In the wake of war in Ukraine and now in response to war in Iran, the fossil fuel industry has deployed a playbook of misleading narratives that push fossil fuels as the key to global energy security and affordability. InfluenceMap’s research indicates that this strategy is more than just an opportunistic reaction to a global energy crisis. In 2021, the fossil fuel industry predicted such a “black swan event upending the global political agenda” in the first half of the decade, and for years, it has acknowledged the likelihood and implications of the geopolitical and economic instability that might accompany a delayed global energy transition.
While the industry's strategy succeeded post-Ukraine, leading to new investments in fossil fuels, world leaders are beginning to recognize that fossil fuel reliance leaves countries vulnerable to future crises. As geopolitical instability plunges the world into the second major energy crisis of the decade, the renewable energy and utility sectors are wresting back control of the energy security narrative, pushing back on decades of fossil fuel industry-driven misconceptions.
Following the outbreak of war, the global oil and gas industry warned of an impending energy security crisis, which could only be averted through new investments in fossil fuels.
While this fits the current geopolitical situation, it also describes 2022. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the global oil and gas industry seized on geopolitical and energy instability and Europe’s bid to become independent of Russian fossil fuels, projecting a need for new investments in fossil fuels to secure alternative oil and gas supplies. For example:
Asia: In May 2023, ahead of the G7 Summit in Japan, global oil and gas sector industry associations, including the Asia Natural Gas and Energy Association (ANGEA) and International Gas Union, sent a joint letter to Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida to advocate for new investments in liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure and emphasize the role of unabated fossil gas, touting fossil gas’ ability to “stabilize volatile global energy markets” and provide “immeasurable security benefits.”
Europe: The European oil and gas industry, led by TotalEnergies, pushed for new LNG investments following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Several key oil and gas industry associations also reinforced industry demands to protect and fuel long-term fossil gas demand by attempting to weaken key EU climate policy. BP, Shell, and Offshore Energies UK advocated for continued investments in the North Sea in July 2022 to the UK Parliament Environmental Audit Committee in written and oral evidence on “Accelerating the Energy Transition and securing energy supplies.”
North America: The US oil and gas industry, led by the American Petroleum Institute (API), cited the war in Ukraine and high gas prices to call for domestic fossil gas expansion and increased LNG exports to Europe and Asia. From February 4 to March 31, 2022, API ran an ad campaign through its astroturf group, Energy Citizens, consisting of 233 individual ads that received roughly 19.6 million views, equivalent to around 10% of all US Facebook users (Q1 2022). All of these ads promoted fossil fuels as a means to achieve “American-made energy” or “energy independence.”
What followed were record-breaking profits for the oil and gas industry and an emboldened presence, publicly backing fossil fuel investments, rolling back operational climate targets, and calling for climate policy ambition to be scaled back.
In the face of global energy instability over the last fifty years, world leaders have introduced policy measures to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels and protect consumers from the impacts of global conflict and volatile energy markets. The fossil fuel industry responded with staunch opposition, pushing to delay and weaken critical policies aimed at reducing demand and transitioning the energy mix.
InfluenceMap’s analysis of the global fossil fuel industry’s advocacy shows that the sector has systematically deployed narratives and arguments to oppose, weaken, and delay the energy transition for decades since 1967, including throughout the 1970s oil crises. In the year leading up to November 2025 (COP30), the industry relied on the narrative that fossil fuels provide energy security and affordability more than any other. That year, references to energy affordability and security nearly doubled compared to the year leading up to November 2024 (COP29), surpassing the use of arguments that emphasize limitations and uncertainties of renewable energy.
InfluenceMap’s research on the International Gas Union exposes the depth and precision of the oil and gas industry’s influencing strategy, which includes a global playbook of regionally specific communication strategies to promote fossil gas. In a 2021 document, IGU predicted and sought to prepare for a “black swan event upending (the) global political agenda” that it predicted would occur in 2022–2025.
