Sustainable Development Archives

The Drive to Build and the Imperative to Preserve: A Discussion

May 5, 2026

Panoramic skyline of Gurugram with clear blue skies and vibrant cityscape by Lokesh Kumar via Pexels

.

The drive to build and the imperative to preserve

my science 4 May 2026

Architecture transforms space, yet sustainability is an invitation to restraint: a fundamental challenge of contemporary construction opens up between these two principles. We discussed this with Professor Ena Lloret-Fritschi and Professor Muck Petzet, Director and Co-Director of the new Institute of Sustainable Architecture and Technology (IAST) at the USI Academy of Architecture, in a contribution produced in collaboration with laRegione.

Architecture is, by definition, an act of transformation. It shapes space to meet human needs, designing buildings and environments of various types and uses. Yet, every construction intervention inevitably involves a loss: something is altered, removed, or destroyed. Sustainability, on the other hand, aspires to minimise environmental impact. Bringing these two concepts together reveals a fundamental tension-almost an oxymoron-between the drive to build and the imperative to preserve.

We discussed this tension, as well as the meaning of sustainable architecture today and future challenges, with Professor Ena Lloret-Fritschi and Professor Muck Petzet. The institute-officially inaugurated on 16 April-brings together expertise in heritage, construction, reuse, structural engineering, and digital technologies, aiming to approach sustainability in an integrated, multidisciplinary way.

What does it mean to practice sustainable architecture?

For Prof. Muck Petzet, the result of pairing architecture and sustainability defines an important starting point. “Building new structures requires considerable resources and energy and therefore has a significant environmental impact. Quoting Luigi Snozzi: ’Every intervention involves destruction; destroy with intelligence.’ As architects, we have a responsibility to question the necessity of the act itself. We must ask ourselves if an intervention, and particularly a new construction, is truly necessary, or if we can work with what already exists.” In this view, reuse is not just one choice among many, but the priority approach. Prolonging the life of buildings by adapting them and preserving their material and cultural value reduces both emissions and resource consumption. “Temporary structures concentrate their emissions into a short window, whereas durable buildings allow that environmental cost to be spread over time,” observes Muck Petzet. Sustainability, in this sense, begins with continuity rather than replacement.

Prof. Ena Lloret-Fritschi, for her part, frames the issue from a complementary perspective, focusing on how to act when intervention becomes necessary. “Practising sustainable architecture means, first and foremost, becoming aware of the impact of every single intervention.” The challenge isn’t about avoiding transformation altogether; instead, it’s about defining concrete paths to act with responsibility and precision, aware of the environmental price of every choice. This requires the development of tools that foster a deeper and faster understanding of existing buildings, revealing their structures, constraints, and potential from the earliest stages of the design process. Thanks to digital technologies and AI integration, it is now possible to thoroughly analyse a building in the preliminary phases, thereby defining targeted intervention strategies. In this light, technology becomes the driver of more conscious and informed action.

At IAST, this approach follows a clear hierarchy of interventions: first, reuse and repair; then, transformation; and, only as a final stage, demolition and new construction. In this context, sustainability is not an accessory, but the very essence of the principles that guide every choice at every level of design. This also implies a change in mindset regarding what we preserve, what we transform, and what we remove. Instead of maximising production, the focus shifts to reducing material use, responsible material selection, and optimising structural systems. The goal is not merely to contain impact, but to create resilient architectures-works capable of lasting, being repaired, and evolving with the climate. In this new paradigm, structural simplicity and robustness become the guiding criteria to eliminate complexity and reduce maintenance costs whenever possible.

The entire life cycle of all components

More broadly, IAST’s work is part of a larger disciplinary shift toward a culture of durability. Buildings are increasingly understood not as short-lived objects, but as structures that should endure, adapt, and be valued over time. This transition is the subject of heated debate regarding post-war building stock. Although often considered obsolete or lacking aesthetic merit, these structures contain precious materials and large amounts of stored carbon; their recovery therefore represents an extraordinary opportunity for the environment. In this context, the work developed at the institute spans different but closely related domains. It includes the conservation and transformation of modernist buildings, where repair becomes a central strategy, as well as the careful evaluation and adaptation of existing structures alongside the design of new ones. Structural considerations play a key role at all levels of intervention, ensuring safety, durability, and the efficient use of material resources.

