Jonathan Safran Foer juxtaposes the collective will to win WW2 against humanity’s inability to become vegetarian for the planet. The implication that individual sacrifice is far more palatable when the consequence is obvious and urgent. That is why climate change has not inspired the same behavioural changes we saw in wartime. As a hater of veggie day in college, I doubt I could ever be vegetarian. However, our energy sources should rightfully be a less controversial issue.
By highlighting solar, hydro, and wind as renewables, we imbue the value proposition of these sources with a degree of altruism – there is no depletion of the resource, nor do these create harmful byproducts. While this can be motivating, it also connotes a loss-taking, which can make a person feel foolish for absorbing the negatives of a Tragedy of The Commons situation. After all, sacrificing economic growth to limit carbon emission is noble, but can also feel like naivety if others continue to emit carbon. Furthermore, it becomes susceptible to financial shocks – after all, one is inclined towards altruism when their Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs are met. Economic pressures are prioritised and can reduce the willingness to pursue actions towards sustainability. When 2022 saw higher inflation, the demand for ESG-linked products as well as sustainable products like plant-based meat plummeted.
It would be better to frame the role of renewables as a matter of national security. Instead of being reliant on the Gulf States, where oil has been used as leverage against the Western Hemisphere (once in 1970s embargo, and once in 2026), securables would grant each country a diversified and resilient energy supply.
In October 1973, Arab members of OPEC declared an oil embargo in retaliation for American military support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War. They cut production by 5% per month and banned shipments outright to the USA, and the price of a barrel of oil nearly quadrupled almost overnight, from roughly $3 to $12 by January 1974. The consequences at home were immediate and jarring: Americans queued for hours at petrol stations, the government imposed rationing, and the economy tipped into stagflation and recession.
At the start of 2026, the US/Israel bombed Iran heavily. In return, Iran used drones and missiles to constrict oil movement through the Strait of Hormuz, which handles roughly 20% of global oil shipments. This caused Gulf states including the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar to shutter or reduce energy production, with oil sent spiralling upwards again.
This would also avoid the problem of renewables being held to a high standard for environmental conservation. Wind farms are criticised for killing birds, solar panels are criticised for the material and energy used in construction. Never mind the fact that fossil fuel operations, climate change, and oil slicks consume more resources and devastate biodiversity more severely. Instead of existing for some “for the greater good” purpose, it falls to a simple rationale: Energy sovereignty.
Despite the 2022 Ukraine invasion having displayed the fragility of relying on oil, the world continues to accept this as the primary form of energy. The EU continued to purchase Russian oil – handing over more than 100 billion Euros since the war began, all while cognisant that their energy vendor would one day send tanks bought with their money into their territory.
It is true that the world remains highly dependent on China for solar panels, due to their well established supply chains. Some may frame this as swapping geographic dependence from the Middle East to China. Also, the USA has shale oil, as does Canada. There have been reports that Chinese-made solar inverters came with unauthorised communication devices, raising fears that China might seek to remotely deactivate solar panels. In addition, critics may point to the intermittency of solar and wind energy, requiring further investment in battery technology. That said, the solution should lie in developing alternative supply chain by near-shoring, which is a lot tougher for oil that only exists in certain geographies. While these might be more expensive, solar and wind are already incredibly cheap at the moment. Compared to the enormous defence budget, investing in our energy security is a move with high returns.
The energy transition has lagged not because the technology is unproven, but because the argument has been wrong. Asking people to sacrifice for the planet is a hard sell when the planet’s distress feels distant and the economic pressure feels immediate. Instead, we should ask a country to stop paying its adversaries for the privilege of keeping its lights on. Securables are not an act of generosity toward future generations. They are a straightforward act of self-interest, the kind that our survival instincts understand. Compared to the hundreds of billions spent on military hardware, investing in domestic energy resilience is arguably the highest-return security decision a government can make. Fix the framing, and we might finally have sufficient impetus to fix our energy systems.