Combat, climate, and renewable energy – polite dinner topics

Over the course of 2026, I have made three claims well knowing all outside the bounds of polite dinner conversation: 1. the Strait of Hormuz cannot be opened militarily – by either side, 2. a full half of the United States today receives 40% of its power from wind and solar energy (and battery support), and 3. climate change is occurring so rapidly, that the Trump Administration’s threshold for “immediate, aggressive” action has been exceeded.

Given the obvious issue of Energy Security, the increasing evidence that the climate has already changed, and the current (as opposed to future) contribution of renewable energy to US energy production, I am respectfully doubling down.

I spent time in the Gulf during the Tanker War in the late ‘80’s that included over 30 Operation Earnest Will tanker escort missions through the Gulf AND the Strait of Hormuz. I have been clear since the start of the Iran Conflict: I don’t have a lot of good news. Iran is making more money now than before they were attacked. Iran can still deliver missiles on target with impressive results, retaining significant ballistic missile, anti-surface missile, drone, mine, and small attack boat capabilities across this entire 400-mile danger zone.

Realize that the tankers transits originate in the Northern Persian Gulf, 300 miles away from the Strait itself which is in the South.  A single transit mission includes a 400-mile voyage to collect the tankers and 400-miles back – four full days in harm’s way all of the transit constrained to a relatively narrow track the entire way. This entire four-day journey is in the shadow of the Iranian mountainous cost from which Iran can anti-ship missile, ballistic missile, drone, small boat, and mine attack the convoy. Our ability to successfully escort tankers through the Gulf and the Strait in the late ‘80’s was due to several conditions that are no longer exist. There is no way American navy ships can operate all the way to the Northern Persian Gulf; our ships are for good reason out of the Gulf and kept well away from the Strait, just go look at where the US blockade like is located.  

Absent loss of Iranian political will, there is no military solution. Sure, America can attack important Iranian energy and civilian infrastructure, but Iran has proven time and time again that they can retaliate, and our Gulf allies have equal or greater energy infrastructure and very vulnerable dependence on irreplaceable water desalinization facilities – all very much at risk should Iran target them. We can nuke Iran, but they will still retain material counterstrike capability and Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi, Qatari and UAE infrastructure can all be destroyed – the world depends on that oil, natural gas, and refined products, and the US relies on the cash flow from this economic engine. Nuking Iran is the same thing as nuking our own Treasury Department.  

The risk of the Gulf blowing up has existed for decades across US presidents of both political parties.  I give the current US military leadership high marks for their efforts during the current hostilities.  Similarly, the risk of the Red Sea impacting global oil markets, or the risk of Russia disrupting global oil and natural gas markets have all existed for over several decades – and at times these risks have been realized as well. My point is, assume that attacking Iran was in fact the best available option, the unfolding events have highlighted risks lurking for decades: fossil fuel energy markets are volatile, result in physical shortage, and disrupt local and global economies. And we find ourself spending American military resources, treasure, and American lives once again in a conflict regarding energy.

Yes, and thankfully, the United States has is the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas and is a significant exporter of both oil and natural gas to the international energy markets.  Natural gas is a relatively clean fuel that is a feedstock to power production, fertilizer and various industrial processes as well as of course used for industrial and residential heating and cooling.  

Nevertheless, America is connected to energy prices globally.  Oil and refined products are all international markets.  The price of oil at Dubai/Oman hub goes up, the price of the American West Texas Intermediate (“WTI”) goes up, and immediately thereafter the price of refined products like gasoline in Chicago rises.  The global market for natural gas is quite complex given natural gas is difficult and expensive to transport and the ability to ship natural gas has infrastructure constraints; therefore, the United States will be insulated from the second order impacts that are experienced by most globally to physical unavailability of natural gas in many important global markets.  

The US also relies on the circulation of US dollars and direct foreign investment from the Gulf region; damaging the Gulf States’ economies and the global economy generally will eventually damage the United States, the strength of our dollar, interest rates, and domestic economic activity.

Folks love the war stories of the US blowing up half of the Iranian Navy, our shelling of the Iranian oil platforms, and our skirmishes with Iranian small boats.  My simple observation that any ships we put in the Gulf are in harm’s way received less enthusiastic attention.  

The last three years have been the earth’s warmest in over 100,000 years.  2026 is off to a strong start to be a contender and 2027 could well reset the earth’s climate record.  The climate has changed so rapidly we are now warming above the rate that threshold set by the Trump Department of Energy for “immediate” and “aggressive” action.

Here is what I published back in late December claiming that science didn’t matter, just look at the numbers, just walk outside, the climate already changed.

What I heard in response, from smart, well meaning, well-educated and well-informed people was primary twofold: 1. the numbers are made up and manipulated, 2. “that’s what I said” implying my math skills must not be sufficient. 

No question, bias exists in scientific research; famously, “fashion in science” is claimed to exist in particle physis as well.  Nevertheless, use the NASA, NOAA, British Met Office, Russian, Chinese, Berkley Earth (an organization formed to vet the numbers) data, the outcome is identical – the climate is warming at an increasing rate, and this rate exceeds the Trump US DOE threshold for “immediate aggressive action”. 

What nobody told me was “I looked at your numbers, and you made a mistake.” The numbers are just the numbers. I have been comforted by researchers making the same observation.

• Foster and Rahmstorf (2026) stripped El Niño, volcanic, and solar effects from five global temperature datasets, finding acceleration with over 98% confidence and faster warming over the last 10+ years than during any previous decade. 

• Hansen et al. (2026) explain why: high climate sensitivity + declining aerosol pollution that had been masking greenhouse warming. They project 2 °C in the 2030s, and a climate sensitivity of 4.5 °C, the Trump Department of Energy threshold.

• Ripple, et. al. (2026), Earth's climate is departing from the stable Holocene conditions that enabled human civilization, and crossing critical temperature thresholds may trigger self-reinforcing feedbacks and cascading tipping points that could commit the planet to an irreversible "hothouse trajectory" with substantially higher long-term temperatures …”

Renewable energy is a great American success story – half the power generated in the Western half of the US is wind and solar today.  There isn’t any room for debate, wind and solar are over 40% of many states’ electricity supply today, reliably. Different markets achieve reliability differently, but the results are the results.  From North Dakota to California, states like Iowa (60.5%), South Dakota (50%+), and Kansas (48.6%) now generate the majority of electricity from wind and solar, the huge markets of Texas and California are over 40% renewable supplied.

As the events in the Gulf have once again reminded us, Energy Security is in fact an important issue with strategic and economic impacts, not to mention the fact that we have tens of thousands of Americans and important military resources at risk in the region. We once again are asking American families to get their door knocked on in the middle of the night. The climate has already changed, exceeds Trump’s threshold for action, and renewable energy has proven itself to be reliable and the low cost provider of electricity. 2026 seems like a good year to examine our national energy and climate policies and take stock at what is going on out our windows.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Track the real‑world impact behind the sustainability headlines. illuminem’s Data Hub™ offers transparent performance data and climate targets of companies driving the transition.

Citations

1. "A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate", US DOE, July 2025

2. Foster, G., & Rahmstorf, S. (2026). Global warming has accelerated significantly. Geophysical Research Letters, 53, e2025GL118804. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025GL118804

3. Hansen, J., Kharecha, P., Morgan, D., & Vest, J. (2026, March 20). Super El Nino? Super warming is the main issue.

4. Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Wunderling, N., Gregg, J. W., Westerhold, T., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2026). The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory. One Earth, 9(2), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2025.101565

5. US Energy Information Administration (2026), Graphic The Motley Fool