Oil prices are around $110 per barrel, with some forecasts predicting they could climb to $150. Food prices are also rising and are expected to surge further due to fertilizer shortages, prompting the World Food Programme USA to warn that global food insecurity could hit record levels, pushing 45 million more people into acute hunger. Industries from steel to chemicals have warned markets of shortages and skyrocketing costs, while households worldwide are feeling the squeeze—people are being advised to lower their thermostats, take the bus or bike, and reduce their speed on highways.
The impact of the U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran—the third global shock in six years, following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the COVID-19 pandemic—has highlighted how dependent our economies remain on fossil fuels. In March, UN climate chief Simon Stiell stated, “Fossil fuel dependency is stripping away national security and sovereignty, replacing it with subservience and rising costs.”
Over the past year, the Guardian has analyzed the ten countries most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. They broadly fall into two camps: those committed to fossil fuels and determined to extract every last drop, and those pursuing a low-carbon future to break free from oil dependence and avert climate catastrophe. These groups represent the forefront of a global realignment: the electrostates of the future versus the petrostates of the past.
“We are at the dawn of the electrostates versus petrostates, and electricity is the holy grail right now for everyone,” said former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in an interview with the Guardian. “The future lies in harnessing the power of electrons, directing them where needed, and using them when and where required.”
The conflict with Iran has sharpened this divide, revealing which of the top ten emitters are likely to emerge stronger from the crisis. Global trends were already favoring renewables: last year, low-carbon electricity generation surpassed coal for the first time. Investment in clean energy now exceeds that in fossil fuels by two to one. Coal-fired power generation declined in China and India for the first time since the 1970s.
However, the wars in Iran and Ukraine have also exposed a sobering reality. Many of the world’s most powerful countries and largest emitters benefit from high fossil fuel prices. The U.S. oil and gas sector is poised for a $60 billion windfall from the conflict; soaring commodity prices have been a lifeline for Russia, whose economy was struggling under the strain of the war in Ukraine but has now seen some sanctions lifted; Saudi Arabia, despite being hit by Iranian missiles and forced to shut its largest refinery, has seen its national oil company Aramco’s share price surge, with its easily accessible reserves yielding bumper returns. Iran’s oil revenues have increased, even as attacks on its infrastructure have caused toxic acid rain to pour down on its people.
High prices empower petrostates, generating windfalls they can reinvest in expanding hydrocarbon extraction.
China, the world’s largest emitter and second-largest economy, is leading the charge toward an electrified future. The country’s emissions have been flat or declining for nearly two years—and while China has followed similar patterns in the past before surging back with a coal spree, analysts say this time is different. Renewables are growing at record rates, not just for domestic use but for export—green technology, including electric vehicles, batteries, and wind and solar components, now accounts for over a tenth of China’s export business, and a similar proportion of its overall economy.China is leading the global shift toward an electrified future. Wind turbines and solar farms, like those near Weifang in Shandong province, are becoming a common sight.
Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute, notes, “This emissions pattern is hopefully a decline that will be maintained. There is no interest group in China advocating for a swing back to coal, which gives us confidence that the trend is sustained and structural.”
The country’s clean energy expansion has been remarkable. China added 360 gigawatts of new solar and wind capacity in 2024 and 430 gigawatts in 2025. According to Carbon Brief, clean energy accounted for a third of China’s GDP growth last year. Investments in this sector exceeded $1 trillion, nearly four times the $260 billion spent on fossil fuel extraction and coal power.
Li suggests the next key step is to see if China moves away from its current “hand-in-hand” strategy of using coal alongside renewables as battery manufacturing scales up. “Batteries may be able to meaningfully replace coal in China’s power system,” he said. “I think we will see more batteries and less coal.”
Meanwhile, India, the world’s most populous nation and fourth-largest economy, is also making significant strides. In a move that surprised many observers, India released a new national climate plan at the end of March. Under the Paris Agreement, this plan—known as a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC)—sets a target of generating 60% of electricity from low-carbon sources by 2035 and cutting emissions per unit of GDP by 47%.
These targets are considered achievable. India’s renewable energy sector is growing rapidly, adding a record 45 gigawatts of capacity last year—nearly double the previous amount. The Climate Action Tracker forecasts that the 60% target will be met five years early, by 2030. Still, the NDC represents an important step for a country that celebrated its billionth tonne of coal production last year and has sometimes played a disruptive role in international climate talks.
