Anne Jellema is Executive Director of 350.org.
The war on Iran and Lebanon is a deeply unjust and devastating conflict, killing civilians at home, destroying lives, and at the same time sending shockwaves through the global economy. We, at 350.org, have calculated, drawing on price forecasts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Goldman Sachs, just how much that volatility is costing us.
Even under the IMF’s baseline scenario – a de facto “best case” scenario with a near-term end to the war and related supply chain disruptions – oil and gas price spikes are projected to cost households and businesses globally more than $600 billion by the end of the year. Under the IMF’s “adverse scenario”, with prolonged conflict and sustained price pressures, we estimate those additional costs could exceed $1 trillion, even after accounting for reduced demand.
Which is why we urgently need a power shift. Governments are under growing pressure to respond to rising fuel and food costs and deepening energy poverty. And it’s becoming clearer to both voters and elected officials that fossil dependence is not only expensive and risky, but unnecessary.
People who can are voting with their wallets: sales of solar panels and electric vehicles are increasing sharply in many countries. But the working people who have nothing to spare, ironically, are the ones stuck with using oil and gas that is either exorbitantly expensive or simply impossible to get.
Drain on households and economies
In India, street food vendors can’t get cooking gas and in the Philippines, fishermen can’t afford to take their boats to sea. A quarter of British people say that rising energy tariffs will leave them completely unable to pay their bills. This is the moment for a global push to bring abundant and affordable clean energy to all.
In April, we released Out of Pocket, our new research report on how fossil fuels are draining households and economies. We were surprised by the scale of what we found. For decades, governments have reassured people that energy price spikes are unfortunate but unavoidable – the result of distant conflicts, market forces or geopolitical shocks beyond anyone’s control. But the numbers tell a different story.
-
Santa Marta: Ministers grapple with practicalities of fossil fuel phase-out
Around 60 governments that want to make progress on transitioning away from coal, oil and gas are meeting in Colombia to work out how they can do it an equitable way -
Why the transition beyond fossil fuels depends on cities and collective action
Cities will help identify concrete pathways for an equitable shift to clean energy at the Santa Marta conference, with C40 members aiming to halve their fossil fuel use by 2030
What we are living through today is not an energy crisis. It is a fossil fuel crisis. In just the first 50 days of the Middle East conflict, soaring oil and gas prices have siphoned an estimated $158 billion–$166 billion from households and businesses worldwide. That is money extracted directly from people’s pockets and transferred, almost instantly, into fossil fuel company balance sheets. And this figure only captures the immediate impact of price spikes, not the permanent economic drain of fossil dependence. Fossil fuels don’t just cost us once, they cost us over and over again.
First, through our bills. Every time there is a war, an embargo or a supply disruption, fossil fuel prices surge. For ordinary people, this means higher costs for energy, transport and food. Many Global South countries have little or no fiscal space to buffer the shock; instead, workers and families pay the price.
Second, through our taxes. Governments around the world continue to pour vast sums of public money into fossil fuel subsidies. These are often justified as a way to protect the most vulnerable at the petrol pump or in their homes. But in reality, the benefits are overwhelmingly captured by wealthier households and corporations. The poorest 20% receive just a fraction of this support, while public finances are drained.
Third, through climate impacts. New research across more than 24,000 global locations gives a granular account of the true costs of extreme heat, sea level rise and falling agricultural yields. Using this data to update IMF modelling of the social cost of carbon, we found that fossil fuel impacts on health and livelihoods amount to over $9 trillion a year. This is the biggest subsidy of all, because these massive and mounting costs are not charged to Big Oil – they are paid for by governments and households, with the poorest shouldering the lion’s share.
Massive transfer of wealth to fossil fuel industry
Adding up direct subsidies, tax breaks and the unpaid bill for climate damages, the total transfer of wealth from the public to the fossil fuel industry amounts to $12 trillion even in a “normal” year without a global oil shock. That’s more than 50% higher than the IMF has previously estimated, and equivalent to a staggering $23 million a minute.
The fossil fuel industry has become extraordinarily adept at profiting from instability. When conflict drives up prices, companies do not lose, they gain. In the current crisis, oil producers and commodity traders are on track to secure tens of billions of dollars in additional windfall profits, even as households face rising bills and governments struggle to manage the fallout.
Fossil fuel crisis offers chance to speed up energy transition, ministers say
This growing disconnect is impossible to ignore. Investors are advised to buy into fossil fuel firms precisely because of their ability to generate profits in times of crisis. Meanwhile, ordinary people are told to tighten their belts.
In 2026, unlike during the oil shocks of the 1970s, clean energy is no longer a distant alternative. Now, even more than when gas prices spiked due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, renewables are often the cheapest option available. Solar and wind can be deployed quickly, at scale, and without the volatility that defines fossil fuel markets.
How to transition from dirty to clean energy
The solutions are clear. Governments must implement permanent windfall taxes on fossil fuel companies to ensure that extraordinary profits generated during crises are redirected to support households. These revenues can be used to reduce energy bills, invest in public services, and accelerate the rollout of clean energy.
Second, we must shift subsidies away from fossil fuels and towards renewable solutions, particularly those that can be deployed quickly and equitably, such as rooftop and community solar. This is not just about cutting emissions. It is about building a more stable, fair and resilient energy system.
Finally, we need binding plans to phase out fossil fuels altogether, replacing them with homegrown renewable energy that can shield economies from future shocks. Because what the current crisis has made clear is this: as long as we remain dependent on fossil fuels, we remain vulnerable – to conflict, to price volatility and to the escalating impacts of climate change.
The true price of fossil fuels is no longer hidden. It is visible in rising bills, strained public finances and communities pushed to the brink. And it is being paid, every day, by ordinary people around the world.
It’s time for the great power shift.
Full details on the methodology used for this report are available here.
The Great Power Shift is a new campaign by 350.org global campaign to pressure governments to bring down energy bills for good by ending fossil fuel dependence and investing in clean, affordable energy for all
The post What fossil fuels really cost us in a world at war appeared first on Climate Home News.
Climate Change
‘A strong start’: WA’s transition to renewable energy powerhouse aided by Premier’s announcement
PERTH, Tuesday 27 October 2026 — In response to WA Premier Roger Cook’s announcement of a doubled renewable energy target for WA’s main energy system, reported today, the following comments can be attributed to WA Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Geoff Bice:
“A Western Australian renewable energy target of 75% by 2030-31 is a welcome step in the right direction following sustained calls from across the WA community including unions, industry and advocacy groups.
“This common sense policy is a vital roadmap for WA’s shift to affordable and reliable solar and wind backed by batteries, and gives certainty to business and investors in a volatile global environment.
“Clear policy on renewable energy for WA’s main electricity grid will allow the phase out of polluting coal-fired power from the system and begin to remedy our reliance on expensive and polluting gas.
“This commitment is a positive first step for WA’s clean energy future, but the Cook Government must also address the state’s rising climate pollution driven by the gas industry and industrial processing.
“A natural step towards tackling rising emissions is rejecting any new fossil fuel projects, including Woodside’s proposal to drill for gas at Scott Reef.
“Expert advice and analysis compiled by Greenpeace and Springmount Advisory clearly lays out a viable pathway for WA to follow a staged transition away from fossil fuels and unlock almost $1 trillion of economic value by 2060 by replacing gas exports with green exports.
“The renewable energy target is a strong start — it must now be paired with emissions reduction targets to ensure climate pollution from WA starts falling urgently, and a plan for WA to become a renewable energy powerhouse must be prioritised.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Emma Sangalli at emma.sangalli@greenpeace.org or 0431 513 465
‘A strong start’: WA’s transition to renewable energy powerhouse aided by Premier’s announcement
Climate Change
WA EPA warned Woodside of ‘serious, significant and irreversible’ harms to Scott Reef from gas plans, new documents reveal
SYDNEY/PERTH, Tuesday 27 October 2026 — In response to Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority (WA EPA) documents about Woodside’s plans to drill for gas at Scott Reef, as reported today, the following comments can be attributed to Glenn Walker, Head of Nature at Greenpeace Australia Pacific:
“These WA EPA documents show the depth of concern echoed by multiple regulators about Woodside’s plans to drill for oil and gas at Scott Reef, a proposal that flouts legislated nature protection principles.
“The WA EPA appears to have informed Woodside that the Browse project was bound for rejection based on an extensive review process and the opinion of multiple state government departments and independent experts.
“Greenpeace analyses have confirmed this year that Woodside’s gas drilling plans at Scott Reef still risk destroying vulnerable green turtle homes, further endangering pygmy blue whales with atomic bomb-level seismic blasting noise, and unleashing the worst oil spill in Australian history.
“The federal environment department raised similar red flags about oil spill risk from Woodside’s Scott Reef drilling plans in 2025 and 2026 before handing the project’s assessment over to the National Environmental Protection Authority.
“Woodside’s suggested ‘fixes’ in response to grave concerns for the wellbeing of Scott Reef and threatened species have been unilaterally criticised by independent experts for lacking in scientific basis and adequate detail.
“It would be a major backflip for both the WA EPA and the National EPA to now recommend approving this project. It is now critical that these regulators maintain their independence from corporate and political influence and reject this destructive project once and for all.”
