A thread running through this Forum<\/strong> is a warning against intellectual complacency.<\/strong> One key theme is that assumptions about the future geopolitical outlook of countries, regions, and trade relationships<\/strong> will hardly be guided by history, given the size and scope of the transformation.<\/p>\n Demand-side policy and capital allocation shifts will create both challenges and opportunities for fossil fuel incumbents \u2014 a stark reminder that while some regions<\/strong> are moving more slowly<\/strong>, no region is standing still as the energy transition<\/strong> gathers pace. Similarly, identifying winners<\/strong> and losers<\/strong> is not as clear-cut as it seems, especially in light of concerns that the US<\/strong> is losing out in the race with the EU<\/strong> and China.<\/p>\n The third theme<\/strong> serves as a stark reminder that the pathways to net zero<\/strong> will be neither linear nor uniform, especially in light<\/strong> of the falling costs<\/strong> of technologies.<\/strong> But the race for technological leadership and for control<\/strong> of the supply chains<\/strong> of new materials<\/strong> will become a key factor in the geopolitics of new energies.<\/strong><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.enerjigazetesi.ist\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/kuresel-enerji-yonetimi-enerji-donusumunde-zorluklarin-ustesinden-gelme.jpg\")
Our authors ask whether the prospects of peak oil demand<\/strong> will dim the geopolitical forces shaping<\/strong> producer \u2013 consumer relations and upend geopolitical arrangements<\/strong> which have been defining elements of regional power systems<\/strong>. They ask: who will lead the race for new technologies and supply chains? And how will US \u2013 China competition<\/strong> and coordination impact global efforts<\/strong> to meet the Paris climate goals?<\/strong><\/p>\n