Ukraine keeps bombing refineries in Russia, and gas is still cheaper in Russia than it is in Utah

Labor Day is one of those holidays that's a big generator of travel ("Gasoline prices, over $4 per gallon, hit record high for Labor Day," CNBC). 

Meanwhile in Russia, according to the Daily Beast article, "Humiliating Truth of Putin’s Homeland Crisis Exposed," the War with Ukraine is being felt at home in Russia as drone attacks hit critical infrastructure, especially oil refining. 

Refinery burning in Moscow.  Social media footage via the New York Times

Lines for gas have become a common image coming out of Russia this summer. 

 Anadolu/Anadolu via Getty Images

While that's true it's ironic that gasoline is about $3.32 per gallon in Russia--granted some of it is no longer produced at the right octane level and damages car engines, it's about $4.35-$4.60 per gallon right now in Utah (and we have five refineries about 8 miles away from our house so theoretically it should be a bit cheaper).

Ironic that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and Trump's War with Iran is more costly to Americans in terms of gas prices and the subsequent costs pushed out amongst various supply chains than the War in Ukraine is on Russian motor vehicle operators--albeit they have to wait for hours in long lines.

(Early on in the War, Trump chortled about how much it cost Iran every day, about $1 billion.  I calculated that the daily cost to consumers for gasoline which went up because of the war as more than the cost to Iran.)

=======

WRT the War in Ukraine, Phillips's Newsletter (Boring War) is one of the only Substacks I pay for.  I think I learned about it from Paul Krugman.  It's worth it.  He's a professor of military history at the University of Saint Andrews in Scotland.

The Trump Administration and Stone Age Thinking | Announces bike lanes are "woke" (and hasn't been funding transit infrastructure projects)

It goes without saying that to most people in the United States "Fuel" = Gasoline.  

General Curtis LeMay is famous for saying the US would "bomb Vietnam back to the Stone Age" in the quest to "win" the Vietnam War.

The Trump Administration is reducing American resilience in many ways:

• Denying climate change
• Defunding science and medical research, especially at universities--programs are being cut, people are being laid off, and acceptance of new graduate students and postgraduate fellows are on the wane
• But also in various government programs, including the Park Service, the Forest Service, the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and dismantling the National Center for Atmospheric Research because it focuses on climate change("What the US Would Lose If It Eliminates the National Center for Atmospheric Research," Inside Climate News)
• Promoting anti-vaccine beliefs and easing vaccine requirements and guidance, thereby increasing people's susceptibility to diseases that once were rare, like measles
• Ceasing health surveillance programs such as for germ-free produce, which likely has contributed to the current mass problem of cyclosporidia ("How Trump admin cuts have compromised food safety," CBS)
• Paying wind turbine companies to not build sustainable energy projects ("Here’s where Trump has canceled wind farms – and how states are pushing back," Christian Science Monitor)
• Deemphasizing support for electric vehicles, which helps to reduce the demand and dependence on fossil fuels, and puts the US automobile industry behind in the development of new technologies and their ability to compete with EV-focused companies especially from China ("Trump’s Isolationism Is Losing the Great E.V. Races," New Yorker, "The American E.V. Has Been Crushed. Will It Take the U.S. Auto Industry With It?," New York Times)
• Although the foolish/fuelish War with Iran has led to major rise in gasoline prices and a disruption in production and supply chains that will take years to unravel and this is encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles despite the lack of tax credits and other inducements ("California hopes to lure a new generation to electric cars, with help from rebates, high gas prices," Los Angeles Times)

Source: "Explainer: In gasoline-guzzling U.S., high pump prices can be political poison," Reuters.

• Firing competent military officials in favor of Christian Nationalists, and boosting them with testosterone, instead of focusing on how drones are completely changing the military "battlespace"
• Eliminating graduate military education programs at "woke universities" like Harvard, which means that military personnel are less well educated and innovative
• etc.

This to me, is a form of bombing the US back to the Stone Age.  Related is what historian Timothy Snyder calls the Trump Administration's actions as a form of "Superpower Suicide" where the country through its actions is reducing its power and relevance on the world stage.

A new car showroom.  The US automobile industry spends more than $12 billion per year on advertising and marketing, from manufacturing companies to dealerships to ancillary organizations financing cars, selling car warranties, etc.

To the Trump Administration, energy is derived only from oil (and coal and nuclear).  Not from solar, wind, or geothermal sources.  From the Politico article "The Trump administration wants more gasoline made in idled refineries from California to sunny St. Croix":

Three industry executives told the news outlet that the White House has had discussions about reopening refineries ranging from the Virgin Islands to California. “Energy security is national security, and America’s refining capacity is essential to ensuring the United States has continuous access to secure, affordable, and reliable energy,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement.

“The President’s National Energy Dominance Council will continue supporting the reopening of shuttered refineries and the construction of new ones to lower prices and strengthen our national security,” Rogers added.

In the meantime, truly advanced nations are building their resilience, which among other actions means a big shift away from fossil fuels.  In fact, China's ability to reduce their consumption has reduced what are the already high costs for gasoline as a result of the Iran War ("China's oil imports have plunged during the Iran war. How much will they recover?," Reuters).

Sustainable mobility as a financial and health resilience strategy and tactic.  You might not think so, but every transit user, bicyclist choosing biking over driving for trips, and pedestrians walking instead of driving, reduces the demand for automobiles and gasoline, and increases their household resilience by reducing dependence on expensive cars and gas--a new car now costs not quite $12,000 per year according to NerdWallet.

This in turn reduces the demand for gasoline, which when your President has already f* up availability and cost, helps the nation in times of strife.

E.g., wrt biking and not owning a car, that supported $100,000 of our mortgage in DC.  It also reduced other costs and saved time for me.  Plus, there were major health benefits--granted I chose to bike in 1990 because I knew there were health benefits and I had a paternal line history of heart disease, but my cardiologists and oncologists attribute my survival from heart disease and two cancers in part to 30 years of biking.  So far I've outlived my father and other relatives by at least 12 years.

Suzanne doesn't bike.  But she used transit (aided by the federal transit benefit, which is a big help).

Hill Family Biking is a community group in DC's Capitol Hill, promoting biking over driving, especially in getting kids to and from school.  This event had 450 cyclists of all ages.

Trump Administration Hostile to Transit.  So in terms of "Stone Age Thinking" it makes perfect sense that the US Department of Transportation, which is already defunding transit by not acting on applications ("Congress Budgeted Billions for Big Transit Projects. Trump Isn’t Spending It," New York Times),

Trump Administration is now expressly hostile to Biking/Biking isn't hostile to cars.  The Administration has recently made clear its belief that bike lanes are "woke" pro-diversity/equity/inclusion initiatives that are antithetical to a dependence on automobiles and gasoline ("Trump Cancels Trail, Bike-Lane Grants Deemed ‘Hostile’ to Cars," Bloomberg).  Relatedly, the Trump Administration refused to sign on to a UN Declaration on the importance of road safety ("The U.S. Alone Votes Against A Road Safety Declaration," Forbes).

From Bloomberg:

The Trump administration canceled grants for street safety measures, pedestrian trails and bike lanes in communities around the country this month, each time offering a simple rationale for yanking back federal aid: the projects aren’t designed for cars.

A San Diego County road improvement project including bike lanes “appears to reduce lane capacity and a road diet that is hostile to motor vehicles,” a US Department of Transportation official wrote, rescinding a $1.2 million grant it awarded nearly a year ago.

... the wave of cancellations issued Sept. 9 by the DOT demonstrates just how determined the administration is to promote the use of single-occupancy vehicles in cities and towns – and to thwart local governments’ attempts to develop other ways for residents to get around.

Hostile to cars?  Heterogeneous versus homogeneous mobility systems. What a joke.  This fits in with my point that while countries like Germany are fine with a heterogeneous approach to mobility--they are big on cars with big manufacturers like VW, Mercedes, and BMW, but at the same time they recognize transit is the best way to get around in cities, that traveling by train between cities is often more efficient and less environmentally costly than flying, and that biking is a good way to reduce demand for gasoline, parking spaces, space on the road, etc.

By contrast, the US forces as much as possible, policies to promote automobile and gasoline dependence, in part because the US is one of the largest producers of oil.  Germany is a big producer of automobiles, like the US, but they aren't much of an oil producer.  So they take a more balanced approach.

The US could hold up cities like NYC as a premier transit example, and Portland Oregon as a premier city for biking (there are many other best practice neighborhoods), and neighborhoods across the country as premier walking places, and accept a multi-modal mobility system, but instead it takes the one sided view and favors cars.

Even EVs, while better in terms of reduced fossil fuel demand, especially with the rise of sustainable energy generation complemented by batteries, are really just another form of automobile primacy--what I call "Next Generation Asphalt Nation."

The True Snowflakes are the Right.  The right has called the left "snowflakes" for promoting bike lanes, LGBTQ+ issues and the like.  But the right in shutting down all kinds of programs that challenge their narrow minded world view of what is "muscular" are the true snowflakes.

=====

Bike sharing/micromobility.  It's taken more than a decade but city bike sharing systems in places like NYC and DC have experienced a huge increase in take up over the past few years ("Citi Bike surge: Ridership increases, showing ‘critical’ need in NYC transit deserts, says advocacy group," amNY, "Bikeshare Beat: Capital Bikeshare breaks all-time annual ridership record," GGW).  

One factor has been expansion.  The other, increased deployment of electric bikes which are faster, easier to ride, and cover more distance more quickly compared to regular bikes.  

Plus, in cities bike sharing has the advantage of offloading parking/storage and security to a third party.

A person rides on an electric scooter on Congress Avenue in downtown Austin on Tuesday July 7th, 2026.  Photo: Mikala Compton/Austin American-Statesman.

Separately, "free range" bike and scooter sharing offered up by companies like Lime, Spin, and now Veo--sitting scooters further expand the willingness of people to use "micromobility devices" as primary forms of transportation ("What to know about the new rental scooters now on Salt Lake City streets," Salt Lake Tribune). 

These companies also provide coverage in cities without city-sanctioned dock based systems ("Austin riders turn to Lime, Bird scooters after CapMetro Bikeshare suspension," Austin American-Statesman).  

An online ad promoting that electric bicycles don't face rising gasoline prices, Murf

 

So much winning! US drivers are spending $682,500,000 more each day for gasoline

Today's price at a station in Salt Lake City.

I am not a big proponent of cars still, even though in Salt Lake I use a car all the time, much because of my health because while I am much better than I was 2 and 2.5 years ago, I'm still weak when it comes to bicycle riding.

Although one cool thing is in one direction I live one half mile away from a decent shopping center with a supermarket.  And in another direction, 0.8 miles to an upscale market and a couple of other retailers and restaurants on the other three corners.  I will walk to those places--especially if I don't have to buy a lot.  I hate carry groceries so a backpack's worth is about my maximum.

Anyway, the average gasoline price per gallon in the US right now is about $4.50.  That's what it is in Salt Lake, well in the last couple days a couple cents less, even though we have five refineries a few miles away--cost isn't about proximity to nearby produced gasoline that influences pricing, it's world pricing.

The White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said this in the Washington Post article, "U.S. intelligence says Iran can outlast Trump’s Hormuz blockade for months":

" ... Iran is losing half a billion dollars daily because of the blockade. “During Operation Epic Fury, Iran was crushed militarily,” Kelly said in a statement. “Now, they are being strangled economically by Operation Economic Fury and losing $500 million per day thanks to the United States Military’s successful blockade of Iranian ports. The Iranian regime knows full well their current reality is not sustainable, and President Trump holds all the cards as negotiators work to make a deal.”

