Energy “REALITY” tells us that we need refineries to convert crude oil into usable transportation fuels and products.
Ronald Stein, P.E., is an engineer, columnist on energy literacy at America Out Loud NEWS, and advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize-nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.” He is also the recipient of an unsolicited Tribute to Ronald Stein from Stephen Heins.
Yoshihiro Muronaka, P.E. Jp is a chemical engineer who currently focuses on evaluating net-zero and decarbonization policies, advocating alternative energy concepts such as “carbon symbiosis,” and promoting balanced international energy cooperation.
Co-authored by Ronald Stein and Yoshihiro Muronaka
Published April 13, 2026, in America Out Loud News
Recent calls for a more realistic shift from “decarbonization” to “low carbon” suggest that discomfort with ideology-driven climate policy is finally beginning to surface in public debate. For years, climate discussions in many countries have been dominated by abstract targets, slogans, and numerical commitments. Yet behind these lofty ideals lies a deeper and more practical question: have we come to understand energy far too narrowly? Tensions in the Strait of Hormuz in early 2026 have made that question impossible to ignore.
Today, under the banner of decarbonization, energy is often treated as if it were synonymous with electricity. Public discussion tends to focus on how to generate electricity without carbon emissions, how quickly electric vehicles can replace conventional cars, or how far renewable electricity from wind turbines and solar panels can expand. These are important questions, but they are not the whole picture. From the perspective of a chemical engineer, reducing the energy debate to electricity alone is equivalent to seeing only half of civilization.
Fossil fuels are not merely inputs for electricity generation. They are also indispensable raw materials for the modern industrial world. In addition to supporting transportation systems, more than 6,000 products that sustain daily life—including clothing, medical equipment, fertilizers, plastics, synthetic fibers, housing materials, detergents, packaging, and countless industrial components—owe their existence to the material benefits of fossil fuels. Oil and natural gas are not simply burned; they are transformed into the feedstocks from which modern life is built.
This distinction is crucial. When policymakers and activists speak as though the problem can be solved simply by replacing fossil-fuel-based power generation with renewable electricity, they overlook the material foundation of modern civilization. Electricity alone cannot replace the petrochemical chains that support medicine, sanitation, food production, logistics, communication devices, transportation, and housing. Even a society that succeeds in electrifying much of its transport and power system would still face the question of how to secure the immense range of materials now derived from fossil resources.
That is why the petrochemical industry deserves far more attention than it usually receives in climate discussions. Fossil-fuel feedstocks are processed into basic petrochemical products such as ethylene and propylene, which then branch out into thousands of derivative products. This vast network of transformation supports not only clothing, food, transportation, and housing, but also the medical and sanitary systems upon which public health depends. In every sense, it forms part of the very fabric of modern civilization.
Once we understand this, it becomes obvious that a disruption in fossil-fuel supply would mean far more than higher gasoline prices or temporary pressure on power generation. If supplies were seriously interrupted, the consequences would reach into nearly every corner of daily life. The clothes we wear, the medicines we take, the smartphones we use, the fertilizers that sustain agriculture, and even the containers and packaging that transport food and medical goods would all be affected by shortages of raw materials. The modern world is not merely powered by fossil fuels; it is materially structured by them.
This is why recent tensions in the Strait of Hormuz have such profound significance. The issue is not limited to geopolitics, tanker traffic, or fluctuations in energy prices. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most critical chokepoints in the global energy system, and instability there exposes just how vulnerable advanced societies remain. When supply routes are threatened, what is at stake is not only energy security in the narrow sense, but also the continuity of the material systems that sustain ordinary life.
In the spring of 2026, the gap between ideology and reality became visible all at once. Tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, together with the stark reminder that some countries, such as Japan, rely on finite imported fossil-fuel supplies measured in days, were not merely statistics.
They were a warning about the fragility of everyday life itself. Numbers like these may appear dry and technical, but behind them lies a simple truth: if supply chains are strained for long enough, the effects will be felt not only in fuel markets, but across the full range of goods on which modern society depends.
