What happens when a geopolitical crisis strikes? When wars start over oil reserves, prices spike at the pump and on household bills, and the fragility of a fossil fuel-dependent world becomes impossible to ignore? And you ask ordinary people — not politicians, not lobbyists, not oil executives — what they think should happen next? Well, the general public already has the answers. They understand why these crises keep happening. They understand who profits from them. And they understand what needs to change. Two major crises of 2026, the US seizure of Venezuelan President and the US-Israeli war in Iran, have etched into the public consciousness how fossil fuels drive conflict, inflate bills, and strip communities of stability over their own futures. Crisis one: Venezuela. The moment people connected oil to instability and conflict. The United States’ capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and threats to seize its natural resources in early 2026, and its threats to annex Greenland, uncovered a clear link: fossil fuels make countries and people more vulnerable to military aggression and conflict. Where there is oil and gas, there is instability — wars fought over reserves, and ordinary people left to pay the price in rising bills, broken communities, and lives lost to conflicts they never chose. None of this, it turns out, has been lost on the public. In the immediate aftermath, Secure Energy Project commissioned market research agency Opinium to poll six countries — Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Canada, Germany, and India – on whether the public was drawing the same conclusions. They were: In India, the world’s most populous nation and third largest energy consumer, spending hundreds of billions on fossil fuel imports every year — 72% said India would be safer with more renewable energy, 67% said the transition is more important than ever, and 66% said India should prioritize clean energy over fossil fuel expansion In Brazil, 76% said the transition is more important than ever and 79% said Brazil should prioritise clean energy. In Mexico, where approximately 70% of gas consumption came from US imports in 2025, 72% said oil and gas dependence increases the risk of international conflict, 70% said Mexico would be safer with more renewables. In Colombia, 69% said oil and gas dependence increases the risk of international conflict, 69% said Colombia would be safer with more renewables, and 61% said transitioning to domestic solar and wind would strengthen national security — with majorities holding across every political tradition. In Canada, 67% said oil and gas reliance increases the risk of international conflict, 59% said Canada would be safer with more renewables. In Germany, 72% said fossil fuel dependence increases the risk of international conflict, 57% said it weakens national security, and 58% said Germany should prioritize the energy transition. Across all six countries, across every point on the political spectrum, the same recognition emerged: fossil fuel dependence doesn’t just damage the climate. It fuels aggression, enables coercion, and makes entire nations vulnerable to the whims of the powerful few. Domestic solar and wind, in contrast, don’t come with geopolitical strings attached. They don’t spike when a president gets arrested or a strait gets blockaded. For the first time at this scale, energy security, international political stability and climate action were understood as the same thing. Crisis two: Iran. When people demanded the polluters pay. A few short weeks after, came the war in Iran. Oil and gas prices surged. Bills rose. 350.org’s analysis showed the price spikes could cost ordinary households and businesses up to US$1 trillion by year’s end. While BP posted US$3.2 billion in quarterly profits and TotalEnergies banked US$5.4 billion in the first three months of 2026 alone, families across the world suffered from the costs of a crisis they did not cause. Oxfam’s polling, conducted in April across seven countries, cut straight to the accountability question: while families absorbed war-driven energy price spikes and oil and gas corporations banked record profits, what did people think governments should do about it? The answers, across every country surveyed, were unambiguous. On government investment priorities, the verdict was overwhelming. Brazil and Turkey led the way, with 77% in each country saying their government should invest more in renewable energy rather than expanding fossil fuel extraction. Colombia followed at 72%. France at 64%, the UK at 62%, and the Netherlands at 61%. Even Australia — the country most resistant to the energy transition in the survey — still had 59% favouring renewables over fossil fuels, against only 29% who favoured expansion On corporate accountability, majorities were clear too. The Netherlands led at 75% saying it is wrong for oil and gas corporations to make huge profits without taking responsibility for their climate pollution. France came in at 71%, the UK and Brazil both at 70%, Turkey at 67%, Colombia at 63%. Australia, again, showed the lowest — but still majority support at 57%. On taxing fossil fuel profits, the findings were perhaps the most politically significant — and the most hopeful. France showed the strongest support, with 75% backing increased taxes on oil and gas profits to fund the transition, including 43% who strongly support it. The UK came in at 72%. Turkey at 70%. Colombia and Brazil both at 69%. The Netherlands at 63%. Australia at 60% — the lowest of all seven countries, yet still a clear majority. And here is the detail that should make every government take notice: in six out of seven countries surveyed, there were more far-right respondents who supported taxing oil and gas profits than those who opposed it. This is not a left-wing policy position being imposed on a reluctant public. It is a majority position across the entire political spectrum – in every country, in every tradition, among voters that governments across the world claim to represent. The public has connected the dots: fossil fuels mean conflict. Renewables mean security, stability and lower bills. Together, these findings paint a picture of a public that has worked out what its governments have apparently not. The energy crisis, the geopolitical crisis, and the climate crisis are not three separate problems requiring three separate committees and three separate summits. They are one system – built on fossil fuel dependence, sustained by lobbying and political capture, and extracting its costs from the communities least responsible for any of it. Whether the question was asked in the shadow of Venezuela or Iran, whether framed around national security or corporate accountability, whether put to voters in the Global South or the Global North – the answer is the same. Renewables mean stability. Fossil fuels mean vulnerability. And the corporations that profit from that vulnerability should fund the way out. This is exactly what The Great Power Shift is fighting for. From activists urging taxes on Big Oil’s excess profits in Canada, to communities in Japan pushing back against fossil fuel subsidies, to families in South Africa organizing for free basic electricity, and more – people everywhere are calling for the future their governments have been too slow to deliver. The public mandate documented in these two polls isn’t a starting point. It is confirmation of something already underway. No family should be priced out of heating their home because a war broke out over oil reserves. No government should feel compelled to wage one. Clean, affordable renewable energy ends both problems at once – and the public, across thirteen countries, already understands that. Energy is not a market commodity to be traded and speculated on, nor is it a geopolitical weapon. It is a right. And frankly, it’s time governments caught up with the people they claim to represent. It’s time for the Great Power Shift! JOIN US The post Turns out, ordinary people are smarter than many energy policies appeared first on 350.