by April Gibbs, MBA ’26
This article was written in response to a class discussion in the EDGE Seminar class at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business in Fall 2025. This article voices one student’s perspective and does not necessarily represent the views of Duke University.
This Fall, during an EDGE Seminar class discussion, we hit on a question that stuck with me: “What will really need to change in order for the energy transition to make significant progress?” Among other points, our speaker argued that key to successful transition will be strengthening geopolitical relationships, specifically creating the trust and collaboration needed for countries to share technologies, align strategies, and ultimately move the needle forward together. That answer made me pause and reflect. Is the pace of the global energy transition really about technology or economics? Or is politics (geopolitics, in particular) the factor that decides whether progress happens and at what pace?
It’s tempting to focus on technology and economics because they’re tangible. We can see solar costs coming down year after year. We can measure the efficiency gains in wind turbines or the breakthroughs in battery technologies. We can track how economics are steadily shifting in favor of renewables over fossil fuel generation. These factors clearly matter. But without political alignment, progress slows down no matter how strong the technology or economics are. The more I thought about it, the clearer it became: technology and economics may be the engine of the transition, but politics is the gatekeeper.
Looking around the world makes this obvious. In China, the government is laser-focused on dominance in the renewables space. Their centralized structure allows them to make quick, decisive moves that drive progress quickly. Whether it’s scaling solar and EV manufacturing, locking down critical minerals, or deploying massive renewable capacity, China shows how politics can accelerate the transition when there is alignment at the top. Their motivation is not climate-related. It’s more about geopolitical influence, but the result is fast movement nonetheless.
Europe, on the other hand, has been pushed into a different political world. The war in Ukraine exposed just how vulnerable the region was to reliance on Russian gas. Suddenly, energy independence became a top priority. European countries were already investing heavily in renewables, but the war supercharged that push and reframed clean energy as not just about emissions, but about independence. Again in this case, the technologies were there and the economics made sense, but it took geopolitics (in this case, a war) to change the pace.
Then there’s the United States. We’re home to world-class innovation, from Tesla’s EVs to NextEra’s renewable leadership to the massive investments in clean energy driven by the Inflation Reduction Act. But we’re also stuck in a politically polarized environment where long-term planning is nearly impossible. Every administration swings priorities in a new direction, and partisan divides make consistent energy policy hard to sustain. The result is uncertainty even when the economics and technology are favorable!
These examples highlight just how much politics determines the trajectory of the energy transition. China accelerates, Europe pivots under pressure, and the U.S. stalls in polarization. The underlying technologies and economics are global, but the political systems and geopolitical realities are what ultimately shape outcomes. For the transition to succeed, countries need to find ways to collaborate by sharing expertise, balancing each other’s strengths and weaknesses, and negotiating as true partners.
Take nuclear power as an example. The U.S. still has strong expertise in reactor design and regulation, but recent projects show how difficult it has become to build plants on time and on budget. Without collaboration, we risk repeating the same cost overruns and delays that already weigh down nuclear’s role in the transition. Other countries bring strengths we could learn from. South Korea’s power company KHNP has delivered projects like the Barakah plant on schedule, France’s utility EDF has decades of operational experience running a nuclear-heavy grid, and Canada offers unique nuclear reactor technology through CANDU. Partnering with these countries could help the U.S. deploy nuclear more effectively, but this requires political will and international cooperation.
It’s also worth noting the emerging role of the tech industry in all this. U.S. technology companies have massive incentives to drive the energy transition forward because their data centers and AI ambitions are incredibly energy-intensive. These firms have capital, global reach, and innovation capacity that could rival governments in shaping the future of energy. But their impact will still depend on political policy in the future. Some of these include policies that enable grid expansion, regulatory approval for transmission lines, or rules for cross-border clean power procurement. Even with all their resources, tech companies can’t sidestep the political bottleneck completely.
Ultimately, the seminar reminded me that while technology and economics are crucial, politics remains the deciding factor. Geopolitical realities set the pace of progress and determine whether innovations and cost advantages actually get deployed at scale. If countries can find common ground and strengthen their political relationships, the transition can move faster and more smoothly. If not, even the best technologies and most favorable economics will struggle to overcome the bottleneck.
Our Seminar reminded me that the real question isn’t whether we’ll have the right technologies or the right economics. In many regards we already do and we have proven that this is something people are good at replicating to improve. The question is whether we’ll have the political will and geopolitical cooperation to put them to work at scale. Until we solve that piece, the transition will always be slower than it could be.
—