What is at stake in the war in Iran, with the catastrophic consequences looming (even if we can now hope for a respite), should remind us of a truth that has been swept under the rug for far too long.
Since 1973, those with a clear-eyed view have known that the world is excessively dependent on oil-producing powers; since at least 1990, leading experts have predicted that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere produced by the burning of fossil fuels would disrupt the climate and ultimately threaten the survival of humanity. In fact, since 2010, we have begun to suffer the climatic consequences of these emissions. Today, we know—even if we refuse to see it—that the summer of 2026 will be extraordinarily hot almost everywhere in the Northern Hemisphere, and that the following year will be even hotter due to the evolution of the El Niño current.
And yet everyone is panicking over the marginal reduction in global production of these fossil fuels, caused by the war in Iran, and begging for the ability to produce even more ways to pollute the planet; when, on the contrary, we should view the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as good news, since it provides us with a new opportunity to accelerate the shift toward an economy that does not burn fossil fuels and since, for several decades now, we have been able to use other forms of energy—sustainable, nuclear, or renewable—for the same production processes.
Similarly, we now know that land development destroys the tiny layer of humus that allows life to survive and agriculture to be sustainable; we also know that the industrial food system resulting from this is a poison that destroys life. And we are finally realizing that fossil fuels now fuel another major form of pollution—that of human attention—through social media and other virtual addictions.
All in all, we now know that more than half of what humanity produces, consumes, and finances—largely by going into debt—is disastrous for itself and even more so for future generations. And that it has now equipped itself with the means to stop thinking about it.
Yet a large part of this production, which I have called “the economy of death,” is produced with what comes to us through the Strait of Hormuz.
Closing this strait for a moment would therefore cut off the supply of part of what is destroying the planet. And fighting to reopen it is like acting like a drug addict who wants to massacre everyone preventing him from accessing one of the pharmacies selling the substances he depends on.
If the economy of death accounts for at least 50 percent of global GDP, the other half,
“the economy of life,” consists of everything derived from sustainable forms of energy, sustainable mobility, sustainable agriculture, healthy food, water, recycling, culture, health, education, democracy, free media, and the means to defend them. And we know that a large portion of what is currently obtained by burning fossil fuels can now be obtained through electricity generated from sustainable sources.
So why aren’t we taking advantage of this opportunity to orchestrate the shift of the global economy toward the economy of life? Why do we refuse to see that the Chinese are already doing this surreptitiously? Although they are currently the worst producers of the economy of death, in 20 years they will be the main players in the economy of life—democracy aside.
The closure, even temporary, of the Strait of Hormuz could have been an opportunity for this realization. It was not. The United States is barreling toward disaster with its own fossil fuels. India and Africa are doing the same. And Europe, which is best positioned to be the champion of the economy of life (because it possesses all its forms, all its talents, all its industries, all its lands), seems completely panicked at the idea of losing one of its gateways to the economy of death.
No politician has the courage to say that rising gasoline prices, like those of tobacco, are good news and that all subsidies must be reserved for public transportation, to those who agree to switch to vehicles using sustainable energy within a reasonable timeframe, and to those who objectively cannot do so and who obviously must not suffer from the negligence of public authorities who, for so many years, have failed to understand that the shift toward the economy of life was the condition for the survival of our societies.
There are always good reasons not to do what is essential, thinking that others will take care of it a little later. But the fact is, it has been proven that for fifty years, no one has done so. And that drugs of all kinds continue to kill us.
I’ll say it as I see it: humanity will disappear if, in 30 years, the economy of life does not account for at least two-thirds of global GDP. It is possible. This requires a radical and immediate transformation that no one is undertaking or even preparing for. May Trump’s madness at least serve to help us finally understand this urgency.