Seven months into the Iran war, President Donald Trump still has little evidence of any concrete goals behind the conflict. Yet amid the devastation and absurdity, his decision to launch the war may have accidentally delivered a significant benefit for the environment.

That outcome is especially bizarre given Trump’s record on climate policy. According to a Washington Post analysis of International Energy Agency data, global carbon emissions have fallen significantly as the war disrupts energy shipments from the Middle East.

Tehran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz has hindered those shipments. With less oil and gas moving through the global market, consumption has declined around the world, bringing overall carbon emissions down with it.

The IEA now suggests that global oil demand in 2026 will decline 2.5% compared with last year. That reduction would erase an amount of greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those created by 42 million internal combustion engine cars.

The difference becomes even more dramatic when measured against the agency’s earlier expectations. In January, the IEA projected that worldwide demand for oil and gas would grow significantly compared with last year.

Instead, the gap between that initial projection and current demand is equivalent to avoiding the emissions produced by 103 million cars. It is an enormous climate shift, but hardly one Trump can credibly claim he planned.

The war Trump launched in February has been horrific and costly in human lives. It has also carried economic consequences at home and imposed a crushing political impact on his party ahead of a crucial election.

Nothing about Trump’s agenda suggests that environmental progress played a role in approving the war. His energy policy famously boils down to “drill, baby, drill,” and seven months into the conflict, there remains little evidence that he had concrete goals of any kind.

His administration’s broader climate record makes the accidental emissions reduction even more striking. Trump appointed a man described as climate apathetic to lead the Environmental Protection Agency and a climate skeptic to oversee the newest draft of the National Climate Assessment.

Major regulations intended to reduce emissions have subsequently been gutted. Initiatives promoting cleaner energy have received similar treatment, with the administration branding them as part of a “Green New Scam.”

This is also not the first time global carbon output has fallen sharply while Trump occupied the White House. In early 2020, the United States was woefully unprepared as the pandemic began taking hold.

Trump spent weeks publicly denying that the virus represented a major threat, while his administration proved ill equipped to contain it effectively. Nationwide quarantines followed and were emulated around the world, producing a massive slowdown in economic activity.

That slowdown reduced demand for fossil fuels and caused carbon emissions to plummet. The environmental respite proved brief, however, because consumption climbed again as lockdowns ended and economies returned to activity, wiping away most of the progress.

The Iran war could produce changes that last longer. As Grist’s Kate Yoder noted, Americans facing higher gasoline prices have altered some behavior by driving less and using public transportation more.

Countries have also shown renewed interest in protecting themselves against energy shocks like those sparked by the Iran war and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Since February, China has experienced a boom in exports of solar panels and electric vehicles as consumers, especially in Asia, seek alternatives to fossil fuels.

There is no clear indication of when or how the conflict will end. The longer it continues and oil shipments remain restricted, the more likely the changes in oil demand are to become permanent.

Trump’s administration is deeply unlikely to encourage that outcome deliberately. Still, this marks the second time terrible policy decisions under Trump have coincided with a major reduction in global carbon emissions, which “isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it happened twice, right?”