By the Witness Radio team.
When conflict erupted in the Middle East, oil and gas prices surged within hours. Insurance premiums increased, shipping routes became uncertain, and inflation followed. The 2024 World Energy Investment report notes that the Middle East accounts for about 30% of global oil production.
Now, with the ongoing conflict between the USA, Israel, and Iran, the Strait of Hormuz is closed, and any ship attempting to pass will be fired upon by Iran, according to a senior Iranian Revolutionary Guards official on Monday.
“The Strait (of Hormuz) is closed. If anyone tries to pass, the heroes of the Revolutionary Guards and the regular navy will set those ships ablaze,” Ebrahim Jabari, a senior adviser to the Guards commander-in-chief, said in remarks carried by state media.
The Strait is the world’s most vital oil export route, connecting the largest Gulf oil producers, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates, with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea.
The closure came after Israeli and American strikes on Iran on February 28, with the intention of weakening its government. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Oman in addition to launching missile barrages toward Gulf nations that house American military installations, such as Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain.
These developments demonstrate the extent to which fossil fuel geopolitics continue to influence the world economy.
For energy policy expert Sandrine Dixson-Declève, these recurring shocks expose a structural weakness in the global economy.
“Energy is not just about electricity. It is about geopolitical power. As long as we remain dependent on fossil fuels, we will remain vulnerable to conflict, price volatility, and political leverage.” Sandrine says in an exclusive interview with the Witness Radio team.
The global push toward renewable energy, she argues, is not driven solely by environmental idealism. It is rooted in security, sovereignty, and economic resilience.
Energy dependence has always had a geopolitical component. Experts say the oil crises of the 1970s revealed how exposed industrialized nations were to supply disruptions in the Middle East. Decades later, similar dynamics re-emerged when Europe relied heavily on Russian gas delivered through projects like Nord Stream 2 before the invasion of Ukraine.
“We have known since the 1970s that dependency on fossil fuels creates political fragility. And yet we failed to reduce that dependency structurally.” Sandrine Dixson-Declève maintains.
The war in Ukraine, alongside renewed tensions involving Israel and Iran, underscores the same vulnerability. Energy-importing nations find their foreign policy constrained by supply risks.
“The only way to break that cycle is to shift the demand side of the equation. We need to reduce dependence on fossil fuel supply altogether and think of alternatives, such as the transition to renewable energy.” The expert adds.
Geopolitical tensions alone make a strong case for accelerating the energy transition. However, climate science makes the need even more urgent. The planet has already temporarily exceeded 1.5°C of warming above pre-industrial levels — the limit governments committed to avoid under the Paris Agreement.
“We are already seeing the consequences: floods, desertification, water stress, extreme storms, Tornados. So, the weather and people’s lives and livelihoods will be increasingly affected. And the number one source of greenhouse gas emissions is the burning of fossil fuels. So, it is that dual reason, both the geopolitical dependency, but also the need to shift towards renewables, that is really driving this transition.” Adds Sandrine.
She warns that the economic consequences of inaction are mounting. “The cost of climate inaction is already estimated at around 3 percent of global GDP annually. At higher levels of warming, that figure could rise dramatically. Governments that think delay is cheaper are fundamentally mistaken. So, if governments really want to buffer GDP and ensure they preserve and build more resilient economies for the future, they have to move towards decarbonized energy. We have to reduce our impact on climate change.”
The primary source of greenhouse gas emissions remains the combustion of fossil fuels. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), fossil fuels — coal, oil, and natural gas — account for roughly three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 percent of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. The energy sector alone, including electricity, heat production, transport, and industry, is responsible for the largest share of global emissions. Coal-fired power plants remain the single biggest contributor, while oil dominates transport emissions, and gas is playing an increasingly important role in power generation and industry.
“This is a dual crisis: it’s geopolitical dependency, and it’s climate destabilization, and both point in the same direction: transition. Globally, we continue to subsidize fossil energy at enormous levels. At the same time, oil and gas companies have made extraordinary windfall profits.” Sandrine says.
For Dixson-Declève, this reflects a structural distortion in the market. “We have created a perverse system where fossil fuels are artificially cheaper than renewables because of subsidies and the absence of proper taxation.” She maintains.
Attempts to secure a global commitment to phase out fossil fuels have repeatedly encountered political resistance. At the 2023 climate Summit, COP28 — held under the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — governments agreed for the first time to “transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems.
“There are countries that continue to block progress. Without stronger financial and regulatory pressure, change remains slower than it should be.” She adds.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, recently accused world leaders of slowing the transition at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, citing nations’ inaction and lack of commitment to ending fossil fuels.
“Fossil fuels still receive huge public subsidies, spending billions on lobbying, deceiving the public, and hindering progress. Too many corporations are making record profits from the climate devastation they cause. Too many leaders remain hostage to fossil fuel interests,” Mr. Guterres stressed.
But Dixson argues that eliminating fossil subsidies and taxing windfall profits would significantly accelerate the shift. “If we correct the economic signals, the transition speeds up. Beyond national-level commitments, we need commitments at the corporate, business, and industrial levels to reduce the impact of emissions from their production processes. This really calls for transitioning away from fossil fuels and energy systems and tripling global renewable energy capacity by 2030.” Sandrine advises.
Despite political resistance, economic trends suggest that renewables are gaining momentum.
“Solar and wind are now cheaper than new fossil fuel projects in most parts of the world. The market fundamentals are increasingly in favor of renewables.” Sandrine notes.