Turns out, about 375 million gallons of gas are consumed daily by US motor vehicle operators.  

With the price rise in our area from 2.68 to 4.50, that's an increase of 68%.  $375,000,000*1.82 = $$682,500,000.  

That's more each day for just  gasoline--other prices are rising too (plus the cumulative effect of tariffs; wonder why brie cheese costs more?)--than Iran is losing.

In normal circumstances, a President has no ability to affect oil prices, except on the margin, maybe, by releasing fuel from the Strategic Reserve.  Choosing to go to war with the consequence of the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz is 100% on Trump.  (My joke about this during the Biden Presidency was "Hey, Joe Biden's not building refineries."  A commenter had the gall to tell me that's not what presidents do.  Like I don't know that?

I don't see how the US is winning when it is spending more on weapons and personnel, taking loses to infrastructure, dissipating its weapons inventory, combined with increased costs to consumers.

A homogeneous mobility system: cars and for medium and long distance trips, airplanes, doesn't work in crisis

Travelers waiting at a TSA checkpoint at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport on Friday. Elijah Nouvelage/Bloomberg News

Trains.  An AP writer took the train from Atlanta to DC to avoid the chaos at Hartsfield Airport due to the federal shutdown of pay for TSA agents ("Midnight train from Georgia: A view of America from the tracks as airports struggle in the shutdown").  Most places don't have that option.

Planes.  The crush at Hartsfield is being played out similarly at airports across the country ("Why the TSA Lines in Atlanta Are Longer Than Other Airports," Wall Street Journal).

Plus there is the issue of the Iran War raising jet fuel prices ("As oil prices rise, airfares are surging and some airlines might not survive," Los Angeles Times) making fares higher, although trains face higher diesel fuel prices (and would do better if more lines were electrified).  From the article:

United Airlines Chief Executive Scott Kirby said this week that his company could face an $11-billion loss if oil prices remain at their current levels. Meanwhile, United’s airfare could increase by 20%, he said.

With thin profit margins and oil prices hovering around $100 per barrel, airlines have no choice but to pass the increased costs onto consumers.

It would make more sense to develop the passenger railroad system on medium distance trips focused on shifting trips from plane to train, such as DC to Philadelphia, or NYC or NYC to Boston, Dallas to Houston, etc., but the airlines advocate heavily against such a policy change.

Proposed High Speed Rail Network.

Many European countries have developed high speed rail networks in part to divert airplane trips to trains.  

Brightline Florida is a rail line from Miami to Orlando, targeting tourists.  According to the Mark Brown Substack "Car Free America," "Brightline Passenger Rail Is Booming While America Still Has No Real Alternative to $4 Gas and $400 Domestic Flights."

Automobiles.  The Iran War is why gas prices are up over 50% in the US.  A car-dependent economy has no real alternative but to keep driving.  Some cities have decent transit systems, and may experience a rise in ridership.  

Most metropolitan areas don't have the right form to make transit work very well, regardless of the cost of gasoline.

In response to the oil shocks of the 1970s, countries like Denmark and the Netherlands reshaped their mobility and land use policies to favor walking, biking, transit, and compact development, to reduce their dependence on automobility and fuels (gas or diesel) produced elsewhere.  Unlike the US, they didn't say biking and walking is good to do, and then didn't change policies much to make this policy in practice, they changed all kinds of laws, imposed high gasoline taxes, etc.

Mark Kauzlarich, Bloomberg.

The US did impose efficiency requirements on the car industry and some environmental efficiency measures to reduce energy use and under Carter reduced speed limits on Interstates to 55mph and created right turn on red rules (saving cars from having to idle).

But mostly, the US doubled down on gasoline-dependence, investing in the military around maintaining access to oil, and by creating the Strategic Reserve--the idea was to buy gas when it was cheap, and put it on the market in dire circumstances.

Ethanol.  The US also adopted ethanol requirements.  But they are a waste.  In the US, ethanol is made from freshly grown corn, using agricultural resources.  In Brazil, instead the feedstock is used cane sugar stalks, so they are reusing waste to make fuel, rather than expending more resources than what are gained back in energy density.  Ethanol doesn't save gas really, but it does help provide demand in agricultural states like Iowa, making them strong defenders of the process.

Ford and other automakers have spent years building up a supply chain to support their rollout of EVs. Scott Olson/Getty Images

Electric vehicles.  They are still cars, and an automobile-centric land use and transportation paradigm is a poor use of land and resources.  

But electric vehicles are an environmental strategy and tactic  Having an electric car insulates drivers from hiccups in the oil-gasoline supply chain that result in severe price increases ("What to Know About Electric Cars When Gas Prices Are Surging," New York Times).

Hill Family Bicycle Group with the US Capitol in the background

Bike, walk (and transit).  In the MinnPost ("Skip Starbucks to save gas? There are better strategies") Bill Lindeke suggests walking, biking or using transit as alternatives to high gas prices.  He writes from Minneapolis-St. Paul which has a decent light rail and bus system.  Most cities don't.

Heterogeneous mobility paradigm.  The difference between the US and Germany is that both manufacture cars, but of the two, only the US produces oil ("The Petro States of America," Bloomberg).  

That could be the reason that Germany has a much more heterogeneous mobility policy. 

It loves its cars--known for autobahns without speed limits--but recognizes cities are best served by transit, and most major cities have multiple modes well serving their communities.  

The German Transport Association model created in Hamburg is a model that US metropolitan areas should adopt ("The answer is: Create a single multi-state/regional multi-modal transit planning, management, and operations authority association," 2017, "Verkehrsverbund: The evolution and spread of fully integrated regional public transport in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland," International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 2018) .

