April 22, 2026

Marine fuel desulfurization climate effects are now measurable in satellite data — and they point to one of the most consequential unintended consequences of environmental policy in modern history.

In 2020, the International Maritime Organization mandated a dramatic reduction in sulfur content in marine fuels globally. The stated goal was to reduce air pollution from shipping — a legitimate objective. Sulfur dioxide emissions from ships cause respiratory illness and acid rain in coastal communities. Removing sulfur from fuel was a straightforward environmental win. Except it wasn’t straightforward at all.

Sulfur particles in the atmosphere serve as cloud condensation nuclei. Raindrops and clouds don’t form from pure water vapor — they form around microscopic particles that act as nucleation sites. Sulfur emissions from the massive global shipping fleet had been inadvertently seeding clouds over the world’s major shipping lanes for decades. Remove the sulfur, remove the cloud seeding, reduce cloud cover, increase solar radiation reaching the ocean surface.

Craig Tindale flagged this in his Financial Sense interview as a prime example of ideological policy making without mechanical systems thinking. We optimized for one variable — sulfur in the air — without modeling the downstream effects on cloud formation, ocean albedo, and sea surface temperatures. Satellite measurements since 2020 show accelerated warming in shipping lane corridors that aligns with the timing and geography of the desulfurization mandate.

This is not an argument against clean air. It is an argument for understanding complex systems before intervening in them at scale. We are now running uncontrolled experiments on the planetary climate system in the name of environmental protection, without adequate modeling of second and third-order effects. The honest answer is that we don’t fully understand what we’ve done — and the oceans are warming faster than any model predicted.

The fertilizer supply chain crisis is one of the most underreported national security stories of our time — and its choke point runs directly through the Strait of Hormuz.

Most people don’t think about fertilizer until food prices spike. By then the supply chain damage has been accumulating for months or years. The connection between Middle East energy geopolitics and American grocery bills is not abstract. It is chemical. Ammonia-based nitrogen fertilizers — the inputs that underpin roughly half of global food production — are produced using natural gas as both feedstock and energy source. Disrupt the natural gas flows through Hormuz, and you disrupt fertilizer production. Disrupt fertilizer production, and you disrupt yields. Disrupt yields globally, and you have a food security crisis that cascades through every import-dependent economy on earth.

Craig Tindale raised this directly in his Financial Sense interview: a potential 25% drop in fertilizer availability from a Hormuz disruption. That number should be front-page news in every agricultural economy. It isn’t, because the chain of causation is too long and too indirect for the news cycle to follow.

The Iran dimension makes this more acute. Iran sits astride Hormuz. A war with Iran — even a contained one — creates insurance risk, shipping risk, and supply disruption risk that ripples through the ammonia and urea markets within weeks. We are currently engaged in military operations against Iran while simultaneously importing the energy inputs that feed the fertilizer supply chain that feeds us. The strategic incoherence of that position is extraordinary.

For investors, the fertilizer supply chain story points clearly toward domestic nitrogen producers, potash miners in stable jurisdictions, and agricultural input companies with vertically integrated supply chains. Food security is not a soft issue. It is the hardest of hard assets — and its supply chain is far more fragile than most people understand.

The first week of this month I took a much-needed technology free vacation. I was hiking and staying in national parks with spotty WiFi and was blissfully ignorant of current events.

When I logged back online, I saw that once again, sexual harassment was very much in the news, this time in politics. Regardless of your side of the aisle, the news was just plain disturbing. And this comes on the heels of recent revelations leading lawmakers in our state to unanimously pass legislation renaming Cesar Chavez Day on March 31st to Farmworkers Day. News reports involving minors (young girls) leading to that decision were simply heart-wrenching.

It seems that every couple of years post #metoo I write a blog post about ongoing harassment issues in the news. There was this one in September 2023 about common misconceptions in harassment claims, and this one from March 2021 appropriately titled Why Are We Still Talking About Sexual Harassment? Because People Are Still Acting Creepy, That’s Why.

Recent political stories, and related resignations, demonstrate that these issues continue; influential people often rise to power despite allegations of some pretty darn awful conduct.

Remember, sexual harassment is about power, and using that power in a way that makes others uncomfortable.  If only people could remember that if you don’t want to trigger a claim (or damage your career), then don’t do anything you wouldn’t want done to your child or to your parent.  It is as simple as that.

I look forward to the day when I don’t feel compelled to blog on this issue. Until then, California employers keep vigilant with your harassment prevention training, and your prompt and effective investigations (and corrective action) when issues arise.