Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

Russia’s Northern Sea Route (NSR) along its Arctic coastline has, for centuries, been as much a dream as a reality. The coastal corridor is a chance to cement Russia’s place as a polar energy superpower, and the presence of unexploited reserves of resources, the keeper of a possibly vital global artery. Yet the NSR’s story in the 21st century is not simply about ambition. It is about a paradox; two forces pushing in opposite directions. One force is geopolitical. A tightening of Western sanctions has cut Russia off from Western capital, technology, and partners that once underpinned its Arctic rise. The other is environmental: climate change. The melting of the sea ice at unprecedented rates is lengthening the navigable season and giving Russia a window of opportunity in the high north. Together they create a strange, almost theatrical tension – a stage where climate change is opening new Arctic pathways even as geopolitics seems to be closing them. This article traces how Moscow has adapted awkwardly at times and creatively at others to this paradox. The question is not whether Moscow still wants to realise the NSR’s promise. It does. The question is whether it can, and if so, at what cost. The answer lies in how Russia has substituted partners, improvised workarounds, looked inwards for domestic substitutions and leaned on risky logistics to keep its Arctic ambitions alive. The years after 2007 (to capture the pre-sanctions baseline and the waves of sanctions that followed), when Russia planted a titanium flag on the seabed at the North Pole, tell a story of Russia’s NSR adaptation, dependency, and resilience under constraint. The NSR’s economy runs on the same plumbing that moves everything from coffee to crude: finance, insurance, classification societies, maritime services, and high-end technology. When Western governments began sanctioning Russia over Crimea in 2014, the sanctions did not simply target individuals or issue symbolic bans. They went for the “nodes” in the global economy that Russia’s Arctic projects depended upon. This is a textbook case of weaponised interdependence. The theory explains how states that control critical financial and technological chokepoints in an interconnected global order can turn global connectivity into leverage. The effect was immediate. U.S. export controls banned Arctic offshore oil exploration technology, freezing ventures like ExxonMobil’s Kara Sea project. European and American banks withdrew. Insurers cancelled coverage for Russian vessels, and the International Association of Classification Societies expelled Russia’s maritime register. Without classification, many Russian-controlled ships lost their safety certificates and lost access to ports and insurance altogether. The 2022 invasion of Ukraine supercharged this process. Energy giants such as Exxon,  and Halliburton left Russia’s Arctic. Sanctions extended to almost every aspect of maritime trade. International Protection & Indemnity (P&I) clubs refused Russian risks, and the exodus of foreign expertise left Russia’s Arctic sector without many of the specialised tools it had once imported. In essence, sanctions acted as a structural stress test on Russia’s Arctic political economy, which raised financing costs, choking technology transfer, and narrowing partnership options for both upstream oil and gas exploration and midstream shipping and processing. Yet, the sanctions did not halt Arctic operations altogether. By 2023, the NSR cargo carried record volumes along the route. The moved cargo was roughly around 38 million tonnes of goods in 2024. This cargo was almost entirely Russian oil, gas, and minerals headed to Asia. The international shipping firms that had once dreamed of using the NSR as a global transit lane were seemingly gone. What remained was a “Russified” corridor: an export pipeline to friendly markets, sealed off from most of the world. Sanctions forced Russia to find replacements for Western finance, expertise, equipment, and markets. The most obvious substitute was China. The two countries already had growing energy ties, and after 2014, Beijing stepped in where the West stepped out. Chinese state banks provided roughly $12 billion in loans after Western financing dried up for Yamal LNG, the Arctic’s first LNG megaproject. China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) took a 20% stake in the project in 2013, and the Silk Road Fund took another 9.9% in 2016. Chinese shipyards supplied modular components, and by late 2017, the project was completed on schedule despite the constraints. This model, to replace Western inputs with Chinese ones, was carried over to Arctic LNG 2 on the Gydan Peninsula. CNPC and CNOOC each took 10% stakes by 2019, and Chinese yards again won construction contracts. A secondary interdependence formed: Chinese capital, shipbuilding, and market demand for LNG in exchange for Russian resources and Arctic access. But this substitution came with a catch. The relationship was asymmetric interdependence. Russia now relies far more on China than China does on Russia. For Moscow, the NSR and Arctic LNG capacity are strategic lifelines and Russia, under sanction, cannot so easily diversify its partners. But Beijing has other suppliers; the NSR is optional for Chinese trade. Beijing has used that leverage with a light but unmistakable touch by pressing for sanctions carve-outs and pausing when penalties threaten its global financial and commercial interests. When Washington sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 in late 2023, Chinese firms froze participation. CNPC and CNOOC invoked force majeure, and Wison (a Chinese manufacturer of LNG modules) recalled shipments and stopped work altogether. By 2023, roughly 95% of NSR transit cargo was bilateral Russia–China trade, mostly Russian oil moving east. When China pulled back, Moscow protested mildly; when Western firms did the same, the rhetoric was far harsher. The imbalance was clear. The NSR had become a lifeline for Russia, but only one option among many for China. Alongside external partnerships, Moscow sought to fill the gaps domestically. The flagship is the Zvezda shipyard in the Russian Far East, which was meant to deliver a homegrown fleet of Arctic-class tankers and LNG carriers. Initially a joint venture with South Korea’s Samsung Heavy Industries, Zvezda lost access to many suppliers after 2022. Building the specialised Arc7 LNG tankers proved harder than planned, and delays created a shipping shortfall. So, Moscow improvised at sea. The workaround was a fleet few had anticipated: the so-called “shadow fleet.” These are ageing, often 20-year-old tankers. Reflagged under flags of convenience to Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands, they sail without reputable insurance or up-to-date safety certification. After the EU banned Russian oil imports and the G7 imposed a price cap, Russia’s traders bought up and reactivated such ships. Some sail with AIS trackers off, earning them the nickname “floating time bombs” from former NATO commander James Stavridis. Regulators noticed. NATO began monitoring the dark fleet in 2023. The UK and Denmark tightened port inspections earlier; by mid-2025, Norway ordered inspections of all foreign tankers using its ports that had been involved in Russian Arctic trade. The cat-and-mouse is literal: AIS “spoofing,” loitering near transhipment points like Murmansk, and identity-masking tactics have all proliferated. The objective is simple – keep exports moving despite Western control over finance and insurance chokepoints. The method is naturally costly and risky. The environmental risks are also obvious, especially in Arctic waters. Yet by 2023, this shadow fleet had helped Russia stage a dramatic comeback on the NSR. Transit cargo, which had collapsed to around 41,000 tonnes in 2022,  hit a record 2.1 million tonnes in 2023, much of it oil to China. Of the 75 transit voyages (the most ever in a season) that year, 59 were in ships over 10 years old, and nearly 40% in vessels over 20. Three voyages were made by ships with no ice classification at all, possible only during the mildest late-summer window. This is resilience under constraint in action: maintaining volumes, but through seemingly riskier, costlier, and less sustainable logistics. The paradox deepens when nature itself becomes a player. The Arctic is warming roughly four times faster than the global average, a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification. This is thinning and shrinking its sea ice. Late-summer ice extent has declined by about 12% per decade, and the September ice volume is almost half of what it was in 1980. In a warm year like 2020, the NSR can see up to 88 ice-free days, extending the season well into October. The distance savings are tempting. After the 2021 Suez blockage, Moscow pitched the NSR as the more sustainable and safer,  with President Vladimir Putin setting targets of 80 million tonnes of cargo by 2024 and 130 million by 2035. Russia invested in infrastructure to shape the Arctic in its favour.  Chief among those investments is the series of nuclear icebreakers in the LK-60Ya class, intended to widen and lengthen the navigable seasonal window. Variability is the Arctic’s constant. In 2021, an early freeze trapped more than 20 ships in the Laptev Sea. A single harsh season or geopolitical flare-up could, according to one modelling study, cost up to $10 billion by closing the route for a year. Wind and currents can push ice into chokepoints, while storms and fog add further hazards. The message: averages entice; outliers punish. Major shipping companies remain unconvinced. The IMO’s Polar Code demands expensive safety upgrades, and giants like CMA CGM have sworn off the NSR, citing environmental and reliability concerns. Arctic shipping is feasible but rarely profitable for time-sensitive cargo under current conditions. In effect, climate change is lengthening the season but not guaranteeing it. Warm years can soften the impact of sanctions by enabling marginal ships to sail; cold years can erase those gains overnight. Moscow treats most of the route as water where it can write its rules with Russian regulations. The legal scaffolding rests on UNCLOS Article 234. The clause gives coastal states extra authority over ice-covered waters to protect the environment and, in places, on claims of historic usage through narrow straits. That interpretation has teeth. In 2019, Russia demanded advance notice from foreign warships before NSR transits. In 2023, Russia proposed stretching that notice to 90 days. The counter-view in Western capitals is blunt: key passages function as international straits with transit rights. Call it legal geopolitics. The idea that in contested spaces, law becomes an instrument of statecraft. With Western commercial presence all but gone since 2022, there have been few real-world tests of those competing claims. The ambiguity persists. So does the risk of friction if NATO navies decide to test freedom-of-navigation in the high north. The Arctic Council was built to keep geopolitics off the ice. War changed that. In early 2022, seven of eight members (everyone but Russia) paused participation, sidelining Russia’s chairmanship. Work resumed later that year without Russia; when Norway took the chair in 2023, that format stuck. The result: a governance gap where the Council once supplied common ground on search-and-rescue, spill response, and scientific cooperation. Into that gap have flowed unilateral and minilateral moves: EU sanctions to enforce oil price caps, national inspections of suspect tankers, NATO’s higher Arctic profile, and Russian military investments through the Northern Fleet. Moscow has doubled down on bilateralism, notably with China under a “Polar Silk Road” banner. Remove a pan-Arctic consensus, and states start to read the NSR less as a shared commercial asset and more as a strategic corridor. As long as the Council stays divided and the law stays fuzzy, the NSR looks less like a future global lane and more like a national project under duress. One under-appreciated dynamic is how weather and policy interact. A warm, low-ice year can partially offset sanctions by letting Russia move more cargo with sub-optimal ships and fewer partners. A harsh ice year can erase those workarounds; no amount of reflagging gets a thin hull through new ice without icebreakers. 2023 offered mild late-summer conditions and newly assembled logistics. Hence, the record season. 2021 offered an early freeze that embarrassed seasoned operators. Climate acts as the swing variable in Russia’s resilience equation. Targets mirror the tension. 80 million tonnes by 2024 proved aspirational as sanctions deepened and ice conditions fluctuated. The reset to 130 million by 2035 admits the need for a longer runway. More LK-60Ya icebreakers, more Arc7 hulls, more trans-shipment capacity, and, crucially, more reliable partners. The Zvezda bet may pay off, but replacing the full Western stack in the form of financing, kit, and specialised metallurgy takes time that geopolitics rarely grants. The shadow fleet moves oil, but at a cost. Older hulls, opaque ownership, weak insurance, and AIS dark zones each raise the chance of an incident. The high north does not forgive. A significant spill by an unclassed or uninsured vessel could slam shut political windows that the climate has opened. Every accident, real or narrowly avoided, argues for more scrutiny. For non-Russian shippers, reputational and compliance risk is decisive. The safety problem is moral, ecological and financial. Insurance premiums, capital costs, and compliance burdens spike when standards look variable and enforcement is vigilant. If the NSR is to attract rather than deter global carriers, four shifts stand out. The first is stable multilateralism. A thaw in Arctic Council politics that restores full eight-member cooperation on search-and-rescue, spill response, and scientific collaboration would reduce risk premiums. Without it, patchwork national rules and military signalling will continue to overshadow commercial priorities. The second is legal clarity. Narrowing the gap between Russia’s interpretation of Article 234 and Western views on straits rights, whether through litigation, negotiated guidelines, or pragmatic practice, would help calm the concerns of navies and insurers. Ambiguity, in this case, is costly. The third is infrastructure at scale. Expanding the fleet of LK-60Ya icebreakers, deepening the Arc7 fleet, ensuring reliable trans-shipment hubs from Murmansk outward, and building robust rescue and response capabilities would turn the Arctic’s volatile weather from a crippling hazard into a manageable variable. The fourth is safer logistics. Replacing dark fleet tonnage with transparent, classed, and adequately insured ships is unlikely under current sanctions, but any easing or targeted carve-outs could logically be traded for higher operational and environmental standards. Absent these shifts, the NSR will likely remain a niche corridor – reliable enough for Russia’s exports to a handful of partners – but not predictable or de-risked enough to attract the world’s container giants. In the end, the Route looks less like a global artery in waiting than a bespoke lane kept open by improvisation and political will. Russia has shown it can move volumes east without Western scaffolding. Still, the price is exposure: to China’s cautious leverage, to legal and governance ambiguity, to safety and insurance risk, and to a climate that can widen or snap shut the seasonal window with little warning. What emerges is resilience under constraint, capability sustained by workarounds rather than durable rules and partners. If geopolitics softens, the Arctic Council reactivates in full, and industrial bets from Zvezda to new icebreakers mature, the arc could still bend toward normalisation. Until then, this remains a sturdy yet narrow corridor; strategically vital to Moscow, serviceable for a few, and unlikely to host the time-sensitive traffic that defines a truly global route.

Abstract To deliver low-carbon transitions, we must understand the dynamics of capital. To this end, I develop a theory of energy-capital relations by reading Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations from an energy-analysis perspective. I argue that, for Smith, capital is any resource used to support production with the intention of generating profits through market exchange. In The Wealth of Nations, capital enables access to new sources of energy and increases energy efficiency. This theory of energy-capital relations explains trends seen in historical energy data: because it is profit driven, capital does not save energy, it redirects it to new uses. This suggests that low-carbon investment can only enable a low-carbon transition if coupled to a systematic challenge to the profit drive.JEL Classification: B12, O44, P18, Q43, Q57Keywordseconomic growth, low-carbon transitions, Adam Smith, history of economic thought, capital, energy, capitalism 1. Introduction: Energy, Capital and Low-Carbon Transitions Under Capitalism To date, the green rhetoric of states and companies has not led to meaningful reductions in carbon emissions. In absolute terms, annual global carbon emissions from fossil fuels increased from ~6 gigatons of carbon per year in 1990 to ~10 gigatons of carbon per year in 2022 (Friedlingstein et al. 2023). Carbon emissions are largely driven by the energy system that supports the capitalist economy, and there is no evidence that this is decarbonizing at the global scale. In 2020, fossil fuels accounted for around 80 percent of total world energy supply, the same figure as in 1990 (IEA 2022). In 2022 carbon emissions from fossil fuels accounted for around 90 percent of total global carbon emissions, up from 80 percent in 1990 (Friedlingstein et al. 2023). Carbon emissions from energy and industrial processes hit an all-time high in 2023 (IEA 2024). To change this increasingly dire picture, it is essential that we understand the economic drivers of emissions, and what economic changes are needed to reverse current trends. There is disagreement over the extent and nature of economic change needed to facilitate a low-carbon energy transition. Radical economists agree that the global reliance on fossil fuels will require going beyond market-based solutions (Li 2011; Pianta and Lucchese 2020; Pollin 2019). But this still leaves us with a broad spectrum of options (Chester 2014). Can a low-carbon transition be implemented within a broadly capitalist framework if it is guided by an interventionist industrial strategy (Pollin 2015)? Or does it require changes to fundamental capitalist dynamics (Davis 2019; Riley 2023)? To cast new light on these debates, I take a step back from the immediate issues and take a history of economic thought approach. To this end, I explore the relationship between capital and energy in Adam Smith’s (1975) The Wealth of Nations. I use the resulting view of energy-capital relations to put forward an explanation of how energy use has developed under capitalism, and to explain why a low-carbon transition is unlikely without addressing core capitalist dynamics. The decision to develop the analysis of energy-capital relations from The Wealth of Nations is grounded in the more general epistemological claim that returning to older works of economic theory is a useful way to conduct economic analysis. Blaug (1990) reminds us that all current economic theory is built from seldom read historical texts, and historians of economic thought have argued that revisiting these texts offers the opportunity to uncover new ways of interpreting key ideas, providing theoretical context that may have been forgotten (Bögenhold 2021; Schumpeter 1954). Additionally, actively engaging with historical thought presents the possibility for moments of creativity as old and new ideas are brought together. For example, Mair, Druckman, and Jackson (2020) use an analysis of economic ideas in utopian texts from the twelfth to nineteenth centuries to develop a vision of work in a post-growth future, and Stratford (2020, 2023) develops a theory of rents and resource extraction grounded in an analysis of the historical evolution of the concept of rent. The general approach of critical engagement with history of thought is perhaps best developed in the Marxist literature, where a substantive body of work draws on Marx’s writings to critically explore environment-economy relationships (e.g., Malm 2016; Moore 2017; Pirgmaier 2021; Saitō 2022). On the other hand, relatively little attention has been paid to Adam Smith in the context of ecological or environmental economic analysis. Most recent interest in Smith’s environmental thought has come from environmental historians (see Steeds 2024 for a review). However, Steeds (2024), building on Jonsson (2014), has made the case for reading Smith as an ecological economist, arguing that Smith shares core ontological precepts of the discipline—notably that it is the environment that underpins all economic activity. Smith (1975) is particularly relevant to debates about low-carbon transitions because The Wealth of Nations is the starting point for an interpretation of capital theory that has become widely used in energy-economy analyses. Capital theory itself has a long and storied history, with analysts giving it a variety of characteristics (Cannan 1921; Kurz 1990; Mair 2022). Contemporary economic analyses of energy generally use a physical concept of capital. A common position for economists who focus on energy is that energy is important because energy use and capital are “quantity complements”: all else equal, when capital increases the energy used in production increases (Elkomy, Mair, and Jackson 2020; Finn 2000; Sakai et al. 2019). Conceived of as “representative machinery,” capital is seen as the physical stuff that channels energy use into production (Keen, Ayres, and Standish 2019: 41). Or as Daly (1968: 397) puts it, “physical capital is essentially matter that is capable of trapping energy and channeling it to human purposes.” This physical conception has its roots in the dominant interpretation of capital from The Wealth of Nations. Prior to The Wealth of Nations, capital was a predominantly monetary construct, but historians of economic thought argue that after The Wealth of Nations, capital is taken to be predominantly physical (Hodgson 2014; Schumpeter 1954). However, I argue that Smith’s view of capital is actually a long way from the almost purely physical views seen in much energy-economy work. Rather, Smith’s view of capital is proto-Marxist. As Evensky (2005: 141) puts it, “Whether or not it was from Smith that Marx developed his notion of capital as self-expanding value, the outlines of that conception were certainly available to him in Smith.” From Smith’s perspective, capital is defined primarily as a socio-physical construct (Blaug 1990; Evensky 2005; Meek 1954). Capital sometimes has physical forms, which enables it to interact with flows of energy, but these are always conditioned by the social dynamics of profit and exchange. Making a direct connection to energy requires reading Smith from the contemporary perspective of energy-economy analysis as developed by the subdisciplines of ecological, biophysical, and exergy economics (Brockway et al. 2019; Jackson 1996; Keen, Ayres, and Standish 2019; Smil 2017a). This is because, as a construct, “capital” pre-dates “energy,” and Smith was writing before the first recorded use of the term energy as we would understand it today (by physicist Thomas Young in 1807, see: Frontali 2014). So although work into energy—particularly among ecological economists and their forerunners in energy systems analysis (Cleveland et al. 1984; Odum 1973; Sakai et al. 2019)—uses a concept of capital that has its roots in an interpretation of Smith’s capital theory, explicit links are missing in Smith’s text. Despite this, Steeds (2024) argues that Smith’s analysis of agriculture shows an understanding of what contemporary analysts would call energy, a theme I develop here focusing on Smith’s conceptualization of capital. The rest of this article is structured as follows. In section 2, I set out an interpretation of Smith’s capital theory from The Wealth of Nations that emphasizes the way it sees physical elements of capital as defined by social forces. In section 3, I outline the ways that energy fits into Smith’s theory of capital. This is the first contribution of the article, as I make novel links between Smith’s capital theory and contemporary energy-economy analysis. In section 4, I apply this interpretation of energy-capital relations to the historical evolution of energy use under capitalism, and the question of low-carbon transitions. This is the second contribution of the article, as I argue that Smith’s capital theory highlights the importance of the social context of energy systems. Specifically, it provides compelling explanations for the phenomenon of “energy additions”—where past “transitions” under capitalism have been associated with the overall growth of energy use (York and Bell 2019). This implies that the challenge of a low-carbon transition is not only investment in low-carbon energy systems but in challenging the logic of capitalism such that low-carbon energy can replace, rather than add to, the use of high-carbon energy. 