Barcode public art project.  A40 Autobahn/Freeway, Ruhrgebeit-Essen, Germany

For the past few years, for sustainability and climate change reasons, it's sponsored a national transit pass ("The Deutschland-Ticket for just 63 euros per month," DB).

Germany also promotes walking and biking (the Federal Bike Plan in its various iterations always turns out to be good).  

Electric vehicles sales surge in Asia: Gerschenkron and EV production in China

A BYD dealership in Phuket, Thailand.

According to Bloomberg "BYD Showrooms Are Bustling Across Asia After Iran Oil Shock," people are reacting to gas price increases resulting from the war with Iran by looking at buying electric cars.

Maybe the US too ("What to Know About Electric Cars When Gas Prices Are Surging," New York Times).  From the article:

In the United States, prices for new electric vehicles have fallen but still average $6,500 more than vehicles that run on fossil fuels, according to Cox Automotive. From a purely financial point of view, an electric vehicle makes sense for people who will save that much on fuel and maintenance during the time they own it.

The New York Times offers a tool to help people make that calculation based on local electricity prices and driving habits. But there is more to the decision than dollars and cents. Some benefits of electric vehicles are hard to put a price on, like the peace of mind that comes from not being at the mercy of geopolitics.

Alexander Gerschenkron was an economist who studied development economics.  

In "Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective," he makes the point that later developing countries have an advantage when it comes to adopting new technologies, because unlike legacy advanced economies, they don't have billions invested in older technologies.

Vintage Marathon Oil gasoline station in Miami, Oklahoma.

China (in many technologies) is a great example.  One is with motor vehicles.  While their development of the automobile industry started with gasoline cars, many built through joint ventures with then advanced car makers like GM and Toyota, the companies were able to adopt and adapt the technologies for the development of their own domestic auto industry.

But China, seeing fossil fuel as a legacy fuel and making them dependent on the world oil economy, moved to the development of electric vehicles (and solar power, although the country still burns a lot of coal and is adding coal plants, since they have large supplies of coal domestically sourced) ("Chinese BYD cars emerge as threat to automakers," Detroit Free Press).

BYD started making electric batteries before moving to cars.  More recently they've developed a fast charging system that allows cars to go up to 600 miles between charges--except to provide this at scale would require serious electricity transmission upgrades.

Now China is years ahead of the American auto industry, which is losing billions of dollars trying to compete in the electric vehicle market ("Carmakers Took a $50 Billion Loss on EVs," Autoweek). And they are an increasing force in global markets ("How America’s EV retreat is increasing China’s control of global markets," CNBC).

During the first Trump Administration, I remember the Economist writing about this ("America’s domination of oil and gas will not cow China"), and Trump's preference for coal ("Trump orders coal revival, but market favors natural gas," NPR) and oil, stating that in energy, China is the future, and the US is the past.  China is an electro-state and the US is a Petro-state ("The Petro States of America," Bloomberg). 

Foreign Policy Magazine develops this thesis further, ""How the Iran War Could Consolidate China’s Energy Dominance: Amid global oil and gas disruptions, China stands prepared for the electrostate era."

Petro states as a sub-national phenomenon.

Wind turbines operate at a wind farm near Whitewater, California. Renewables tend to be lower risk than oil projects, but they also tend to deliver lower returns. / Getty Images

I apply the concept of petro states at the sub-national scale as well--many states in the US are pro fossil fuels, and have hampered the development of alternative technologies ("Making oil is more profitable than saving the planet. These numbers tell the story," NPR).  

In large part, it's because excise taxes on oil and natural gas are a huge revenue source for states ("Congress gave a break to coal producers. Wyoming worries it’ll carry the loss," Wyoming Public Radio).  From the article:

Over the last 50 years, the state of Wyoming made bank from coal – billions of dollars to fund the government, schools, roads and parks. The state now has its own sovereign wealth fund thanks to coal.

Here’s how it works: When coal is mined on federal land, the mining company pays royalty fees. Half of those royalties go to the federal government and the other half goes to the state, and only Congress has the power to change that ratio.

President Trump’s GOP spending bill lowers those royalty fees for mining companies from 12.5% to 7% through 2034.

Or they continue to provide tax incentives for increased production ("Tax credit for huge oil producer raises questions about Utah board’s transparency," Salt Lake City Weekly) and other ways to promote production ("Supreme Court backs Utah oil railroad expansion, endorsing limited version of key environmental law," Colorado Public Radio).

For example, Oklahoma, with oil and natural gas interests (fracking especially) is fully committed to fossil fuels, but is toying with solar and wind ("As demand grows, Oklahoma considers its energy path forward," Daily Oklahoman).  Tulsa and Oklahoma City are home to many regional headquarters and a few national firms.

North Dakota ("Studies underscore oil and gas industry’s significant impact on North Dakota’s economy, communities").  Kentucky ("Heavy reliance on coal has eroded a KY economic advantage. Can Trump reverse the trend?," Kentucky Lantern). While New Mexico, which has a good producing section of the Permian Basin, and Pennsylvania--home to the nation's first oil well, but a center for fracking, are less committed.

It's the rare state, like California, pushing a sustainable fuel future despite historically having been a large producer.  Maybe the switch is due to significant drops in production ("As oil industry in California wanes, what will become of shuttered refineries?," Daily Breeze).

An oil pump jack stands near a field of wind turbines in Nolan, Texas. Oil companies are under pressure to pivot more swiftly toward renewable energy. Here's one reason why that's not happening so quickly: It's still incredibly lucrative to sell oil. / Getty Images

Texas is the mother lode of oil production in the US.  It is also a major wind power producer.  

