Our energy supply is under pressure like never before. Geopolitical tensions, armed conflicts, unstable markets and trade wars create great uncertainty about the global energy supply – the very basis for all daily life and the world’s growth and prosperity.

According to Kingsmill Bond, energy strategist at Ember, the independent think tank, and one of the world’s foremost energy transition analysts, the answer to this uncertainty is massive investment in renewable energy and a faster green transition. This will free us from fossil fuels.

“Trump’s tariffs on trade call into question the free movement of products. It increases uncertainty for energy buyers and will encourage them to look to their own domestic energy sources,” Kingsmill Bond told Money Money Money.

He has just published a new analysis that shows – surprisingly and worryingly – that global fossil fuel imports are twelve times higher today than they were in 1960.

This is an unfortunate development from both a climate and energy supply perspective.

With a potential weakening of US security guarantees, we are facing increased uncertainty about global energy supplies.

Dependency on oil and gas

Although Denmark and other Nordic countries produce vast amounts of green energy, Europe as a whole is more dependent on oil and gas today than it was in 1960. This is true for many in the majority of all regions.

In fact, 74 percent of the world’s population lives in countries that rely on fossil fuel imports, and as many as 52 countries cover more than half of their total energy consumption from fossil fuel imports.

Add to this that 69 percent of the global trade in fossil fuels passes through just three critical waterways: the Suez Canal, the Strait of Hormuz (where Denmark is contributing to a European naval operation to ensure the free movement of shipping in these important waters) and the Strait of Malacca near Sumatra in Indonesia.

Control of these passages is crucial for fossil fuel energy supplies worldwide.

Another clear sign of increased uncertainty is the development of the global Trade Policy Uncertainty Index (TPU), which measures uncertainty in international trade.

The index has skyrocketed since US President Donald Trump took office in Washington on January 20th this year. Uncertainty has never been more pronounced.

Electric cars, heat pumps and renewable energy

Kingsmill Bond is clear in his recommendation: to reduce the risk of supply disruption and create a more stable energy future, increased and faster investment in green energy is needed.

He calls on governments to invest in “electrotechnics” – a broad spectrum of interconnected green technologies that all support electrification. These technologies – from rooftop solar panels to electric cars – are key elements of the green transition.

By scaling up green transition, we will inherently phase out the world’s dependence on fossil fuels but also reduce the uncertainty of energy supplies.

And this is urgently needed in the serious situation the world finds itself in, says Kingsmill Bond.

“Electrotechnics frees buyers from price fluctuations in fossil fuels. If Europe had electrified more, for example, we would have saved ourselves $100 billion in extra energy costs,” says Kingsmill Bond, referring to a recent analysis published by Ember.

Kingsmill Bond’s analysis shows that by replacing imported fossil fuels with three key technologies – electric cars, heat pumps and renewable energy – the world’s net imports of fossil fuels can be reduced by up to 70 percent globally.

The potential is enormous, Kingsmill Bond concludes in the analysis, and the path to security of supply is both faster and cheaper than we realize.

While fossil fuels are concentrated in a few geographical locations around the world, sun and wind are everywhere. 92 percent of the world’s population has access to renewable energy resources that can meet their needs ten times over – and more, the Ember analysis concludes.

Anti-ESG proposals gaining momentum

Staying in the US, we turn our attention to another important development affecting global tensions and especially investments in sustainable themes: the increase in anti-ESG proposals in the US.

It’s peak season for general meetings in listed companies – an annual event where both management and shareholders can propose how they think the company should be run in the future.

In the US, the anti-ESG movement is gaining momentum, and this is particularly reflected in the proposals put forward by conservative shareholders in companies in which they hold shares.

The movement – which opposes companies’ focus on environmental (E), social (S) and governance (G) issues – believes that companies should not take responsibility for climate, diversity, equality or inclusion (DEI).

These attitudes contrast with the growing recognition across the Nordic region of companies’ social responsibility.

The number of anti-ESG proposals in US companies has exploded. Among the 3,000 largest companies, the number of proposals increased from just 23 in 2021 to 112 in 2024.

And by February 2025, ESG data provider ISS had already identified at least 62 new anti-ESG proposals at the largest US companies – representing around 20 percent of all shareholder proposals at the time.

More have probably been added since then, and these are proposals that Danish pension funds – with your and my money in the money bin – must actively consider and vote on if they are shareholders in the affected companies.

So far, anti-ESG proposals in 2025 have focused mainly on DEI-related topics, with 34 proposals submitted by March 4th.

In addition, 16 proposals target companies’ policies on human rights and faith-based discrimination, while six relate to political influence – including donations – and three to health.

However, if the voting trend from 2024 continues, support for these proposals will be limited. An analysis by the Sustainable Investments Institute showed that anti-ESG proposals received an average of only 1.8 percent of the votes last year.