2. Capital as a Socio-physical Construct in The Wealth of Nations Interpretations of Smith’s capital theory generally emphasize its physical aspects (e.g., Cannan 1921; Hodgson 2014; Schumpeter 1954). These readings focus on Smith’s initial description of capital as a subset of the accumulation of the physical outputs of production (in Smith’s terminology “stock” [cf. Smith 1975: 279]), and the skills and abilities of workers (Smith 1975: 282). The focus on physical aspects of Smith’s capital theory makes sense from a history of ideas perspective. The physical aspects of Smith’s capital stand in contrast with earlier definitions that were primarily monetary (Hodgson 2014). There is also an intellectual lineage that can be traced in Smith’s views on capital, principally through Smith’s relationship with the French Physiocratic school whose own economic analysis emphasized physical flows (Meek 1954; Schumpeter 1954). However, the fact that Smith introduced a new role for physical goods within a broader concept of capital does not imply that Smith’s theory of capital was purely physical (Robinson 1962). Rather, Smith views capital as the accumulated monetary and physical resources that are brought into production to generate a profit. To see this, let us look first at Smith’s view of circulating capital. Smith splits capital into two forms, circulating and fixed, and he is explicit that circulating capital has both monetary and physical forms. For Smith, circulating capital is defined by the fact that to turn a profit from it, its owner must give it up in exchange for something else. Consequently, circulating capital takes multiple forms: it is the money that will be used to pay wages to a worker, the product produced by that worker, the money realized at the point of sale of the product, and the commodities purchased using the money realized. As Smith (1975: 279) puts it, circulating capital is continually going from the capitalist “in one shape, and returning to him in another. . . it is only by means of such circulation. . . that it can yield him any profit.” Circulating capital is a process of purchasing and selling resources, often with a monetary form, in order to make more money (Evensky 2005). Circulating capital has different forms (some physical, some not) at different points in its circulation, but it is consistently capital. Even when capital takes on its physical form, for Smith it is the underlying social dynamics of exchange and profit that define it as capital. In his opening to book 2, Smith argues that capital is an emergent property of exchange-based economies (Smith 1975: 276). In a society with no division of labor, he argues, people are self-sufficient, and there is very little exchange. But once you have a division of labor, you get exchange because each worker uses their labor to produce a subset of the goods needed to live. Other workers use their labor to produce a different subset of goods. The two then trade with one another to ensure all their needs are met. Drawing on the work of the Physiocrats, Smith then observes that production takes time (Schumpeter 1954). Consequently, in a market system, the purchasing of goods from other people “cannot be made till such time as the produce of his own labor has not only been completed, but sold” (Smith 1975: 276). This means that in either a monetary or barter economy, there has to be a stock of physical goods previously accumulated in order to enable work to happen before the products of that work have been sold (or are available for barter). For Smith, these goods are a form of capital. In this sense, capital can be physical commodities—but physical commodities accumulated in order to support exchange. For Smith, profits are also an essential part of the definition of capital (Meek 1954). Whether fixed or circulating, physical or monetary, what makes something capital is the desire of the capitalist to earn money from it (e.g., Smith 1975: 281, 332). Smith’s theory of profit is scattered through The Wealth of Nations and is not entirely comprehensive (Blaug 1990; Christensen 1979). However, Smith does identify a construct called profits with some core tendencies that are sufficient to group him in the classical approach to profit as surplus and deduction (Hirsch 2021; Kurz 1990; Meek 1977). For Smith, surplus is primarily derived from the value that labor adds to raw materials. This value then goes to pay the wages of the worker and other costs of production, one of which is “the profits of their employer” (Smith 1975: 66). So, Smith’s theory of profit is deductive. Profit is the money capitalists attempt to gain back from production after all costs—including wages—have been accounted for (Meek 1977). An important addition here is that the profit drive for Smith is speculative: capitalists bring capital to support production because they “expect” to generate more money (Smith 1975: 279, 332)—it is not guaranteed. The attempt to gain profit is because capitalists use this as their income (cf. Smith 1975: 69, 279). This attempt is central to the dynamics of capital because profit is the “sole motive” that a capitalist has for bringing their resources into the exchange cycle of the economy (Smith 1975: 374). To summarize, for Smith, capital is the accumulated resources (whether physical or monetary) brought to bear in support of exchange-based production, the ultimate aim of which is to provide the owner of capital with an income (profits). Consequently, it is not correct to view Smith’s capital theory as purely or even predominantly physical. Rather Smith’s capital is a socio-physical construct. This interpretation is not a refutation of other readings that emphasize the physical aspect of Smith’s theory. The physical elements are present, are important, and are relevant to our discussion of energy. However, the underlying premise is always that these physical elements are defined by social relations of profits and exchange. This analysis fits with readings of Smith that see his capital theory as proto-Marxist because of the way it frames capital in terms of social relations (Hodgson 2014; Pack 2013; Tsoulfidis and Paitaridis 2012). But it strongly cautions away from discussions of capital that abstract from these social relations in ways that leave capital as purely physical things. As with Marx (2013), when Smith talks about capital as physical things, his focus is on the way the physical interacts with social relations. 3. How Does Energy Fit into Smith’s Capital Theory? Having sketched an interpretation of Smith’s capital theory focusing on the interplay of profit, exchange dynamics, and monetary and physical resources, we can turn to the question of how energy fits into Smith’s capital theory. In this section, I draw on energy-economy analysis to suggest two key ways in which energy might fit into Smith’s capital theory: 1. Capital is used to bring new energy sources into production.2. Capital is used to make existing energy flows more efficient. 3.1. Accessing new energy sources For Smith, one of the key ways that capitalists aim to generate profits from capital is by using it to increase labor productivity (in Smith’s terms “abridging” labor, see: Smith 1975: 17, 282). Here we have a link to energy-economy analysis, where labor productivity is often described in terms of substituting human labor for other forms of energy—since the industrial revolution this has typically happened through some form of fossil fuel–powered machinery (Smil 2017a). Smith discusses machinery in a number of places across The Wealth of Nations. Indeed, Kurz (2010: 1188) writes that one of Smith’s key growth mechanisms is the replacement of “labor power by machine power.” In chapter 11 of book 1 of The Wealth of Nations (Smith 1975: 263), Smith discusses how cloth production in Italy was made more productive than in England by employing wind and water mills in the former, while the latter treaded it by foot. This is the same example pointed to by energy scientist Vaclav Smil (2017a), who argues that the introduction of waterwheels into industrial production were a source of substantive labor productivity growth. Energy-analysis allows us to say why the wind and water is more productive than the treading. Energy provides a variety of functions, known as “energy services,” which are essential for production processes (Grubler et al. 2012). These are intuitive when put in the context of everyday experiences: achieving a comfortable temperature in an office or workplace requires thermal energy. Transporting goods or people requires kinetic energy. In the case of cloth production, the fulling process requires kinetic energy to manipulate the fibers of the cloth. To deliver energy services, energy sources go through a series of transformations, known as the conversion chain (Brockway et al. 2019; Grubler et al. 2012). Energy is accessible to us through different carriers—known as primary energy sources (such as food, oil, or gas). In most use cases primary energy sources are then converted into other forms before delivering their service (Smil 2017b). This conversion is done by “conversion technologies.” Muscles are a “technology” that can be used to convert the chemical energy in food into mechanical energy. Oil or solar energy may be converted into electricity. Different economic processes may use multiple forms of energy with energy from multiple carriers requiring transformation multiple times. From the perspective of increasing labor productivity, what is important is having energy available to do “useful” work (meaning provide the specific energy services that serve the interests of the system) (Brockway et al. 2019). The more energy available to do useful work, the more economic activity can be carried out per person. One way to increase the amount of useful energy available is by adding new primary energy sources to the system. This process often requires new conversion processes that enable the energy in the primary energy sources to be accessed and converted into energy services. In the case of cloth production, the introduction of wind or water mills is an example of capital taking the form of a new conversion technology that enables access to a different primary energy source (Smil 2017b). In the human-powered treading process, solar energy is converted into chemical energy through the agricultural system. The chemical energy in food products acts as the primary energy source. People then eat this food, converting it to mechanical energy that manipulates the cloth as they tread it under foot. On the other hand, a wind or water mill introduces a new conversion technology that enables access to the energy available in wind and water by converting it into mechanical energy. Note that this process is not only about energy efficiency. Wind and water mills are typically more energy efficient than human-power, but just as crucially they are more powerful: they bring a greater quantity of energy into the process of cloth production (Smil 2017b). The importance of scale is seen across energy-economy analysis. Hall and Klitgaard (2012: 117) draw on Polyani’s (1944) substantive definition of an economy to argue that all economic activity is the application of work to transform natural resources into goods and services. In the past, most of the work of transformation was done through muscle-power, but today muscle-power is a much smaller proportion of total work carried out because of the development of machinery that allows us to supplement our muscles with the “‘large muscles’ of fossil fuels.” 3.2. Increasing energy efficiency There are places in The Wealth of Nations where we might hypothesize about energy efficiency gains explicitly. For instance, Smith tells an apocryphal tale involving a child and a fire engine, presented as an example of innovation leading to labor productivity growth. Smith writes that in the earliest fire engines a boy would be employed to open and shut different valves, until one such boy finds a way to connect the valves such that they “open and shut without his assistance” (Smith 1975: 20). Such an innovation adjusts capital in order to enable it to convert more of the primary energy source into useful energy. Prior to the boy’s innovation, the system required two primary energy inputs: the fossil energy to power the machine, and the food energy to power the boy. Once the boy innovates, the primary energy associated with his action is removed from the process and the machine uses only the fossil energy, thus increasing its overall energy efficiency. But machinery is not the only way in which humans’ access and turn energy flows toward growth of the economy in Smith’s capital theory. Smith considers the useful abilities of workers to be a form of capital and here we can see another place where energy efficiency may fit into Smiths capital theory. When defining the useful abilities of workers Smith refers to dexterity: the skills and abilities acquired by workers through the repetition and simplification of tasks. When defining dexterity Smith talks about it in terms of efficiency gains. For example, a worker specializing in the production of nails will become more skilled in their production, and hence more efficient (Smith 1975: 18). But nowhere does Smith imply that an increase in dexterity is miraculous. And although it is intimately bound up with social organization through the division of labor, we can see how energy may fit into the process. Specifically, the increase in dexterity can be understood as partly a function of the fact that energy flows are being used more efficiently. Workers learn the best way to stir the fire, to heat iron and shape the head of the nail. An increase in the skill of a worker enables them to use energy more efficiently. In this way, more efficient use of energy flows can be seen as one of the ways that the division of labor enables increases in productivity. 3.3. Summary of the energy-capital relation in The Wealth of Nations Smith views capital as the monetary and physical resources that are brought by capitalists into exchange processes with the intention of generating an income for themselves. Smith, like Marx, is clear that all production ultimately rests on inputs from the natural environment, so it is not surprising that in The Wealth of Nations we found examples of a subset of capital that generates profits by changing the way energy is used in production processes. Specifically, I presented two mechanisms that can be identified in The Wealth of Nations: bringing new energy sources into the economy (the transition from human power to wind and waterpower in the fulling process), and being made more energy efficient (through machinery innovations and specialization of labor). We can now apply this interpretation of Smith’s energy-capital theory to the question of low-carbon transitions. The examples I have elaborated support Steeds (2024: 35) notion that Smith has an “intuitive” understanding of energy. Some of the critical functions of Smith’s conception of capital can be explained in terms of how it mediates our relationship to energy. In this way, Smith’s reading is close to more modern accounts of the role of energy (Keen, Ayres, and Standish 2019, Sakai et al. 2019). But what differentiates Smith’s from these accounts is an explicit emphasis on the social context in which energy is used by capital. Some accounts of the energy-economy relationship effectively, or explicitly, reduce production to energy use. In Smith’s account by contrast, energy use is framed and shaped by social forces. Recalling Smith’s core understanding of capital from section 2, it is clear that energy is being harnessed by capital in an attempt to generate profits within a market process. In other words, in a capitalist economy where most production follows the logic of capital, the major driver of energy use will be the attempt to generate incomes for the owners of capital. This insight, though simple, is often overlooked and has profound implications for a low-carbon transition. 4. A Smithian Analysis of Low-Carbon Transitions Under Capitalism In this section, I apply the insights from the reading of Smith’s capital theory to historical data on energy use under capitalism. I argue that the theory provides a simple and compelling explanation for the constant expansion of energy use as new forms of energy have been added to the mix. Capitalists seek to use energy to grow their profits; therefore, they invest in efficiency measures or new energy sources in order to increase the total energy available to them. Energy is never saved in the sense of not being used. Rather, it is made available to new profit-seeking ventures. Across both mainstream and radical interventions into low-carbon transition debates, there is often a focus on the investment needed to grow low-carbon and energy efficiency programs (e.g., Hrnčić et al. 2021; Pollin 2015, 2019; Qadir et al. 2021). The central argument in these works is that low-carbon transitions require substantial but not unreasonable levels of investment in low-carbon energy and energy efficiency programs. Approaching this from the perspective of energy-capital relations developed in this article, we are looking at the need to transition capital from one conversion technology to another. Today, much capital takes the form of conversion technologies designed to access the energy in fossil fuels. For a low-carbon economy we need capital to take the form of conversion technologies that can access energy in wind, solar, or other low-carbon forms. It is tempting to think about this in terms of the transition described by Smith from labor power to wind power in the fulling process. However, there is a fundamental difference between the transition from one energy source to another as developed in The Wealth of Nations, and that needed in the low-carbon transition. Historically, transitions between dominant energy sources under capitalism have been consistent with Smith’s argument that capital is only motivated by the desire for profit. Past energy transitions under capitalism have been driven by a search for greater profits enabled by the new energy sources, not by pro-social or pro-ecological values. For example, Malm (2016) argues that the English transition from wood to water was driven by the desire of capitalists to concentrate and better control their workforce, simultaneously reducing losses from theft, making workers more efficient, and bringing a greater scale of energy into the production process. The consequence of the consistent searching for profits in capitalist energy transitions is that we have very few examples of energy sources declining under capitalism at the macro-scale. Under capitalism, energy transitions are better described as energy additions (York and Bell 2019). In recent decades, there has been a remarkable growth in the use of low-carbon energy sources, but at no point in this period has energy production from fossil fuels decreased (figure 1; Malanima 2022). Indeed, looking at the evolution of 9 categories of primary energy sources since 1820 (figure 1), only fodder has seen a prolonged decrease under capitalism. For instance, in absolute terms, energy from coal overtakes fuelwood as the largest primary energy carrier in the late 1800s. But after this point the energy supplied by fuelwood continues to grow. Even in the case of fodder, although it has been in decline for approximately sixty years it still provided more than twice as much energy in 2020 than it did in 1820. Looking specifically at low-carbon fuels, the charts for renewables and nuclear energy show dramatic spikes and rapid growth. But these spikes do not coincide with declines in any other fuel source, and the International Energy Agency (IEA 2023a, 2023b) reports that 2022 was an all-time high for coal production, and forecasts record oil production in 2024.   Figure 2 depicts global energy efficiency, the scale of global production, and the total primary energy use 1820–2018. Energy efficiency of the global capitalist economy has improved drastically over the two-hundred-year period covered: in 2018, producing one unit of output took only 40 percent of the energy it would have taken in 1820. But as energy efficiency has grown, so has total energy use and total output, and these changes dwarf the gains in energy efficiency. In 2018, 41 times as much energy was used as in 1820, while global production grew by 2 orders of magnitude over the same period.   From the lens of our interpretation of Smith’s capital theory, the constant expansion of fossil fuel use alongside renewables and energy efficiency gains is not surprising. The purpose of capital development and deployment in our Smithian lens is to increase income for capitalists by facilitating exchange. So, we would expect capitalists to invest in capital that enables them to access new sources of energy, like renewables, in order to bring a greater scale and quantity of energy into production. But we would also expect them to continue to invest in fossil fuels for the same reasons. More energy means more production means more profit. Likewise, we would expect capitalists to use their capital to increase energy efficiency: this reduces their costs. But we would also expect capitalists to take subsequent energy savings and use them to increase production further. As energy is used more efficiently in any given process, more energy is available to be used elsewhere in the economy or, as new energy sources are brought into production, the old sources are made available for new processes (Garrett 2014; Sakai et al. 2019; York and Bell 2019). As long as the capitalist appetite for greater incomes is present, they will seek to direct energy “savings” into new or expanded forms of production. The practical implication of this theoretical analysis is that investment in low-carbon energy sources and energy efficiency measures—no matter how bold the proposals—will not succeed without a change to the social dynamics of capitalist production. Achieving a low-carbon transition therefore requires the formidable task of coupling a large and sustained investment program in renewables and energy efficiency with a challenge to the structural logic of capital. This requires wide-ranging shifts within capitalist economies to build low-carbon energy infrastructure and develop ways of producing that disrupt the constant profit chasing of capital. The former is required to ensure action can begin now, while the latter is needed to ensure that low-carbon investments do not simply continue to expand the energy base of capitalist production. Elaborating on such possibilities is beyond the scope of this article. However, there are research programs that seek to understand alternatives to profit-driven capitalist production, notably work in post-capitalism and the post-growth/degrowth literatures that identify noncapitalist logics of production (Gibson-Graham 2014; Colombo, Bailey, and Gomes, 2024; Mair 2024; Vandeventer, Lloveras, and Warnaby 2024). A useful future direction for research lies in asking how such non-capitalist modes of production might be scaled and applied to the global energy system. 5. Conclusion In this article I have used a history of economic thought approach to analyze the relationship between energy and capital. Rereading The Wealth of Nations, I argued that Smith’s theory of capital is fundamentally socio-physical. Smith views capital as any accumulated resource that is used to support the exchange cycle of the market economy with the expectation that this will return a profit for the owner of the resource. Based on this reading, I argued that there are two ways in which energy might enter into Adam Smith’s capital theory: (1) capital is used to bring new energy sources into production; and (2) capital is used to make existing energy flows more efficient. Using this view of energy-capital relations, we can explain the major trends in historical energy-capital relations under capitalism. Over the last two hundred years, energy use has grown continuously, and the incorporation of new primary energy sources has not systematically led to reductions in older primary energy sources. This is consistent with the idea that capital is used to bring new energy sources into production. Investment in renewables is what we would expect: renewable energy technology allows capitalists to access new primary energy sources. They use this to generate more profits. They continue to invest in fossil fuel technology for the same reasons. Over the last two hundred years, there have been substantive gains in energy efficiency, and these have not led to reductions in energy use. This is consistent with the idea that capital is used to make energy use more efficient. The motivation of capitalists to make energy more efficient is to be more profitable. They then take energy savings from energy efficiency gains and use these to increase production, in an attempt to make more profits. The implication of this analysis is that investment in low-carbon technology and energy efficiency is the (relatively!) easy part of achieving a low-carbon transition. These dynamics are fundamentally compatible with the logics of capital. The barrier to achieving a low-carbon transition is that as long as this investment takes the form of “capital” (i.e., it chases profits and supports exchange processes), then it is unlikely that investment in renewables or energy efficiency programs will reduce energy use from fossil fuels. To achieve a low-carbon transition we must invest in low-carbon technology and energy efficiency, while simultaneously developing new organizational forms that challenge the capitalist dynamics of expansion and accumulation. AcknowledgmentsI would like to thank Christiane Heisse, Don Goldstein, and Robert McMaster, for their careful reviews and Enid Arvidson for her editorial work, all of which greatly improved the article. I would like to thank participants of the workshops Economic Theory for the Anthropocene (organized by the Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity and the University of Surrey Institute for Advanced Studies) and The Political Economy of Capitalism (organized by the Institute for New Economic Thinking Young Scholar Initiative working groups on the Economics of Innovation and Economic History). Particular thanks to Richard Douglas, Angela Druckman, Ben Gallant, Elena Hofferberth, Tim Jackson, Andy Jarvis, Mary O’Sullivan, and Elke Pirgmaier for fruitful discussions. I would like to thank the Marxist Internet Archive for making The Wealth of Nations freely available.Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.FundingThe author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was partly funded by the Economic and Social Research Council through the Centre for the Understanding of Sustainability, grant no. ES/M010163/1.ORCID iDSimon Mair https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5143-8668Note1 The full sources for the Maddison Project Database are Abad and Van Zanden (2016); Álvarez-Nogal and De La Escosura (2013); Baffigi (2011); Barro and Ursúa (2008); Bassino et al. (2019); Bértola et al. (2012); Bértola (2016); Broadberry et al. (2015); Broadberry, Custodis, and Gupta (2015); Broadberry, Guan, and Li (2018); Buyst (2011); Cha et al. (2022); Chilosi and Ciccarelli (2021); De Corso (2013); de la Escosura (2009); Díaz-Bahamonde, Lüders, and Wagner (2007); Eloranta, Voutilainen, and Nummela (2016); Fourie and Van Zanden (2013); Fukao et al. (2015); Fukao, Ma, and Yuan (2007); Gregory (2004); Grytten (2015); Herranz-Loncán and Peres-Cajías (2016); Ivanov (2008); Kostelenos et al. (2007); Krantz (2017); Malanima (2011); Malinowski and van Zanden (2017); Markevich and Harrison (2011); Milanovic (2011); Pamuk and Shatzmiller (2011); Pamuk (2006); Prados De la Escosura (2017); Ridolfi (2017); Santamaría (2005); Scheidel and Friesen (2009); Schön and Krantz (2016); Shah (2017); Smits, Horlings, and Van Zanden (2000); Stohr (2016); Sugimoto (2011); Van Zanden (2012); Van Zanden and Van Leeuwen (2012); Ward and Devereux (2012); Wu (2013); Xu et al. (2017).ReferencesAbad Leticia Arroyo, Luiten Jan, Zanden Van. 2016. Growth under extractive institutions? Latin American per capita GDP in colonial times. The Journal of Economic History 76 (4): 1182–215. Álvarez-Nogal Carlos, Prados De La Escosura Leandro. 2013. The rise and fall of Spain (1270–1850). The Economic History Review 66 (1): 1–37. Baffigi Alberto. 2011. Italian National Accounts, 1861-2011. Economic History Working Paper no. 18. Rome: Bank of Italy. https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/quaderni-storia/2011-0018/index.html?com.dotmarketing.htmlpage.language=1. Barro Robert J., Ursúa José F. 2008. Macroeconomic Crises Since 1870. NBER Working Paper no. 13940. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w13940 Bassino Jean-Pascal, Broadberry Stephen, Fukao Kyoji, Gupta Bishnupriya, Takashima Masanori. 2019. Japan and the great divergence, 730–1874. Explorations in Economic History 72: 1–22. Bértola Luis. 2016. El PIB per cápita de Uruguay 1870–2015: Una Reconstrucción. Programa de Historia Económica y Social Unidad Multidisciplinaria Working Paper no. 48. Montevideo, Uruguay: Universidad de la República. Accessed at https://www.colibri.udelar.edu.uy/jspui/handle/20.500.12008/27146.Bértola Luis, Antonio Ocampo José, Bértola Luis, Antonio Ocampo José. 2012. The Economic Development of Latin America Since Independence. Initiative for Policy Dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blaug Mark. 1990. Economic Theory in Retrospect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bögenhold Dieter. 2021. History of economic thought as an analytic tool: Why past intellectual ideas must be acknowledged as lighthouses for the future. In Neglected Links in Economics and Society: Inequality, Organization, Work and Economic Methodology, ed. Dieter Bögenhold, 161–80. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. Broadberry Stephen, Campbell Bruce M. S., Klein Alexander, Overton Mark, Van Leeuwen Bas. 2015. British Economic Growth, 1270–1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Broadberry Stephen, Custodis Johann, Gupta Bishnupriya. 2015. India and the great divergence: An Anglo-Indian comparison of GDP per capita, 1600–1871. Explorations in Economic History 55: 58–75. Broadberry Stephen, Guan Hanhui, Daokui Li David. 2018. China, Europe, and the great divergence: A study in historical national accounting, 980–1850. The Journal of Economic History 78 (4): 955–1000. Brockway Paul, Sorrell Stephen, Foxon Timothy, Miller Jack. 2019. Exergy economics—New insights into energy consumption and economic growth. In Transitions in Energy Efficiency and Demand: The Emergence, Diffusion, and Impact of Low-Carbon Innovation, eds. Kirsten E. H., Debbie Hopkins Jenkins, 133–55. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Buyst Erik. 2011. Towards estimates of long-term growth in the southern low countries, ca. 1500–1846. Results presented at the Conference on Quantifying Long Run Economic Development, Venice, March 22–24.Cannan Edwin. 1921. Early history of the term capital. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 35 (3): 469–81 Cha Myung Soo, Nyeon Kim Nak, Park Ki-Joo, Park Yitaek. 2022. Historical Statistics of Korea. Singapore: Springer. Chester Lynne. 2014. To change or reform capitalism: Addressing the ecological crisis. Review of Radical Political Economics 46 (3): 406–12. Chilosi David, Ciccarelli Carlo. 2021. Southern and Northern Italy in the Great Divergence: New Perspectives from the Occupational Structure. Bank of Italy Economic History Working Paper no. 47. Rochester, NY: SSRN-Elsevier. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3852318.Christensen Paul P. 1979. Sraffian themes in Adam Smith’s theory. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 2 (1): 94–109. Cleveland Cutler, Costanza Robert, Hall Charles, Kaufmann Ralph. 1984. Energy and the US economy: A biophysical perspective. Science 225 (4665): 890–97. Colombo Laura, Bailey Adrian, Gomes Marcus. 2024. Scaling in a post-growth era: Learning from Social Agricultural Cooperatives. Organization 31 (6): 907–28. Daly Herman. 1968. On economics as a life science. Journal of Political Economy 76 (3): 392–406. Davis Ann E. 2019. Salvation or commodification? The role of money and markets in global ecological preservation. Review of Radical Political Economics 51 (4): 536–43. De Corso Giuseppe. 2013. Venezuelan economic growth from the conservative oligarchy to the Bolivarian revolution (1830–2012). Revista de Historia Económica [Journal of Iberian and Latin American Economic History] 31 (3): 321–57.de la Escosura Leandro Prados. 2009. Lost decades? Economic performance in post-independence Latin America. Journal of Latin American Studies 41 (2): 279–307. Díaz-Bahamonde José, Lüders Rolf, Wagner Gert. 2007. Economía Chilena 1810–2000. Producto Total y Sectorial. Una Nueva Mirada. Working Paper no. 315. Santiago: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/ioedoctra/315.htm.Elkomy Shimaa, Mair Simon, Jackson Tim. 2020. Energy and Productivity: A Review of the Literature. CUSP Working Paper no. 21. Guildford, UK: Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity. https://cusp.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/pp-energy-report.pdf#ppem.Eloranta Jari, Miikka Voutilainen, Nummela Ilkka. 2016. Estimating Finnish Economic Growth Before 1860. Rochester, NY: SSRN-Elsevier. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4706862.Evensky Jerry. 2005. Adam Smith’s Moral Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Finn Mary. 2000. Perfect competition and the effects of energy price increases on economic activity. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 32 (3): 400–16. Fourie Johan, Luiten Jan, Zanden Van. 2013. GDP in the Dutch Cape Colony: The national accounts of a slave-based society. South African Journal of Economics 81 (4): 467–90. Friedlingstein Pierre, O’Sullivan Michael, Jones Matthew W., Andrew Robbie M., Bakker Dorothee, Hauck Judith, Landschützer Peter, Le Quéré Corinne, Luijkx Ingrid T., Peters Glen. 2023. Global carbon budget 2023. Earth System Science Data 15 (12): 5301–69. Frontali Clara. 2014. History of physical terms: “Energy.” Physics Education 49 (5): 564. Fukao Kyoji, Bassino Jean-Pascal, Makino Tatsuji, Paprzycki Ralph, Settsu Tokihiko, Takashima Masanori, Tokui Joji. 2015. Regional Inequality and Industrial Structure in Japan: 1874–2008. Tokyo: Maruzen.Fukao Kyoji, Ma Debin, Yuan Tangjun. 2007. Real GDP in pre-war East Asia: A 1934–36 benchmark purchasing power parity comparison with the US. Review of Income and Wealth 53 (3): 503–37. Garrett Tim. 2014. Long-run evolution of the global economy: 1. Physical basis. Earth’s Future 2 (3): 127–51. Gibson-Graham J. K. 2014. Being the revolution, or, how to live in a “more-than-capitalist” world threatened with extinction. Rethinking Marxism 26 (1): 76–94. Gregory Paul R. 2004. Russian National Income, 1885–1913. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Grubler Arnulf, Johansson Thomas, Muncada Luis, Nakicenovic Nebojsa, Pachauri Shonali, Riahi Keywan, Rogner Hans-Holger, Strupeit Lars. 2012. Global Energy Assessment: Toward a Sustainable Future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and IIASA.Grytten Ola Honningdal. 2015. Norwegian Gross Domestic Product by Industry 1830–1930. Norges Bank Working Paper no. 19/2015. Rochester, NY: SSRN-Elsevier. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2714378.Hall Charles, Klitgaard Kent. 2012. Energy and the Wealth of Nations: Understanding the Biophysical Economy. New York: Springer. Herranz-Loncán Alfonso, Alejandro Peres-Cajías José. 2016. Tracing the reversal of fortune in the Americas: Bolivian GDP per capita since the mid-nineteenth century. Cliometrica 10 (1): 99–128. Hirsch Roni. 2021. Risk and trouble: Adam Smith on profit and the protagonists of capitalism. American Journal of Political Science 65 (1): 166–79. Hodgson Geoffrey. 2014. What is capital? Economists and sociologists have changed its meaning: Should it be changed back? Cambridge Journal of Economics 38 (5): 1063–86. Hrnčić Boris, Pfeifer Antun, Jurić Filip, Duić Neven, Ivanović Vladan, Vušanović Igor. 2021. Different investment dynamics in energy transition towards a 100% renewable energy system. Energy 237: 121526. IEA (International Energy Agency). 2022. World Energy Statistics and Balances—Data Product. Paris: International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-statistics-and-balances.IEA (International Energy Agency).2023a. Global Coal Demand Set to Remain at Record Levels in 2023—News. Paris: International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/news/global-coal-demand-set-to-remain-at-record-levels-in-2023.IEA (International Energy Agency). 2023b. Oil Market Report—October 2023—Analysis. Paris: International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/oil-market-report-october-2023.IEA (International Energy Agency). 2024. CO2 Emissions in 2023. Paris: International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023.Ivanov Martin. 2008. Understanding economic and social developments in the periphery: Bulgarian national income 1892–1924. East Central Europe 34–35 (1–2): 219–44. Jackson Tim. 1996. Material Concerns: Pollution, Profit and Quality of Life. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Jonsson Fredrik Albritton. 2014. Adam Smith in the forest. In The Social Lives of Forests, eds. Hecht Susanna B., Morrison Kathleen D., Padoch Christine, 45–54. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Keen Steve, Ayres Robert, Standish Russell. 2019. A note on the role of energy in production. Ecological Economics 157: 40–46. Kostelenos Georgios, Vasiliou Dimitrios, Kounaris Euua, Petmezas Socrates, Sfakianakis Michail. 2007. Gross Domestic Product 1830-1939. Sources of Economic History of Modern Greece, Quantitative Data and Statistical Series 1830–1939. Athens: Historical Archive of the National Bank of Greece and Centre for Planning and Economic Research. https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/releases/maddison-project-database-2020.Krantz Olle. 2017. Swedish GDP 1300–1560: A Tentative Estimate. Lund Papers in Economic History no. 152. Lund: Lund University, Department of Economic History. https://ideas.repec.org//p/hhs/luekhi/0152.html.Kurz Heinz. 1990. Debates in capital theory. In Capital Theory, eds. John Eatwell, Milgate Murray, Newman Peter, 79–93. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kurz Heinz. 2010 Technical progress, capital accumulation and income distribution in classical economics: Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 17 (5): 1183–222. Li Minqi. 2011. The 21st century crisis: Climate catastrophe or socialism. Review of Radical Political Economics 43 (3): 289–301. Mair Simon. 2022. Writing our way to sustainable economies? How academic sustainability writing engages with capitalism. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 54 (7): 1460–74. Mair Simon. 2024. Language, climate change, and cities beyond capitalism. Journal of City Climate Policy and Economy 2 (2): 171–88. Mair Simon, Druckman Angela, Jackson Tim. 2020. A tale of two utopias: Work in a post-growth world. Ecological Economics 173. Malanima Paolo. 2011. The long decline of a leading economy: GDP in central and northern Italy, 1300–1913. European Review of Economic History 15 (2). 169–219. Malanima Paolo. 2022. World Energy Consumption: A Database 1820–2020. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. https://histecon.fas.harvard.edu/energyhistory/DATABASE%20World%20Energy%20Consumption(MALANIMA).pdf.Malinowski Mikołaj, van Zanden Jan Luiten. 2017. Income and its distribution in preindustrial Poland. Cliometrica 11 (3): 375–404. Malm Andreas. 2016. Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming. New York: Verso.Markevich Andrei, Harrison Mark. 2011. Great war, civil war, and recovery: Russia’s national income, 1913 to 1928. The Journal of Economic History 71 (3): 672–703. Marx Karl. 2013. Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production. Hertfordshire, UK: Wordsworth.Meek Ronald. 1954. Adam Smith and the classical concept of profit. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 1 (2): 138–53. Meek Ronald. 1977. Smith, Marx, and After: Ten Essays in the Development of Economic Thought. London: Chapman and Hall. Milanovic Branko. 2011. Maddison Project Database: Estimates Provided to the Maddison-Project. https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/releases/maddison-project-database-2020.Moore Jason. 2017. The Capitalocene, part 1: On the nature and origins of our ecological crisis. The Journal of Peasant Studies. 44 (3): 594–630. Odum Howard. 1973. Energy, ecology, and economics. Ambio 2 (6): 220–27.Pack Spencer. 2013. Adam Smith and Marx. In The Oxford Handbook of Adam Smith, eds. Christopher Berry, Pia Paganelli Maria, Smith Craig, 523–538. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Pamuk Şevket. 2006. Estimating economic growth in the Middle East since 1820. The Journal of Economic History 66 (3): 809–28. Pamuk Şevket, Shatzmiller Maya. 2011. Real Wages and GDP per Capita in the Medieval Islamic Middle East in Comparative Perspective, 700–1500. Presented at the 9th Conference of the European Historical Economics Society, Dublin, September 2–3.Pianta Mario, Lucchese Matteo. 2020. Rethinking the European green deal: An industrial policy for a just transition in Europe. Review of Radical Political Economics 52 (4): 633–41. Pirgmaier Elke. 2021. The value of value theory for ecological economics. Ecological Economics 179. Polanyi Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.Pollin Robert. 2015. Greening the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pollin Robert. 2019. Advancing a viable global climate stabilization project: Degrowth versus the Green New Deal. Review of Radical Political Economics 51 (2): 311–19. Prados De la Escosura Leandro. 2017. Spanish Economic Growth, 1850–2015. Basingstoke, UK: Springer Nature. Qadir Sikandar Abdul, Al-Motairi Hessah, Tahir Furqan, Al-Fagih Luluwah. 2021. Incentives and strategies for financing the renewable energy transition: A review. Energy Reports 7: 3590–606. Ridolfi Leonardo. 2017. The French economy in the Longue Durée: A study on real wages, working days and economic performance from Louis IX to the revolution (1250–1789). European Review of Economic History 21 (4): 437–8. Riley Dylan. 2023. Drowning in deposits. NLR Sidecar. https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/drowning-in-deposits.Robinson Joan. 1962. Economic Philosophy. London: Penguin.Saitō Kōhei. 2022. Marx in the Anthropocene: Towards the Idea of Degrowth Communism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Sakai Marco, Brockway Paul, Barrett John, Taylor Paul. 2019. Thermodynamic efficiency gains and their role as a key “engine of economic growth.” Energies 12 (1): 110. Santamaría Antonio. 2005. Las Cuentas Nacionales de Cuba, 1690–2005. Unpublished manuscript. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Históricos and Centro Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/releases/maddison-project-database-2020.Scheidel Walter, Friesen Steven. 2009. The size of the economy and the distribution of income in the Roman empire. The Journal of Roman Studies 99: 61–91. Schön Lennart, Krantz Olle. 2016. New Swedish Historical National Accounts Since the 16th Century in Constant and Current Prices. Lund Papers in Economic History, General Issues, No. 140. Lund, Sweden: Lund University, Department of Economic History. https://lucris.lub.lu.se/ws/files/5872822/8228142.pdf.Schumpeter Joseph. 1954. History of Economic Analysis. Abingdon, UK: Taylor and Francis.Shah Sultan Nazrin. 2017. Charting the Economy: Early 20th Century Malaya and Contemporary Malaysian Contrasts. Oxford: Oxford University Press South East Asia.Smil Vaclav. 2017a. Energy and Civilization: A History. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Smil Vaclav. 2017b. Energy Transitions: Global and National Perspectives, 2nd edition. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.Smith Adam. 1975. The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith volume 2: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, ed. William Todd. Online: Oxford Scholarly Editions. https://www-oxfordscholarlyeditions-com.libproxy.york.ac.uk/display/10.1093/actrade/9780199269570.book.1/actrade-9780199269570-work-1.Smits Jan-Pieter, Horlings Edwin, van Zanden Jan Luiten. 2000. The Measurement of Gross National Product and Its Components, 1800–1913. Growth and Development Centre Monograph Series no. 5. Groningen, the Netherlands: Groningen University. https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/docs/mono5.pdf.Steeds Leo. 2024. Adam Smith as ecological economist. In Environment and Ecology in the History of Economic Thought, ed. Vitor Schincariol, 29–48. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Stohr Christian. 2016. Trading Gains: New Estimates of Swiss GDP, 1851–2008. Economic History Working Paper no. 245/2016. London: London School of Economics and Political Science, Economic History Department. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67032/Stratford Beth. 2020. The threat of rent extraction in a resource-constrained future. Ecological Economics 169: 106524. Stratford Beth. 2023. Rival definitions of economic rent: Historical origins and normative implications. New Political Economy 28 (3): 347–62. Sugimoto Ichiro. 2011. Economic Growth of Singapore in the Twentieth Century: Historical GDP Estimates and Empirical Investigations. Singapore: World Scientific. Tsoulfidis Lefteris, Paitaridis Dimitris. 2012. Revisiting Adam Smith’s theory of the falling rate of profit. International Journal of Social Economics 39 (5): 304–13. Van Zanden, Luiten Jan. 2012. Economic Growth in Java 1815–1939: The Reconstruction of the Historical National Accounts of a Colonial Economy. Unpublished Maddison-Project Working Paper no. WP 3. Groningen, the Netherlands: Groningen University. https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/releases/maddison-project-database-2020.Van Zanden, Luiten Jan, Van Leeuwen Bas. 2012. Persistent but not consistent: The growth of national income in Holland 1347–1807. Explorations in Economic History 49 (2): 119–30. Vandeventer James Scott, Lloveras Javier, Warnaby Gary. 2024. The transformative potential of everyday life: Shared space, togetherness, and everyday degrowth in housing. Housing, Theory and Society 41 (1): 69–88. Ward Marianne, Devereux John. 2012. The road not taken: Pre-revolutionary Cuban living standards in comparative perspective. The Journal of Economic History 72 (1): 104–32. Wu Harry X. 2013. China’s Growth and Productivity Performance Debate Revisited—Accounting for China’s Sources of Growth with a New Data Set. New York: The Conference Board. https://www.conference-board.org/publications/publicationdetail.cfm?publicationid=2690.Xu Yi, Shi Zhihong, van Leeuwen Bas, Ni Yuping, Zhang Zipeng, Ma Ye. 2017. Chinese national income, ca. 1661–1933. Australian Economic History Review 57 (3): 368–93. York Richard, Elizabeth Bell Shannon. 2019. Energy transitions or additions? Why a transition from fossil fuels requires more than the growth of renewable energy. Energy Research & Social Science 51: 40–43. 

In a landmark advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled on 23 July 2025 that all UN member states have legal obligations under international law to address climate change, which the court described as an existential threat to life on Earth. Powerful countries too must be held responsible for their current emissions and past inaction. Possibly in anticipation of such a ruling, Chris Wright, the US Secretary of Energy and former chief executive of Liberty Energy (an oilfield services company), published an article in The Economist a week earlier, arguing that “climate change is a by-product of progress, not an existential crisis”. Whereas the ICJ relied primarily on the IPCC reports, “which participants agree constitute the best available science on the causes, nature and consequences of climate change”, Wright’s view is based on a particular temporal logic.  According to the IPCC reports, most greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuels, with additional emissions from agriculture, deforestation, industry, and waste. They drive global warming, which is projected to reach 1.5°C between 2021 and 2040, with 2°C likely to follow. Even 1.5°C is not considered safe for most nations, communities, and ecosystems, and according to IPCC, only deep, rapid, and sustained emission cuts can slow warming and reduce the escalating risks and damages. The 2024 state of the climate report, published in BioScience, presents even more worrying assessments. Among other things, the report cites surveys indicating that nearly 80% of these scientists anticipate global temperatures increasing by at least 2.5°C above preindustrial levels by the end of the century, and nearly half of them foresee a rise of at least 3°C.  Wright’s article suggests that the issue of amplifying doubt about climate change may have little to do with engagement with science but rather reflects a deeper temporal logic. This logic is rooted in a Whiggish account of progress to date, a resistance to the reality of the future and the desire for nostalgic restoration. I will explain these elements one by one. The first tier: Whiggism Wright disagrees with most scientific anticipations. His views are likely representative not only of the Trump II administration but also of conservative right-wing populism more generally. It is difficult to understand their climate denialism without an analysis of their views on time and temporality. The most important question concerns the reality of the future. At the first level, Wright provides a kind of textbook example of Whig history, portraying progress as linear, inevitable, and driven by liberal values. Herbert Butterfield introduced the idea of Whig history in his influential 1931 book The Whig Interpretation of History as a critique of a specific way of writing history that he regarded as flawed and intellectually dishonest. Focusing on inevitable progress distorts historical analysis by promoting simplified cause-and-effect reasoning and selective storytelling, emphasising present-day evaluation (and glorification) over understanding the real causes of historical change. In a Whiggish manner, Wright claims that the last 200 years have seen two big changes to the human condition: “human liberty” and affordable energy. As a result of these two things, life expectancy has nearly doubled, and the percentage of people living in extreme poverty has dropped from 90% to 10%. However, Wright’s argumentation is based on non-contextual and, in that sense, timeless representations of the world, despite its “progressivism”.  For example, consider the claim that extreme poverty has dropped from 90% to 10%. It is based on using a fixed dollar threshold, such as USD 2 per day, to measure poverty over 200 years. This is misleading because most people in the 19th century lived in largely non-monetised economies where subsistence needs were met outside of market exchange, and monetary income was minimal or irrelevant. These metrics also obscure shifting and context-bound definitions of basic needs; rely on incomplete historical data; and ignore the role of colonial dispossession and structural inequality in shaping global poverty. While it is true that life expectancy has doubled, largely due to improvements in hygiene and healthcare, the idea that extreme poverty has plummeted from 90% to under 10% also ignores the fact that the global population has grown eightfold, affecting the entire Earth system with devastating ecological and geological consequences. It further ignores that the rise in life expectancy and poverty reduction has come not only from liberalism or economic growth more generally but from ethical and political struggles and public health interventions. Often, these struggles have been fought in the name of socialism and won despite capitalist incentives, market mechanisms, and related political forces. The second tier: blockism At a deeper level, Wright’s views seem to presuppose what Roy Bhaskar calls “blockism”: the postulation of a simultaneous conjunctive totality of all events. This may sound abstract, but it has been a common assumption among many 20th-century physicists and philosophers that the universe forms a static, closed totality. This view stems from an atomist ontology, where individuals are seen as abstract, events follow regular patterns, time is viewed as spatial, and laws that can be expressed mathematically are considered reversible.  In such a conception, time appears as just another “spatial” dimension. According to the block universe model, the past, present, and future all exist equally and tenselessly. The universe is imagined as a four-dimensional geometric object, like a “block” of spacetime. Time is not something that “flows” or “passes”; instead, all moments are spatially extended points in a timeless whole. Blockism suggests that change and becoming are not truly real but are simply parts of our subjective experience.  The real challenge is to reconcile Whiggism and blockism. Wright is not a theorist and might not need to worry about the coherence of his ideas, but the issue is that Whiggism assumes movement, direction, and a normatively positive evolution of change, whereas the block universe denies real temporality: there is no becoming, no novelty, no agency – only timeless existence. Some versions of the block universe attempt to preserve development by proposing that the block grows. The “block” expands as new events are added to reality, but in this view, the present defines the upper boundary of the block, and the future is not truly real. This appears to be consistent with what Wright says about climate change. Everything he has to say about global warming is limited to one short paragraph: We will treat climate change as what it is: not an existential crisis but a real, physical phenomenon that is a by-product of progress. Yes, atmospheric CO2 has increased over time – but so has life expectancy. Billions of people have been lifted out of poverty. Modern medicine, telecommunications and global transportation became possible. I am willing to take the modest negative trade-off for this legacy of human advancement. From the ICJ’s perspective, this interpretation is dreadful, as the current impacts of climate change are already at odds with the rights of many groups of people. It also exhibits basic injustice, as many of the groups that suffer the most from these impacts have done next to nothing to cause the problem. However, here I am mostly concerned with the temporality of Wright’s claims. This temporality is a combination of Whiggism and blockism: so far, history has exhibited progress, but time and processes stop here, in our present moment. The third tier: nostalgia Wright’s view of time is not limited to an ultimately incoherent combination of Whiggism and blockism. There is also more than a mere hint of nostalgia. This is evident in the appeal of a Golden Age at the outset of his article: I am honoured to advance President Donald Trump’s policy of bettering lives through unleashing a golden age of energy dominance – both at home and around the world. The appeal to the Golden Age somewhat contradicts Whiggism. From a nostalgic perspective, it seems that society has been on a downward trajectory instead of progressing. In other words, regression must be possible. Within an overall Whiggish narrative, one can blame certain actors, such as the Democrats in the US political context, for causing moral and political decline.  A nationalist narrative of a “golden age” and a return to a better past (“making us great again”) is essentially connected to the denial of planetary-scale problems, such as climate change, that would clearly require novel global responses. Climate change from a real-time perspective By merging Whiggism with a block-universe ontology (either static or growing), one ends up with a pseudo-historicism that speaks of “progress” while erasing real time. In a way, such a view “performs change” through a highly selective historical narrative, while denying the ontological preconditions of real change. Real change – emergence, transformation, causation – requires a temporal ontology, where the future is real though not yet fully determined. Thus, there is no mention of global emissions that have continued to rise, their delayed effects, feedback loops, or emergent risks given multiple processes of intertwined changes. Are the basic IPCC models based on real historical time? IPCC models often treat the climate system as a bounded system with internally consistent and deterministic dynamics. The IPCC relies on modelling and uses Bayesian methods to assess uncertainties in climate projections. Bayesian statistics involve updating the probability of a hypothesis as more evidence becomes available, based on prior knowledge (priors) and new data (likelihoods). Such an approach tends to be conservative (based on moving averages, for example) and assumes the quantifiability of uncertainty. It may also convey illusory precision, especially when the underlying models or data are uncertain or incomplete. The IPCC models nonetheless indicate – in contrast to Wright – that the future is real, though the future is approached in a somewhat cautious and deterministic manner. However, many climate scientists go beyond the IPCC consensus by assuming that global heating may reach 2.5 °C or even above 3 °C degree warming by the end of the century.  From a critical scientific realist viewpoint, even such anticipations may be too circumspect. Assuming exponential growth (involving cascading events etc.) and given that recent data shows a rise from 1.0°C to 1.5°C in just 15 years (actual data taken on an annual basis, not moving averages), and using this as a basis for anticipating the future, we seem likely to reach the 2 °C mark in the 2040s and the 3 °C mark in the 2060s.  The plausibility of anticipations depends significantly on how the real openness of the future is treated. Anticipations are reflexive and can shape the future. Real time and historical change involves human freedom and ethics. The evolving universe, where time is real, is stratified, processual, and open-ended. Time involves genuine processes, real possibilities, agency, and emergent structures. Such characteristics indicate that the future is not predetermined but can be shaped by transformative agency.  To sum up, from a real historical time perspective, Wright’s combination of Whiggism, blockism, and nostalgia is a recipe for reactionary politics. Glorifying the present, thinking in a timeless way, and longing for a golden age of the past can play a major role in bringing about a dystopian planetary future.