Like the Trump Administration ("Trump Officials Weigh New $1 Billion Deal to Stop Offshore Wind Farms," New York Times), some pro-oil interests are working to deemphasize wind in the state's mix of energy sources ("The War on Wind Rages in Texas," Earth Day).

Originally the Humble Oil Building, named before Humble Oil and Refining Company was fully integrated in Esso (which later became Exxon, then ExxonMobil).  Now it's the ExxonMobil Building.

Texas is the big winner nationally as Houston is the center of the oil and gas industry.  For example, Chevron is moving there from California.  The company in various forms has been headquartered in the SF Bay region since 1879.  

Production and supporting services companies often relocate from regional centers ("The economic impact of Expand Energy moving headquarters from Oklahoma to Houston," News9 OKC), as the oil industry business cluster there continues to intensify.

US thinks it's doing better from war blowback than other nations

JD Vance bragged that the US isn't as impacted by the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz as other countries ("'Overseas' doing worse with petrol prices than USA: Trump's vice president," 9News Australia).  But it's a global economy ("Iran war will scar the global economy," Financial Times). 

Bloomberg notes the Administration is looking at the wrong impact, as oil is used in so many other products ("The White House Is Using the Wrong Oil Price for the Iran War"). 

Also see, especially the comments where I update with other articles, "Oil dependent economies are vulnerable at all times, but especially during wartime in the Mideast | From energy dominance to energy vulnerability."

Other countries will hardly look upon the US with favor.  The Toronto Star, "How can Canada protect itself amid a global energy crisis?," lists some of the effects on Canada.

A friend's brother runs a grain elevator operation in Montana, including the sale of fertilizer in large quantities.  He's getting stiffed on deliveries.

From the Star:

Yet Canadian consumers are hostage to a volatile world price for oil and gas. And the crisis extends beyond oil. 

• It is a threat to world food security with looming shortages of the natural gas and other key ingredients of fertilizer produced by Persian Gulf States. As they plant for this year’s harvest, Canadian farmers can choose to absorb higher costs for fuel and fertilizer or cut back and suffer lower crop yields. Either way, food prices, already high, will rise further. 
•  Options for protecting Canadian consumers include the cap on pump prices that has been imposed by South Korea and other countries. 
•  China is among major oil consumers that are curtailing fuel exports to hoard domestic supplies. Brazil is cutting federal taxes on fuel and will tax oil exports to offset the revenue loss. 
• The Philippines has mandated four-day work weeks to conserve energy. 
• Some Asia-Pacific factories are scaling back production to preserve fuel and spare themselves higher production costs. 
• In a worst-case scenario, there will be more factory slowdowns and shutdowns in the global supply chain. 
• If prolonged, that disruption will raise the price of Canada’s imports, risking a resurgence of inflation. 
• Canada would be self-sufficient in oil and gas if it chose to redirect a large portion of its exports to refineries in Central and Eastern Canada that rely on imported oil. That would require construction of an east-west pipeline.
• Canada could also build strategic reserves of oil and LNG readily available to Canadian refineries to keep fuel prices under control. Canada is the only G7 country without a strategic oil reserve to draw upon in times of crisis.
• One of the few certainties of the moment is that Iran can bottle up Middle East fuel and fertilizer supplies whenever it chooses after the current conflict ends. The Economist warned of further Iranian attacks on the world economy in coming years, saying that “disruption of energy markets will come and go with geopolitical tensions, especially if Iran concludes that it needs a nuclear weapon to be safe.”

Gasoline is up 49% today in Salt Lake, in response to Trump's Beautiful War with Iran

After a series of price increases since the commencement of the US/Israeli War Against Iran.  It was $2.67 per gallon just before.  From the Bloomberg article "The White House Is Using the Wrong Oil Price for the Iran War":

US President Donald Trump has seemingly turned the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil into a referendum on his war against Iran. Thumbs up if WTI stays below $100 a barrel. Thumbs down if it rises above. Even if he succeeds in keeping that particular gauge below the triple digits, it would be a pyrrhic victory.

What matters for the American economy isn’t the price of WTI, but the cost of refined petroleum products — and they’re rising rapidly. While the price of Texas crude is up 60% since January, the cost of key everyday fuels has risen by between 85% and 120%.

Image from Etsy.

Oil dependent economies are vulnerable at all times, but especially during wartime in the Mideast | From energy dominance to energy vulnerability

Gasoline prices here have gone up about 25% since the start of the War with Iran.  And Salt Lake has five refineries refining oil produced in Utah, Wyoming and near by states.

It's hardly news that oil is a worldwide commodity, and even though it is produced and refined all over, world prices are set in Europe and the US and factor in supply risk.

The War ("Why Escalation Favors Iran," Foreign Affairs).  From the article:

The strikes that have killed Iran’s leadership demonstrated tactical mastery. Tactical mastery, however, is not strategy. Iran’s retaliation—geographically broad, economically disruptive, and politically calibrated—aims to reshape the conflict’s structure. By widening the theater and prolonging the war, Tehran is shifting the contest from a battle of military capabilities to one of political endurance.

As in Vietnam, the United States may win most engagements. As in Serbia, it may ultimately prevail after sustained pressure. But in both cases, the decisive arena was not the initial shock of airpower. It was the politics of an expanding war.

The decisive phase of this war began not with the first strike but with the regional crisis that followed—air defenses activated across multiple capitals, airports suspended, markets jolted, and alliance politics strained. Whether this conflict is merely a contained episode or it becomes a prolonged strategic setback for the United States will depend not on the next volley of missiles but on whether Washington recognizes the enemy’s unfolding strategy—and responds with one of equal clarity.

Energy independence as a form of dependence.  Even though the US is now the largest producer of oil in the world, under the Trump Administration it has promulgated policy that prioritizes fossil fuels and diminishes renewable energy sources  ("Trump Returns to Gasoline as Fuel of Choice for Cars, Gutting Biden’s Climate Policy," New York Times, "The owners want to close this Colorado coal plant. The Trump administration says no," NPR).

The Administration is also all in on nuclear energy, which isn't a fossil fuel per se, but is an extremely expensive form of energy, not once a plant is open, but the cost of building fission facilities has bankrupted many firms over the years.

Even though renewable sources diversify the energy mix and reduce system vulnerability ("Trump order halts offshore wind projects for at least 90 days," PBS, "Trump administration quietly canceled the nation’s largest solar project," CNN, "Wind and solar power frozen out of Trump permitting push," Reuters)  For example, electric vehicles are much less dependent on oil as the base fuel for electricity generation.

The Administration calls this "Energy Dominance" but "Energy Dominance" can just as easily be robust and include non fossil fuels as part of the mix ("Energy Dominance or Renewable Resilience?," German Marshall Fund, "Power up! Why the US needs every energy source to stay dominant," ING Bank, "Donald Trump’s call for ‘energy dominance’ is likely to run into real-world limits," AP, "How Trump’s ‘Energy Dominance’ Agenda Is Dominating You With Dirty Energy," The Contrarian).

Plus US nominal control of oil in Venezuela and Canada ("Trump Now Has His Very Own Oil Empire," Bloomberg).

Let’s do the math. Start with the oil production of the US and add Canada. Then include Venezuela and the rest of Latin America, from Mexico to Argentina and everywhere else in between: Brazil, Guyana, Colombia. Like it or not, all of them are living under the “Donroe Doctrine” — an increasingly belligerent Washington’s sphere of influence over the Americas. Together they account for nearly 40% of the world’s oil output.

... Having de facto control of the Western Hemisphere’s petroleum wealth is a geopolitical game changer. For decades, US military adventurism was constrained by the impact of any war on energy costs. Today the White House has primacy over oil-producing allies and adversaries alike — whether it’s Saudi Arabia or Iran, Nigeria or Russia.

The US and China and global preeminence: Does it come down to energy policy?.  Another way to think of this is as looking forward versus looking backwards, a classic example of Alexander Gerschenkron's thesis that over time newer economies have an advantage in being able to invest in new technologies without incurring huge stranded costs.

China still buys a lot of oil, and they use coal powered electricity because of large domestic supplies.  But the focus on EVs is just one of China's green energy policies ("China, the climate superpower," "China, Energy and Climate: The Time has Come," special package, The Economist, "How China came to dominate the world in renewable energy," Washington Post).

As a slogan, “energy dominance” evokes images of the United States towering over the rest of the world, with prodigious production, as what Trump calls “a global energy superpower.” But the truth of energy dominance has nothing to do with empowering folks at home.

The administration has been rigging the game in favor of dirty energy — and giving fossil-fuel producers a license to dominate American consumers. In the process, Trump is boxing U.S. households out of cleaner alternatives and leaving Americans with less choice, higher energy bills, and an overheating climate.

Worse, by hobbling America’s green-energy industries, the administration is destroying jobs, even as it clears a path for China to dominate the next generation of energy production.

... A study out of Princeton University finds that Trump’s signature “Beautiful Bill” will reduce capital investment in our electrical system and clean fuels by half a trillion dollars over the next decade. It will also slash future solar capacity by about 140 gigawatts and wind capacity by about 160 gigawatts. (The Hoover Dam, by comparison, has a capacity of about 2 gigawatts.)

Plus the effect on jobs ("‘Deeply demoralizing’: how Trump derailed coal country’s clean-energy revival," Guardian).

Ethanol and other bad decisions.  Granted the US has some dumb policies.  One is the support of ethanol production as a feedstock for gasoline.  Unlike in Brazil, where the feedstock is used up sugar cane, here we spend money growing corn to convert to ethanol.  

Ethanol has less energy compared to gasoline.  So we're dedicating farmland to gasoline, which has a negative cost benefit.

And EVs primarily powered by coal and natural gas are less sustainable than those pow ered by renewables.

Ending EV tax credits forces the US automobile industry to double down on gasoline powered cars, while China and increasing Europe are shifting to EVs in substantive ways.  (Part of the concern in Europe is getting cleaner air--many of their cars are diesel, and comparatively high when it comes to polluting).

The Strait of Hormuz is extremely vulnerable.  While only 20% of the oil produced in the Mideast passes through the Strait, 80% goes to Asia, and 100% of Liquid Natural Gas to Europe, airplane fuels too.  Also 33% of fertilizers ("American farmers dealt new blow as Trump's Iran war escalates," Newsweek), and of course other goods.

That increases vulnerability across the globe, separate from the impact on the US economy, which isn't just on the cost of gasoline, but on farming, the transport of goods, the production of chemicals and other products, etc. ("Saudi Arabia Starts Oil Cuts as It Races to Reroute Exports" Bloomberg).

The lessons from the 1970s oil shock.  During the Israeli-Arab War and later in the decade, Middle Eastern Countries significantly raised the cost of gasoline, and took control of production and sale from the multinational oil companies.

I have often written that the US mobility paradigm is pretty much homogeneous in that it decidedly supports automobility and provides dribbles of support to other modes.  

By contrast, Germany, a leading car manufacturer (but not much of an oil producer), has a heterogenous policy.  It supports cars to the max, especially with its no speed limit autobahns, but recognizes cities are best served by transit, supports regional rail service despite its love of autobahns, and walking and biking--the Federal Biking Plan for the county is one of the best.

I contrast Denmark and Netherlands to the US in terms of response.  Not producing oil, and not having much of a car industry, Denmark and the Netherlands recognized that shifting to an automobile centric mobility paradigm made them vulnerable to cuts in supplies.  

