South Korean President Lee Jae Myung has now called for a nationwide energy-saving campaign, urging citizens to take shorter showers, reduce car usage, and adopt a list of government-defined conservation practices, while public institutions have been instructed to cut back on vehicle use and businesses with high energy consumption are being pressured to scale down operations, and Lee himself made clear the urgency by stating that the government must “mobilize all available resources” and act immediately rather than hesitate, which reveals how quickly policy shifts once a crisis narrative is established.
The justification is rooted in supply disruption tied to geopolitical tensions, particularly the near halt of tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which South Korea depends on for roughly 70% of its crude imports, and despite holding approximately 190 million barrels in reserves, officials have acknowledged that those reserves may not last even two months under current demand conditions, which exposes just how fragile the system has become after years of policy decisions that prioritized ideology over stable supply.
If this were simply about energy, then the solution would be focused on restoring supply and stabilizing markets, yet instead the burden is immediately shifted onto the people, which is always the telltale sign that governments are no longer managing the economy but are instead attempting to manage behavior, and this is where the climate narrative becomes relevant because it provides the perfect justification for telling people how to live under the guise of necessity.
I have said many times that climate change policies are part of a broader trend where governments seek oversight and influence over individual behavior. As we saw in the US with the Inflation Reduction Act, governments will request billions if not trillions all in the name of saving the planet. Once you begin dictating how long someone can shower, when they can drive, or how much energy they are allowed to consume, you are looking at tyrannical control measures.
The pattern is identical to what we saw during COVID, where the initial response was framed as temporary and necessary, followed by escalating guidance that quickly turned into mandates when compliance did not meet expectations, and South Korea is already signaling this trajectory by describing current measures as voluntary while leaving the door open for stricter enforcement, which is always how these policies evolve.
When governments lose the ability to influence outcomes through traditional economic tools, they turn toward direct intervention in society, and energy becomes one of the most effective levers since it underpins transportation, housing, and basic daily function. This is not about the normalization of control, because once the authority to regulate behavior is established under one crisis, it can be expanded and applied under another, and history shows that governments rarely relinquish powers once they have been obtained.
What we are witnessing is not simply an energy-saving campaign, but part of a larger structural change in how governments interact with their populations, and that shift is being driven not by necessity alone, but by the opportunity that crises provide to expand control.
Rumors are beginning to circulate that the government’s next control tactic will be energy lockdowns. I would not put anything past government.