This perspective also extends to more recent building heritage. Many structures from the 80s and 90s are reaching a point where intervention is necessary, yet they are often demolished to allow for urban densification. This raises an important question: how can we balance the need for transformation with the responsibility to preserve and reuse what already exists? For Prof. Lloret-Fritschi, sustainability is also “a matter of processes and material flows,” from extraction to transformation, assembly, and eventual reuse. Even when intervention is necessary, how materials are used becomes central. Ideally, this includes consideration of the entire life cycle, even if this remains a goal rather than a fully achievable condition.

Design, material, fabrication, and structural integrity must be conceived together. Geometry can become an important lever for reducing material use, while durability remains essential. In parallel, the production of structural elements must be conceived to promote a circular economy and reduce waste, aiming to optimise the use of matter. In this way, design choices are inextricably linked to construction processes and resource management. Prof. Muck Petzet completes this vision by emphasising the importance of context: “We can learn a lot from vernacular architecture,” he observes, pointing to the intelligence inherent in local materials and design capable of responding to the climate. At the same time, globally sourced materials remain an integral part of contemporary construction but require more careful evaluation: “Thinking sustainably also means resisting the logic of the cheapest option and considering the broader consequences, including the impact on local economies.”

Buildings integrated into their context

This reflects a broader condition: while knowledge can circulate globally-supported by digital technologies-materials remain tied to the place. The task is therefore to navigate between these scales, making informed decisions that respond to both the context and its constraints. Energy remains an important aspect, but both architects emphasise that it is only part of the equation. Passive strategies-orientation, natural ventilation, and thermal mass-remain fundamental. The buildings themselves can act as environmental systems, regulating the climate through their material and spatial properties rather than relying exclusively on technical systems. For the Director of IAST, this implies rethinking design priorities: “Geometry, structure, and materials offer great potential, but they must be considered together from the start.” Performance should not be an afterthought added to a project, but integrated into its conception. In this sense, technology supports a more efficient and precise use of resources. At the same time, both USI professors emphasise that sustainability cannot be reduced to simplified certifications or metrics. “There is no single solution,” notes Lloret-Fritschi. “Sometimes it makes sense to use earth, sometimes wood, sometimes concrete: the key is making conscious choices.” Digital tools can assist in this process, but they do not replace judgment. And economic constraints remain a central challenge. Often, sustainability clashes with the logic of immediate savings. Reuse can be complex and expensive, while new construction is often cheaper. As Muck Petzet observes, “if we focus only on the lowest cost, sustainability becomes unreachable.” This highlights the need to shift from initial cost to long-term value.

A mindset

Ultimately, the vision of the two architects converges on an essential point: sustainability is not an accessory to be added to a project, but a mindset (forma mentis) that pervades every phase, from the radical choice of whether to build or not, to the methods of intervention, to the building’s performance in the long term. The current transformation of cities, increasing resource constraints, and changed environmental conditions make this shift necessary and urgent. The question is no longer whether to build sustainably, but how to do so responsibly and realistically. For Prof. Muck Petzet, the direction is clear: “In the future, sustainable architecture will not remain a choice; it will become the norm.” Director Lloret-Fritschi adds that this transition will depend not only on innovation but also on the care with which we work with what already exists. At IAST, these perspectives merge. The institute positions itself at the intersection of heritage and construction, reuse and innovation, structure and technology, approaching sustainability not as a predefined model, but as a method of practice and research. It is an approach that begins with a careful understanding of what already exists, prioritises reuse and repair, and only then considers transformation and new construction, aiming to build less, build better, and build to last.

Produced and published in collaboration with laRegione.

Mustafa Suleyman: AI Development Will Keep Advancing

May 3, 2026

A man working on website design and coding at a home office with a dual monitor setup. by Lisa from Pexels via pexels

.

Mustafa Suleyman: AI development won’t hit a wall anytime soon—here’s why

The compute explosion is the technological story of our time. And it is still only just beginning.

