Lessons on Energy Security after the Hormuz Crisis: Why Accelerating the Clean Energy Transition Builds Resilience Against Future Price Shocks

The 2026 briefing from the Energy Transitions Commission examines the energy shock triggered by the Hormuz crisis and what it reveals about the world’s current energy security. The crisis disrupted around 20% of global oil supply and 20% of global LNG trade, while also affecting a significant share of global fertiliser trade. The scale of the disruption exposed a fundamental weakness in today’s energy system: despite years of diversification efforts, the global economy still depends heavily on fossil fuels that must pass through a small number of strategically vulnerable shipping routes and chokepoints.

The crisis showed that energy security is not simply about having access to enough fuel. It is also about how exposed the entire energy system is to geopolitical instability, shipping disruptions, conflict, and sudden price movements. When large volumes of oil and gas are concentrated along narrow transport corridors, a crisis in one region can quickly ripple through global markets. Prices can rise, supply chains can become strained, and countries that rely heavily on imported fossil fuels can face immediate economic pressure. This vulnerability is especially serious when the same chokepoints also carry other essential commodities, including fertilisers that are critical for agricultural production and food security.

One of the most important lessons from the briefing is that clean energy systems are structurally more resilient to this kind of shock. Solar and wind power, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and energy-efficiency technologies rely much less on continuous fuel supply from distant regions. A large share of their costs is paid upfront through investment in equipment, infrastructure, and installation. Once those systems are operating, their ongoing exposure to international fuel-price volatility is much lower than that of fossil-fuel-based systems.

This distinction matters because fossil energy is inherently tied to repeated fuel purchases. Oil, gas, and coal must continuously be extracted, transported, traded, and delivered. Every stage introduces exposure to commodity markets, geopolitical tension, transport bottlenecks, and exchange-rate movements. In contrast, a wind turbine or solar installation does not need to buy imported fuel every day in order to generate electricity. The economic risk profile is therefore fundamentally different.

The Hormuz crisis also demonstrated how quickly market behaviour can change when consumers and businesses experience energy insecurity directly. According to the briefing, markets are already responding by increasing demand for clean technologies. This is an important signal. When energy prices become volatile or supply feels uncertain, technologies that reduce dependence on imported fuel become more attractive not only for environmental reasons, but also for economic and strategic ones.

That is why the policy response matters so much. A short-term crisis can push governments in two very different directions. One response is to invest heavily in new fossil fuel infrastructure in an attempt to reduce immediate supply risks. The other is to use the crisis as a catalyst to accelerate the transition toward a more diversified, electrified, and domestically powered energy system.

The Energy Transitions Commission argues that the second approach is the stronger long-term strategy. Locking in additional fossil fuel infrastructure may address one source of vulnerability while reinforcing another. New oil and gas infrastructure can require decades of operation to recover its investment, potentially extending dependence on volatile fuel markets well into the future.

By contrast, accelerating investment in renewables, electrification, storage, efficiency, and clean technologies can reduce exposure to future fossil fuel price shocks. It also strengthens resilience by shifting the energy system away from continuous dependence on internationally traded fuels and toward infrastructure that can operate with far lower marginal fuel costs.

This does not mean that clean energy systems are risk-free. They still depend on supply chains for minerals, equipment, manufacturing, grids, and storage technologies. But the nature of the risk is different. Many clean-energy investments are capital-intensive at the beginning, while fossil fuel systems remain exposed to recurring commodity purchases throughout their operating life.

That difference becomes especially important during periods of geopolitical disruption.

The briefing therefore reframes the energy transition as more than a climate agenda. It is also an energy security strategy.

A faster transition can reduce the amount of oil and gas that economies must import, lower exposure to global fuel-price volatility, and provide more predictable long-term energy costs. Electric vehicles reduce dependence on petrol and diesel. Heat pumps reduce reliance on gas for heating. Energy efficiency reduces total demand. Solar and wind can increase domestic electricity production. Storage and stronger grids can improve the flexibility and reliability of power systems.

Together, these technologies create a different kind of resilience.

The Hormuz crisis also highlights the importance of thinking about energy security in system terms. A country can have access to fuel today and still remain highly vulnerable if that fuel comes through a small number of external routes. True resilience comes from diversification: more domestic clean generation, stronger grids, improved storage, reduced demand, broader electrification, and lower dependence on imported fossil fuels.

Another major implication is investment. The transition to net zero still requires substantial additional capital worldwide. The briefing argues that accelerating clean energy investment does not only help close this investment gap; it also provides protection against future price shocks.

This changes the way clean energy spending should be understood. Investments in renewable power, grid infrastructure, electric transport, energy efficiency, and heat electrification are not only expenditures aimed at reducing emissions. They are also investments in economic stability and national resilience.

A solar farm, for example, is not just a climate project. It also reduces exposure to imported fuel.

An electric vehicle is not just a lower-emission technology. It also reduces dependence on oil markets.

A well-insulated building is not just more efficient. It also becomes less vulnerable to spikes in heating costs.

A stronger transmission grid is not just infrastructure. It allows a country to use a wider range of domestic energy resources.

Seen this way, climate policy and energy security policy increasingly point in the same direction.

The central lesson from the Hormuz crisis is therefore not simply that the world needs more energy supply. It is that the world needs a different kind of energy system.

One that depends less on fuels that must continuously pass through vulnerable geopolitical chokepoints.

One that is more electrified, more efficient, more diversified, and increasingly powered by domestic renewable resources.

The most important response to an energy shock is not necessarily to reproduce the system that created the vulnerability in the first place.

It is to build a system that is less vulnerable next time.

The Hormuz crisis is therefore not only a warning about the fragility of fossil fuel supply chains. It is also a reminder that accelerating the clean energy transition can strengthen energy security, reduce future exposure to price shocks, and help close the investment gap required for net zero.

Source: Energy Transitions Commission briefing, 2026
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:7509699295495815168/