it to be 12% higher in 2030 than 2021. The least bullish is BP, forecasting that oil demand will increase by 3% between 2021 and 2025 and will then plateau until 2030. In the middle, IEA forecasts global oil demand to be 8% higher in 2030 than in 2021, while we expect 10% growth during that period. We expect stronger global oil demand growth than BP and IEA largely because we expect faster growth in China and India, based on our internal forecasts for GDP and the transport sector."

The Economist article claims oil and gas will increase within this decade. By the way, it will not plateau at 2030 as these guys put out. The issue with these people is that they only consider demand around anything but Africa and fail to see how the energy demand of Africa will rise by several orders of magnitude in the coming decades. That is right. Global energy demand will have a differential increase.

 

[Idilinaa]

What do you make of this last bit I added:



I'm not joking, walaal, these guys drill and process shidaal like no one else.

Sounds like a good idea, they could buy time with this. The revenue generated from these strategic partnerships could provide a financial cushion, allowing Gulf economies more time to develop and implement sustainable diversification plans.

This " could enable them to invest in sectors like technology, renewable energy etc without the immediate pressure of economic instability.

They are more obsessed with global reputation management and influence purchasing. Thats why they waste their money on sports washing and tourism where they throw their money around.

 

[Idilinaa]

I think we have to be a bit realistic. Energy needs are rising while alternative systems are not produced, efficient, or cost-effective enough to replace the growing need, so fossil fuel for all its fluctuations of its currency-based trade value is going to stay for a long while. Look guys, KSA for example have speculated over 200 years of oil in the current rate of production including potential hidden reserves. A lot of people talk as if oil is obsolete when nothing has changed as far as demand goes, and that things will be depleted in a decade or three.

Saudi Arabia Oil Reserves, Production and Consumption Statistics - Worldometer

Current and historical Reserves, Production, and Consumption of Oil in Saudi Arabia. Global rank and share of world's total. Data, Statistics and Charts.

www.worldometers.info

Trust me, the world would have been in extreme panic if we only had a couple of decades left of oil in a mainly oil-driven economy. All global supply chain and logistics are based on oil. Diversifications mean nothing if you can't move material from A to B.

Diversification of the economy is generally good for an economy regardless, but Saudi Arabia and UAE are not in extreme stress because of fuel reliance.

"We expect oil consumption to rise during the current decade, as do the other three forecasters, but opinions differ on the level of growth. OPEC remains the most bullish on oil demand, expecting it to be 12% higher in 2030 than 2021. The least bullish is BP, forecasting that oil demand will increase by 3% between 2021 and 2025 and will then plateau until 2030. In the middle, IEA forecasts global oil demand to be 8% higher in 2030 than in 2021, while we expect 10% growth during that period. We expect stronger global oil demand growth than BP and IEA largely because we expect faster growth in China and India, based on our internal forecasts for GDP and the transport sector."

The Economist article claims oil and gas will increase within this decade. By the way, it will not plateau at 2030 as these guys put out. The issue with these people is that they only consider demand around anything but Africa and fail to see how the energy demand of Africa will rise by several orders of magnitude in the coming decades. That is right. Global energy demand will have a differential increase.

There are a couple misunderstandings in your post in regards to the long-term dynamics of energy and global economics.

While it’s true that some estimates show substantial oil reserves in countries like Saudi Arabia, the problem isn't necessarily about how much oil is left it's about the "changing nature of global demand " and the transition to alternative energy sources. Even if Saudi Arabia has 200 years of oil at current production rates, that doesn't mean global economies will keep consuming it at the same pace. Energy transitions, shifts in technology, and climate policies are all pushing countries away from fossil fuels. While they may still dominate in some regions for the next few decades, that doesn’t guarantee long-term reliance on oil will remain strong.

