· 112 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Apr 16, 2026 at 1:47 PM

Europe has 'maybe 6 weeks of jet fuel left,' energy agency head says

Posted by Tuna_Sushi


Europe has 'maybe 6 weeks of jet fuel left,' energy agency head says
NBC News
Europe has 'maybe 6 weeks of jet fuel left,' energy agency head says
The head of the International Energy Agency warned that major economic disruptions aren't far off for parts of Asia and Europe if ships aren't allowed through the Strait of Hormuz.

🚩 Report this post

112 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
edotb Apr 16, 2026 +94
its gonna be like covid all over again
94
itsatumbleweed Apr 16, 2026 +49
Probably worse, inflation-wise.
49
StunningGold8030 Apr 16, 2026 +18
Trump's master, Putin is pleased
18
Viperlite Apr 16, 2026 +3
“I bet that knee is starting to hurt, eh.”
3
Equivalent-Rate-6218 Apr 16, 2026 +3
If only 50% of the people who didn't need to fly just didn't
3
h4v3anic3d4y Apr 16, 2026 +19
Oh its a lot worse. Last estimate i saw was that Heathrow will be dry in less than 4 weeks if nothing changes. So some aiports surely have way less than that? So airports run dry....then what?
19
Anxious_cactus Apr 16, 2026 +18
I saw projections for my EU country that say if this continues after August we're facing at least a 50% price spike in electricity prices, essential groceries, and petrol. Up to 100% if it continues through the winter. If those predictions are correct we're fucked completely, there's gonna be civil unrests everywhere, rise in famine and homelessness.
18
wpbfriendone Apr 16, 2026 +15
But look on the bright side, people won't be talking about the Epstein files /s
15
peazley Apr 16, 2026 +2
And it’s going to hit billionaires pockets the most! Right?! /s
2
JamesTheJerk Apr 17, 2026 +4
And to think, this whole thing could have been avoided by not doing anything at all.
4
The-Jesus_Christ Apr 17, 2026 +2
And can be mitigated now if Trump just withdraws the military but instead he wants to spend $1bn a day so that Iran can’t make a few mil. It would be cheaper to just pay Iran and leave it be.
2
Hellogiraffe Apr 16, 2026 +1
Have you tried saying thank you?
1
cedarpark Apr 16, 2026 +4
Ok. Thanks, Obama!.... How was that?
4
Equivalent-Rate-6218 Apr 16, 2026 -3
But why don't you have solar panels on your roof in 2026 for independence of the grid?
-3
sky_concept Apr 19, 2026 +1
Good luck. Energy prices get high enough people just going to rip those fuckers from your roof while you sleep.
1
themcsame Apr 16, 2026
Ehhh, it depends. Heathrow would theoretically have a lot stored because it's a busy airport (\~4th globally and busiest in Europe I think? On the flipside, that also means A LOT of planes using up that fuel as well. I'd imagine it comes down to some sort of ratio between stores vs traffic. Some will have a larger number of stores per plane, some will have fewer, or so I'd imagine at least. I mean, if we're generally looking at 6, whilst Heathrow seems to be looking at <4 weeks, I'd be inclined to just say Heathrow, as a busy AF place, simply stores less fuel per plane served (or whatever we want to call that ratio) than other airports. I can't imagine building new storage is a simple task, and lord knows how difficult planning permission can be in the UK, so it theoretically checks out.
0
Revolutionary-Bag-52 Apr 17, 2026
Then theyll just pay more for their fuel and direct that to clients. Were talking about the wealthiest countries in the world, they will have their supply if there is local demand. Just comes at a big increase in costs
0
waltz_with_potatoes Apr 17, 2026
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/aviation-fuel-crisis-trump-uk-iran-b2958417.html UK airlines saying otherwise
0
h4v3anic3d4y Apr 18, 2026 +2
"We have fuel to the middle of may, looks fine. Dont panic." Middle of may is 4 weeks, so no, UK airlines are not saying otherwise. Did you read it even?!
2
Immthaill Apr 16, 2026 -3
Trains!