Mustafa Suleymanarchive page

April 8, 2026

An abacus, a slide rule, a calculator, an old desktop computer and a GPU shown along a line of progress

Courtesy of Microsoft

We evolved for a linear world. If you walk for an hour, you cover a certain distance. Walk for two hours and you cover double that distance. This intuition served us well on the savannah. But it catastrophically fails when confronting AI and the core exponential trends at its heart.

From the time I began work on AI in 2010 to now, the amount of training data that goes into frontier AI models has grown by a staggering 1 trillion times—from roughly 10¹⁴ flops (floating-point operations‚ the core unit of computation) for early systems to over 10²⁶ flops for today’s largest models. This is an explosion. Everything else in AI follows from this fact.

The skeptics keep predicting walls. And they keep being wrong in the face of this epic generational compute ramp. Often, they point out that Moore’s Law is slowing. They also mention a lack of data, or they cite limitations on energy.

But when you look at the combined forces driving this revolution, the exponential trend seems quite predictable. To understand why, it’s worth looking at the complex and fast-moving reality beneath the headlines.

Think of AI training as a room full of people working calculators. For years, adding computational power meant adding more people with calculators to that room. Much of the time those workers sat idle, drumming their fingers on desks, waiting for the numbers to come through for their next calculation. Every pause was wasted potential. Today’s revolution goes beyond more and better calculators (although it delivers those); it is actually about ensuring that all those calculators never stop, and that they work together as one.

Three advances are now converging to enable this. First, the basic calculators got faster. Nvidia’s chips have delivered an over sevenfold increase in raw performance in just six years, from 312 teraflops in 2020 to 2,250 teraflops today. Our own Maia 200 chip, launched this January, delivers 30% better performance per dollar than any other hardware in our fleet. Second, the numbers arrive faster thanks to a technology called HBM, or high bandwidth memory, which stacks chips vertically like tiny skyscrapers; the latest generation, HBM3, triples the bandwidth of its predecessor, feeding data to processors fast enough to keep them busy all the time. Third, the room of people with calculators became an office and then a whole campus or city. Technologies like NVLink and InfiniBand connect hundreds of thousands of GPUs into warehouse-size supercomputers that function as single cognitive entities. A few years ago this was impossible.

These gains all come together to deliver dramatically more compute. Where training a language model took 167 minutes on eight GPUs in 2020, it now takes under four minutes on equivalent modern hardware. To put this in perspective: Moore’s Law would predict only about a 5x improvement over this period. We saw 50x. We’ve gone from two GPUs training AlexNet, the image recognition model that kicked off the modern boom in deep learning in 2012, to over 100,000 GPUs in today’s largest clusters, each one individually far more powerful than its predecessors.

Then there’s the revolution in software. Research from Epoch AI suggests that the compute required to reach a fixed performance level halves approximately every eight months, much faster than the traditional 18-to-24-month doubling of Moore’s Law. The costs of serving some recent models have collapsed by a factor of up to 900 on an annualized basis. AI is becoming radically cheaper to deploy.

The numbers for the near future are just as staggering. Consider that leading labs are growing capacity at nearly 4x annually. Since 2020, the compute used to train frontier models has grown 5x every year. Global AI-relevant compute is forecast to hit 100 million H100-equivalents by 2027, a tenfold increase in three years. Put all this together and we’re looking at something like another 1,000x in effective compute by the end of 2028. It’s plausible that by 2030 we’ll bring an additional 200 gigawatts of compute online every year—akin to the peak energy use of the UK, France, Germany, and Italy put together.

What does all this get us? I believe it will drive the transition from chatbots to nearly human-level agents—semiautonomous systems capable of writing code for days, carrying out weeks- and months-long projects, making calls, negotiating contracts, managing logistics. Forget basic assistants that answer questions. Think teams of AI workers that deliberate, collaborate, and execute. Right now we’re only in the foothills of this transition, and the implications stretch far beyond tech. Every industry built on cognitive work will be transformed.

The obvious constraint here is energy. A single refrigerator-size AI rack consumes 120 kilowatts, equivalent to 100 homes. But this hunger collides with another exponential: Solar costs have fallen by a factor of nearly 100 over 50 years; battery prices have dropped 97% over three decades. There is a pathway to clean scaling coming into view.

