This week on the Wheelhouse.

Oil and politics.

We're in another crisis, and fossil fuels are sending politicians into a frenzy.

I think.

For Connecticut Public, I'm Frankie Graziano.

This is the Wheelhouse.

The show that connects politics to the people.

We got your weekly dose of politics in Connecticut and beyond right here.

The U.S.

and Iran have agreed to a reportedly agreed to a two week cease fire.

The deal is billed as a way to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for oil.

News of the deal sent U.S.

prices plunging, but prices at the pump are still high.

Once again, the U.S.

is entangled in a foreign conflict and oil is a major player.

This hour, we're exploring the grip fossil fuels have on policy and politics.

Joining us now is Jeff Colgan, a professor of political science at Brown University.

Thank you for joining us this morning, Jeff.

Thanks so much for having me on Fresh antique route.

A grist reporter covering climate and economics.

Thank you so much for joining us.

Thanks for having.

Me.

Good to see you this morning, folks.

If you have a conversation for us, give us a call at (888) 720-9677 and (888) 720-9677.

Hey, we got to kind of start with the news here right up front.

Jeff, what do you make of the news of the cease fire?

Yeah.

So last night we learned about this ceasefire between U.S.

and Iran and with any cease fire, there's real questions about whether it will hold up.

But even more so in this case, because the two sides are saying different things about what it means.

It seems like Iran believes that, Israel will stop fighting in Lebanon, which, Israel does not believe.

It seems this morning Trump, President Trump is saying that, you know, they're going to dig up and remove the uranium in Iran, which I don't think Iran has agreed to.

So there's really a significant gap.

In what the two sides are saying.

And then, most importantly, of course, is the Strait of Hormuz, where there is, you know, I think different visions about just how open it is and what kind of money will be extracted as tools for tanker ships going through the Strait of Hormuz.

Are there longer term impacts who are keeping an eye out at this point?

Absolutely.

It is unfortunately the case that the oil industry does not come up, you know, look like a light switc in terms of off or, on or off.

And, when we have a disruption like the one we've had, in the last six weeks, there's permanent damage done to some of the oil supply that keeps, you know, the global economy flowing, each day.

And in particular, the most serious concern is, with oil well, heads.

If you don't keep pumping oil on a continuous basis, if there's nowhere for that oil to go, then you have to put a cork in them.

And it's not just like a bottle of champagne.

You can't just put the cork back in.

You really have a problem because the oil wells lose pressure.

And when you try to, reactivate those wells, well, it's like the champagne, I guess.

In some sense, it's flat.

And you don't have the pressure to keep it coming, so they'll have the oil.

Well, doesn't work anymore.

And so you lose production that way.

There are additional problems with the fact that right now, you've got a whole bunch of tankers that are full of oil that are stuck behind that supply moves, they will start to presumably, hopefully flow through the Strait of Hormuz, but it will take a while for the whole tanker system to, kind of reactivate and normalize, because there's been this big, spanner in the works for the last six weeks.

Take the historical aspect of U.S.

foreign interventions.

Oil.

How is it play a big part in, the U.S., sort of expansion her over the last 250 years or so?

Yeah.

I mean, I think you've seen oil play in the conflicts, you know, ever since, we found oil, right?

I think that's been part of the conversation in the early 1900s.

It was part of the conversation during the Gulf War, during the Iraq War.

And I think it's in a really immediate part of the conversation.

This time which which I knew was coming.

But it was interesting to see how directly this conflict was connected to gas pump prices within a matter of days.

You know, gas prices were going up, oil prices were going up.

And it's now a real question whether what happened the last 24 hours will bring them down and how quickly.

And then maybe the real question is, why are we in Iran or or dealing with Iran at this point?

And why were we in Venezuela, earlier this year?

Did they have something to do with each others or something sort of tying each other in that regard?

Yeah.

I mean, there's all we can do is really speculate on on those fronts.

Right.

But yeah, oil was at the center of a lot of what happened there as well.

And, you know, it is unclear to me at least how much, President Trump wanted oil to be at the center of this, in the way that it has been.

But it has like the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, which is a conduit for 20% of the world's oil and gas has clearly had an impact.

That I don't even know if U.S.

policymakers were fully anticipated.

Fascinating point.

Regarding whether or not Donald Trump wants this to be a part of the conversation, it certainly let his state of the Union or was something he mentioned very early on.

I will listen to that right now.

