By Thea Aslanian, Energy Analyst and Will Dickerman, Senior Energy Analyst
Introduction
Throughout 2025, several prominent voices in the energy world spoke out to articulate their views on the global energy transition and the future of climate action. In February, Daniel Yergin, Peter Orszag, and Atul Arya kicked off the conversation with “The Troubled Energy Transition,” a generally skeptical piece about the future role of renewable sources in the overall global energy mix. In April, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change argued in “The Climate Paradox” that the stalled progress on climate action should be addressed by focusing on breakthrough technologies such as carbon capture. Between July and September, Michael Liebreich pushed back against the views put forth by Yergin et al. and the Blair Institute in “The Pragmatic Climate Reset” Parts I and II. According to Liebreich, the global energy transition can and will occur if growth in the deployment of renewable electricity generation continues to outpace growth in overall energy demand in the coming decades. In October, Bill Gates added his views to the mix, advocating for human welfare as the central goal and metric of climate progress in “Three Tough Truths About Climate.” These four pieces present different opinions on the future of the global energy transition and where we should focus our efforts in the coming years. That being said, they all agree on one thing; it is time for a paradigm shift.
Daniel Yergin, Peter Orszag, and Atul Arya: "The Troubled Energy Transition”
In “The Troubled Energy Transition,” Daniel Yergin, Peter Orszag, and Atul Arya offer a considerably more pessimistic view of the prospects for a global energy transition. They argue that the much-touted “energy transition” has so far been more of an “energy addition” of renewables on top of existing energy sources than a replacement of them. They note record growth in wind and solar but emphasize that oil, gas, and coal also reached all-time highs in 2024. Yergin et al. contend that expectations for a rapid, linear transition to a net-zero energy system were shaped by short-term reductions in demand and emissions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These expectations collided with the structural complexity of a global energy system that underpins an approximately $115 trillion global economy. For the world to meet 2050 targets, greenhouse gas emissions would need to decline from 33.9 gigatons in 2020 to 21.2 gigatons in 2030; thus far, emissions have risen, reaching 37.4 gigatons. The authors contend that the gap between climate goals and reality is widening. Yergin et al. also argue that there is a divide between developed and developing countries regarding climate ambitions and development needs. Wealthier countries have generally set earlier, more aggressive net-zero targets, but energy demand in developing countries is rapidly rising. Expanding access to affordable energy, often through continued fossil fuel use, remains central to reducing poverty and raising standards of living.
Overall, Yergin et al.’s analysis is decidedly more fatalistic than Bill Gates’s. While Yergin argues that energy sources are additive, Liebrich points out that history offers counterexamples in which energy sources were largely displaced once superior alternatives emerged, such as whale oil and coal gas. Yergin’s points have also been echoed by oil and gas leaders. At major energy industry forums such as CERAWeek, which Yergin has long been associated with, executives from major oil and gas companies have argued that phasing out oil and gas entirely is unrealistic and that fossil fuels will remain essential for decades. Amin Nasser, CEO of Saudi Aramco, called plans to phase out oil and gas use “a fantasy.” Overall, Yergin gives a defeatist take benefiting the fossil fuel industry under the guise of realism.
Lindsay Fursman and Tony Blair: The Climate Paradox
In “The Climate Paradox,” the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change argues that climate action has entered an “apathy era” in which awareness of the crisis is high, but meaningful political and policy progress is declining. The paper identifies a paradox: despite rapid growth in renewable energy and widespread public acceptance of climate science, global fossil fuel production and consumption continue to rise, emissions are at record highs, and current climate policies are insufficient to keep warming near 1.5°C. Awareness is at an all-time high, but meaningful action is stalling. Like Gates and Yergin et al., the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change focuses on equity in the energy transition. A central argument in this article is that conventional approaches focused on phasing out fossil fuels or reducing consumption are often politically and economically unrealistic, particularly in developing countries, where affordable and reliable energy are essential for job creation, industrialization, and improved health and living standards. The authors argue that climate politics need to balance emissions reductions with economic development, and global financial flows for renewable energy in the developing world have, in fact, fallen in recent years.
The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change advocates for less conventional solutions. Blair and Fursman argue that policymakers should put carbon capture and storage at the center of climate policy, aiming to make it commercially viable through policy, finance, and innovation. Fossil-fuel companies should be required to invest in and scale this technology. The authors advocate for investment in breakthrough and frontier nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors and fusion technology. They argue for promoting climate adaptation measures, shifting away from COP summit debates to create a new cooperative process mandated by major emitting nations to focus on detailed policy work, technological solutions, and finance.
