GUEST COLUMN

Houston expert encourages energy industry to bridge its generational divides

According to a Houston-based expert, one of the biggest obstacles to net zero emissions is distrust between generations in the energy industry. Photo via Shutterstock

What’s the biggest obstacle between us and net-zero? Is it policy? Technology? Financing? All of these are important, yes, but none of them is what is really holding us back from our energy transition goals.

The biggest obstacle is a lack of open-mindedness and an unwillingness of people across the industry and across generations to work together.

In October of 2022, I was invited to speak at Energy Dialogues’s North American Gas Forum, a conference that brings together executives from across the energy industry. Over the two days of the conference, I was amazed by the forward-thinking conversations we were having on decarbonization, the future of clean energy, emissions reduction, and much more. I returned back to campus at Duke University, energized by these conversations and excited to share them. But rather than seeing the same sense of excitement, I was met with doubt, disbelief, even scorn.

There’s a fundamental distrust between generations in this industry, and it goes both ways. Experienced energy professionals often see the younger generation as irrational idealists who are too politicized to be pragmatic, while the younger generation often paints the older generation as uncaring climate denialists who want nothing to do with clean energy. Neither is true.

Over the past two years since founding Energy Terminal, I’ve met hundreds (maybe thousands) of people all across the energy industry, from CEOs of major energy companies to students just getting started on their career journey. Despite being so different on the surface, their goals are strikingly similar. Almost all can agree on three things: we want to reduce emissions, we want to expand energy access, and we want to do so while encouraging economic prosperity. The perceived barrier between generations in the energy industry is exponentially larger than the actual barrier.

For experienced professionals — take a chance to engage in conversations with young energy leaders. Understand their priorities, listen to their concerns, and find the middle ground. We are a generation passionate about impact and growth, and enabled with the right resources, we can do incredible things. The changing energy world presents unbelievable opportunities for both progress and profit, but without the next generation on board, it will never be sustainable.

For the young energy leaders of the future–listen to the experiences of the leaders that have come before us. Understand the balance between energy that is clean with energy that is secure, reliable, and affordable. We have brilliant ideas and an insatiable appetite for progress, but we won’t do it alone. Every person and every company has a valuable role to play in the energy transition, so consider how we can amplify our strengths rather than attack each other’s weaknesses.

If my co-founder, a climate activist from New York, and myself, the son of an oil and gas family from south Texas, can do it, so can you. This is a call to find the middle ground, to open up your mind to new possibilities, and to make real progress by working with each other rather than against each other.

------

Michael Wood III is co-founder of Energy Terminal, a platform that aims to build the next generation of energy leaders and to bridge the gap between youth and the energy industry.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Greenhouse gases continue to rise, and the challenges they pose are not going away. Photo via Getty Images

For the past 40 years, climate policy has often felt like two steps forward, one step back. Regulations shift with politics, incentives get diluted, and long-term aspirations like net-zero by 2050 seem increasingly out of reach. Yet greenhouse gases continue to rise, and the challenges they pose are not going away.

This matters because the costs are real. Extreme weather is already straining U.S. power grids, damaging homes, and disrupting supply chains. Communities are spending more on recovery while businesses face rising risks to operations and assets. So, how can the U.S. prepare and respond?

The Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies (CES) points to two complementary strategies. First, invest in large-scale public adaptation to protect communities and infrastructure. Second, reframe carbon as a resource, not just a waste stream to be reduced.

Why Focusing on Emissions Alone Falls Short

Peter Hartley argues that decades of global efforts to curb emissions have done little to slow the rise of CO₂. International cooperation is difficult, the costs are felt immediately, and the technologies needed are often expensive. Emissions reduction has been the central policy tool for decades, and it has been neither sufficient nor effective.

One practical response is adaptation, which means preparing for climate impacts we can’t avoid. Some of these measures are private, taken by households or businesses to reduce their own risks, such as farmers shifting crop types, property owners installing fire-resistant materials, or families improving insulation. Others are public goods that require policy action. These include building stronger levees and flood defenses, reinforcing power grids, upgrading water systems, revising building codes, and planning for wildfire risks. Such efforts protect people today while reducing long-term costs, and they work regardless of the source of extreme weather. Adaptation also does not depend on global consensus; each country, state, or city can act in its own interest. Many of these measures even deliver benefits beyond weather resilience, such as stronger infrastructure and improved security against broader threats.

McKinsey research reinforces this logic. Without a rapid scale-up of climate adaptation, the U.S. will face serious socioeconomic risks. These include damage to infrastructure and property from storms, floods, and heat waves, as well as greater stress on vulnerable populations and disrupted supply chains.

Making Carbon Work for Us

While adaptation addresses immediate risks, Ken Medlock points to a longer-term opportunity: turning carbon into value.

Carbon can serve as a building block for advanced materials in construction, transportation, power transmission, and agriculture. Biochar to improve soils, carbon composites for stronger and lighter products, and next-generation fuels are all examples. As Ken points out, carbon-to-value strategies can extend into construction and infrastructure. Beyond creating new markets, carbon conversion could deliver lighter and more resilient materials, helping the U.S. build infrastructure that is stronger, longer-lasting, and better able to withstand climate stress.

A carbon-to-value economy can help the U.S. strengthen its manufacturing base and position itself as a global supplier of advanced materials.

These solutions are not yet economic at scale, but smart policies can change that. Expanding the 45Q tax credit to cover carbon use in materials, funding research at DOE labs and universities, and supporting early markets would help create the conditions for growth.

Conclusion

Instead of choosing between “doing nothing” and “net zero at any cost,” we need a third approach that invests in both climate resilience and carbon conversion.

Public adaptation strengthens and improves the infrastructure we rely on every day, including levees, power grids, water systems, and building standards that protect communities from climate shocks. Carbon-to-value strategies can complement these efforts by creating lighter, more resilient carbon-based infrastructure.

CES suggests this combination is a pragmatic way forward. As Peter emphasizes, adaptation works because it is in each nation’s self-interest. And as Ken reminds us, “The U.S. has a comparative advantage in carbon. Leveraging it to its fullest extent puts the U.S. in a position of strength now and well into the future.”

-----------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.

Trending News