According to the Energy Information Administration, the Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, carrying roughly 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption and a significant share of liquefied natural gas. Any disruption — temporary or prolonged — has immediate and far-reaching consequences for global energy markets, transportation systems and economic stability. Despite growth in renewable energy, the world remains heavily dependent on oil and natural gas, particularly for transportation and industry.
There is no precise breakdown of how fuels moving through Hormuz are ultimately used, because crude oil and natural gas are traded globally before being refined and consumed. However, global trends are clear. Oil is used primarily for transportation — gasoline, diesel and jet fuel — as well as petrochemical feedstocks for plastics and industrial products. Natural gas is used mainly for power generation and industrial processes, with smaller roles in residential and commercial heating.
In the United States, petroleum consumption is distributed roughly as follows: about 67% for transportation, 28% for industrial uses and only about 5% for residential, commercial and electric power combined. This highlights how deeply modern economies rely on stable oil supplies.
The current conflict involving Iran has already damaged petroleum and gas infrastructure. Reports indicate that more than 30 processing and storage facilities in the region have been affected, with additional damage inside Iran itself. Repairs could take years, further tightening global supply.
Environmental damage is also significant. Oil spills, industrial fires and air pollution from burning fuel have already been reported. These events can leave long-term contamination in soil and water, including heavy metals and toxic compounds. Marine ecosystems — including seagrass beds, mangroves, sea turtles and fisheries — are especially vulnerable. Damage to desalination facilities and coastal infrastructure further threatens human populations that depend on these systems.
The timeline of a Hormuz closure underscores the severity of the situation. In the short term, strategic reserves and rerouting can soften supply disruptions, though price volatility is inevitable. Within weeks, supply constraints intensify, particularly for Asian importers, as alternative routes are limited. Over months, prolonged disruption would trigger global economic instability, sustained high energy prices and significant impacts on transportation and industry. Emergency stock releases can provide temporary relief, but they cannot replace the long-term loss of such a vital supply route.
We are now more than a month into the closure, and the outlook remains uncertain.
So where is the “good news”?
Paradoxically, a reduction in fossil fuel availability may force a long overdue reckoning with global warming and its consequences. Warmer oceans are already producing “atmospheric rivers” — massive airborne flows of water vapor capable of delivering extreme rainfall and flooding at a moment’s notice. At the same time, higher ocean temperatures intensify hurricanes and storm surges, pushing destruction farther inland than ever before. Droughts and heat are fueling larger, more destructive wildfires, while severe storms and tornadoes add to the growing instability.
The result is a more hostile and unpredictable planet Earth. Across the U.S., tens of thousands of homes have been damaged or destroyed by extreme weather in recent years. FEMA’s temporary housing solutions are not designed for long-term recovery, and permanent rebuilding has lagged. Insurance companies, facing mounting losses, are canceling or refusing to renew policies in high-risk areas and banks will not provide traditional mortgages without home insurance. Meanwhile, federal policy has at times encouraged continued fossil fuel use while reducing support for renewable alternatives.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, by constraining fossil fuel supply, may provide the political and economic pressure needed to shift priorities.
To address this growing crisis, the U.S. should create a National Extreme Weather Mitigation and Rebuilding Program, led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The initial step would be to update national flood maps and risk assessments used by FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program. These maps need to reflect current conditions, including increased storm intensity and expanded impervious surfaces that contribute to flooding.
Once high-risk areas are identified, coordinated mitigation measures — including levees, reservoirs, floodways and strategic relocation — can begin in partnership with state and local governments.
The Corps should also take the lead in large-scale rebuilding efforts for homes and infrastructure destroyed by extreme weather. Regional rebuilding centers could be established near disaster zones, utilizing the Corps’ experience in managing complex public works projects and providing storage for materials to prevent shortages and delays. During World War II, they successfully coordinated massive construction projects nationwide, demonstrating its ability to quickly mobilize resources. The Naval Construction Battalions could further support coastal and marine reconstruction.
Labor shortages make this effort even more urgent. Recent disasters in states such as North Carolina, Texas, New York and Kentucky have already strained local construction capacity. A national program to expand training and recruitment in the building trades is essential. Public and private initiatives, such as Harvard’s $500 million program to provide this support, are beginning to address this gap, but far more is needed. Finally, private contractors will be the primary home building and construction entity while the homeowner will decide on the house layout and specifics, but the national program will only provide a fixed amount grant for reimbursement for land, house construction and subdivision infrastructure, such as roads and utilities.
We have successfully undertaken similar national efforts before. Programs under the Clean Water Act and Superfund addressed widespread environmental hazards through coordinated federal, state and local action. A comparable model could be applied to climate resilience and disaster recovery.
Funding such a program would require a partnership approach. The home insurance industry, already responsible for covering damages under existing policies, would be a primary contributor. Federal and state governments would provide additional support through FEMA and related agencies. A third group — industries that contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions — could also play a role, similar to how polluting industries and chemical manufacturing industries were held accountable under Superfund for the chemicals that needed clean-up in society. While complex to implement, this shared responsibility model would quickly provde replacement housing, help stabilize insurance markets and provide a predictable framework for quickly providing recovery costs.
The goal is not only to rebuild what has been lost, but to create a system capable of responding to future disasters more effectively.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is a serious global crisis. But it also offers a moment of clarity. If it compels us to confront our dependence on fossil fuels and invest in resilience, mitigation and rebuilding, then it may yet produce a long-term benefit from a deeply troubling situation.
The question is whether we will act — or continue to react too late.
Dr. Michael Sills was the Chief Engineer of the New Hampshire Environmental Agency for nearly 30 years, overseeing the Super Fund, RCRA Solid Waste and Emergency Spill Response functions of the Agency. He lives in Bedford.