UK broadcast coverage mentioned fossil fuels more often as a crisis response, but in-depth segments gave renewables nearly equal attention.

by Rosie Frost (Journalism Insights Analyst), Alina Sandauer (Content Analyst) & Dr Lissa O’Reilly (Content Analyst)

22 April 2026

UK broadcast coverage of the Iran war more often framed fossil fuels as a response to the energy crisis than renewables. However, in longer segments the two received broadly comparable attention, analysis by Climate News Tracker finds.

The escalation of the Iran war on 28 February 2026 destabilised global energy markets, prompting a national debate over the UK’s energy sources.

Following our preliminary results, this analysis looks deeper at how the BBC, Channel 4, Channel 5, ITV and Sky explored the role of fossil fuels and renewables in the energy security debate.

The analysis draws on a manual review of programmes mentioning the Iran war alongside fossil fuels or renewables, assessing how each was discussed and in what depth.

The findings suggest that while in-depth segments often presented balanced debate, the broader news environment remained anchored in traditional fuel narratives, placing the green transition on the defensive.

Key Findings

• In in-depth segments, fossil fuels and renewables received similar attention, featuring in 26 and 25 programmes respectively.
• Fossil fuels were more frequently framed as a response overall, appearing alone in 44% of programmes compared with 24% for renewables.
• Net zero coverage was more than twice as likely to be negative as positive, driven largely by Conservative and Reform UK voices.

The Iran conflict generated immediate and sustained coverage of a potential energy crisis across broadcast media, with both fossil fuels and renewables discussed as possible responses.

Of the programmes covering the Iran war alongside fossil fuels or renewables, 94 discussed their role in the energy crisis. Fossil fuels alone were presented as a solution in 44% of these programmes, compared with 24% for renewables, while 32% mentioned both.

A closer look at the depth of coverage shows a more balanced picture. Fossil fuels were discussed substantively as a solution in 26 programmes and renewables in 25. This highlights a gap between the prominence of fossil fuels in overall coverage and the more balanced treatment of solutions in longer segments.

Week One: Spring Statement and Trump’s intervention

In the first week, coverage was shaped by the immediate price shock following the escalation in Iran, with oil prices climbing towards $85 a barrel.

On 3 March, coverage focused heavily on the Spring Statement and Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts, with programmes examining how Chancellor Rachel Reeves would respond to rising energy costs.

BBC Radio 4’s The World Tonight that evening marked the first instance of North Sea drilling being presented as a strategic option. This was framed through Donald Trump’s criticism of UK energy policy and his call to “open up” the North Sea.

The programme presented contrasting perspectives. Former Scottish energy minister Fergus Ewing argued for increased domestic production, while Bloomberg’s Rachel Morrison challenged this, noting that UK reserves are limited and would not end reliance on imports. She pointed instead to offshore wind as a more accessible resource.

This early coverage established fossil fuels as the default short-term response, with renewables appearing primarily as a counterpoint.

Week Two: Oil reserves and net zero backing

In the second week, the debate over renewables versus fossil fuels was temporarily overshadowed by the largest coordinated release of emergency oil reserves in history.

As G7 crisis talks began on 9 March, the coverage across The World at One and BBC News at Ten focused on existing fossil fuel infrastructure as an immediate safety net. By 11 March, dominated bulletins across all major broadcasters. 5 News at 5, BBC News at Six, BBC News at Ten, Channel 4 News, ITV Evening News, ITV News at Ten, The World at One and The World Tonight all led with the 32-nation agreement as a way of combating price volatility.

On that same day, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) endorsed the government’s net zero strategy. This received in-depth coverage only on The World Tonight, where Energy Security and Net Zero Committee chair Bill Esteson argued that the estimated £4bn annual cost of the transition was significantly lower than the costs seen during the Ukraine-related gas crisis.

Coverage reinforced the role of fossil fuel infrastructure as a short-term stabiliser, with limited integration of net zero messaging.

Week Three: A Political Split on North Sea Drilling

By the third week, domestic political conflict became the dominant driver of coverage. North Sea drilling emerged as the central policy debate, strongly promoted by Conservative and Reform UK politicians.

On 14 March, a newspaper review on the Today programme discussed a Daily Express story on Reform UK MP Robert Jenrick, urging Keir Starmer to “lift the ban on new drilling licenses in the North Sea to improve energy security” and “bring down our bills”.

This narrative peaked during Newsnight on 17 March, where Jenrick argued that the UK had made a “huge mistake” by pursuing what he described as an “extreme” net zero policy.

Arguments in favour of renewables were typically more complex. On 18 March, BBC Radio 4’s PM featured Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit analyst Jess Ralston, who offered a detailed rebuttal to the drilling case by arguing that new North Sea output would have little impact on global prices.

However, these evidence-led arguments struggled to compete with more direct political messaging in favour of drilling, which appeared across multiple programmes. These included appearances by Conservative MP Kevin Hollinrake and Unite General Secretary Sharon Graham on BBC Breakfast and Sky’s Mornings with… on 19 March.

