The dramatic surge in energy prices triggered by the Middle East conflict provided advocates of renewable energy with what they described on Monday as the most powerful possible argument for accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels. As gas prices surged 41%, oil hit 14-month highs, and households faced the prospect of higher energy bills, clean energy proponents argued that the current crisis is precisely the kind of geopolitical supply shock that a properly diversified renewable energy system would be immune to.
The core argument is straightforward. Renewable energy sources, including wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric power, are produced domestically from resources that are not subject to geopolitical risk. The wind blowing across the North Sea does not pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Solar panels on rooftops in Germany do not depend on political stability in Qatar. Domestically generated renewable electricity is not vulnerable to drone attacks on overseas energy facilities or to the closure of distant shipping lanes. In short, every unit of energy generated from domestic renewables is one less unit of exposure to the geopolitical risks that are currently driving energy prices sharply higher.
The current crisis also illustrates the cost of delayed transition. The world has known for decades that its dependence on Middle Eastern fossil fuels creates strategic vulnerability. The technology for reducing that dependence through renewable energy has been available and increasingly competitive for years. Yet the pace of transition has been constrained by political resistance, vested interests, infrastructure inertia, and the short-term economics of continuing to use existing fossil fuel assets. Each year of delayed transition has extended the period of vulnerability to exactly the kind of crisis that is now unfolding.
Energy security and climate arguments for the transition, which have sometimes been presented as separate or even competing considerations, converge in the current crisis. Reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels is simultaneously good for energy security and good for climate outcomes. The investment required to accelerate the transition, while significant, is arguably less costly than the economic damage caused by recurring energy price crises of the kind currently underway. Monday’s events provide fresh and powerful evidence for both dimensions of the argument.
Critics of rapid renewable transition argue that intermittent renewable sources cannot provide the reliability and security that fossil fuels offer. This argument has merit but is weakening as battery storage technology improves and grid management systems become more sophisticated. Moreover, the reliability argument for fossil fuels looks much less compelling when those fossil fuels are subject to the kind of sudden and severe supply disruption on display this week. An energy system that is highly reliable under normal conditions but catastrophically vulnerable to geopolitical disruptions is not truly secure, however efficient it may appear in calmer times.