A Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) analysis of 169 countries finds that the 19 economies most exposed to falling oil, gas and coal demand together produce only 6% of global economic output. Most of the world economy falls into a moderate-impact group, while other countries can gain from avoided climate damage, renewable-energy resources or carbon storage.
The study, published in Nature Sustainability on 15 October 2026, maps how climate policy could revalue national economic assets by the end of this century. Its central finding is that the countries most likely to lose fossil-fuel revenue are economically small in aggregate, whereas the largest share of global output comes from economies with mixed or potentially positive effects.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
What the PIK analysis measured
Researchers Guanna Pan, Ulrike Kornek, C. Gong, E. Bacca, Gunnar Luderer and Ottmar Edenhofer assessed 169 countries across four channels through which decarbonization changes national wealth:
- Fossil-fuel demand: Lower use of oil, gas and coal can reduce export income, domestic production and the value of related infrastructure.
- Avoided climate damage: Stronger mitigation limits physical damage to economies from heat, floods, storms, drought and other climate impacts.
- Renewable-energy potential: Countries with strong solar and wind resources can develop new electricity, industrial and export opportunities.
- Carbon sequestration: Forests and managed natural areas can become more valuable when they absorb and store carbon dioxide.
The analysis therefore does not treat climate policy as a single gain-or-loss calculation. A country can lose income tied to fossil-fuel extraction while gaining from lower climate damage, renewable investment or the value of stored carbon.
#1 Best Overall
The five country clusters
PIK groups the 169 countries into five clusters that show why national positions on a fossil-fuel phaseout diverge. The public summary gives group totals and output shares, but it does not publish the names of every country in each cluster.
| Cluster | Countries | Main exposure or opportunity | Share of global output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fossil-fuel-dependent | 19 | Potential losses from falling oil, gas and coal demand and revenue | 6% |
| Severe climate-damage exposure | 51 | Strong interest in rapid mitigation because unchecked warming would cause particularly severe economic damage | Included in the combined 13% for the three strongest potential-benefit groups; individual share not stated |
| High renewable-energy potential | 13 | Potential gains from solar and wind development, mostly in Africa | Included in the combined 13%; individual share not stated |
| High carbon-sequestration capacity | 17 | Potential value from forests and managed land that remove and store carbon dioxide | Included in the combined 13%; individual share not stated |
| Moderate impact | 69 | Mixed effects, including avoided damage and other transition gains alongside some disruption | 81% |
The three groups with the clearest potential benefits—the 51 countries facing severe climate damages, the 13 with high renewable potential and the 17 with high sequestration capacity—together account for 13% of global output.
Why the 6% figure matters
The 6% is an aggregate share for all 19 vulnerable countries, not an estimate for each country. It means that the economies with the strongest direct exposure to declining fossil-fuel demand represent a relatively small portion of world production. Their fiscal and employment risks can still be substantial at home, but their combined size helps explain why the global economic balance of mitigation is not defined solely by fossil-fuel losses.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
By contrast, 69 economies classified as experiencing moderate impacts produce 81% of global output. This group includes the European Union, China and the United States. For these economies, percentage changes may be less dramatic than in a small producer, but even modest gains or losses applied to a very large economic base can be significant in absolute terms. The classification also does not mean that every country in the group has the same policy interests; it indicates that several asset effects operate at once.
Rank #3
Which African countries could benefit from solar power?
The study identifies 13 countries with high renewable-energy potential, mostly in Africa, where abundant solar or wind resources could support new generation and related economic activity. The public descriptions of the analysis do not list those countries individually, so naming specific states would go beyond the evidence available in the published summary. Country-level identification requires the paper’s full tables or supplementary data.
“High potential” is an opportunity, not an automatic payoff. Real gains would depend on transmission, financing, grid reliability, project development, local industry and access to domestic or export markets. The cluster signals where renewable resources could become valuable assets under stronger climate policy; it does not guarantee a particular investment outcome.
How climate policy creates winners as well as losers
Lead author Guanna Pan said the data can show how countries “could gain or lose from different aspects of decarbonization by the end of this century, depending on the level of ambition in climate policy.” That qualification is important: the study maps exposure under alternative policy ambition rather than announcing one fixed near-term GDP forecast.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Countries vulnerable to fossil-fuel decline may see the value of reserves, production equipment and export relationships fall as demand changes. At the same time, countries exposed to severe climate damage can benefit economically from preventing losses that would otherwise accumulate over decades. Renewable-rich countries can build new productive capacity, while forest-rich countries may gain from systems that reward measurable carbon storage.
Best Value
Ottmar Edenhofer, PIK’s director and a co-author, said climate policy “does not merely devalue certain assets—namely those of fossil fuel suppliers.” He added that new assets are built simultaneously, revaluing economies’ capital stocks in a more sustainable direction and helping safeguard long-term prosperity.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.The cooperation problem
The different asset effects create a distributional and diplomatic challenge. Fossil-fuel-dependent governments may resist ambitious measures because they face concentrated and politically visible losses, even when global mitigation produces broad benefits. Countries facing severe climate damage have the opposite incentive: delaying action leaves them exposed to larger physical losses.
PIK points to package deals as a way to align those interests. Such agreements could connect climate concessions with expanded trade, research and development cooperation, or financial transfers. The purpose would be to compensate or diversify economies that lose fossil-fuel value while helping countries with renewable or sequestration potential turn natural advantages into durable income.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →What this study does—and does not—show
- It covers 169 countries and compares several channels of asset revaluation rather than measuring fossil-fuel revenue alone.
- It identifies a 19-country vulnerable cluster responsible for 6% of global output, but the public summary does not provide every country name or country-level output figure.
- It places the EU, China and the United States in a 69-economy moderate-impact group responsible for 81% of output.
- It combines three potential-benefit groups—severe climate-damage exposure, high renewable potential and high carbon-sequestration capacity—at 13% of global output; separate shares are not stated.
- It describes long-term effects that depend on climate-policy ambition. The findings are not a promise that every country in a cluster will experience the same result or that benefits will arrive without infrastructure, finance and policy support.
The paper is “Quantifying Assets for the Geopolitics of Climate Mitigation” by Pan, Kornek, Gong, Bacca, Luderer and Edenhofer, published in Nature Sustainability with DOI 10.1038/s41893-026-01971-z.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
