The ongoing conflict involving Iran is influencing the development of clean energy, as countries are embracing renewable power and taking steps to use less energy. However, these efforts are not yet sufficient to address climate change. When the U.S. and Israel initiated the conflict in February, some renewable energy advocates suggested it could drive a green transition as oil and gas prices rose. More than 30 governments have implemented policies to move away from fossil fuels or improve energy efficiency. However, global greenhouse gas emissions increased slightly, and investments in clean energy decreased compared to the same period last year. Experts note that while the Iran conflict appears to be helping the adoption of clean energy, the world is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Governments are currently caught between acknowledging the importance of clean power while continuing to support fossil fuel expansion, according to a war studies lecturer at King’s College London. For instance, the United Kingdom has seen an increase in solar installations, but the government is also considering expanding natural gas production. In Asia, Indonesia is replacing some diesel power plants with solar, while also doubling down on coal for heavy industries. Clean investment lost momentum globally, but the story differs importantly by region. Global investment in wind and solar deployment fell in the first half of 2026 compared to the same period last year, after several years of growth, according to Rhodium Group’s Clean Investment Monitor. China accounted for most of the global decline. In the U.S., Europe and India, solar investment grew and wind investment held stable or grew. Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson said it was "just wishful thinking" that the new conflict would boost support for homegrown renewables over imported fossil fuels — unless it turned out to be a sustained conflict. Six months later, Jackson said he did not anticipate oil prices exceeding $90 or $100 a barrel for so long. Thirty-three governments adopted policies to switch from fossil fuels to electricity or improve energy efficiency in response to the Middle East conflict, as of Sept. 9, according to the International Energy Agency. This includes supporting EV adoption, promoting renewable energy, replacing gas boilers with electric heat pumps and retrofitting homes and businesses to use less energy. The Netherlands, Spain and the U.K. are doing everything on that list. China is working to make heavy industry more energy efficient and pushing to electrify heavy vehicles. India and Indonesia are shifting to electric stoves to replace imported liquefied petroleum gas as a cooking fuel. Laos suspended gas and diesel car imports through 2026 to boost EVs. These efforts haven't moved the needle yet. Incentivizing EV purchases or encouraging energy efficiency take time and scale, according to researchers for the Climate TRACE database of emissions. At the same time, many governments are cutting fuel taxes. That provides immediate relief to consumers but disincentivizes switching to EVs. And, the conflict itself will spike emissions. Global greenhouse gas emissions increased 0.2% in the first half of 2026, compared with the first half of 2025, according to Climate TRACE. While emissions from road transportation increased, Climate TRACE found that power sector emissions declined, despite concern that disruptions in oil and gas markets would push countries to use more coal for electricity. Shipping emissions also declined, likely due to the Strait of Hormuz closure. Countries that import fossil fuels are footing higher bills. Those bills would have been even steeper, though, if not for the clean power added since 2020. Fossil fuel importers have paid prices that are $330 billion higher compared to prewar market expectations, making it the largest sustained price shock since the 1990 Gulf War, according to research by 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, the research found. China and Japan saved the most, followed by Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Brazil and India. Governments are trying to insulate themselves from geopolitical volatility and fuel price instability. Europe's politicians feel the most urgency to adopt new energy policies because their fossil fuel production is limited. Too soon to say whether the conflict will be a net gain for renewables or fossil fuels. At this point, the signal would be small and there is a lot of other variation in the system, according to a Princeton climate and international affairs professor. Brookings Institution scholar Samantha Gross said the conflict is changing how people think about transitioning away from fossil fuels — that it’s not just for the climate, it’s an energy security strategy. "That widens the appeal," Gross said. "It brings in not just people concerned about the green side, but people concerned about hard security." President Donald Trump is shifting the U.S. away from renewables. The conflict underscores the risks of his relentless focus on fossil fuels. "The Trump administration has been really focused on fossil fuels, but since they started this conflict, you have to ask the question, is this good for fossil fuels? And in short, I really think not," Gross said. "Because the high prices and the uncertainty brought about by this conflict are helping to push other countries away from fossil fuels."