Let’s get this clear: It is now an established strongman’s world, in which each country must work out its own economic future, its alliances, and its own road to prosperity. The subtext is even more crucial — the scramble for supremacy between China and the United States will add to new tensions over territory, as we see in Venezuela and Greenland, and over technology, for instance, electric vehicles and renewable energy versus the combustion engine and oil, gas and coal.
In this intense rivalry between nations, global cooperation — so needed for addressing existential challenges like climate change — is the loser. Let’s also be clear that this is no longer about the energy transition needed to combat climate change. It is about control over supply chains of raw materials, from rare-earths to coal and oil, and over processing capacity and technology. The divide between petro-states and electro-states is real, and the contest is brutal. Climate change is a collateral damage.
The ultimate irony is why the Arctic (and Greenland) matters in today’s geopolitics. Because of climate change, this refrigerator of the world is melting, and ships can cross faster across continents over the “head” of the Earth. These routes are strategic as they provide Russia and China an advantage in reaching the Western Hemisphere. Receding ice will also expose the region’s oil and mineral wealth for exploitation. What is being lost is that this world’s refrigerator plays a crucial role in regulating the weather systems. But in this mercantile world order, all this seems to not matter anymore. It is all about making money, even out of global loss and devastation.
Then there is the question of mineral extraction for the new-age green-tech world, and what this will mean for the search for territory and the environment. Till recently, it was widely considered that the world was approaching peak demand for minerals such as coal, iron-ore and bauxite. But with the drive towards electrification, green technology and artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure, it is now estimated that global demand for copper will double over the next decade or so. Countries with the largest copper reserves, Peru, Chile and the Democratic Republic of Congo, are therefore in the spotlight. China processes and refines roughly 50 per cent of global copper. With demand surging, more mines will open, often in dense forests and biodiversity-rich areas and there will be the need for copper smelters — facilities that require high investment to control pollution. The same is true for rare-earths, from lithium to graphite.
China not only has a massive head start in securing these supply chains but is also the leader in green technology. Other countries are now in a tizzy to catch up—to find new mines and agreements. What this means for our future is already showing up in today’s skirmishes.
In my mind, there are two overarching questions that will play out in our very real world. One, as countries rework global trade for on-shoring — make at home to secure supply chains and revive industrialisation — will richer countries, which once preferred off-shoring because of high environment and labour costs, now accept those costs domestically? Or will they rework standards for all and drive-up production costs across the world? The European Union’s Mercosur partnership with South America is being resisted by its farmers because of food-safety standards. Similarly, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is being pushed through, even though it will add to costs of decarbonisation on emerging world’s industry.
The second question is what this great chasm—geopolitical rivalry combined with inward-looking economic policies — will mean for the growth of green technology, which is critical for climate change mitigation. At the WEF, the contrast was stark. On one side was the US-led fossil fuel push, and on the other, China’s vice-premier was urging countries to collaborate on “green infrastructure, green energy, green minerals and green finance”. Countries are caught between domestic and imported energy supplies, and between competing alliances they must trust for their future supply chains.
Also, there is the question of what countries will manufacture domestically and if they can hold on to their industries in the face of Chinese competition. Last year, China had a record-breaking trade surplus of $1.2 trillion. It can produce and supply virtually everything at cheaper rates than most countries can. What does this mean for every country’s plan to increase domestic manufacturing and economic growth?
A new world is coming. We need answers to ensure it is better for both people and the planet.
The author is at the Centre for Science and Environment. sunita@cseindia.org, X: @sunitanar
 "World Economic Forum, WEF")