More than ten years ago, I first delved into the circular economy. What struck me at the time was that the scientific literature on this subject came from only two places: China and North-Western Europe. In retrospect, this was no coincidence but an early sign, even though the perspective was completely different. China did not see circularity and renewable energy primarily as a green business model, but as a strategic power factor.
Now that the world, led by Trump, is returning to old-fashioned spheres of influence, it is painfully clear who has prepared themselves best. Over the past decades, China has systematically secured access to critical minerals, from lithium in South America to cobalt in Congo. At the same time, the country dominates the production of solar panels, batteries, electric cars and wind turbines. Europe's dependence on Russian gas turned out to be a strategic miscalculation, and swapping it for American gas may well be just as much of a mistake. The growing dependence on Chinese green technology threatens to be the next one.
Geopolitical power and fragmentation almost always revolve around raw materials and energy. This was the case with the trade in spices, gold, silver and slaves. Colonialism grew largely on the back of this. China, Russia and the United States are now engaged in the next phase of this historical game. While we in Europe still thought we could solve global problems with international agreements, the post-war consensus of a rules-based system was already quietly disappearing. Access to scarce resources has once again become a question of power rather than market forces.
Two questions
As things stand, there are two major losers in this realignment: Europe and future generations. Europe has hardly any fossil reserves or critical minerals and has largely outsourced the production of key technologies to geopolitical rivals. If we continue down this path, future generations will face greater climate risks, less nature and less prosperity, precisely because international cooperation is under pressure. This raises two questions: what can Europe do, and how can we protect the future?
Embrace scarcity
Firstly: what should we do as losers? The answer begins with embracing our scarcity. After the oil crises, Japan became a champion of energy efficiency precisely because it had nothing. Europe's lack of raw materials is not a handicap but rather a stimulus for creativity. Moreover, in this context, reducing consumption becomes a geopolitical weapon. Every tonne less demand for raw materials and plastic waste is a tonne less dependence. Sufficiency is no longer a moral appeal but a strategic necessity. And finally, we must stop complaining about losing competitiveness. The call to lighten European regulations leads to rules of the game that we cannot win. We cannot compete on cheap raw materials and low standards, so why should we try? Let's play our own game!
Shared interests
Secondly, how do we solve global problems without global consensus? This calls for modesty. We will have to accept that some problems can no longer be “solved” through international agreements, but only navigated. The question shifts from “how do we get everyone on board” to “how do we become resilient regardless of what others do”. That might sound defeatist, but it is not. If Europe truly achieves circularity and energy independence, it will automatically become attractive to others. Not through treaties, but through the demonstration effect. China did this with solar panels: don't wait for consensus, just build. And we can seek allies based on shared vulnerability rather than shared ideology. Not “who shares our values” but “who has the same problem”: resource-dependent countries, importers, island states, young people.
Fair play
What does this mean in concrete terms? More ambitious regulations in Europe in broad terms, fewer details but not necessarily less stringent. So more investment in circular technology, not cutting back on it. More guidance on behaviour and consumption and not leaving this to the market. So the next time a politician argues for relaxing climate rules in order to “remain competitive”, consider: competitive with whom? With countries that do have raw materials? That battle has already been lost. However, the battle for our independence has certainly not been lost, and coincidentally, that is also the only battle that will benefit future generations. And that starts with recognising that sustainability is not a luxury we allow ourselves in good times, but the core of our geopolitical resilience.
This opinion piece was originally published in Dutch in newspaper Financieel Dagblad