The world can't keep on with what it's doing and expect to reach its goals when it comes to climate change. Radical innovations are needed at this point, writes Scott Nyquist. Photo via Getty Images

Almost 3 years ago, McKinsey published a report arguing that limiting global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels was “technically achievable,” but that the “math is daunting.” Indeed, when the 1.5°C figure was agreed to at the 2015 Paris climate conference, the assumption was that emissions would peak before 2025, and then fall 43 percent by 2030.

Given that 2022 saw the highest emissions ever—36.8 gigatons—the math is now more daunting still: cuts would need to be greater, and faster, than envisioned in Paris. Perhaps that is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted March 20 (with “high confidence”) that it was “likely that warming will exceed 1.5°C during the 21st century.”

I agree with that gloomy assessment. Given the rate of progress so far, 1.5°C looks all but impossible. That puts me in the company of people like Bill Gates; the Economist; the Australian Academy of Science, and apparently many IPCC scientists. McKinsey has estimated that even if all countries deliver on their net zero commitments, temperatures will likely be 1.7°C higher in 2100.

In October, the UN Environment Program argued that there was “no credible pathway to 1.5°C in place” and called for “an urgent system-wide transformation” to change the trajectory. Among the changes it considers necessary: carbon taxes, land use reform, dietary changes in which individuals “consume food for environmental sustainability and carbon reduction,” investment of $4 trillion to $6 trillion a year; applying current technology to all new buildings; no new fossil fuel infrastructure. And so on.

Let’s assume that the UNEP is right. What are the chances of all this happening in the next few years? Or, indeed, any of it? President Obama’s former science adviser, Daniel Schrag, put it this way: “ Who believes that we can halve global emissions by 2030?... It’s so far from reality that it’s kind of absurd.”

Having a goal is useful, concentrating minds and organizing effort. And I think that has been the case with 1.5°C, or recent commitments to get to net zero. Targets create a sense of urgency that has led to real progress on decarbonization.

The 2020 McKinsey report set out how to get on the 1.5°C pathway, and was careful to note that this was not a description of probability or reality but “a picture of a world that could be.” Three years later, that “world that could be” looks even more remote.

Consider the United States, the world’s second-largest emitter. In 2021, 79 percent of primary energy demand (see chart) was met by fossil fuels, about the same as a decade before. Globally, the figures are similar, with renewables accounting for just 12.5 percent of consumption and low-emissions nuclear another 4 percent. Those numbers would have to basically reverse in the next decade or so to get on track. I don’t see how that can happen.

No alt text provided for this image

Credit: Energy Information Administration

But even if 1.5°C is improbable in the short term, that doesn’t mean that missing the target won’t have consequences. And it certainly doesn’t mean giving up on addressing climate change. And in fact, there are some positive trends. Many companies are developing comprehensive plans for achieving net-zero emissions and are making those plans part of their long-term strategy. Moreover, while global emissions grew 0.9 percent in 2022, that was much less than GDP growth (3.2 percent). It’s worth noting, too, that much of the increase came from switching from gas to coal in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine; that is the kind of supply shock that can be reversed. The point is that growth and emissions no longer move in lockstep; rather the opposite. That is critical because poorer countries are never going to take serious climate action if they believe it threatens their future prosperity.

Another implication is that limiting emissions means addressing the use of fossil fuels. As noted, even with the substantial rise in the use of renewables, coal, gas, and oil are still the core of the global energy system. They cannot be wished away. Perhaps it is time to think differently—that is, making fossil fuels more emissions efficient, by using carbon capture or other technologies; cutting methane emissions; and electrifying oil and gas operations. This is not popular among many climate advocates, who would prefer to see fossil fuels “stay in the ground.” That just isn’t happening. The much likelier scenario is that they are gradually displaced. McKinsey projects peak oil demand later this decade, for example, and for gas, maybe sometime in the late 2030s. Even after the peak, though, oil and gas will still be important for decades.

Second, in the longer term, it may be possible to get back onto 1.5°C if, in addition to reducing emissions, we actually remove them from the atmosphere, in the form of “negative emissions,” such as direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in power and heavy industry. The IPCC itself assumed negative emissions would play a major role in reaching the 1.5°C target; in fact, because of cost and deployment problems, it’s been tiny.

Finally, as I have argued before, it’s hard to see how we limit warming even to 2°C without more nuclear power, which can provide low-emissions energy 24/7, and is the largest single source of such power right now.

None of these things is particularly popular; none get the publicity of things like a cool new electric truck or an offshore wind farm (of which two are operating now in the United States, generating enough power for about 20,000 homes; another 40 are in development). And we cannot assume fast development of offshore wind. NIMBY concerns have already derailed some high-profile projects, and are also emerging in regard to land-based wind farms.

Carbon capture, negative emissions, and nuclear will have to face NIMBY, too. But they all have the potential to move the needle on emissions. Think of the potential if fast-growing India and China, for example, were to develop an assembly line of small nuclear reactors. Of course, the economics have to make sense—something that is true for all climate-change technologies.

And as the UN points out, there needs to be progress on other issues, such as food, buildings, and finance. I don’t think we can assume that such progress will happen on a massive scale in the next few years; the actual record since Paris demonstrates the opposite. That is troubling: the IPCC notes that the risks of abrupt and damaging impacts, such as flooding and crop yields, rise “with every increment of global warming.” But it is the reality.

There is one way to get us to 1.5°C, although not in the Paris timeframe: a radical acceleration of innovation. The approaches being scaled now, such as wind, solar, and batteries, are the same ideas that were being discussed 30 years ago. We are benefiting from long-term, incremental improvements, not disruptive innovation. To move the ball down the field quickly, though, we need to complete a Hail Mary pass.