The argument that oil will continue to be in high demand until 2030 is short-sighted. Yes, energy needs are rising in many parts of the world, including in Asia and Africa. But the critical factor is the shift towards renewable energy (solar, wind, hydropower, and nuclear) that many countries are already investing heavily in. The global energy transition is underway, and while oil will still be a part of the mix for years, its role in global energy consumption will diminish. The drop in oil demand by major consumers (like Western nations, and increasingly China and India) is already happening, as they shift toward alternative energy sources to mitigate climate change.

China's Slowing Oil Demand Growth Is Likely to Persist and Could Impact Markets - Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA | CGEP %

Get the latest as our experts share their insights on global energy policy.

www.energypolicy.columbia.edu

When it comes to energy demand in Africa, which is true, the key point is that many African countries are already making significant strides in developing their own energy resources and diversifying away from fossil fuels. Africa’s increasing energy demand may not translate to continued reliance on Gulf oil, as countries in Africa look to develop more sustainable energy sources (solar, geothermal, and others). Additionally, Africa’s rising energy demand will be met more by local and regional solutions than by continued dependency on oil from the Gulf.

While oil might still be important in the immediate term, the Gulf countries have already been trying to diversify their economies, but they’re not succeeding at building sustainable industries that will truly replace oil. The Gulf economies' diversification efforts are mostly reliant on foreign labor and foreign investment, and many of the "new" industries, such as tourism, tech, and finance, are still very dependent on oil revenues to maintain their growth. They have not created a broad-based, sustainable industrial base or local knowledge economy to rely on once oil begins to decline. Without this foundation, the economies are vulnerable.

My criticism about labor is particularly important. The argument that the Gulf economies are not in extreme stress ignores the fact that these countries' labor forces are overwhelmingly foreign, with very little involvement from the native populations. Gulf citizens are generally not involved in everyday productive activities due to a combination of cultural factors and a reliance on foreign workers for much of the manual, technical, and service-oriented work. This reliance on foreign labor presents a significant vulnerability. If those workers leave or if there are political changes that disrupt immigration policies, the economies could collapse.

 

[The alchemist]

There are a couple misunderstanding in your post in regarding the long-term dynamics of energy and global economics.

While it’s true that some estimates show substantial oil reserves in countries like Saudi Arabia, the problem isn't necessarily about how much oil is left it's about the "changing nature of global demand " and the transition to alternative energy sources. Even if Saudi Arabia has 200 years of oil at current production rates, that doesn't mean global economies will keep consuming it at the same pace. Energy transitions, shifts in technology, and climate policies are all pushing countries away from fossil fuels. While they may still dominate in some regions for the next few decades, that doesn’t guarantee long-term reliance on oil will remain strong.

The argument that oil will continue to be in high demand until 2030 is short-sighted. Yes, energy needs are rising in many parts of the world, including in Asia and Africa. But the critical factor is the shift towards renewable energy (solar, wind, hydropower, and nuclear) that many countries are already investing heavily in. The global energy transition is underway, and while oil will still be a part of the mix for years, its role in global energy consumption will diminish. The drop in oil demand by major consumers (like Western nations, and increasingly China and India) is already happening, as they shift toward alternative energy sources to mitigate climate change.

Enverus: Global Oil Demand Unlikely to Decline 15% By 2030 | OilPrice.com

Enverus: EV revolution is starting to face serious roadblocks, with China’s renewable energy and EV sector facing a tariff storm.

oilprice.com

Last month, the International Energy Agency (IEA) published its annual World Energy Outlook, wherein it predicted that global demand for all fossil fuels will stop growing in the current decade while renewable energy would account for almost half of global power generation by 2030. According to the Paris-based energy watchdog, global oil demand would need to fall from the current clip of 103 million barrels per day to ~ 85 million barrels per day in 2030 for the world to be on pace to hit its net zero target by 2050. That works out to a decline rate of three to four million barrels per day, per year, till the end of the decade.


