Iran War Spurs Clean Energy Policies, but Emissions Still Rise

The war against Iran has prompted more than 30 governments to adopt policies aimed at reducing reliance on fossil fuels or improving energy efficiency, according to the International Energy Agency. Yet global greenhouse gas emissions still rose slightly in the first half of 2026, and investment in clean energy fell compared with the same period last year.

When the United States and Israel launched the war in February, some renewable energy supporters suggested that spiking oil and gas prices could accelerate a green transition. Six months on, the picture is mixed.

As of September 9, 33 governments had taken steps such as supporting electric vehicle adoption, promoting renewable power, replacing gas boilers with electric heat pumps, and retrofitting buildings to cut energy use. The Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom have pursued all of these measures.

China is working to make heavy industry more energy efficient and to electrify heavy vehicles. India and Indonesia are shifting toward electric stoves to replace imported liquefied petroleum gas for cooking. Laos suspended imports of gas and diesel cars through 2026 to boost electric vehicles.

In the United Kingdom, solar installations have surged, even as the government considers expanding natural gas production. In Asia, Indonesia is replacing some diesel power plants with solar while also increasing coal use for heavy industry.

Global investment in wind and solar deployment fell in the first half of 2026 after several years of growth, according to Rhodium Group's Clean Investment Monitor. China accounted for most of the decline. In the United States, Europe and India, where economies are more exposed to oil and gas prices, solar investment grew and wind investment held stable or increased.

Global greenhouse gas emissions rose 0.2% in the first half of 2026 compared with the same period in 2025, according to Climate TRACE. Road transport emissions increased, while power sector emissions declined despite concerns that oil and gas market disruptions would push countries toward more coal. Shipping emissions also fell, likely due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Fossil fuel importers have paid $330 billion more than prewar market expectations, the largest sustained price shock since the 1990 Gulf War, according to 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, with China and Japan saving the most.

Researchers caution that incentives for electric vehicles and energy efficiency take time and scale to affect emissions. Many governments are also cutting fuel taxes, which offers immediate consumer relief but discourages switching to electric vehicles.

Pauline Heinrichs, a war studies lecturer at King's College London, said governments are balancing support for clean power with continued backing for fossil fuel expansion. "We are seeing an old and a new world interact in contradiction with each other," she wrote in an email.

Stanford climate scientist Rob Jackson said in February that expecting the war to boost homegrown renewables was "just wishful thinking" unless the conflict proved sustained. Six months later, he said he did not anticipate oil prices staying above $90 or $100 a barrel for long. He added that electric vehicle incentives, charging infrastructure and broader electrification can help fight climate change, but only if sustained over years to decades.

Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton climate and international affairs professor, said the signal remains small amid other variation in the system. He noted that many predicted a rush to readily available fossil fuels to replace Gulf oil, which would have buried gains in carbon-free energy. "Instead, at this point, it looks like events could turn out to be a net winner for renewables," he wrote.

Brookings Institution scholar Samantha Gross said the war is changing how people view the transition away from fossil fuels, framing it not only as climate policy but as an energy security strategy. "That widens the appeal," she said. "It brings in not just people concerned about the green side, but people concerned about hard security."

Gross also said the war underscores the risks of the Trump administration's focus on fossil fuels. "Because the high prices and the uncertainty brought about by this war are helping to push other countries away from fossil fuels," she said.

Caspian Conran, lead economist at the consultancy Baringa, said governments are trying to insulate themselves from geopolitical volatility and fuel price instability. China can rely on coal and the United States will not run out of domestic natural gas, he said, while Europe's politicians feel the most urgency because their fossil fuel production is limited. "We simply don't have a choice," he said.