-3
h4v3anic3d4y Apr 16, 2026 +2
Bikes
2
Nervous_Recover_6152 Apr 16, 2026 +6
The 2nd time someone steals from you is much much worse than the first 
6
takesthebiscuit Apr 16, 2026 +3
Jet fuel can’t ~~melt steel~~ cure Covid
3
Golemfrost Apr 17, 2026 +1
You mean less traffic, less planes and boats. Awesome
1
OctoMatter Apr 16, 2026 +18
My flight is in 5 weeks. Wish me luck
18
aresev6 Apr 16, 2026 +26
I hope you enjoy your ~~destination~~ new home.
26
MustardClementine Apr 17, 2026 +3
I fear I am dooming us all (because I told a lady having a pedicure beside me on March 12th, 2020 that she probably shouldn't take the trip she had planned to Florida with her elderly mother, as they may get stuck there)... but you probably shouldn't go on that trip. Unless you wouldn't mind getting stuck wherever you are going, indefinitely?
3
JessieColt Apr 16, 2026 +17
How much do they normally have?
17
EagleForty Apr 17, 2026 +8
At least 7 weeks worth.
8
Sad-Introduction9173 Apr 16, 2026 +11
It is so funny and stupid at the same time, in the vast majority of cases all that jet fuel is already hedged in the market by airlines and airports months / even years ahead. But yeah if it is physically not there... The whole paper card house falls
11
_Soup_R_Man_ Apr 18, 2026 +1
Same with a lot of commodities. Gold/Silver.
1
Desnowshaite Apr 16, 2026 +42
Well at least the steel beam industry will not be affected.
42
LongLongMan_TM Apr 16, 2026 +26
Not gonna lie, I can't read jet fuel without thinking of steel beams lol.
26
not_old_redditor Apr 17, 2026 +1
Everybody loves a good 9/11 joke
1
MalaysianinPerth Apr 16, 2026 +13
Remind me! 6 weeks
13
Nonhinged Apr 16, 2026 +6
If there's a reserve of 6 weeks, it's 6 weeks continuously.
6
Quantum_Croissant Apr 16, 2026 +13
unless something were to happen that would prevent the reserve being replenished. A blockade, perhaps
13
Equivalent-Rate-6218 Apr 16, 2026 +3
If only you understood exactly how that blockade affected jet oil while investigating all other avenues...
3
Nonhinged Apr 16, 2026 +4
Most oil comes from other places, and most oil is refined on the import side.
4
jagnew78 Apr 16, 2026
Europe and Asia get a massive amount of oil via Strait of Hormuz shipping 
0
Nonhinged Apr 16, 2026 +3
That's a meaningless statement. Grouping Europe and Asia. All oil is also in massive amounts. Europe gets massive amounts from Norway.(Norway is in Europe)
3
Virtual_Medium_6721 Apr 16, 2026 +8
Can't wait for prices to rise by another 50% in the next 5 years
8
AvailableSubstance53 Apr 17, 2026 +1
Sincerely,  neither can I. Time we all adopted the Cuban Bicycle Diet.
1
Carpenterdon Apr 18, 2026 +1
Years? Aren't you an optimist...
1
CaptainCanuck93 Apr 16, 2026 +28
Time for Canada and Europe to create a stable energy corridor together that bypasses Russia, the USA, and the Middle East If we can't get Quebec on board, build pipelines to Hudson's Bay and employ icebreakers during the winter Europe can contribute to construction in exchange for supply guarantees
28
Oerthling Apr 16, 2026 +35
No, time to accelerate and finish the transition to renewables. Should have done that a decade or 2 ago (preferably 3+ actually). But better late than never. Electrify, electrify, electrify and then electrify some more and end the use of fossil fuels. Keep fossil fuels expensive, reallocate the resulting money (including windfall tax on fossil fuel companies) to incentivize electrification and grid upgrades. We already have to do that urgently anyway. But even for all those (dumb dumb dumb) climate change deniers these repeated supply shocks should finally be the final nail in the fossil fuel business. The more we get away from fossil fuel the less these shitty fuels coming from shitty governments will matter and the less money we gift to assholes. As a bonus we also stop cooking the planet. As a further bonus, all those shitty governments that rely on fossil fuel money will topple and their citizens can finally get better governments in place.
