How geopolitical conflicts provide a comeback of green topics out of national self-interest
When a country or bloc depends on foreign energy sources, wars or geopolitical instability can rapidly translate into domestic economic vulnerability.
By Peter Seele and Ludovico G. Conti
“Weaponisation of interdependence”
The instability need not involve the dependent country but can be confined to the energy provider or extend beyond it. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a striking example of the “weaponisation of interdependence”, a term coined by Farrell and Newman in 2019. The war exposed many countries’ deep dependence on Russian supplies, as shown by the years-long, costly phase-out necessary to cut themselves loose from them and the temporary derogations put in place for those that, because of their geographical location, had no practicable alternatives. It also highlighted the significant energy security risks posed when inflows stop: energy supplies get disrupted, thus generating energy price spikes.
A similar dynamic – arguably amplified to the global scale – is also observable in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, where the confrontation between the USA and Israel, on the one hand, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, on the other, has led to the first-ever complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The disruption of this critical maritime chokepoint, on top of damages to oil and gas infrastructures in different Gulf countries, is delaying fossil fuel shipments and cargoes, thereby straining global supply chains, halting or slowing production processes (as production materials and fuels run low), and contributing to renewed volatility in energy markets not visible since the 1970s.
Green transition – reloaded
One promising and increasingly discussed (especially in public debates) countermeasure to avoid remaining without energy is to push for a faster green transition: a move that would turn states’ dependence on fossil fuels into renewables-based self-reliance.
At first glance, this dynamic appears paradoxical: wars – inherently environmentally unsustainable and destructive phenomena – may, by revealing energy dependencies and vulnerabilities, contribute to a renewed momentum for sustainability and a green energy transition. However, this shift should not be misinterpreted. Rather than signalling a revival of the normatively grounded, idealistic environmental commitments expressed by Fridays for Future and later politically codified in the 2015 Paris Agreement – the kind of “let’s switch to renewables to save the planet” – this attention to renewables reflects different priorities.
Sustainability policies might serve as a countermeasure to the weaponisation of energy: measures driven by self-interest, geopolitical calculations, economic pragmatism and concerns about national security, sovereignty and strategic autonomy. The implications of this fundamental reframing of sustainability are profound: environmental objectives are no longer the primary drivers of action but mere bycatches of national security.
When sustainability is recast as a national security strategy or a geopolitical arm rather than an expression of environmental idealism, it may become more difficult to oppose.
National self-interest instead of ideology
If this trend holds, as the support of my-nation-first policies and governments suggest, in the medium- to long-term, contemporary conflicts – with their fossil fuel disruptions – may inadvertently turn sustainability into the “laughing third” of war, echoing the Latin adage duobus litigantibus tertius gaudet (when two quarrel, a third rejoices). This would be a particularly striking comeback considering the significant setbacks sustainability agendas have faced in recent years all over the world (known under the label “greenlash” – a portmanteau of “green” and “backlash”): from regulatory rollbacks and withdrawals from international climate commitments to the retreat of finance from ESG-oriented investments.
Furthermore, in a framework where sustainability is no longer anchored in scientific or normative environmental commitments but in geopolitical strategy, the terrain of contestation shifts. When sustainability is recast as a national security strategy or a geopolitical arm rather than an expression of environmental idealism, it may become more difficult to oppose, potentially toning down greenlash efforts and anti-ESG and anti-woke arguments – although novel sets of challenges would soon arise.
Conclusion
While this change might be opposed by environmentalists who see it as the latest instrumentalisation of sustainability after greenwashing, in times of greenlash, national self-interest – not idealism – might be the best strategy.
Key Takeaways
The romantic times of sustainability come to an end and the greenlash is underway.
New drivers like national self-interest increasingly replace idealism and activism.
This shift is motivated by geopolitical conflicts and weaponized supply chains.
As complex and costly conflict is, this may boost sustainability out of national self-interest.
For sustainability per se, this shift may be considered the best strategy to achieve (more) sustainable development.
Peter Seele
is a Professor of Business Ethics at Università della Svizzera italiana in Lugano and Guest Professor at University of St. Gallen since 2022. He is part of the “World’s Top 2% Scientists” list by Stanford/Elsevier. Research topics: CSR, reporting, greenwashing, AI-washing.
Ludovico G. Conti
is a doctoral researcher in environmental ethics at Università della Svizzera italiana. He studies misleading environmental communication and co-authored the first comprehensive guide to washing phenomena.