Week 49: Naive Transition Paved with Sustainable Gibberish

Dear all,

For years, it appeared as a noble cause: transition. It has provided—and still does—a safe harbor for millions of people around the world. A solace. A way out. Something to hold on to. A transcendent feeling. A fluid concept of moving from something many people around the world feel and experience as broken, into something else. Something better. Something different.

Transition has become a metaphorical continent—a place where the impossible becomes possible. You can play with the term in countless ways: energy transition, just transition, AI transition, sustainability transition, tech transition, cultural transition. These combinations permeate the business and societal dimensions of our world. Yet, we still don’t know where we want to transit to.

What is the endgame? What are we fighting and working for? For future generations? For ourselves? For higher moral ground? For survival? For lower taxes? What does the world after this transition look like?

The entire concept and aftermath of the so-called sustainability movement have emerged as a response to a functional but utterly unequal and severely polluting system. The form of the current capitalist system that sustainability advocates—however we define them—are attempting to transform is little more than a naïve expectation, punctuated by occasional zealots who truly believe in the impossible.

The people and organizations running the existing functional (albeit flawed) capitalist system know exactly what they are defending and why. Imagine an army that knows its objectives—profits, power, and personal gain. It is well-organized (from the education system to C-level boards and fiduciary interpretations), well-funded (through financial systems and capital flows), and well-equipped (with narratives promising a growth El Dorado for all).

This army has tactical capabilities—delay, deny, avoid—and strategic capabilities—controlling legal and judicial systems. It also commands an intelligence apparatus in the form of social media platforms.

The image of this colossus—a reflection of the society we have built and continue to sustain—is also, apparently, something we aspire to transform. In a nice, gentle, and collaborative way. The entire narrative of “win-win” is built on this notion, essentially saying: “Don’t be afraid, you can make money from this too.”

The “rebellion” of sustainability as an agent of transition is being stifled not only by the “army of the system” but also by its own inability to define its adversaries and articulate the endgame. In the U.S., criticism of ESG and sustainability has evolved into framing these concepts as “enemies of the system”—adversaries to be fought, annihilated, and destroyed. They are portrayed as dangerous and radical ideas, poisoning the souls and minds of fellow Americans.

In the European Union, sustainability—driven by geopolitical and internal political necessities—has served as a unifying visionary framework. It has provided a solid foundation for political narratives, later translated into legislation and rules. Yet, this effort merely scratches the surface rather than diving deeply into meaningful change. Despite its limitations, it remains the only comprehensive political and judicial effort of its kind in the world.

In the EU, sustainability has been co-opted to consolidate the power of the political bureaucracy in Brussels, aiming to counterbalance the immense power of business and lobbying organizations. It has become a political bargaining chip—politicized and, therefore, largely ineffective as a change agent. This is evident in the repeated delays of crucial legislative rules, exemptions, and the watering down of previous agreements.

China, perhaps uniquely, has transformed the concept of sustainability into an instrument of economic warfare, wielding the full weight of its political apparatus to defend its existence by any means necessary. The energy race is just one example of this strategy. When autocracies cooperate, we might indeed see “climate miracles”—or is there something we’re missing? Yes, there is. Autocracies, regardless of their supposed commitment to addressing the alarming consequences of climate change, remain autocracies—often with aggressive and violent tendencies.

Of course, it’s noteworthy that China exports and finances green projects in Saudi Arabia, and it’s significant that Saudi Arabia invests in clean tech and secures financing. These actions do address pressing issues—or do they? In the near future, Saudi Arabia may join the ranks of the “Norwegian Paradox” states—those where renewable energy is used locally while non-renewable resources, such as oil and gas (which constitute 90% of GDP), are exported to “losers” elsewhere. Renewable-powered oil and gas drilling equipment and refineries are already a major trend in the industry. The concepts of “clean oil” or “green oil and gas” are becoming realities.

Narratives and optics are crucial here. The narrative that China is the world’s leading investor in renewable energy, ostensibly to “save us all,” serves its strategic interests. By doing so, China seeks full membership in the leadership pack of sustainable transition—a position the Communist Party actively cultivates and pays for.

We accept green energy and technology from China much as we have accepted oil and gas from autocratic regimes for decades, despite their human rights violations and brutal oppression. Optics matter for autocracies, and when they work together, we might indeed witness… miracles.