Rumors of the death of the transition have been greatly exaggerated, as I discussed in Part I of this article. In this second part, I want to lay out what a pragmatic reset in climate and energy strategy, one that responds to the current moment in history, might entail. 

We saw in Part I that the world is at or near peak emissions. We saw that one in every five cars sold worldwide is an EV, and that the figure is one in two in China. We saw that clean energy and heat now supply just over 30% of the global energy services consumed by the economy. And we saw that, as long as clean energy continues to outgrow energy-service demand, fossil fuels will eventually but inexorably be squeezed out of the system. 

At the same time, President Donald Trump is using every tool at his disposal to keep the US addicted to fossil fuels. And, like it or not, his actions are resonating in many other countries. The established consensus behind climate action is fracturing – it has crumbled in the US, was rescued from the brink by elections in Canada and Australia, shows severe strain in the UK and signs of cracking across Europe. 

The climate and clean-energy community is facing a choice. It can remain reactive, doubling down on old narratives, pressing on with existing policies, preaching to the converted. Or it can undertake a pragmatic reset: Wind back historical over-reach, accept harsh realities, address legitimate concerns, refresh its offer and find new ways of communicating with a confused public. 

I’m not going to write a manifesto. But I will present some ideas, intended to start a critical and perhaps overdue conversation about what a pragmatic climate reset might imply. 

Read the full piece now.