Saving the planet has been the main focus of many advocates for renewable energy. The U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran and that country's response have put another argument on the table: that relying on more solar and wind energy could diminish the importance of unstable fossil-fuel supply chains.
The month-old conflict has killed thousands and threatened to send the global economy into a tailspin by disrupting energy supplies. It has also made clear that it will take time and renewed dedication to bring new sources of energy online to replace fossil fuels - the process known as the energy transition.
In Europe, renewable investment trusts face pressure. Higher power prices will boost earnings, but higher capital costs can undermine project economics, my London-based colleague Simon Jessop wrote in a recent piece. He quoted the chief investment officer of energy transition fund SpesX, Luca Moro, as saying "There's a renewable paradox at play."
Meanwhile U.S. President Donald Trump has made clear his preference for fossil fuels. In one recent action, the U.S. will reimburse French energy major TotalEnergies some $1 billion the company paid in lease purchases for offshore wind, money it will redirect to U.S. oil and natural gas production.
In a related matter, a committee of administration officials exempted the oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico from an endangered species protection law. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called the move "a critical matter of national security."
In Asia, shortages stemming from the Middle East conflict have set off a flurry of fuel bartering. Given Asia's heavy reliance on fossil fuels, "Structural redesign of the energy system is gaining urgency to shield Asian countries against recurring oil and gas trade turmoil," wrote analysts for Ember Energy Research, a think tank aiming to accelerate the energy transition.
"Steering countries off the fossil path and back towards clean energy will ensure countries mitigate potential risks, maintain energy security and remain on track for decarbonisation," they wrote.
Let's see if the economic shocks of the war lead to a more enthusiastic embrace of renewables than arguments about climate change produced. In other words: an immediate hit to the wallet may motivate people better than science-based forecasts of long-term pain.
