Two things caught my attention last week on the school run.

The first came over the radio: In March, Norway registered a total of…. 22 new petrol cars. In February, that number was 16.

In a way, this was surprising but not unexpected. Norway is widely recognised as the undisputed global leader in electric vehicles, although how we got there is perhaps less well known (including the unlikely role played by 1980s pop band A-ha, as this BBC piece explains).

The second was more difficult to explain: Even before the ceasefire announcement, the price of petrol at our local station had fallen below where it was before the Strait of Hormuz crisis began.

According to the latest data provided by the Norwegian Ministry of Energy, With 1,791 hydropower plants accounting for roughly 88% of electricity production capacity, and a further 11 percent coming from wind, the vast majority of vehicles in Norway run on clean, renewable and domestically produced energy.

And yet, even here, the government still feels the need to shield consumers from high petrol prices.

Not just another energy shock…

According to Fatih Birol, the head of the International Energy Agency, the current disruption triggered by the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is “more serious than the ones in 1973, 1979 and 2022 together”. Around 20 percent of global oil and gas flows through that narrow passage, and the scale of disruption is something “the world has never experienced” before.

The effects are already visible. European oil and gas prices have surged by around 60 percent, raising fears of fuel shortages and another wave of inflation. While advanced economies will feel the pressure, it is developing countries that face the sharpest impacts, through higher energy costs, rising food prices and accelerating inflation.

…but a similar reaction.

Governments have responded in familiar ways. More than 25 countries have cut fuel duties or introduced support measures to shield consumers from rising prices. Several European countries, including Norway, have reduced taxes or called for subsidies and price caps, echoing the response to previous crises.

In response, the European Commission is urging caution, concerned that efforts to cushion the shock could spiral into a fiscal crisis, repeating the pattern seen after 2022, when energy subsidies drove up deficits and inflation. The OECD has gone further, arguing that these measures are not just expensive, but counterproductive, as they blunt incentives to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

This is the trap

When energy systems remain exposed to volatile fossil fuel markets, governments have little choice but to intervene when crises hit. But those interventions come at a cost, not just financially, but strategically. They reinforce the very dependence they are trying to manage.

Funding systemic instability

In 2025, global investment in clean energy, public and private, reached around USD 2.2 trillion, roughly double what was invested in fossil fuels. And yet, at the same time, fossil fuel financing remains stubbornly high. The world’s largest banks channelled around USD 869 billion into fossil fuels in 2024, including hundreds of billions into expanding supply. As OneStop ESG puts it, “Every dollar of new capital directed toward upstream oil and gas expansion or unabated coal capacity is an implicit wager that the IEA's net-zero pathway will not hold.”

Add to this the subsidies that governments give to oil and gas when there isn’t a crisis, which in 2025 were estimated to range from roughly USD 1 trillion in direct subsidies to an astounding USD 7 trillion including indirect subsidies (primarily under-pricing of environmental costs).

Meanwhile, analysis from the UK’s Climate Change Committee finds that reaching net zero by 2050 would cost less to the UK taxpayer than a single fossil fuel crisis, while insulating the economy from future shocks. Or in numbers, reaching net zero would cost the UK £4 billion per year, or about £100 billion to 2050… which in the UK was “roughly equivalent to the energy-related costs of the fossil fuel shocks that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine”.

In other words, we are actively funding systemic instability, and we’re doing so in a way that leaves us exposed to the next shock.

The debate on energy security needs to evolve

For decades, we have thought about energy security in terms of supply. Where does the fuel come from? Who controls it? How do we protect access to it?

But the experience of the past few years suggests a different framing is needed.

Energy security is not just about access to energy. It is about exposure to volatility. And that is where electrification, backed by flexible power systems, changes the equation.

This is where hydropower, including pumped storage, becomes central

A system built on domestic renewable energy, supported by assets that can store and shift energy over time, is fundamentally less exposed to geopolitical shocks. It does not eliminate risk. But it changes its nature.

Wind and solar are also exposed to supply risks through their supply chains, but less so than oil and gas. The main risk they pose to energy security, however, is the instability they introduce to the grid. Fortunately, that is a much more manageable risk than the next geopolitical crisis.

Batteries can help by managing short term fluctuations, but they are not designed to carry systems through prolonged periods of stress. That is the role of long duration storage. That is the role hydropower has been playing for decades.

The challenge now is scale

Along with our sister organisations at the Global Renewables Alliance, we know we need to change how governments think about energy security, and we need to do so urgently. We simply cannot afford not to.

The 2025 World Hydropower Outlook shows we need to invest around USD 130 billion annually in hydropower to achieve global net-zero targets. This is not just about increasing generation, it is about building energy security and managing risks.

The 2027 World Hydropower Congress in Sydney will be an important moment to take stock of that progress, bring that experience together, and accelerate it further, with a clear focus not just on ambition, but on delivery.

Lessons from the school run

Even in one of the most electrified countries in the world, the old system still shapes behaviour, policy and perception. Fortunately, the direction of travel is clear: We can continue to manage volatility, or we can design it out of the system. In a world where energy shocks are becoming the norm, that choice will define who is truly energy secure.