The capital is deployed. The engineering is delivering. The $100 billion clusters, the 10-gigawatt power draws, the warehouse-scale supercomputers … these are no longer science fiction. Ground is being broken for these projects now across the US and the world. As a result, we are heading toward true cognitive abundance. At Microsoft AI, this is the world our superintelligence lab is planning for and building.

Skeptics accustomed to a linear world will continue predicting diminishing returns. They will continue being surprised. The compute explosion is the technological story of our time, full stop. And it is still only just beginning.

Mustafa Suleyman is CEO of Microsoft AI.

The Global City Race: Infrastructure and Innovation

May 2, 2026

Aerial shot of Dubai’s urban cityscape, featuring skyscrapers and intricate highways, by Mahdi Daldawala via Pexels

.

The Global City Race: Competing Through Traditional and New Infrastructure

From transport networks to digital twins, infrastructure increasingly determines whether cities attract talent, investment and innovation – or fall behind in the global urban race.

By ISPI Global Cities

Giovanni Maria Della Gatta, ISPI Junior Research Fellow

Tobia Zevi, ISPI Senior Associate Research Fellow

Corridors of global cities

In ancient times, cities used to compete for access to natural assets such as rivers, waterfronts and mountains. Farmable and fertile lands, protection and access to trade routes all represented critical resources to survive. Therefore, competition against other cities to control these resources was often unavoidable. While times changed, the quest for resources did not, especially for those cities that lead economic development. Smooth access to trade corridors is now relevant more than ever, and, in light of this, mobility infrastructures play a pivotal role in shaping competitiveness.

Today, Global cities require for a different set of critical inputs and, in fact, the competition shifted from controlling natural physical resources to attracting talent, capital and firms. As a consequence, they also became incubators where innovation flourished and, through clusterised approaches and specific frameworks, was nurtured and translated into tangible outcomes. In this light, infrastructures represent a key enabler of that competition.

International hubs are not born, they are built through forward looking policies that consider both present and future issues to provide the best possible services and environment conditions for citizens and businesses. While not being a completely zero-sum game, companies’ location decisions, which create jobs, talents preferences that drives innovation and investment decisions which provide funding are all simultaneously necessary and closely linked to the quality and quantity of services available in a particular geographical location. Of course, the social dimension is increasingly becoming an important variable in relocation decisions highlighting how the “human” component of a city can tip the scales.

For those cities that sit on the edge of innovation and strive for further economic development, these three factors (talents, companies and investments) are not optional but constitute the fundamental inputs they must attract in order to stay in the race and lead economic and social growth.

In this competition, infrastructures represent a critical enabler for growth which becomes central in accessing and providing services. In this light, physical and digital infrastructures play different but complementary roles: mobility infrastructures, for example, allow for a larger talent catchment area in the region surrounding Global Cities and also reduce constraints in terms of relocation preferences for the inward flow of foreign workers. Meanwhile, the adoption and implementation of digital infrastructure can enable the improvement and expansion of services by reducing negative externalities.

Infrastructure investments play different roles depending on urban scale, complexity and infrastructure endowment. In medium sized cities, physical mobility development mainly addresses accessibility gaps and generates direct economic effect, positive externalities and sustainability effects. In advanced and more complex urban environments such as Global Cities, the adoption of digital technologies increasingly supports both planning through real time data gathering and infrastructure performance through system wide optimisation. The need for infrastructural development was also underlined by McKinsey in their 2025 report. They estimate that by 2024 $106 trillion will be required to meet the need for new and updated infrastructures broken down in 7 sectors: transport and logistics ($36 trillion), energy and power ($23 trillion), digital ($19 trillion), social ($16 trillion), waste and water infrastructures ($6 trillion), agriculture ($5 trillion) and defense (2 trillion).

Unfortunately, progress is not homogeneous and the process of urbanisation is uneven. High income economies show degrees or urbanisation close to 80% and continents like Europe benefit from long historical infrastructure inheritance: the road and water networks the Roman empire spread throughout the continent has been further expanded and integrated with a relatively high density rail system which connects most cities and that has been recognised by the EU, through the TEN-T Regulation, as a fundamental backbone of European freight and citizens mobility . Nonetheless, in 2025, expanding public transport was the single biggest mobility priority for 60% of European mayors, according to Eurocities Pulse survey, alongside developing multimodal integrated systems. Economic issues such as insufficient funding aside, aging or inadequate infrastructure represented one of the main challenges for European mayors. These trends highlight the continued importance of investment in urban mobility infrastructure, particularly in cities where accessibility gaps remain significant.

