Net-zero targets, climate commitments, energy transition, green finance, sustainable development… These empty, conference-style words have given way to older words like oil, straits, tankers, bases, missiles, and energy corridors, coinciding with the Iran-Israel-US conflict. The risk around the Strait of Hormuz has heightened global supply fears and caused a sharp shock in the markets. That's where the whole story hinges. The green transition narrative crashes against the wall of fossil fuel geopolitics at the first serious geopolitical turbulence.
The world has still not established a security architecture without oil. On the contrary, as the energy issue grows, the language of security becomes even more militarized. On the one hand, "climate leadership" is discussed, but on the other hand, when energy supply is threatened, everyone's eyes turn to the same question: Which strait will be closed, which refinery will be hit, which shipments will be disrupted? As clearly seen in Reuters' analysis of March 5th, the impact of the conflict is not only on oil prices; it is also creating a chain reaction of pressure on tanker shipping, gas costs, industrial inputs, and global inflation expectations.
Of course, in this story, the first losers of development are, as always, ordinary people. In other words, the people who pay their electricity bills, feel the increase in transportation costs, see the price changes in the market, whose businesses slow down, whose incomes shrink, who are forced to migrate, and who carry the burden of uncertainty. Development initially appears to be an infrastructure issue on the ground; but the first blow is actually taken by everyday life. The wreckage of grand strategies falls first on the shoulders of ordinary people in the market, in the kitchen, in rent payments, on the way to school, and in hospital queues. The UNDP's statement dated March 3, 2026, clearly states that tensions in the region directly erode peace, development, and the well-being of people.
War only deepens the climate and development crisis. Because war means more fires, more destruction, more reconstruction, more fossil fuel consumption, more military logistics, and more carbon intensity. When an energy infrastructure is hit, the issue ceases to be just about security. The environmental burden also increases. Consequently, the economic burden also increases. When a region is trapped in a war economy, issues such as climate adaptation, water management, resilient cities, and clean energy investment are automatically postponed. Then, people take to the podiums and talk about climate goals. However, the reality is this: War doesn't pause the climate crisis; it accelerates it. The UNDP's "Development at Risk" framework also shows that the link between climate, energy, vulnerability, and conflict is no longer a side issue, but a central one.
No matter how much progress we make, no matter how frequently sustainability rhetoric is uttered, we ultimately return to the same impasse. According to SIPRI data, global military spending reached $2.718 trillion in 2024. The same report states that this represents a 9.4% real increase compared to 2023 and is considered the sharpest annual increase since at least 1988. In other words, it's not just that "spending is high"; it's also that the rate of increase has accelerated extraordinarily. Furthermore, SIPRI states that spending has been increasing uninterrupted for a decade, and that in 2024, the global military burden will rise to 2.5% of world GDP. So it's not that the world is unable to find non-fossil fuels; it's choosing its priorities. Yes, the world is consciously saving money on education, healthcare, climate adaptation, and poverty reduction to allocate resources to war. In short, if the sustainable development goals remain on paper, it's not because the goals themselves are weak, but because war, oil, and weapons are still the main political priorities. Everything else is just a launching, a showpiece.