35
CaptainCanuck93 Apr 16, 2026 +14
I agree, however unless you're taking nuclear/geothermal/hydro you have to understand that renewables *reduce but entrench* fossil use Any grid built on wind and solar has intermittency problems, which means you need to be able to rapidly deploy alternative sources of electricity Not all forms of electricity can be rapidly deployed. Until we have space age batteries or all live in mountain ranges that can support tons of massive pumped storage facilities, that means having massive coal or natural gas burning capacity that can be turned on and off when it's cloudy or not windy  Look at Germany. Lots of renewables, yet their electricity production creates around 10x more CO2 than France despite having much more renewable capacity, because they have to constantly turn on and off fossil fuel plants when the windmills aren't turning  Personally I think we should all be following the Ontario model -> massive nuclear baseload with a layer of renewable contributing, with deployable sources (mostly hydro and a single small natural gas plant) to even out the peaks and intermittency. But a country like Germany that has completely rejected nuclear and doesn't have the geography for hydro/geothermal, they are stuck with a dirtier option - fossil fuels+renewables
14
pm_me_your_smth Apr 16, 2026 +5
Doesn't Germany use coal a lot (the dirtiest fossil fuel) and that's the primary reason for more CO2 emissions? If yes, that's not really a good example in current context
5
CaptainCanuck93 Apr 16, 2026
The majority of Germany electricity needs are met by renewables, yet they remain dirty because of the fossil fuel component  France's renewable capacity is far smaller yet has a much cleaner grid You're right that Germany uses the dirtiest fossil fuel source (coal), but the cleanest (natural gas) only cuts the emissions in half. Germany would still produce ~500% more emissions per GWh than France if it had the cleanest fossil fuels IMO I consider this the "renewables trap" though it's fairer to call it an wind/solar trap. You can invest in huge amounts of renewables and still be stuck using fossil fuels a significant portion of the time It's way better than just sticking with a primarily fossil fuel grid, it just will never reach the low-carbon state that a nation with nuclear baseload can achieve
0
MaxGoldFilms Apr 16, 2026 +2
Does Germany have plans to build new nuclear reactors, or are they sticking with the phase-out? > As of early 2026, France operates 57 nuclear reactors, providing the largest nuclear fleet in Europe and roughly 65–67% of the country's electricity. Germany has 0 operating nuclear reactors, having completed a phase-out of its nuclear program.
2
CaptainCanuck93 Apr 16, 2026 +2
So far they are sticking with the phase out
2
Frodojj Apr 16, 2026 +1
Wouldn’t cutting it in half be really significant savings?
1
CaptainCanuck93 Apr 16, 2026 +1
Yes it would, but the objection was that Germany vs France was an unfair comparison because of coal Germany's strategy being 10x worse or 5x worse than France doesn't change the fact that it's *worse* to try to run renewables+fossil fuels rather than have nuclear baseload
1
Frodojj Apr 16, 2026 +1
I don’t think having a nuclear base and having lots of renewable is contradictory. A good distribution world includes lots of both and gas plants that can supplant the two.
1
CaptainCanuck93 Apr 16, 2026 +2
Oh it's not contradictory at all, I didn't mean it to sounds like that That said, there isn't a lot of advantages to wind/solar other than it being superficially c**** (but expensive if you factors in the necessary energy storage/backup power required) Nuclear has a big problem too - it isn't deployable. You still need deployable power to match demand peaks, which ideally means either stored energy or hydroelectric capacity. Less ideally it means fossil fuels If you have options for storage (ex mountains/mineshaft for pumped storage) wind/solar can be a useful complementary piece to gather the power to store since intermittency matters less for that role That said - wind/solar can be complementary but should never really be used how Germany trying to, it just cannot be the primary power source without massive storage. It just creates necessity of massive deployable capacity, which means massive fossil fuel capacity
2
mktolg Apr 17, 2026 +1
Sorry but that's just wrong. Germany has simply been lazy building out infrastructure. Yes, you can't just put solar on every roof and call it a day. But Germany could build the grid to even out demand, and it could easily build - both skills- and funding-wise - GWH-level storage. The political will to do so is just not there, not among politicians, not among the electorate, so they are still burning fossils. But that electrifying stuff entrenches renewables is a Ivermectin-level myth
1
CaptainCanuck93 Apr 17, 2026 +1
The largest battery storage ever built can output a GW for 3 hours You need orders of magnitude more storage capacity to build your fantasy They haven't been lazy, they've just been convinced by useful idiots who don't realize they're being used by the Russian oil lobby
1
mktolg Apr 17, 2026 +1
Did I say battery? Also, just FWIW - Batteries scale fine. If the largest single installation has 3GWH, you spend twice, get 6GWH. Furthermore, you don't need a single mega-battery. Grid fluctuations are in the 50-100MW range. Yes, it'll cost money. But not terribly much. But as long as Söder manages to block overland lines (and as long as Germany's electricity market produces a single price for the whole fecking country, complete insanity), nothing will change.
