As the world becomes increasingly unstable, with the security that many people took for granted called into question, climate change, once viewed as the defining challenge of our time, has been sidelined by geopolitics, which has brought issues such as rearmament and the race for artificial intelligence (AI) supremacy to the fore. However, rising seas, protracted heatwaves and devastating storms are not just risks; they are realities. The threat posed by climate change is obviously growing, but many corporations and even climate innovators have gone silent.
The rise of “greenhushing” — when companies downplay environmental goals for financial or political reasons — reflects not just changing communications strategies, but rising tensions between competing priorities. Amid new geopolitical conflicts and economic pressures, some argue that sustainability has become an unaffordable luxury. However, one should not assume a trade-off between sustainability and security. On the contrary, if we frame climate change, security risks and economic needs as competing priorities, we risk losing on all fronts.
To be sure, competition over resources, territory and technology appears to be monopolizing financial and intellectual resources at the expense of efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Yet these issues are deeply intertwined. The scramble for rare earth minerals, the expansion of data infrastructure and the need for energy-efficient AI all show that geopolitics and climate policy are part of the same equation.
Faced with limited capital and constraints on cross-border financial flows, many businesses and governments feel paralyzed. For decades, we have missed opportunities to invest in long-term resilience — even after the threat of climate change was fully known. However, wallowing in regret will not help now. Instead, we should acknowledge our short-sightedness and act immediately to change course.
The era of “peace dividends” and low interest rates is behind us. The task now is to adapt to an era of capital scarcity and geopolitical fragmentation. We can no longer ask whether climate action is important, but how it can be integrated into a rapidly changing global landscape. That means abandoning outdated approaches and forging a cohesive strategy that combines security, innovation and sustainability.
In today’s political climate, many will see greenhushing as a reasonable strategy. Like US corporate managers’ back-pedaling on diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, and other issues that have been consumed by the culture war, keeping a low profile on environmental matters might seem pragmatic. However, by creating the illusion that sustainability is less urgent or feasible than it really is, greenhushing carries significant risks.
For starters, de-emphasizing sustainability threatens to slow green innovation just when it is needed most. Greenhushing could erode consumer trust and sap momentum in industries that have already started to build a carbon-neutral future. In time, this will prove far costlier — both economically and environmentally — than any risks associated with remaining committed to mitigation and adaptation.
Worse, there could be a “lemming” effect across industries. If everyone assumes that sustainability is being abandoned, then everyone will abandon sustainability. The peer pressure that has been driving private-sector progress on this issue will vanish.
Despite these hurdles, there is still hope. The shift toward a more sustainable economy has begun, even in the US. While the pace of progress might slow, the direction of travel need not change. In adjusting to new realities, the ultimate goal should be to stay the course.
Sustainability is a strategic imperative. Many companies — large and small, across every continent — already recognize this, and have developed business models that combine profitability and environmental responsibility. Their success shows that adapting to this new era does not mean abandoning long-term goals. Instead, it means identifying new sources of value, investing in eco-efficient infrastructure, and aligning sustainability measures with cost-savings and resilience.
However, public-private cooperation is also essential. Markets alone cannot deliver when priorities are constantly and abruptly shifting (say, from sustainability to AI to defense). Governments must step in to help stabilize expectations, and they can do so through public-private initiatives that tie sustainability to national security. For example, publicly supported investments in clean energy and resilient supply chains can reduce reliance on fossil fuels, which in turn will strengthen economic resilience and diminish the importance of geopolitical competition.
While a coordinated, global approach would be ideal, regional, local and sector-specific initiatives are probably more likely to succeed in today’s fragmented political landscape. The key is to align financial incentives with sustainability goals to ensure that climate action is not sidelined in favor of short-term gains.
The collective project that all countries embarked on 10 years ago — with the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris climate agreement — must remain our North Star, even if pragmatism demands strategic tacking along the way. This is no time for cynicism or despair. Any blame that should be assigned would be best directed toward those who are cynically exploiting the situation to reap short-term gains. Any company making a good-faith effort to recalibrate its strategy deserves support.
We must remain pragmatic yet resolute. We had a chance to act when times were easier, but that window has closed. Rising temperatures, extreme weather events and biodiversity loss are not distant threats; they are here, and they are compounding geopolitical tensions. Greenhushing might feel like a convenient response to today’s challenges, but it is not a sustainable one. Silence will not save us.
We need the opposite of greenhushing: bold, united action that weaves climate priorities into our economic and geopolitical strategies. Business leaders who do not speak up now will later regret it.
Bertrand Badre, a former managing director of the World Bank, is chair of the Project Syndicate advisory board, CEO and founder of Blue Like an Orange Sustainable Capital, and the author of Can Finance Save the World? Thomas Crampton is the CEO of Crampton Blackie Partners.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS