

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
During the Industrial Revolution, oil, gas, and coal came to mean freedom and power. Now, they are coming to stand for dependency and instability as renewables emerge as the reliable energy choice.
I think we can assess one outcome of this stupid war already: Both the emotional valence and the structural understanding of different energy sources has shifted, and for good. Meaning takes a very long time to erode, but when it does the switch can come quickly; we’re living at a hinge moment, and on the other side of the door is a different world. We tend to think about energy in hard terms—kilowatts, dollars—but in the end our visceral sense of the path forward is what matters most, because attitude informs decision without us even quite realizing it. The world between our ears has changed, decisively, in the direction of renewable power from the sun and wind
Let’s begin by understanding the deep, underpinning role that fossil fuel has played in modernity, both its reality and its psychology. What we call the Industrial Revolution means simply that we learned to control the combustion of coal, then oil, then gas, and in the process gave human life a sweeping set of new powers. Suddenly mobility—the train, the car, the plane—was easy; suddenly muscle power gave way to the genies in a barrel of petroleum, summonable at will to perform endless tasks. Fossil fuel was freedom and power, and this understanding—again, both emotional and structural—set in very deep.
Deep enough that it was able to survive the emerging problems it created. When pollution dimmed cities in the 1960s, that gave rise to the first Earth Day—and to the catalytic converters and the smokestack filters that reduced the problem enough that it never challenged hydrocarbon dominance: We could have our cake and breathe it too. The oil shocks of the 1970s threatened that dominance in the targeted US but didn’t quite topple it; the Reagan program of dramatically increased drilling, and the extension of America’s military shield to the Middle East, gave us enough sense of safety that we stayed on course.
Rising fears about climate change seemed set to tarnish fossil fuel—after all, it now threatened an end to the physical future of our civilizations—but the effects of global warming have in the early stages been sporadic and local, and when the heatwave fades or the fire goes out or the flood recedes we’ve generally reverted back to the perceived and comforting inevitability of fossil fuel. It’s what we’ve known, and hence we’ve put up with a lot to keep the relationship going.
Donald Trump has managed to break the two-century-old grip of fossil fuel on the human imagination.
But there’s been nothing sporadic or local about the effects of this war. As tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz slowed and then stopped, the effects have been dramatic, immediate, and global. In Thailand farmers report they can’t find diesel to keep the pumps that irrigate rice paddies running; in Myanmar, as fertilizer prices soar, the World Food Program has warned that food production costs could double compared with last year’s harvest, in a country where a quarter of the population is already facing acute hunger. There are things we can change to cut energy use (the Thai prime minister said AC units should be set at 80°F, and that bureaucrats should stop wearing neckties “except for ceremonies”) but other customs are harder to rearrange: Bodies are piling up at Thai temples because they’re out of fuel for cremations. In Bangladesh, the prime minister has turned off most of the lights in his office, and economic life is changing by the week:
“I used to do 15 trips a day. Now I spend hours just looking for a pump that’s open, and sometimes I go home empty,” said Sohel Sarker, 38, a ridesharing biker in Dhaka. “I don’t know from one day to the next whether I’ll find fuel.”
These anecdotes add up to much more. As a team from the Financial Times concluded after a global inventory of the shifts:
High fuel prices and shortages force consumers to buy fewer goods. Businesses invest less and governments conserve scarce resources, causing economies to experience weaker growth. The enduring disruption of an energy shock can trigger the destruction of demand, driving economies toward stagnation and recession.
But that’s the macro level. At the micro level, it’s as much about psychology as anything else. The Guardian published an excellent account of how fuel shortages are affecting daily life around the world, and I found myself thinking about the words of another Thai, Teerayut Ruenrerng, owner of a mobile grocery truck:
At about midday, I return home from my morning selling session. I’ll pass three gas stations on the way and stop at each one. Sometimes I can get fuel, sometimes I can’t. Sometimes they will only give me 300 baht or 500 baht (US$9.15 to US$15.25) worth. At lunchtime I take a break, and sleep for about an hour. I start work at midnight.
If I’m able to fill up a full tank, I can relax because I know I don’t need to search for gas for at least three days and it’s guaranteed I can go out and sell. But if I can’t find any, I start to get stressed and panic about what I’ll do if I can’t get fuel.
Here’s an interior designer in Sydney:
It’s frightening, because you don’t know how long it’s going to go on for.
I just started looking for jobs, because I don’t know whether people are even going to want to spend money on renovating right now, or are going to want a designer. I’m pretty much throwing everything at it, which I think is part of the panic setting in.