1
CaptainCanuck93 Apr 17, 2026 +1
Then you want pumped storage? Hope you're not going around telling people wind and solar is c**** if you're needing to pair every wind farm and solar facility with one, in Germanys's famously widely unoccupied mountainous regions >If the largest single installation has 3GWH, you spend twice, get 6GWH. We're not talking about grid fluctuations, we're talking about when wind production falls to near zero for 24 hours You need storage capacity to entirely replace wind/solar until production returns to phase out fossil fuels with a wind/solar grid
1
no_choice99 Apr 16, 2026
Germany fucked up by shutting down their nuke plants and preferred to pollute air with coal ones.
0
etrast75 Apr 16, 2026 +2
If only we can figure out a way to fly airplanes with electricity. If only we can figure out how to make fertilisers without natural gas If only we can figure out how to make plastics without hydrocarbon. You can electrify all you want with renewable sand nuclear power but the need for hydrocarbon ain't going away anytime soon .
2
Oerthling Apr 16, 2026 +6
Old tired argument. The fact that we need fossils for pharmaceuticals and fertilizer just one more reason to not waste it on burning it Let's get rid of all the replaceable use of fossils. Then we can worry about the rest.
6
st4nkyFatTirebluntz Apr 16, 2026 +6
uhhhhh both of those things are possible. the fertilizer thing is barely even expensive by comparison. anyway, even if if were impossible, the two pieces you're focused on are \~20% of fossil fuel consumption. maybe focus on the other 80.
6
True_Window_9389 Apr 16, 2026 +1
You can’t electrify without tech and manufacturing from us and Asia. Everyone is trying to go it alone right now and prove they don’t need anyone else, but you can’t dismantle globalization that took half a century to build in a couple years. It’s dumb we’re doing it, but it’s just as dumb and unlikely that Europe and Canada can too.
1
Oerthling Apr 16, 2026 +1
I said nothing about doing it alone. I said nothing about dismantling globalization. But Trump is quite busy working on that. Whether on purpose or not. What I said is electrify and that we need to double down on renewables. And for now that means buying PVs that are mostly produced China. And when I talked about shitty governments, I spoke about all those theocracies and fascist governments that sell oil. Governments that get away with being shitty because they get paid for the oil reserves they happened to sit on. But unlike pumping oil from the ground, PVs can basically get produced anywhere. China built up the capacity and sits on a cost advantage, but PV production isn't bound to China like fossil fuel extraction is bound to Saudi Arabia, Iran or Russia.
1
True_Window_9389 Apr 16, 2026 +1
I’m thinking within the goal of bypassing Russia, America and the Middle East for energy. Electrification works in theory towards that end, but all the bits and pieces to do that can’t happen without American, Chinese and other technology and material from countries with problematic governance. Electrification is itself a potentially worthy goal for environmental reasons, but not necessarily a solution for Europe or Canada to detach themselves from dependence on authoritarians. Maybe more than anything, I don’t think Europe or Canada has the money. They don’t have the domestic capital, the political will, or the national unity to overcome those challenges.
1
Oerthling Apr 16, 2026 +1
Yes it is because massively reduced independence is worth having even if 100% is not in the table. And it's not like the US and China isn't also dependent on Europe. EU needs to improve its capital market integration to ease scaling up. But to say that Europe doesn't have the capital is silly. When it comes to political will and unity - time will tell. Trump tries his best to help by being a dumb villain. Having a common enemy is very effective in bringing people or nations together.
1
nogutsnoglory98 Apr 16, 2026 +1
But how do you electrify airplanes? Is that even possible?
1
Oerthling Apr 16, 2026 +3
Not important right now. We have a zillion cars and heaters to replace, grids to upgrade and renewables to install. After that we can worry about planes. People bring up all sorts of problems as if the first 80% of CO2 savings and reduced dependency on crappy oil sources aren't worth having. Plus all sorts of short airplane travel should be replaced by well connected high speed trains anyway.