Gasoline, which reached a peak of over $6 a gallon in some states under my predecessor.

It was, quite honestly, a disaster is now below $2.30 a gallon in most states, an in some places $1.99 a gallon.

And when I visited the great state of Iowa just a few weeks ago, I even saw a $1.85 a gallon for gasoline, $1.85.

I'm sure that's changed.

Just days after the United States and Israel launched attacks on Iran, the average price of gasoline nationally is now well over $4 a gallon.

What are you hearing in that clip, Jeff?

Yeah, I mean, I don't think the president is telling us the truth about what's happened in gas prices over the last six weeks.

We've seen a huge increase.

And in fact, my research team has been tracking, how much it has cost the country.

That surplus, amount that American households are paying for gasoline and diesel.

Unfortunately, we, we're running a running total.

And as of today, we are over $15 billion in cumulative extra costs for fuel.

And that adds up to over $100 per household.

In the United States, because of the price increases in just those two products, gasoline and diesel.

And of course, when you have a disruption to the oil system, it's not just gasoline and diesel, it's going to affect a whole lot of other things as well.

Jet fuel prices, fertilizer, petrochemicals.

I mean, oi is, is just kind of one of the the stem sources of our entire, modern life.

And that means that it affects, you know, a huge swath of the economy.

So we should be very conscious as Americans, of the costs of what's happened in the last six weeks.

And, you know, two things can be true, frankly, that it could be.

Yes, we are, on the one hand, one glad that there is a ceasefire, because the alternative was an escalation that put the United States into the realm of war crimes against citizens.

So, that is true, that that it is good that we have a ceasefire.

But to, we should look at what's happened as costless, so costly and needless violence that is set the United States back.

And really, that has resulted in a strategic failure because six weeks ago, it was free for oil tankers and for container ships to flow through the Strait of Hormuz.

And going forward, it does not look like that is going to be free anymore.

We are in a situation where the Iranian military is in control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Jeff Corgan' zoom room is a ten out of ten.

The situation that he's organized behind him.

And I'm going to point that out, because if you look over his left shoulder, you'll see a few novels there, partial hegemony.

And, it's a book that I understand that you've written.

And one of the things that you've discussed, particularly in recent years, is this idea of Petro imperialism.

What even is imperialism for those of us, that, maybe were sleeping in our early parts of history class and then help us understand why Petro imperialism is a different distinction.

Yeah.

So imperialism is basically where one country or polity is controlling a series of subordinate, countries or colonies or colonies.

They're called different things, but it's sort of foreign control of, overseas territories.

And, you know, the classic examples of this are European empires, the British Empire, the French Empire, and the, 19th century, the Portuguese Empire, etc.. And the United States has always resisted the idea of imperialism.

But if you look at, say, the relationship between the United States and the Philippines, or other territories, even today, Guam, few of the other Pacific territories, or it looks from a political science perspective like an imperial relationship.

Petro imperialism is really about control of oil.

And, you know, there are really very two ways of the United States interacting with the global oil systems over the last century, the United State is as engaged in both of them.

One is Petro imperialism, which is really a kind of like makes right approach where, the United States and some other great powers, decide who is going to control, oil fields around the world.

And that often involves, companies in those same countries.

Right.

So there's a cozy relationship between major oil companies in the United States and the US government, with BP and shell, there' a cozy relationship there with with the British government, and total in France.

And, the US has engaged in, various, incidents throughout history where the U.S.

has effectively told a local ruler you are going to allow the United States, companies to control your oil sector, or we will remove you.

And, the classic example of this is in the 1950s, where Muhammad Mossadegh tried to nationalize, Iranian oil.

And because it was being run by the British, at that time, and he thought that the Iranians should run the Iranian oil sector and, the CIA and MI6, orchestrated a coup against must act to remove him from power.

So this kind of idea that the US or Britain or them working together, would have a say in who the the ruler of a Petro state, an oil producing country, who that ruler would be.

This is unfortunately sort of an old ide in the United States that this this was fairly common before 1973, when the major oil shock, happened.

And in a sense, what we've seen this year is a return to that mode where, as in Trump has had to Venezuela, we're going to remove your leader and we're goin to put somebody else in place, and that person is going to do what we tell them to do.

In, in not so many words, but, but, but pretty clear, directions for President Trump.

And in a sense, he's tried to do the same with, Iran, where he was saying, at least in the early days of the conflict, that the United States should have a say in who the next supreme leader of Iran, should be.