An analogous example is how in the US, gasoline supplies are often interrupted during extreme weather events, leading to long lines and disruption in all sorts of activities, because people seemingly lack alternative ways to travel ("Oil dependence | The US as a Petro-state and gasoholic | and war").

Being poor before WW2 and for awhile after, the countries had been more walking (compact cities, no sprawl), biking and transit oriented.  They were giving this up in favor of the automobile as their economies became more successful.

Amsterdam.  Bike parking, lots of bikes, and transit in the background.

Not only cuts in supply but a significant raise in prices made their countries extremely vulnerable.  So they shifted away from the car and back to transit and biking in the development and transportation policies and practices.  

Unlike the US, which says transit and biking is okay, but primarily invests in automobility, they made their policies congruent with the new paradigm, for example significantly increasing gas taxes and car registration fees.  

Of course, the countries like others in Europe also refocused attention on energy efficiency in all elements of their economy.

The US: Still vulnerable to oil shocks.  By contrast, while the US did adopt some energy efficiency mechanisms, including mpg standards for cars, mostly the US focused on maintaining access to oil supplies.  

That meant refocusing military resources on the Mideast ("There are two winners in Iran. Neither one is America," Washington Post) and creating the Strategic Oil Reserve which bought and stored oil for use, holding it for sale when prices get "too high."  

A Permian Basin oil pumping station.

And increased production, which was was boosted on steroids in the late 1990s with the invention of fracking ("The economic benefits of fracking," Brookings, "How Has Fracking Changed Our Future?," National Geographic).  

Note that fracking has major environmental effects, the use of water, contamination of the aquifer, and air quality.

Article.  Another side of dependence.

But it didn't make the US less vulnerable to the fissures in the supply chain, not so much with access to oil, but in all the other ways an oil dependent economy experiences higher costs as increased oil costs make their way through the supply chain of various goods.

A good as way as any to get conservatives to drive electric cars

In general, conservatives don't believe in climate change and advocate for fossil fuels. Koch Industries, a big oil producer, fund a variety of efforts to fight policies that promote alternatives to oil and natural gas ("Group tells minorities, ‘We need fossil fuels’," Energy and Engineering News).  Conservatives have come out against tax incentives for electric battery plants in Georgia ("Georgia judge nixes tax break for electric truck firm Rivian," AP), and for wind and solar installations, neglecting to acknowledge tax benefits given to oil production, etc.

Technically, electric cars still use fossil fuels primarily, but this is changing as wind and solar power make up a greater proportion of the energy mix.  

That being said, an electric car is better than an internal combustion engine powered motor vehicle, but it's still a car, and sustainable modes--walking, biking, transit--are still better than an automobility dependent paradigm.

I call it "next generation asphalt nation."

Although long term, switching to electric vehicles does reduce the nation's dependence on oil, and that has a number of domestic and foreign policy benefits ("Oil dependence | The US as a Petro-state and gasoholic | and war").

That being said Elon Musk's pro-conservative trolling on Twitter is turning off liberals and engaging conservatives, so much to the point that they are becoming interested in driving Teslas ("'Tesla is becoming a partisan brand, says survey'," Electrek).

Tesla’s net favorability among self-described Democrats in the U.S. fell to an average of 10.4% this month through Nov. 27, down from an average of 24.8% in October, according to Morning Consult. It rose to 26.5% from 20% among self-described Republicans during the same period.

Maybe he's playing the long con.  How will the Kochs and other pro-fossil fuel interests respond?

And the plus for liberals is that there are an increasingly number of electric cars from other manufacturers, manufactured better and often less expensive ("Tesla Is No Longer Alone in the Electric Vehicle Race," TIME).

====

-- "Electric bicycles as a quantum opportunity for transportational cycling: can e bikes be conquest sales versus cars?," 2022
-- "Revisiting the 2016 entry, "Ford Motor Company as a transportation company not a "car" company: bike share and small scale transit"," 2021 (specifically the section "I was wrong about Tesla")

"A country that runs on oil can't afford to run short," corporate ad inside a Standard Oil of Illinois map of Wyoming, 1973

I have been into maps, especially "gasoline station" maps since I was a child.  Living around the corner from gas stations in Detroit, I would pick them up.  You could even order them and they'd mail them to you.

Gas station "stuff" -- collectibles -- is referred to as petroliana.  Now I am interested in ephemera, paper goods like maps, magazines, advertisements, newspapers, tourism brochures, etc., especially those items that illustrate points about land use and transportation planning.

I always mention the book chapter, "Transportation and Urban Form: Stages in the Spatial Evolution of the American Metropolis," and I think a lot about the way automobiles were marketed and about "vintage" gas station maps and how other elements of gasoline distribution were organized and marketed (clean restrooms were a hallmark of Texaco ads for decades) illustrates the phases of development of the automobile-centric land use and transportation planning paradigm in the US.

-- "Gasoline dependent sprawl" 
-- "Automobile interests don't favor mass transit"
-- "Oil dependence | The US as a Petro-state and gasoholic | and war"

Maps and brochures promoting "tourism" illustrate the development of the "Recreational Automobile Era," while the commoditization of gasoline marketing, the de-emphasize on promoting tourism on the part of gasoline station brands, dropping branded maps, etc. illustrates how the automobile became both commonplace and dominant.  

I was looking at maps at a flea market yesterday, and this ad "forced" me to buy the map.  It's a photo, not a scan.

It's a great illustration of the costs of gasoline dependence.

Gasoline dependent sprawl

The Financial Times has a video, "Are high petrol prices killing the American Dream?," about the rise in oil prices and whether or not that affects the American Dream.

It's not that amazing of a video, and doesn't address the reality that we've built a land use and mobility paradigm that is automobile and therefore gasoline dependent.