Abstract We examine the roles of Gold and Bitcoin as a hedge, a safe haven, and a diversifier against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the Ukraine War. Using a rolling window estimation of the dynamic conditional correlation (DCC)-based regression, we present a novel approach to examine the time-varying safe haven, hedge, and diversifier properties of Gold and Bitcoin for equities portfolios. This article uses daily returns of Gold, Bitcoin, S&P500, CAC 40, and NSE 50 from January 3, 2018, to October 15, 2022. Our results show that Gold is a better safe haven than the two, while Bitcoin exhibits weak properties as safe haven. Bitcoin can, however, be used as a diversifier and hedge. This study offers policy suggestions to investors to diversify their holdings during uncertain times. Introduction Financial markets and the diversity of financial products have risen in both volume and value, creating financial risk and establishing the demand for a safe haven for investors. The global financial markets have faced several blows in recent years. From the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) to the outbreak of the pandemic and uncertainty regarding economic policy measures of governments and central banks, the financial markets including equity markets around the world were faced with severe meltdowns. This similar behavior was observed in other markets including equity and commodity markets, resulting in overall uncertainty. In this scenario, the investors normally flock toward the safe-haven assets to protect their investment. In normal situations, investors seek to diversify or hedge their assets to protect their portfolios. However, the financial markets are negatively impacted when there are global uncertainties. Diversification and hedging methods fail to safeguard investors’ portfolios during instability because almost all sectors and assets are negatively affected (Hasan et al., 2021). As a result, investors typically look for safe-haven investments to safeguard their portfolios under extreme conditions (Ceylan, 2022). Baur and Lucey (2010) provide the following definitions of hedge, diversifier, and safe haven: Hedge: An asset that, on average, has no correlation or a negative correlation with another asset or portfolio. On average, a strict hedge has a (strictly) negative correlation with another asset or portfolio.Diversifier: An asset that, on average, has a positive correlation (but not perfect correlation) with another asset or portfolio. Safe haven: This is the asset that in times of market stress or volatility becomes uncorrelated or negatively associated with other assets or a portfolio. As was previously indicated, the significant market turbulence caused by a sharp decline in consumer spending, coupled with insufficient hedging opportunities, was a common feature of all markets during these times (Yousaf et al., 2022). Nakamoto (2008) suggested a remedy by introducing Bitcoin, a “digital currency,” as an alternative to traditional fiduciary currencies (Paule-Vianez et al., 2020). Bitcoin often described as “Digital Gold” has shown greater resilience during periods of crises and has highlighted the potential safe haven and hedging property against uncertainties (Mokni, 2021). According to Dyhrberg (2016), the GFC has eased the emergence of Bitcoin thereby strengthening its popularity. Bouri et al. (2017) in their study indicate that Bitcoin has been viewed as a shelter from global uncertainties caused by conventional banking and economic systems. Recent research has found that Bitcoin is a weak safe haven, particularly in periods of market uncertainty like the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis (Conlon & McGee, 2020; Nagy & Benedek, 2021; Shahzad et al., 2019; Syuhada et al., 2022). In contrast to these findings, a study by Yan et al. (2022) indicates that it can function as a strong safe haven in favorable economic times and with low-risk aversion. Ustaoglu (2022) also supports the strong safe-haven characteristic of Bitcoin against most emerging stock market indices during the COVID-19 period. Umar et al. (2023) assert that Bitcoin and Gold are not reliable safe-havens. Singh et al. (2024) in their study reveal that Bitcoin is an effective hedge for investments in Nifty-50, Sensex, GBP–INR, and JPY–INR, at the same time a good diversifier for Gold. The study suggests that investors can incorporate Bitcoin in their portfolios as a good hedge against market volatility in equities and commodities markets. During the COVID-19 epidemic, Barbu et al. (2022) investigated if Ethereum and Bitcoin could serve as a short-term safe haven or diversifier against stock indices and bonds. The outcomes are consistent with the research conducted by Snene Manzli et al. (2024). Both act as hybrid roles for stock market returns, diversifiers for sustainable stock market indices, and safe havens for bond markets. Notably, Bhuiyan et al. (2023) found that Bitcoin provides relatively better diversification opportunities than Gold during times of crisis. To reduce risks, Bitcoin has demonstrated a strong potential to operate as a buffer against global uncertainty and may be a useful hedging tool in addition to Gold and similar assets (Baur & Lucey, 2010; Bouri et al., 2017; Capie et al., 2005; Dyhrberg, 2015). According to Huang et al. (2021), its independence from monetary policies and minimal association with conventional financial assets allow it to have a safe-haven quality. Bitcoins have a substantial speed advantage over other assets since they are traded at high and constant frequencies with no days when trading is closed (Selmi et al., 2018). Additionally, it has been demonstrated that the average monthly volatility of Bitcoin is higher than that of Gold or a group of international currencies expressed in US dollars; nevertheless, the lowest monthly volatility of Bitcoin is lower than the maximum monthly volatility of Gold and other foreign currencies (Dwyer, 2015). Leverage effects are also evident in Bitcoin returns, which show lower volatilities in high return periods and higher volatilities in low return times (Bouri et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2017). According to recent research, Bitcoins can be used to hedge S&P 500 stocks, which increases the likelihood that institutional and retail investors will build secure portfolios (Okorie, 2020). Bitcoin demonstrates strong hedging capabilities and can complement Gold in minimizing specific market risks (Baur & Lucey, 2010). Its high-frequency and continuous trading further enrich the range of available hedging tools (Dyhrberg, 2016). Moreover, Bitcoin spot and futures markets exhibit similarities to traditional financial markets. In the post-COVID-19 period, Zhang et al. (2021) found that Bitcoin futures outperform Gold futures.Gold, silver, palladium, and platinum were among the most common precious metals utilized as safe-haven investments. Gold is one such asset that is used extensively (Salisu et al., 2021). Their study tested the safe-haven property of Gold against the downside risk of portfolios during the pandemic. Empirical results have also shown that Gold functions as a safe haven for only 15 trading days, meaning that holding Gold for longer than this period would result in losses to investors. This explains why investors buy Gold on days of negative returns and sell it when market prospects turn positive and volatility decreases (Baur & Lucey, 2010). In their study, Kumar et al. (2023) tried to analyse the trends in volume throughout futures contracts and investigate the connection between open interest, volume, and price for bullion and base metal futures in India. Liu et al. (2016) in their study found that there is no negative association between Gold and the US stock market during times of extremely low or high volatility. Because of this, it is not a strong safe haven for the US stock market (Hood & Malik, 2013). Post-COVID-19, studies have provided mixed evidence on the safe-haven properties of Gold (Bouri et al., 2020; Cheema et al., 2022; Ji et al., 2020). According to Kumar and Padakandla (2022), Gold continuously demonstrates safe-haven qualities for all markets, except the NSE, both in the short and long term. During the COVID-19 episode, Gold’s effectiveness as a hedge and safe-haven instrument has been impacted (Akhtaruzzaman et al., 2021). Al-Nassar (2024) conducted a study on the hedge effectiveness of Gold and found that it is a strong hedge in the long run. Bhattacharjee et al. (2023) in their paper examined the symmetrical and asymmetrical linkage between Gold price levels and the Indian stock market returns by employing linear autoregressive distributed lag and nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag models. The results exhibit that the Indian stock market returns and Gold prices are cointegrated. According to the most recent study by Kaczmarek et al. (2022), Gold has no potential as a safe haven, despite some studies on the COVID-19 pandemic showing contradictory results. The co-movements of Bitcoin and the Chinese stock market have also normalized as a result of this epidemic (Belhassine & Karamti, 2021). Widjaja and Havidz (2023) verified that Gold was a safe haven asset during the COVID-19 pandemic, confirming the Gold’s safe-haven characteristic. As previously pointed out, investors value safe-haven investments in times of risk. Investors panic at these times when asset prices fall and move from less liquid (risky) securities to more liquid (safe) ones, such as cash, Gold, and government bonds. An asset must be bought and sold rapidly, at a known price, and for a reasonably modest cost to be considered truly safe (Smales, 2019). Therefore, we need to properly re-examine the safe-haven qualities of Gold and Bitcoin due to the mixed evidences regarding their safe-haven qualities and the impact of COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine on financial markets. This work contributes to and deviates from the body of existing literature in the following ways. We propose a novel approach in this work to evaluate an asset’s time-varying safe haven, hedge, and diversifier characteristics. This research examines the safe haven, hedging, and diversifying qualities of Gold and Bitcoin against the equity indices; S&P 500, CAC 40, and NSE 50. Through the use of rolling window estimation, we extend the methodology of Ratner and Chiu (2013) by estimating the aforementioned properties of the assets. Comparing rolling window estimation to other conventional techniques, the former will provide a more accurate representation of an asset’s time-varying feature. This study explores the conventional asset Gold’s time-varying safe haven, hedging, and diversifying qualities during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine. We use Bitcoin, an unconventional safe-haven asset, for comparison. Data and Methodology We use the daily returns of three major equity indices; S&P500, CAC 40, and NSE 50 from January 3, 2018, to October 15, 2022. The equity indices were selected to represent three large and diverse markets namely the United States, France, and India in terms of geography and economic development. We assess safe-haven assets using the daily returns of Gold and Bitcoin over the same time. Equity data was collected from Yahoo Finance, Bitcoin data from coinmarketcap.com, and Gold data from the World Gold Council website. Engle (2002) developed the DCC (Dynamic Conditional Correlation)-GARCH model, which is frequently used to assess contagion amid pandemic uncertainty or crises. Time-varying variations in the conditional correlation of asset pairings can be captured using the DCC-GARCH model. Through employing this model, we can analyse the dynamic behavior of volatility spillovers. Engle’s (2002) DCC-GARCH model contains two phases; 1. Univariate GARCH model estimation2. Estimation of time-varying conditional correlation. For its explanation, mathematical characteristics, and theoretical development, see here [insert the next link in “the word here” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09711023251322578] Results and Discussion The outcomes of the parameters under the DCC-GARCH model for each of the asset pairs selected for the investigation are shown in Table 1.   First, we look at the dynamical conditional correlation coefficient, ρ.The rho value is negative and insignificant for NSE 50/Gold, NSE 50 /BTC, S&P500/Gold, and S&P500/BTC indicating a negative and insignificant correlation between these asset pairs, showing Gold and Bitcoin as potential hedges and safe havens. The fact that ρ is negative and significant for CAC 40/Gold suggests that Gold can be a safe haven against CAC 40 swings. The asset pair CAC/BTC, on the other hand, has possible diversifier behavior with ρ being positive but statistically insignificant. Next, we examine the behavior of the DCC-GARCH parameters; α and β. We find that αDCC is statistically insignificant for all the asset pairs, while βDCC is statistically significant for all asset pairs. βDCC quantifies the persistence feature of the correlation and the extent of the impact of volatility spillover in a particular market’s volatility dynamics. A higher βDCC value implies that a major part of the volatility dynamics can be explained by the respective market’s own past volatility. For instance, the NSE 50/Gold’s βDCC value of 0.971 shows that there is a high degree of volatility spillover between these two assets, with about 97% of market volatility being explained by the assets’ own historical values and the remainder coming from spillover. Thus, we see that the volatility spillover is highly persistent (~0.8) for all the asset pairs except NSE 50/BTC. The results above show that the nature of the dynamic correlation between the stock markets, Bitcoin and Gold is largely negative, pointing toward the possibility of Gold and Bitcoin being hedge/safe haven. However, a detailed analysis is needed to confirm the same by employing rolling window analysis, and we present the results in the forthcoming section. We present the rolling window results for S&P500 first. We present the regression results for Gold in Figure 1 and Bitcoin in Figure 2   Figure 1. Rolling Window Regression Results for S&P500 and Gold.Note: Areas shaded under factor 1 represent significant regression coefficients. In Figure 1, we examine the behavior of β0 (intercept term), β1, β2, and β3 (partial correlation coefficients). The intercept term β0 will give an idea about whether the asset is behaving as a diversifier or hedge. Here, the intercept term shows significance most of the time. However, during 2018, the intercept was negative and significant, showing that it could serve as a hedge during geopolitical tensions and volatilities in the global stock market. However, during the early stages of COVID-19, we show that the intercept is negative and showing statistical significance, suggesting that Gold could serve as a hedge during the initial shocks of the pandemic. These findings are contrary to the results in the study by Tarchella et al. (2024) where they found hold as a good diversifier. Later, we find the intercept to be positive and significant, indicating that Gold could act as a potential diversifier. But during the Russia-Ukraine War, Gold exhibited hedge ability again. Looking into the behavior of β1, which is the partial correlation coefficient for the tenth percentile of return distribution shows negative and insignificant during 2018. Later, it was again negative and significant during the initial phases of COVID-19, and then negative in the aftermath, indicating that Gold could act as a weak safe haven during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gold could serve as a strong safe haven for the SP500 against volatility in the markets brought on by the war in Ukraine, as we see the coefficient to be negative and large during this time. From β2 and β3, the partial correlation coefficients of the fifth and first percentile, respectively, show that Gold possesses weak safe haven properties during COVID-19 and strong safe haven behavior during the Ukraine crisis. Next, we examine the characteristics of Bitcoin as a hedge/diversifier/safe haven against the S&P500 returns. We present the results in Figure 2.   Figure 2. Rolling Window Regression Results for S&P500 and Bitcoin.Note: Areas shaded under factor 1 represent significant regression coefficients. Like in the previous case, we begin by analysing the behavior of the intercept coefficient, which is β0. As mentioned earlier the intercept term will give a clear picture of the asset’s hedging and diversifier property. In the period 2018–2019, the intercept term is positive but insignificant. This could be due to the large volatility in Bitcoin price movements during the period. It continues to be minimal (but positive) and insignificant during 2019–2020, indicating toward weak diversification possibility. Post-COVID-19 period, the coefficient shows the significance and positive value, displaying the diversification potential. We see that the coefficient remains positive throughout the analysis, confirming Bitcoin’s potential as a diversifier. Looking into the behavior of β1 (the partial correlation coefficient at tenth percentile), it is positive but insignificant during 2018. The coefficient is having negative sign and showing statistical significance in 2019, suggesting that Bitcoin could be a good safe haven in that year. This year was characterized by a long list of corporate scandals, uncertainties around Brexit, and tensions in global trade. We can observe that throughout the COVID-19 period, the coefficient is showing negative sign and negligible during the March 2020 market meltdown, suggesting inadequate safe-haven qualities. However, Bitcoin will regain its safe-haven property in the coming periods, as the coefficient is negative and significant in the coming months. The coefficient is negative and shows statistical significance during the Ukrainian crisis, suggesting strong safe-haven property. Only during the Ukrainian crisis could Bitcoin serve as a safe haven, according to the behavior of β2, which displays the partial correlation coefficient at the fifth percentile. Bitcoin was a weak safe haven during COVID-19 and the Ukrainian crisis, according to β3, the partial correlation coefficient for the first percentile (coefficient negative and insignificant). According to the overall findings, Gold is a stronger safe haven against the S&P 500’s swings. This result is consistent with the previous studies of Triki and Maatoug (2021), Shakil et al. (2018), Będowska-Sójka and Kliber (2021), Drake (2022), and Ghazali et al. (2020), etc. The same analysis was conducted for the CAC 40 and the NSE 50; the full analysis can be found here [insert the next link in “the word here” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09711023251322578]. However, it is important to highlight the respective results: In general, we may say that Gold has weak safe-haven properties considering CAC40. We can conclude that Bitcoin’s safe-haven qualities for CAC40 are weak. We can say that Gold showed weak safe-haven characteristics during the Ukraine crisis and good safe-haven characteristics for the NSE50 during COVID-19. We may say that Bitcoin exhibits weak safe haven, but strong hedging abilities to NSE50. Concluding Remarks In this study, we suggested a new method to evaluate an asset’s time-varying hedge, diversifier, and safe-haven characteristics. We propose a rolling window estimation of the DCC-based regression of Ratner and Chiu (2013). Based on this, we estimate the conventional asset’s time-varying safe haven, hedging, and diversifying properties during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine. For comparison purposes, we include Bitcoin, a nonconventional safe-haven asset. We evaluate Gold and Bitcoin’s safe haven, hedging, and diversifier properties to the S&P 500, CAC 40, and NSE 50 variations. We use a rolling window of length 60 to estimate the regression. From the results, we find that Gold can be considered as a better safe haven against the fluctuations of the S&P 500. In the case of CAC 40, Gold and Bitcoin have weak safe-haven properties. While Bitcoin demonstrated strong safe-haven characteristics during the Ukraine crisis, Gold exhibited strong safe-haven characteristics during COVID-19 for the NSE 50. Overall, the findings indicate that Gold is the better safe haven. This outcome is consistent with earlier research (Będowska-Sójka & Kliber, 2021; Drake, 2022; Ghazali et al., 2020; Shakil et al., 2018; Triki & Maatoug, 2021). When it comes to Bitcoin, its safe-haven feature is weak. Bitcoin, however, works well as a diversifier and hedge. Therefore, from a policy perspective, investing in safe-haven instruments is crucial to lower the risks associated with asset ownership. Policymakers aiming to enhance the stability of financial portfolios might encourage institutional investors and other market players to incorporate Gold into their asset allocations. Gold’s strong safe-haven qualities, proven across various market conditions, make it a reliable choice. Gold’s performance during crises like COVID-19 highlights its potential to mitigate systemic risks effectively. Further, Bitcoin could also play a complementary role as a hedge and diversifier, especially during periods of significant volatility such as the Ukraine crisis. While Bitcoin’s safe-haven characteristics are relatively weaker, its inclusion in a diversified portfolio offers notable value and hence it should not be overlooked. Further, policymakers may consider how crucial it is to monitor dynamic correlations and periodically rebalance portfolios to account for shifts in the safe haven and hedging characteristics of certain assets. Such measures could help reduce the risks of over-reliance on a single asset type and create more resilient portfolios that can better withstand global economic shocks. For future research, studies can be conducted on the estimation of the rolling window with different widths. This is important to understand how the safe-haven property changes across different holding periods. Further, more equity markets would be included to account for the differences in market capitalization and index constituents. This study can be extended by testing these properties for multi-asset portfolios as well. We intend to take up this study in these directions in the future. Data Availability StatementNot applicable.Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.FundingThe authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.ReferencesAkhtaruzzaman M., Boubaker S., Lucey B. M., & Sensoy A. (2021). Is gold a hedge or a safe-haven asset in the COVID-19 crisis? Economic Modelling, 102, 105588. Crossref. Web of Science.Al-Nassar N. S. (2024). Can gold hedge against inflation in the UAE? A nonlinear ARDL analysis in the presence of structural breaks. PSU Research Review, 8(1), 151–166. Crossref.Barbu T. C., Boitan I. A., & Cepoi C. O. (2022). Are cryptocurrencies safe havens during the COVID-19 pandemic? A threshold regression perspective with pandemic-related benchmarks. Economics and Business Review, 8(2), 29–49. Crossref.Baur D. G., & Lucey B. M. (2010). Is gold a hedge or a safe haven? An analysis of stocks, bonds and gold. Financial Review, 45(2), 217–229. Crossref.Będowska-Sójka B., & Kliber A. (2021). Is there one safe-haven for various turbulences? The evidence from gold, Bitcoin and Ether. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, 56, 101390. Crossref.Belhassine O., & Karamti C. (2021). Contagion and portfolio management in times of COVID-19. Economic Analysis and Policy, 72, 73–86. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Bhattacharjee A., Das J., & Kumar S. (2023). Evaluating the symmetrical and asymmetrical linkage between gold price and Indian stock market in the presence of structural change. NMIMS Management Review, 31(4), 288–297. Crossref. Web of Science.Bhuiyan R. A., Husain A., & Zhang C. (2023). Diversification evidence of Bitcoin and Gold from wavelet analysis. Financial Innovation, 9(1), 100. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Bouri E., Azzi G., & Dyhrberg A. H. (2017). On the return-volatility relationship in the Bitcoin market around the price crash of 2013. Economics, 11(1), 2. Crossref.Bouri E., Gupta R., Tiwari A. K., & Roubaud D. (2017). Does Bitcoin hedge global uncertainty? Evidence from wavelet-based quantile-in-quantile regressions. Finance Research Letters, 23, 87–95. Crossref. Web of Science.Bouri E., Shahzad S. J. H., Roubaud D., Kristoufek L., & Lucey B. (2020). Bitcoin, gold, and commodities as safe havens for stocks: New insight through wavelet analysis. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 77, 156–164. Crossref. Web of Science.Brenner M., & Galai D. (1989). New financial instruments for hedge changes in volatility. Financial Analysts Journal, 45(4), 61–65. Crossref.Capie F., Mills T. C., & Wood G. (2005). Gold as a hedge against the dollar. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 15(4), 343–352. Crossref.Ceylan Ö. (2022). Hedging Effectiveness of the VIX ETPs: An analysis of the time-varying performance of the VXX. In Handbook of research on new challenges and global outlooks in financial risk management (pp. 384–401). IGI Global. Crossref.Cheema M. A., Faff R., & Szulczyk K. R. (2022). The 2008 global financial crisis and COVID-19 pandemic: How safe are the safe haven assets? International Review of Financial Analysis, 83, 102316. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Conlon T., & McGee R. (2020). Safe haven or risky hazard? Bitcoin during the COVID-19 bear market. Finance Research Letters, 35, 101607. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Demir E., Gozgor G., Lau C. K. M., & Vigne S. A. (2018). Does economic policy uncertainty predict the Bitcoin returns? An empirical investigation. Finance Research Letters, 26, 145–149. Crossref. Web of Science.Drake P. P. (2022). The gold-stock market relationship during COVID-19. Finance Research Letters, 44, 102111. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Dwyer G. P. (2015). The economics of Bitcoin and similar private digital currencies. Journal of Financial Stability, 17, 81–91. Crossref. Web of Science.Dyhrberg A. H. (2015). Hedging capabilities of bitcoin. Is it the virtual gold? Finance Research Letters, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2015.10.025Dyhrberg A. H. (2016). Hedging capabilities of bitcoin. Is it the virtual gold? Finance Research Letters, 16, 139–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2015.10.025 Web of Science.Engle R. (2002). Dynamic conditional correlation: A simple class of multivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity models. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20(3), 339–350. Crossref. Web of Science.Ghazali M. F., Lean H. H., & Bahari Z. (2020). Does gold investment offer protection against stock market losses? Evidence from five countries. The Singapore Economic Review, 65(02), 275–301. Crossref.Hasan M. B., Hassan M. K., Rashid M. M., & Alhenawi Y. (2021). Are safe haven assets really safe during the 2008 global financial crisis and COVID-19 pandemic? Global Finance Journal, 50, 100668. Crossref. PubMed.Hood M., & Malik F. (2013). Is gold the best hedge and a safe haven under changing stock market volatility? Review of Financial Economics, 22(2), 47–52. Crossref.Huang Y., Duan K., & Mishra T. (2021). Is Bitcoin really more than a diversifier? A pre-and post-COVID-19 analysis. Finance Research Letters, 43, 102016. Crossref.Ji Q., Zhang D., & Zhao Y. (2020). Searching for safe-haven assets during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Review of Financial Analysis, 71, 101526. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Kaczmarek T., Będowska-Sójka B., Grobelny P., & Perez K. (2022). False safe haven assets: Evidence from the target volatility strategy based on recurrent neural network. Research in International Business and Finance, 60, 101610. Crossref. Web of Science.Kumar A. S., & Padakandla S. R. (2022). Testing the safe-haven properties of gold and bitcoin in the backdrop of COVID-19: A wavelet quantile correlation approach. Finance Research Letters, 47, 102707. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Kumar M. A., Swathi J., Pallavi T. A., & Bavana S. (2023). Volume progression and price–volume relationship of commodity futures: Case of bullion and base metals. NMIMS Management Review, 31(4), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/09711023241230463 Web of Science.Liu C. S., Chang M. S., Wu X., & Chui C. M. (2016). Hedges or safe havens—Revisit the role of gold and USD against stock: A multivariate extended skew-t copula approach. Quantitative Finance, 16(11), 1763–1789. Crossref.Liu R., Zhichao S., Wei G., & Wang W. (2017). GARCH model with fat-tailed distributions and Bitcoin exchange rate returns. Journal of Accounting, Business and Finance Research, 1(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3666106 Crossref.Mokni K. (2021). When, where, and how economic policy uncertainty predicts Bitcoin returns and volatility? A quantiles-based analysis. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 80, 65–73. Crossref.Nagy B. Z., & Benedek B. (2021). Higher co-moments and adjusted Sharpe ratios for cryptocurrencies. Finance Research Letters, 39, 101543. Crossref. Web of Science.Nakamoto S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Bitcoin. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfOkorie D. I. (2020). Could stock hedge Bitcoin risk(s) and vice versa? Digital Finance, 2(1), 117–136. Crossref.Paule-Vianez J., Prado-Román C., & Gómez-Martínez R. (2020). Economic policy uncertainty and Bitcoin. Is Bitcoin a safe-haven asset? European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 29(3), 347–363. Crossref.Ratner M., & Chiu C. C. J. (2013). Hedging stock sector risk with credit default swaps. International Review of Financial Analysis, 30, 18–25. Crossref. Web of Science.Salisu A. A., Raheem I. D., & Vo X. V. (2021). Assessing the safe haven property of the gold market during COVID-19 pandemic. International Review of Financial Analysis, 74, 101666. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Saxena S., & Villar A. (2008). Hedging instruments in emerging market economies. Financial globalisation and emerging market capital flows. BIS Papers, 44, 71–87.Selmi R., Mensi W., Hammoudeh S., & Bouoiyour J. (2018). Is Bitcoin a hedge, a safe haven or a diversifier for oil price movements? A comparison with gold. Energy Economics, 74, 787–801. Crossref. Web of Science.Shahzad S. J. H., Bouri E., Roubaud D., Kristoufek L., & Lucey B. (2019). Is Bitcoin a better safe-haven investment than gold and commodities? International Review of Financial Analysis, 63, 322–330. Crossref. Web of Science.Shakil M. H., Mustapha I. H. M., Tasnia M., & Saiti B. (2018). Is gold a hedge or a safe haven? An application of ARDL approach. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, 23(44), 60–76. Crossref.Singh V. V., Singh H., & Ansari A. (2024). Bitcoin as a distinct asset class for hedging and portfolio diversification: A DCC-GARCH model analysis. NMIMS Management Review, 32(1), 7–13. Crossref. Web of Science.Smales L. A. (2019). Bitcoin as a safe haven: Is it even worth considering? Finance Research Letters, 30, 385–393. Crossref. Web of Science.Snene Manzli Y., Alnafisah H., & Jeribi A. (2024). Safe haven ability of energy and agricultural commodities against G7 stock markets and banking indices during COVID-19, Russia–Ukraine War, and SVB collapse: Evidence from the wavelet coherence approach. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2024(1), 2587000. Crossref.Syuhada K., Suprijanto D., & Hakim A. (2022). Comparing gold’s and Bitcoin’s safe-haven roles against energy commodities during the COVID-19 outbreak: A vine copula approach. Finance Research Letters, 46, 102471. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Tarchella S., Khalfaoui R., & Hammoudeh S. (2024). The safe haven, hedging, and diversification properties of oil, gold, and cryptocurrency for the G7 equity markets: Evidence from the pre-and post-COVID-19 periods. Research in International Business and Finance, 67, 102125. Crossref. Web of Science.Triki M. B., & Maatoug A. B. (2021). The GOLD market as a safe haven against the stock market uncertainty: Evidence from geopolitical risk. Resources Policy, 70, 101872. Crossref. Web of Science.Umar Z., Bossman A., Choi S. Y., & Teplova T. (2023). The relationship between global risk aversion and returns from safe-haven assets. Finance Research Letters, 51, 103444. Crossref. Web of Science.Ustaoglu E. (2022). Safe-haven properties and portfolio applications of cryptocurrencies: Evidence from the emerging markets. Finance Research Letters, 47, 102716. Crossref. Web of Science.Widjaja M., & Havidz S. A. H. (2023). Are gold and cryptocurrency a safe haven for stocks and bonds? Conventional vs Islamic markets during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Management and Business Economics (ahead-of-print).Yan Y., Lei Y., & Wang Y. (2022). Bitcoin is a safe-haven asset and a medium of exchange. Axioms, 11(8), 415. Crossref.Yousaf I., Plakandaras V., Bouri E., & Gupta R. (2022). Hedge and safe haven properties of gold, US Treasury, Bitcoin, and Dollar/CHF against the FAANA companies and S&P 500 (Department of Economics, Working Paper Series No. 2022–27). University of Pretoria.Zhang Y., Zhu P., & Xu Y. (2021). Has COVID-19 changed the hedge effectiveness of bitcoin? Frontiers in Public Health, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.704900