What had long been obscured under the rhetoric of decarbonization was suddenly illuminated by crisis. The “thickness of civilization” became visible again. By this I mean the dense, interconnected, and often invisible material network that supports human well-being: industrial chemistry, manufacturing, transportation, sanitation, communications, healthcare, agriculture, and construction. These are not marginal or optional features of modern life. They are its substance. And this crisis revealed that more than 6,000 products essential to daily life could be placed at risk at the same time.
None of this means that environmental problems should be ignored, or that societies should abandon efforts to reduce waste, improve efficiency, and pursue cleaner technologies. But it does mean that energy policy must begin from a more honest understanding of reality. A civilization cannot be sustained on slogans. Nor can policymakers responsibly design the future while pretending that fossil fuels are nothing more than a dirty legacy to be discarded. They are also part of the material infrastructure of life as we know it.
The real challenge, therefore, is not to deny this dependence, but to manage it wisely. A mature energy policy should aim not at simplistic moral purity, but at resilience, prudence, and realism. It should ask how societies can preserve quality of life, maintain stable supply chains, reduce unnecessary waste, and use limited resources intelligently. It should also recognize that technological transition takes time, and that forcing change without regard for material realities can produce shortages, instability, and needless harm.
To face reality is not an act of resignation. On the contrary, it is the most sincere and forward-looking course of action. It means acknowledging the tension between ideals and practical necessity, while continuing to take steady and responsible steps. From that starting point, we can begin to redesign energy policy in a way that is both sustainable and humane—one that respects the environment without forgetting the material foundations of civilization itself.
Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.
Tensions in the Strait of Hormuz force us to reconsider the material benefits of food.
(Fixed that so you don’t have to).
In the relatively short term*, we can overcome disruption in global oil supply using coal to make oil and oil products. Gas too, probably. Pity our dear leaders didn’t see the need to get going on it before there was a crisis – with one exception: Xi Jinping.
*In an emergency, how long would it take to build a coal-to-oil plant? I asked Grok and the answer was 12-24 months. (The question to Grok was: Given that Germany did build a coal-to-oil plant in about 18 months at around the start of WWII, how quickly could one be built now with modern materials and techniques including AI?).
Communism gives you the easy land claiming, zoning, permitting, lax inspection, cheap labor, commitment of resources, and removal of social and legal obstacles. So does War; witness the Big Inch pipeline that brought East Texas crude to East Coast refiners and shippers for WW2.
Right now, the political class have insulated themselves from all of the harsh elements of reality other than having to deal with rioting in the streets (they close the curtains and send out the police to bust heads). There is no urgency, rather they clear their day so that they can intercept phone calls from co-conspirators pitching their own scams to get in on the grift of “building” these coal-to-oil plants.
Until we bring back tar and feathers, the former West will always say “suck it up and accept the new normal”.
That’s the same thing capitalism does.That’s why we need laws and regulations. Guess who does that?
It was capitalists who gave you all those laws and regulations.
Despite the myths of you communists, capitalism can’t exist without some laws and regulations.
Capitalists never decided to be nice. Public pressure, Unions and socialist movements played a crucial role to improve conditions for the general population.
Capitalists learn to adapt. When they can’t, they stop.
Socialist movements are singlehandedly the largest murderers the world has ever known. Again and again. Millions of people. How you seem unaware of that is ridiculous.
Capitalism is not politics, it’s a method of saving up the value of human effort with “money”, originally gold, rather than “barter” or “brutality” so that the saved-up labor can be benefitted from another day. Political names like communism, fascism , socialism, are names politicians use to reach positions of power within their country’s social and economic framework, mostly by obfuscating their real plan, which is always personal power to accomplish their pet goal.
The real question is whether the methodology favors detailed control of the population by the government, or whether the details are left up to individuals, which individuals look at as “freedom”. Petticrats in any form of governments that claim those political styles will push for more petticracy, more rules, more interference in personal lives, and more taxes to accomplish that….unfortunately….so there you have it…personal freedom vs governmentalism…so far has always ended in revolution, many deaths either way, a hundred years or so of poverty for the population before people with hope try again.