In its future scenario planning, the oil and gas industry often acknowledges the likelihood of geopolitical disruption and its impact on the energy transition. In 2008, Shell’s “Scramble” scenario predicted that, in response to external pressures, decision-makers would be driven by the “need to secure energy supply in the near future”, with action to address climate change “pushed into the future.” In Shell’s most recent 2026 Energy Security Scenario report, the “Archipelagos” scenario depicts a world with “intensified” global security concerns and regional conflicts, with a key focus on “securing energy supplies.”
Anticipating energy disruptions and price spikes, the industry increasingly turned to narratives linking fossil fuels to energy security, in an apparent effort to convince policymakers and the public that climate action is incompatible with a reliable, affordable energy supply. To date, this has largely succeeded in undermining an effective climate policy response to global energy shocks that would pose a threat to the industry’s long-term profits.
Despite the industry’s promises that fossil fuel investments would provide energy security and affordability benefits, consumers felt the effects of a cost-of-living crisis driven by rising energy prices long after the war began in 2022, particularly in Europe. A few years later, prices remain high, but the fossil fuel investments touted as necessary and crucial for energy security are sitting idle, underutilized, or even closed early.
Now, global conflict in Iran has reignited oil and gas supply issues, threatening protracted geopolitical and energy instability. The far-reaching impacts of this include:
Asia: Numerous Asian economies rely on oil imports to meet their energy needs. India, significantly hit by the energy supply shock, invoked emergency measures to redirect liquefied petroleum gas from industrial applications to households. Meanwhile, parts of East Asia have already implemented petrol price caps and plans to curb private travel by reducing office working days and rationing petrol.
Europe: The disruption to the global energy supply has driven up energy prices across Europe, with European leaders urging people to work from home and drive less. The EU’s reliance on imports for over 80% of its oil and gas has exposed it to significant global price fluctuations. The UK has also seen its highest fuel prices for over a year, with the average costs of petrol and diesel soaring.
North America: Though the United States and Canada are significant oil and gas exporters, consumers across the region are still exposed to global oil and gas price volatility, leading to higher fuel prices.
Since the start of the war, the oil and gas industry has doubled down on its playbook for responding to energy crises. Across Europe, Asia, and North America, the sector has touted new fossil fuel investments and fossil gas as a solution to energy security and affordability concerns—despite volatile oil and gas supply driving the crisis.
As in 2022, this advocacy is coupled with company-level climate rollbacks. In March 2026, TotalEnergies announced that it will no longer aim to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, citing that the shift away from fossil fuels has been slower than expected. BP has also positioned itself to shift back to oil and gas, emboldened by the replacement of its CEO and cutting back on staff working on zero and low-carbon technologies.
The science has been clear for many years: key expert bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emphasize that a rapid transition to renewable energy is critical to both energy and national security, and that any new investments in fossil fuels put climate objectives, including limiting global warming to 1.5°C, at risk (AR6 WGIII, 2.7, p.267). Around the world, mainstream political and business figures are now acknowledging this, including in response to the latest global energy crisis.
Offering another signal that the tides are turning, other industries are countering long-standing pro-fossil fuel advocacy. InfluenceMap’s December 2025 analysis found that an emerging contingent of industry voices from the renewable energy and utilities sector emphasized the importance of renewable-based electrification and the development of domestic renewables to strengthen the EU’s energy independence.
These voices appear to be growing louder in response to the current crisis as global renewable energy producers and utilities reject fossil fuel industry-fueled misconceptions and highlight the role of electrification in energy stability and affordability.
Consumers around the world are once again bearing the brunt of high energy and fuel prices—triggered by geopolitical instability but borne of a reliance on fossil fuels. It is already clear that the fossil fuel industry will try to capitalize on this moment to push for new fossil fuel investments and lock in reliance. Clear, science-based communications and decision-making by global leaders in industry, finance, and policymaking are essential to avoid repeating past mistakes and accelerate the transition to cleaner, more secure renewable energy sources.