Arunabha Ghosh, CEO of the Council on Energy, Environment and Water think tank, said, “At a time when conflict and energy security concerns are pulling countries away from climate commitments, India’s new NDC sends an important signal. It suggests that India is internalizing the idea of a ‘green economy,’ where climate action is embedded within the country’s broader development and economic strategy.”
However, the transition away from coal in India will not be immediate. Zerin Osho, president of the Gateway Research Institute, explains, “India’s transition is likely to be more of a hybrid developmental path than a leapfrog. The government has a clear stance that traditional fossil fuels like coal will remain important for energy security as the economy grows, particularly in the near to medium term. India is not treating this as an either-or choice.”
Globally, the lines between high-emitting countries are blurring. No nation pursuing a clean energy future can claim complete purity. Germany, for example, was an early pioneer in solar and wind power but maintains an attachment to natural gas, is scaling back some low-carbon heating reforms, and some of its automakers are retreating from electric vehicle commitments. Japan has also fallen short, maintaining a low profile in climate negotiations and putting forward an NDC that analysts found to be grossly inadequate.
Many countries are being pulled in two directions. At the COP26 summit in 2021, Indonesia enthusiastically embraced plans to become a leader in the clean energy transition.Indonesia was one of the first examples of a “just transition”—a shift from fossil fuels to clean energy that aims to preserve jobs, retrain workers, and support vulnerable communities. In 2021, rich countries and private investors pledged $20 billion to help Indonesia shut down parts of its massive coal sector. As the world’s third-largest coal producer, Indonesia relies on coal for most of its power, producing over 800 million tonnes from about 160 mines in 2024.
However, the “just transition energy partnership” soon faced difficulties. Efforts to close coal plants stalled due to strong vested interests. The government allowed a resurgence in mining as coal prices rose, and investment in clean energy jobs got bogged down in bureaucracy.
These challenges can be overcome. There are signs Indonesia’s government wants to revive some efforts, even though the U.S. has withdrawn and the promised funds are slow to arrive. But rampant deforestation may be harder to solve. Indonesia pledged to halt deforestation by 2030, yet last year it launched the world’s largest logging project to clear an area the size of Belgium for sugarcane and ethanol.
Iran presents another complex case. Last year, the Guardian reported on a climate-driven water crisis nearing a “day zero” when supplies would run dry. Few could have predicted that war would soon plunge the country into chaos, threatening desalination plants and targeting oil installations. As Iran rebuilds its economy, it may focus even more on fossil fuels. Some observers believe Donald Trump might try to strike a deal on Iranian oil.
Amid the devastation, there could be a small silver lining. Even before recent attacks, Iran had some of the world’s worst fossil fuel infrastructure, losing an estimated 40% of its natural gas—methane—to leaks and flaring. Methane is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide, making these leaks especially harmful. If Iran’s infrastructure were rebuilt to higher standards, it could significantly reduce its status as a top “super-emitter” of methane.
Among the top 10 emitters, the U.S. under Trump stands out as the most paradoxical. Emissions had been falling until last year. In March 2025, low-carbon sources made up more than half of U.S. electricity generation for the first time. The green economy boomed after Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which provided tax breaks, incentives, grants, and loans. Two years later, business and consumer investment in the green economy reached nearly $500 billion, with clean tech accounting for over half of all U.S. private investment growth.
But Trump has spent the past year trying to dismantle these gains, boost oil and gas, and revive the struggling coal industry. Ideology sometimes seems to override economics: last month, his administration agreed to pay France’s TotalEnergies $1 billion to halt two offshore wind farms, with the money redirected to oil and gas projects.
“Trump is conducting a political and economic culture war against all forms of climate protection, domestic and international,” says Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House adviser. While states like California now generate two-thirds of their electricity from low-carbon sources, their efforts alone won’t be enough to counter this broader backlash.A former White House climate adviser now at American University warns that leaders like Trump and Putin are endangering global security for short-term political gain, calling Trump’s climate stance “the equivalent of declaring war on most of the world’s population.”
While many U.S. states and businesses continue to invest in clean energy—with California generating two-thirds of its electricity from low-carbon sources and Texas relying heavily on wind and solar at peak times—these efforts may not be enough to counter a potential return to fossil fuels under a Trump administration. Meaningful climate protection, he argues, will require defeating the “Maga” movement nationally to prevent further climate disasters.