I don't think Iran thought much of that, but, that that was, President Trump's, intention.

There is another way.

I mentioned I just finish the thought, another way for the U.S.

to interact with the global oil market, which I call Petro consumerism, which is, much more about allowing the countries that actually have the oil the Venezuelans the Iran's, the Saudi Arabians to control it themselves and, to have their own decisions about, how much oil to produce and what price to, to set it at, etc.

and what that tends to do is lower the overall cost, of oil, because it' a more competitive marketplace and that's good for consumers.

It's good for all of us.

It's a, you know, in the last 50 years or so, the United States has benefited significantly from allowing the free flow of oil, that promotes, you know, the global economy as a whole, allows for transportation.

And, just generates more economic opportunities.

But the, and in support of that, the United States foreign policy, as you know, been restrained, right, when there has been conflict in the Persian Gulf in, say, 1990, when Saddam Hussein's Iraq invaded Kuwait under President Bush, the elder the the United States pushed Iraq out of Kuwait, but it didn't try to seize Kuwait oil for the United States.

It didn't try to take Kuwait and said, listen, we've done our job.

We have removed Iraq.

Now we're going to return, the, oil to the owners of this particular country.

And so there's those two choices.

And the United States has oscillated a little bit back and forth between those two, modes of governance.

And right now we're seeing really President Trump favor that Petro imperialist, approach.

Yeah.

It's like the fan can't oscillate anymore.

Like when you had it back in before any of us had central air or something like that.

It's just stuck in Petro imperialism mode.

And I kind of like, in the simple way to think about Petro imperialism for my simple mind might be of Jed Clampett.

In The Beverly Hillbillies doesn't strike oil in the backyard.

He can't, and instead goes overseas to try to get it.

That's the kind of way I'm thinking about it.

But teak, you've written extensively about energy and fuel sources to me, this begs the question who's profiting from these conflicts?

Yeah, I was actually just looking into that, a little bit more today.

And so there's a couple moving parts of and there's obviously if a barrel of oil is higher, the people selling barrels of oil are making more money off every barrel they sell.

On the other hand, people who refine oil are having to purchase their feedstock at a higher price.

And so there' a little bit of a hit to them.

But if you start looking at some of the stocks, you know, Chevron has gone up, Exxon has gone up.

This conflict started a couple of refiners and gas producers have also gone up.

So, it is clear that, fossil fuel companies, or at least benefiting partially, from this so far.

And you saw their stock prices in the future market start to go down a little bit yesterday.

You know, I think experts I was talking to said that there is a danger that prices climb so high that demand starts to get impacted, like it was, for different reasons during the Covid pandemic.

And but with the conflict not having gone on for, for, you know, a horribly extended period so far that hasn't quite shown up in, in the numbers that I have seen.

But at the same time, you know, looking six, 12 months out, the futures market on fossil fuels have stayed relatively calm.

So, you know, at least in the short term, fossil fuel companies are definitel making more money off of this.

Yeah.

And I just want to quantify it because, I think we're talking about and and sorry if I have this wrong, but I think we're talking about over $100 a barrel in the last few days, obviously it was going up and now we're talking about it, maybe because of the cease fire dropping, to about 90 to $93, something like that.

I bring that up because there's that, significant drop that you might see.

But then there's also the fact that there is a future price and, and it's sort of volatile is what I guess I'm trying to say.

Yeah.

I mean, just looking at Exxon stock, for example, you started around 150 when the conflict started, it went up to 170.

And wow, now it's back in the one sort of 60 ish range.

So yeah, I think investors are trying to figure this out as much as, as much as anybody is.

And, you know, to Jeff's point, he was able to quantify where this profit is partially coming from, right?

The, the $15 billion that it's cost consumers.

That is ultimately where a lot of these price hikes land.

And, and where.

Something like $19 a family is one, one estimate.

I heard.

Yeah.

I mean, that that doesn't surprise me at all.

If you're we sell about 400 million gallons of gasoline a day in the US.

And if prices are a dollar ish, a little bit more than a dollar, higher than they were at the start, you know those?

That's 400, $500 million a day just in gasoline.

You know, the other you know, profiteers from this are not just American oil companies, but the real winners here are Russia, and some of the other oil producers, around the world who are benefiting from these higher, oil prices.

In fact, during the conflict.

And the US government actually dropped some sanctions on Russia so that they could sell more and sell at a higher prices.

