EIA forecasts that even if the Strait of Hormuz begins opening soon, the conflict will increase price of US gasoline alone by ~65 cents/gallon (23%, $700/year per family) over the next two years.
The gas tax politicians have been too scared to increase since 1993 is 18 cents/gallon 😳
A map of the USA with states shaded various colors of green. Darker colors show states where charging an EV is cheaper, such as North Dakota, Idaho, Nebraska, and Missouri. Pale green colors show states where charging an EV is more expensive, such as Hawaii, Massachusetts, California, and Maine. In every state, home charging an EV is much cheaper than gasoline.
The US average price to charge an EV at home is equivalent to paying $1.57 per gallon of gas. That's a 62% discount on today's gas price.
Explore the savings in all 50 states - interactive map at the link below ⤵️
yaleclimateconnections.org/2026/04/what...
@climateconnections.bsky.social
For @climateconnections.bsky.social today, I dive into the implications of the Iran conflict for clean energy and the climate. The downstream implications are largely positive in these areas, with clear lessons that reliance on fossil fuels is dangerous, but there are some complicating factors [1/8]
The transition to EVs, already rapidly underway, will also accelerate. Even in the US, especially when it comes to used EVs, which are significantly newer and have fewer miles driven than equally-priced used gasoline cars.
So, the outlook for the climate is positive. Read on for more details [8/8]:
But coal is still expensive, and polluting, so cleaner sources still have the advantage. It will just be more of a challenge to deploy enough solar & wind, especially in poorer developing countries, if interest rates are higher & we enter a global recession. But the long-term trajectory clear [7/8]
So we're seeing a surge of interest in and/or deployment of solar & wind farms, nuclear power, rooftop solar, heat pumps, and EVs. And in the short-term, also coal. One challenge for capital-intensive solar & wind: higher interest rates are likely, to combat imminent fossilflation [6/8]
Reliance on fossil fuels is economically risky. “You’d be hard pressed to find 20 consecutive years without some type of energy crisis with ballooning fuel costs,” as @robbieorvis.bsky.social of @energyinnovation.org told me. Transitioning to clean domestic energy can buttress against that [5/8]
In the past 5 years we've had the COVID pandemic disruption, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and now the Iran conflict all contributing to fossil fuel supply & price spikes and hence global economic disruptions, since 80% of global energy still comes from fossil fuels. There's a big lesson here [4/8]
As a result, oil and gas prices are beginning to really surge, as parts of Asia and Africa and soon Europe begin to face potential shortages. Other critical products like fertilizer are also being crunched. Fossilflation seems inevitable; food shortages and a global recession are also possible [3/8]
Restrictions on ship passage through the Strait, behind which lie 5 of the world's 10 largest oil-producing countries, have curbed global oil production by ~10% for over a month. We've now lost more oil production than strategic reserves can compensate for, and those will have to be refilled [2/8]
For @climateconnections.bsky.social today, I dive into the implications of the Iran conflict for clean energy and the climate. The downstream implications are largely positive in these areas, with clear lessons that reliance on fossil fuels is dangerous, but there are some complicating factors [1/8]
My article @climateconnections.bsky.social today examines how, despite their polar-opposite politics, California and Texas became leaders in solar, wind, and battery deployment. The most important thing you need to know is that I came up with the headline – I'm very proud of it 😅
🧵 follows [1/8]:
🙄
I detailed why in the article, e.g. Texas is expected to install 40% of America's new solar capacity and 53% of new battery storage in 2026, wind and solar today account for 30% of power generation in Texas, etc.
We're proud of your headline, too, Dana!
The rapid growth of solar & wind even in fossil fuel-friendly Texas is good evidence that permitting reform measures if done right will benefit clean energy, simply because it's the cheapest option today. Mandates also work, but can become constrained by red tape bottlenecks, as CA is battling [8/8]
In TX, natural gas has displaced coal, but all power demand growth over the past 15 years has been met by first wind and in recent years by solar + battery storage. That clean energy growth has begun surpassing CA's, thanks in part to the latter's stringent environmental & permitting laws [7/8]
CA electricity rates are double those in TX due to a variety of factors, but thanks to energy efficiency plus a less-hot climate, electricity use is half as much, so CA home energy bills are actually a little lower than those in TX. And fossil fuels power production is declining in CA [6/8]
It's also easy to build stuff in TX. Energy project developers just have to accept higher risks of getting curtailed, although demand is growing so fast that it's not much of a concern. The state government has tried to encourage fossil fuel deployment, but solar is winning b/c it's cheapest [5/8]
Texas is particularly interesting because they established Competitive Renewable Energy Zones, building nearly 1/4 America's new transmission line-miles in their windy areas in the 2010s. That allowed for the development of lots of wind energy just as the technology was becoming very cheap [4/8]
Despite these very different approaches, the outcomes have some striking similarities. Renewables supply 40% of power in CA and 30% in TX, well above the national average of 17%. CA & TX account for >1/3 of America's solar & wind power generation and >1/2 of its battery storage capacity [3/8]
California's approach has been very command & control. Stringent standards for clean energy & efficiency, accepting higher costs for early deployment of low-emissions technologies. Texas' approach has been mostly deregulatory with some smart planning, building transmission lines in windy areas [2/8]
My article @climateconnections.bsky.social today examines how, despite their polar-opposite politics, California and Texas became leaders in solar, wind, and battery deployment. The most important thing you need to know is that I came up with the headline – I'm very proud of it 😅
🧵 follows [1/8]:
A new paper led by @bbastien.bsky.social estimates that accounting for climate pollution's impact on the oceans via the one-two punch of warming & acidification nearly doubles the social cost of carbon (which the Trump EPA thinks is $0). My new @climateconnections.bsky.social article & 🧵 (1/8):
As @bbastien.bsky.social told me, improved estimates of the social cost of carbon are still valuable to other countries, and even state governments. And at some point, a future evidence-based administration will be able to make use of it too. Hopefully before the damages become too great (8/8)
The one-two punch of warming and acidification are causing major societal welfare losses via these ocean impacts. And yet the current administration is burying its head in the sand and pretending that these impacts and damages simply don't exist (7/8)
Or closer to home, consider Florida, whose now-diseased coral reefs are estimated to draw in over $1 billion in tourism revenue each year, support over 70,000 jobs, and provide $650 million in flood protection benefits by dissipating wave energy and lessening storm damages (6/8)
The study finds that island nations are disproportionately affected. For example, about one-third of the world’s tuna catch comes from a group of 14 Pacific island nations. It's a dietary staple there, and also accounts for about 1/3 of government revenue and tens of thousands of jobs (5/8)
Estimates of the social cost of carbon seem destined to always increase, because they only account for damages that can be economically quantified, and so they rise every time experts quantify another impact, like these ocean damages. Plus damages rise along with global warming over time (4/8)
