The climate policy triangle: why leaders can no longer choose between growth, security and sustainability

The old trade-off framing is obsolete. The next decade's defining challenge is making growth, strategic autonomy, and sustainability reinforce each other.

Over the past decade, climate action rose to the top of the global agenda. Framed as essential to long-term growth and prosperity, it increasingly shaped not only environmental policy, but also industrial strategy, trade, finance and national security decisions.

Today, the centre of gravity has shifted, and climate leadership now means navigating a triangle of pressures: economic growth, strategic autonomy and sustainability. A common assumption is that leaders can pursue only two of these goals at a time. However, the defining challenge of the next decade will be finding ways to advance all three together. To sustain momentum, climate action must be grounded in national circumstances and aligned with countries’ economic realities.

A triangle of policy pressures

When growth and strategic autonomy dominate the policy landscape, sustainability can come under pressure. In Canada, Energy Minister Tim Hodgson, serving in the cabinet of Prime Minister Mark Carney, has defended the country’s position as one of the world’s largest fossil-fuel producers on the grounds of energy security and affordability. In Mexico, President Claudia Sheinbaum, herself a climate scientist, has made similar arguments in support of developing new shale oil and gas reserves. Even China, widely seen as a leader in the energy transition, is expanding coal-fired power generation to safeguard domestic energy supplies and support industrial growth amid rising demand and greater geopolitical uncertainty.

The dynamic is straightforward: when economic stability and energy sovereignty are at stake, sustainability goals are often deferred.

The reverse is also true. When growth and sustainability dominate, strategic autonomy can come under pressure. Europe’s rapid expansion of renewable energy has accelerated decarbonization and created new industrial opportunities. But it has also exposed Europe’s limited domestic capacity in several critical technologies, deepening dependence on external markets and fragile supply chains for solar panels, batteries and critical minerals. The fastest route to decarbonization has often relied on supply chains dominated by a small number of countries, raising concerns about resilience and strategic vulnerability.

And when autonomy and sustainability take precedence, growth can come under pressure. Europe’s response to the energy shock following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine illustrates this tension. Efforts to reduce dependence on Russian fossil fuels by accelerating the transition to renewables increased energy costs and weighed on industrial competitiveness in the short term.

Similar tensions are visible in other advanced economies, where efforts to build greater self-sufficiency often require substantial public investment and can raise costs relative to globally optimized supply chains.

When the triangle becomes a flywheel

These tensions are real, but they are not fixed. Policy choices can reshape them over time. Under the right conditions, what begins as a trade-off can become a reinforcing cycle in which growth, autonomy and sustainability support one another.

Much depends on national circumstances. Countries with strong institutions, fiscal space and credible long-term policy frameworks are often better placed to manage trade-offs, for example, by investing early in clean technologies and infrastructure in ways that support both autonomy and competitiveness. Others face harder choices, particularly where growth remains closely tied to fossil fuels or where political systems struggle to sustain costly transitions over time.

In a more fragmented world, climate progress is increasingly driven by national strategy rather than a broad-based global consensus. Governments are more likely to act when climate goals advance priorities such as energy security, industrial competitiveness and economic resilience. Investment in clean energy has the potential to support domestic industry, reduce exposure to external shocks and strengthen the political durability of climate policy.

When this happens, the relationship between growth, autonomy and sustainability begins to shift from trade-off to flywheel, with each reinforcing the others.

Recent energy shocks have made these dynamics more visible. Countries that invested earlier in renewable energy or diversified supply have been better placed to manage volatility in fossil-fuel markets, reducing both economic exposure and geopolitical risk.

Spain is a clear example. Years of sustained investment and reform have transformed the power mix, with around 75% of electricity now coming from low-carbon sources. This has reduced emissions while also supporting economic activity by lowering energy costs for households and businesses. Wholesale electricity prices are around one-third below the EU average. It has also reduced vulnerability to external shocks, including the surge in gas prices across Europe following recent conflicts.

China offers a different picture. Through sustained state-led industrial policy, clean-energy technologies have become central to its growth model, accounting for roughly one-third of GDP growth in 2025 while strengthening its position in key supply chains. Although China’s continued reliance on coal shows that the policy triangle remains in tension, the country is still an example of economic growth, industrial competitiveness and climate policy becoming increasingly aligned.

India provides a third example. It has been scaling renewable energy at speed, reaching around 50% of installed electricity capacity from non-fossil sources five years ahead of its 2030 target. This expansion is driven as much by cost, speed and energy security as by climate objectives, helping to support growth while reducing reliance on imported fuels. At the same time, the continued dominance of coal in India’s energy mix reflects the constraints of development needs and system stability.

The implications extend beyond governments. As climate, industrial and security priorities converge, businesses are reshaping supply chains and energy strategies to reduce risk and strengthen competitiveness. Those that adapt early may gain an advantage as investment and growth patterns shift.

These cases point to different ways of managing the same underlying tensions. None eliminates the policy triangle, but each shows how its pressures can be reshaped over time.

Embedding sustainability under pressure

The policy triangle does not mean sustainability must inevitably give way to growth or autonomy. But it does mean climate policy can no longer be designed as if environmental ambition exists apart from broader economic and geopolitical realities.

Leaders must navigate these tensions, but the real challenge is to shape how they evolve over time. Under the right conditions, growth, autonomy and sustainability can begin to reinforce one another. The triangle describes the pressures of the present. The task now is to manage those pressures in ways that expand the scope for progress.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com