We analysed 37 government responses introduced since 28 February 2026 to the Iran war oil shock. Many risk deepening the fossil fuel dependence that caused the crisis in the first place.

The war on Iran oil shock is exposing fossil fuel vulnerability

This is not just another spike in prices. It is a warning about how vulnerable a fossil fuel-driven economy really is. The International Energy Agency said this war is “creating the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market”, and that is precisely what happens when countries depend on oil and gas. When so much of the global economy depends on a centralised and combustible resource moved through strategic chokepoints, war quickly turns into rising food prices, energy bills, transport costs and wider economic instability.

This is why the crisis is not only about carbon emissions or climate targets. It is about resilience, security and survival. The war has highlighted the inherent vulnerability of fossil fuel-based energy systems, because any disruption to shipping routes or supply chains can ripple across daily life in a matter of days. Governments and policymakers around the world are reacting to the shock, but many of their responses risk reinforcing the very system that made this crisis so damaging in the first place.

What governments should do in an oil price crisis

The most effective response is not to double down on oil and gas. It is to reduce dependence on them. South Korean President Lee Jae-myung put it clearly: “I think this would be a good opportunity to swiftly and extensively transition to renewable energy.”

Countries that generate more of their own energy from wind and solar are less exposed to oil price shocks, disrupted shipping lanes and geopolitical blackmail. The more your government invests in renewable energy, the more secure your country and your pocket will be. That is why renewable energy should be understood not only as a climate solution, but also as a security strategy and a shield against the cost of living crisis.

A good crisis response should do two things at once. It should protect people from immediate hardship, and it should speed up the shift to resilient, renewable-centred energy systems. That means demand reduction, efficiency, support for vulnerable households and faster deployment of clean, decentralised power, rather than new subsidies, tax breaks or infrastructure that prolong fossil fuel dependence.

How governments are responding to the war on Iran energy shock

Since the war began on 28 February 2026, Greenpeace has identified and analysed 37 policies introduced around the world in response to the shock. Some help reduce short-term pain without locking countries further into fossil fuels, some deepen fossil fuel dependence, and others send mixed signals.

A few governments are taking measures that point in a better direction. In the Philippines, public offices moved to a four-day workweek, computers were ordered off during lunch breaks and air conditioning was limited to 24°C, with the stated goal of cutting government energy use by one fifth. Pakistan combined school closures and work-from-home orders with an existing solar boom linked to an estimated US$ 6.3 billion in avoided fossil fuel imports in 2026 at current prices. Vietnam also leaned on work-from-home measures, while its existing solar buildout is estimated to save hundreds of millions of dollars in avoided coal and gas imports this year. In Egypt, the government says it is fast-tracking renewable projects, including the Abydos 2 solar plant and 2.5 GW of new grid-integrated renewable capacity, to reduce costly energy imports and bring down the state’s fuel bill.

Other governments focused on conservation rather than more fossil supply. The IEA is currently tracking these measures globally. Thailand told civil servants to use stairs instead of elevators, reduce air conditioning and wear short-sleeved shirts instead of suits. Denmark’s energy minister urged people to cut back energy use and drive less. At the political level, European Council President António Costa framed the crisis as an argument for accelerating home-grown energy production and the energy transition. In the UK, Business Secretary Peter Kyle said offshore wind and solar should be accelerated to reduce reliance on oil and gas from politically unstable regions.

Why fossil fuel lock-in makes the crisis worse

Too many governments are still responding with policies that keep the fossil fuel system alive. These measures may offer short-term political relief, but they deepen long-term vulnerability.

South Korea imposed a fuel price cap, while also lifting the national cap on coal-fired power generation and considered restarting Russian crude and naphtha imports. Japan capped pump prices and released crude from stockpiles, while Malaysia increased petrol subsidy spending to about US$ 510 million to hold down fuel prices. Brazil cut the federal diesel tax to zero.

This is the contradiction at the heart of many current responses. Governments say they want to shield people from the energy shock, but many are choosing policies that prolong the dependence that caused the shock in the first place.

That exposes a deeper injustice in fossil fuel-dominated systems: billionaires and big corporations profit while people pay the price with their lives, with more extreme weather and with higher bills. Every cent spent on war and fossil fuels is a cent stolen from a fair and green future, and public money should build a liveable planet rather than bankroll destruction. 

Renewable energy is the real solution

Some countries may feel they cannot afford renewable energy in the midst of the current crisis. But that is precisely why clean energy is the solution: it involves lower upfront costs, fewer massive infrastructure investments, and can be deployed much faster.

The alternative is already growing fast. According to IRENA’s Renewable Capacity Statistics 2025, renewables accounted for 92.5% of all new global power additions in 2024, with 585 GW added in a single year. Solar alone added a record 452 GW. In other words, renewables are already the bulk of new power capacity being installed worldwide.

That matters because renewable energy offers more than lower emissions. Decentralised systems based on wind and solar are harder to sabotage, less vulnerable to blockades and shipping disruptions, and better able to keep homes, schools and hospitals running during crises. Real security does not come from pouring more money into militarisation and fossil dependence, but from investing in systems that actually protect people, including clean energy, healthcare and public services.

We need policies that cut fossil fuel dependence and expand renewable-centred energy systems, because that is how communities become more resilient, economies become more stable and the risks of future conflicts are reduced. The best cost-of-living policy for people and the planet is a safe, stable, cost-effective and clean energy system.

Camilo Sánchez is Communications Manager at Greenpeace International, based in Germany. John Noël is Senior Portfolio Manager at Greenpeace International, based in the United States.

Auckland, New Zealand – The world’s largest dairy exporter, New Zealand dairy giant Fonterra has admitted that the packaging on its flagship Anchor-brand butter breached fair trade laws in order to settle a lawsuit brought by Greenpeace Aotearoa in 2024.

The lawsuit alleged that Fonterra misled customers by prominently featuring on its packaging the claim that Anchor butter is ‘100% New Zealand grass-fed’. In reality, Fonterra  allows its cows to eat palm kernel expeller, an imported supplementary feed which has potential links to the destruction of rainforests in Southeast Asia. 

New Zealand is the largest importer of palm kernel expeller, a product of the oil palm industry. The feed has notoriously murky supply chains, and in early 2025, Greenpeace Aotearoa used research from Rainforest Action Network and Nusantara Atlas to link companies selling palm kernel into New Zealand to illegal deforestation in Indonesia’s Rawa Singkil Wildlife reserve. 

Greenpeace Aotearoa Agriculture campaigner Sinéad Deighton-O’Flynn said: “An admission of guilt from New Zealand’s biggest company is a massive win against corporate greenwash everywhere. It’s simple, companies shouldn’t be allowed to mislead customers in order to sell products. 

“Fonterra has admitted that its packaging was likely to mislead consumers. The truth is that its supposed ‘100% New Zealand Grass-Fed’ butter could be linked to the destruction of paradise rainforests in Southeast Asia.

“Fonterra is just the latest in a chain of meat and dairy corporations who have been held to account for their  greenwashing. It’s clear that the writing is on the wall and people are fed up with corporate greed and manipulation.

“If our governments won’t hold these polluters accountable, people will take to the courts and the streets to do so instead.”

ENDS

Notes:

Fonterra is set to finalise the sale of its consumer brands – including Anchor Butter – to French dairy giant Lactalis later this year.

This admission from Fonterra builds on a growing wave of legal accountability for the meat and dairy industry.

In March 2024, the Danish High Court ruled against Danish Crown – Europe’s largest pork producer – in a landmark greenwashing case, finding that its ‘climate-controlled pork’ labels were misleading and lacked independent verification. 

In 2025, Greenpeace Denmark and Sweden filed formal complaints against Arla, Europe’s largest dairy producer, for systematically overstating its climate progress. The complaints, submitted to regulatory bodies in both Denmark and Sweden, allege that Arla misled the public by claiming a 13% reduction in supply chain emissions since 2015.

Documentation suggests nearly half of this reduction resulted from a 2016 change in calculation methodology rather than actual carbon savings. These complaints are currently under formal review by the relevant authorities in both Denmark and Sweden.

Contacts:

Rhiannon Mackie, Press Officer at Greenpeace Aotearoa, +64 27 244 6729, rhiannon.mackie@greenpeace.org 

Joe Evans, Agriculture Global Comms Lead, Greenpeace UK, +44 7890 595387, joe.evans@greenpeace.org

Greenpeace International Press Desk, +31 (0)20 718 2470 (available 24 hours), pressdesk.int@greenpeace.org

Amsterdam — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US filed on 27 March 2026 a motion for a new trial in North Dakota District Court. This demand for justice follows the absurd and flawed US$ 345 million judgment issued by the same court in Energy Transfer’s SLAPP lawsuit against the Greenpeace parties returned on 27 February 2026. Energy Transfer’s back-to-back SLAPP lawsuits are attempts to erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock Movement, punish solidarity with the ongoing resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline, and intimidate environmental activists from speaking out against Big Oil companies.  

In regard to the Greenpeace defendants’ motion for a new trial, Greenpeace International General Counsel Kristin Casper said:

“Our motion for a new trial should be granted to prevent one of the largest miscarriages of justice in North Dakota’s history. We are demanding the court right the wrongs committed at trial and to ensure the rights and freedoms promised under the US constitution are protected.  

“There is no question the Greenpeace defendants were denied a fair trial — even a concise summary of the errors and injustices that marred the trial runs to over 100 pages. Greenpeace will not rest until justice is served and Big Oil can no longer use and abuse the legal system in North Dakota or anywhere else.” 

Among the numerous egregious flaws documented in the motion for a new trial are:

1. The Greenpeace defendants could not receive a fair and impartial trial in Morton County.
2. Seven out of nine jurors that decided the case had clear biases due to fossil fuel industry ties, experiences with the Standing Rock protests, and/or preexisting negative views of the Greenpeace defendants.
3. Despite the fact that thousands of individuals and hundreds of organisations were involved in actions at Standing Rock and speaking out against DAPL, and North Dakota law clearly requiring damages to be split among everyone who contributed to alleged harms, the jury and the court assigned 100% of the claimed damages to the Greenpeace defendants. 
4. The jury’s verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence on each and every count. 
5. The jury verdict was tainted by the inclusion of inadmissible, prejudicial information. 
6. The jury was improperly prevented from hearing relevant, admissible evidence that was favorable to the Greenpeace defendants. 
7. The jury was provided erroneous and incomplete instructions and a flawed verdict form.

The motion can be accessed here. 

ENDS

CONTACTS: 

Greenpeace International Press Desk, +31 (0)20 718 2470 (available 24 hours), pressdesk.int@greenpeace.org

Join the Greenpeace SLAPP Trial WhatsApp Group for our latest updates