3
aldur1 Apr 16, 2026 +5
Let's say such a corridor exists, why would private oil producers sell to Europe exclusively not on the open market where they can fetch the best price?
5
CaptainCanuck93 Apr 16, 2026
A couple avenues 1) Re-establish a crown corporation oil/LNG producer on currently untapped oil sands capacity 2) Private firms sell contracts *all the time* rather than sell at spot. If Europe offers a competitive price in exchange for stability of supply private firms will line up for it
0
EstablishmentFull797 Apr 17, 2026 +1
“employ icebreakers during the winter.” Check your math
1
razordreamz Apr 18, 2026 +1
We can export bitumen but we don’t really have the refining capacity as far as I understand.
1
prairie_buyer Apr 16, 2026 -6
The problem is that Canada has a Prime Minister that deeply, genuinely believes in “net zero” (yes I’ve read the book he wrote; have you?).  There is nothing in his life history, or his actions since taking office that would lead any reasonable person to believe that he actually intends to ramp up Canadian oil and gas exports in any meaningful way.  In fact, his granting veto power to first nations groups, makes it even more difficult to get any major project done. Canada should be dropping the West Coast tanker ban, adding pipeline capacity, and building a major refinery so that we can add value to our own oil rather than selling it at a d******* to the US. But none of this will happen as long as Carney is Prime Minister, and BC and Quebec have premieres so vehemently opposed to oil and gas expansion
-6
Evil_Eg Apr 16, 2026 +5
Remind me! 6 weeks
5
takesthebiscuit Apr 16, 2026 +6
Don’t worry the same story will be reposted every day for 6 weeks
6
beshi7 Apr 16, 2026 +2
Then Russia will invade it's all part of trump's great plan , to have one leader in Europe
2
Hirork Apr 16, 2026 +5
How much does Europe usually have on hand? I keep seeing this headline and my critical thinking keeps kicking in to ask, is this just fear mongering by the press? Oh there's an oil crisis how much does everyone have? Oh 6 weeks worth, that doesn't sound like a lot, let's tell everyone to panic that'll get us some clicks. It's not even about us not having enough for critical needs, just some people will get their holidays cancelled and refunded or covered by insurance so that we have enough to cover critical uses.
5
ShameNap Apr 16, 2026 +3
Well Trump already won the war so there’s nothing to worry about.
3
vessel_for_the_soul Apr 17, 2026 +3
wow, i wonder how this could have been avoided.
3
Ancient-Bat1755 Apr 16, 2026 +2
Time to buy the dip on rolls royce if it happens to tank below $1 again?
2
SimicAscendancy Apr 16, 2026 +3
Honest question, why specifically Rolls Royce?
3
Ancient-Bat1755 Apr 16, 2026 +4
They make a lot of airplane engines, with amazing testing on future fuels like hydrogen or green saf etc. they also develop other future tech like SMR nuclear, fuel cells etc. When covid hit, their payment model was (maybe is?) based on flight hour serving contracts, which crashed their stock hard to the point Uk bailed them out with a golden share. Its now $16 or so and was $0.60 a few years ago during covid. I got a new roof and a $6k tax bill for selling it, but changed family life for the better.
4
Grizzybaby1985 Apr 16, 2026 +2
And that’s when America and Russia will strike!
2
Nathan-Stubblefield Apr 16, 2026 +2
How many jet flights are essential and how many are recreational?
2
nbx909 Apr 17, 2026 +2
There goes my trip to Europe for the first time… planned to fly out in 6 weeks :/
2
p3t3y5 Apr 16, 2026 +6
Let's all remember, this is the fault of 70% of the American public, not just one idiot.
6
MeowMeowImACowww Apr 16, 2026 +3
How did you reach to 70%? He got ~77 million votes and the US has ~340 million people.
3
sorrison Apr 17, 2026 +6
1/3 of their population didn’t vote and they could have.
6
skarfbeaulonee Apr 17, 2026 +2
Only an estimated 240 million are eligible to vote in the U.S.A. and of those 77 million voted for Trump and 75 million for Harris. That leaves about 88 million who didn't vote or register to vote even though they were eligible to. So in total, it's just shy of 70% of eligible voters, or roughly 48% of the total population, who bear responsibility for placing Trump into power for a second term.
