Darkening skies

The skies have darkened for Donald Trump amid his month-long war with Iran in partnership with the equally bellicose Benjamin Netanyahu, who has different objectives from the US president’s, in pursuing the most disruptive and destabilizing global war ever waged.

Trump is suing for peace, claiming he has scored a decisive victory. But the Iranians don’t want to talk to him – a defiant act that shows who is really winning.

Don Donald, in typical mafia style, gave the Iranians five days to meet his terms. Or else he will “obliterate” (his favorite word) Iran’s civilian power grid, starting with the biggest one. Before the five days lapsed, the Don of Disruptive Wars extended his own deadline, by 10 days, to April 6, without the Iranians asking for it.

Can Trump really obliterate Iran’s power grid? Iran has more than 500 power plants, generating 100,000 megawatts. Under the Geneva Convention, bombing of civilian power plants is a war crime.

Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International’s senior director of Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns, on March 25 scolded the US president: “President Trump must retract deeply irresponsible threats of acts that would unleash catastrophic harm on millions of civilians. The decision to not proceed with such attacks must be based on the USA’s obligations under international humanitarian law to avoid civilian harm – not the outcome of political negotiations. Going through with such attacks would cause devastating long-term consequences and severely undermine the international legal framework designed to protect civilians in wartime.”

Former president Bill Clinton also made a similar warning on Trump.

What probably prompted Trump to think twice on bombing power plants is that Iran has threatened to do the same on power infrastructure in the Middle East.

The region has been damaged, economically and politically, by Iran’s retaliatory strikes against Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Jordan where the US has bases. Add to that the aggravation Iran has wrought on the Middle East and on the rest of the world, for effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz. The closure sent prices of crude and refined petroleum products rising by 40 to 100 percent.

Notes The Economist: “The war is already unpopular with most Americans. If casualties mount, petrol prices soar and markets slide, who will they blame? Already some on the Republican right are pointing to Israel. Voters, especially the young, have grown more hostile towards it; pro-Israel lobbyists in America are struggling.”

Adds The Economist, wryly: “The hardline Revolutionary Guards are in control. Domestic opponents, whether ethnic separatists or urban protesters, are deathly quiet. Iran’s stocks of highly enriched uranium, some 400kg, remain untouched, probably still under rubble. Most strikingly, Iran has established a chokehold over the Strait of Hormuz, blocking exports of oil and gas from the Gulf that account for a fifth of the global supply. For decades American military planners have prepared for this obvious risk. But the war has proved both that Iran can strangle the strait, and that it would be agonizingly hard to loosen its grip. Iran’s asymmetric warfare, with missiles, cheap drones and perhaps mines against shipping, is keeping the superpower at bay.”

In the Philippines, President Marcos Jr. has issued Executive Order 110 declaring a state of national energy emergency.

What he should have done is issue a proclamation declaring a state of national energy emergency.  A proclamation acknowledges a state of affairs – like a crisis or an emergency. An EO outlines specific courses of action to cope with the emergency. EO 110 lacks those specifics. It is a wish list of what should be done but does not specify nor show how and why. The result? Not many people know exactly how to proceed and how to cope with the emergency.

A good reference is the International Energy Agency (IEA) primer, “Sheltering from Oil Shocks,” on how nations and people can shelter themselves from the most disruptive oil shock in history. The recommendations are backed by data on the impact of each course of action. “The conflict in the Middle East has created the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market,” warns IEA.

Some of IEA’s recommendations:

Work from home. Can significantly reduce oil consumption from commuting. At the national level, three additional remote workdays, for those whose jobs allow for it, could cut oil consumption from cars by two to six percent, with average potential reductions of around 20 percent for individual drivers.

Reduce speed limits on highways by at least 10 kph. To cut an individual driver’s oil consumption by five percent to 10 percent and overall oil use for private cars by one percent to six percent. Heavy freight trucks can save around five percent due to their already lower speeds.

Encourage public transport. Can reduce national oil use for cars by one percent to three percent. Options like cycling and walking for shorter journeys can lead to further reductions.

Alternate private car access to roads in large cities on different days. Could reduce traffic congestion, engine idling and fuel-intensive stop-and-go driving, with savings of one percent to five percent of national car oil use.

Increase car sharing and adopt efficient driving practices. Combined with eco-driving measures, including checking tire pressure, adjusting air conditioning settings and efficient driving practices, fuel demand for cars can be reduced by around five percent to eight percent.

Efficient driving for road commercial vehicles and delivery of goods. Eco-driving practices, including regular checks of tire pressure, reduced idling and reduction of braking and accelerating, combined with operational improvements such as optimization of vehicle loads, can reduce fuel demand for road commercial vehicles by three percent to five percent.

Avoid air travel where options exist. A reduction of around 40 percent of flights taken for business purposes is feasible in the short term and, with very high participation in work-related flight reduction campaigns, could reduce jet kerosene demand by seven percent to15 percent.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]