Thessaloniki provides a contemporary example of how major transport infrastructure can reshape a medium-sized urban ecosystem. Historically characterised by high car dependency and limited public transport capacity, the city experienced a structural shift with the opening of its first metro line in 2024. As a fully automated rapid transit system connecting key areas along an east-west axis, the metro introduced a significant accessibility improvement reducing travel times of trips that required 40 minutes by car to 17 minutes, increasing the reliability of urban mobility while also having a positive impact on car use (15% reduction in downtown traffic) and emissions (estimated decrease of about 212 tonnes per day).

These accessibility gains are already generating early economic effects. Improved connectivity to central districts has increased footfall and accessibility for businesses, particularly in retail, hospitality and service sectors. Areas surrounding metro stations are beginning to attract new investment, reflecting typical patterns of transit-oriented development. At the same time, enhanced mobility supports broader urban productivity by expanding labour markets’ catchment area and facilitating agglomeration effects. The metro has also strengthened the city’s attractiveness for tourism and external investment, reinforcing its role as a regional hub.

The long-term economic transformation of the city will depend on future network extensions, integration with other transport modes and complementary urban policies. However, this case illustrates how mobility infrastructure can act as a catalyst for economic change by fundamentally improving accessibility and enabling wider urban dynamics to unfold.

While the Thessaloniki case underlines the role of physical infrastructure in addressing accessibility gaps and generating local economic effects, such approaches become less effective in larger and more complex urban systems, where the challenge shifts from expanding capacity to increasing performance efficiency of existing networks.

Singapore provides a contrasting example of how infrastructure contributes to economic performance in large and highly complex urban systems. Unlike medium-sized cities where physical accessibility remains a primary constraint, Singapore’s challenge lies in managing density, limited land and the increasing complexity of interconnected urban systems. In this context, the development of a digital twin platform, often referred to as “Virtual Singapore”, represents a shift from expanding infrastructure to increasing its performance efficiency through data-driven technologies.

The digital twin integrates real-time and geospatial data across multiple domains, including transport networks, land use, environmental conditions and population dynamics. This enables authorities to simulate urban scenarios, test infrastructure interventions before implementation and monitor system performance continuously. In the mobility sector, such capabilities support traffic optimisation and demand forecasting and more efficient allocation of resources, reducing congestion and improving network reliability. More broadly, the platform enhances planning precision and reduces uncertainty, allowing for faster and more informed decision-making.

These improvements translate into indirect but significant economic benefits. By increasing the efficiency of existing infrastructure and minimising planning errors, digital systems contribute to higher urban productivity and better use of scarce resources. At the same time, Singapore’s leadership in smart city technologies reinforces its attractiveness for global investment, innovation and high-skilled labour.

However, the effectiveness of such systems depends on strong institutional capacity, data governance and continuous technological investment. The Singapore case therefore illustrates how, in large urban systems, digital infrastructure plays an increasingly important role in enhancing the performance and economic value of existing physical networks through system-wide optimisation.

Both examples show how infrastructures represent a critical enabler of economic growth. In urban environments where accessibility gaps are still relevant, even basic mobility infrastructure and investment can have significant impacts in increasing citizens’ life quality, by reducing congestion, emission and increasing social inclusion. In Global Cities, where basic infrastructures often already exist, the challenge for urban planners is how to optimise the service and improve efficiency. In this context, the rationale must shift from technology oriented to goal oriented: adoption and integration of digital tools is useful only if it has a real measurable impact on service performance. These effects also shape the urban environment and its competitiveness not only in absolute terms but also in comparison to other urban environments, determining the attractiveness a Global City can project.