While oil might still be important in the immediate term, the Gulf countries have already been trying to diversify their economies, but they’re not succeeding at building sustainable industries that will truly replace oil. The Gulf economies' diversification efforts are mostly reliant on foreign labor and foreign investment, and many of the "new" industries, such as tourism, tech, and finance, are still very dependent on oil revenues to maintain their growth. They have not created a broad-based, sustainable industrial base or local knowledge economy to rely on once oil begins to decline. Without this foundation, the economies are vulnerable.

The critique about labor is particularly important. The argument that the Gulf economies are not in extreme stress ignores the fact that these countries' labor forces are overwhelmingly foreign, with very little involvement from the native populations. Gulf citizens are generally not involved in everyday productive activities due to a combination of cultural factors and a reliance on foreign workers for much of the manual, technical, and service-oriented work. This reliance on foreign labor presents a significant vulnerability. If those workers leave or if there are political changes that disrupt immigration policies, the economies could collapse.

There is no misunderstanding. The changing demand is false, is what I explicitly stated. The projections don't show those values. Only Western countries will stay flat at some point, but the rest of the developing world that is somehow bizarrely removed from the equation, is going to increase in demand while their purchasing power increase.

These energy conversations become very dogmatic where people peddle the same talking points that really are spread by Westerners. It does not hold truth when you realize that demand will increase. Yes, a rich country like Norway will add the costs on their citizens and increase shit like electric car use and increase cost for fuel (they do that stuff now), but that is handful of countries that can afford to increase the cost of living without making issues. A country like Nigeria will demand more energy. This is not complicated to fathom.

 

[Shimbiris]

rising in many parts of the world, including in Asia and Africa. But the critical factor is the shift towards renewable energy (solar, wind, hydropower, and nuclear) that many countries are already investing heavily in. The global energy transition is underway, and while oil will still be a part of the mix for years, its role in global energy consumption will diminish. The drop in oil demand by major consumers (like Western nations, and increasingly China and India) is already happening, as they shift toward alternative energy sources to mitigate climate change.

I think @The alchemist is somewhat correct, though, in that I don't think people fully understand how the global economy is dependent on oil from head to toe. It's not just energy, walaal, it's industrial fertilizers, it's medicine production, it's plastics, it's the fact that you're not gonna run tanker ships and planes on nukes and batteries and much more. The food one is the scariest. Outside of animal-based fertilizers that can't at current capacity be scaled up enough, we seriously have no actual viable industrial alternative to fossil fuels for fertilizers (that I recall).

Fossil Fuels are what one might call a "Master Resource". The film Black Panther actually looks like one made by people who understand Fossil Fuel's role in the modern world in that Vibranium in the film is pretty much a fossil fuel allegory. It gives the Wakandans everything from clothing, to energy, to building materials, medicine and so on; just like fossil fuels do for us. They're everywhere, in everything.

Even those renewables you're mentioning like solar and wind re not actually that efficient or reliable, being intermittent, and have to be constantly supplemented by fossil fuels. We really have no actual full-scale replacement for FFs. People get lost in nonsense like energy but it's about a whole lot more than that. He's right that there would be a lot more panic and madness afoot if they truly were close to running out. If they ran out in the next 20 years we'd go back to the 19th century eventually:



Or as one YouTube comment eerily put it:

this video is way to optimistic. we can't just slip back to the C18th; in the C18th, we had more forests, fish stocks, higher water tables, undepleted soil, easy surface minerals .. and 10x fewer people to share it between. we are going back to the stone age.

 

[Garaad.XIV]

Oddly well-timed with a recent post of mine in another thread:

2 of my aunts from Abu Dhabi also moved to Noth America and Germany. One was born in Abu Dhabi and the other one lived there for 25 years

 

[Idilinaa]

There is no misunderstanding. The changing demand is false, is what I explicitly stated. The projections don't show those values. Only Western countries will stay flat at some point, but the rest of the developing world that is somehow bizarrely removed from the equation, is going to increase in demand while their purchasing power increase.

