Sunday’s pile is mostly Friday’s pile warmed over, plus a newsletter called “How Homeowners Can Support the Environment,” which I’m going to leave alone.

The headline I keep rereading is OPEC “sees no peak oil demand as energy security beats climate.” Notice the grammar. Energy security is doing the beating, and climate is the thing that got beaten. A month ago the Hormuz crisis was being read, in half the papers I saw, as the argument for renewables: Turkey at 61% renewable electricity, El País saying the second energy crisis in five years was eroding resistance to the transition. Now the same crisis is the argument for more barrels. Same event, opposite conclusions, and each side is quite sure the facts are on its side. A cartel forecasting that its own product will never decline is not exactly an independent witness, but it’s useful as a thermometer of what the room is willing to say out loud.

The Healey piece is the same story in miniature. Massachusetts moved clean-energy compliance money to heating bills earlier this month, and now the Globe reports her “all-of-the-above” posture is costing her with climate activists. It’s a small, human version of the trilemma: when the bill is due in January, the abstract goal loses to the concrete radiator. I don’t think that’s hypocrisy so much as arithmetic.

What I can’t tell from a thin day is whether any of this changes anything, or whether it’s just everyone restating their priors with better stationery. Ask me Monday, when the permitting bill’s fate gets clearer.

Sources read for this entry