This Dossier aims to analyse the fields where competition between cities can determine a model’s success or its demise. On this journey, even the concept of competition between Cities will be challenged, highlighting how, nowadays, it narrows the narrative, missing three focal points: (i) while pursuing talent and tourist attraction, competition without holistic planning might create negative externalities for citizens, with perceived successes that may in fact be short lived, as highlighted in different guises by Steven Pedigo, Bo Nielsen & Christian Amussen and Harold Goodwin; (ii) Cities’ governance, as underlined by Francesco Billari, is still inadequate to address the scale of the challenges ahead, in a geopolitical context where national governments, while struggling, do not delegate decision making to urban policymakers; (iii) Cooperation is not optional in light of an increasing need for resources that no one can really access alone, as argued by Paolo Glisenti, and becomes paramount to imagine the future of cities in a world where the boundaries of urban environments continue to grow every day.

The novelty of this analysis is rooted in its challenge to mainstream competition narrative. The pursue of economic and status gains cannot happen at the expense of citizens, especially in times when cities increasingly find themselves facing challenges they are not capable of withstanding alone.

Kurdistan Mosque Blends Faith and Sustainability Today

May 1, 2026

A beautifully crafted mosque interior in Ankara, showcasing Islamic architecture and intricate details. by Konevi via pexels

.

Kurdistan mosque blends faith and sustainability in regional first

Rwanga Foundation project highlights water, energy solutions for the Gulf

Gulf News Last updated: April 30, 2026

Gulf News Report

Led by Idris Nechirvan Barzani under the Rwanga Foundation, the Haji Jabar Braghi Mosque has been launched as the region’s first sustainable mosque.

A pioneering project in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq is drawing attention across the Gulf as a practical model for embedding sustainability into everyday infrastructure, particularly in water-stressed environments.

Led by Idris Nechirvan Barzani under the Rwanga Foundation, the Haji Jabar Braghi Mosque has been launched as the region’s first sustainable mosque. The project integrates on-site water recycling and renewable energy systems within a fully functioning place of worship, positioning it as a scalable model for wider adoption across Iraq and the Gulf.

The initiative comes at a critical time. Iraq is ranked by the United Nations among the countries most vulnerable to climate change, facing rising temperatures, prolonged droughts and declining water flows in the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. These challenges mirror concerns in Gulf countries, where water scarcity, heavy reliance on desalination and high energy demand continue to shape policy priorities.

Guests at the mosque opening. The mosque is part of a broader environmental strategy by the Rwanga Foundation

Recycling unit

At the heart of the mosque is a decentralised resource management system. A dedicated recycling unit treats around 3,000 litres of water daily, rising to more than 10,000 litres on Fridays during peak use. Instead of being discharged, the water is treated and reused for irrigation and cleaning, returning approximately 12,700 litres to productive use each week.

The system uses a multi-stage process, including sediment removal, filtration, chemical balancing and disinfection, before storing the treated water for reuse. It is strictly designated for non-potable purposes, ensuring safe integration into daily operations without adding pressure on municipal water supplies.

Kurdistan mosque blends faith and sustainability in regional first

Environmental strategy

The mosque is part of a broader environmental strategy by the Rwanga Foundation. Under Barzani’s leadership, the organisation has planted over 200,000 trees through its Green Kurdistan campaign and developed the Kulak Solar Village in Erbil, Iraq’s first fully off-grid solar-powered community supplying renewable energy to homes and public facilities.

Together, these initiatives reflect a growing shift towards decentralised, community-led sustainability solutions. Mosques, as some of the most frequently used public spaces in the region, offer significant potential for such innovations.

With thousands of mosques across Iraq and many more throughout the Gulf, the cumulative impact of adopting similar systems could be substantial. Beyond the technology itself, the project underscores how sustainability can be integrated into culturally central institutions, offering a practical blueprint for countries navigating the dual pressures of climate change and resource demand.

Environmental strategy

UAE’s Departure from OPEC and Future Oil Trends

Apr 30, 2026

Stunning view of Dubai’s illuminated Museum of the Future against a city skyline at night. by nis_ vagabond via pexels

.

UAE’s departure from OPEC tells a story about the limited future of oil production

Adi Imsirovic, University of Oxford

The decision by the United Arab Emirates to leave the oil producers’ cartel Opec after 59 years is more than a symbolic break. It highlights a growing divide among major oil producers over how to respond to a changing energy landscape, and will weaken the group’s ability to manage global supply.

