The Climate Reality: Why Geopolitics, Not Science, Shapes Global Action

Having spent four decades in the international energy and resources sector, I've observed how the climate change movement has evolved. Despite extensive activism and policy discussions, fossil fuels still dominate global energy consumption, accounting for 80% of the energy "mix".

While global emissions haven’t significantly declined, there has been one undeniable success: the expansion of energy access, particularly in the "Global South".

As I live in Singapore and Jakarta, I am very familiar with Southeast Asia - which stands as a testament to this transformation, where hundreds of millions have escaped energy poverty through rapid industrialization and infrastructure development. This can be seen with the enormous growth in e-commerce.

However, this success presents a fundamental challenge: How do we balance energy security, economic growth, and emissions reduction without disrupting global stability?

From a crisis management perspective, climate change often ranks lower in stakeholder priorities compared to immediate business continuity threats. Corporate boards, government agencies, and institutional investors consistently prioritize cybersecurity, supply chain resilience, financial stability, and operational risks over long-term climate considerations.

This reflects a fundamental reality: organizations must survive today’s challenges before they can address tomorrow’s threats.

The Short-Term Reality of Decision-Making

Crisis management frameworks reveal a critical mismatch between environmental goals and decision-making cycles. When stakeholders assess risks, immediate threats to operations, reputation, and financial stability take precedence.

In 2023, I wrote a book on Carbon Management Planning, with a framework for implementation, but rarely do Governments or Corporate decision-makers articulate their "net-zero target" action plan and are usually vague and are still ambiguous about current emissions - for example, the largest source of emissions - Scope 3 - are not often estimated or reported

Governments operate within 4-5 year election cycles, while corporations focus on quarterly earnings and annual shareholder reports. Even institutional investors, despite their public commitment to sustainability, emphasize immediate risk mitigation over carbon neutrality goals set decades into the future.

This prioritization is evident in resource allocation. Organizations invest heavily in:

• Cybersecurity and data protection
• Supply chain resilience
• Financial risk management
• Emergency response capabilities
• Business continuity planning

Climate initiatives, while acknowledged, rarely receive the same urgent attention or resources as these immediate operational risks.

However, this does not mean climate action is irrelevant - it means it must align with economic and security imperatives to be effective.

The Evolution of Climate Politics

The world has changed dramatically since the 1990s when climate science was expected to drive global policy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in 1988, and treaties like the Kyoto Protocol aimed to unify nations around emissions targets.

But reality intervened:

• The 2008 financial crisis shifted priorities to economic recovery.
• China’s rise as an economic superpower reshaped the global energy landscape.
• The failure of the 2009 Copenhagen climate talks revealed the limits of climate diplomacy.
• When the Paris Agreement introduced "net-zero" targets in 2015, they were framed as a global solution. Yet these commitments remain largely symbolic.

Developing economies prioritize energy security over strict emission targets, and even nations with strong climate ambitions - like China and India - continue expanding their fossil fuel infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Western nations face energy security challenges due to over-reliance on uncertain gas supplies, underinvestment in baseload power, and renewable intermittency without adequate storage solutions. When energy shortages occur, even governments with strong net-zero commitments quickly revert to fossil fuels.

The Persistent Energy Demand

Despite climate pledges, global energy demand continues to rise, driven by:

• China’s industrial expansion, India’s continued growth and Southeast Asia’s economic transformation.
• Africa’s rapid population growth and urbanization.
• Continued reliance on fossil fuels in middle-income countries.

The remarkable success of Southeast Asian nations in reducing energy poverty through industrialization presents a compelling case study. Countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia have achieved unprecedented economic growth by prioritizing reliable, affordable energy access over emissions concerns. For their stakeholders, energy security and economic development remain paramount crisis management priorities.

However, technological breakthroughs could reshape this equation. Advances in energy storage, grid optimization, modular nuclear reactors, bioenergy and carbon capture solutions may provide a pathway for developing nations to balance energy growth with emissions reductions. The key challenge is ensuring these solutions are economically viable and scalable.

The Path Forward: Adaptation Over Revolution

Given these realities, the world will not rapidly decarbonize - but it will adapt. Crisis management principles suggest a more practical approach:

1. Energy Security and Diversification – Ensuring stable supply before transitioning to new energy sources. This includes natural gas as a bridge fuel, investments in baseload power, and maintaining strategic energy reserves.
2. Technological Adaptation – Supporting commercially viable solutions such as enhanced battery storage, small modular reactors (SMRs), methane capture, and advanced grid management.
3. Risk-Based Decision-Making – Prioritizing investments in resilience over ideological commitments, ensuring that climate action aligns with economic growth and national security interests.

This approach acknowledges that climate change is not an immediate crisis in the same way as cyberattacks, supply chain disruptions, or financial collapses. It is a slow-moving geopolitical challenge that will be addressed incrementally through pragmatic, risk-based decision-making.

Instead of attempting a radical energy transition overnight, stakeholders should focus on a measured approach that balances energy security, economic growth, and emissions reduction.

Conclusion: A Realistic Approach to Climate Action

The world will continue to gradually decarbonize - but not at the pace climate activists envision. From a crisis management perspective, climate change remains one of many competing priorities, often subordinate to more immediate threats to organizational survival and stability.

Rather than framing climate policy as an all-or-nothing revolution, a pragmatic approach based on adaptation and technological progress is more realistic.

The question is not whether we will transition to cleaner energy—the real question is: How do we achieve this transition without jeopardizing economic stability and energy security?

Policymakers, corporate leaders, and investors must recognize that sustainable progress requires flexibility, technological advancement, and risk-based planning. If climate action aligns with these principles, it has a far greater chance of success.

What do you think? How should decision-makers balance climate commitments with economic and energy security priorities?