2
MillionToOneShotDoc Apr 17, 2026 +2
Yeah, well it was also the second highest eligible voter turnout since 1900. Generalized apathy is to be expected in US elections and wasn’t the key reason Trump won. https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_presidential_elections,_1840-2024
2
skarfbeaulonee Apr 18, 2026 +1
Great point. We can't blame the triumph of evil on good men doing nothing.
1
iamapizza Apr 17, 2026 +1
Tbh I don't care for the distinction. To me it's the American public. Just as the average American wouldn't distinguish the internal politics of our own countries. 
1
veryboredatwork Apr 16, 2026 +3
I suggest they cancel all flights to America…. make a big saving in fuel, keep domestic inter Europe flights
3
BassyTobe Apr 16, 2026 +1
Train it is then!
1
MikeSteamer Apr 16, 2026 +1
Maybe consider throttling flights now, 95% load factors etc
1
gotfcgo Apr 16, 2026 +1
So nobody in Europe can fly to the world cup?  Lol
1
JeelyPiece Apr 16, 2026 +1
They can work from home
1
iliketea_001 Apr 16, 2026 +1
I already booked my Interrail tickets for this summer vacation. I traveled by train last summer as well.
1
Fragrant-Ad3040 Apr 16, 2026 +1
Is anyone else calling absolute bullshit and just insider scaremongering to inflate pricing 🤷‍♂️
1
Ultra_Metal Apr 16, 2026 +1
Europe can buy jet fuel from many countries that are not in the Persian Gulf. If they run out, it's due to their leaders' incompetence and mismanagement.
1
Express_Grocery_4707 Apr 16, 2026
Flights are already being cut
0
Winter_Criticism_236 Apr 16, 2026 -9
Yet Europe only gets about 5% of its oil via straits of Hormuz.. Listnook fluff
-9
Balfe Apr 16, 2026 +11
Classic Listnook response where some dude assumes he knows more than a European energy expert. You are fundamentally wrong. First, Europe gets about 75% of its jet fuel from the Middle East. And even if that wasn't the case, Europe is now competing with other markets, particularly in Asia, for a reduced and more expensive supply, due primarily to the idiocy of Donald Trump.
11
Winter_Criticism_236 Apr 16, 2026
You'r the dude that thinks he knows.. Europe imports crude oil and makes/refines most of its own jet fuel, thus for Europe to run out crude oil from Norway, UK and USA would need to stop flowing. Europe actually makes so much jet fuel they export some of it.
0
Balfe Apr 16, 2026 +2
I understand what you mean but it's largely irrelevant. Europe does import crude, it does refine a lot of its own jet fuel and some countries like Spain and others can export at times - but none of this proves your point. Europe is not self sufficient and cannot produce enough to meet demand consistently and therefore imports large volumes every day. These imports keep the entire system functional. It's incorrect to say that Norway, UK and USA would need to stop flowing to cause a shortage, as you just need imports to fall below the required levels to impact the balance. Even a partial disruption would create shortages over a period of weeks, and Europe imports 75% of its shortfall from the Gulf. Even if you factor in a surplus from countries like Spain, others like the UK heavily import and Europe is therefore net short in key products. Local exports does not mean a system-wide surplus.
2
Carbonga Apr 16, 2026 -6
Let's hope so. Less flying is a good thing.
-6
Additional_Quiet2600 Apr 16, 2026 +3
Are you kidding me? Sure it would be great for the environment but it would destroy economies.
3
Carbonga Apr 16, 2026 -2
If unnecessary air travel was cut to a minimum, I could only see upsides. Just today, my wife was invited to join a two-half-day meeting in Toronto. We're in Munich. This is insane and has to stop.
-2
Additional_Quiet2600 Apr 16, 2026 +1
You do realize cargo and mail use jet fuel to transport right?
1
Carbonga Apr 16, 2026 +3
Well, focus jet fuel on that use then.
3
Additional_Quiet2600 Apr 16, 2026 +1
People need to travel for several reasons that aren't business based. Ever had a sick relative? Your solution just doesn't work in the modern world. Too many variables where it is necessary. Also, it would destroy a lot of businesses and lead to massive job loss. We are kinda stuck with it for a while until we make EV aircraft run on renewables or nuclear.
1
← Back to Board