Note: some parts of the article have been excluded, if you want to go deep in the article please check  https://doi.org/10.1177/01445987251314504 for the complete version. Abstract Nuclear power plays a pivotal role in sustainable electricity generation and global net zero emissions, contributing significantly to this secure pathway. Nuclear power capacity is expected to double, escalating from 413 gigawatts (GW) in early 2022 to 812 GW by 2050 within the net zero emissions (NZE) paradigm. The global energy landscape is undergoing significant transformation as nations strive to transition to more sustainable energy systems. Amidst this shift, nuclear power has emerged as a crucial component in the pursuit of a sustainable energy transition. This study examines nuclear power's multifaceted role in shaping sustainable energy transition. It delves into nuclear energy's contributions toward decarbonization efforts, highlighting its capacity to provide low-carbon electricity and its potential role in mitigating climate change. Furthermore, the study explores the challenges and opportunities associated with integrating nuclear power into energy transition strategies, addressing issues such as safety, waste management, and public perception. In conclusion, the global nuclear power capacity is anticipated to reach approximately 530 GW by 2050, representing a substantial shortfall of 35% compared with the trajectory outlined in the NZE pathway. Under the NZE scenario, nuclear power demonstrates exceptional expansion, nearly doubling from 413 GW in early 2022 to 812 GW by 2050. Concurrently, the trajectory highlights a transformative shift in renewable energy investments, with annual expenditures surging from an average of US$325 billion during 2016–2020 to an impressive US$1.3 trillion between 2031 and 2035. These projections underscore the critical role of nuclear and renewable energy investments in achieving global sustainability and emission reduction goals. Introduction Global warming and greenhouse gas emissions pose some of the most pressing challenges of the 21st century. The combustion of fossil fuels for electricity generation is a major contributor to these issues, releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere annually (Abbasi et al., 2020; Nassar et al., 2024; Rekik and El Alimi, 2024a). In this context, nuclear energy emerges as a critical component of the solution. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power generates electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions, offering a reliable and scalable alternative to bridge the gap between energy demand and decarbonization goals. It operates independently of weather conditions, providing consistent energy output and complementing the intermittency of renewable sources like wind and solar (Rekik and El Alimi, 2024b, 2024c). Furthermore, advancements in nuclear technologies, including small modular reactors (SMRs) and generation IV reactors, have addressed historical concerns related to safety, waste management, and cost-effectiveness (Lau and Tsai, 2023). In 2022, global investment in low-emission fuels will maintain a robust growth trajectory, reaching a sum of US$13 billion. A significant portion of this investment was allocated toward liquid biofuels, totaling US$9.4 billion, and biogas, amounting to US$2.7 billion. It is important to emphasize that liquid biofuels constituted approximately 80% of the overall investment surge observed in 2022, with investments in biogas contributing 4% of the total. The residual portion of the investment was directed toward low-emission hydrogen production, which attained a sum of US$1.2 billion in 2022, representing an almost fourfold increase compared to the figures recorded in 2021 (Khaleel et al., 2024).Nuclear power is a pivotal component of low-carbon energy, which significantly contributes to the realization of a low-carbon economy and establishment of a green energy grid (Arvanitidis et al., 2023; El Hafdaoui et al., 2024; Fragkos et al., 2021). According to current data, 442 nuclear power reactors are operational worldwide, collectively generating 393 gigawatts (GW) of electricity, thereby furnishing a consistent and dependable source of low-carbon power (Mathew, 2022). Nuclear electricity constitutes approximately 11% of the total global electricity generation, representing a substantial portion of the global low-carbon electricity production (Alam et al., 2019). Recent advancements have enhanced the affordability and appeal of nuclear power as an alternative source of energy. These advancements encompass progress in large reactor technologies, the emergence of novel approaches such as advanced fuel utilization and SMRs, engineering breakthroughs facilitating the extension of operational lifespans for existing reactors, and innovations in materials science and improved waste management practices (Kröger et al., 2020; Zhan et al., 2021). Fast breeder reactor technology has transitioned into a commercial realm, offering benefits beyond electricity generation by enabling the production of surplus fuel and enhancing the efficiency of nuclear waste incineration, surpassing the capabilities of existing commercial reactor technologies (Lau and Tsai, 2023). Nuclear power plays a substantial role within a secure global trajectory toward achieving net zero emissions (NZE) (Addo et al., 2023; Dafnomilis et al., 2023). Nuclear power capacity experiences a twofold increase, progressing from 413 GW at the outset of 2022 to 812 GW by 2050 within the NZE paradigm. It is apparent that the annual additions to nuclear capacity peaked at 27 GW per year during the 2030s, surpassing the levels observed in the preceding decade. Despite these advancements, the global proportion of nuclear power within the overall electricity generation portfolio has experienced a marginal decline, settling at 8% (Murphy et al., 2023; Ruhnau et al., 2023). Emerging and developing economies (EMDEs) substantially dominate global growth, constituting over 90% of the aggregate, with China poised to ascend as a preeminent nuclear power producer prior to 2030. Concurrently, advanced economies collectively witness a 10% augmentation in nuclear power capacity as retirements are counterbalanced by the commissioning of new facilities, predominantly observed in nations such as the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada (Bórawski et al., 2024). Furthermore, annual global investment in nuclear power has experienced a notable escalation, soaring from US$30 billion throughout the 2010s to surpass US$100 billion by 2030, maintaining a robust trajectory above US$80 billion by 2050 (IEA, 2022). In 2022, global nuclear power capacity experienced a modest increase of approximately 1.5 GW, reflecting a marginal year-on-year growth of 0.3%. This expansion was primarily driven by new capacity additions that surpassed the retirement of an over 6 GW of existing capacity (Fernández-Arias et al., 2023; Mendelevitch et al., 2018). EMDEs accounted for approximately 60% of the new capacity additions, underscoring their increasing significance in the global nuclear energy landscape. Conversely, more than half of the retirements were observed in advanced economies, including Belgium, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Table 1 shows the nuclear power capacity by region in the NZE from 2018 to 2030.   In alignment with the Net Zero Scenario, it is imperative for the global nuclear capacity to undergo an expansion averaging approximately 15 GW per annum, constituting a growth rate slightly exceeding 3% annually, until 2030. This strategic augmentation is crucial for sustaining the contribution of the nuclear sector to electricity generation, maintaining its share at approximately 10% (Liu et al., 2023). Such an expansion necessitates concerted efforts in both advanced economies and EMDEs. Furthermore, prioritizing the extension of operational lifetimes of existing nuclear facilities within G7 member states would not only fortify the existing low-emission infrastructure, but also facilitate the integration of new nuclear capacity, thereby augmenting the overall nuclear energy portfolio. [...] The significant contribution of nuclear power to sustainable energy transitions is underscored by its multifaceted role in addressing the pressing challenges of climate change and energy security (Asif et al., 2024). As nations worldwide endeavor to shift toward greener energy systems, nuclear power has emerged as a critical pillar of the decarbonization journey. Its ability to provide low-carbon electricity, mitigate climate change impacts by 2050, and enhance energy security highlights its pivotal importance in the broader context of sustainable energy transitions (Bhattacharyya et al., 2023; NEA, 2015). Thus, to fully realize its potential, challenges such as safety, waste management, and public perception must be addressed effectively. By leveraging robust policy frameworks, technological advancements, and international collaboration, nuclear power is poised to play a vital role in shaping the future of sustainable energy transitions on a global scale. Furthermore, the dynamic landscape of nuclear power development is evident in the significant influence exerted by EMDEs, particularly China, which is expected to emerge as a leading nuclear power producer by 2030 (Fälth et al., 2021; Nkosi and Dikgang, 2021). Concurrently, advanced economies are witnessing notable expansions in nuclear power capacity driven by the commissioning of new facilities to offset retirements (Budnitz et al., 2018). This trend is further reinforced by a notable surge in annual global investment in nuclear power, underscoring the sustained commitment to nuclear energy's pivotal role in sustainable energy transitions in the foreseeable future (IEA, 2019). The primary objective of this article is to explore the strategic role of nuclear power in advancing global sustainability goals and achieving zero emissions. The objective is structured around the following key agendas: •Nuclear power: prominence and green electricity source•Nuclear's role in achieving net zero by 2050•Nuclear power's significance in power system adequacySpecific technologies for sustainability in nuclear energy production•Investment in nuclear power•Addressing policy implications This comprehensive analysis aims to provide actionable insights into harnessing nuclear power for sustainable electricity generation and its pivotal role in achieving global zero-emission targets. Data and methodology This article conducts an in-depth analysis of the role of nuclear power in achieving sustainable electricity generation and supporting NZE targets. The article also addresses the potential of nuclear energy as a prominent and environmentally favorable electricity source, examining nuclear power's contribution toward the net zero by 2050 goal, its critical importance in ensuring power system adequacy, investment imperatives, and the broader policy implications.  [...] Nuclear power: prominence and green electricity source In 2020, nuclear power will constitute approximately 10% of the global electricity generation portfolio. This proportion, which had previously stood at 18% during the late 1990s, has experienced a decline; nonetheless, nuclear energy retains its status as the second-largest provider of low-emission electricity, trailing only hydroelectricity, and serves as the primary source within advanced economies. Despite the substantial proliferation of wind and solar PV technologies, nuclear electricity production in 2020 surpassed the aggregate output of these renewable sources. As of 2021, the global cumulative installed nuclear capacity has reached 413 GW, with 270 GW of this total being installed in advanced economies (Guidi et al., 2023; Halkos and Zisiadou, 2023; Pan et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2022). Nuclear power generation during this period amounted to 2653 TWh, positioning it as the second largest source of electricity generation after hydropower, which generated 4275 TWh, as depicted in Figure 1.   In addition to its significant role in power generation, nuclear energy plays a crucial role in mitigating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Since the 1970s, nuclear power has helped avoid the global release of approximately 66 gigatons (Gt) of CO2 globally, as shown in Figure 2.   Without the contribution of nuclear power, cumulative emissions from electricity generation would have increased by approximately 20%, whereas total energy-related emissions would have increased by 6% over this period (Wagner, 2021). Advanced economies accounted for more than 85% of these avoided emissions, with the European Union accounting for 20 Gt and the United States for 24 Gt, representing over 40% and 25% of total electricity generation emissions, respectively. In the absence of nuclear power, Japan would have experienced an estimated 25% increase in emissions from electricity generation, whereas Korea and Canada would have seen an increase of approximately 50%. Nuclear's role in achieving net zero by 2050 Nuclear energy has emerged as a pivotal low-emission technology within the trajectory toward achieving NZE (Pioro et al., 2019). In addition, it serves as a complementary force, bolstering the accelerated expansion of renewables, thereby facilitating the reduction of emissions from the global electricity sector to net zero by 2040 (Krūmiņš and Kļaviņš, 2023; Islam et al., 2024). Beyond its intrinsic contribution to fostering a low-emission electricity supply, nuclear power is significant as a dispatchable generating asset, fortifying supply security through its provision of system adequacy and flexibility. Furthermore, it is instrumental in furnishing heat for district heating networks and in selecting industrial facilities. Despite this, the prospective role of nuclear energy hinges significantly on the deliberations and determinations of policymakers and industry stakeholders concerning the pace of new reactor construction initiatives and the continued operational lifespan of existing nuclear facilities (Li et al., 2016; Li et al., 2015).In terms of the NZE trajectory, the global nuclear power capacity exhibits a remarkable surge, nearly doubling from 413 GW at the onset of 2022 to 812 GW by 2050 (Price et al., 2023; Utami et al., 2022). This augmentation primarily stems from the vigorous initiation of new construction endeavors, which effectively counterbalance the gradual decommissioning of numerous extant plants. Such an escalation constitutes a pronounced acceleration in comparison to the preceding three decades, characterized by a mere 15% increment in capacity, equivalent to approximately 60 GW (Haneklaus et al., 2023; Obekpa and Alola, 2023; Sadiq et al., 2023). Figure 3 demonstrates the nuclear power capacity within each country/region under the NZE by 2050 scenario.   The expected growth in nuclear power capacity far exceeds the path outlined by the current policies and legal frameworks. According to the Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS), the nuclear capacity is projected to reach approximately 530 GW by 2050, which is 35% lower than that of the NZE pathway (Espín et al., 2023; Nicolau et al., 2023; Nnabuife et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023). Without a significant shift from recent nuclear power development trends, achieving NZE would require a limited reliance on a smaller range of low-emission technologies. This could compromise energy security and lead to higher total investment costs, resulting in increased electricity prices for consumers. Table 2 shows the average annual capacity addition for global nuclear power in NZE from 1981 to 2030.   In 2022, the global deployment of new nuclear power capacity witnessed a notable upsurge, with 7.9 GW added, representing a substantial 40% increase compared to the preceding year (Ho et al., 2019). It is worth bearing in mind that China spearheaded this expansion by completing the construction of two reactors, maintaining its streak for consecutive years as the leading contributor to global nuclear power capacity augmentation. It is noteworthy that the projects were successfully completed in various other nations, including Finland, Korea, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates. Additionally, significant strides were made in the initiation of new construction endeavors, with the commencement of construction activities on five reactors in China, two reactors in Egypt, and one reactor in Turkey (Hickey et al., 2021). Nuclear power's significance in power system adequacy Nuclear power facilities have persistently underpinned the dependability of power systems, thereby bolstering the adequacy of the system. Across diverse national contexts, nuclear power plants have historically maintained operational readiness, manifesting availability rates consistently exceeding 90%, thereby demonstrating their reliability in power generation. Given that a substantial proportion of nuclear power capacity directly contributes to system adequacy metrics, its significance in fortifying system reliability and adequacy significantly outweighs its proportional contribution to the total power capacity (Orikpete and Ewim, 2024; Frilingou et al., 2023; Raj, 2023; Ragosa et al., 2024). The contribution of nuclear power to system adequacy is demonstrated by the consistent trajectory of its share within the aggregate dispatchable power capacity, hovering at around 8% between 2021 and 2050 within the NZE framework (IEA, 2022; OIES, 2024). Dispatchable electricity sources have historically constituted the primary mechanism for ensuring system adequacy, a trend that endures within the NZE paradigm, especially as electricity systems undergo evolution marked by an escalating reliance on variable solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind energy sources (Marzouk, 2024; Moon et al., 2024; Wisnubroto et al., 2023). It is indisputable that unabated fossil fuel resources predominantly dominate dispatchable capacity; however, their prominence clearly diminishes, declining by a quarter by 2030 within the NZE framework and experiencing a precipitous decline thereafter. Unabated coal-fired power, currently the most substantial dispatchable source, anticipates a decline exceeding 40% in operational capacity by 2030 and approaches a state of negligible contribution by the early 2040s. Conversely, the unabated natural gas-fired power capacity exhibits a sustained level of stability until 2030, primarily driven by the necessity to offset the diminishing role of coal; nonetheless, it subsequently undergoes a rapid descent throughout the 2030s. Oil, constituting a comparatively minor contributor, experiences rapid phasing out across most regions, except for remote locales, within the delineated scenario (Makarov et al., 2023; Ren et al., 2024). Figure 4 highlights the global capacity of dispatchable power categorized by category in the scenario of achieving NZE by 2050.   In this context, fossil fuels equipped with Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) technology have emerged as notable contributors to bolstering system adequacy. Yet, nuclear power remains a steady contributor to the power system flexibility. In advanced economies, the proportion of hour-to-hour flexibility is projected to increase from approximately 2% to 5% by 2050. Similarly, in EMDEs, this ratio is anticipated to increase from 1% to 3% over the same temporal span (Jenkins et al., 2018). It is worth highlighting that in France, where nuclear power fulfills the lion's share of electricity generation requisites, flexibility has been ingrained within reactor designs (Ho et al., 2019). This feature enables certain plants to swiftly modulate their output to align with the fluctuating electricity supply and demand, operating in a load-following mode (Chen, 2024; Jin and Bae, 2023; Kanugrahan and Hakam, 2023). Although many nations have not habitually engaged nuclear power in such operational dynamics, a considerable number of reactors are capable of performing load-following operations with minimal or no requisite technical adaptations (Caciuffo et al., 2020). Figure 5 demonstrates the hour-to-hour power system flexibility based on the source and regional grouping in the NZE by the 2050 scenario.   Innovation holds promise in enhancing the flexibility of nuclear power. Advanced technological advancements, such as SMRs, can facilitate nuclear reactors to adjust their electricity output with greater ease, as illustrated in Figure 6 (Ho et al., 2019; Lee, 2024; Wisnubroto et al., 2023). Moreover, these technologies offer the prospect of enabling reactors to transition toward generating heat or producing hydrogen either independently or concurrently with electricity generation. Initiatives are underway to disseminate information to policymakers and planners regarding the potential cost advantages associated with enhancing nuclear power flexibility.  Figure 6 demonstrates the nuclear system augmented by wind turbines for trigeneration.   Investment in nuclear power The renaissance of nuclear power within the NZE trajectory necessitates a substantial surge in investment in the coming decades. This surge is envisaged to encompass the construction of new nuclear reactors and extension of operational lifespans for existing facilities. Within this scenario, annual global investment in nuclear power is poised to escalate to exceed US$100 billion during the initial half of the 2030s within the NZE framework, surpassing the threefold average investment level of US$30 billion recorded during the 2010s (IEA, 2022). Subsequently, investment levels are expected to gradually decline as the imperative for dispatchable low emissions generating capacity diminishes, tapering to approximately US$70 billion by the latter half of the 2040s (Kharitonov and Semenova, 2023; Zimmermann and Keles, 2023). Over the period spanning from 2021 to 2050, the allocation of investment toward nuclear power constitutes a fraction representing less than 10% of the aggregate investment dedicated to low-emission sources of electricity (IEA, 2022). By comparison, within this framework, the annual investment in renewable energy experiences a notable escalation, escalating from an average of US$325 billion during the interval from 2016 to 2020 to US$1.3 trillion during the period 2031–2035 (EEDP, 2023; Rekik and El Alimi, 2024d). It is worth noting that the latter consideration elucidates the rationale behind the disproportionate allocation of investment toward advanced economies in later decades. China, for instance, requires an annual expenditure averaging close to US$20 billion on nuclear infrastructure by 2050, representing a nearly twofold increase compared to the average observed during the 2010s (Aghahosseini et al., 2023; Vujić et al., 2012). Conversely, other EMDEs witness a tripling of investment, reaching approximately US$25 billion per year, on average. In contrast to advanced economies, the imperative for investment in these nations is more pronounced in the period leading up to 2035 (Bhattacharyya et al., 2023; Khaleel et al., 2024). Thus, nuclear energy, despite its advantages as a low-carbon energy source, faces notable challenges. High capital costs and long deployment timelines, driven by complex construction and regulatory requirements, often hinder its adoption. The management of radioactive waste remains a costly and contentious issue, while safety concerns, shaped by historical incidents, continue to influence public perception. Additionally, reliance on uranium, with its geographically concentrated supply, raises geopolitical and environmental concerns. Nuclear power also competes with the rapidly advancing and cost-effective renewable energy sector, while decommissioning aging plants poses long-term financial and logistical burdens. Addressing these limitations through advanced technologies, public engagement, and international collaboration is crucial for enhancing nuclear energy's role in sustainable energy transitions. Technologies for sustainability in nuclear energy production The pursuit of sustainability in nuclear energy production has been supported by advancements in innovative technologies that enhance efficiency, safety, and environmental compatibility (Aktekin et al., 2024; Ali et al., 2024; Zheng et al., 2024; Khan et al., 2017). These technologies are crucial for positioning nuclear power as a key contributor to clean and sustainable energy transitions. Below are some of the most impactful technologies in this domain: Advanced nuclear reactors: Small modular reactors (SMRs): SMRs are compact, scalable, and safer than traditional large-scale reactors. Their modular design allows for deployment in remote locations, making them suitable for decentralized energy systems. Generation IV reactors: These reactors incorporate advanced cooling systems and fuel cycles to improve efficiency, safety, and waste reduction. Examples include sodium-cooled fast reactors and gas-cooled fast reactors. Thorium-based reactors: Thorium fuel cycle reactors use thorium-232 as an alternative to uranium, offering a more abundant and sustainable fuel source. Thorium reactors produce less nuclear waste and have a lower risk of proliferation. Fusion energy: Although still in the experimental stage, nuclear fusion promises to be a game-changing technology. Fusion produces minimal radioactive waste and harnesses abundant fuel sources like deuterium and tritium, making it a virtually limitless and clean energy solution. Molten salt reactors (MSRs): MSRs use liquid fuels or coolants, such as molten salts, which operate at lower pressures and higher temperatures. These reactors are inherently safer and have the capability to utilize a variety of fuel types, including spent nuclear fuel and thorium. Reactor safety enhancements: Passive safety systems: These systems enhance reactor safety by using natural forces like gravity, natural convection, or condensation to cool the reactor core without human intervention. Digital twin technologies: Digital simulations and monitoring of reactor systems allow for predictive maintenance and real-time safety management. Nuclear waste management technologies Fast reactors: These reactors can recycle spent fuel, reducing the volume and radioactivity of nuclear waste. Deep geological repositories: Advances in geotechnical engineering have improved the safety of long-term waste storage in deep geological formations. Hybrid nuclear-renewable systems: Combining nuclear power with renewable energy sources like wind and solar can optimize energy production and grid stability. Hybrid systems leverage the reliability of nuclear energy with the intermittency of renewables for a balanced, low-carbon energy mix. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning: AI and machine learning technologies are being deployed to enhance reactor performance, optimize fuel usage, and improve operational safety. Predictive analytics also play a critical role in maintenance and risk assessment. Fuel advancements: High-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU): HALEU fuels enable reactors to operate more efficiently and reduce waste. Accident-tolerant fuels (ATFs): These are designed to withstand extreme conditions, reducing the likelihood of core damage during accidents. Integrated energy systems: Nuclear reactors are increasingly being used for purposes beyond electricity generation, such as hydrogen production, district heating, and desalination. The integration of digital technologies, including AI and machine learning, coupled with fuel advancements like HALEU and accident-tolerant fuels, highlights the continuous evolution of the nuclear sector. These innovations not only enhance efficiency and safety but also expand the applications of nuclear energy beyond electricity generation to include hydrogen production, desalination, and district heating. Despite these technological advancements, the sustainable deployment of nuclear energy requires robust policy frameworks, increased investments, and public acceptance. Addressing these challenges is critical to unlocking the full potential of nuclear power in achieving global energy security and NZE by 2050. [...] Discussion and policy implications Nuclear power presents a compelling case as a sustainable energy source owing to its several key advantages. Its high-energy density allows for substantial electricity generation from minimal fuel, enabling continuous operation, unlike intermittent renewables, such as solar and wind (Rekik and El Alimi, 2023a, 2023b), thus contributing significantly to grid stability (Cramer et al., 2023). Furthermore, nuclear power is a crucial tool for emissions reduction, boasting virtually no greenhouse gas emissions during operation. Although lifecycle emissions associated with fuel processing and plant construction exist, they remain comparable to or lower than those of renewables. Several studies have reported on the energy production capabilities of nuclear power and its contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to other energy sources. A key aspect of these analyses is quantifying the potential contribution of nuclear power to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and achieving net zero targets. However, direct comparison of reported data can be challenging due to variations in model assumptions, geographic scope, and time horizons.  [...] From another perspective, radioactive waste generation poses a significant challenge to nuclear power because of its long-term hazardous nature. This necessitates meticulous management and disposal strategies to mitigate potential social impacts. These impacts arise from perceived or actual risks to human health and the environment, fueling public anxiety and opposition to nuclear power, which is often expressed through protests and legal action (Kyne and Bolin, 2016; Nilsuwankosit, 2017; Ram Mohan and Namboodhiry, 2020). Additionally, communities near waste sites can experience stigmatization, resulting in decreased property values and social isolation. The persistent nature of radioactive waste also raises intergenerational equity issues, burdening future generations with its management (Deng et al., 2020; Mason-Renton and Luginaah, 2019). Thus, transparent communication and stakeholder engagement are crucial for building public trust and ensuring responsible radioactive waste management (Dungan et al., 2021; Sančanin and Penjišević, 2023). There are various radioactive waste disposal pathways, each with unique social and technical considerations. Deep geological disposal, an internationally favored method for high-level waste disposal, involves burying waste deep underground for long-term isolation. Interim storage provides a secure temporary holding until a permanent solution is obtained (Chapman, 1992; Grambow, 2022). Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel recovers reusable materials, reducing high-level waste but creating lower-level waste. Advanced reactor technologies aim to minimize waste and improve safety, potentially converting long-lived isotopes into shorter-lived isotopes (Dixon et al., 2020; Englert and Pistner, 2023). Choosing a disposal pathway requires careful evaluation of factors, such as waste type and volume, geology, feasibility, cost, and public acceptance, often leading to a combined approach. Ongoing community engagement and addressing concerns are essential to safe and responsible waste management. Effective management and disposal of this waste require advanced technological solutions, robust regulatory frameworks, and long-term planning to ensure safety and sustainability (Abdelsalam et al., 2024; Rekik and El Alimi, 2024a), Moreover, its relatively small land footprint compared to other energy sources, especially solar and wind farms, minimizes the ecosystem impact and makes it a sustainable option in densely populated areas (Poinssot et al., 2016; Sadiq et al., 2022). Nuclear power also enhances energy security by reducing reliance on fossil fuels, which is particularly valuable in countries with limited domestic resources (Cramer et al., 2023; Ichord Jr., 2022). Additionally, nuclear power exhibits synergy with other clean technologies, providing a stable baseload complementing variable renewables and facilitating hydrogen production for diverse energy applications (Abdelsalam et al., 2024; El-Emam and Subki, 2021; Salam and Khan, 2018; Rekik, 2024; Rekik and El Alimi, 2024e). Finally, ongoing advancements in reactor design, such as SMRs, promise enhanced safety, reduced costs, and greater deployment flexibility, further solidifying the role of nuclear power in decarbonizing the electricity sector (Aunedi et al., 2023). Supportive policies and international cooperation are essential for fully realizing the potential of nuclear energy. Streamlined licensing and regulatory frameworks are crucial for reducing deployment time and costs and ensuring that safety standards are met efficiently (Gungor and Sari, 2022; Jewell et al., 2019). Furthermore, incentivizing investments through financial tools such as tax credits and loan guarantees can attract private capital and create a level-playing field for nuclear power (Decker and Rauhut, 2021; Nian and Hari, 2017; Zimmermann and Keles, 2023). Addressing public perception through education and engagement is equally important for building trust and acceptance. Moreover, international cooperation is vital in several respects. The disposal of radioactive waste remains a complex issue, requiring careful long-term management and securing geological repositories to prevent environmental contamination owing to the long half-life of some isotopes. Furthermore, while modern reactors incorporate advanced safety features, the potential for accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima remains a concern because of the potential for widespread radiation release and long-term health consequences (Denning and Mubayi, 2016; Högberg, 2013; Wheatley et al., 2016). Moreover, the high initial costs associated with design, construction, and licensing present significant barriers to new nuclear projects, particularly in developing countries. In addition, the risk of nuclear proliferation, in which technology intended for peaceful energy production is diverted for weapons development, necessitates stringent international safeguards, as highlighted by following reference. Public perception also plays a crucial role because negative opinions and concerns about safety and waste disposal can create opposition to new projects. Finally, the decommissioning of nuclear plants at the end of their operational life is a complex and costly process that requires substantial resources and expertise to dismantle reactors and manage radioactive materials. [...] Conclusion The role of nuclear power in sustainable energy transition is multifaceted and significant. As nations worldwide strive to transition toward more environmentally friendly energy systems, nuclear power has emerged as a crucial component of the decarbonization journey. Its capacity to provide low-carbon electricity, mitigate climate change, and contribute to energy security underscores its importance in the broader context of sustainable energy transitions. Despite this, challenges such as safety, waste management, and public perception must be addressed to fully harness the potential of nuclear power to achieve sustainability goals. By leveraging policy frameworks, technological innovations, and international cooperation, nuclear power can play a vital role in shaping the future of sustainable energy transition on a global scale. In this context, EMDEs exert a substantial influence on global growth, collectively accounting for over 90% of the aggregate, with China positioned to emerge as the foremost nuclear power producer before 2030. Concurrently, advanced economies have witnessed a notable 10% increase in their nuclear power capacity. This augmentation is attributed to the commissioning of new facilities, which offset retirements, manifestly observed in nations such as the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Furthermore, there is a marked escalation in annual global investment in nuclear power, surging from US$30 billion throughout the 2010s to surpass US$100 billion by 2030. This upward trajectory is robustly sustained, remaining above US$80 billion by 2050. In conclusion, the remarkable decline in the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for solar PV and wind power over the past decade has positioned renewable energy as a cost-competitive and viable alternative to fossil fuels in many regions. The over 80% reduction in LCOE for utility-scale solar PV from 2010 to 2022 exemplifies the economic feasibility of renewables. Concurrently, the steady growth in renewable energy capacity, spearheaded by solar and wind energy, underscores their critical role in the global energy transition. With renewable electricity capacity surpassing 3300 GW in 2023 and accounting for over one-third of the global power mix, renewable energy is undeniably at the forefront of efforts to achieve a sustainable, low-carbon energy future. Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.FundingThe authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.ORCID iDSassi Rekik https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5224-4152Supplemental materialSupplemental material for this article is available online.ReferencesAbbasi K, Jiao Z, Shahbaz M, et al. (2020) Asymmetric impact of renewable and non-renewable energy on economic growth in Pakistan: New evidence from a nonlinear analysis. Energy Exploration & Exploitation 38(5): 1946–1967. Crossref. Web of Science.Abdelsalam E, Almomani F, Azzam A, et al. (2024) Synergistic energy solutions: Solar chimney and nuclear power plant integration for sustainable green hydrogen, electricity, and water production. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 186: 756–772. Crossref. Web of Science.Addo EK, Kabo-bah AT, Diawuo FA, et al. (2023) The role of nuclear energy in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy security: A systematic review. International Journal of Energy Research 2023(1): 8823507.Aghahosseini A, Solomon AA, Breyer C, et al. (2023) Energy system transition pathways to meet the global electricity demand for ambitious climate targets and cost competitiveness. Applied Energy 331: 120401. Crossref. Web of Science.Ake SC, Arango FO, Ruiz RSG (2024) Possible paths for Mexico’s electricity system in the clean energy transition. Utilities Policy 87: 101716. Crossref. Web of Science.Aktekin M, Genç MS, Azgın ST, et al. (2024) Assessment of techno-economic analyzes of grid-connected nuclear and PV/wind/battery/hydrogen renewable hybrid system for sustainable and clean energy production in Mersin-Türkiye. Process Safety and Environmental Protection: Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers, Part B 190: 340–353. Crossref. Web of Science.Alam F, Sarkar R, Chowdhury H (2019) Nuclear power plants in emerging economies and human resource development: A review. Energy Procedia 160: 3–10. Crossref.Ali M, Samour A, Soomro SA, et al. (2024) A step towards a sustainable environment in top-10 nuclear energy consumer countries: The role of financial globalization and nuclear energy. Nuclear Engineering and Technology 103142: 103142.Arvanitidis AI, Agarwal V, Alamaniotis M (2023) Nuclear-driven integrated energy systems: A state-of-the-art review. Energies 16(11): 4293. Crossref. Web of Science.Asif M, Solomon B, Adulugba C (2024) Prospects of nuclear power in a sustainable energy transition. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering: 1–11. Crossref. Web of Science.Aunedi M, Al Kindi AA, Pantaleo AM, et al. (2023) System-driven design of flexible nuclear power plant configurations with thermal energy storage. Energy Conversion and Management 291: 117257. Crossref. Web of Science.Bhattacharya S, Banerjee R, Ramadesigan V, et al. (2024) Bending the emission curve—The role of renewables and nuclear power in achieving a net-zero power system in India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 189: 113954. Crossref. Web of Science.Bhattacharyya R, El-Emam RS, Khalid F (2023) Climate action for the shipping industry: Some perspectives on the role of nuclear power in maritime decarbonization. E-Prime-Advances in Electrical Engineering, Electronics and Energy 4(2023): 100132. Crossref.Bórawski P, Bełdycka-Bórawska A, Klepacki B, et al. (2024) Changes in gross nuclear electricity production in the European union. Energies 17(14): 3554. Crossref. Web of Science.Budnitz RJ, Rogner HH, Shihab-Eldin A (2018) Expansion of nuclear power technology to new countries–SMRs, safety culture issues, and the need for an improved international safety regime. Energy Policy 119: 535–544. Crossref. Web of Science.Caciuffo R, Fazio C, Guet C (2020) Generation-IV nuclear reactor systems. EPJ Web of Conferences 246: 00011. Crossref.Cai ZB, Li ZY, Yin MG, et al. (2020) A review of fretting study on nuclear power equipment. Tribology International 144: 106095. Crossref. Web of Science.Chapman NA (1992) Natural radioactivity and radioactive waste disposal. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 50(1–2): 197–206. Crossref. Web of Science.Chen CC (2024) Comparative impacts of energy sources on environmental quality: A five-decade analysis of Germany’s Energiewende. Energy Reports 11: 3550–3561. Crossref. Web of Science.Cramer C, Lacivita B, Laws J, et al. (2023) What will it take for nuclear power to meet the climate challenge? Columbus, Atlanta, Boston, Houston, Toronto: McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/what-will-it-take-for-nuclear-power-to-meet-the-climate-challenge.Dafnomilis I, den Elzen M, Van Vuuren DP (2023) Achieving net-zero emissions targets: An analysis of long- term scenarios using an integrated assessment model. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1522(1): 98–108. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Decker D, Rauhut K (2021) Incentivizing good governance beyond regulatory minimums: The civil nuclear sector. Journal of Critical Infrastructure Policy 2(2): 19–43. Crossref.Deng D, Zhang L, Dong M, et al. (2020) Radioactive waste: A review. Water Environment Research: A Research Publication of the Water Environment Federation 92(10): 1818–1825. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Denning R, Mubayi V (2016) Insights into the societal risk of nuclear power plant accidents. Risk Analysis 37(1): 160–172. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Dixon B, Hoffman E, Feng B, et al. (2020) Reassessing methods to close the nuclear fuel cycle. Annals of Nuclear Energy 147: 107652. Crossref. Web of Science.Dungan K, Gregg RWH, Morris K, et al. (2021) Assessment of the disposability of radioactive waste inventories for a range of nuclear fuel cycles: Inventory and evolution over time. Energy 221: 119826. Crossref. Web of Science.El-Emam RS, Subki MH (2021) Small modular reactors for nuclear-renewable synergies: Prospects and impediments. International Journal of Energy Research 45(11): 16995–17004. Crossref. Web of Science.El Hafdaoui H, Khallaayoun A, Ouazzani K. (2024) Long-term low carbon strategy of Morocco: A review of future scenarios and energy measures. Results in Engineering 21: 101724. Crossref. Web of Science.Englert M, Pistner C (2023) Technological readiness of alternative reactor concepts. Safety of Nuclear Waste Disposal 2: 209–209. Crossref.Espín J, Estrada S, Benítez D, et al. (2023) A hybrid sliding mode controller approach for level control in the nuclear power plant steam generators. Alexandria Engineering Journal 64: 627–644. Crossref. Web of Science.European Economy Discussion Papers (EEDP) (2023) The development of renewable energy in the electricity market. Available at: https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/ecfin-publications_en.Fälth HE, Atsmon D, Reichenberg L, et al. (2021) MENA compared to Europe: The influence of land use, nuclear power, and transmission expansion on renewable electricity system costs. Energy Strategy Reviews 33: 100590. Crossref. Web of Science.Fernández-Arias P, Vergara D, Antón-Sancho Á (2023) Global review of international nuclear waste management. Energies 16(17): 6215. Crossref. Web of Science.Fragkos P, Van Soest HL, Schaeffer R, et al. (2021) Energy system transitions and low-carbon pathways in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, EU-28, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russia and the United States. Energy 216: 119385. Crossref. Web of Science.Frilingou N, Xexakis G, Koasidis K, et al. (2023) Navigating through an energy crisis: Challenges and progress towards electricity decarbonisation, reliability, and affordability in Italy. Energy Research & Social Science 96: 102934. Crossref. Web of Science.Grambow B (2022) Mini review of research requirements for radioactive waste management including disposal. Frontiers in Nuclear Engineering 1: 1052428. Crossref.Guidi G, Violante AC, De Iuliis S (2023) Environmental impact of electricity generation technologies: A comparison between conventional, nuclear, and renewable technologies. Energies 16(23): 7847. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Gungor G, Sari R (2022) Nuclear power and climate policy integration in developed and developing countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 169: 112839. Crossref. Web of Science.Halkos G, Zisiadou A (2023) Energy crisis risk mitigation through nuclear power and RES as alternative solutions towards self-sufficiency. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 16(1): 45. Crossref. Web of Science.Haneklaus N, Qvist S, Gładysz P, et al. (2023) Why coal-fired power plants should get nuclear-ready. Energy 280: 128169. Crossref. Web of Science.Hickey SM, Malkawi S, Khalil A (2021) Nuclear power in the Middle East: Financing and geopolitics in the state nuclear power programs of Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. Energy Research & Social Science 74: 101961. Crossref. Web of Science.Ho M, Obbard E, Burr PA, et al. (2019) A review on the development of nuclear power reactors. Energy Procedia 160: 459–466. Crossref.Högberg L (2013) Root causes and impacts of severe accidents at large nuclear power plants. AMBIO 42(3): 267–284. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Hunter CA, Penev MM, Reznicek EP, et al. (2021) Techno-economic analysis of long-duration energy storage and flexible power generation technologies to support high-variable renewable energy grids. Joule 5(8): 2077–2101. Crossref. Web of Science.Ichord RF Jr (2022) Nuclear energy and global energy security in the new tripolar world order. Available at: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/energysource/nuclear-energy-and-global-energy-security-in-the-new-tripolar-world-order/.International Energy Agency (IEA) (2019) Nuclear power in a clean energy system, OECD Publishing, Paris. Available at: Crossref.International Energy Agency (IEA) (2022) Nuclear power and secure energy transitions, IEA, Paris. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclearpower-and-secure-energy-transitions.Islam MM, Shahbaz M, Samargandi N (2024) The nexus between Russian uranium exports and US nuclear-energy consumption: Do the spillover effects of geopolitical risks matter? Energy 293: 130481. Crossref. Web of Science.Islam MS, Roy S, Alfee SL, et al. (2023) An empirical study of the risk-benefit perceptions between the nuclear and non-nuclear groups towards the nuclear power plant in Bangladesh. Nuclear Engineering and Technology 55(12): 4617–4627. Crossref. Web of Science.Jenkins JD, Zhou Z, Ponciroli R, et al. (2018) The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy. Applied Energy 222: 872–884. Crossref. Web of Science.Jewell J, Ates SA (2015) Introducing nuclear power in Turkey: A historic state strategy and future prospects. Energy Research & Social Science 10: 273–282. Crossref. Web of Science.Jewell J, Vetier M, Garcia-Cabrera D (2019) The international technological nuclear cooperation landscape: A new dataset and network analysis. Energy Policy 128: 838–852. Crossref. Web of Science.Jin B, Bae Y (2023) Prospective research trend analysis on zero-energy building (ZEB): An artificial intelligence approach. Sustainability 15(18): 13577. Crossref. Web of Science.Kanugrahan SP, Hakam DF (2023) Long-term scenarios of Indonesia power sector to achieve nationally determined contribution (NDC) 2060. Energies 16(12): 4719. Crossref. Web of Science.Khaleel M, Yusupov Z, Guneser M, et al. (2024) Towards hydrogen sector investments for achieving sustainable electricity generation. Journal of Solar Energy and Sustainable Development 13(1): 71–96. Crossref.Khalid F, Bicer Y (2019) Energy and exergy analyses of a hybrid small modular reactor and wind turbine system for trigeneration. Energy Science & Engineering 7(6): 2336–2350. Crossref. Web of Science.Khan SU-D, Khan SU-D, Haider S, et al. (2017) Development and techno-economic analysis of small modular nuclear reactor and desalination system across Middle East and North Africa region. Desalination 406: 51–59. Crossref. Web of Science.Kharitonov VV, Semenova DY (2023) On the economic efficiency of nuclear power digitization under the conditions of global energy transition. Studies on Russian Economic Development 34(2): 221–230. Crossref.Kim P, Yasmine H, Yim MS, et al. (2024) Challenges in nuclear energy adoption: Why nuclear energy newcomer countries put nuclear power programs on hold? Nuclear Engineering and Technology 56(4): 1234–1243. Crossref. Web of Science.Kosai S, Unesaki H (2024) Nuclear power, resilience, and energy security under a vulnerability-based approach. Cleaner Energy Systems 7: 100107. Crossref.Kröger W, Sornette D, Ayoub A (2020) Towards safer and more sustainable ways for exploiting nuclear power. World Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 10(3): 91–115. Crossref.Krūmiņš J, Kļaviņš M (2023) Investigating the potential of nuclear energy in achieving a carbon-free energy future. Energies 16(9): 3612. Crossref. Web of Science.Kwasi S, Cilliers J, Yeboua K, et al. (2025) A developing country’s perspective on race to sustainability: Sustainability for countries with weak economic performance—Case study: Egypt’s challenge and opportunities to 2050. In: The Sustainability Handbook, Volume 1. Elsevier, 511–569. Crossref.Kyne D, Bolin B (2016) Emerging environmental justice issues in nuclear power and radioactive contamination. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13: 00. Crossref. Web of Science.Lau HC, Tsai SC (2023) Global decarbonization: Current status and what it will take to achieve net zero by 2050. Energies 16(23): 7800. Crossref. Web of Science.Lee JI (2024) Review of small modular reactors: Challenges in safety and economy to success. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering 41: 2761–2780. Crossref. Web of Science.Li N, Brossard D, Anderson AA, et al. (2016) How do policymakers and think tank stakeholders prioritize the risks of the nuclear fuel cycle? A semantic network analysis. Journal of Risk Research 21(5): 599–621. Crossref. Web of Science.Li N, Brossard D, Su LYF, et al. (2015) Policy decision-making, public involvement and nuclear energy: What do expert stakeholders think and why? Journal of Responsible Innovation 2(3): 266–279. Crossref.Lin B, Xie Y (2022) Analysis on operational efficiency and its influencing factors of China’s nuclear power plants. Energy 261: 125211. Crossref. Web of Science.Liu L, Guo H, Dai L, et al. (2023) The role of nuclear energy in the carbon neutrality goal. Progress in Nuclear Energy 162: 104772. Crossref. Web of Science.Makarov V, Kaplin M, Perov M, et al. (2023) Optimization of coal products supply for the power industry and the country’s economy. In: Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, pp.87–98.Markard J, Bento N, Kittner N, et al. (2020) Destined for decline? Examining nuclear energy from a technological innovation systems perspective Energy Research & Social Science 67: 101512. Crossref. Web of Science.Marzouk OA (2024) Expectations for the role of hydrogen and its derivatives in different sectors through analysis of the four energy scenarios: IEA-STEPS, IEA-NZE, IRENA- PES, and IRENA-1.5°C. Energies 17(3): 46. Crossref. Web of Science.Mason-Renton SA, Luginaah I (2019) Lasting impacts and perceived inequities: Community reappraisal of the siting of a regional biosolids processing facility in rural Ontario. Journal of Risk Research 22(8): 1044–1061. Crossref. Web of Science.Mathew MD (2022) Nuclear energy: A pathway towards mitigation of global warming. Progress in Nuclear Energy 143: 104080. Crossref. Web of Science.Mendelevitch R, Kemfert C, Oei PY, et al. (2018) The electricity mix in the European low-carbon transformation: Coal, nuclear, and renewables. In: Energiewende “Made in Germany”. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 241–282. Crossref.Moon HS, Song YH, Lee JW, et al. (2024) Implementation cost of net zero electricity system: Analysis based on Korean national target. Energy Policy 188: 114095. Crossref. Web of Science.Murphy C, Cole W, Bistline J, et al. (2023) Nuclear power’s future role in a decarbonized US electricity system (No. NREL/TP-6A20-84451). National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States).Nassar YF, El-Khozondar HJ, El-Osta W, et al. (2024) Carbon footprint and energy life cycle assessment of wind energy industry in Libya. Energy Conversion and Management 300: 117846. Crossref. Web of Science.Nian V, Hari MP (2017) Incentivizing the adoption of nuclear and renewable energy in Southeast Asia. Energy Procedia 105: 3683–3689. Crossref.Nicolau AS, Cabral Pinheiro VH, Schirru R, et al. (2023) Deep neural networks for estimation of temperature values for thermal ageing evaluation of nuclear power plant equipment. Progress in Nuclear Energy 156: 104542. Crossref. Web of Science.Nilsuwankosit S (2017) Report on feasibility study for radiation alarming data collection from containers at Laem Cha Bang International Sea Port, Thailand. Volume 4: Nuclear Safety, Security, Non-Proliferation and Cyber Security; Risk Management. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.Nkosi NP, Dikgang J (2021) South African attitudes about nuclear power: The case of the nuclear energy expansion. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy 11(5): 138–146. Crossref.Nnabuife SG, Oko E, Kuang B, et al. (2023) The prospects of hydrogen in achieving net zero emissions by 2050: A critical review. Sustainable Chemistry for Climate Action 2: 100024. Crossref. Web of Science.Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) (2015) Nuclear energy: Combating climate change. Available at: https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14914.Obekpa HO, Alola AA (2023) Asymmetric response of energy efficiency to research and development spending in renewables and nuclear energy usage in the United States. Progress in Nuclear Energy 156: 104522. Crossref. Web of Science.Orikpete OF, Ewim DRE (2024) Interplay of human factors and safety culture in nuclear safety for enhanced organisational and individual performance: A comprehensive review. Nuclear Engineering and Design 416: 112797. Crossref. Web of Science.Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES) (2024) Nuclear energy in the global energy landscape: Advancing sustainability and ensuring energy security? Available at: https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/OEF-139-.pdf.Pan B, Adebayo TS, Ibrahim RL, et al. (2023) Does nuclear energy consumption mitigate carbon emissions in leading countries by nuclear power consumption? Evidence from quantile causality approach Energy & Environment 34(7): 2521–2543. Crossref. Web of Science.Pinho BE, Oliva JDJR, Maia Y L (2024) An approach for evaluation of the spent nuclear fuel management strategy for Brazilian nuclear power plants based on multi-criteria decision-making methodology. Nuclear Engineering and Design 424: 113186. Crossref. Web of Science.Pioro I, Duffey RB, Kirillov PL, et al. (2019) Current status and future developments in nuclear-power industry of the world. Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science 5(2): 024001. Crossref.Poinssot C, Bourg S, Boullis B (2016) Improving the nuclear energy sustainability by decreasing its environmental footprint. Guidelines from life cycle assessment simulations. Progress in Nuclear Energy 92: 234–241. Crossref. Web of Science.Price J, Keppo I, Dodds PE (2023) The role of new nuclear power in the UK’s net-zero emissions energy system. Energy 262: 125450. Crossref. Web of Science.Ragosa G, Watson J, Grubb M (2024) The political economy of electricity system resource adequacy and renewable energy integration: A comparative study of Britain, Italy and California. Energy Research & Social Science 107: 103335. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Raj AX (2023) Human reliability design—an approach for nuclear power plants in India. In: Risk, Reliability and Safety Engineering. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 167–186.Ram Mohan MP, Namboodhiry SK (2020) An exploration of public risk perception and governmental engagement of nuclear energy in India. Journal of Public Affairs 20(3): e2086. Crossref. Web of Science.Rekik S (2024) Optimizing green hydrogen strategies in Tunisia: A combined SWOT-MCDM approach. Scientific African 26: e02438. Crossref. Web of Science.Rekik S, El Alimi S (2023a) Land suitability mapping for large-scale solar PV farms in Tunisia using GIS-based MCDM approach. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence & Green Energy (ICAIGE), pp.1–5: IEEE.Rekik S, El Alimi S (2023b) Wind site selection using GIS and MCDM approach under fuzzy environment: A case of Tunisia. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence & Green Energy (ICAIGE), pp.1–5: IEEE.Rekik S, El Alimi S (2024a) Prioritizing sustainable renewable energy systems in Tunisia: An integrated approach using hybrid multi-criteria decision analysis. Energy Exploration & Exploitation 42(3): 1047–1076. Crossref. Web of Science.Rekik S, El Alimi S (2024b) Unlocking renewable energy potential: A case study of solar and wind site selection in the Kasserine region, central-western Tunisia. Energy Science & Engineering 12(3): 771–792. Crossref. Web of Science.Rekik S, El Alimi S (2024c) A spatial perspective on renewable energy optimization: Case study of southern Tunisia using GIS and multicriteria decision making. Energy Exploration & Exploitation 42(1): 265–291. Crossref. Web of Science.Rekik S, El Alimi S (2024d) A GIS based MCDM modelling approach for evaluating large-scale solar PV installation in Tunisia. Energy Reports 11: 580–596. Crossref. Web of Science.Rekik S, El Alimi S (2024e) A spatial ranking of optimal sites for solar-driven green hydrogen production using GIS and multi-criteria decision-making approach: A case of Tunisia. Energy Exploration & Exploitation 42(6): 2150–2190. Crossref. Web of Science.Ren Y, Li G, Wang H, et al. (2024) China’s zero-coal power system future. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 156: 109748. Crossref. Web of Science.Ruhnau O, Stiewe C, Muessel J, et al. (2023) Natural gas savings in Germany during the 2022 energy crisis. Nature Energy 8(6): 621–628. Crossref. Web of Science.Sadiq M, Shinwari R, Wen F, et al. (2023) Do globalization and nuclear energy intensify the environmental costs in top nuclear energy-consuming countries? Progress in Nuclear Energy 156: 104533. Crossref. Web of Science.Sadiq M, Wen F, Dagestani AA (2022) Environmental footprint impacts of nuclear energy consumption: The role of environmental technology and globalization in ten largest ecological footprint countries. Nuclear Engineering and Technology 54(10): 3672–3681. Crossref. Web of Science.Salam MA, Khan SA (2018) Transition towards sustainable energy production – A review of the progress for solar energy in Saudi Arabia. Energy Exploration & Exploitation 36(1): 3–27. Crossref. Web of Science.Sančanin B, Penjišević A (2023) Safe management of medical radiological waste. MEDIS - International Journal of Medical Sciences and Research 2(2): 7–13. Crossref.Temiz M, Dincer I (2021) Enhancement of a nuclear power plant with a renewable based multigenerational energy system. International Journal of Energy Research 45(8): 12396–12412. Crossref. Web of Science.Therme C (2023) French nuclear policy towards Iran: From the Shah to the Islamic Republic. Diplomacy & Statecraft 34(1): 117–139. Crossref. Web of Science.Utami I, Riski MA, Hartanto DR (2022) Nuclear power plants technology to realize net zero emission 2060. International Journal of Business Management and Technology 6(1): 158–162.Vujić J, Bergmann RM, Škoda R, et al. (2012) Small modular reactors: Simpler, safer, cheaper? Energy 45(1): 288–295. Crossref. Web of Science.Wagner F (2021) CO2 Emissions of nuclear power and renewable energies: A statistical analysis of European and global data. The European Physical Journal Plus 136(5): 62. Crossref. Web of Science.Wang Z, He Y, Duan Z, et al. (2023) Experimental study on transient flow characteristics in an equal-height-difference passive heat removal system for ocean nuclear power plants. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 208: 124043. Crossref. Web of Science.Wheatley S, Sovacool B, Sornette D (2016) Of disasters and dragon kings: A statistical analysis of nuclear power incidents and accidents. Risk Analysis 37(1): 99–115. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Wisnubroto DS, Sunaryo GR, Susilo YSB, et al. (2023) Indonesia’s experimental power reactor program (RDE). Nuclear Engineering and Design 404: 112201. Crossref. Web of Science.Yamagata H (2024) Public opinion on nuclear power plants in Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America: A prescription for peculiar Japan. Energy Policy 185: 113939. Crossref. Web of Science.Yang X, Xue Y, Cai B (2024) Pathway planning of nuclear power development incorporating assessment of nuclear event risk. Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy 12(2): 500–513. Crossref. Web of Science.Zhan L, Bo Y, Lin T, et al. (2021) Development and outlook of advanced nuclear energy technology. Energy Strategy Reviews 34: 100630. Crossref. Web of Science.Zhang S, Liu J, Liu X (2022) Comparing the environmental impacts of nuclear and renewable energy in top 10 nuclear- generating countries: Evidence from STIRPAT model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 30(11): 31791–31805. Crossref. Web of Science.Zheng S, Liu H, Guan W, et al. (2024) How do nuclear energy and stringent environmental policies contribute to achieving sustainable development targets? Nuclear Engineering and Technology 56(10): 3983–3992. Crossref. Web of Science.Zimmermann F, Keles D (2023) State or market: Investments in new nuclear power plants in France and their domestic and cross-border effects. Energy Policy 173: 113403. Crossref. Web of Science.