You might have given religion equal credit.
In most cases things changed when it became economic to do so. Minions, like you, were led to believe they did it.
Yes, it comes down to economics, which is dependent on all kinds of political factors as you mention, in addition to physics, chemistry and engineering.
Crude oil has the advantage of being at least roughly twice as energy dense (~42 MJ/kg vs ~20 MJ/kg), example WTI oil vs PRB coal. Crude oil is more similar to fuels chemically and has a more favorable heteroatom composition.
During WWII, the Germans didn’t have to worry about poisoning automotive catalytic converters or producing fuels with high olefinic and aromatic concentrations.
Did you know that a famous preemptive strike and subsequent nuclear attack was caused by a U.S. oil embargo?
PEARL HARBOUR
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-did-japan-attack-pearl-harbor
I would suggest that the cause was due to:
After capturing Manchuria, Japan became bogged down in a full-scale war with China in 1937 and had to look elsewhere for the resources it needed to fight. Meanwhile, the USA was slowly awakening from its isolationism.
When Japan occupied French Indochina in 1941
There is a thread here: one party or parties tries to strangle another. The center cannot hold. Extremes get the opportunity and uses the public anger for their agenda.
We have to remember that Japan was one of the earliest industrialised countries in the east. Its production needed trade. But the west didnt like the competition so tried to cut off energy supplies( sounds familiar?) Which in turn gave the uber aggressive semi religious nutcases their opportunity. Same thing in Germany.
Later the west found out it could simply move cheap labour to the east and sell to the west for higher profits. For that it needed more democracy and ‘free trade’.
The US is going backwards now. It is doing the stranglehold again. It is not going to work. On the contrary, it is backfiring.
A lot of counties have oil and gas which is not being accessed because of “carbon-virtue-seeking”.
They need to wake up to reality that relying on oil that has to pass through a strait that can be closed any time the mad mullahs want to, is probably not a good idea., and look after themselves.
No, no, no. You misunderstand. This is exactly what these countries–the UK, for one–want. They have campaigned on this premise in all kinds of international fora and through the IPCC for thirty plus years. Even the US has the RGGI in the northeast, pushing for decarbonization. New York will not frack, or build more pipelines, and is pushing a carbon-free existence beginning in just a few years. Now we get to see what happens.
Fortunately there are still 120 countries that produce oil daily.
Deigning to do what is practical and responsible is a form of seppuku.
In all the outpourings of grief and anger in the ‘just stop oil’ type of ideological showboating, I never saw anyone pointing out to the hand-glued posh folks that they were glued to Tarmacadam. Without the tar, they would just be stuffing their workshy hands into a pile of crushed stone. Tar is of course oil or coal derived. You can’t make it with a windmill or silicon wafer.
And silicon is produced from silica and coal, in which coal acts as both the source for heating energy and as a chemical reducing agent.
Story tip:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c86ey5n9vx9o
Headline: ‘Why cheap power could matter more than clean power in the push for net zero’
Interesting article on the BBC website, questioning the validity of maintaining the rollout of renewables in light of electricity prices..
Things are shifting.
“Sir Dieter, the Conservatives and the Tony Blair Institute all argue that slowing the pace of renewable expansion, and maintaining a larger role for gas in the short term, should be part of the answer. But while using fewer renewables could ease pressure on system costs, it risks slowing the pace of emissions cuts.
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband says renewables bring other benefits too. “The lesson of yet another global energy shock is that the UK needs to get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and onto clean homegrown power that we control,” he says.”
And here lies the descrepancy: the realists know that (higher)electricity costs are the main issue for people and even the country.
But Miliband wants to press on despite that. That argument cannot maintain in times of economic hardship.
So, the focus now is on cheap, reliable instead of clean energy. In other words: delaying the transition to keep costs down while still supporting the transition…in principle.
It highlights the choice: transition leading to higher costs (the opposite of what was promised) or slow down the transition because of economic downturn.