These energy conversations become very dogmatic where people peddle the same talking points that really are spread by Westerners. It does not hold truth when you realize that demand will increase. Yes, a rich country like Norway will add the costs on their citizens and increase shit like electric car use and increase cost for fuel (they do that stuff now), but that is handful of countries that can afford to increase the cost of living without making issues. A country like Nigeria will demand more energy. This is not complicated to fathom.

When i said this

The drop in oil demand by major consumers (like Western nations, and increasingly China and India) is already happening, as they shift toward alternative energy sources to mitigate climate change.

It is already happening. They do show those values.

China's Slowing Oil Demand Growth Is Likely to Persist and Could Impact Markets - Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA | CGEP %

Get the latest as our experts share their insights on global energy policy.

www.energypolicy.columbia.edu

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2024-09-12/iea-warns-global-oil-demand-growth-slowing-sharply-as-china-cools

IEA: Global oil demand growth continues to decelerate

Global oil demand growth continues to decelerate, with first-half 2024 gains of 800,000 b/d y-o-y being the lowest since 2020, according to IEA data.

www.ogj.com

Also what point are you arguing because whether the demand is up or down makes no difference because it will eventually run out. First the slowing of demand and then it will be less and less oil to export.

 

[Garaad.XIV]

This is very much true. I feel like Dubai is dialing this back nowadays and passports don't quite as matter as much anymore but I maybe out of touch since I haven't been there in 1.5 years and before that I worked with my fam in a fam business for 3 so I've been out of the job market there for like 5 years. But in "my day" and growing up, having a Western European passport or Anglo passport automatically meant a higher salary (significantly) even if you were not cadaan.

In fact, I had a relative who worked as doctor who left the UAE out of guilt, funnily enough. Was a UK Somali who was being paid like 2-4 times what an Indian colleague who was actually older and more experienced than him was being paid; the only reason being his passport. He felt disgusted, couldn't tolerate it and also fell out of love with the Khaleej in other ways and left.

Where did you move to?

 

[The alchemist]

When i said this


It is already happening. They do show those values.

China's Slowing Oil Demand Growth Is Likely to Persist and Could Impact Markets - Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA | CGEP %

Get the latest as our experts share their insights on global energy policy.

www.energypolicy.columbia.edu

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2024-09-12/iea-warns-global-oil-demand-growth-slowing-sharply-as-china-cools

IEA: Global oil demand growth continues to decelerate

Global oil demand growth continues to decelerate, with first-half 2024 gains of 800,000 b/d y-o-y being the lowest since 2020, according to IEA data.

www.ogj.com

Also what point are you arguing because whether the demand is up or down, the oil is running out for the gulf economies in just a matter of a few years, so it wont make difference really.

Alright. Believe in these fairy tale bedtime stories these cadaaans told you. I don't have time for a repetitive back and forth.

I'm just going to leave you with this to put two and two together, eventually:

"According to the African Union Development Agency, the energy needs of the African continent are expected to more than triple by 2040."

 

[Shimbiris]

Where did you move to?

Didn't truly move. Went to Boston for a Masters and now I'm just using OPT to get some work experience since they have good Data Science and Finance opportunities here. If orange man doesn't somehow deport me I might stay long enough for a green card but, long-term, unless I meet and marry someone here and that complicates my long term plans I'll probably go back to the Khaleej or Horn.

I'm not raising kids 10,000km away from my parents and I wanna make a difference back home in the long term.

 

[The alchemist]

Europeans messed up when they went away from nuclear.

 

[Shimbiris]

Europeans messed up when they went away from nuclear.

Low-key, I think plants have always been where it's at. They're the only thing, if the production techniques are made more efficient and cheap, that can actually become a master resource.

They can be used to create study materials that can rival metal, they can be used to possibly conduct electricity , they can be used to produce liquid fuels like petrol such as biodiesel or algae fuel, they can be used to obviously synthesize medicine and they can be used to make plastic-like materials that can even be design to biodegrade. They're just not cost effective or developed enough but they really are, to my eyes, the only 1:1 resource when you look at fossil fuels.

