Metamorphosis or Methanumorphosis?
Just joking — but not really. Every time I hear the Middle East talking about “economic diversification,” I have to suppress a laugh. Diversifying away from oil by investing in another hydrocarbon is like quitting smoking by switching to cigars. It may smell different, but you’ll still cough up your lungs in the end.
Don’t get me wrong — I like methane. It’s cleaner, more flexible, and a fine addition to any country’s energy mix. But when the same old petro-states start touting it as their ticket to a post-oil future, it’s worth asking a few uncomfortable questions. If the whole economy is already addicted to the black goo, is moving to its gaseous cousin really a metamorphosis — or just a methanumorphosis?
They know they’re dangerously dependent on oil. We know it too. Yet the moment someone utters the phrase “economic diversification,” the only thing that comes to their minds is “different type of energy export.” Not industries, not human capital, not actual production — just another form of fossilized cash flow.
The problem is that true diversification means creating industries that make sense even when energy isn’t dirt cheap. That’s the litmus test. If a business model collapses the moment oil prices rise or subsidies fade, then it’s not diversification — it’s denial with air conditioning.
Middle Eastern economies have built palaces out of hydrocarbons, but the sand underneath is starting to shift. As long as oil and gas flow, they’ll keep the fantasy alive — shining towers, designer megacities, and PR campaigns about “sustainability.” But when the wells run dry, the music stops. And then all the LED lighting and imported foliage in the world won’t hide the simple fact: there was never a real metamorphosis. Just a very expensive costume change.Better we all come to grips with that now, before the mirage fades.