Climate geopolitics heading toward a Dark Forest or a Sunlit Neighborhood?

The world can be seen as a big machine of a market where we collaboratively try to solve problems. Globalization is a belief in specialization and collaboration, with the adage “goods cross borders, so weapons don’t.” Taxes and regulation become the friction and lubrication — or, in some situations, the hedges — for different goods and services.

However, a collaborative world needs to be peaceful and stable. If we believe in a more stable world, friction will decrease, and we can specialize more. One region can focus on energy creation, and others can buy and use it.

In an unstable world, all regions look for resilience and sovereignty. We have to create greater redundancy.

Some companies thrive or perish in one world, while others survive both.

Two resources will fare differently depending on the world we live in: Energy Resources and Pollution Resources.

Phosphorus, oil, and lithium are typical Energy Resources. Over history, they have been in high demand, scarce, and found in different locations on the planet—and they are needed for an economy to run.

CO2, microplastics, and Particulate Matter/Volatile Organic Compounds are typical Pollution Resources. We collectively and individually want to eliminate them and don’t stay where they are emitted. The negative effects are shared over a larger area or even globally.

In an unstable world, we will not want to depend on other regions and might even avoid being too vocal about our Energy Resource abundance. This is the “Dark Forest” of Liu Cixin [1]. A region rich in these will be wealthy but risks being invaded or “invaded” by other nations. The Dark Forest might be a cruel world; it is a world in which resources are valued for their local utility, not their reputation or collaboration potential.

In a hyper-stable world, we would trade Energy Resources and pay actors to remove Pollution Resources. Some nations or companies might brag and proclaim how much Pollution Resources they will remove. I’ll call this a “Sunlit Neighborhood” in which we praise the “nicest people who pick up garbage” and help out.

Some climate startups require a stable world, the Sunlit Neighborhood, in which companies and nations will follow their NetZero targets, pay for carbon removal, and care about biodiversity.

At the same time, we know that companies that “decarbonize transportation” also lower the costs. A company that lowers the effects and risks of forest fires or floods is valuable for the crassest climate denier. That company works in both scenarios.

If we imagine the world as a big family with a pool that needs to be cleaned, we can find different systems to make it so. Do we praise the kids who work the most (and expect a “Sunlit Neighborhood”), or do we figure out a way to use the goo so we’re happy to pay for it (and don’t have to worry if we’re in a “Dark Forest”)?

You have to think of your company and your initiatives. Do they thrive on collaboration, which is often more flexible, cheaper, and produces better results? Or are they dependent on it? Or is your concept something that will be of geopolitical interest? Energy sovereignty or local food production are examples that will do better the more we’re in a Dark Forest.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Forest