Russia shows even less climate commitment. As the world’s third-largest oil and gas producer, it has weaponized energy in the war against Ukraine and shows no interest in climate action, despite being a Paris Agreement signatory. Making matters worse, Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure leaks large amounts of methane with little effort to reduce emissions. Only about a third of its electricity comes from low-carbon sources, mostly aging nuclear plants, while wind and solar account for less than 1%.
To pressure such recalcitrant countries, the most effective strategy may be to cut demand for their fossil fuels. However, time is short, and many petrostates are not democracies, limiting options for civic or voter pressure.
The ten largest emitters produce about two-thirds of global carbon emissions, and many also export fossil fuels, driving emissions even higher. A few, like Saudi Arabia, are investing in domestic renewable energy but have no plans to reduce oil exports.
An alternative approach focuses on methane—a potent greenhouse gas. Rapid methane reductions could lower global temperatures by 0.3°C by the 2040s. Satellites can pinpoint major methane sources, such as coal mines, landfills, and leaking oil and gas infrastructure, enabling targeted action. While market incentives can encourage oil and gas companies to capture methane for resale, curbing emissions from abandoned coal mines will require stronger government intervention, as these have become a significant global methane source.The International Energy Agency highlighted this last year. Zaelke notes: “Since reducing methane is the only way to slow warming in the near term, a mandatory methane agreement is inevitable—starting with a willing coalition and eventually extending worldwide. The real question is timing. Will it happen soon enough to prevent the worst outcomes?”
Another clear insight from looking at the world’s top emitters is that leaving the green transition entirely to the free market won’t work, even with falling renewable energy prices and rising private green investment. Jayati Ghosh, an Indian development economist and professor at the University of Massachusetts, explains: “No green transition has ever happened—or can happen—without government action. China’s example is obvious, but even for other countries, effective progress requires, first, electrifying transport as much as possible. That means ensuring access to electric vehicles, whether through domestic production or imports, along with initial subsidies for producers and consumers to encourage the shift. It also means building the necessary infrastructure, like charging points, and making sure the electricity comes increasingly from renewable sources.”
The war in Iran may end in days, weeks, or months, but its long-term effects will influence our global future. The ten largest emitters produce about two-thirds of the world’s annual carbon emissions, and many of them—including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the U.S., and Indonesia—are also major fossil fuel exporters, driving global emissions even higher. These nations hold the world’s future in their hands. Whether we move decisively toward a low-carbon path or fall deeper into oil dependency will largely depend on the choices these countries make after the war.
Regardless of the war’s outcome, one thing is certain: the current crisis is only a temporary shock. A far greater crisis is approaching—one that will redefine the cost of living and economic downturns. If global temperatures rise 2°C above pre-industrial levels, which could happen in less than two decades at the current rate, the economic damage from climate breakdown would be like facing a new oil war every single year.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about the topic framed as questions a real person might ask with clear and direct answers
Beginner Definition Questions
1 What does this headline even mean
It means that when geopolitical conflicts disrupt global oil and gas supplies it drives up energy prices The companies and countries that produce the most fossil fuels earn massive profits from these higher prices even though their product is the main driver of climate change
2 Who are the largest polluters being talked about here
This primarily refers to the worlds biggest oil and gas companies and major fossilfuel exporting nations
3 How does a conflict in Iran affect global fuel prices
Iran is a major oil producer Any conflict in the region risks disrupting shipping lanes or directly impacting production Markets fear shortages so the price of oiland subsequently gasoline and natural gasgoes up globally
4 Isnt high gas price bad for oil companies
No not typically While high prices hurt consumers they are extremely profitable for the companies that extract and sell the oil Their revenue and profits soar when the price per barrel is high
Advanced Impact Questions
5 How exactly are they benefiting the most Can you give an example
Yes Following the Ukraine war and Middle East tensions companies like ExxonMobil Shell and Chevron reported record or nearrecord annual profits In 2022 the combined profits of the largest oil and gas companies exceeded 200 billion They used these windfalls largely for shareholder payouts rather than major investments in renewable energy
6 Doesnt this profit incentive work against climate goals
Absolutely Massive profits from fossil fuels during crises reinforce the economic and political power of the industry making it harder for societies to transition to cleaner energy It provides less incentive for them to change their core business model
7 Whats the connection between this and the energy transition to renewables
This situation highlights a painful contradiction it shows the urgent
