According to a recent report by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), every European Union citizen overpaying for their fossil gas and power sent 150 euros ($175) to the United States per year in 2022.

Fossil Fuel Companies Reap Historic Profits

The world’s oil and gas industry earned a staggering $2.7 trillion in 2023, with just 4 percent of its capital expenditure allocated to clean energy investments.

These crises highlight extreme injustice, as people are paying for fossil fuel use through immediate climate impacts and increasingly frequent price crises, which lead to skipped meals, job losses, and energy rationing.

Conflict Sparks Price Surge and Windfall Gains

The resurgence of fossil fuel company mega-profits is a direct consequence of conflict. In late February. The US and Israel attacked Iran. Sparking regional tensions that have resulted in more than 3,000 Iranian fatalities, including over 150 schoolgirls and teachers.

More than 2,000 Lebanese people have also been killed, along with 23 Israelis and dozens of people across the Gulf region.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is driving up global oil and gas prices; Reports for the first quarter of the year, including the first month of the war, already show windfall profits for energy companies.

British multinational company BP announced earnings of $3.2 billion, surpassing the projected $2.63 billion, as its shares rose 2.5 percent on the day of the announcement.

TotalEnergies reported a 29 percent increase in first-quarter earnings to $5.4 billion; ExxonMobil’s Q1 earnings were lower, but this was attributed to some profits from March sales being reflected in the second-quarter report.

Call for Windfall Tax and Energy Transition

Analysts project a spike in oil prices even if the Strait of Hormuz is opened soon, indicating that these windfall profits are likely to continue.

A recent analysis from Oxfam International estimates that fossil fuel companies are projected to earn $3,000 per second in 2026.

This situation is a natural consequence of a global energy system that depends on the extraction and transport of a critical fuel through vulnerable chokepoints; it is also driven by greed and the profit motive.

Fossil fuel companies have historically worked to keep humanity trapped in this system, including denying climate change and attacking alternatives since the 1980s, but they have also manufactured demand through lobbying and pushing for investment in fossil fuel-dependent industries.

Energy think tank Ember notes that previous fossil fuel crises have failed to free the world from this system, as However, this time, wind, solar, energy storage, and electric vehicles are significantly cheaper than in 2022.

Ember emphasizes that there is no default destiny and warns of the temptation to revert to a familiar playbook—more drilling, more subsidies, and more supply diversification. However, this temptation can be resisted.

Short-term reductions in fossil fuel taxes only transfer more money from ordinary people to the powerful, and these knee-jerk policy responses should be replaced with targeted relief for the most vulnerable.

At a minimum, fossil fuel companies should be subjected to windfall taxes, with the proceeds used to support impoverished households and countries hardest hit by climate change. These funds would act as reparations from high-level polluters to those suffering irreversible damage.

Windfall tax revenues should also be directed toward funding the transition away from fossil fuels to make countries more resilient to energy shocks. Governments should introduce urgent oil demand elimination programs focused on public and active transport, and the incentivization of small cars.

New policies, such as Australia’s daytime cheap solar power scheme, should be implemented to help the most vulnerable citizens.

Hooking humanity on a fuel that becomes more profitable with more conflict and bloodshed is a guaranteed recipe for more suffering in every way imaginable.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.