Miliband just has to be thrown out if the likes of Blair can see where the wind blows…or doesn’t..
Other people will say the whole transition is not possible but i left that out. It is more about what the establishment ( like Tony Blair) is saying. The shift is clearly happening.
““The sooner we move from a debate focused on targets to one focused on how you structurally change the economy and decarbonise in a way that works both economically and politically,” she says, “the faster we will move on climate action.”
I am not seeing it. These people are like the Branch Covidians…lost. This is a mental illness.
“works both economically and politically”.
Well, there lies the rub.
The promise was ‘cheaper’ and that is clearly not the case. Attached, the political move towards renewables becomes unattractive.
The reality trumps policy or at least steers policy. People still vote. They cannot sell the ‘renewables are cheaper’ if it is more expensive. The more economic hardship the more people will resist the cost of the supposed transition.
That’s a win if policy makers like Blair are shifting. This despite the Message.
It is virtue signalling AND letting in debates based on reality.
That is a good thing by itself, right?
To use a simile: after the russian revolution at some point it was clear that the world communist revolution was not going to happen. Too much resistance in Germany, France and the UK.
Stalin took the realist route: solidify the Soviet Union and control the borders from foreign intervention. The communist countries, Russia and China settled for a kind of treaty of Westphalia like settlement ie: to each it’s own.
Now both countries have their own mix of state capitalism and left the communist revolution far behind.
It is reality that forced it.
So, i think in time, like the World Communist Revolution, reality will force leaders to abandon The World Energy Transition as an unworkeable concept.
There is no reasoning with the demented Miliband.
From the article: “But while using fewer renewables could ease pressure on system costs, it risks slowing the pace of emissions cuts.”
What is the risk of slowing the pace of emissions cuts? There is no evidence that CO2 emissions need to be cut. And even if the UK were to reach Net Zero tomorrow, it would make not the slightest difference to the Earth’s weather or climate. The UK is wasting time and money on this useless demonstration of stupidity By Starmer and Miliband.
Instead, they should take Trump’s advice and “Drill, Baby, Drill” and “NO MORE WINDMILLS!”
It’s as simple as that to get back on track. You should listen to Trump.
I think the strategy of letting doubt creep into the mainstream works best for the present time. Then, when the tipping point is reached put more weight on the lever.
The UK/ EU is not the U.S.
Being right or wrong is not the issue.
Changing policy is..
Good article.
“Recent calls for a more realistic shift from “decarbonization” to “low carbon” suggest that discomfort with ideology-driven climate policy is finally beginning to surface in public debate.”
I do not experience discomfort because of ideology so much as error.
The ideology of human flourishing (e.g. Alex Epstein’s main point in Fossil Future) is fine with me as a replacement for the ideology of “human impact is bad!”
Refute the core error about the reported “warming.” There was never a good physical reason to expect a perceptible risk of climate system harm from emissions of CO2 through the “warming” influence of incremental concentration in the atmosphere. This is because dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation massively overwhelms any tendency for absorbed energy to accumulate down here from the minor improvement in IR absorbing power.
More here. Lorenz described the fundamentals. ERA5 computes it as the “vertical integral of energy conversion.” So the state-of-the-art modelers of the general circulation know this perfectly well from the mathematical representation of compressible flow.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
Thank you for your patient attention to this matter.
“The ideology of human flourishing (e.g. Alex Epstein’s main point in Fossil Future) is fine with me as a replacement for the ideology of “human impact is bad!””
I think that is called Arguing to One Hundred. Far better than Arguing to Zero like all previous attempts have taken.
Yes, Alex Epstein states the “arguing to 100” vs “arguing to zero” point effectively. The only real disagreement I have with him, overall, is that he considers “warming” as a perceptible but tolerable side effect of the CO2 emissions from using fossil fuels. I point out, instead, that there is no good physical reason to expect those emissions to have ANY perceptible influence on ANY climate variable.
