With the Middle East in flames, and one-fifth of the world’s supplies of oil and gas in limbo thanks to the uncertain status of the Strait of Hormuz, it is tempting to imagine that a clean-energy world might leave such conflicts behind.
“Fuel — oil and gas, particularly — is a security challenge,” former US secretary of state John Kerry said last month. “You don’t want to be the prisoner of a choke point.”
Rewiring the world with green energy is a “path to peace,” in the words of the late environmental journalist Ross Gelbspan.
“If an alien came to visit, I’d be embarrassed to tell them that we fight wars to pull fossil fuels out of the ground,” astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson once remarked.
And yet the unravelling of the global fossil fuel system might well be a source of chaos rather than calm. Two wars have already erupted in major oil-exporting regions since global leaders started committing to net-zero five years ago.
States that are energy independent might also find themselves less fearful of conflict than ones beholden to foreign suppliers. Have a look at countries that have become less reliant on energy imports in recent decades, and it is hardly a list of pacifists.
Consider a ranking of “electrostates” — countries that have done most to switch away from fossil-fired engines and boilers, and toward electrical motors, machinery and heat pumps. China’s surging consumption makes it the archetypal example, but if you consider grid power as a share of energy, the biggest electrostates are Norway, Sweden — then Israel.
It is a similar picture when you cut the data a different way — the share of energy consumption supplied by imports. Thanks to the discovery of offshore gas fields, and the growth of solar and electric vehicles, in Israel this fell 62 percent between 2010 and 2022. That is the most dramatic reversal anywhere and it has left the country with far greater economic resilience. Since the start of the war with Iran, the shekel is one of the world’s best-performing currencies, up about 2.6 percent.
Other countries have trodden a similar path. The fracking boom has turned the US from a net importer to a net exporter of oil and it is similarly insulated from many of the effects of the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz. At the Waha hub pricing point in west Texas, gas producers will pay customers about US$4.62 per million British thermal units to take their product due to oversupply. Gasoline prices are up, but gas-linked electricity costs should stay low. That is not making Washington any less bellicose.
Meanwhile, China has built an entire clean energy industry in part to reduce its need for imported oil and gas. Belt and Road pipelines and railways to bypass the Strait of Malacca have been built to blunt the threat of a US oil embargo in the event of war, while dirty domestic coal reserves have been used to trade-proof the grid.
If those actions have increased Beijing’s strategic autonomy as intended, they will make war more likely, not less.
Similar efforts will now accelerate around the world. Renewable power is cheaper almost everywhere and is inherently energy-independent. The sun and the wind do not have to pass through an ocean strait to make it to generators. Once equipment is connected, it can provide power for decades without a drop of imported fuel. With the US apparently abandoning its role as the guarantor of global freedom of navigation, the strategic value of that consideration has increased drastically.
That does not necessarily bode well for peace. Trade has long been recognized as a restraint on conflict.
“The commercial spirit cannot coexist with war,” Immanuel Kant once wrote.
By increasing the economic cost of conflict, the deepening integration of the global economy since the Cold War has helped restrain it.
That process has been inextricably linked to carbon. Fossil fuels comprise about 40 percent of the tonnage that is moved by sea each year. Crude oil is consistently the most-traded product globally, followed by computer chips, cars and refined petroleum. Add in gas and coal, and about 12 percent of the value of global trade comes from carbon-emitting energy alone.
This has played out before. After Britain pushed Germany into famine during World War I by blockading its imports of food and fertilizer, European economies and Japan turned to autarky, a policy of industrial self-sufficiency, to ensure they were never put in the same situation. That in turn fueled the zero-sum competition that eventually sparked another, far more devastating conflict in 1939.
The Iran conflict is sure to spur the world’s transition away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy. If that is done for national security reasons, though — out of fear of each other, rather than hope for the future — it might push the world further away from peace, rather than closer to it.
David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering climate change and energy. Previously, he worked for Bloomberg News, the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS