Oil prices surged to a three-year high on Monday, exceeding $90 a barrel, as the conflict between the United States and Israel against Iran continues to disrupt global energy markets and raise concerns about supply disruptions. The escalating tensions, including reported attacks on oil facilities in the United Arab Emirates on March 3rd, are prompting a reassessment of energy security strategies worldwide.
Whereas past international efforts to address climate change through collaborative agreements have yielded limited results – the recent COP30 climate conference in Brazil concluding without even mentioning fossil fuels – some experts believe the current crisis could inadvertently accelerate the transition to renewable energy sources. The premise is that the economic pain of volatile fossil fuel prices, coupled with the geopolitical risks of relying on a concentrated supply, may incentivize nations to prioritize domestically produced, cleaner alternatives.
“The turmoil we are witnessing today in the Middle East makes it evident that we are facing a global energy system largely tied to fossil fuels — where supply is concentrated in a few regions and every conflict risks sending shock waves through the global economy,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement. “In past oil shocks, countries had little choice but to absorb the pain. Now they have an exit ramp.” Guterres emphasized the increasing affordability and scalability of renewable energy, arguing that these resources are immune to the geopolitical vulnerabilities that plague fossil fuels.
However, the notion that conflict automatically translates to a faster green transition is met with skepticism. Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson cautioned, “Just wishful thinking,” pointing to the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, where some European nations temporarily increased their reliance on coal in response to natural gas shortages.
The potential for a similar response is a concern. Experts like Pauline Heinrichs, a war studies lecturer at King’s College in the United Kingdom, note that countries may simply seek alternative fossil fuel suppliers rather than accelerating the shift to renewables. China and India, already the world’s top two carbon emitters, could be particularly inclined to increase coal consumption, according to researchers at Ohio University and the University of St. Andrews.
Despite these concerns, some analysts see a genuine opportunity for change. Caroline Baxter, former U.S. Deputy assistant secretary of defense for force education and training, noted a “dramatic slowdown” in fossil fuel shipments due to the conflict, particularly impacting nations like Japan and South Korea that heavily rely on Middle Eastern oil and gas. She suggested that this disruption could encourage countries to invest in domestic renewable energy production, reducing their dependence on foreign sources.
“I think there is an opportunity, rightly or wrongly, for countries to really turn inward and try to power themselves in a way that cuts off their dependence on other nations for that source,” Baxter said. This approach, she argues, could achieve emissions reductions “without the thorny diplomatic negotiations” of international climate conferences.
Energy analyst Ana Maria Jaller-Makarewicz, of IEEFA Europe, predicts an increase in solar panel and heat pump installations in the coming months as a direct result of the escalating energy insecurity. The Center for Climate and Security has likewise highlighted the national security benefits of renewable energy, hosting discussions in East and Southeast Asia on the topic.
The war’s impact extends beyond energy markets. A report from Covering Climate Now and the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs underscores the significant contribution of militaries to global greenhouse gas emissions – 5.5% annually, exceeding all but the three largest emitting nations. The conflict itself will further increase emissions through fuel consumption by fighter jets and other military operations, potentially offsetting any gains from a shift towards renewable energy.
The U.S. Administration, under President Trump, did not participate in the recent COP30 climate conference in Brazil, further complicating international cooperation on climate change. The situation remains fluid, with no immediate diplomatic resolution in sight and continued uncertainty surrounding the stability of global energy supplies.