Yes, Alex Epstein states the “arguing to 100” vs “arguing to zero” point effectively. The only real disagreement I have with him, overall, is that he considers “warming” as a perceptible but tolerable and manageable side effect of the CO2 emissions from using fossil fuels. I point out, instead, that there is no good physical reason to expect those emissions to have ANY perceptible influence on ANY climate variable.
(unintended duplicate)
I think you are weakening your argument by allowing yourself to be written off as a “ denier” to some people who don’t have a sound mental image of your meaning of “perceptible”. I think it’s better to say that the 4 watts of 2xCO2 forcing, even if totally converted to heat at ground level would result in about a degree of warming, or less due to evaporation, but actually it is mostly converted to frictional heat throughout the entire height of the troposphere by air motion, where it can more easily radiate its heat to outer space, so the net amount of warming won’t be perceptible…”you’ll probably be able to take your sweater off 10 minutes earlier on cool mornings”. This makes you sound like you know the numbers, and have wisely considered the consequences, and are knowledgeable on the topic and aren’t a fear monger.
Thank you for your reply. You have consistently expressed a good sense of where I am “coming from” as perhaps one of the last cohort of old-school engineers. But please understand I am describing what I see, both from space with the Band 16 visualizations, and from the ERA5 model outputs. There is no denial, in any case, of the incremental IR absorbing power of 2XCO2.
I don’t think you’ve quite yet realized the full significance of the bidirectional energy conversion process in relation to the up-and-down motion. More here a month ago about that, noting how Simpson and Brunt were very perceptive about Callendar’s claims of attribution of “warming” to incremental CO2.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555
That said, I take your point in the good spirit in which I can tell it is intended, not dismissing your concern.
Be well.
I think your points are very valid and logical, well presented, backed by good satellite info…so are worthy of converting as many people as possible to being skeptical of the CO2-mageddon meme in the media. Just that Alex’s “tolerable and manageable” approach might result in a better opening line for discussions.
The others make very good points, but their arguments make one critical error.
They say, ”activists speak as though the problem can be solved” What problem? Fossil fuel combustion emissions are not a problem. By calling combustion a problem, the authors undermine their argument.
ja
“The real challenge, therefore, is not to deny this dependence, but to manage it wisely. “
Well, there is your problem: You have a long line of politically connected sociopathic idiots who are convinced that they are the wisest managers in the world.
Provide a mechanism that filters out the grifters, thieves, schemers and psychopaths first. We used to have a system that performed adequately. A strong monoculture, Christian feeder system and a robust penal system for those who slipped through.
Now its DEI, and patronage.
The problem is, it’s the grifters, thieves, schemers and psychopaths who are always the ones people choose to put into power; see the present tranche of ‘world leaders‘.
A couple of pipelines would solve those problems.
The structural asymmetry:
When the West enters a ceasefire or treaty agreement with Iran, the West actually obeys it — because Western institutions, democratic accountability, international reputation, and legal frameworks create real compliance costs for violation. Iran experiences none of those constraints. The clerical state answers to doctrine, not to international norms it never accepted as binding in the first place.
So every treaty produces the same outcome: one side stands down, one side rearms.
The Hormuz pattern is particularly telling:
A ceasefire on Hormuz harassment doesn’t mean Iran stops planning the next harassment — it means Iran gets a window to reposition, resupply proxies, assess damage, and wait for Western political pressure to demand the military stand down. The compliance gap is immediate and structural. Western militaries and governments face enormous domestic pressure to declare victory and disengage. Iran faces no such pressure — the Revolutionary Guards answer to the Supreme Leader, not to an electorate exhausted by conflict.
The treaty as a weapon:
This flips the conventional understanding entirely. In the Western framework, treaties are conflict resolution instruments. In the Dar al-Sulh framework, the treaty is itself an offensive tool — it achieves what military pressure could not, namely the withdrawal of the opposing force, while leaving the doctrinal objective unchanged.