So Vladimir Putin loves this conflict.

This is great for him.

It's, you know, a bit of a mixed bag.

I quite agree with that.

Exxon and Chevron are profiting from the sales and their stock market, are going up, but they also have, some investments in the Persian Gulf region that have been damaged by the war, itself.

And so, they're they're partner with some of the actors there.

And certainly BP and shell also has major facilities that are being damaged.

And some of those damages.

I mean, Qatar, I think, announced that its LNG facility might take five years to repair.

So, earlier when we were talking about the sort of long term impacts of this war, that's one that really stands out, that some of these facilities will take years to rebuild the infrastructure.

And we are talking about a little bit of a back and forth there between the oil companies.

And I'm wondering, I'm wondering the impact they're having on the on the war overall.

Is this something we know about that they might be influencing the president in any way?

Have we heard anything from the oil companies in that regard?

I personally haven't seen anything, you know, publicly, in regard to what they're pushing for, you know, as Jeff pointed out, I'm sure President Putin, in Russia would love, for this war to go on longer because he's able to sell more oil at a higher price.

And I'm sure a lot of oil companies want to protect their assets in the region.

Jeff, you have any comment on that?

Yeah.

I think oil companies would be very low to to publicly support a war.

That' not what they want to be seen.

And, to be doing what they're doing.

You know, what they're saying in, private conversations with the president is anybody's guess.

But it is, unfortunately, the case that they have a profit incentive, to and benefit from volatility.

And they, you know, this is true of all of the various conflicts.

It's worth adding, I think that if you look at the seven countries that the United States has taken military action against since President Trump came to power again in January 2025, five of those seven countries are significant oil producers.

And now this is just really unlikely to happen.

By random chance, oil significant oil producers are about 20% of the world's countries.

And so, it's a you know, under 1% probability that you would get five out of seven of them being targets of the conflict.

And so I do think oil is playing a role in at least some of these conflicts.

And in some cases, I think it's Venezuela.

It's the most, explicit one where the president said the word oil 20 times in the press conference, immediately after the action against, President Maduro.

So, it's certainly on his mind and has definitely been a factor in the decision making, at least in that conflict.

In the Iran conflict, I think the story is a little bit more complicated, because mayb they should have been thinking a little bit harder about oil and the consequences for the oil market before they started dropping bombs in Iran.

Fascinating factors there to look at.

Look at the rhetoric, look at the statistics there in determining how things are happenin from Connecticut Public Radio.

This is the Wheelhouse.

I'm Frankie Graziano, Jeff Colgan, professor of political science at Brown University, and Teak Root, a climate and economics reporter at grist.

They're going to stay with us after this break to talk about how Americans are reacting and what role this might play at the ballot box.

Hit us up (888)720-9677.

And we'll talk about those November midterms.

Give us a call (888) 720-9677.

You're listening to the Wheelhouse on Connecticut Public Utilities.

There won't be much around town for your kids while you drive all the time, and there's only so much on the ground.

We can't get.

Things.

Without the truth.

You.

This is the Wheelhous from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

We've been talking about oil and U.S.

foreign policy.

Now we're going to talk about how domestic policy comes into play and what roles this whole situation with the fossil fuels, once again, its grip on our economy might play in the November midterms.

Sticking with us, Jeff Colgan, a professor of political science at Brown University, and Route, a grist reporter covering climate and economics.

Folks, you want to give us a call at (888) 720-9677 is the number.

And hurry up, give us a call and we'll try to get you on us.

Foreign intervention has happened repeatedly in the Middle East in recent decades.

We're talking about 73, 79, the 90s, maybe less.

So maybe that was less of a sort of Petro imperialism kind of situation, as we talked about in the first segment.

But certainly we're we're experiencing something like that now.

Do you have a sense, Jeff?

Or excuse me?

Well, yes.

Let me actually, put this to Jeff.

Do you have a sense of how these involvements have impacted Iranians?

Well, of course, Iran is, a country that has been under U.S.

sanctions and international sanctions for many years now.

And so their economy has stagnated.

And, a country that was very in the 1970s considered, you know, a, you know, the wealthier part of developing countries, is now a country that is, you know, it's it's not sub-Saharan Africa, but it is, a country that is, a lot less rich than it might have been if it hadn't experienced what it has.

And then, of course, in the last six weeks, it's been bombed.

And so, obviously there's been real impact, in terms of knocking out, the internet knocking out like, I sorry, electricity has been stable.

