Energy limits are rewriting global trade - are we ready?

“At a time when science confirms humanity has already transgressed seven of the nine planetary boundaries, the challenge before us is no longer one of awareness but of action.” 
André Hoffmann, 
World Economic Forum, Interim Co-Chair of the Board of Trustees

Davos opened on a message of cooperation, and by day delegates were discussing the practical realities of cooperation. Let’s focus on one question in particular: why do environmental risks still struggle to shape near-term trade decisions despite the evidence?

This tension sets the tone of the World Economic Forum’s 2026 Global Risks Perception Survey. Environmental threats dominate the ten-year outlook, with five of the ten most severe risks seen as climate related. Yet they feature far less prominently in the five-year horizon, where only one of the top ten risks is environmental.

In other words, sustainability is widely acknowledged as a critical risk but often deferred. The conversation is less about whether the low-carbon transition is necessary, and more about how long existing systems can be adapted before change becomes unavoidable.

Energy transition is at the heart of this debate. Speaking at the session Who is Winning on Energy Security?, Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency said we are entering “the age of electricity”, driven by data centres, air conditioners and electric vehicles. Even at today’s demand levels, he warned, the world will need the equivalent of the combined electricity consumption of the United States, Europe, Japan and Canada over the next decade.

Birol set out three “golden rules” for energy security:  

1. Diversification
2. Predictability for investment
3. And cooperation – with the right partners.  
    

But the discussion made clear how unevenly those principles are being applied, with delegates agreeing that energy security should increasingly be treated by more countries as a national or regional priority.  

That reality is already influencing trade. Delegates point to widening differences between corridors that invested early in power infrastructure and those that have relied on legacy systems. Data from our Global Trade Observatory shows that business leaders are divided on whether energy costs will go up or down. This highlights that the main issue is how prepared companies are, rather than an immediate crisis.

In practice, this is beginning to shape trade flows at the margins but not at scale. Corridors with reliable power and credible transition pathways are easier to finance and plan around. Others face higher uncertainty.  

Andrés Gluski, CEO of power generation company AES, argued the problem is not a lack of technology but of execution. “There’s too much politicisation and not enough technical talk,” he said, warning that delivery timelines, not ambition, will determine outcomes.  

It’s a hard truth: some countries are now structurally better positioned to adjust to environmental limits than others, and that gap is beginning to shape trade. That is where we at DP World feel we can make a meaningful difference — by reducing friction, strengthening connectivity, and supporting the infrastructure that will determine whether trade adapts proactively, or only once pressure makes change unavoidable.