
Commentaries | Aug 17,2019
Apr 19 , 2025
By Bertrand Badré , Thomas Crampton
As the world becomes increasingly unstable, with the security that many people took for granted called into question, climate change, once viewed as the defining challenge of our time, has been sidelined by geopolitics, which has brought issues such as rearmament and the race for AI supremacy to the fore. But rising seas, protracted heatwaves, and devastating storms are not only risks; they are realities.
The threat of climate change is growing, but many corporations and even climate innovators have gone silent.
The rise of "greenhushing" – when companies downplay environmental goals for financial or political reasons – reflects not only changing communications strategies, but rising tensions between competing priorities. Amid new geopolitical conflicts and economic pressures, some argue that sustainability has become an unaffordable luxury. But, one should not assume a trade-off between sustainability and security.
On the contrary, if we frame climate change, security risks, and economic needs as competing priorities, we risk losing on all fronts.
To be sure, competition over resources, territory, and technology appears to be monopolising financial and intellectual resources at the expense of efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Yet these issues are deeply intertwined. The scramble for rare-earth minerals, the expansion of data infrastructure, and the need for energy-efficient AI all show that geopolitics and climate policy are part of the same equation.
Faced with limited capital and constraints on cross-border financial flows, many businesses and governments feel paralyzed. For decades, we have missed opportunities to invest in long-term resilience, even after the threat of climate change was fully known. But wallowing in regret will not help now. Instead, we should acknowledge our short-sightedness and act immediately to change course.
The era of “peace dividends” and low interest rates is behind us. The task now is to adapt to an era of capital scarcity and geopolitical fragmentation. We can no longer ask whether climate action is important, but how it can be integrated into a rapidly changing global landscape. That means abandoning outdated approaches and forging a cohesive strategy that combines security, innovation, and sustainability.
In today’s political climate, many will see greenhushing as a reasonable strategy. Like US corporate managers’ back-pedaling on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and other issues that have been consumed by the culture war, keeping a low profile on environmental matters might seem pragmatic. But, by creating the illusion that sustainability is less urgent or feasible than it really is, greenhushing carries significant risks.
For starters, de-emphasising sustainability threatens to slow green innovation when it is needed most. Greenhushing could erode consumer trust and sap momentum in industries that have already started to build a carbon-neutral future. In time, this will prove far costlier – both economically and environmentally – than any risks associated with remaining committed to mitigation and adaptation.
Worse, there could be a “lemming” effect across industries. If everyone assumes that sustainability is being abandoned, then everyone will abandon sustainability. The peer pressure that has been driving private-sector progress on this issue will vanish.
Despite these hurdles, there is still hope.
The shift toward a more sustainable economy has begun, even in the United States. While the pace of progress may slow, the direction of travel need not change. In adjusting to new realities, the ultimate goal should be to stay the course.
Sustainability is a strategic imperative. Many companies – large and small, across every continent – already recognise this and have developed business models that combine profitability and environmental responsibility. Their success shows that adapting to this new era does not mean abandoning long-term goals. Instead, it means identifying new sources of value, investing in eco-efficient infrastructure, and aligning sustainability measures with cost-savings and resilience.
But public-private cooperation is also essential. Markets alone cannot deliver when priorities are constantly and abruptly shifting (say, from sustainability to AI to defence). Governments should step in to help stabilise expectations, and they can do so through public-private initiatives that tie sustainability to national security. For example, publicly supported investments in clean energy and resilient supply chains can reduce reliance on fossil fuels, which in turn will strengthen economic resilience and diminish the importance of geopolitical competition.
While a coordinated, global approach would be ideal, regional, local, and sector-specific initiatives are probably more likely to succeed in today’s fragmented political landscape. The key is to align financial incentives with sustainability goals to ensure that climate action is not sidelined in favour of short-term gains.
The collective project that all countries embarked on 10 years ago, with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris climate agreement, should remain our North Star, even if pragmatism demands strategic tacking along the way. This is no time for cynicism or despair. Any blame that should be assigned would be best directed toward those who are cynically exploiting the situation to reap short-term gains. Any company making a good-faith effort to recalibrate its strategy deserves support.
We should remain pragmatic yet resolute. We had a chance to act when times were easier, but that window has closed. Rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and biodiversity loss are not distant threats; they are here, and they are compounding geopolitical tensions. Greenhushing may feel like a convenient response to today’s challenges, but it is not a sustainable one. Silence will not save us.
We need the opposite of greenhushing: bold and united action that weaves climate priorities into our economic and geopolitical strategies. Business leaders who do not speak up now will later regret it.
PUBLISHED ON
Apr 19,2025 [ VOL
26 , NO
1303]
Commentaries | Aug 17,2019
Commentaries | May 11,2024
Commentaries | Jun 13,2020
Sunday with Eden | Aug 25,2024
Commentaries | Nov 29,2020
My Opinion | Aug 21,2021
Radar | Apr 15,2024
Fortune News | Sep 23,2023
Commentaries | Jan 23,2021
Radar | Aug 03,2019
My Opinion | 132165 Views | Aug 14,2021
My Opinion | 128575 Views | Aug 21,2021
My Opinion | 126497 Views | Sep 10,2021
My Opinion | 124105 Views | Aug 07,2021
Dec 22 , 2024 . By TIZITA SHEWAFERAW
Charged with transforming colossal state-owned enterprises into modern and competitiv...
Aug 18 , 2024 . By AKSAH ITALO
Although predictable Yonas Zerihun's job in the ride-hailing service is not immune to...
Jul 28 , 2024 . By TIZITA SHEWAFERAW
Unhabitual, perhaps too many, Samuel Gebreyohannes, 38, used to occasionally enjoy a couple of beers at breakfast. However, he recently swit...
Jul 13 , 2024 . By AKSAH ITALO
Investors who rely on tractors, trucks, and field vehicles for commuting, transporting commodities, and f...
Jul 12 , 2025
Political leaders and their policy advisors often promise great leaps forward, yet th...
Jul 5 , 2025
Six years ago, Ethiopia was the darling of international liberal commentators. A year...
Jun 28 , 2025
Meseret Damtie, the assertive auditor general, has never been shy about naming names...
Jun 21 , 2025
A well-worn adage says, “Budget is not destiny, but it is direction.” Examining t...
Jul 13 , 2025 . By YITBAREK GETACHEW
The Addis Abeba City Revenue Bureau has introduced a new directive set to reshape how...
Jul 13 , 2025 . By BEZAWIT HULUAGER
Addis Abeba has approved a record 350 billion Br budget for the 2025/26 fiscal year,...
Jul 13 , 2025 . By RUTH BERHANU
The Addis Abeba Revenue Bureau has scrapped a value-added tax (VAT) on unprocessed ve...
Jul 13 , 2025 . By NAHOM AYELE
Federal lawmakers have finally brought closure to a protracted and contentious tax de...