Satellite view of a major fire at the Port of Salalah oil storage tanks in Oman after an Iranian drone strike on March 11, 2026.Gallo Images/Getty
This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
As the deadly war in Iran triggers what the International Energy Agency has described as the worst oil crisis in history, climate advocates are calling for a faster shift away from fossil fuels, but the conflict may also hamper that transition.
US-Israeli strikes on Iran have disrupted supply routes through the strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of global oil flows. The US, Israel and Iran have also all launched strikes on fossil fuel facilities, creating additional market shocks.
Reduced reliance on oil and gas is insulating some regions from the ongoing fuel crisis. “Electricity generated from wind and solar is largely insulated from fossil fuel price volatility—once built, the fuel is free,” said Jan Rosenow, a professor of energy at Oxford University.
But the war is also creating near-term challenges that could slow clean energy growth. Here’s what to know about how the current crisis could shape the expansion of renewable energy.
Climate advocates are calling for the world to grow its renewable energy capacity to boost energy independence. Former US secretary of state John Kerry this month told the Guardian that oil and gas were a “security challenge,” while the United Nations secretary general, António Guterres, last week said that “our addiction to fossil fuels is destabilizing both the climate and global security.”
Some countries are indeed better positioned to withstand the current fuel crisis because of the growth of clean energy technologies. Spain and Portugal, for instance, have seen electricity prices decline in recent weeks.
“This should be the final wake-up call that there is a better way than continued dependence on fossil fuels.”
Pakistan, too, has seen a surge in the deployment of rooftop solar panels over the past five years, helping the country weather disruptions in the oil and gas market. There, “households and businesses have discovered that rooftop solar coupled with batteries are cheaper than electricity imported from the grid,” Rosenow said.
Electric vehicles have also helped some economies withstand price increases for gasoline, in which crude oil is a key ingredient. Two examples are China, where more than 50 percent of all new cars sold are electric, and Nepal, where that share sits at at 70 percent.
In light of this evidence, countries across the world are being urged to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels. But the Iran war may also make that more difficult.
Though it has re-energized calls for clean technology, the war and resulting supply chain disruptions are also posing problems for the clean energy transition.
Chokepoints in the strait of Hormuz, for instance, are disrupting the transport of metals needed to construct solar panels, such as aluminum. The Middle East also accounts for about 9 percent of global aluminum production, and producers in the region have begun to shutter or scale back their operations amid the war.
That could make it difficult to build the new clean power capacity climate advocates are demanding. So could the inflation that the war may spur, particularly because renewable energy projects require significant upfront investment for construction, equipment and installation.
The war and resulting energy shocks have been a boon in the short term for fossil fuels. That includes the dirtiest and most planet-heating energy source: coal.
“Renewables are winners here, but so is coal,” said Ira Joseph, global fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.
“War is being used as a false justification for rushed and irresponsible extraction.”
Many Asian countries are heavily reliant on imported liquefied natural gas, much of which passes through the strait of Hormuz. To make up for current shortfalls in LNG supply, countries including India, Thailand and Vietnam are burning more coal to meet energy demand.
And though in 2025 China reduced its coal generation for the first time, disruptions to LNG—particularly after the world’s largest LNG terminal in Qatar was struck by Iranian missiles and drones this month—will probably reverse that trend, said Joseph.
In the short term, disruptions in the oil and gas market are also incentivizing more oil and gas drilling and exploration, as countries scramble to replace disrupted LNG supplies and as higher prices make previously unviable projects profitable.
“High fossil fuel prices generate windfall profits that flow back into exploration, extraction and export infrastructure,” said Rosenow. “We are already seeing this with LNG expansion plans being fast-tracked.”
The US company Venture Global on Monday announced a new five-year contract to supply LNG to Vitol, the world’s largest independent energy trading company. That same day, the Canadian energy company TC Energy said Iran war disruptions were increasing the likelihood that a huge LNG facility export facility will be expanded.
Donald Trump, whose campaign accepted record oil and gas donations and who calls the climate crisis a “hoax” has taken steps to further incentivize oil expansion amid the energy crisis. Most recently, on Monday, the White House said it would pay a French company $1 billion to abandon plans to build offshore windfarms and instead pursue fossil fuel projects.
The risk of this kind of expansion, said Rosenow, was a “carbon lock-in effect” where decision makers keep newly built infrastructure online for decades.
“War is being used as a false justification for rushed and irresponsible extraction. Instead, this should be the final wake-up call that there is a better way than continued dependence on fossil fuels,” said Lauren Pagel, policy director at the environmental non-profit Earthworks. “The decision to double down on fossil fuels doubles down on disaster—for people impacted by pollution, for the climate, and for our global politics.”
Policy could be shaped to encourage the green transition, with experts proposing a wide variety of schemes.
Rosenow called for governments to reform tax structures. “Right now, electricity bears a disproportionate share of energy taxes in most countries, making it artificially expensive relative to gas,” he said. It’s a widely discussed idea in Europe.
Gregor Semieniuk, a public policy and economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said officials should impose a windfall tax on oil and gas companies amid the war.
“By taxing away excess profit—a windfall from war, rather than business acumen—governments can signal to financial investors and the industry itself that it’s not so extraordinarily profitable, and put less pressure on expanding production,” he said.
Governments could also subsidize materials like aluminum specifically for the buildout of renewables, he said. This could be difficult in the short term, but officials should take the opportunity to engage in “careful study” to see how to do so without “causing undue disruption,” said Semieniuk.
Officials could also work to ensure interest rates don’t go up too high, potentially by imposing strategic short-term price controls, said Semieniuk. But the best thing, he said, would be to end the disruptions outright.
“The most important policy is to end the conflict,” he said.
Pagel said governments should also end fossil fuel subsidies and force polluters to pay for their pollution.
“We need to build in human rights, Indigenous peoples’ rights, and environmental responsibility at every step,” she said. “The tools exist. What we need is the will to use them.”
Though the war is creating incentives to boost fossil fuels, doing so would be shortsighted, said Kingsmill Bond, a strategist for the energy thinktank Ember.
“This is the first oil shock in history where oil faces a superior alternative. Solar, wind and EV are cheaper, local, faster to deploy, and huge,” he said. “They were winning even before the crisis, and this just galvanizes change.”
