Half measures won’t do

Pakistan has taken a step it has long avoided. Early market closures, limits on commercial activity, and restrictions on weddings signal recognition that an energy crisis cannot be managed through pricing alone. But the current approach remains cautious to a fault. In a moment defined by external shocks and domestic fragility, incrementalism risks failure.

The pressure point is not electricity. It is fuel. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have tightened global oil supply and pushed prices upward. For a country heavily dependent on imported petroleum, the consequences are immediate. Transport costs rise, supply chains slow, and inflation spreads across sectors. Every unnecessary journey now carries a national cost.

Closing markets at 8pm is therefore not an overreach. It is a rational attempt to curb non-essential movement and reduce fuel consumption tied to late-night commercial activity. But it remains a surface-level intervention. The largest inefficiencies lie in how people move, not just when markets operate.

Education is the most immediate lever. Millions of daily commutes by students, teachers, and support staff translate into substantial petrol consumption. A temporary shift to online instruction during peak crisis periods would cut transport demand sharply without halting learning. Pakistan has already demonstrated the feasibility of remote education. What is missing is the willingness to use it as policy rather than contingency.

The same applies to workplaces. Government offices continue to function on rigid, in-person schedules that generate massive daily commuting flows. A mandated hybrid model across public institutions would reduce fuel demand at scale. Extending similar expectations to private sector firms would amplify the effect. Fewer cars on the road is not a lifestyle change. It is a macroeconomic intervention.

Critics will argue that such measures disrupt productivity and routine. That argument assumes stable conditions. These are not stable conditions. The choice is between modest disruption now or deeper economic strain later. Pakistan’s past crises have shown the cost of delayed adjustment.

There is also a question of fairness. Current measures fall heavily on small businesses whose revenues depend on evening footfall. Without parallel restrictions on office commuting and institutional operations, austerity appears uneven. Broadening the scope of conservation spreads the burden and strengthens public buy-in.

Fuel conservation cannot rely on symbolic steps. It must target the largest sources of consumption. The government has acknowledged the challenge, but its response remains limited. A decisive shift toward reducing mobility through online education and hybrid work is no longer optional.

Half measures may buy time. They do not solve crises.