Derek Thompson

I think you said we're insourcing our energy.

And so it's kind of funny.

He was making this somewhat tendentious but clever argument for getting Republicans to see the benefits of solar as being something that didn't rely on these sort of global networks.

And you're making a similar argument from another perspective.

You're saying this war is teaching us that global energy markets might be riskier and therefore more expensive in the future.

And a lot of countries might make the decision to say, you know what we can count on the price of and that is very unlikely to be disrupted by a war in the Strait of Hormuz?

is a solar farm in Arizona or hydropower in the Netherlands.

It's interesting to think that global events might be re-accelerating this shift toward nuclear.

It's an interesting second-order consequence here.

All right, Alex, I feel like we've talked about two potential second-order consequences of this war, both of them quite ironic.

Number one, the strengthening of China, right?

Donald Trump attempts to assassinate the theocratic leadership of Iran.

The bullet passes through.

Iran's leadership, and then ricochets and somehow hits us, strengthening China.

A second consequence that we've discussed is the irony of Donald Trump, ironic champion of solar and batteries everywhere, that this war could increase risk premia on Iran.

of seaborne fossil fuels in a way that encourages many countries around the world to say, I'm not sure I want to rely on the Strait of Hormuz the way that I have for the last few years or decades.

I would much rather build a local energy source.

That local energy source is more likely to be solar, batteries, wind, hydro, nuclear.

Let's talk about a third, second order consequence of this war that you're looking at.

It seems to me that if the Middle East oil and gas producers are going to be weakened by this war, other countries that have the capacity to produce oil and gas are going to be strengthened.