Oil is again above $100 per barrel, and gas prices at the pump are at $1 more than they were just a month ago, before the war began. Iran’s attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz are causing global economic strife.
Welcome to Greta Thunberg’s world. Many liberals have long rallied around the Swedish environmental activist in her demands to end fossil fuel consumption, notwithstanding the global economic disruption that would ensue. The oil shock is now driven by the temporary disruption to a maritime chokepoint through which 20% of seaborne oil trade goes. In turn, to criticize President Donald Trump’s stewardship of the oil shock while advocating much worse is the ultimate hypocrisy.
Then again, it is time to question whether the environmentalist prescription linking fossil fuel reduction to climate repair was ever rooted in science. Certainly, the hypothesis was valid, but the experiment showed opposite results.
First, there was the COVID-19 shutdown, where, for a time, global transport nearly ground to a halt. It took a couple of years to recover. Again, the rationing of air travel and the pause on automobiles had long been high on the wish list of Thunberg and the United Nations Climate Change crowd. And yet, the data showed no impact on climate whatsoever.
Now, more evidence comes pouring in as Iran’s blockage of oil flows leads to consumption decline worldwide, with countries from Slovenia to the Philippines rationing gas, some Americans again embracing remote work, and a four-day workweek looming.
While the impact on climate would take some time to manifest — a week’s disruption will not be immediately evident — there is not much doubt that the disruption will do more than adversely affect quality of life. Nevertheless, if Democrats and the climate crowd are honest, they should acknowledge that what Trump has unintentionally done regarding oil shortfalls and energy expenses is only the tip of what they have long advocated forcing Americans to do, arrogantly lecturing that the price would be worth it.
After the COVID-initiated consumption decline failed to manifest itself in climate data, it is time to recognize that those demanding societal change have less interest in what science actually says and are more modern-day Luddites who simply want the power to dictate and impose.
In 2019, former Secretary of State John Kerry, who refashioned himself as a climate agent of change, took a private jet to Iceland to pick up an environmental award. “It’s the only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world to win this battle,” he said, and explained that “the time it takes me to get somewhere, I can’t sail across the ocean. I have to fly, meet with people, and get things done.”
It was straight out of George Orwell’s Animal Farm. All animals are created equal, but the pigs are simply more equal than others. For Kerry and Thunberg, only their agenda matters, and their metric of success is less declining temperatures and more the ability to inconvenience and impose on others. That this is an uncomfortable truth may be why Kerry has since criticized the First Amendment. “Our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer [disinformation] out of existence,” he told the World Economic Forum in September 2024.
Oil prices will come down almost as sharply as they rose, but current struggles aside, there is a silver lining: Exposing that Thunberg and Kerry’s monopoly over “science” appears more fictional than fact.
Michael Rubin is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential. He is director of analysis at the Middle East Forum and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.