Here We Go: Time Wonders What ME Conflict Means For ‘Climate Change’

I expected something like this, but, not this fast

What Conflict in the Middle East Means for Climate Change

The consequences of the increasingly urgent hostilities between Israel and Iran are multifold—humanitarian, geopolitical, and so on. If the situation deepens, it could also have important implications for energy markets and, by extension, climate change and the energy transition.

Central to that picture are oil prices. In the past month, oil prices have risen nearly 25% as hostilities have deepened. On its own, Iran is a significant supplier of oil to global markets, producing roughly 4 million barrels of oil daily, and traders fear that its supply could be cut off. A bigger conflagration could mean significantly higher prices with fears about supply issues across the region, especially as traveling through the Strait of Hormuz grows trickier.

Governments play a key role shaping everything related to the production and consumption of energy, but nonetheless energy is not divorced from market fundamentals broadly and, specifically, the effect of prices. And perhaps no price is more closely tracked in energy markets than the price of a barrel of crude. But how a high-price environment for oil would shake out is complicated—with some clear pluses for decarbonization efforts as well as some big challenges.

On the one hand, high oil prices incentivize investment in alternatives, in this case electrification. Consumers may take a closer look at electric vehicles to save at the pump. Or they may just buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars, a climate win. Meanwhile, companies may take another look at the numbers for ditching diesel in heavy industry.

Over the years I’ve read, and blogged, many screeds by cultists about war being bad for global boiling, but, I think this is the first time I’ve read where a cultist is happy about war in the Middle East because it could make the price of oil skyrocket to get people into EVs. Or, really, on the bus.

On the other hand, high oil prices incentivize fossil fuel companies to drill more to try to take advantage of high prices. Projects that looked too expensive when prices were low start to take on a new sheen when they’re on the rise.

No, not really, because the use of gas drops when prices get too high, so, the return on investment is difficult, especially when the price crashes back and they lose money. Net profits are based on quantity sold, at around 10 cents on the dollar.

None of these factors are likely to play out in a straightforward fashion—and we don’t have to look too far back for a similar analogue. In 2022, oil prices rose dramatically following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, quickly shifting the conversation around clean energy.

Clean energy advocates responded vociferously that renewables could provide stability as Europe tried to wean itself off of Russian energy. In the U.S., they argued, renewables would contribute to energy security. These arguments helped advance clean energy—even if they weren’t decisive. The RePowerEU initiative, launched in the wake of the invasion, helped accelerate the expansion of wind and solar power in the bloc. And energy security was among the arguments that helped get the Inflation Reduction Act across the finish line.

That was due to speculation, since the war really didn’t affect the quantity of petroleum extracted or refined. Just fearmongering. Regardless, this makes the climate cult happy….until the base Warmists realize that their own lives are getting screwed.

The post Here We Go: Time Wonders What ME Conflict Means For ‘Climate Change’ appeared first on Pirate’s Cove.