Chris Bryant, Minister of State at the Department for Business and Trade, presented the opposing perspective on both BBC Breakfast and Sky’s Mornings with…, but his mentions of renewables were no more than passing references.

Political framing drove the debate, with pro-drilling arguments gaining traction through simpler, more immediate narratives than renewables.

Week Four: Future Homes Standard and rising  solar demand

By the fourth week, the energy crisis had become a central political dividing line.

The government’s announcement of the Future Homes Standard on 24 March,  including expanded use of solar panels and heat pumps, was framed as a “homegrown” response to global energy shocks.

Energy minister Michael Shanks appeared across multiple programmes to position the transition away from gas as a matter of national security. These included BBC Breakfast, Good Morning Britain, Mornings with…, and Today.

The end of the week saw broadcasters highlighting how the nation was divided on how to respond to the energy crisis.

On 26 March, BBC Radio 4’s Today reported a surge in demand for low-carbon technologies, with Octopus Energy CEO Greg Jackson citing increased sales of solar panels, heat pumps and electric vehicle chargers.

A newspaper review during Sky’s Mornings with… on 28 March cited a poll in the i paper which claimed that 50% of the public still supported North Sea drilling as a solution to the crisis. This was challenged by political journalist Zoë Grünewald, who argued that North Sea drilling is a populist answer that won’t work, not an immediate fix.

Renewables became more visible as part of the response, but coverage remained divided and politically contested.

Missed Opportunities

Several key moments were not fully connected to the broader energy transition debate.

• 11 March: The CCC’s finding that net zero is more cost-effective than fossil fuel volatility received limited coverage beyond a single Radio 4 programme.
• 23 March: The WMO’s State of the Global Climate 2025 report warned of accelerating climate change but was not meaningfully linked to the Iran-driven energy crisis.

Even when claims that increased drilling could reduce energy bills were challenged, alternative solutions such as renewables were rarely explored in detail.

Similarly, coverage noting that some countries were less affected by rising oil prices did not examine the structural reasons behind these differences.

Politicians dominate energy debate

Across programmes discussing fossil fuels or renewables, politicians appeared 165 times, more than any other group.

These are not unique individuals, and a person appearing on multiple programmes counts multiple times in this total. They were the most commonly included external voices, followed by business people who were featured 73 times and then people impacted by the crisis who were included in coverage 68 times.

When renewables were discussed, politicians accounted for 60% of external voices. Of these, 78% were linked to the Labour Party and 6% to the Conservative Party.

Business voices made up 18% of discussions about renewables.

In fossil fuel discussions, politicians accounted for 29% of appearances. 58% were from the Labour Party, 18% from the Conservative Party and 6% were from Reform UK.

Members of the public affected by rising energy costs accounted for 16%.

This suggests that discussions of both fossil fuels and renewables were heavily shaped by political voices rather than technical or expert analysis.

Net Zero in the crossfire

Coverage of net zero during the period was predominantly negative and highly politicised.

Negative portrayals outnumbered positive ones by more than two to one, with 15 programs presenting net zero as a burden or constraint, compared to just seven that presented it as a solution.

This critical tone was driven by a sharp partisan divide. Conservative and Reform UK voices accounted for 86% of all negative coverage and did not offer positive or neutral perspectives.

Labour’s messaging was more mixed, contributing both positive and negative framing. The party provided 57% of positive mentions, and accounted for 13% of negative and 14% of neutral perspectives.

Seven further mentions were neutral, typically involving presenters framing the debate without taking a side, or speakers who acknowledged net zero as a legitimate goal while questioning some element of its implementation.

When was climate change mentioned?

Climate change was rarely linked to the crisis.

Just 4% of programmes connected the Iran war, the resulting energy crisis and climate change. Of the 16 programmes that mentioned both Iran and climate change, 14 contained only passing references. Just two, BBC Radio 4’s PM and The World at One, explored the connection in depth.

Both focused on the concept of “carbon leakage”, including arguments that importing gas may result in higher emissions than domestic production, and concerns about offshoring emissions without a clear transition plan.

This reinforces a broader pattern in coverage, where climate change remained peripheral despite the crisis being rooted in fossil fuel markets.

A crisis driven by fossil fuels was largely reported through a fossil fuel lens.

Methodology

Climate News Tracker analysed flagship TV and radio programmes from the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky News.

The analysis focused on coverage in the four weeks following the start of the Iran war (28 February–28 March 2026).

Programmes mentioning the Iran war alongside fossil fuels or renewables were manually reviewed to assess how each was discussed, the depth of coverage and the types of voices included.

Net zero coverage was categorised as positive, negative or neutral based on whether it was framed as a solution, a burden or presented in a balanced way.

To assess links to climate change, programmes mentioning both Iran and climate change were analysed to determine whether these topics were substantively connected.