The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change places a great deal of stock in the role carbon capture could play in reducing carbon emissions. According to climate activist and former United States Vice President Al Gore, carbon capture is a false solution. It is expensive, energy-intensive, and primarily serves as an excuse for fossil fuel companies to continue bad behavior. The Tony Blair article advocated for direct air capture. While this nascent technology exists on a small scale, it requires so much clean energy to operate that the renewables used to power carbon capture would be more effectively used to displace fossil fuel generation on the electric grid. Blair and Fursman place a great deal of stock in nascent or unproven technologies when we currently have technologies available well-suited to address the energy transition.
Michael Liebreich: The Pragmatic Climate Reset Parts I and II
Liebreich begins his framework by promising to show us “why rumors of the death of the [energy] transition are greatly exaggerated.” Part I puts his argument in context, as he unveils Yergin’s use of the “primary energy fallacy” in “The Troubled Transition.” Yergin anchors his view on the futility of the energy transition with the fact that fossil fuels contributed 85% of primary energy in 1990 and still contribute 80% today. Liebreich explains that due to the inefficacy of fossil fuels compared with clean energy, the real portion of fossil fuel energy used today is 68%, not 80%, meaning that almost a third of the world’s energy demand is already being met by clean resources. As further evidence to back up his optimism, Liebreich lays out a simple analysis to demonstrate that as long as growth in clean energy continues to outpace growth in energy demand, keeping warming to 2°C is still on the table. He also contradicts Blair’s piece, arguing the total economic infeasibility of carbon capture, carbon storage, and small modular nuclear reactors. Liebreich’s solutions instead focus on reframing communications around existing climate narratives and technology in order to reach a broader audience.
In his second piece, Liebreich lays out his eight-part strategy to refresh the climate and clean-energy narrative. The first item on his agenda is resetting climate politics to win back the “sensible center.” To do this, the clean energy community needs to shift away from moral and existential arguments toward everyday issues on voters' minds, such as energy bills. The rest of Liebreich’s piece adheres to a similar sentiment: it’s time to focus on economics and popular policies instead of “letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.” This piece fits into the broader cultural reckoning of the Democratic Party following the 2024 election, with a shift away from pushing a social and moral high ground and toward more central messaging around affordability.
Bill Gates: Three tough truths about climate
In the most widely read of the four climate reset approaches, Bill Gates pushes for prioritizing global issues “in proportion to the suffering they cause.” In his memo addressed to the attendees of the United Nations Conference on Parties (COP30), he explains that money currently being allocated to climate impact could be better spent on human welfare. His approach echoes the arguments in his 2021 book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. Gates rejects apocalyptic narratives about the impacts of climate change on human civilization, and he expresses optimism about climate progress made thus far. Despite acknowledging the severity of climate change, he insists that policymakers should not cut funding for development programs to reduce emissions, arguing that “health and prosperity are the best defense against climate change.” He warns that some emission-reducing measures, such as lowering synthetic fertilizer in agriculture, can increase human suffering. If we use human welfare as the central metric of climate progress, as he suggests, people living in poverty or poor health are the most vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather. Going after these underlying factors and funding improvements in agriculture, such as crop varieties that can survive in warmer, drier weather, are the most impactful steps under his suggested framework.
Gates’s memo received mixed reviews. Some climate experts argue for the rationality of his views, pointing out that leaders in the world’s poorest countries have been measuring climate impacts in human health for decades. However, Critics of the memo protest that he set up a “false dichotomy ‘usually propagated by climate skeptics’ that pits efforts to tackle climate change against foreign aid for the poor.” Supporting this argument, President Donald Trump praised the memo, thanking Gates and posting to social media, “I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax.” In his effort to reframe the climate narrative during a highly polarized political moment, the Microsoft founder further muddles the movement by oversimplifying the tradeoffs of funding emission reductions.
Conclusion
Across these four perspectives provided by Gates, Liebreich, Yergin et al., and the Blair Institute — several common themes stand out: effective solutions require balancing equity, innovation, political feasibility, and practicality. These broader ideals can be seen at play more locally with legislative changes in New England. Recent rollbacks in New England state renewables programs illustrate the economic and political tradeoffs highlighted by Yergin et al. and Liebreich, showing how real-world constraints, such as higher costs to ratepayers, can complicate even well-intentioned climate strategies. New England states have taken diverging paths under the current uncertain climate for renewable energy. In June 2025, Maine raised its Renewable Portfolio Standard requirement, while Connecticut scaled back its program the following month. Maine also made dramatic retroactive cuts to its Net Energy Billing Program, and Massachusetts is considering following suit. Together, these examples demonstrate that New England’s climate path, like the global challenge, must navigate the intersection of technology, equity, policy, and economic reality to achieve meaningful and sustainable results.
Photo by Jan Huber