Karen Smith Stegen
Professor, Dr.
Constructor
University
Bremen,
Germany
ksmithstegen@constructor.university
The three-variable “Redrawing the Geopolitical Map” study (2018) was among the first to systematically estimate which states might be the geopolitical “winners” or “laggards” in the renewable energy era. Later studies also attempted to peer into this future, using far more variables and producing global lists, but with fairly similar results to “Redrawing”. In contrast to global lists, an advantage of “Redrawing” is its emphasis on regional power constellations. Considering the rapid pace of technological innovation, the data on the regional winners was updated in 2023 and are presented here for the first time.
The study’s three variables—raw potential, receptiveness, and hydrocarbon industry resistance—were selected because they approximate the forces that either facilitate or impede technological diffusion. Earlier thinking about transitions prioritized technological prowess and raw potential, but more recent work argues that the obstacles to technological diffusion also should be considered, for example, the role played by incumbent actors, path dependency and carbon lock-in.
The hypothesis of “Redrawing” was that the geopolitical powers (“winners”) of the future will be those states that successfully transition to renewable energy, attaining self-sufficiency or even becoming exporters. These frontrunner states have high potential for producing renewable energy combined with significant socio-political support and without strong opposition. The “potential” (P) variable reflects the raw potential for renewable energy from onshore and offshore wind, photovoltaic, and concentrating solar-thermal power. “Receptiveness” is based on the number of renewable energy targets and policies, following the logic that they approximate policy maker and citizen support. Finally, the “hydrocarbon lobby” (H) variable captures resistance, as represented by a country’s coal, oil and natural gas reserves. The logic is that states with high reserves are likely to have strong hydrocarbon industries, which typically oppose the diffusion of renewable energies (and are often at the forefront of doubting climate concerns, as exemplified by the 2023 revelations about BP).
The data was calculated in two different ways: first, with the hydrocarbon lobby on equal footing to the other variables (R + P + H)/3; and, second, to more accurately reflect the disruptive ability of the hydrocarbon industries, with the hydrocarbon value doubled (R + P + 2H)/3. Using publicly available data, the original “Redrawing” study presented data on 165 states and the 2023 update covers 154 states.
The winners for both the 2018 and 2023 studies, per geographical region (for R + P + 2H/3), are Finland, Sweden, and Belgium (2018) and Finland, Belgium, and Malta (2023; with Sweden close behind); Canada and the U.S. (2018) and Canada, the U.S., and Mexico (2023); Uruguay, Nicaragua, and Honduras (2018) and Uruguay, Dominican Republic, and Panama (2023); Jordan and Lebanon (2018) and Palestine (State of), Jordan, and Israel (2023); Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Maldives (for both 2018 and 2023); Mongolia, Cambodia, and Fiji (2018) and Fiji, Vanuatu, and Cambodia and Tonga tied (2023); Kenya, Mali, and Namibia (2018) and Kenya, Lesotho, and Cabo Verde (2023).
Eleven of the original 19 winners stayed on the list and ten were added, with six dropping off. Preliminary analysis suggests that these shifts may be due to changes in the number of renewable energy targets/policies. For example, 72% of the states that stayed on the list increased their targets/policies, 9% maintained the same number and only 18% decreased their targets/policies. However, of the states exiting the list, only 16% increased their targets/policies, 50% maintained the same number, and 33% underwent a decrease.
Because larger grid networks are more resilient and counter the volatility problems that plague many renewable sources, a buildout of renewables will most likely require more intensive cross-border exchanges. This greater interconnectedness will strengthen regional relationships and “grid communities” may emerge. Thus, the “Redrawing” study offers a hint of which regional players might gain geopolitical stature through their energy capacity. At the moment, however, the lists show many countries that have not yet fully tapped their potential.
All past energy transitions, even from centuries ago, resulted in unexpected but significant geopolitical reconfigurations. Economic and military prowess has historically accrued to those states with ample access to energy. As the “Redrawing” study indicates, states that provide targets and policy measures have the potential to become renewable energy heavyweights. It thus behooves policy makers to support renewable energies, not just to reach climate goals, but also for geopolitical and security considerations.