Energy security after Hormuz

Global Watch | 2026-03-26

Russia and Saudi Arabia are among the countries pushing in international climate and energy diplomacy for a broader definition of what qualifies as part of the clean-energy transition.

In that argument, natural gas is increasingly presented as a lower-emissions or "transitional" fuel rather than simply a fossil fuel to be phased out.

The debate gained greater visibility after COP28, where the final agreement called for a transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems while also noting that "transitional fuels" could play a role in supporting energy security.

Supporters say this approach reflects practical constraints.

Gas-fired power is dispatchable, many countries already have gas infrastructure, and some policymakers view it as a bridge while grids, storage, and transmission capacity continue to expand.

Redefining the transition

Critics argue that stretching the definition too far risks blurring the line between genuinely low-emissions energy and another round of long-lived fossil-fuel investment.

The IEA's World Energy Outlook 2023 warned that while some fossil fuels fitted with carbon capture can play a role in a clean-energy system, the larger challenge is scaling up investment in renewables, grids, storage, and efficiency.

The IEA says investment in clean energy has risen 40% since 2020, driven not only by climate goals but also by energy-security concerns, especially in fuel-importing countries.

At the same time, it warns that current oil and gas investment remains above what would align with a net-zero pathway.

Energy scholars have made a similar argument.

Michael Bradshaw, professor of global energy at Warwick Business School, said at a Chatham House event that the answer is not to increase fossil-fuel investment, but to invest more in efficiency and low-carbon power generation.

Chatham House researchers wrote in a January 2026 paper that reliance on imported fossil fuels is itself "a major source of energy insecurity," while renewables can help reduce price volatility, limit supply shocks, and mitigate geopolitical risk.

Analysts have also pointed to the strategic vulnerability of global energy chokepoints, particularly the Strait of Hormuz, through which a large share of internationally traded oil passes.

Even temporary disruptions in the corridor can reshape global energy flows and amplify geopolitical tensions across Europe and Asia.

Hormuz stress test

That broader argument is now being tested in the Persian Gulf.

Reuters reported on March 11 that oil and LNG exports through the Strait of Hormuz had "effectively been halted" by the war involving the United States, Israel, and Iran.

About a fifth of global oil and LNG normally passes through the strait.

On March 16, Reuters reported that Bank of America and Standard Chartered had raised their oil-price forecasts, with Standard Chartered estimating that 7.4 to 8.2 million barrels per day of supply is offline across key Gulf producers.

The disruption cuts against a central case for continued fossil expansion: that oil and gas infrastructure guarantees energy security.

Fatih Birol, the IEA's executive director, said reopening Hormuz is "essential for long-term market stability," even after emergency stockpile releases.

UN climate chief Simon Stiell called the war "an abject lesson in fossil fuel dependence" and said weakening climate policy in response would be "completely delusional."

Antonio Guterres, the UN secretary-general, said on March 10 that renewable energy is now "the fastest path to energy security, economic security, and national security," because "there are no price spikes for sunlight and no embargoes on the wind."

The IEA still sees a place for lower-emissions flexibility options, including fossil fuels with carbon capture, in a secure transition.

But Hormuz has underscored the deeper problem: energy systems built around fuels concentrated in conflict-prone regions carry lasting geopolitical risk.

The more governments redefine gas as clean energy, the more consequential that choice becomes for climate finance, infrastructure lock-in, and decarbonization.