A new study led by Stanford University researchers has found that decarbonization improves energy security for most countries. Published in Nature Climate Change journal on 9 April 2025, the paper looks at the risks and trade-related issues of a global switch to clean energy over the next 35 years. It found that less dependence on fossil fuels would make a majority of countries better off when it comes to their energy supply chain.
The scientists examined over 1,092 scenarios for cutting carbon emissions by 2060 in each of 236 countries around the world. They developed a new “trade risk index” based on the availability of domestic energy reserves, import levels, and the blend of supplies in various nations, such as fossil, nuclear, and renewables, as well as trade flows.
For most “a win for energy security”
Minerals like cobalt, copper, lithium, and nickel, essential to clean energy technologies, are more prevalent in the Global South, meaning “the geopolitics of energy and global trade” would shift under a 2060 net-zero scenario, a Stanford news release on the study says. Nations that have large oil reserves, like Russia and Saudi Arabia, are among the few whose energy supply chain would become more vulnerable under net zero.
But for most “in a net-zero emissions system in the future, trading off the reduced dependence on imported fossil fuels and increased dependence on these new materials is actually a win for energy security,” the paper’s senior author, Stanford Doerr’s Earth System Science professor, Steve Davis. Even countries like the United States, which is fossil-fuel-rich but poor in minerals that are critical to the green transition, could improve energy security through the switch, with the right trade partners and strategy, the team found.
Interesting choice of words for the headline. 💥😬
— The Energy Shop (@_TheEnergyShop) April 8, 2025
The reality, if we’re serious about Net Zero and energy security, is that nuclear has a huge role to play.
With wind and solar’s intermittent nature and the need to offset the +30% of electricity generated using gas, it’s… pic.twitter.com/as8iOy9eG6
Diversification and increased recycling
While a general rule is to diversify and avoid sourcing energy from “a single other party” to reduce the risk that “some natural disaster or geopolitical conflict could disrupt that supply,” Stanford nonetheless notes that “keeping fossil fuels in the mix generally drags down nations’ energy security.” In fact, “the greatest improvements often occur in the countries which most drastically reduce their reliance on fossil fuels,” Davis said.
Increasing recycling rates can also make a huge difference. Trade vulnerabilities could be reduced by 17% – and by over 50% for the US – if today’s “meagre” recycling rates for critical minerals could be quadrupled.
The authors even came up with the ideal blend of US energy by 2060 to keep US trade risks down, applicable to all their modelled scenarios. A mix composed of around 70-75% renewables (e.g. biomass, solar, and wind); 15-20% fossil fuels; and 10% nuclear would minimize the country’s trade risks although other mixes could offer lower costs or less air pollution, the researchers point out. Today, about 83% of the US’s energy needs are met by fossil fuels.