In the short term, the impact of the UAE’s exit will be limited. The world still needs every available barrel of oil, and the UAE accounts for some 3-4% of global production. But the forces behind the decision are more significant than the move itself. They are both economic and political – and the war in Iran helped the two align.

For years, the UAE has been investing heavily to expand its oil production capacity, spending around US$150 billion (£111 billion) to push its potential daily output close to 5 million barrels. But Opec quotas have prevented it from fully exploiting that capacity. Actual production has remained well below its potential at about 3.5 million barrels a day (mbd), with some 5 mbd capacity, constrained by the Opec quota system designed to restrict supply and support prices, generally shaped by the de facto leader, Saudi Arabia.

Table showing Opec production quotas for 2026. — Opec production quotas for 2026.
Opec

This has created a tension. Why invest to produce more oil if you are not allowed to sell it?

Abu Dhabi’s answer reflects a different economic model. The UAE can balance its budget at much lower oil prices than Saudi Arabia (just below $50 v Saudi $90 a barrel or more), giving it less incentive to restrict output. Instead, it has prioritised maximising its oil exports.

That strategy is also shaped by expectations about the future. As countries such as China accelerate the electrification of transport, the hitherto steady and reliable demand for oil is slowing and becoming less reliable. Over time, it is likely to plateau. UAE is also well ahead of the Saudis in energy transition – and maintain their net zero target as 2050, compared to the Saudi 2060.

From the UAE’s perspective, the bigger risk is not falling prices, but leaving oil in the ground that may never be sold.

Shifting geopolitics

The timing of the exit is not just about economics. It also reflects shifting political and security calculations, particularly after the UAE came under heavy, sustained attack during the war in Iran.

In Abu Dhabi, there is a growing sense that regional institutions and partnerships, such as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) offered limited support during that period. Anwar Gargash, a senior presidential adviser, told reporters that: “The GCC’s stance was the weakest historically, considering the nature of the attack and the threat it posed to everyone,” adding that he “expected such a weak stance from the Arab League … But I don’t expect it from the GCC, and I am surprised by it.”

That experience has reinforced a more independent foreign policy. The UAE has strengthened ties with the US and Israel, building on the agreement it signed as part of the 2020 Abraham accords. The relationship with Israel is seen not just an economic and security partnership, but as a channel for influence inside the White House.

At the same time, relations with Saudi Arabia have become more strained, with differences over regional conflicts in Somalia and Yemen and economic strategy increasingly visible. Leaving Opec is both an economic decision and a geopolitical signal.

The UAE’s departure also raises questions about the future of Opec itself. The group once controlled more than half of global oil production. Today, its share is much smaller (no more than 35%), and internal divisions over production quotas are more pronounced. Quotas, long the core of its strategy, are increasingly seen as uneven constraints rather than shared commitments.

UAE energy minister, Suhail Al Mazrouei, explains the decision to leave Opec.

Saudi Arabia remains the only member with significant spare capacity, giving it outsized influence. The result is an organisation that still matters, but is less cohesive than it once was.

Not necessarily a win for the US

Some have hailed the UAE’s exit as a victory for Donald Trump, who has repeatedly criticised Opec for keeping oil prices high. A weaker OPEC would indeed lead to higher output and lower prices at the pump.

But sustained lower prices would also put pressure on higher-cost producers, including the US oil patch, which has been one of Opec’s main competitors in recent years. It benefited from the cartel’s restraint when it came to capping oil production. So what now looks like a geopolitical win could, over time, become an economic challenge.

For now, I believe that the UAE’s exit will not dramatically reshape oil markets. Demand remains strong enough to absorb additional supply, particularly as countries rebuild their inventories when Iran reopens the Strait of Hormuz. But the deeper significance lies in what the decision reveals.

Oil producers are no longer aligned around a single strategy. Some are trying to manage scarcity and keep prices high. Others are racing to monetise their resources before demand peaks and they end up with stranded assets. That divergence is likely to grow – and may ultimately prove more consequential than any single country leaving the cartel.

We may be entering a new age where oil is going to play a much lesser role in our lives.

Adi Imsirovic, Lecturer in Energy Systems, University of Oxford

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »

The Drive to Build and the Imperative to Preserve: A Discussion

.

The drive to build and the imperative to preserve