And here’s a warehouse worker in Delhi:
As I get ready for work, my eyes keep returning to the gas stove. I last ate yesterday afternoon, some lentils with chapatis. It has been more than a day. I am very hungry, but there is only enough gas left for four or five meals. I hold back, saving it for worse days. There are a couple of cucumbers and tomatoes. I will cut them, add salt, and eat that, and save one more day.
Now, just think of that for a moment. The gas stove, to an Indian, is suddenly a symbol of scarcity, deprivation, fear. The stuff that supplies it comes from somewhere distant over which he has no control—if President Donald Trump gets an idea, or the Islamic Republican Guards get an idea, then the flow on which it depends can stop, and then he goes hungry, counting how many meals his canister might still contain. Multiply this by a few billion people and a few key facets of each life—dinner, commute, heat, cold—and you end up with a profoundly different mindset.
In the very short run, that may mean that countries like India lurch toward coal—fairly cheap, and fairly easily available. The forecast for May and June in India is even hotter than usual before the monsoon descends, and according to Bloomberg the country is preparing to burn more of the black rocks to keep air conditioners running. Even a few years ago, that would have been the country’s only real recourse: belt-tightening, and shifting to a different fossil fuel. But the Trumpian revelations about the undependability of fossil fuel come at a significant moment in human history, a moment when we have—again, suddenly—a very different choice. As David Fickling reports:
With the LNG [liquefied natural gas] drought pushing up electricity prices and photovoltaics providing a cheaper, easier alternative, a boom in rooftop solar is far more likely than a return to coal. Don’t look under the ground for the solution to the LNG crisis. The answer is in the skies.
Here’s a chart worth looking at, from the think tank Ember. It requires a bit of explaining. The old story about clean energy—that is, the story of the last five years—is that it was cheaper to operate than fossil fuel power, because the fuel (sunshine) was free, but that the upfront costs were higher because you had to build those solar panels. But now it’s so cheap to build the solar panels that from the jump it make sense to switch. That gray band at the bottom is the price of the fossil fuel system, and that orange line is solar with batteries, which provides the same reliable power. Again, this is the upfront cost—in the long run, of course, the solar system is hugely cheaper, because, again, the sun delivers the energy for free when it rises above the horizon.
Anyway, let’s think about India and stoves again. For a long time if you wanted to cook your food in India, you needed to go out and gather firewood or dung, something that took a long time (and was a chore usually assigned to women). When you burned it, you had to tend the fire carefully, and you (and your kids) breathed a lot of bad stuff. There have been many attempts to supply alternative cookstoves, but they never worked very well. But now—well, now, the government is moving quickly to boost production and import of induction cooktops. An induction cooktop—I’m simmering chowder on mine as I write—produces heat for cooking without much electricity, and that electricity can be supplied by solar panels and batteries, which are cheap. Suddenly the stuff we want from energy comes more easily, more dependably, and more affordably from the sun and wind.
This is happening, all of a sudden, everywhere and with everything. Here’s a Pakistani farmer explaining why, with a solar panel to run his irrigation pump, he no longer cares about the supply of gas from the Gulf:
“Now, I don’t care if the prices of diesel increase,” he says, proudly pointing to the sun above. “As long as there is this sun, I can grow my watermelons.”
In Europe, the online marketplace Olx reported a huge jump in inquiries about electric vehicless—for instance, in France (up 50%), Portugal (up 54 percent), Romania (up 40%), and Poland (up 39%). From Jakob Steinschaden, news exported a total of 120,083 electric and hybrid vehicles in March 2026, an increase of 65% compared to March 2025. The Washington Post reported yesterday that shares in China’s biggest battery maker had jumped by nearly a third since the war began:
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto said in March that his government would build 100 gigawatts of solar power in the next two years. Philippines’ state-owned pension is offering loans of up to $8,300 for members to buy and install solar power for their homes.
When Abraham Maslow first detailed the hierarchy of human needs, he put our physiological needs—food, shelter—at the bottom, and just above them our need for stability and security. There have been critiques of his theory, but the basic idea stands. What’s curious about renewable energy is that it’s always filled higher-order desires—for belonging, for esteem—better than fossil fuel; poll after poll shows that pretty much everyone understands that, all things equal, it’s better not to pollute the air. But now clean energy fills those most basic psychological requirements better too.
Think of the amount of money the fossil fuel industry has spent over the years to invest oil and gas with psychological power: Who could forget, for instance, the campaign that Rebecca Leber uncovered years ago that paid cash to influencers to gush about the homeyness of cooking with gas.
