At the risk of sounding like a poor man’s Tom Friedman, I’m watching the truly astonishing turns of events in response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and thinking that this holds potential to be the single most transformative global episode since WWII. And not just militarily.
Just a few things that come to mind:
In automotive terms, the rubber is truly meeting the road in the US of A. I see no one expecting the price of gas to return to pre-invasion levels for months, if ever. In fact, based on my diet of articles and YouTube videos of economists, finance ministers, etc. there isn’t anyone who does not see prices continuing to escalate upwards all summer long. $6 a gallon and higher in Minnesota is not out of the question this year.
The effect on vacation travel — by car or plane — and commuting habits is plain to be imagined . (And this just as businesses, post-COVID, were coaxing employees back into the office.)
Then imagine consumer demand for immediate alternatives to the average family’s 5000-pound SUV and pickup. With the US cutting off the 8% of oil it gets from Russia, and Europeans slapped across the face with the existential dilemma they’ve created buying billions of euros of gas from a homicidal maniac, an even more dramatic/disruptive tightening of the tap is inevitable.
(In a couple months, I expect to see some real bargains for people shopping for a 13 mpg Ford F-150. Computer chip shortage be damned.)
“Transformative” also applies here to the no doubt foul-smelling deals being cooked up with the Saudis, Iranians and Venezuelans to reduce cost-at-the-pump issues here and make up for fuel Europeans will need next winter when — not if — they stop doing business with Vlad the Invader.
So let’s imagine the new-found demand for electric transportation. Mass and personal transportation-wise. It’s been a common understanding for years now that cost is the critical factor in any transition to electric vehicles. Well, a 50%-80% increase in gas prices is pretty much what the good green doctor has always ordered if you want to dramatically increase the US’s 2% electric vehicle fleet substantially and permanently higher. True, there are basic material issues related to the invasion, but I’d bet the longer term viability of electric wins out over ever more impractical internal combustion cars. (It would be nice if we could capture some of that gas price increase for state and national treasuries but … share-holder value, you know.)
Then we get to the power required to both manufacture and charge not thousands but tens of millions more electric vehicles. Solar and wind and other nice green renewables are simply not sufficient — currently — to handle such demand. Which is where next generation nuclear becomes a serious part of any grand energy (and climate) transformation.
When I think of the great, convulsive events that have taken place in my lifetime — the Cold War/Cuban missile crisis, Vietnam, various assassinations, the fall of the Berlin Wall, 9/11, the crash of 2008 — none of them set off the combined shift or reinvigoration of alliances, reexamination of national priorities and changes in day-to-day consumer habits and lifestyle that we can see erupting here from Putin’s hellish blunder.
And this is all based on the situation as it stands today, before a truly desperate Putin — a man for whom “losing” equals death, figuratively and quite possibly literally — escalates this war into something truly catastrophic.
Please feel free to tell me where I’m mistaken about any of this.
Transformative event for sure. Let us hope, though, that the survivability of the solar panels and nuclear power plants whose construction it accelerates are not tested by the nuclear holocaust whose danger it equally accelerates!
Rather than being transformed by the actions of Putin , US Energy Policy should be viewed as an issue of National Security. We have the ability to produce a significant amount of energy in our country. Enough so we can reduce any need for Russian oil , export energy to European nations with a higher degree of dependence than we have , minimize further cost increases and allow us to transform to a green energy policy at a realistic pace with reduced impact on our economy..The article suggests we have no choice than the decision to transform ourselves due to the actions of Putin. We are 15-20 years away from significantly reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. Based on current realities our country needs a plan for our energy needs and capabilities. Our leadership can no longer ignore the issue unless you want Putin to decide it for us.
Brian,just curious,what is your favorite Tom Friedman article from years past?The one where he wrote that no 2 countries that have a McDonald’s have never engaged in military conflict?His support for the invasion of Iraq?The 2006 Playboy Interview where he praised GWB’s courage?His March 6 2018 NYT Column praising the Saudi Crown Prince?This is why “experts”should be looked at skeptically.
I get your point, and my response is that I’m only referencing Friedman for his “macro views” of how everything from a Lexus to a dung beetle is inter-related. I do NOT regard him as some kind of infallible seer, in fact I find him undigestibly self-serious most of the time. Still, I read him regularly. My idea of a great columnist? Charlie Pierce at Esquire.