Yes, electric vehicles will make a difference in terms of gasoline dependence, but not sprawl.  They're merely what I call "next generation asphalt nation."  And while they will decrease fossil fuel dependence, they have other spillover effects--on scarce minerals, battery needs, battery recycling, and the need for a more robust electricity generation and distribution grid.

The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. At least 12 other states are already in line to adopt California’s zero-emissions vehicle mandate. Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Meanwhile, California is moving forward on banning the sale of gasoline-fueled motor vehicles as of 2035. ("California to Ban the Sale of New Gasoline Cars," New York Times).

When the first oil crisis happened in 1973, when Saudi Arabia realized it had the power because ultimately the oil in its country was controlled by it, not the American oil producers, the US did not recognize that to reduce risk from oil supply shocks, it needed to create an economy and society that was less dependent on oil.

Sure steps were taken, like "fleet economy" gas mileage requirements on automobile production, leading to the production of more fuel efficient cars.  And industry has made a variety of energy conservation steps.

And the US government created the Strategic Reserve of oil, to ward of supply interruptions.

But only by reducing demand for oil in substantive ways could the US's resilience in the face of supply and demand shocks be increased.

Although because the US is such a large producer of oil ("The Petro States of America," Bloomberg), it probably wasn't seen as a big deal.

By contrast, European countries still supported more compact forms of organizing land use, in ways that it could be well served by transit, complemented in some places by walking and biking.

Germany in particular is very much committed to the car, as BMW, Mercedes, and VW are significant contributors to the nation's economic success, employment, exports, etc.

At the same time, they recognized that cities in particular were best served by transit, not the automobile, and they maintained and increased support of transit, walking, and biking as an element of their land use and mobility policy.  Other policies--excise tax on car purchases, excise tax on oil, expensive process to get a driver's license, difficult to get parking, etc.--make car ownership expensive, and encourages alternative mobility options.

By contrast, the US believes in homogeneous mobility--the car. 

In short, US policy promotes access to oil, more than it is focused on price.  Not reduction in demand which reduces price generally.

Gas tax holiday versus free transit: policy versus politics

Earlier in the week I got into an argument with a friend, a teacher, who made the point that renewal of the child tax credit ("Joe Manchin is choking off one of America’s best anti-poverty programs," Washington Post) would have a lot more impact on people than a gasoline excise tax holiday ("Oil dependence | The US as a Petro-state and gasoholic," "Will Biden's Gas Tax Holiday Make a Difference?," New York Times).

I was pretty spirited, making a couple points:

1.  As a "transportation planner" obviously I think a gas tax holiday is a mistake, because it "defunds" transportation improvements, and frankly the federal gas tax should be much higher and indexed to inflation anyway--it hasn't been raised in 30 years ("How the gas tax could help pay for a $1 trillion infrastructure proposal," Washington Post).

Editorial cartoon, Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

2.  But that given the President is being blamed for inflation and high gas prices ("Wonking Out: Lies, Damned Lies and Gasoline Prices," NYT), even though the entire world is experiencing inflation and high gas prices in the same way, and the primary reason for high gas prices in the US is not "Biden not approving that pipeline" but reduction in the supply of refinery capacity ("US May Never Build New Refinery Even With Surging Gas Prices, Chevron CEO Says," Bloomberg), he "needs to do something to show he cares and 'feels the pain'" of the average citizen ...

ESPECIALLY AS THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS APPROACH AND VIRTUALLY EVERY PREDICTION IS THAT THE DEMOCRATS WILL LOSE THE HOUSE FOR SURE AND PROBABLY THE SENATE.

3.  I explained to her about Senators Sinema and Manchin who are functioning as Republicans and are holding back the achievement of any significant Democratic Party initiatives, and how even if the child tax credit "is more important" Biden can't get it passed without Sinema and Manchin.  That's reality. 

Not policy purity.  So he has to do what he can.  And I can be a purist, or I can be pragmatic.

Which is why I find this point by transit advocates, "Suspend transit fares instead of the gas tax, climate advocates tell Biden" as reported by the Washington Post, equally frustrating.

Similarly, it's fair to say that I am a fervent proponent of transit.

BUT THE MIDTERMS ARE COMING.

ALMOST 83% OF TRIPS IN THE UNITED STATES ARE MADE BY CAR.  

2.5% OF TRIPS ARE MADE BY TRANSIT.

Total Trips, National Household Travel Survey, 2017

Private Vehicle	Transit	Walk	Other*
82.6%	2.5%	10.5%	4.4%

 * Other includes biking.  Source: pages 30/31.

HOW MUCH EFFECT ON PEOPLE'S VOTING DECISIONS ARE WE GOING TO GET FROM FREE TRANSIT, IN A NATION WHERE MOST PEOPLE HAVE ZERO USE OF AND MINIMAL EXPERIENCE WITH TRANSIT?

Sure I think we should have free transit, but the politics of it, in a nation that is so dominated inextricably with automobility and automobile dependence to the point where people aren't even capable of recognizing it, are impossible.

I understand and appreciate the pureness and zealotry of advocacy, but what's more important:

- free transit now versus a gas tax holiday

or 

- the Democrats not getting totally destroyed in the midterm elections?

======

Because our mobility system is so automobile dependent, most people can't substitute one form of mobility for another, say transit for a car, because the transit network--especially outside of historical legacy cities--isn't particularly wide or deep.

I consider myself fortunate to have lived in DC for 32 years, where a dense sustainable mobility network exists--at least in the center city--so that I could experience the reality that it is possible to live without being car dependent.

-- "What matters isn't "transit oriented development": what really matters is compact development and integrating transportation and land use," 2011
-- "Further updates to the Sustainable Mobility Platform Framework," 2018 
-- "DC is a market leader in Mobility as a Service (MaaS)," 2018