But other parts of the kind of infrastructure, in Iran have been impacted.

So I think this has been a really significant, impact that of course, for, hundreds of Iranians have been killed, in, in this conflict.

We're talking about civilians.

We're talking about civilian infrastructure.

NPR reporting that Trump's threats to target civilian infrastructure could be considered a wa crime under international law.

Those, obviously, we know that civilians have died in this conflict.

But, that talk particularly came, as the threats in recent days before the, alleged or reported cease fire took place.

There was talk about wiping a civilization off the mat, something like that.

So what are the the long term impacts that imperialism that U.S.

interventions, can have on these countries?

I think undermining the legitimacy of the United States is one of the really, negative consequences that we see, when we have talk like that from a president.

And, you know, the United States has always prided itself on living up to certain values around, you know, justice, freedom and the American way.

And, and then when you say we're going to bomb civilians and we're going to, you know, literally bomb them back to the Stone age, that's not, the kind of thing that, allies want to hear.

That's not the kind of thing that anyone in another country, is going to view positively from the United States.

So, you know, it's understandable that many countries are looking at their energy systems differently right now.

They're looking a the United States differently, but they're also thinking, maybe it's time that we moved away from fossil fuels and, rely more heavily on solar and wind and, energy systems that can't be interrupted by geopolitical events.

Happily, the price of sunshine and wind does not depend on what's happening in the state of publics.

And so you can imagine that there is a real, you know, national security advantage to taking advantage of, the renewable technology that has become so cheap in recent decades.

In recent years, at least at the cost, has just come so far down that many countries are now thinking, you know what?

China is selling solar and wind technology at good prices.

Why should we be dependent on this global fossil fuel system that the United States has been backing and its partners in the Persian Gulf?

Why not move off of that system?

And that's, I think another significant development that comes out of this kind of conflict.

Geopolitical events.

One of them, in 2022, was when Russia invaded Ukraine.

Gas prices back then in 2022.

The prices that we have now, according to triple AA, I got over $4 per gallon, highest they've been since that geopolitical event.

What's it looking like u there in northern New England?

Teak.

And how are we starting to see this war impact American' Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, in Vermon and based in Vermont, luckily, our gas prices aren't California, which are, you know, going well into the well into the $5 range, if not higher.

But I think, there's been evidence to show that, during that 2022 spike, triple AA did a survey that around $4 a gallon is when people start to change their behavior or at least rethink their behavior, towards, fossil fuels.

And I think, you know, there's some evidence that it's closer to $6 when people start to make, you know, real substantive changes.

But, you know, one thing I've been watching is electric vehicle sales.

Because that's not, you know, exactly a proxy for some of this, but it is, it is a factor.

And use the used EV market.

Just set a record in the first quarter, of 2026.

So I think there is signs and I've gotten texts from random people telling me they're either putting off, buying a gas guzzling car or they are, you know, actually actively buying an EV.

So I think you did see some signs during this six week stretch that people are rethinking at least a little bit.

The relationship with fossil fuels.

Important testimony there.

Both, both statistical and anecdotal as well, according to a recent economist YouGov poll.

And this is going to be more on that statistical side support for escalating the war by sending in ground troops to Iran has little support among Americans, including Republican voters, even Trump's base.

How is the administration sort of combating this disapproval?

Jeff?

Well, they're doing their best to convey the ceasefire as a victory.

They are spinning the war as necessary, as having, taking out an extremist, government.

And of course, it raises the question of what's replaced, this government.

And so I think it's, understandable that people are saying, well, that the next move is the, you know, the next supreme leader is just the son of the previous supreme leader, and the United States has just killed his entire family.

So, it's not clear that he's going to have a very favorable view of the United States, going forward.

But the other thing that I think American voters are going to understandably look at this situation, say our gas prices are higher than they were six weeks ago, and gas prices are not going to fall tomorrow.

Right?

They're over $4 now.

And they're they're probably going to stay that way, for a while.

And as we talked about earlier, about how the, these disruptions to the oil supply system, they don't change on a dime.

And so there's, there's going to be uncertainty and turmoil and just lag effects, for the system for a while.

So there's a real question there about that.

I think there's two things we got to figure out together here.

We're going to continue to work on the midterms here.

But first of all, we talk about a ceasefire, right.

It's a reported ceasefire.

There was one in Gaza, with the conflict that you had with Israel as well.

