The 21st century is shaping up to be the era of the green transition. Never before has humanity faced a challenge as systemic, interconnected, and urgent as climate change. But more than justa a technological or environmental revolution, the so-called “green shift” represents a profound redefinition of global power balances. In a context of growing multipolarity and systemic uncertainty, the ecological transition has become a battleground for competing state, economic, social, and ideological interests. As a transformative process, the green transition challenges the core principles of the industrial development model constructed over the past two centuries, while simultaneously opening new pathways for power and influence. Therefore, the green shift can be understood as an inherently geopolitical phenomenon—not only as an ecological necessity, but as a strategic arena capable of reshaping hierarchies, alliances, and conflicts. The new energy and environmental order does not happen in a vacuum: it is subject to competition, negotiation, and resistance. Understanding the drivers, constraints, and ambiguities of this process is essential to grasp the true nature of the green transition in today’s world.
The ecological transition is the process through which societies shift from an economic model based on the intensive use of fossil fuels to one that is more sustainable, resilient, and aligned with planetary boundaries. It involves a structural rethinking of value chains, production systems, energy infrastructures, consumption patterns, and even growth indicators. Its core objectives are multifaceted: decarbonization—leading to a reduction in CO₂ emissions and ultimately climate neutrality (Net Zero); the transition to renewable energy; circular economy principles; biodiversity protection; and ecosystem regeneration. A broad range of global actors are involved, including states, international organizations, businesses, and civil society. However, the adoption of ecological transition goals remains uneven: while some nations promote them as part of an industrial strategy, others view them as constraints externally imposed constraints.. This asymmetry is the first geopolitical factor to consider.
This transition directly impacts the pillars of geopolitical power: energy, technology, and natural resources. The shift from oil to lithium, from gas to hydrogen, from centralized to decentralized energy systems is redefining access to global influence. Traditional energy powers—such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran—risk losing their centrality, while new key players are emerging in the field of critical raw materials, including rare earths, cobalt, copper, and nickel. Control over these resources is already fueling a new global race, with dynamics increasingly resembling a form of green neocolonialism. At the same time, green technologies—solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles—are becoming domains of industrial and strategic competition. China, for instance, has already secured a dominant position in the production and refining of strategic materials, while Europe is striving to establish its own “strategic autonomy” through the Green Deal. Trade routes are also evolving: new green corridors are emerging between hydrogen producers and industrial consumers, reshaping global logistics. In this context, the green shift can be interpreted as a new geopolitical “Great Game,” where those who control access to green technologies and resources will control the future.
It is clear that developing economies today face a dual set of pressures: on one hand, the need to grow in order to meet fundamental social needs; on the other, the urgency to do so sustainably. For many countries in the Global South, the green transition is often viewed with suspicion, particularly when it is seen as an externally imposed constraint on development. However, the green shift also presents opportunities for leapfrogging—the ability to bypass traditional phases of industrial development and move directly to clean, innovative technologies. Notable examples include the widespread adoption of renewable energy in various African countries, as well as the rapid growth of the solar industry in India. Nevertheless, major obstacles remain. One of the most significant barriers to ecological transition and sustainable development—especially in developing or emerging countries—is limited access to green capital. This refers to the difficulty in securing financial resources specifically dedicated to environmentally sustainable projects, such as renewable energy, energy efficiency, or reforestation. This limitation often stems from weak institutional frameworks, underdeveloped financial markets, or a high level of perceived risk among international investors.
Exacerbating this challenge is the frequent presence of high public debt, which poses an additional constraint on public spending for sustainability. When a country is heavily indebted, a large share of its budget is allocated to debt servicing—that is, the payment of interest and principal—leaving little fiscal space for environmental policies or long-term investments. Moreover, high public debt can undermine investor confidence and weaken the ability to access new funding from international financial institutions.
Another structural limitation lies in the lack of technological know-how—namely, a shortage of skills, technical expertise, and adequate infrastructure needed to develop or adopt sustainable technologies. As a result, even when financial resources are available, a country may still be unable to implement green solutions effectively and autonomously. Technology is a key enabler of the ecological transition, and its absence risks keeping these countries into a position of structural disadvantage and dependence on external actors. In addition, many low- and middle-income countries remain heavily reliant on exports of raw materials such as oil, gas, coal, or metals. This economic model is typically carbon-intensive and poorly diversified, making a shift toward a greener paradigm particularly challenging. Moreover, revenues from natural resource exports often generate lock-in mechanisms—that is, they incentivize the preservation of the status quo by providing immediate income, discouraging investment in alternative, more sustainable sectors that may be less profitable in the short term.
Additionally, the potential risk of eco-imperialism and the resulting global inequalities must also be considered. Behind the rhetoric of the green transition lies the danger of a new form of ecological imperialism, in which industrialized countries set the rules of global sustainability while shifting the social and environmental burdens onto others. Eco-imperialism manifests in various dynamics that highlight structural imbalances between the Global North and South.
One notable example is the outsourcing of the most polluting industries to countries with weaker environmental regulations, which therefore bear the brunt of the environmental costs of global production. Added to this is the appropriation of land and green resources—commonly referred to as land grabbing—often aimed at producing biofuels or building solar plants, to the detriment of local communities and their rights.
Another form can be seen in climate-related restrictions placed Global South markets,which without adequate technological and financial support, risk stalling industrial growth and economic development. These dynamics are coumpounded by a form of geopolitical greenwashing, whereby Western powers champion environmental narratives to bolster their soft power—often without aligning domestic policies with their international commitments.
Such trends risk undermining the ecological transition, fueling mistrust and tensions between North and South. To prevent the green shift from becoming a new form of disguised global hegemony, it is crucial to foster a climate governance framework that is multilateral, inclusive, and grounded in the fair redistribution of both resources and responsibilities.
An equally important factor to consider is the growing influence of social movements, local communities, and public opinion as geopolitical forces. The case of Greta Thunberg and the Fridays for Future movement shows how grassroots mobilization can influence the global political agenda. Similarly, local resistance to large ecological projects (such as pipelines or lithium mines) demonstrates that the legitimacy of the transition cannot be imposed in a technocratic way.
Furthermore, digital public opinion has turned environmental issues into a key element of international soft power: images of wildfires in the Amazon or floods in Asia stir global emotions, influence markets, and trigger diplomatic responses. This "bottom-up" dimension compels institutional actors to respond not only to economic and strategic pressures but also to moral, cultural, and emotional demands. In this light, the ecological transition is also a battle of narratives.
It also becomes clear that the future of the green transition is at a crossroads: multilateral ecological cooperation or systemic competition for green resources. Several possible paths lie ahead. The first is a cooperative scenario, marked by binding international agreements, climate funds, technological synergies, and a gradual integration of green economies. The European Union and some Latin American countries promote this model, which focuses on sharing resources and responsibilities.
The second scenario is competitive, involving trade wars over access to strategic resources such as rare earth elements, rising green protectionism. It also includes the exclusion of weaker countries from the benefits of the transition and migration crises linked to climate change.
Finally, a hybrid scenario is emerging, in which competition is managed and cooperation coexist on some issues, while conflicts continue on others.
The real challenge will be to prevent the ecological transition from becoming a new ground for inequality, conflict, and climate colonialism. Meeting this challenge will require a strong political vision, institutional innovation, and a new global contract that redefines relations between the Global North and South. Ultimately, the green shift is not just an environmental challenge but the defining geopolitical issue of our time.
Translated by Iuliana Cindrea
Mondo Internazionale APS – All rights reserved ® 2025