Mad rush to renewables: The cost of inaction

The world stands at an inflection point—one that, if we choose to recognize and embrace it, could determine the course of history in this century. The question is whether it will finally produce the paradigm shift we need: toward less energy-intensive lifestyles and away from an economy that has long placed profit above people and the planet.

Nobody can turn back the hands of time. To insist on returning to the prewar status quo is naïveté at best, willful ignorance at worst. The world will not return to what it was before Feb. 28—we are already deep in uncharted territory.

The war in Iran, even if the conflict ends after a two-week ceasefire, is a watershed moment—not a blip. Few geopolitical events in this century have had a lasting impact on the global economy and upended international relations. The closest precedents were the end of the Cold War in 1991, which remade the world order, and the Sept. 11 attacks, which launched the United States-led war on terror and forced nations to choose sides. Then came the COVID-19 pandemic, which laid bare the fatal fragility of just-in-time supply chains and exposed how deeply interconnected—and therefore vulnerable—the global trade had become.

I have long written about the urgency of transitioning to a low-carbon economy to put us on a path to “net zero” because, first, economic growth sustained by fossil fuels is inherently unsustainable. At a certain point, growth will plateau because any progress underpinned by finite resources can’t be sustained indefinitely without sacrificing the health of the people and the planet.

Common sense. Our resources are finite—this much is common sense. A sustainable future demands that we use what we have wisely, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The harder question is why the world continues to power an economy built on the unrealistic promise of perpetual progress with the very fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—that are exhaustible and planet-polluting (and controlled by a few countries). And why, knowing this, have we waited so long to change?

Second, as long as the Philippines—along with Japan—imports over 95 percent of its oil from the Middle East, it will remain hostage to Gulf nations whose monopolies over crude, oil, and natural gas supplies largely dictate global prices. This heavy dependence on the Middle East, which holds half of the world’s proven conventional reserves, leaves our energy security perpetually exposed to flare-ups in the region.

That we deregulated our downstream oil industry in 1998—stripping the government of its power over fuel pricing and supply, and abolishing the Oil Price Stabilization Fund; sold off Petron, which had effectively neutralized the oil cartel’s grip on pump prices; and abandoned any serious commitment to strategic oil reserves, leaving us with a mere 45 to 60 days of stockpile while Japan maintains 250—speaks volumes about the folly of our lawmakers, and the corrosive influence of oil money over the national interest.

Transition delays. Mirroring the inertia of Western nations, successive Philippine administrations have long delayed the transition to a low-carbon energy pathway. The objections by oil players are familiar: solar panels and solar farms remain costly, the window for harvesting sunlight is limited, wind turbines are difficult to site in mountainous terrain, and many renewable sources lie too far from existing power grids to be practical.

Now, with pump prices going through the roof, Filipinos are taking a second look at renewables—energy sources so accessible and familiar that their very ordinariness had blinded us to their usefulness. Those who can afford it are rushing to buy electric or hybrid vehicles. The rest of the middle class are snapping up rechargeable batteries sold online and sourcing affordable solar panels to install at home, connecting them to power meters in a bid to cushion the blow when electricity bills arrive.

Are we witnessing a genuine behavioral change driven by a shift in mindset, or merely a temporary, cost-driven response that has little to do with saving the planet? Either way, it is welcome news for green advocates and a boon to the planet’s health. That it took a war a continent away to force us to seriously consider alternatives to oil is a tragedy in itself—but here we are. Change rarely happens overnight, yet some events compress years of inertia into weeks. The war in Iran is proving to be one of them.

The war in Iran is an unmistakable wake-up call. We either change our ways or resign ourselves to being hapless victims of a crisis we saw coming but refused to address.

Survival in this new era of recurring global instability demands two things above all: a fundamental shift in mindset, and a rapid, irreversible transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Access to clean, sustainable energy sources is not merely a temporary necessity—it is the cornerstone of that shift.

—————-

lim.mike04@gmail.com