Green investments vs the fossil status quo

The energy crisis shows how vulnerable we are

There is something that grates about the way we talk about energy. Even as the world is rocked by energy crises, we continue to lean heavily on oil, gas and coal. We know it is not sustainable. We know it is expensive, insecure and, in the long run, untenable both economically and politically. Yet the transition is moving slowly.

The energy crisis of recent years has made one thing very clear. We are dependent. Not only on energy sources that pollute, but on a handful of actors who control the supply.

A system in which a few actors gain great power

This is not about three countries single-handedly "controlling" energy. But it is hard to ignore how concentrated the system is.

Russia showed how vulnerable a dependence on gas can be. Over a long period, Europe built up a strong link to Russian energy, which quickly became a problem when the geopolitical situation changed.

At the same time, the USA has become an increasingly important supplier of gas, not least to Europe via LNG. That reduces one dependence, but partly replaces it with another.

And China dominates large parts of the supply chains for the very energy we want to transition to. Solar panels, batteries and several critical components are largely produced there.

On top of that, there are actors such as OPEC, where several of the world's largest oil-producing countries coordinate production and thereby influence price levels globally.

It is starting to resemble a system in which a limited number of countries and blocs gain a very large influence over price, supply and stability.

And it is a position we have, to a large extent, built up ourselves.

The strange thing is that the alternative already exists

The strange thing is not that we are dependent. The strange thing is that we continue to be so even though the alternative exists.

Renewable energy is no longer a vision or something far off in the future. It is here. Solar, wind and other green energy sources are in many cases already competitive, sometimes cheaper than fossil alternatives. They are also local, scalable and considerably less sensitive to geopolitics.

Yet investments in renewables are often treated as something idealistic. As if they were primarily about values.

That is wrong.

Sustainable energy is an economic issue

Investing in sustainable energy is fundamentally about economics. It is about reducing risk, securing supply and creating stable costs over time.

Companies that understand this see something more than just climate benefit. They see competitive advantages. Lower energy costs over time. Less exposure to global crises. Stronger control over their own operations.

That is why it is misleading to call sustainability an activist movement. It is rather an investment in future profitability.

An example that stands out

A clear example is the investments linked to Wallenberg and projects such as Stegra.

This is not about symbolic politics. It is about building industry that works in a world where energy can no longer be taken for granted. Where fossil dependence is a risk factor, not an asset.

That kind of investment shows something important. Capital moves to where the future lies. And the future is not coal, oil and gas.

The question is what we are waiting for

We are in a situation where we know what the problem is. We know what the solution is. And we have the capital, the technology and the incentives to do something about it.

Yet we hesitate.

In the meantime, we continue to make ourselves dependent on external actors and unstable markets. We sometimes swap one dependence for another, instead of building real resilience through more local and diversified energy production.

It is hard to understand.