This includes Russia’s economic engine: energy exports. Millions of barrels of heavily discounted Russian oil find no buyers. And Western oil majors, including BP Plc and (gasp) Exxon Mobil Corp., are forgoing multi-billion dollar investments in the country. The dislocation and sheer confusion is evident, with Brent crude surging above $135 a barrel at one point this weekend, even as the Urals crude discount exploded.

For many of us, the closest comparison is the oil embargo imposed on occupied Iraq and Kuwait in 1990, which caused gasoline prices to nearly double in a matter of weeks. Yet this episode was relatively brief and came at a time when oil inventories were high and Saudi Arabia was poised to fill the gaps. Russia is a biggest exporter of oil and gas (as well as metals, coal and grain). And Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC+ now seem to prefer risking global economic turmoil rather than crossing paths with their partner in Moscow. We – especially those too young to even remember the imperfect parallel of the Gulf War – are in deeply uncharted territory here.

A big difference concerns time. Russia’s attack on Ukraine represents a broader war on the international order by a nuclear power spanning two continents. It likely delivered a fatal blow to the energy trade with Europe, which has endured the Cold War, post-Soviet chaos and spats with President Vladimir Putin. A European summit later this week will discuss extraordinarily ambitious proposals to sever the relationship entirely – and Russia is now threatening to do so first. It is not, as they say, transitory.

Added to this is the imperative for countries to decarbonize their energy systems in the face of climate change. The EU already has net zero targets that imply a sharp reduction in Russian energy imports over time. The attack on Ukraine changes the priorities. Coal power, for example, will likely make a comeback in the near term to help offset expensive or absent gas imports. But anyone who thinks that would spell the end of the EU’s climate ambitions may not know that there is a war going on. Today’s requirements, while demanding compromises on emissions, also add a pressing safety dimension that reinforces the green impulse. It has simply become unrealistic to tie Europe’s fate any longer to Russian energy exports.

In some ways, high and volatile fossil fuel prices are a boon to alternatives like renewables. Yet today’s chaos also portends trouble for cleantech.

The entire energy system is a product of an era of globalization that began at the end of World War II and extended to the end of the Cold War. Diversifying oil and gas supply chains, even linking adversaries, have kept prices remarkably stable and affordable for most of the time. For things like renewables and batteries, technology transfers and Chinese manufacturing muscle combined with subsidies elsewhere have driven costs down sharply.

Well, goodbye to all that. Years before the Russian attack, globalization in general and specifically in energy markets had come under attack. Former President Donald Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda explicitly tied U.S. oil and gas exports to geopolitical leverage. Energy of all types featured prominently in its trade war with China. President Joe Biden may not be a supporter of freedom, but he has certainly weaponized his green industrial policy in this same confrontation. For its part, China has worked diligently to build leadership positions in several areas of clean technology and, with a wary eye on Ukraine, warns against creating a peaceful version of NATO. Meanwhile, German Economy Minister Robert Habeck, in comments to Reuters this weekend about a €200 billion fund for industrial transformation, spoke of the “need to invest in our energy sovereignty” (emphasis mine).

The underlying logic here perhaps goes back to the financial crisis of 2008 and the largesse of governments in seeking to mitigate it. As ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington-based analytics firm, concluded in a report last summer:

To the extent that fiscal stimulus promotes protectionism, we have argued that the recent wave of green stimulus spending could turn the current trade war into a carbon trade war.(2)

In other words, if you have already spent a lot of money on your national economy and now you are going to spend a lot of money to decarbonize it, you may not want other countries to undermine you with exports cheaper ones that do not take into account the cost of emissions. The EU, which is now considering a huge joint bond issue to overhaul its energy and military capabilities, will not want it all spent elsewhere. This is the idea behind the carbon border adjustment mechanism proposed by the EU, and such tariffs have a way of spreading, even in the United States which fears carbon taxes.

Russia, whose economy is a relative furnace, has always lost more than most if these tariffs became commonplace. And that was before it gave the West yet another reason to isolate him. Yet tariffs, like sanctions, are weapons of mutual destruction. Cutting off Russian oil and gas, officially or not, is clearly inflationary for energy costs, as any trading screen today will tell you. But de-globalization will do the same for clean technologies, or at least for their most difficult aspects. Look at what just happened to nickel, an essential ingredient in many battery technologies, of which Russia is a major supplier. Of course, it’s a short press; but he’s in a hurry for a reason.

A lesson learned last year is that rising demand combined with disrupted supply results in something anyone under 30 won’t remember either: inflation. We are ready for a time when governments are proposing to radically rebuild their economies to deal with climate change – even as international trade in energy products and technology is disrupted. On the way to the transition, we somehow came across the energy partition.

More other Bloomberg Opinion writers:

• Putin’s farewell will be long: Clara Ferreira Marques

• Sanctions test faith in the power of the economy: Noah Feldman

• Buy a heat pump to reduce your dependence on Russian energy: Justin Fox

(1) On the eve of his country’s entry into the First World War, Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary, remarked to a friend: “The lamps are going out all over Europe, we We won’t see them again in our lifetime. At the time, he was staring out his office window at dusk as gas lamps were lit along the Mall in central London.

(2) “Fifty-Five Shades of Green,” July 15, 2021.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Editorial Board or of Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Liam Denning is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy, mining and commodities. He was previously editor of the Heard on the Street column of the Wall Street Journal and wrote for the Lex column of the Financial Times. He was also an investment banker.