And now there appears to be one here.

How how likely is it to hold?

Or if you can't answer that question, at least help us get to this, to this issue here.

It does.

Ceasefires, tend to hold up.

Have they in recent months.

Yeah.

I mean, ceasefires are an uncertain proposition for sure.

And so I don't have, statistics I left for anybody does have, good statistics on this, but I think, as I said earlier, the worrisome worrying sign about this particular ceasefire is the gap between what the two sides or maybe three sides are saying.

Right.

So the US and Iran are obviously two principles, but Israel is playing a key role here, and they all seem to have different interpretations of what the ceasefire actually means.

And so that's that's a real concern.

And we're already seeing, I mean, the news reports that I saw this morning were that some violence was continuing, that Iran was continuing to do some, attacks.

And that was attributed to Iranian commanders who might not have gotten word, of the ceasefire, maybe or maybe some of that, violence is getting continue regardless of, kind of high level, ceasefire.

And I mean, I think the fourth after and this is the shipping companies, right.

And the actual boats, because I was reading this morning that some of them are even trusting that this will hold.

And so even though Iran is saying the street is open, they're not willing to send their, their, their ships through.

So I think it'll be interesting to see what the insurance markets on these ships do in the next few days and weeks, and also what the companies themselves decide whether they're going to risk their, you know, hundreds of million dollars tenders to go through this strait when it's unclear exactly what might happen.

Good kind of digging that we're doing here together.

Trump won on the economy in 2024 but now has been criticized by members of his own party, including Kentucky Republican Representative Thomas Massie.

Massie says that Congress never formally declared war on Iran, so it doesn't think the president has a leg to stand on legally to strike Iran.

Beyond the constitutional question, here lies an even more important one why are we going to war with Iran?

We owe our military service members a clear mission, and American families in my district want to know how this is going to help them pay for groceries.

How does this make them any safer in their schools or in their neighborhoods?

How does this help them pay for housing?

The economy, always top of mind for folks, and affordability seems to be that buzzword for many candidates.

Still, a couple of months away from the midterms here, about six or so something like that, maybe seven.

Do you have any idea if Americans will remember these particular pressure points at the ballot box, or maybe whether or not the administration would want them to forget it?

I mean, it's a really good question.

I mean, we were talking about, the invasion or the military action in Venezuela three months ago that was around New Year's right before Christmas.

And in three months we have totally shifted, to to a whole different conflict here.

And there's four months before or 4 or 5 months now before the midterms.

So who knows what else might happen or what other conflict might arise.

Or, you know, Cuba is on the horizon for sure.

But I think one thing to potentially watch is whether this, conflict is still going on at the 60 day mark.

Because there's some, you know, argument even among Republicans that, Trump has a 60 day window, you know, based on statutes from the 1970s and how Republicans shift or change after that might be something to watch.

The price, how quickly the price of gas comes down is also a huge question.

You know, it looks like it's still going to be sticky for a while, but, you know if five, five months from now, you know, gas is back down below $3 a gallon, maybe, maybe it isn't as much of a factor.

And here's sort of the main event of what we're getting out to.

We talked so much in 2024 about how the US president can't necessarily effectuate gas prices, but it seems like in this case, perhaps the president here is doing so.

Both Teak and Jeff, I'd like you to respond to that and how it how that president's role here may impact Republicans in the midterms.

Well, frankly, I think you're absolutely right that we used to say that the US president can't actually do an awful lot directly about the price of gasoline.

That's not within his power.

It turns out, well, he can do something.

It's just not very good thing that he can do.

Right?

So if he starts a war in the Middle East that drives up prices, that's the thing that's possible.

But it's, not very constructive.

And let's keep in mind, I mean, you're absolutely right that prices, per barrel of oil have come down from their peak around 115, dollars per barrel in recent weeks.

The as of this morning, I think they were, closer to 90 barrels at $90 a barrel.

But before the war, they were closer to 60 or $65 a barrel.

So the the the fact is that, you know, that the whole price, the whole shift, in the economy, has a ways to go to come back to that, pre-war, normal six point.

It is exactly right, though, that by the time October rolls around, if gas prices have come back down, and we're busy fighting other conflicts, maybe with Cuba.

It could well be that President Trump and his team is successful in distracting Americans and shifting attention onto some other issues, so that we have forgotten about what brother.

I have barely had my coffee today, and we're talking about Iran and Venezuela.

And now you're saying Cuba.

