Countries are accelerating clean energy efforts and pursuing ways to cut energy use in response to the war against Iran, but the measures so far remain insufficient to meaningfully tackle climate change.
When the U.S. and Israel launched the war in February, rising oil and gas prices led some renewable energy advocates to predict the conflict could speed up the green transition. More than 30 governments have since introduced policies aimed at reducing fossil fuel dependence or boosting energy efficiency. But global greenhouse gas emissions have still edged higher, while clean energy investment has declined from the same period a year earlier.
The Associated Press spoke with a dozen experts who said the Iran war appears to be encouraging wider adoption of clean energy. Even so, they cautioned that the global economy remains deeply reliant on fossil fuels and that recently announced policies will need time before their effects are reflected in emissions data.
“Governments are currently doing a dance between acknowledging the importance of clean power while continuing to support fossil fuel expansion,” Pauline Heinrichs, a war studies lecturer at King’s College London, wrote in an email. “We are seeing an old and a new world interact in contradiction with each other.”
The United Kingdom has seen a sharp increase in solar installations, even as its government considers expanding natural gas production. Across Asia, demand for solar energy and electric vehicles is surging. Indonesia, for example, is replacing some diesel-fired power plants with solar while also increasing its reliance on coal for heavy industry.
Clean energy investment slowed worldwide, though the picture varies sharply by region
Global spending on new wind and solar capacity dropped in the first half of 2026 compared with the same period last year, ending several years of growth, according to Rhodium Group’s Clean Investment Monitor. China accounted for much of the worldwide decrease. In the United States, Europe and India, whose economies are more exposed to oil and gas prices, solar investment rose while wind investment was stable or increased, said Hannah Pitt, a director at Rhodium.
In February, Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson said expectations that the war would immediately strengthen support for domestically produced renewable energy over imported fossil fuels were “just wishful thinking” unless the conflict became prolonged.
Six months later, Jackson said he had not expected oil prices to remain above $90 or $100 a barrel for so long. Incentives for electric vehicles, expanded charging networks and broader electrification efforts in dozens of countries could aid the fight against climate change, he said. Their impact, however, depends on whether governments maintain those policies over time.
“We need that action over years, to decades, to make a dent in the climate problem,” Jackson said Monday.
Climate pollution increased marginally
Thirty-three governments adopted policies to switch from fossil fuels to electricity or improve energy efficiency in response to the Middle East conflict, as of Sept. 9, according to the International Energy Agency. This includes supporting EV adoption, promoting renewable energy, replacing gas boilers with electric heat pumps and retrofitting homes and businesses to use less energy. The Netherlands, Spain and the U.K. are doing everything on that list.
China is working to make heavy industry more energy efficient and pushing to electrify heavy vehicles. India and Indonesia are shifting to electric stoves to replace imported liquefied petroleum gas as a cooking fuel. Laos suspended gas and diesel car imports through 2026 to boost EVs.
These efforts haven’t moved the needle yet. Incentivizing EV purchases or encouraging energy efficiency take time and scale, according to researchers for the Climate TRACE database of emissions.
At the same time, many governments are cutting fuel taxes. That provides immediate relief to consumers but disincentivizes switching to EVs. And, the war itself will spike emissions.
Global greenhouse gas emissions increased 0.2% in the first half of 2026, compared with the first half of 2025, according to Climate TRACE. While emissions from road transportation increased, Climate TRACE found that power sector emissions declined, despite concern that disruptions in oil and gas markets would push countries to use more coal for electricity. Shipping emissions also declined, likely due to the Strait of Hormuz closure.
Countries that import fossil fuels are footing higher bills
Those bills would have been even steeper, though, if not for the clean power added since 2020.
Fossil fuel importers have paid prices that are $330 billion higher compared to prewar market expectations, making it the largest sustained price shock since the 1990 Gulf War, according to research by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. The European Union, China and India paid the most.
Countries that invested in clean energy after past energy crises saved an estimated $36 billion in avoided fossil fuel imports in the first five months of the conflict, the research found. China and Japan saved the most, followed by Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Brazil and India.
Governments are trying to insulate themselves from geopolitical volatility and fuel price instability, said Caspian Conran, lead economist at the global consultancy firm Baringa. China knows it can rely on coal and the U.S. won’t run out of domestic natural gas, he said. Europe’s politicians feel the most urgency to adopt new energy policies because their fossil fuel production is limited, said Conran, who is based in London.
“We simply don’t have a choice,” he said.
Too soon to say whether the war will be a net gain for renewables or fossil fuels
At this point, the signal would be small and there is a lot of other variation in the system, according to Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton climate and international affairs professor.
“One thing is clear, however. When the trouble began, lots of people said there would be a rush to other, readily-available fossil fuel sources to replace Gulf oil and compensate for the price run-up, which would presumably bury any gain in carbon-free energy,” he wrote in an email. “Instead, at this point, it looks like events could turn out to be a net winner for renewables.”
Brookings Institution scholar Samantha Gross said the war is changing how people think about transitioning away from fossil fuels — that it’s not just for the climate, it’s an energy security strategy.
“That widens the appeal,” Gross said. “It brings in not just people concerned about the green side, but people concerned about hard security.”
President Donald Trump is shifting the U.S. away from renewables. The war underscores the risks of his relentless focus on fossil fuels.
“The Trump administration has been really focused on fossil fuels, but since they started this conflict, you have to ask the question, is this good for fossil fuels? And in short, I really think not,” Gross said. “Because the high prices and the uncertainty brought about by this war are helping to push other countries away from fossil fuels.”
___
The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
