The NGO says European countries missed the chance to back renewables and cut fossil dependence exposed by the Strait of Hormuz’s closure, calling Spain’s action ‘one of the best bets’.
The organisation Greenpeace deplores the 'deep structural incoherence' in the various measures adopted by European Union countries in response to the rise in energy costs driven by the war in Iran, which at the start of the year sparked a sharp surge in prices for oil and gas.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The offensive launched by the United States and Israel against Iran more than 100 days ago triggered an unprecedented energy shock worldwide after Tehran decided to close the Strait of Hormuz. Since then, the constant back-and-forth between Washington and Tehran has only added to the sector's uncertainty.
The rise in fuel prices in Europe remains painfully evident and in Spain it even exceeded 34%. Faced with this situation, the European Union countries rushed to adopt a range of measures to minimise the economic impact of the crisis on their citizens' wallets.
'The methodological analysis carried out by Greenpeace reveals a deep structural incoherence in the response to the energy crisis caused by the war in Iran on the part of the EU countries examined', laments the environmental organisation, which has analysed the response in seven countries of the European bloc -Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Sweden- for its report 'Fossil bail-out or energy transition: Spain and the Strait of Hormuz crisis', published on Thursday.
Greenpeace also laments that this 'unique opportunity' has not been seized to strengthen Europe's drive for clean energy. 'None of the countries analysed has plans that are fully aligned with the transition and, on the contrary, they are allocating more resources to a fossil bail-out.'
Spain, leading Europe's response
According to [data](https://www.bruegel.org/data %28source in Spanish%29set/2026-european-energy-crisis-fiscal-response-tracker) from the Bruegel think tank, European governments have approved support measures worth around 11.8 billion euros with the aim of minimising the impact of the war on energy bills.
In Spain's case, the Council of Ministers approved (source in Spanish) a Royal Decree-Law that sets out a plan worth more than 5 billion euros to cope with rising prices, with measures in force until 30 June 2026. By way of comparison, Germany allocated 1.62 billion euros to ease the crisis; the Netherlands, 970 million; Greece, 800 million; Ireland, 760 million; Portugal, 470 million; and Sweden, 430 million.
The core of the Spanish plan is fiscal. The government of Pedro Sánchez cut VAT on all forms of energy from 21% to 10%, including motor fuels, electricity, natural gas and butane, the price of which has also been frozen at a maximum level.
Although, in its report, Greenpeace concedes that, 'without any doubt', the package of measures adopted by the Spanish government is the 'most comprehensive and best resourced' of all those presented by EU countries, it deplores the indiscriminate nature of its actions 'as opposed to direct income transfers to households or aid for professional sectors'.
'Although the firm commitment to renewables in recent years has protected the country from soaring energy bills and we are better prepared than other countries around us, with 75% of energy consumption still fossil-based and annual imports of around 22 billion euros, Spain remains trapped in volatile, polluting energy sources that harm the economy, people's pockets and the climate', Greenpeace spokesperson Carlos García Paret tells Euronews.
The report acknowledges that Spain has moved faster than other countries in rolling out renewable energy, particularly solar and wind. Nevertheless, Greenpeace warns that in many cases this rollout has taken place without adequate social and territorial planning, generating local conflicts and concentrating benefits in the hands of major industrial players.
The study insists that the energy transition cannot be limited to replacing some sources with others, but must be accompanied by structural market reforms, support for self-consumption, the promotion of local energy communities and a sustained reduction in demand.
Even so, the organisation believes that 'the tendency to incentivise polluting energy sources is a common factor across almost the entire continent'. 'Virtually all countries are fully aligned in applying the three most regressive tools: across-the-board tax cuts on energy and direct subsidies for motor fuels and fertilisers'.
Who foots the bill?
Another of the pillars of the report is energy poverty, a phenomenon that has once again intensified in Spain during the period analysed. The NGO highlights that hundreds of thousands of households have been forced to reduce their basic energy consumption – heating, cooling or lighting – because they are unable to cope with ever higher bills.
'As bodies such as Funcas, the Bank of Spain and the European Commission itself have pointed out, across-the-board tax discounts on gas and motor fuels carry a high fiscal cost – around 2.3 billion euros in Spain's case – and their effectiveness is questionable', García Paret argues. 'These organisations instead recommend focusing on specific solutions targeted at the most vulnerable groups and sectors'.
Although the social electricity voucher and other forms of support have partially mitigated the impact, as the report notes, Greenpeace considers that these tools are insufficient, bureaucratic and poorly targeted, leaving out broad segments of the vulnerable population, such as workers with unstable incomes or families living in rented accommodation.
'Radical solutions are needed to protect people and the economy from fossil-fuel greed, opting for long-term tools such as income protection – especially in rural areas – strengthening public transport, an accelerated and inclusive programme of energy renovation for buildings and support for the farming sector to escape the fertiliser trap', the document states. 'It is also essential to promote smart, inclusive electrification in citizens' hands and to increase taxes on the companies that pollute the most and have benefited most from speculation in recent months'.