Not to mention that they're truly renewable. With enough sun, soil nutrients and water they're a master resource that could last until the sun goes out if managed and planned well.

 

[Idilinaa]

I think @The alchemist is somewhat correct, though, in that I don't think people fully understand how the global economy is dependent on oil from head to toe. It's not just energy, walaal, it's industrial fertilizers, it's medicine production, it's plastics, it's the fact that you're not gonna run tanker ships and planes on nukes and batteries and much more. The food one is the scariest. Outside of animal-based fertilizers that can't at current capacity be scaled up enough, we seriously have no actual viable industrial alternative to fossil fuels for fertilizers (that I recall).

Fossil Fuels are what one might call a "Master Resource". The film Black Panther actually looks like one made by people who understand Fossil Fuel's role in the modern world in that Vibranium in the film is pretty much a fossil fuel allegory. It gives the Wakandans everything from clothing, to energy, to building materials, medicine and so on; just like fossil fuels do for us. They're everywhere, in everything.

Even those renewables you're mentioning like solar and wind re not actually that efficient or reliable, being intermittent, and have to be constantly supplemented by fossil fuels. We really have no actual full-scale replacement for FFs. People get lost in nonsense like energy but it's about a whole lot more than that. He's right that there would be a lot more panic and madness afoot if they truly were close to running out. If they ran out in the next 20 years we'd go back to the 19th century eventually:



Or as one YouTube comment eerily put it:

This is partially not true. You suggests that renewables like solar and wind are inefficient, intermittent, and require constant supplementation by fossil fuels.

But this ignores the advancements being made. While renewables are indeed intermittent, significant advancements in energy storage (e.g., lithium-ion batteries, solid-state batteries, and other emerging technologies) and grid management are addressing these issues.

For example: Battery storage capacity is growing rapidly, with costs falling by over 90% in the past decade or innovations like green hydrogen and pumped hydro storage offer long-term energy storage solutions. Then you also have smart grids and decentralized energy systems are improving the reliability of renewable energy.

Claiming "not actually that efficient" ignores the fact that solar and wind are now among the cheapest sources of energy in many parts of the world, outcompeting fossil fuels in cost effectiveness.

You also claimed that " there are no viable alternatives to fossil fuels for fertilizers, plastics, and industrial processes."

While fossil fuels are currently dominant in these sectors, alternatives are being developed and scaled: Like for example , Green ammonia produced using renewable energy and electrolysis,, Bioplastics, made from renewable biomass sources and also Electrification, green hydrogen, and carbon capture technologies are being explored to decarbonize industries like steel, cement, and chemicals.

Also the idea that "fossil fuels are irreplaceable and that their depletion would lead to societal collapse"

The transition away from fossil fuels is already underway, and while it is complex, it is not insurmountable.

Many countries and companies are committing to net-zero emissions targets, and the pace of innovation is accelerating. For example:

Electric vehicles (EVs) are rapidly replacing internal combustion engine vehicles, with major automakers pledging to phase out gasoline and diesel cars by 2030-2040.

Renewable energy capacity is growing exponentially, and in some regions, renewables already supply the majority of electricity.

Policies like carbon pricing and subsidies for clean technologies are driving the shift away from fossil fuels.

Also the idea that "fossil fuels are indispensable and that their absence would send us back to the 19th century or even the Stone Age."

This is also not true. While fossil fuels have been foundational to modern civilization, their role is diminishing as alternatives emerge. The transition to a post-fossil fuel world does not mean reverting to pre-industrial times, it means building a new system based on sustainable technologies.

Also you all ignore the major pull factor which is the systemic risk of fossil fuel dependency pose, like global warming, which threatens ecosystems, food security, and human health. Geopolitical instability and economic vulnerability, Oil spills, air pollution, and habitat destruction are direct consequences of fossil fuel extraction and use.

