More than $100 billion has flowed from consumers and businesses around the world to fossil fuel companies during the first month of the US-Israeli war on Iran, according to new analysis highlighting the economic consequences of energy price spikes tied to the conflict.
Research released Monday by 350.org estimates that rising oil and gas prices have cost global consumers and businesses between $104.2 billion and $111.6 billion since the start of the war. The organization said the figure likely underestimates the total impact because it does not include broader economic ripple effects such as increased fertilizer and food prices, reduced economic output, employment declines, or wider inflation linked to fossil fuel volatility.
According to the analysis, the surge in energy costs represents a significant transfer of wealth from the public to fossil fuel corporations. The report states the more than $100 billion “has been siphoned from ordinary people to oil and gas companies.”
The findings were published as oil prices rose again following a missile attack on Israel by Yemen’s Houthis and after President Donald Trump threatened to “take the oil in Iran,” signaling the possibility of further escalation in a war that has already killed thousands, triggered a severe humanitarian crisis, and destabilized global markets.
Researchers calculated the losses using weighted averages of oil and gas prices over the first month of the war, combined with global consumption data and adjustments for uncertainty, including reduced demand and fuel rationing. Because the analysis focuses only on direct fossil fuel price increases, the total economic damage tied to the conflict is likely significantly higher.
The impacts of rising energy prices are already being felt in multiple regions. Campaigners cited examples including layoffs in Bangladesh’s textile sector, fuel rationing in Kenya, and concerns about recession risks in the United States. The report argues that reliance on fossil fuels amplifies economic instability during geopolitical crises by exposing households and businesses to volatile energy costs.
Anne Jellema, chief executive of 350.org, said the economic consequences are compounding the human toll of the war. “On top of the incalculable suffering of families and communities torn apart by the war, ordinary people around the world are paying an extraordinary price through fossil fuel-driven energy spikes,” Jellema said. “Over $100 billion has gone straight into the pockets of fossil fuel companies, while families struggle to afford energy and basic necessities. The case for windfall taxes has never been clearer.”
Major oil and gas companies are expected to benefit substantially from the price increases. Analysts covering Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil have raised earnings forecasts in response to war-driven market volatility. Industry observers cited by Reuters indicated that companies without significant operational exposure in the Middle East could see particularly strong gains.
“US shale producers and other companies without major operations in the Middle East should gain the most, benefiting from higher prices without costs associated with shut-in production, stranded tankers, or expensive repairs to war-hit facilities,” Reuters reported. The same reporting indicated that executives do not expect the additional profits to significantly change planned capital investment in new production.
The scale of the financial gains has prompted renewed calls for policy measures aimed at redistributing windfall profits generated during the conflict. Earlier this month, Democratic lawmakers introduced legislation that would impose a windfall profit tax on large American oil companies and return the funds to consumers through quarterly rebates.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, the bill’s lead sponsor in the Senate, linked rising fuel costs to the war. “American consumers are once again getting squeezed at the gas pump as President Trump’s war of choice in Iran sends gas prices soaring and money flowing to his Big Oil donors,” Whitehouse said. “We should send any big windfall for Big Oil back to the hardworking people who paid for it at the gas pump.”
The legislation faces significant barriers in a Republican-controlled Congress, which the reporting describes as heavily influenced by fossil fuel industry campaign contributions. As a result, the proposal is widely viewed as unlikely to advance despite growing attention to the financial impact of rising fuel prices.
The report also highlights the scale of resources being redirected toward fossil fuel profits by comparing the losses to potential investments in renewable energy infrastructure. According to the analysis, $111 billion could build enough solar capacity to supply approximately 40 million households in high-consumption countries or around 150 million households in lower-consumption regions.
The figure is also roughly equivalent to current annual international climate finance provided under global climate agreements, illustrating the magnitude of resources linked to war-driven fossil fuel price volatility.
350.org argues that windfall profit taxes could help reduce the burden on households while accelerating investment in energy systems less vulnerable to geopolitical shocks. The organization recommends using revenue from excess profits to support rapid deployment of renewable technologies such as rooftop solar, community solar projects, and electric vehicles.
The report also references upcoming international discussions focused on reducing reliance on fossil fuels. “Next month, governments will gather in Colombia to discuss how to end the era of oil, gas and coal. No more procrastination: our leaders must seize this moment to adopt binding targets to phase out fossil fuels and ramp up investment in a clean, safe energy future for all.”
As the war continues, analysts warn that further escalation could intensify energy price volatility, increasing both corporate profits and consumer costs. The findings underscore how geopolitical conflict can reshape global markets and redistribute economic burdens across households, industries, and national economies.
COMMENTS