I know that was something that people were talking about, but I had forgotten that Cuba as well.

Well, I think President Trump himself has said, you know, Cuba's next.

And, I'm not sure that's a direct quote, but it's pretty close.

And so, I think it takes point is right, that, President Trump is thinking about multiple foreign policy moves, and he usually has an idea of what the next episode in his personal show is going to be.

And so between now and October, I imagine he has few more cards to play, about, how voters perceive the midterm elections.

Take.

You talk about it?

Yeah.

Go ahead.

I was just going to add a I mean, a year ago, we were talking about, President Trump, President Zelensky and critical minerals in Ukraine.

So, you know, I really it is really anybody's guess what we're going to be talking about in five months.

All right.

Let's follow that and follow some of the work that you've done about emissions and climate change.

Seems to me like this very pivotal moment where some countries like South Korea, Japan, are deciding between going back to coal or using renewable energy.

You tell us what this means for climate change and the future of energy in the United States.

Yeah, I mean I think this is a huge moment, partially in the United States, but I would say even more so globally, you know, in Asia and Europe, which have been hit way more directly by the gas and, oil prices going up.

There's a choice, right?

Do you respond to these price fluctuations by going back to something like coal or as Jeff said, you install more solar or more wind, etc.?

And I think you've seen both.

I think you've seen some places, you know, started to revert to coal.

And I think you've seen some places start to do more, you know, wind and solar in the US, there's been a clear movement, at least on the federal policy level, away from, renewables.

Right.

The Inflation Reduction Act was largely gutted last summer, and so there's not nearly the amount of money in federal incentives to, to get these projects going.

And als with all of these things, it's a, you know, five, ten, 20 year horizon to get anything started.

And so I think in my guess is that companies will be a little bit cautious on making decades long investment decisions based on a six week war.

But it's something that we really need to, keep watching here because, as you said, it's pivotal.

You know, One Direction, could drastically increase, global emissions or at leas send them back on the upswing.

And another could continue a downward trajectory.

We're going to talk about this a little bit in the next segment.

But just before we go here, quickly take, the Trump administration has been battling some efforts here in the northeast to focus on offshore wind and some renewable energy.

What's your reaction to what's happened there?

And sort of turning away, as you mentioned, from the Inflation Reduction Act and some of the policies of Biden?

Yeah, I mean, there's been reports on everything from, you know, paying companies to not do wind to, you know, he President Trump has repeatedly gone after the wind energy and the esthetics of the wind energy in particular.

Particular.

And he, you know, you know, halted, reversed, some leases, for offshore wind.

So President Trump clearly doesn't like wind.

And how much he, can buck or push back or stop.

You know, what is clearly companies are thinkin is a good investment decision.

It's still up in the air, but he's done a remarkable job at slowing progress.

So far.

Jeff, could you talk about.

Yeah.

Go ahead.

You know, we were talking about the Revolutionary Wind project, that affects Rhode Island and Connecticut after the break.

That's what we're going to do.

We're going to talk about that with my colleague Anna panel.

We're going to say goodbye to Jeff, professor of political science at Brown University.

So thankful to have you on the show.

Thank you for having me.

And best of luck with Partial Hegemony, which you can get online wherever books are sold.

Take root, take root.

Climate and economics reporter at grist also joined us today.

Thank you so much for your work.

We appreciate it.

Thanks for having me.

After the break, Anya Panelo, our environment and climate change reporter will walk us through, alternative sources of energy.

Connecticut officials are looking at.

If you have a question give us a call (888)720-9677.

Six.

This is the Wheelhous from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

All our.

We've talked about fossil fuels and the grip oil has on U.S.

foreign policy.

Now we're going to a shift to alternative sources of energy.

Something momentous has happened in the region.

A renewable energy source has been tapped into an ear to talk about offshore wind.

And its mark on our energy grid is on your panel.

Anya is the report for America, environmental and climate change reporter for Connecticut Public.

Thank you so much for being on the show.

Oh, thanks for having me.

We're talking obviously about Revolution Wind, and after several stops and starts, this project is off the ground.

The turbines located offshore of Rhode Island, are now generating power.

Yes.

So Revolution Wind has been online for almost a month now.

At its peak is going t generate 704MW of electricity.

That's enough to power 350,000 homes.

And when you look at New England as a whole, that's about 2.5% of New England's electric supply.

And as you alluded to, the Trump administration tried to stop construction on this project twice last year.