Alright. Believe in these fairy tale bedtime stories these cadaaans told you. I don't have time for a repetitive back and forth.

I'm just going to leave you with this to put two and two together, eventually:

"According to the African Union Development Agency, the energy needs of the African continent are expected to more than triple by 2040."

Africa’s increasing energy demand may not translate to continued over-reliance on oil, as countries in Africa look to develop more sustainable energy sources (solar, geothermal, and others)

There is an air pessimism in your response. It assumes that humanity cannot innovate its way out of fossil fuel dependency.

I see it no different than any other human innovation. For example "The Green Revolution" transformed agriculture, enabling food production to keep pace with population growth. And "The digital revolution" has reduced the need for physical resources in many areas, such as communication and entertainment

We are in another phase where renewable energy technologies are following a similar trajectory of rapid improvement and cost reduction.

 

[The alchemist]

This is partially not true. You suggests that renewables like solar and wind are inefficient, intermittent, and require constant supplementation by fossil fuels.

But this ignores the advancements being made. While renewables are indeed intermittent, significant advancements in energy storage (e.g., lithium-ion batteries, solid-state batteries, and other emerging technologies) and grid management are addressing these issues.

For example: Battery storage capacity is growing rapidly, with costs falling by over 90% in the past decade or innovations like green hydrogen and pumped hydro storage offer long-term energy storage solutions. Then you also have smart grids and decentralized energy systems are improving the reliability of renewable energy.

Claiming "not actually that efficient" ignores the fact that solar and wind are now among the cheapest sources of energy in many parts of the world, outcompeting fossil fuels in cost effectiveness.

You also claimed that " there are no viable alternatives to fossil fuels for fertilizers, plastics, and industrial processes."

While fossil fuels are currently dominant in these sectors, alternatives are being developed and scaled: Like for example , Green ammonia produced using renewable energy and electrolysis,, Bioplastics, made from renewable biomass sources and also Electrification, green hydrogen, and carbon capture technologies are being explored to decarbonize industries like steel, cement, and chemicals.

Also the idea that "fossil fuels are irreplaceable and that their depletion would lead to societal collapse"

The transition away from fossil fuels is already underway, and while it is complex, it is not insurmountable.

Many countries and companies are committing to net-zero emissions targets, and the pace of innovation is accelerating. For example:

Electric vehicles (EVs) are rapidly replacing internal combustion engine vehicles, with major automakers pledging to phase out gasoline and diesel cars by 2030-2040.

Renewable energy capacity is growing exponentially, and in some regions, renewables already supply the majority of electricity.

Policies like carbon pricing and subsidies for clean technologies are driving the shift away from fossil fuels.

Also the idea that "fossil fuels are indispensable and that their absence would send us back to the 19th century or even the Stone Age."

This is also not true. While fossil fuels have been foundational to modern civilization, their role is diminishing as alternatives emerge. The transition to a post-fossil fuel world does not mean reverting to pre-industrial times, it means building a new system based on sustainable technologies.

Also you all ignore the major pull factor which is the systemic risk of fossil fuel dependency pose, like global warming, which threatens ecosystems, food security, and human health. Geopolitical instability and economic vulnerability, Oil spills, air pollution, and habitat destruction are direct consequences of fossil fuel extraction and use.




There is an air pessimism in this response. It assumes that humanity cannot innovate its way out of fossil fuel dependency.

I see it no different than any other human innovation. For example "The Green Revolution" transformed agriculture, enabling food production to keep pace with population growth. And "The digital revolution" has reduced the need for physical resources in many areas, such as communication and entertainment

We are in another phase where renewable energy technologies are following a similar trajectory of rapid improvement and cost reduction.

Nothing about what I said was pessimistic because I don't ascribe value judgments based on the realistic readings. Innovations will occur if Allah wills, but as things stand today, that is not going to change with whatever these guys have cooked up. The only ambitious leap on this is fusion. They can only run those experiments for seconds, and they're intensive, not net energy drivers. I'm optimistic.