Every ceasefire Iran has agreed to has functioned this way:
Pressure builds to intolerable level
Iran agrees to pause
Western political systems declare success and reduce pressure
Iran reconstitutes
Cycle repeats at a higher baseline Iranian capability level
The ratchet effect:
Each cycle doesn’t reset to the prior baseline — Iran ends each cycle in a stronger position than it entered. The nuclear program advanced through multiple rounds of this. The proxy network expanded through multiple rounds of this. The missile program matured through multiple rounds of this. The trajectory is monotonically in Iran’s favor precisely because only one side treats the pauses as permanent.
The Hormuz specific danger:
Hormuz is uniquely dangerous because Western economies have an almost irresistible incentive to accept a bad deal to reopen it. The economic pain of closure is immediate, visible, and politically costly. The strategic cost of a bad ceasefire is deferred, diffuse, and easy to discount politically. Iran understands this calculus perfectly and can essentially extort a treaty exit whenever the economic pressure becomes sufficient.
The honest conclusion:
Any policy that includes a ceasefire or treaty with Iran as a terminal objective is self-defeating by design. The only strategically coherent endpoint is either the permanent degradation of Iran’s capacity to threaten Hormuz and regional stability, or internal regime collapse. A treaty that leaves the clerical structure intact and capable simply resets the clock for the next cycle — at higher stakes.
The West’s institutional bias toward negotiated settlement as the definition of diplomatic success is being systematically exploited by a state whose doctrinal framework defines that settlement as a temporary tactical retreat.
“The West’s institutional bias toward negotiated settlement as the definition of diplomatic success”.
You live in a fantasy.
Every major power undermines the opposition if it can. It can sign treaties and break them when it doesn’t suit…if they have the power. Strongarm, strangle, kill, manipulate, coerce, lie..the whole shebang.
You americans should know this all to well.
You learned this from the british.
What is the line again?
Ah yes: “honest broker”. Didnt Vance say that lately? With a straight face..
And people actually believe that!
Insane.
The trick is to know Arabic. They – Muslim imams & mullahs & jihadis & mujahidin translate truce to hudna and by that word they are always describing a temporary ceasefire to recover, tend the wounded, rearm and resupply with the intention of resuming the fight again soon. They define it by an action of their prophet at some historical battle.
The West’s institutional bias toward negotiated settlement as the definition of diplomatic success is being systematically exploited by
a state whose doctrinal framework defines that settlement as a temporary tactical retreat.It is actually amusing that people generally forget the role that ‘heat’ plays in our civilization.
I guess the us is the EU. Yeah, maybe reopen your nuclear, your coal, your small gas and oil fields, you morons.
Thankyou Ronald and Yoshihiro,
You have correctly highlighted important complications from policies that promote Green stupidities at the expense of economic realism.
The simple minds of those who cannot see beyond the primacy of “preservation of the environment” have to be given credit for their achievements to date. Large portions of people, including politicians, have been convinced that the environment is top of the list. This was not an easy task, but they have succeeded.
But, digging deeper, we find that the path to success has not been honest. There is example after example of stretching the truth. One prime example is that renewable energy is cheaper in $$$:than hydrocarbon energy, wrongly shortened to “fossil fuels”.
There will continue to be many simple minded people putting environment at the top of their list. Past propaganda has been effective. The key to a better society is to shift the balance a little, so that a majority of people have other items to top the list, such as standard of living or personal income.
Our natural environment is not a delicate petal that demands many dollars to save it from harm or extinction. It is a tough old nut that has looked after itself long before people appeared on Earth. Forget the dreamy Green stuff and concentrate on hard, obvious reality.
Geoff S
Thank you for your input but do you have an actual solution to the death cult’s extortion money or are you simply flapping your gums and clutching your pearls like so many?
No country can legally restrict navigation in Strait of Hormuz, UN maritime chief says
No country can legally restrict navigation in the Strait of Hormuz,
True.
But they can do it illegally, as we are seeing both sides doing at the moment.
Check out the insider trading that went on; some people are making another fortune on Trump doing this, and now the Russians benefit hugely.
It will be interesting if the US Navy tries to board or arrest a Chinese tanker (they’ve turned 2 back). I can’t see the Chinese complying with that much longer if Putin raises his prices.
Would Trump blow it out of the water or lose face ??