I mean, it did stop construction twice, citing sort of these broad, vague national security concerns.

But a judge ruled against the administration saying that the Trump administration did not properly explain why construction could not keep continuing.

Are these two turbines?

I want to get into this.

So, President Donald Trump, not a favorable history of looking at, renewable energy and wind.

I would imagine he doesn't necessarily have his party on, party hat on right now.

Why is that?

Besides the fact that we're talking about these sort of vague, national security concerns.

Is there anything about the actual turbines that might be frustrating to some?

I mean, you know, the president has described the turbines as as ugly.

He said, offer a wind is, you know, expensive and inefficient compared to fossil fuels.

Just a couple of weeks ago, he actually gave the Trump administration, gave $1 billion to a French company called Total Energy to walk away from two offshore wind projects.

It was developin one off the coast of New York.

The other called off the coast of North Carolina.

And that money will instead go towards fossil fuel projects here in the U.S.. Can you talk about the how they look?

Can people actually see these turbines?

From the shore or anywhere?

These ones that we're talking about with Revolution Wind?

You know, with Revolution Wind, they're pretty far out there.

They're 17 miles off the coast of Rhode Island.

But you can see them.

You can you can actually see them a little bit better at nighttime because these, wind turbines have to have these red flashing lights on them so aircraft can see them.

And there's a woman, Bettina Washington, with the Aquinnah Wampanoag tribe on Martha's Vineyard.

So Martha's Vineyard is about 12 miles away from Revolution Wind.

And she wrote for my colleague saying the true visual impact is quite jarring, especially at night.

So we understand that this energy is being produced to help cut down on fossil fuels and essence.

We support that.

But it is a very difficult thing to see.

So but easier to see that perspective through the eyes of of of a local woman, than maybe some, some rich dude.

So, good to hear from that perspective at least.

So let's think about Connecticut residents.

Let's think about some of those New Englanders, 704MW.

That sounds enticing.

That sounds like a number.

It sounds like something that we can hang our hat on.

Yeah, absolutely.

So this is going to lower electricity costs throughout New England.

It's going to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

It's going to lessen the risk of blackouts during winter, when people are really using electricity, like we all were, you know, just a couple of months ago, during this severe cold winter.

If you think about it, offshore wind blows the most in the winter time.

So that's going to be a really helpful resource.

Very fascinating.

Last time you were on the show, we talked about Connecticut's zero, carbon emissions goals.

Tell us more about that.

I mean, we were talking about California standards a couple of years ago, and now we don't seem to be really talking about that.

Yeah.

So Connecticut has a school that by 2030, which sounds far away, but it's just four years from now.

By 2030, it wants to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to almost half of what it was back in 2001.

And unfortunately, Connecticut is not on track to meet that.

But emissions are down, so emissions from motor vehicles and buildings, the two biggest polluters in Connecticut are down.

In 2023, emissions from motor vehicles were down by 2%.

That was the first time that's happened since the pandemic.

And the big reason for that is higher fuel efficiency standards and lower vehicles.

Also mor EVs registered in Connecticut.

But that wasn't like the big driving factor.

And then emissions from buildings were down by more than 5% in 2023.

And when I say emissions from buildings, I mean people heating their homes, people heating water, cooking, that sort of thing.

So Connecticut's not on track to meet its goals, but it's moving in the right direction.

As we finish up here.

What are ways that, lawmakers are starting to address climate change here in 2026?

So lawmakers are looking at something called a climate super fund.

Ooh, this is a way of taxing or fining fossil fuel companies, oil companies responsible for causing climate change, and then taking that money and using it to help communities become more adaptable to climate change.

So things like seawalls, strengthening roads and bridges, whether or not that passes is something to be seen.

Something to watch.

That's exciting.

The Climate Super Fund a little more exciting than relying on fossil fuels.

Maybe when we're seeing the continual cost of war, this is on you.

Pinellas does great work for Connecticut Public.

Please visit Cty public.org for more of her work.

Our environmental and climate change reporter.

Today's show produced by Davina Cordero.

Thanks to Tallie Richardson and Megan Rodriguez Hawkins for additional support.

Edited by Patrick Scale.

Thank you to Dylan Reyes, Megan Fitzgerald, Tess Terrible and many more, including Bradley O'Connor and Megan Boot.

Download The Wheelhouse anytime on your favorite podcast app.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

Have a good Wednesday.

I'm.