Fascinating. I wonder if that conclusion holds if, instead of assets being shut down due to lack of demand, links are chopped off by war & geopolitical instability. This is another likely consequence of climate change and we're seeing it already with MidEast instability + Russia/Ukraine war.

The lesson perhaps is that regions and individuals should do their best to disconnect their energy usage from the global fossil-fuel supply chain while it still exists, and develop new energy networks that are entirely in-region. I wonder if California's push to "go green" isn't really to benefit the planet, but to benefit California when the system collapses. It's just an easier sell to say "We're saving the planet" rather than "The planet is fucked, we're doing our best to ensure we survive when everybody else dies."

Edit: Looks like the paper covers this, and counter-intuitively, most supply-shocks do not have far-reaching impacts to the global supply. There are a few exceptions of strongly-connected nodes: most crude oil ones seem to be in Southeast Asia (affecting Japan/Taiwan/Australia) as well as Port Said, Egypt (Suez Canal), while the biggest natural gas impacts come from facilities in the Midwest (primarily affecting the U.S. East Coast). Their data does not include Russia, so it can't model things like the Russia/Ukraine war.