Until a month ago, many viewed sustainability policies as “wokism”, an ideological agenda distant from the real concerns of the economy and people. The impacts of the war in Iran, reflected in the price of oil and gas, are changing this perception.
This change is revealing. Not because it changes fundamental political convictions, but because it reconfigures the problem. Sustainability stops being just environmental and becomes a matter of sovereignty. Energy becomes the point of intersection between climate, economy and security that begins at the Strait of Hormuz and ends at the gas pump and electricity and gas bill.
The problem is that we got here late. For decades, public debate in Europe and the world was dominated by a sterile discussion about the very existence of climate change, ignoring that sustainability has environmental, but also social and governance dimensions. We wasted time questioning consolidated scientific evidence and good management practices, while we remained dependent on imported fossil fuels.
The result is in sight. Faced with external shocks, geopolitical instability and energy volatility, as we saw with Russian gas and now with Iran, we are forced to accelerate a transition that could have been made gradually and strategically.
And this acceleration has costs. Financial, with investments made under pressure. Economic, due to the burden on companies and consumers, when increases in oil and gas quickly translate into more expensive fuels and electricity. Politicians, because quick decisions generate resistance when they are not explained or framed.
More than a policy failure, this is a decision-making culture problem. We continue to react rather than anticipate. Acting under pressure instead of planning based on scenarios.
Anticipating is not predicting the future accurately, but preparing the present based on multidisciplinary scientific knowledge, integrating economics, technology, environment and geopolitics. Without this, public and business decision-making becomes fragmented and reactive.
But anticipating is not enough. Requires timely decision. A large part of the current costs result from postponed decisions, both in the public and private sectors, where the short term is too often privileged, despite clear risks.
And it requires communication. Explaining options, recognizing costs and aligning expectations is essential to ensure execution. Without this, even good decisions fail. Without anticipation, decisions are made late. Without a decision, you pay more. Without communication, resistance is generated.
Sustainability has never been just an environmental agenda. It has always been an integrated approach with strategic risk management. What we see on the energy bill today is just confirmation of this.
It is important to recognize that Portugal anticipated electricity production policies and, today, a very significant part of the electricity consumed comes from renewable sources. This investment was made on time and constitutes a relevant strategic asset. But we did not follow this effort with the same capacity for anticipation in use. The mass access to electricity in networks, charging points, affordable solutions for families and companies, fell short of what was necessary. The result is a mismatch between production and use.
The question is not whether we are going to make the energy transition. This decision was made by reality. The question is whether we can, even arriving late, do the essential things: anticipate better, decide earlier and communicate clearly. Because, in the end, it wasn’t the lack of solutions that got us here. It was the delay in using them.
Leave a Reply