The Iran war exposes the illusions of energy policy

Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), recently declared in Paris that those who have fought to keep the world dependent on fossil fuels are "inadvertently supercharging the global renewables boom" - citing the ongoing U.S.-Israeli war with Iran as evidence.

It is a striking claim. But it deserves careful scrutiny, because it conflates three separate issues: energy security, climate policy, and geopolitical crisis management.

Those who advocate for maintaining fossil fuels are not simply clinging to the past. They understand that coal, oil, and natural gas are not merely energy sources - they are the raw materials upon which modern civilization is built. Steel, cement, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastics: none of these can be manufactured without hydrocarbons.

Renewables can generate electricity and partially substitute for some transportation fuels, but they cannot replace hydrocarbons as industrial feedstocks. That distinction is not a detail; it is the foundation of the entire debate.

Energy leaders who advocate for wind and solar rarely explain what no wind turbine or solar panel can ever provide: the transportation fuels and products that civilization depends upon.

Consider what crude oil alone supplies:

• Jet fuel for military and commercial aircraft supports about 30,000 commercial aircraft daily with up to 100,000 flights that take off and land across the globe.
• Diesel fuel for trucks, trains, and construction equipment.
• Gasoline for automobiles.
• Bunker fuel for the roughly 100,000 merchant ships that carry approximately 90% of world trade, and for more than 300 cruise ships worldwide.
• Specialized fuels for space programs conducting scientific research and exploration.
• Feedstocks for fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastics, and synthetic fibers.

Planes, ships, trucks, and cars run on transportation fuels manufactured from crude oil by multi-billion-dollar refineries. These are not legacy inconveniences to be engineered away. They are the material foundation of modern life - and no amount of electricity from wind or solar can substitute for them.

Coal, crude oil, and natural gas are not merely energy sources - they are the raw materials upon which modern civilization is built. Steel, cement, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastics: none of these can be manufactured without hydrocarbons.

Wind turbines and solar panels, i.e., renewables can generate electricity, but they cannot replace hydrocarbons as industrial feedstocks. That distinction is not a detail; it is the foundation of the entire debate.

Energy Security and Decarbonization Are Not the Same Thing

When oil and gas supplies are disrupted by war, the immediate human need is for stable, reliable, and affordable energy - not for a faster transition to intermittent electricity from renewables. Solar panels do not generate power at night. Wind turbines stop when the wind does. In a geopolitical crisis, these are not abstract engineering inconveniences; they are life-and-death vulnerabilities for hospitals, airports, military infrastructure, and food supply chains.

True energy security has always meant diversification - across fuels, across technologies, and across supply chains. Stiell's framing, that crisis should accelerate a shift toward a single category of energy technology, is precisely the opposite of sound energy security thinking.