-ENDS-
Notes to editor
Greenpeace Technical assessments of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan, the Turtle Management Plan, and an analysis of Woodside’s Browse Oil Spill Modelling and Risk Mitigation Plan
High res images and footage of Scott Reef can be found here
Media contact:
Emma Sangalli at emma.sangalli@greenpeace.org or 0431 513 465
The surprise re-election of Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Sunday, in a tight race against right-wing candidate Flávio Bolsonaro, has raised hopes the country can meet a flagship target to end deforestation in all its biomes by 2030 and advance international fundraising to protect rainforests.
Defying expectations to win an unprecedented fourth term in office, Lula – who turns 81 this week – said in his acceptance speech that “we will show the world how climate policy is handled in this country”, and highlighted that, during his last four years as leader, the country has reduced deforestation every year.
Earlier this month, new data from Brazil’s space agency showed that forest-clearing in the Amazon fell to its lowest on record, after the introduction of a deforestation action plan that constrained illegal cattle ranching from expanding into the world’s largest rainforest.
Brazil leads “encouraging” decline in global rainforest destruction in 2025
At an international level, the country has long championed forest conservation, spearheading the creation of the newly established Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF). As president of last year’s COP30 climate summit, the country is also developing a global roadmap to halt forest loss by the end of the decade, in line with a global goal, which will be presented at the upcoming UN climate summit in Antalya.
‘Much more needs to be done’
In 2023, Lula’s previous administration introduced a deforestation action plan that set a target of zero deforestation by 2030, achieving swift results. His re-election paves the way for this downward trend to continue.
Carlos Nobre, a veteran Brazilian climate scientist and co-chair of the Science Panel for the Amazon, said Brazil now has a “historic opportunity” to prevent a tipping point where large parts of the Amazon rainforest could turn into savanna, with dangerous impacts for the planet’s climate.
“The reduction in deforestation over recent years has been crucial, but much more needs to be done. Ending deforestation by 2030, tackling forest degradation and accelerating large-scale forest restoration are urgent priorities,” he said.
Anders Haug Larsen, advocacy director at the Norway Rainforest Foundation, described the election result as a “relief”, adding it makes it more attractive for donors to support rainforest protection in the country.
“Hope is a scarce commodity these days,” he said. “The international community must grasp this opportunity to strengthen efforts towards zero deforestation in the Amazon.”
Rainforest fund boosted by election result
Brazil was the original proponent of the TFFF, one of the highest-profile initiatives aimed at channelling new finance to protect the world’s rainforests. The fund aims to raise public seed capital to invest in financial markets, and then pay rainforest countries from the returns on those investments.
Despite being a developing country, Brazil has pledged $1 billion to the fund and is expected to play a key role in helping reach its goal to raise $10 billion from governments by the end of this year.
“We need more countries to come on board to meet the mobilisation target of $10 billion this year, and this election should inject trust in the calls from rainforest countries for support to their forest protection efforts,” Larsen said.
Brazil confident new rainforest fund will reach $10bn donor milestone
On Monday, the day after the election result, the Netherlands announced a €500-million contribution to the fund, which will be disbursed over ten years and is still subject to parliamentary approval. This brings the total pledged to the TFFF from a range of countries to $7.8 billion.
Norway’s climate minister Sigrun Aasland told a TFFF event on the sidelines of the UN biodiversity summit in Yerevan that she was hopeful the $10bn goal could be achieved by the end of this year.
Brazilian officials have led the TFFF’s fundraising efforts and said they are in conversations with more potential donors including China, Korea and Japan.
Congress shifts further to the right
Sonia Guajajara, former minister of Indigenous Peoples in Lula’s government, celebrated the president’s re-election but cautioned that the 20 indigenous territories created under his current administration must be consolidated, as they are “essential to tackling the climate crisis and preserving our biomes”.
Veteran Brazilian diplomat Bráulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, meanwhile, noted that Lula faces a difficult political scenario, as right-wing pro-Bolsonaro lawmakers have gained more seats in both legislative chambers. He added that the courts will become key battlegrounds to challenge anti-climate legislation.
Observatório do Clima, a network of Brazilian green groups, said seven out of every ten representatives and senators who will make up the next legislature are likely to vote against the climate and environmental agenda, urging Lula’s administration to strengthen its action in parliament and expand alliances.
Still, Ferreira de Souza Dias echoed the widespread view among climate policy-makers that a Bolsonaro win would have been “terrible” for the rainforest and Indigenous peoples, and said the country had avoided a scenario where deforestation threatened to increase again.
The post Lula’s election win in Brazil raises hopes for zero deforestation drive appeared first on Climate Home News.
Lula’s election win in Brazil raises hopes for zero deforestation drive
