War vs gasoline
I’m not trying to virtue-signal here, but am I the only one grossed out that the only problem in the war of the U.S. and Israel against Iran seen here is raising the price of gasoline? This is far from the only piece I’ve read that sees it exclusively from that angle, either.
Nicholas 11:33 on 2026-03-26 Permalink
The reporter is a business/consumer reporter, so it makes sense he’d cover an issue with incredible salience to many people: no other good has as many giant price boards all over the world, of a product often purchased about as often as any other. There’s lots of room for articles covering this war from a variety of angles, and it’s easy to find them if you want to look. I buy gas a few times a year, usually outside Quebec, so higher prices mostly affect me indirectly and in small amounts, but if you want an issue that will turn Americans against the war, and will also get them to buy more fuel efficient vehicles and heating and appliances, you couldn’t pick a better one.
Kate 11:54 on 2026-03-26 Permalink
it’s an ill wind that blows no one any good?
Ephraim 12:26 on 2026-03-26 Permalink
Now, if we can someone can only manage to convince the Americans that well made nuclear (SMR) is a viable green alternative for electrical.
jeather 12:51 on 2026-03-26 Permalink
Please, Trump just paid some French firm a billion dollars to switch from wind to fossil fuels, that’s never going to happen.
Blork 13:24 on 2026-03-26 Permalink
The article is clearly ABOUT the effect of the war on gas prices; it’s not some general article about the war that only mentions gas prices. You can see this in the headline, and (as Nicholas says), the fact that it’s posted in the “Consumer” section.
Imagine if it were an article about, for example, the effects of the war on immigration processing for people from Iran. Would it be fair to complain that the article sees immigration processing as the only problem of the war? Another example: if a food columnist wrote a piece detailing the effects of the war on the price of saffron, would it be fair to interpret that as saying the price of saffron is the only problem with the war? I don’t think so, on both counts.
Taylor C. Noakes 13:44 on 2026-03-26 Permalink
It’s vile. I just wrote a piece for DeSmog about how a self-described gas expert is using his ample media coverage to use the war on Iran as justification for pipeline construction. The next article is about how anti-regulation lobby groups, like Fraser Inst, are also using the war as justification for more pipelines.
None of these pipelines will have any impact on domestic gas prices, in any way shape or form, because they’re all being proposed either to flow south or to the Pacific. We have the world’s most heavily subsidized oil and gas sector, and it is all for export.
Think about that when you’re filing your taxes. Tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars in just the last decade, all for an industry that employs less than 150,000 people, majority owned by US shareholders.
bob 20:39 on 2026-03-26 Permalink
It doesn’t affect (most of) us directly in any other way. We’re out of range of the violence, so the only ill effects we feel are economic. The rest is a TV show, à la Baudrillard.
maggie rose 20:43 on 2026-03-26 Permalink
Yea, it’s not a “knock-on” effect of the invasion – not a war. Vile article that. Oil groups that contributed to Drumpf’s election stand to profit $63 billion from the bloodshed and destruction. Meanwhile, the Orange Overlord has made unusable $5 B in funding for EV chargers. Climate change on steroids progresses, not to mention degraded habitat and species going forever. While we endure all that, gas prices up the cost of everything we use, buy and rely on in the modern world we are stuck with at this point in time. “I don’t care” said the ghoul at a presser today in his best creepy grandpa voice.