The disruption surrounding the Strait of Hormuz is no longer being treated solely as an oil supply problem. Across much of the world, it has become a test of how quickly governments can reduce consumption, shield consumers from price shocks and accelerate changes that might permanently alter national energy demand.
More than 115 countries have introduced measures in response to the energy consequences of the Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, according to an International Energy Agency official speaking on August 4. The measures range from immediate conservation campaigns and fuel price interventions to longer-term policies involving electrification, efficiency and renewable energy.
The scale of the response reflects the importance of Hormuz to international energy flows. No collection of conservation measures can simply replace the enormous quantities of energy normally transported through the waterway. Yet governments can still influence how severely a supply disruption reaches households, businesses and national economies.
“Demand-side initiatives alone cannot compensate for the massive volume of energy passing through that strait, but they can help mitigate the impact,” Jérôme Bilodeau, head of analysis at the IEA’s Office Energy Efficiency and Inclusive Transitions, told a webinar hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The First Line of Defence Is Lower Consumption
Since the war began, 58 governments have introduced measures intended specifically to reduce energy use, Bilodeau said. Much of that effort has concentrated on oil, particularly consumption associated with everyday transportation.
The measures vary considerably between countries. Some governments are encouraging people to drive less, while others are promoting remote working or studying to reduce commuting. Restrictions on official government travel have also appeared, alongside adjustments to cooling temperature settings intended to lower electricity demand.
Individually, such interventions may appear modest beside the scale of international oil flows. Collectively, however, they illustrate how policymakers are attempting to extract reductions from millions of routine consumption decisions rather than relying exclusively on additional supply.
The second major response has been financial.
According to Bilodeau, 94 governments have adopted some form of price support. These interventions include fuel subsidies, tax relief and price caps designed to prevent rapidly changing energy markets from immediately translating into higher costs for consumers.
Japan and South Korea are among the countries using price caps and subsidies. Bilodeau pointed in part to their financial capacity to sustain such interventions, highlighting an important divide in the global response. Governments may face the same external energy shock, but their ability to absorb its financial consequences differs sharply.
Emergency Measures Are Becoming Structural Policies
Beyond conservation and subsidies, another category of policy suggests that governments are looking further ahead.
Thirty countries have announced structural measures intended to reduce fuel consumption over the longer term. Rather than cushioning the immediate impact of disrupted supplies, these policies seek to change the technologies and infrastructure responsible for energy demand in the first place.
Energy-efficiency programs, electrification and renewable energy incentives feature prominently. Vietnam, for example, has reduced taxes on electric vehicles, while India is encouraging greater adoption of electric stoves.
Recent sales figures indicate that some of these technologies were already gaining ground before the full effects of the current disruption had worked through energy markets.
During the first quarter of 2026, heat pump sales rose 22% in France, 34% in Germany and 20% in Poland compared with the corresponding period of 2025, according to figures presented during the webinar.
Electric vehicle markets recorded even steeper increases. Sales climbed 65% in India and 150% in South Korea, while Southeast Asia registered an 80% increase over the same year-on-year period.
These changes matter because electrification does something emergency subsidies cannot. It can alter the underlying composition of demand. A vehicle that no longer depends on gasoline, or a household appliance that replaces direct fossil-fuel consumption, changes exposure to future disruptions rather than merely reducing the cost of enduring them.
Oil Demand Is Already Moving Lower
The wider market is also showing substantial changes in liquid fuel consumption.
Global liquids demand stood at 99.2 million barrels per day in May 2026, compared with 105.1 million barrels per day in May 2025, according to S&P Global Energy CERA’s August Short-Term Outlook.
By July, demand had reached 102.5 million barrels per day, still considerably below the 107.3 million barrels per day recorded during July 2025.
The policy reaction did not unfold everywhere simultaneously. Asian governments were among the earliest to respond, introducing adjustments in March as the consequences of the war began filtering through energy markets.
Bilodeau described the geographical progression as resembling a wave.
“It was somewhat like a wave or tsunami, starting in India and Southeast Asia, and then spreading to other regions,” he said.
That sequence is hardly surprising. Many Asian economies are deeply exposed to imported energy and therefore particularly sensitive to disruption around one of the world’s most consequential maritime energy corridors. Measures introduced there subsequently appeared in different forms elsewhere as governments confronted similar questions about consumption, affordability and supply security.
The Response Is Expanding Beyond Oil
Oil remains at the centre of most measures tracked by the IEA, but the policy response is not confined to petroleum.
Several governments have also intervened in natural gas markets. Japan, for example, provides subsidies covering electricity and natural gas, while India has imposed limits on industrial natural gas consumption, according to information published by the IEA.
Taken together, the measures reveal three distinct layers of government intervention.
The first attempts to consume less energy immediately. The second uses public finances and regulation to contain prices. The third seeks to reduce dependence on vulnerable fuels through efficiency, electrification and alternative energy sources.
None offers a straightforward substitute for the energy normally transported through the Strait of Hormuz. That is precisely why the breadth of the response is significant. Governments are discovering that an energy chokepoint thousands of kilometres away can reach directly into transport systems, household budgets, industrial operations and national fiscal policy.
More than 115 countries are now responding to the same disruption, but not with a single solution. The emerging picture is instead one of governments pulling every available lever, from thermostat settings and travel restrictions to electric vehicles and heat pumps.
The immediate objective is to withstand an energy shock. The more consequential question is how many of these emergency measures remain after the shock itself has passed.