Economic relations between Russia and China remain high. Beijing has become Moscow's most important trading partner, and in the context of Western sanctions, it has also become an alternative source of industrial and consumer goods, as well as the largest market for Russian energy and other raw materials. At the same time, external political factors may have a growing influence on Russian-Chinese economic relations. These include the trade war between China and the United States, a possible escalation of US sanctions against Russia, and the expansion of secondary sanctions by the European Union against Chinese companies. The trade war, in the form of increased import duties on imported goods, has become one of the calling cards of Donald Trump's second term in office. The executive order he issued on April 2, 2025, provided a detailed conceptual justification for such a policy. The main goal is the reindustrialisation of the United States through the return or transfer of industrial production to the territory of the US, as well as an equalization of the trade balance with foreign countries. The basic part of Trump's order concerned all countries throughout the world and assumes a tariff increase of 10%. It goes on to determine individual duties on the goods of more than 70 countries, with its own sets for each. China became one of the few countries which decided to mirror the tariff increases. This led to a short-lived and explosive exchange of increases in duties. While it was suspended by negotiations between the two countries in Geneva, it was not removed from the agenda. In the US trade war “against the whole world”, China remains a key target. This is determined by the high level of the US trade deficit in relations with China, which has persisted for more than 40 years. Apparently, it remained comfortable for the US until China made a noticeable leap in the field of industrial and technological development. Such a leap allowed China to gradually overcome its peripheral place in the global economy, displace American and other foreign goods from the domestic market, and occupy niches in foreign markets. Despite the critically important role of American components, patents and technological solutions in a number of industries, China has managed to reduce its dependence on them. The growing industrial and technological power of the PRC is becoming a a political problem for the US. It was clearly identified during the first term of Trump's presidency. Even then, the US pursued a course toward the technological containment of China. Despite the temporary respite in the trade war, US pressure on China will remain. The tariff policy may be supplemented by restrictive new measures (sanctions) in the field of telecommunications and other industries. During the new term of Donald Trump's presidency, the politicisation of issues that the Biden administration avoided putting at the forefront of US-Chinese relations began again. These include the problem of Hong Kong autonomy and the issue of ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China. Both issues received a high level of politicisation during Trump's first term. The US-China trade war has so far had little effect on Russian-Chinese relations. The increase in US tariffs has had virtually no effect on Russia. Russia is already facing a significant number of restrictive measures, and the volume of trade with the United States has been reduced to near zero since the start of Moscow’s Special Military Operation in 2022. However, Russia may feel the effects of the trade war. For example, the United States may require China to purchase American energy resources as a measure to correct the trade balance. Obviously, such a measure is unlikely to solve the imbalance. However, it has the potential to affect the volume of Russian oil supplies to China in one way or another. In addition, the trade war as a whole may affect oil prices downwards, which is also disadvantageous for Russia. On the other hand, Russia is a reliable supplier of energy resources for China, which will not politicise them. Even in the context of new aggravations of the trade war, China is unlikely to refuse Russian supplies. Another factor is US sanctions against Russia. After the start of Russian-American negotiations on Ukraine in 2025, Washington avoided using new sanctions, although all previously adopted restrictive measures and their legal mechanisms are in force. However, Donald Trump failed to carry out a diplomatic blitzkrieg and achieve a quick settlement. The negotiations have dragged on and may continue for a long time. If they fail, the United States is ready to escalate sanctions again. Existing legal mechanisms allow, for example, for an increase in the list of blocked persons, including in relation to Chinese companies cooperating with Russia. This practice was widely used by the Biden administration. It was Chinese companies that became the key target of US secondary sanctions targeting Russia. They fell under blocking financial sanctions for deliveries of industrial goods, electronics and other equipment to Russia. However, there was not a single large company among them. We were talking about small manufacturing companies or intermediary firms. At the same time, the Biden administration managed to significantly complicate payments between Russia and China through the threat of secondary sanctions. US Presidential Executive Order 14114 of December 22, 2023 threatened blocking sanctions against foreign financial institutions carrying out transactions in favour of the Russian military-industrial complex. In practice, such sanctions against Chinese financial institutions were practically not applied, except for the blocking of several Chinese payment agents in January 2025. However, the very threat of secondary sanctions forced Chinese banks to exercise a high level of caution in transactions with Russia. This problem has not yet been fully resolved. New legal mechanisms in the field of sanctions, which are being worked on in the United States, may also affect Russian-Chinese relations. We are talking about the bill introduced by US Senator Lindsey Graham and several other senators and members of congress. Their bill assumes that in the event of failure of negotiations with Russia on Ukraine, the US executive branch will receive the authority to impose 500% duties on countries purchasing Russian raw materials, including oil. China may be among them. This threat should hardly be exaggerated for now. The passage of the bill is not predetermined. Even if it is signed into law, the application of 500% tariffs against China will be an extremely difficult matter. Recent rounds of the trade war have shown that China is ready for retaliatory measures. However, the emergence of such a norm will in any case increase the risks for business and may negatively affect Russian suppliers of raw materials. Another factor is EU sanctions policy. Unlike the US, the EU continues to escalate sanctions against Russia despite the negotiations on Ukraine. Brussels is expanding the practice of secondary sanctions, which also affect Chinese companies. In the context of a deepening economic partnership between China and the EU, this factor seems significant. However, in reality, it will play a peripheral role. The EU's practice of secondary sanctions is still significantly more limited than the American one. It does not affect any significant Chinese companies. Problems may be created by the expansion of EU bans on the provision of financial messaging services for Russian banks—this will affect their relations with Chinese counterparties. But such bans stimulate the acceleration of the use of the Chinese CIPS payment system by Russians, which has the functionality of transmitting financial messages. Compared to the US, the EU policy factor remains secondary. First published in the Valdai Discussion Club.

Abstract Climate change is considered to be one of the biggest problems acknowledged globally today. Therefore, the causes of climate change and solutions to this problem are frequently investigated. For this reason, the purpose of this study is to empirically examine whether the ‘Climate Change Performance Index’ (CCPI) is successful in increasing environmental investments for E-7 countries with the data for the period of 2008–2023. To achieve this aim, the Parks-Kmenta estimator was used as the econometric method in the study. The study findings provide strong evidence that increases in the climate change performance support environmental investments. High climate change performance directs governments and investors toward investing in this area; therefore, environmental investments tend to increase. The study also examined the effects of population growth, real GDP and inflation on environmental investments. Accordingly, it has been concluded that population growth and inflation negatively affect environmental investments, while GDP positively affects environmental investments. 1. Introduction There is a broad consensus that the main cause of climate change is human-based greenhouse gas emissions from non-renewable (i.e., fossil) fuels and improper land use. Accordingly, climate change may have serious negative consequences as well as significant macroeconomic outcomes. For example, an upward trend of temperatures, the rising sea levels, and extreme weather conditions can seriously disrupt the output and productivity (IMF, 2008a; Eyraud et al., 2013). Due to the global climate change, many countries today see environmental investments, especially renewable energy investments, as an important part of their growth strategies. Until recent years, the most important priority of many countries was an improvement in the economic growth figures. Still, the global climate change and the emergence of many related problems are now directing countries toward implementing policies which would be more sensitive to the environment and would ensure sustainable growth rather than just increase the growth figures. (Baştürk, 2024: 327). The orientation of various countries to these policies has led to an increase in environmental investments on a global scale. A relative rise of the share of environmental investments worldwide is not only a medium-term climate goal. It also brings many new concepts to the agenda, such as an increasing energy security, reduction of the negative impact of air pollution on health, and the possibility of finding new growth resources (Accenture, 2011; McKinsey, 2009; (OECD), 2011; PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2008; Eyraud et al., 2013). Today, environmental investments have a significant share in energy and electricity production. According to the World Energy Outlook (2023), investments in environmentally friendly energies have increased by approximately 40% since 2020. The effort to reduce emissions is the key reason for this increase, but it is not the only reason. Economic reasons are also quite strong in preferring environmental energy technologies. For example, energy security is also fundamentally important in the increase in environmental investments. Especially in fuel-importing countries, industrial plans and the necessity to spread clean (i.e., renewable) energy jobs throughout the country are important factors (IEA WEO, 2023).  In economic literature, environmental investments are generally represented by renewable energy investments. Accordingly, Figure 1 below presents global renewable energy electricity production for 2000–2020. According to the data obtained from IRENA (2024) and Figure 1, the total electricity production has increased by approximately 2.4% since 2011, with renewable energy sources contributing 6.1% to this rate, while non-renewable energy sources contributed 1.3%. In 2022 alone, renewable electricity grew by 7.2% compared to 2021. Solar and wind energy provided the largest growth in renewable electricity since 2010, which reached 11.7% of the global electricity mix in 2022.   Figure 2 below presents renewable energy investments by technology between 2013 and 2022. As shown in Figure 2, photovoltaic solar. and terrestrial wind categories are dominating, accounting for 46% and 32% of the global renewable energy investment, respectively, during 2013–2022.   Economic growth supported by environmental investments is impacted by the type and number of energy used to increase the national output. Thus, both the environmental friendliness of the energy used and the rise in energy efficiency is bound to reduce carbon emissions related to energy use and encourage economic growth (Hussain and Dogan, 2021). In this context, in order to minimize emissions and ensure sustainable economic growth, renewable energy sources should be used instead of fossil resources in energy use. Increasing environmental investments on a global scale, especially a boost in renewable energy investments, is seen as a more comprehensive solution to the current global growth-development and environmental degradation balance. In this context, as a result of the latest Conference of the Parties held in Paris, namely, COP21, it was envisaged to make an agreement covering the processes after 2020, which is accepted as the end year of the Kyoto Protocol. On December 12, 2015, the Paris Agreement was adopted unanimously by the countries that are parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kaya, 2020). As a result of the Paris Agreement and the reports delivered by the Intergovernmental Climate Change Panels, international efforts to adapt to the action to combat climate change and global warming have increased, and awareness has been raised in this area (Irfan et al., 2021; Feng et al., 2022; Anser et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2021; Fang, 2023). The rise in the demand for low-carbon energy sources in economies has been caused by environmental investments such as renewable energy investments. The countries that are party to the Paris Agreement, commit to the way to achieve efficient energy systems through the spread of renewable energy technologies throughout the country (Bashir et al., 2021; Fang, 2023). This study empirically examines the impact of the climate change performance on increasing environmental investments for E-7 countries. The climate change performance is expressed by the ‘Climate Change Performance Index’ (CCPI) developed by the German environmental and developmental organization Germanwatch. The index evaluates the climate protection performance of 63 developed and developing countries and the EU annually, and compares the data. Within this framework, CCPI seeks to increase clarity in international climate policies and practices, and enables a comparison of the progress achieved by various countries in their climate protection struggle. CCPI evaluates the performance of each country in four main categories: GHG Emissions (40% overall ranking), Renewable Energy (20%), Energy Use (20%), and Climate Policy (20%). In calculating this index, each category of GHG emissions, renewable energy, and energy use is measured by using four indicators. These are the Current Level, the Past Trend, the Current Level Well Below 2°C Compliance, and the Countries’ Well Below 2°C Compliance with the 2030 Target. The climate policy category is evaluated annually with a comprehensive survey in two ways: as the National Climate Policy and the International Climate Policy (https://ccpi.org/methodology/).  Figure 3 below shows the world map presenting the total results of the countries evaluated in CCPI 2025 and their overall performance, including the four main categories outlined above.   As it can be seen from Figure 3, no country appears strong enough to receive a ‘very high’ score across all categories. Moreover, although Denmark continues to be the highest-ranking country in the index, but it still does not perform well enough to receive a ‘very high’ score overall. On the other hand, India, Germany, the EU, and the G20 countries/regions will be among the highest-performing countries/regions in the 2024 index. When we look at Canada, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia, they are the worst-performing countries in the G20. On the other hand, it can be said that Türkiye, Poland, the USA, and Japan are the worst-performing countries in the overall ranking. The climate change performance index is an important criterion because it indicates whether the change and progress in combating climate change is occurring across all countries at an important level. The index is important in answering various questions for countries under discussion. These questions are expressed below:  • In which stage are the countries in the categories in which the index is calculated?• What policies should countries follow after seeing the stages in which they are in each category? • Which countries are setting an example by truly combating climate change? These questions also constitute the motivation for this study. The sample group for the study was selected as E-7 countries, which are called the Emerging Economies; this list consists of Türkiye, China, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, and Indonesia. The reason for selecting these particular countries is that they are undergoing a rapid development and transformation process, and are also believed to be influential in the future with their increasing share in the world trade volume, huge populations, and advances in technology. Besides that, when the relevant literature has been examined, studies that empirically address the relative ranking of the climate change performance appear to be quite limited. In particular, there are almost no studies evaluating the climate change performance index for the sample group considered. Therefore, it is thought that this study will be of great importance in filling this gap in the literature. The following section of the study, which aims to empirically examine whether the climate change performance is effective in developing environmental investments in E-7 countries, includes national and international selected literature review on the subject. Then, the model of the study and the variables chosen in this model are introduced. Then, the findings obtained in the study are shared, and the study ends with discussion and policy proposal. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Studies on environmental investment  The excessive use of fossil-based energy sources, considered non-renewable and dirty energy, along with industrialization, constitutes a large part of carbon emissions and is regarded as the main reason of climate change. Thus, countries have turned to renewable energy investments with the objective to minimize the reaction of climate change and global warming, by introducing technologies which are considered more environmentally friendly and cleaner. Global energy investments are estimated to exceed 3 trillion US dollars by the end of 2024, and 2 trillion US dollars of this amount will go to clean and environmentally friendly energy base technologies and infrastructure. Investment in environmentally friendly energy has been gaining speed since 2020, and the total expense on renewable energy, networks, and storage now represents a higher figure than the total spending on oil, gas, and coal (IEA, 2024). When the energy economics literature is examined, since environmental investments are mostly represented by renewable energy investments, renewable energy investments studies and studies in related fields shall be discussed in this study section. One of the important studies in this field is the work of Eyraud et al. (2013). In the study, the authors analyzed the determinants of environmental and green (clean) investments for 35 developed and developing countries. Accordingly, they stated in the study that environmental investment has become the main driving force of the energy sector, and China has generally driven its rapid growth in recent years. In addition, in terms of the econometric results of the study, it has been found that environmental investments are supported by economic growth, a solid financial system suitable for lower interest rates, and higher fuel prices. Fang (2023) examined the relationship between investments in the renewable energy sector, the economic complexity index, green technological innovation, industrial structure growth, and carbon emissions in 32 provinces in China for the period of 2005–2019 by using the GMM method. Based on the study results, the economic complexity index causes an increase in China’s carbon dioxide levels. On the contrary, all of the following – the square of the economic complexity index, investments in clean energy, green technical innovation, and the industrial structure – were found to help decrease carbon dioxide emissions. Another important study in this field is the work of Masini and Menichetti (2013). The authors examined the non-financial sources of renewable energy investments in their study. Accordingly, the study results show that knowledge and confidence in technological competence positively impact renewable energy investments. In addition, trust in policy measures only impacts PV (Photovoltaic) and hydropower investments, whereas institutional pressure negatively impacts renewable energy investments. Finally, the study stated that experienced investors are more likely to fund innovations in renewable energy. One of the important studies on renewable energy investments is the work of Ozorhon et al. (2018). To support and facilitate the decision-making process in renewable energy investments, the authors determined the main criteria affecting investors’ decisions by reviewing the literature and examining sector-level practices. According to the findings, economic criteria, like policies and regulations, funds availability, and investment costs were the most important factors in the decision-making process for renewable energy investments. Xu et al. (2024) examined the relationship between the renewable energy investments and the renewable energy development with a threshold value analysis for China. According to the results, impact of the clean (renewable) energy investment on renewable energy development has a significant threshold value, and the general relation between them is a ‘V’ type non-linear relation. At this point, the study suggests that the state should keep spending in the segment of investments in clean energy, increase the financial proficiency, and ensure an efficient financial infrastructure for clean energy in China. 2.2. Studies on Climate Change and their Impact on Economic Variables  The widespread use of fossil-based energy sources, considered dirty energy, continues to create a negative externality in carbon emissions despite the globally implemented policies like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement (Rezai et al., 2021). The economic literature on climate change focuses particularly on the adverse effect of climate change on the economy. One of the important studies in this field is the study of Fan et al. (2019). In their study, the authors focused on the impact of climate change on the energy sector for 30 provinces in China and conducted their research with the help of a fixed-effect regression feedback model. As a result of the study, it was found that hot and low-temperature days positively affected the electricity demand. On the other hand, Singh et al. (2022) examined the effects of climate change on agricultural sustainability in India with data from 1990–2017. On the grounds of the study, it was found that India’s agricultural sector was negatively impacted by the climate change. In this regard, it is stated that India needs to take powerful climate policy action so that to reduce the adverse effect of the climate change and increase its sustainable agricultural development. One of the important studies in this field is the study of Gallego-Alvarez et al. (2013). This study investigated how the climate change affects the financial performance with a sample of 855 international companies operating in sectors with high greenhouse gas/ CO2 emissions from 2006–2009. The results reveal that the relationship between the environmental and financial performance is higher in times of economic crisis triggered by climate crisis. In other words, these results show that companies should continue investing in sustainable projects in order to achieve higher profits. Kahn et al. (2021) examined the long-term macroeconomic impact of the climate change by using a panel data set consisting of 174 countries between 1960 and 2014. According to the findings, the amount of output per capita is negatively affected by temperature changes, but no statistically significant effect is observed for changes in precipitation. In addition, according to the study’s results, the main effects of temperature shocks also vary across income groups. Alagidede et al. (2015) examined the effect of climate change on sustainable economic growth in the Sub-Saharan Africa region in their study. The study stated that the relationship between the real GDP and the climate change is not linear. In addition, Milliner and Dietz (2011) investigated the long-term economic consequences of the climate change. Accordingly, as the economy develops over time, and as progress is achieved, this situation will automatically be less affected by the adverse impact of the climate change. Structural changes made with economic development will make sectors more sensitive to the climate change, such as the agricultural sector, which would become stronger and less dependent. Dell et al. (2008) examined the effect of climate change on economic activity. The study’s main results are as follows: an increase of temperatures significantly decreases economic growth in low-income countries. Furthermore, increasing temperature does not affect economic growth in high-income countries. On the other hand, when examining the effects of climate change on the economy, the study of Zhou et al. (2023) is also fundamentally important. Zhou et al. (2023) examined the literature on the effects of climate change risks on the financial sector. In the studies examined, it is generally understood that natural disasters and climate change reduce bank stability, credit supply, stock and bond market returns, and foreign direct investment inflows. In their study for Sri Lanka, Abeysekara et al. (2023) created a study using the general equilibrium model ORANI-G-SL with the objective to investigate the economic impacts of the climate change on agricultural production. The study findings suggest that reductions in the production of many agricultural products will lead to increases in consumer prices for these agricultural commodities, resulting in a decrease in the overall household consumption. The projected decrease in crop production and increases in food prices will increase the potential for food insecurity Another important document in this field is the study by Caruso et al. (2024) examining the relationship between the climate change and human capital. The study findings reveal a two-way result regarding the effects of the climate change damages and the effects of climate change mitigation and adaptation on the human capital. Accordingly, the climate change has direct effects on health, nutrition and welfare, while changes in markets and damage to the infrastructure are expressed as indirect effects. In addition to these studies, the uncertainty of the climate change policies also exerts an impact on economic factors. Studies conducted in this context in recent years have also enriched the literature on the climate change. For example, Çelik and Özarslan Doğan (2024) examined the effects of uncertainty of the climate change policies on economic growth for the USA by using the ARDL bounds test. Their results confirmed the existence of a positive and statistically significant relationship between the climate policy uncertainty and economic growth in the USA. 3. Model Specification  This study empirically examines whether the climate change performance index successfully develops environmental investments in E-7 countries. For further details related to the mathematical model check https://doi.org/10.15388/Ekon.2025.104.2.6 4. Conclusion and Policy Implications  Today, many national and international initiatives are within the scope of combating global warming and climate change. In addition, many developed and developing countries are differentiating their growth and development policies with the objective to prevent these disasters. Although they vary from country to country, as well as from region to region, these policies mostly represent those policies which reduce carbon emissions and ensure energy efficiency. At this point, the key factor is renewable energy investments, which represent environmentally friendly investments. However, according to Abban and Hasan (2021), the amount of environmentally friendly investments is not the same in every country. This is because the determinants of environmentally friendly investments vary from country to country. While financial and economic factors are more encouraging in increasing these investments in some countries, international sanctions are the driving force in this regard in some other countries as well. This study aims to empirically examine whether CCPI is effective in the success of environmental investments in the E-7 countries in the period of 2008–2023 with the help of the Parks-Kmenta estimator. In this direction, the study’s dependent variable is environmental investments, represented by renewable energy investments. On the other hand, the climate change performance is represented by the ‘Climate Change Performance Index’ calculated by Germanwatch, which constitutes the main independent variable of the study. Other control variables considered in the study are the population growth, the real GDP per capita, and inflation. The study findings provide strong evidence that increases in the climate change performance support environmental investments. High-rate climate change performance drives governments and investors toward investing in this area; thus, environmental investments tend to increase. These results are consistent with the study results of Raza et al. (2021). As a result of their study, Raza et al. (2021) stated that the climate change performance is an important channel for the general environmental change, and that renewable energy has a very important role in this regard.  In addition, the study concludes that population growth and inflation negatively affect environmental investments. These results are consistent with Suhrab et al. (2023), but not with Yang et al. (2016). While Suhrab et al. (2023) obtained results regarding the negative effects of inflation on green investments, Yang et al. (2016) focused on the positive effect of population on renewable energy. Finally, the effect of the real GDP per capita on environmental investments has been found to be positive. These results are also consistent with Tudor and Sova (2021). The authors found that Real GDP encourages green investments. This study offers policymakers a number of policy recommendations. These are presented below. • One of the important factors affecting the climate change performance is the raising of awareness of the populations in these countries at this point, and providing them with the knowledge to demand clean energy. In this way, consumers, would demand environmental energy, and investors would invest more in this area. This is of great importance in increasing environmental investments. • The climate change performance also shows how transparent the energy policies implemented by countries are. Therefore, the more achievable and explanatory are the goals of policy makers in this regard, the more climate change performance will increase, which will strengthen environmental investments. • Moreover, the initial installation costs are the most important obstacles on the way toward developing environmental investments. At this point, the country needs to develop support mechanisms that would encourage investors to invest more. • Environmental investments, similar to other types of physical investments, are greatly affected by the country’s macroeconomic indicators. At this point, a stable and foresighted economic policy will encourage an increase in such investments. The countries in the sample group represent developing countries. Therefore, in many countries in this category, the savings rates within the country are insufficient to make investments. At this point, the financial system that will bring together those who supply funds and those who demand funds in the country; this system needs to be developed further. In addition, more extensive use of new and various financial instruments should be encouraged with the objective to collect the capital required for environmental investments. References Abban, A. R., & Hasan, M. Z. (2021). Revisiting the determinants of renewable energy investment-New evidence from political and government ideology. Energy Policy, 151, 112184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enpol.2021.112184 (missing in the following “Access date:dd.mm.20yy”) Abeysekara, W. C. S. M., Siriwardana, M., & Meng, S. (2023). Economic consequences of climate change impacts on the agricultural sector of South Asia: A case study of Sri Lanka. Economic Analysis and Policy, 77, 435-450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2022.12.003 (missing in the following “Access date:dd.mm.20yy”) Accenture, 2011, New Waves of Growth: Unlocking Opportunity in the Multi-Polar World, Worldwide, Oxford. McKinsey & Company, 2009. Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy, New York. Anser, M. K., Iqbal, W., Ahmad, U. S., Fatima, A., & Chaudhry, I. S. (2020). Environmental efficiency and the role of energy innovation in emissions reduction. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 29451-29463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09129-w (missing in the following “Access date:dd. mm.20yy”) etc .... Bashir, M. F., Ma, B., Bashir, M. A., Radulescu, M., & Shahzad, U. (2022). Investigating the role of environmental taxes and regulations for renewable energy consumption: evidence from developed economies. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 35(1), 1262-1284. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.1962383Baştürk, M. F. (2024) Yeşil Tahviller ve Yenilenebilir Enerji Üretimi İlişkisi: AB Örneği. Verimlilik Dergisi, 58(3), 325-336. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1443364 Caruso, G., de Marcos, I., & Noy, I. (2024). Climate changes affect human capital. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, 8(1), 157-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41885-023-00140-2 Climate Change Performance Index, 2024. (https://ccpi.org/wp-content/uploads/CCPI-2024-Results.pdf) Çelik, B. S., & Doğan, B. Ö. (2024). Does Uncertainty in Climate Policy Affect Economic growth? Empirical Evidence from the US. Ekonomika, 103(1), 44-55. https://doi.org/10.15388/Ekon.2024.103.1.3 Dell M, Jones BF, Olken BA (2008) Climate change and economic growth: evidence from the last half century, NBER Working Paper Series, No. 14132 Eyraud, L., Clements, B., & Wane, A. (2013). Green investment: Trends and determinants. Energy policy, 60, 852-865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.039 Fan, J. L., Hu, J. W., & Zhang, X. (2019). Impacts of climate change on electricity demand in China: An empirical estimation based on panel data. Energy, 170, 880-888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.044 Fang, Z. (2023). Assessing the impact of renewable energy investment, green technology innovation, and industrialization on sustainable development: A case study of China. Renewable Energy, 205, 772-782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.01.014 Feng, H., Liu, Z., Wu, J., Iqbal, W., Ahmad, W., & Marie, M. (2022). Nexus between government spending’s and green economic performance: role of green finance and structure effect. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 27, 102461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2022.102461 Gallego‐Álvarez, I., García‐Sánchez, I. M., & da Silva Vieira, C. (2014). Climate change and financial performance in times of crisis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(6), 361-374. https://doi.org/10.1002/ bse.1786 Germanwatch, 2024 (https://www.germanwatch.org/en/indices?pk_campaign=20733850518&pk_content=155627208696&pk_kwd=climate%20change&pk_source=g&pk_cid=679389546151&mtm_placement=&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwwuG1BhCnARIsAFWBUC2ChKtgVoXt2XG7BKUJ_FRK90m86VeI6oRnpIDCPSnDTpZthsvvaQcaAnmjEALw_wcB) Access date:11.08.2024). Huang, H., Chau, K. Y., Iqbal, W., & Fatima, A. (2022). Assessing the role of financing in sustainable business environment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021- 16118-0 IEA, 2024 (https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2024/overview-and-key-findings) . International Energy Agency (IEA, 2023, World Energy Outlook 2023, Paris.https://www.iea.org/reports/ world-energy-outlook-2023/overview-and-key-findings International Monetary Fund, 2008a, Climate Change and the Global Economy, World Economic Outlook, Washington. IRENA (2015), Renewable capacity statistics 2015, International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. IRENA (2024), Renewable capacity statistics 2024, International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. IRENA (2024). https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2024/Jul/Renewable_energy_highlights_FINAL_July_2024.pdf?rev=469292ef67144702b515ecb20575ec7d Irfan, M., Zhao, Z. Y., Li, H., & Rehman, A. (2020). The influence of consumers’ intention factors on willingness to pay for renewable energy: a structural equation modeling approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 21747-21761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08592-9 Kaya, H. E. (2020). Kyoto’dan Paris’e Küresel İklim Politikaları. Meriç Uluslararası Sosyal ve Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(10), 165-191. Kahn, M. E., Mohaddes, K., Ng, R. N., Pesaran, M. H., Raissi, M., & Yang, J. C. (2021). Long-term macroeconomic effects of climate change: A cross-country analysis. Energy Economics, 104, 105624. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105624 Karaçor, Z., Özer, H., Saraç, T.B. (2011). Enflasyon ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Türkiye ekonomisi üzerine ekonometrik bir uygulama (1988-2007). Niğde Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(2), 29-44.Masini, A., & Menichetti, E. (2013). Investment decisions in the renewable energy sector: An analysis of non-financial drivers. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3), 510-524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2012.08.003 Milliner A, Dietz S (2011) Adaptation to climate change and economic growth in developing countries, Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, Working Paper, No. 69 Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2011. Towards Green Growth, Paris. Ozorhon, B., Batmaz, A., & Caglayan, S. (2018). Generating a framework to facilitate decision making in renewable energy investments. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 95, 217-226. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.035 PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2008. Going Green: Sustainable Growth Strategies, New York. Raza, A., Sui, H., Jermsittiparsert, K., Żukiewicz-Sobczak, W., & Sobczak, P. (2021). Trade liberalization and environmental performance index: Mediation role of climate change performance and greenfield investment. Sustainability, 13(17), 9734. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179734 Rezai, A., Foley, D. K., & Taylor, L. (2012). Global warming and economic externalities. Economic theory, 49, 329-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-010-0592-4 Shrimali, G., & Kniefel, J. (2011). Are government policies effective in promoting deployment of renewable electricity resources?. Energy Policy, 39(9), 4726-4741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.055 Singh, A. K., Kumar, S., & Jyoti, B. (2022). Influence of climate change on agricultural sustainability in India: A state-wise panel data analysis. Asian Journal of Agriculture, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.13057/asianjagric/ g060103 Suhrab, M., Ullah, A., Pinglu, C. et al. Boosting green energy: impact of financial development, foreign direct investment, and inflation on sustainable energy productivity in China–Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC) countries. Environ Dev Sustain (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04093-0 Tudor, C., & Sova, R. (2021). On the impact of gdp per capita, carbon intensity and innovation for renewable energy consumption: worldwide evidence. Energies, 14(19), 6254. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14196254 Yang, J., Zhang, W., & Zhang, Z. (2016). Impacts of urbanization on renewable energy consumption in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 443-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.158 Xu, G., Yang, M., Li, S., Jiang, M., & Rehman, H. (2024). Evaluating the effect of renewable energy investment on renewable energy development in China with panel threshold model. Energy Policy, 187, 114029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114029 Zhang, Y., Abbas, M., Koura, Y. H., Su, Y., & Iqbal, W. (2021). The impact trilemma of energy prices, taxation, and population on industrial and residential greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 6913-6928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10618-1 Zhou, F., Endendijk, T., & Botzen, W. W. (2023). A review of the financial sector impacts of risks associated with climate change. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 15(1), 233-256. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-resource-101822-105702 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Contents lists available at Vilnius University Press

International efforts, such as the Paris Agreement, aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But experts say countries aren’t doing enough to limit dangerous global warming. Summary Countries have debated how to combat climate change since the early 1990s. These negotiations have produced several important accords, including the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Governments generally agree on the science behind climate change but have diverged on who is most responsible, how to track emissions-reduction goals, and whether to compensate harder-hit countries. The findings of the first global stocktake, discussed at the 2023 UN Climate Summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), concluded that governments need to do more to prevent the global average temperature from rising by 1.5°C. Introduction Over the last several decades, governments have collectively pledged to slow global warming. But despite intensified diplomacy, the world is already facing the consequences of climate change, and they are expected to get worse. Through the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, countries agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere keeps rising, heating the Earth at an alarming rate. Scientists warn that if this warming continues unabated, it could bring environmental catastrophe to much of the world, including staggering sea-level rise, devastating wildfires, record-breaking droughts and floods, and widespread species loss. Since negotiating the Paris accord in 2015, many of the 195 countries that are party to the agreement have strengthened their climate commitments—to include pledges on curbing emissions and supporting countries in adapting to the effects of extreme weather—during the annual UN climate conferences known as the Conference of the Parties (COP). While experts note that clear progress has been made towards the clean energy transition, cutting current emissions has proven challenging for the world’s top emitters. The United States, for instance, could be poised to ramp up fossil fuel production linked to global warming under the Donald Trump administration, which has previously minimized the effects of climate change and has withdrawn twice from the Paris Agreement. What are the most important international agreements on climate change? Montreal Protocol, 1987. Though not intended to tackle climate change, the Montreal Protocol [PDF] was a historic environmental accord that became a model for future diplomacy on the issue. Every country in the world eventually ratified the treaty, which required them to stop producing substances that damage the ozone layer, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The protocol has succeeded in eliminating nearly 99 percent of these ozone-depleting substances. In 2016, parties agreed via the Kigali Amendment to also reduce their production of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), powerful greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1992. Ratified by 197 countries, including the United States, the landmark accord [PDF] was the first global treaty to explicitly address climate change. It established an annual forum, known as the Conference of the Parties, or COP, for international discussions aimed at stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These meetings produced the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Kyoto Protocol, 2005. The Kyoto Protocol [PDF], adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 2005, was the first legally binding climate treaty. It required developed countries to reduce emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels, and established a system to monitor countries’ progress. But the treaty did not compel developing countries, including major carbon emitters China and India, to take action. The United States signed the agreement in 1998 but never ratified it and later withdrew its signature.  Paris Agreement, 2015. The most significant global climate agreement to date, the Paris Agreement requires all countries to set emissions-reduction pledges. Governments set targets, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), with the goals of preventing the global average temperature from rising 2°C (3.6°F) above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to keep it below 1.5°C (2.7°F). It also aims to reach global net-zero emissions, where the amount of greenhouse gases emitted equals the amount removed from the atmosphere, in the second half of the century. (This is also known as being climate neutral or carbon neutral.) The United States, the world’s second-largest emitter, is the only country to withdraw from the agreement, a move President Donald Trump made during his first administration in 2017. While former President Joe Biden reentered the agreement during his first day in office, Trump again withdrew the United States on the first day of his second administration in 2025. Three other countries have not formally approved the agreement: Iran, Libya, and Yemen. Is there a consensus on the science of climate change? Yes, there is a broad consensus among the scientific community, though some deny that climate change is a problem, including politicians in the United States. When negotiating teams meet for international climate talks, there is “less skepticism about the science and more disagreement about how to set priorities,” says David Victor, an international relations professor at the University of California, San Diego. The basic science is that:• the Earth’s average temperature is rising at an unprecedented rate; • human activities, namely the use of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—are the primary drivers of this rapid warming and climate change; and,• continued warming is expected to have harmful effects worldwide. Data taken from ice cores shows that the Earth’s average temperature is rising more now than it has in eight hundred thousand years. Scientists say this is largely a result of human activities over the last 150 years, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. These activities have dramatically increased the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere, causing the planet to warm. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN body established in 1988, regularly assesses the latest climate science and produces consensus-based reports for countries. Why are countries aiming to keep global temperature rise below 1.5°C? Scientists have warned for years of catastrophic environmental consequences if global temperature continues to rise at the current pace. The Earth’s average temperature has already increased approximately 1.1°C above preindustrial levels, according to a 2023 assessment by the IPCC. The report, drafted by more than two hundred scientists from over sixty countries, predicts that the world will reach or exceed 1.5°C of warming within the next two decades even if nations drastically cut emissions immediately. (Several estimates report that global warming already surpassed that threshold in 2024.) An earlier, more comprehensive IPCC report summarized the severe effects expected to occur when the global temperature warms by 1.5°C: Heat waves. Many regions will suffer more hot days, with about 14 percent of people worldwide being exposed to periods of severe heat at least once every five years. Droughts and floods. Regions will be more susceptible to droughts and floods, making farming more difficult, lowering crop yields, and causing food shortages.  Rising seas. Tens of millions of people live in coastal regions that will be submerged in the coming decades. Small island nations are particularly vulnerable. Ocean changes. Up to 90 percent of coral reefs will be wiped out, and oceans will become more acidic. The world’s fisheries will become far less productive. Arctic ice thaws. At least once a century, the Arctic will experience a summer with no sea ice, which has not happened in at least two thousand years. Forty percent of the Arctic’s permafrost will thaw by the end of the century.  Species loss. More insects, plants, and vertebrates will be at risk of extinction.  The consequences will be far worse if the 2°C threshold is reached, scientists say. “We’re headed toward disaster if we can’t get our warming in check and we need to do this very quickly,” says Alice C. Hill, CFR senior fellow for energy and the environment. Which countries are responsible for climate change? The answer depends on who you ask and how you measure emissions. Ever since the first climate talks in the 1990s, officials have debated which countries—developed or developing—are more to blame for climate change and should therefore curb their emissions. Developing countries argue that developed countries have emitted more greenhouse gases over time. They say these developed countries should now carry more of the burden because they were able to grow their economies without restraint. Indeed, the United States has emitted the most of all time, followed by the European Union (EU).   However, China and India are now among the world’s top annual emitters, along with the United States. Developed countries have argued that those countries must do more now to address climate change.   In the context of this debate, major climate agreements have evolved in how they pursue emissions reductions. The Kyoto Protocol required only developed countries to reduce emissions, while the Paris Agreement recognized that climate change is a shared problem and called on all countries to set emissions targets. What progress have countries made since the Paris Agreement? Every five years, countries are supposed to assess their progress toward implementing the agreement through a process known as the global stocktake. The first of these reports, released in September 2023, warned governments that “the world is not on track to meet the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement.” That said, countries have made some breakthroughs during the annual UN climate summits, such as the landmark commitment to establish the Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The fund aims to address the inequality of climate change by providing financial assistance to poorer countries, which are often least responsible for global emissions yet most vulnerable to climate disasters. At COP28, countries decided that the fund will be initially housed at the World Bank, with several wealthy countries, such as the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, and EU members, initially pledging around $430 million combined. At COP29, developed countries committed to triple their finance commitments to developing countries, totalling $300 billion annually by 2035. Recently, there have been global efforts to cut methane emissions, which account for more than half of human-made warming today because of their higher potency and heat trapping ability within the first few decades of release. The United States and EU introduced a Global Methane Pledge at COP26, which aims to slash 30 percent of methane emissions levels between 2020 and 2030. At COP28, oil companies announced they would cut their methane emissions from wells and drilling by more than 80 percent by the end of the decade. However, pledges to phase out fossil fuels were not renewed the following year at COP29. Are the commitments made under the Paris Agreement enough? Most experts say that countries’ pledges are not ambitious enough and will not be enacted quickly enough to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C. The policies of Paris signatories as of late 2022 could result in a 2.7°C (4.9°F) rise by 2100, according to the Climate Action Tracker compiled by Germany-based nonprofits Climate Analytics and the NewClimate Institute. “The Paris Agreement is not enough. Even at the time of negotiation, it was recognized as not being enough,” says CFR’s Hill. “It was only a first step, and the expectation was that as time went on, countries would return with greater ambition to cut their emissions.” Since 2015, dozens of countries—including the top emitters—have submitted stronger pledges. For example, President Biden announced in 2021 that the United States will aim to cut emissions by 50 to 52 percent compared to 2005 levels by 2030, doubling former President Barack Obama’s commitment. The following year, the U.S. Congress approved legislation that could get the country close to reaching that goal. Meanwhile, the EU pledged to reduce emissions by at least 55 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2030, and China said it aims to reach peak emissions before 2030. But the world’s average temperature will still rise more than 2°C (3.6°F) by 2100 even if countries fully implement their pledges for 2030 and beyond. If the more than one hundred countries that have set or are considering net-zero targets follow through, warming could be limited to 1.8˚C (3.2°F), according to the Climate Action Tracker.   What are the alternatives to the Paris Agreement? Some experts foresee the most meaningful climate action happening in other forums. Yale University economist William Nordhaus says that purely voluntary international accords like the Paris Agreement promote free-riding and are destined to fail. The best way to cut global emissions, he says, would be to have governments negotiate a universal carbon price rather than focus on country emissions limits. Others propose new agreements [PDF] that apply to specific emissions or sectors to complement the Paris Agreement.  In recent years, climate diplomacy has occurred increasingly through minilateral groupings. The Group of Twenty (G20), representing countries that are responsible for 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas pollution, has pledged to stop financing new coal-fired power plants abroad and agreed to triple renewable energy capacity by the end of this decade. However, G20 governments have thus far failed to set a deadline to phase out fossil fuels. In 2022, countries in the International Civil Aviation Organization set a goal of achieving net-zero emissions for commercial aviation by 2050. Meanwhile, cities around the world have made their own pledges. In the United States, more than six hundred local governments [PDF] have detailed climate action plans that include emissions-reduction targets. Industry is also a large source of carbon pollution, and many firms have said they will try to reduce their emissions or become carbon neutral or carbon negative, meaning they would remove more carbon from the atmosphere than they release. The Science Based Targets initiative, a UK-based company considered the “gold standard” in validating corporate net-zero plans, says it has certified the plans of  over three thousand firms, and aims to more than triple this total by 2025. Still, analysts say that many challenges remain, including questions over the accounting methods and a lack of transparency in supply chains. Recommended Resources This timeline tracks UN climate talks since 1992. CFR Education’s latest resources explain everything to know about climate change.  The Climate Action Tracker assesses countries’ updated NDCs under the Paris Agreement. CFR Senior Fellow Varun Sivaram discusses how the 2025 U.S. wildfires demonstrate the need to rethink climate diplomacy and adopt a pragmatic response to falling short of global climate goals. In this series on climate change and instability by the Center for Preventive Action, CFR Senior Fellow Michelle Gavin looks at the consequences for the Horn of Africa and the National Defense University’s Paul J. Angelo for Central America. This backgrounder by Clara Fong unpacks the global push for climate financing.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Last week, the Trump administration signed a deal with Ukraine that gives it privileged access to Ukraine’s natural resources. Some news outlets described the deal as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “caving” to US President Donald Trump’s demands. But we see the agreement as the result of clever bargaining on the part of Ukraine’s war-time president. So, what does the deal mean for Ukraine? And will this help strengthen America’s mineral supply chains? Ukraine’s natural resource wealth Ukraine is home to 5% of the world’s critical mineral wealth, including 22 of the 34 minerals identified by the European Union as vital for defence, construction and high-tech manufacturing. However, there’s a big difference between resources (what’s in the ground) and reserves (what can be commercially exploited). Ukraine’s proven mineral reserves are limited. Further, Ukraine has an estimated mineral wealth of around US$14.8 trillion (A$23 trillion), but more than half of this is in territories currently occupied by Russia. What does the new deal mean for Ukraine? American support for overseas conflict is usually about securing US economic interests — often in the form of resource exploitation. From the Middle East to Asia, US interventions abroad have enabled access for American firms to other countries’ oil, gas and minerals. But the first iteration of the Ukraine mineral deal, which Zelensky rejected in February, had been an especially brazen resource grab by Trump’s government. It required Ukraine to cede sovereignty over its land and resources to one country (the US), in order to defend itself from attacks by another (Russia). These terms were highly exploitative of a country fighting against a years-long military occupation. In addition, they violated Ukraine’s constitution, which puts the ownership of Ukraine’s natural resources in the hands of the Ukrainian people. Were Zelensky to accept this, he would have faced a tremendous backlash from the public. In comparison, the new deal sounds like a strategic and (potentially) commercial win for Ukraine. First, this agreement is more just, and it’s aligned with Ukraine’s short- and medium-term interests. Zelenksy describes it as an “equal partnership” that will modernise Ukraine. Under the terms, Ukraine will set up a United States–Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund for foreign investments into the country’s economy, which will be jointly governed by both countries. Ukraine will contribute 50% of the income from royalties and licenses to develop critical minerals, oil and gas reserves, while the US can make its contributions in-kind, such as through military assistance or technology transfers. Ukraine maintains ownership over its natural resources and state enterprises. And the licensing agreements will not require substantial changes to the country’s laws, or disrupt its future integration with Europe. Importantly, there is no mention of retroactive debts for the US military assistance already received by Ukraine. This would have created a dangerous precedent, allowing other nations to seek to claim similar debts from Ukraine. Finally, the deal also signals the Trump administration’s commitment to “a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine” – albeit, still without any security guarantees. Profits may be a long time coming Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration and conservative media in the US are framing the deal as a win. For too long, Trump argues, Ukraine has enjoyed US taxpayer-funded military assistance, and such assistance now has a price tag. The administration has described the deal to Americans as a profit-making endeavour that can recoup monies spent defending Ukrainian interests. But in reality, profits are a long way off. The terms of the agreement clearly state the fund’s investment will be directed at new resource projects. Existing operations and state-owned projects will fall outside the terms of the agreement. Mining projects typically work within long time frames. The move from exploration to production is a slow, high-risk and enormously expensive process. It can often take over a decade. Add to this complexity the fact that some experts are sceptical Ukraine even has enormously valuable reserves. And to bring any promising deposits to market will require major investments. What’s perhaps more important It’s possible, however, that profits are a secondary calculation for the US. Boxing out China is likely to be as – if not more – important. Like other Western nations, the US is desperate to diversify its critical mineral supply chains. China controls not just a large proportion of the world’s known rare earths deposits, it also has a monopoly on the processing of most critical minerals used in green energy and defence technologies. The US fears China will weaponise its market dominance against strategic rivals. This is why Western governments increasingly make mineral supply chain resilience central to their foreign policy and defence strategies. Given Beijing’s closeness to Moscow and their deepening cooperation on natural resources, the US-Ukraine deal may prevent Russia — and, by extension, China — from accessing Ukrainian minerals. The terms of the agreement are explicit: “states and persons who have acted adversely towards Ukraine must not benefit from its reconstruction”. Finally, the performance of “the deal” matters just as much to Trump. Getting Zelensky to sign on the dotted line is progress in itself, plays well to Trump’s base at home, and puts pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to come to the table. So, the deal is a win for Zelensky because it gives the US a stake in an independent Ukraine. But even if Ukraine’s critical mineral reserves turn out to be less valuable than expected, it may not matter to Trump.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском China is simultaneously the world's biggest polluter and the global leader in renewables This article was submitted as part of the Global Voices Climate Justice Fellowship, which pairs journalists from Sinophone and Global Majority countries to investigate the effects of Chinese development projects abroad. Kazakhstan’s transition to renewable energy (RE) has seen a significant surge in recent years. This rapidly growing green transition has allowed the country to meet its interim RE targets. By 2030, the country aims to generate 15 percent of its total energy output through renewables and increase this share to 50 percent by 2050. Moreover, Kazakhstan has committed to reaching carbon neutrality by 2060.  The biggest partner in this endeavor has been China, whose role in the RE transition has grown and diversified over the years. For Kazakhstan, the benefits of this partnership are clear: industrialization of its economy and, more importantly, decreasing carbon emissions and improving air quality and public health. For China, the benefits go beyond mere lucrative investments and exporting its RE technology and include gaining soft power and offsetting its environmentally destructive footprint in Kazakhstan.  Harnessing renewable energy to combat air pollution In addition to rich oil and gas resources, Kazakhstan has vast renewable energy potential, thanks to its large territory and abundance of wind and sunny days. It is the ninth largest country by area and holds 77 percent of Central Asia’s solar potential and 90 percent of the regional wind potential.   The presence of wind corridors in vast Kazakh steppes with wind speeds of more than five miles per second, which is present in all regions, makes Kazakhstan ideal for the operation of wind turbines. Additionally, at least 50 percent of Kazakhstan's territory is suitable for installing solar panels.  Most of the RE potential remains untapped, with Kazakhstan still relying on Soviet-era energy infrastructure built to utilize fossil fuels. In 2024, 66 percent of the country’s electricity was generated through coal, 21 percent via natural gas, 6.6 percent from hydroelectricity, and only 6.4 percent from renewables.  Air pollution is a nationwide problem in Kazakhstan. In 2025, 35 cities spread across the country faced significant air pollution, according to the National Hydrometeorological Service of Kazakhstan. A major source of this pollution pandemic is coal burned by thermal power plants, industrial complexes, and households.  The list of adverse effects of air pollution is long. According to Kazakhstani doctor Denis Vinnikov, who has researched air pollution’s effects on health, long-term exposure to polluted air increases the risk of developing cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, such as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). In addition, air pollution increases the likelihood of almost all types of cancer and tumors. One of the most polluted cities in Kazakhstan, Almaty, is one of the national leaders with the highest cases of COPD.  Kazakhstan’s recognition of the adverse effects of its coal-intensive energy sector on the environment and public health has pushed the government to ramp up renewable energy production in the last decade. China’s multiple roles in renewables The Kazakh-Chinese green energy endeavors are part of China's wider bilateral cooperation, covering energy, agriculture, machinery, and mining, among other areas. China is one of Kazakhstan’s largest trade and investment partners. In 2022, the countries signed a permanent comprehensive strategic partnership. Between 2005 and 2023, China invested over USD 25 billion in Kazakhstan.  The two sides also work closely within the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China’s global connectivity project focusing on energy, trade, and transport infrastructure in global majority states. Between 2013 and 2020, China invested USD 18.5 billion in Kazakhstan within the BRI framework. China has participated in Kazakhstan’s green transition from the very beginning. In an interview with Global Voices, Yunis Sharifli, a non-resident fellow at the China Global South Project, described China as the “first-comer” to Kazakhstan’s RE sector. Yana Zabanova, a research associate at the Research Institute for Sustainability, said in an interview with Global Voices: China has been the main technology supplier to Kazakhstan's renewable energy sector, both in the solar PV and increasingly in the wind sector, and Chinese companies have also served as important investors and EPC [engineering, procurement, and constuction] contractors for renewable energy projects in the country. China’s role grew exponentially starting in 2018 when the government launched renewable energy auctions, which gifted government contracts to the lowest bidder. Since 2018, a single private Chinese company, Universal Energy, has built 10 RE plants, three solar and seven wind, with a total capacity of 630 Megawatts by winning government tenders.   Additionally, state-owned Chinese companies have secured contracts via intergovernmental negotiations. There are several examples of this, such as the Zhanatas and Shelek wind power plants (WPP), which are already operational, and five more RE plants in the development stage with a total capacity of 2.6 GW.   In an interview with Global Voices, Ainur Sospanova, the Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Qazaq Green RES Association, provided her expert assessment of China’s share in Kazakhstan’s RE sector: In the solar energy sector, it is almost 100 percent because it is impossible to compete against Chinese solar panels. In the wind energy sector, it is at least 70 percent and continues to grow. Thus, since 2018, China has expanded its role to project developer and financier through loans issued by Chinese banks and equity financing.  China's share in Kazakhstan’s renewable projects is set to grow even more upon the completion of two Chinese plants that will localize the production of energy storage systems and components for WPP. Gaining soft power and improving its image Paradoxically, China is simultaneously the biggest polluter in the world and the global leader in renewables. While China is constructing two-thirds of the world's wind and solar projects, 93 percent of global construction from coal power took place in China in 2024. This paradox is also present in BRI projects, including those in Kazakhstan.  China frequently touts its solar and wind energy projects as part of the BRI. At the same time, one-fourth of coal-fired power generation in the world is financed through the BRI. Though China Power International Holding and Kazakhstani Samruk Energy have agreed on solar and wind projects to develop renewables, deals are also inked to develop oil, gas, coal, cement, and steel industries in Kazakhstan, which adversely affect the environment and the well-being of local communities. Sharifli explained: When we look at the global discontent with China’s presence, we see two worries: debt trap and environmental pollution. So renewable energy is very important in this context. China’s investments in renewables are aimed at tackling these worries by gaining soft power and improving its reputation. This benefits not only China but also the BRI. Chinese companies that have invested in RE in Kazakhstan, such as Risen Energy, Universal Energy, and Power China, put the BRI at the heart of how they frame their companies. Chinese think tanks also suggest that the Chinese government welcome RE development overseas despite concerns.   In contrast to the Chinese-built oil processing, steel, and cement plants in Kazakhstan, RE projects have thus caused no controversy and helped China improve its reputation in Central Asia. Sharifli noted that since 2021, public attitudes towards China in Kazakhstan have started becoming more positive, partially due to Chinese investments in RE, according to a survey conducted by the Central Asia Barometer.  “Renewable energy plants are usually located in the steppe, far away from the settlements, they don’t interfere with the daily lives of people and look idyllic. There is no trash, there is no pollution, there is no dirty water or soil,” said Zabanova, who has visited multiple RE plants in Kazakhstan as part of her research.  China’s investments in renewables in Kazakhstan serve as an example of how solar and wind energy projects are used in diplomacy. They not only allow Chinese companies to export their excess capacities to profitable foreign markets but also help China mask its environmental damage and create a favorable perception abroad.