“#cookingwithgas makes food taste better,” says Camille, an LA-based foodie who poses artfully with her spatula, to her 16,700 followers.
But that’s not what cooking with gas means any more. Now it means wondering about the supply. The sun already provides us with warmth, with light, and via photosynthesis our supper—we have a pretty good psychological relationship with the sun already. When it comes out, we smile. And so the idea that it will happily supply us with all the power we need won’t be a hard sell.
Security fears keep ordinary people awake at night, but also elites. Here’s Frank Elderson, a member of the board of the European Central Bank, writing Tuesday in the bank’s official blog, and in the bloodless language of bureaucrats he says: More sun now:
Europe cannot eliminate geopolitical risk, but it can significantly reduce its exposure to it. The most effective way to do that is by cutting reliance on imported fossil fuels and accelerating an orderly shift to home‑grown clean energy. If Europe were to meet its sustainable energy targets, the link between domestic energy prices and volatile global energy markets would weaken substantially.
Donald Trump has managed to break the two-century-old grip of fossil fuel on the human imagination. As he explained to the GOP House caucus last month, “No other president can do some of the shit I’m doing.”
His reckless attack on Iran will do a hundred times more to promote clean energy worldwide than all the incentives in Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.
President Donald Trump has an incredibly childish obsession with outdoing his predecessors, who he constantly derides as stupid and corrupt. There is, of course, no evidence for Trump’s charges, like the supposedly terrible economy he inherited from President Joe Biden, but Donald Trump is not a man who feels constrained by reality.
While Trump does everything he can to reverse policies to promote clean energy, overturn trade agreements (including his own), and undermine security pacts, there is one area where Trump looks to substantially outpace the work of his predecessors.
This is in promoting the transition to a non-fossil fuel-based economy. As much as Trump loves oil and coal and seems to relish the prospect of destroying the planet for our kids, his reckless attack on Iran will do a hundred times more to promote clean energy worldwide than all the incentives in Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.
There is both the direct effect of higher oil and gas prices resulting from the closing of the Straits of Hormuz, but also a more important indirect effect. Trump has shown the world that it is dangerous to rely on imported oil and natural gas as energy sources.
It certainly was not the best way to promote a green transition, but no one can deny that Trump’s war is effective.
This applies not only to imports from the Middle East, which apparently any jerk can shut down on a whim. The risks probably apply even more strongly to reliance on the United States as an exporter, Trump’s preferred outcome.
In his tariff games, Trump showed he can be incredibly arbitrary and capricious. He claimed that countries were “ripping us off” because they sell us stuff. There is nothing resembling logic to Trump’s claim. Do Walmart or Costco rip people off when they buy things from them?
But it gets worse. He imposed 50% tariffs on Brazil’s exports because it prosecuted Trump’s friend for trying to overthrow the government. India also faces 50% tariffs on its exports to the US because its prime minister refused to nominate Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize. And Switzerland got hit with a 39% tariff because Trump didn’t like the way its president talked.
The rest of the world would likely much rather take its risks with countries like Iran and Libya than rely on getting oil and gas from Donald Trump’s America. At least there is usually some logic to when these countries threaten to reduce output or raise prices.
The rise in oil and gas prices following the closure of the Straits is making clean energy far more competitive than was already the case. Even with oil at $60 a barrel, and natural gas correspondingly cheap, the vast majority of electricity coming on line across the globe was renewable. This shift will only accelerate, with oil prices up 70% and natural gas having close to doubled. While prices may fall back some if the Straits are reopened soon, they are unlikely to return to their pre-war levels for several years in almost any circumstances.
And the price of wind and solar energy continues to fall, driven primarily by low-cost Chinese manufacturers. Chinese electric vehicles will also become hugely more popular as a result of Donald Trump’s war. These cars are already cheaper to purchase than comparable traditional cars, and Trump has just added roughly $500 a year to the operating cost of a gas-burning vehicle. Already 60% of the cars sold in China are electric, with EVs holding a comparable share in Europe. The same is the case in many developing countries. The EV share will likely quickly move toward 100% thanks to Trump’s war.
It certainly was not the best way to promote a green transition, but no one can deny that Trump’s war is effective. Who knows how much damage the war will ultimately cause in terms of property destruction, the environment, and lives lost. The latter will include both direct effects from the war and likely much larger indirect effects from higher energy and food prices. But one positive outcome is that we will be moving far more rapidly toward a green economy.
Investor-state dispute settlement has become a powerful weapon for multinational firms to challenge policies aimed at phasing out fossil fuels, often resulting in massive financial penalties for states that attempt to regulate or transition their economies.
As Colombia prepares to host the world’s first Global Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels this April, a powerful coalition of more than 220 leading economists, legal scholars, and policymakers is calling on President Gustavo Petro to take bold action.
In a public letter presented on Monday in Bogota, promoted by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Boston University Global Development Policy Center, and the NGO Public Citizen, signatories including Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, economist Thomas Piketty, and Paris Agreement architect Laurence Tubiana urge Colombia to lead an international effort to dismantle investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), a system embedded in thousands of trade and investment agreements worldwide, including in Colombia.
As of 2025, Colombia had over $13 billion in pending ISDS charges, about one-seventh of its annual budget. To compare, it would cost $42 billion to fully implement the 2017 peace agreement, while it would cost about $25 billion for the country to have universal healthcare. Without confronting ISDS, meaningful state action may be impossible.
ISDS, sometimes referred to by economists as “litigation terrorism,” allows foreign corporations to sue governments in private arbitration tribunals over public-interest regulations, including environmental protections. It has become a powerful weapon for multinational firms to challenge policies aimed at phasing out fossil fuels, often resulting in massive financial penalties for states that attempt to regulate or transition their economies.
If the world is serious about confronting the climate crisis, it must also confront the legal and economic structures that entrench fossil fuel dependence. Dismantling ISDS is a precondition for meaningful change.
“Investor-State Dispute Settlement has a track record of being very favorable to foreign corporations at the expense of local communities, the environment, and economic development,” Stiglitz noted. For countries seeking to move away from fossil fuels, ISDS creates a chilling effect; governments hesitate to enact ambitious climate policies for fear of triggering billion-dollar lawsuits.
Stiglitz added that "investor-state dispute settlements don’t just mean growing debt burdens for countries: they are also a barrier to action on the climate crisis.”
Colombia is especially exposed. The country has 129 oil and gas projects covered by ISDS provisions, leaving it vulnerable to a wave of potential claims as it pursues its energy transition.
Petro has signaled his intent to reduce reliance on these mechanisms, but has yet to follow the path of countries such as South Africa, India, and Indonesia, which have terminated ISDS-linked agreements outright after concluding they undermined national sovereignty.
Across Latin America, ISDS has quietly transferred enormous public wealth to foreign corporations. Governments have been forced to pay out tens of billions of dollars in arbitration awards, particularly in countries like Argentina, Peru, and Venezuela, which, not coincidentally, have also faced severe economic and energy crises.
This system vastly privileges foreign investors over domestic firms, bypasses national courts, and effectively grants corporations veto power over public policy. As development economist Jayati Ghosh argues, bilateral investment treaties have “weaponized” corporate influence, restricting the ability of governments to act in the public interest without delivering clear benefits in terms of increased investment.
Colombia’s upcoming conference offers a rare opportunity to challenge this global regime. The letter’s authors propose the creation of an international alliance committed to unwinding ISDS and restoring democratic control over economic policy. The European Union’s recent withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty, due to its protections for fossil fuel investments, signals that even advanced economies are beginning to recognize the incompatibility of ISDS with climate goals.
Yet, even as Petro pushes for a fossil fuel phaseout and questions the legitimacy of ISDS, other governments in the hemisphere are moving in the opposite direction. Ecuador’s conservative President, Daniel Noboa, a billionaire businessman dogged by allegations of corruption, authoritarianism, and links to drug traffickers, has aggressively pursued new trade and investment agreements with the United Arab Emirates, Canada, and the United States. These deals include ISDS provisions, despite both the Ecuadorian Constitution and the Ecuadorian people outright banning ISDS.
Other right-wing politicians in the region, including anarcho-capitalist Argentine President Javier Milei, have also expressed support for expanding ISDS, to further the entrenchment of corporate power in the region.
As Andrés Arauz of the Center for Economic and Policy Research puts it, ISDS creates a “fast-track legal system” that grants corporations a “license to kill” public-interest regulation through the threat of massive financial penalties.
The coalition’s message to Colombia is salient; if the world is serious about confronting the climate crisis, it must also confront the legal and economic structures that entrench fossil fuel dependence. Dismantling ISDS is a precondition for meaningful change.
In Santa Marta this April, Colombia has a chance to lead, and turn the region away from complete surrender to foreign corporate interests, instead attempting to build economies around popular prosperity, dynamic democracy, and robust constitutionalism.