It’s a long shot. But we’re entering an era of accelerated innovation, driven by advanced computing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning that could narrow the odds. For example, could carbon nanotubes displace demand for high-emissions steel? Might it be possible to store carbon deep in the ocean? Could geo-engineering bend the curve?

I believe that, on the whole, the world is serious about climate change. I am certain that the energy transition is happening. But I don’t think we are anywhere near to being on track to hit the 1.5°C target. And I don’t see how doing more of the same will get us there.

------

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 ran on LinkedIn.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Oxy's Vicki Hollub becomes first woman to win prestigious energy award

Winning Big

Vicki Hollub, president and CEO of Houston-based Occidental (Oxy), has become the first woman to win WPC Energy’s prestigious Dewhurst Award.

Hollub is the thirteenth recipient of the award, which is considered the highest honor from WPC Energy, a global, non-advocacy, non-political nonprofit organization that promotes the sustainable management of energy and energy products. She is just the fourth U.S. winner since the award launched in 1991. Other U.S. winners include former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson; Daniel Yergin, vice chairman of S&P Global and chairman of CERAWeek; and former chairman and CEO of Chevron Kenneth Derr.

According to WPC Energy, the Dewhurst Award is given to “exceptional individuals whose leadership and contributions have had a lasting impact on the global energy industry.” It is named after Thomas Dewhurst, who organised the first WPC Energy Congress, formerly the World Petroleum Congress, in 1933.

Oxy works to advance low-carbon technologies, reduce emissions and is leading a number of energy transition projects. Its Oxy Innovation Center is housed in Houston’s The Ion.

Hollub has held a variety of roles in her 40-year career with Occidental, including chief operating officer and senior executive vice president. She also led strategic acquisitions for Occidental of Anadarko Petroleum in 2019 and CrownRock in 2024, and serves on the boards of Lockheed Martin and the American Petroleum Institute. She is one of the first women to lead a major U.S. oil and gas company.

“Vicki Hollub’s visionary leadership and unwavering dedication to innovation and sustainability have set a benchmark for excellence in our industry,” Pedro Miras, WPC Energy President, said in a news release. “She embodies the spirit of the Dewhurst Award—forward-looking, courageous and deeply committed to advancing the global energy dialogue. Her contributions continue to inspire the next generation of energy leaders.”

Hollub will receive the award in April 2026 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia at the 25th WPC Energy Congress, where she will also present the Dewhurst Lecture.

“I am honored to be selected for the Dewhurst Award and appreciate WPC Energy recognizing our company’s achievements,” Hollub added in the release. “The Dewhurst Award reflects the collective efforts of the talented and dedicated team at Oxy, whose commitment to innovation, operational and technical excellence, and sustainability drives our success.”

Here's how Houston's energy and innovation sectors fared in the 2025 Texas legislative session

bills, bills, bills

The Greater Houston Partnership is touting a number of victories during the recently concluded Texas legislative session that will or could benefit the Houston area. They range from millions of dollars for energy projects to billions of dollars for dementia research.

“These wins were only possible through deep collaboration, among our coalition partners, elected officials, business and community leaders, and the engaged members of the Partnership,” according to a partnership blog post. “Together, we’ve demonstrated how a united voice for Houston helps drive results that benefit all Texans.”

In terms of business innovation, legislators carved out $715 million for nuclear, semiconductor, and other economic development projects, and a potential $1 billion pool of tax incentives through 2029 to support research-and-development projects. The partnership said these investments “position Houston and Texas for long-term growth.”

"Nuclear power renaissance"

House Bill 14 (HB 14), for instance, aims to lead a “nuclear power renaissance in the United States,” according to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s office. HB 14 establishes the Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, and allocates $350 million for nuclear development and deployment. Two nuclear power plants currently operate in Texas, generating 10 percent of the energy that feeds the Electric Reliability Council Texas (ERCOT) power grid.

“This initiative will also strengthen Texas’ nuclear manufacturing capacity, rebuild a domestic fuel cycle supply chain, and train the future nuclear workforce,” Abbott said in a news release earlier this year.

One of the beneficiaries of Texas’ nuclear push could be Washington, D.C.-based Last Energy, which plans to build 30 micro-nuclear reactors near Abilene to serve power-gobbling data centers across the state. Houston-based Pelican Energy Partners also might be able to take advantage of the legislation after raising a $450 million fund to invest in companies that supply nuclear energy services and equipment.

Reed Clay, president of the Texas Nuclear Alliance, called this legislation “the most important nuclear development program of any state.”

“It is a giant leap forward for Texas and the United States, whose nuclear program was all but dead for decades,” said Clay. “With the passage of HB 14 and associated legislation, Texas is now positioned to lead a nuclear renaissance that is rightly seen as imperative for the energy security and national security of the United States.”

Infrastructure

In the infrastructure arena, state lawmakers:

  • Approved $265 million for Houston-area water and flood mitigation projects, including $100 million for the Lynchburg Pump Station.
  • Created the Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District.
  • Established a fund for the Gulf Coast Protection District to supply $550 million for projects to make the coastline and ship channel more resilient.

Dementia institute

One of the biggest legislative wins cited by the Greater Houston Partnership was passage of legislation sponsored by Sen. Joan Huffman, a Houston Republican, to provide $3 billion in funding over 10 years for the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Voters will be asked in November to vote on a ballot initiative that would set aside $3 billion for the new institute.

The dementia institute would be structured much like the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT), a state agency that provides funding for cancer research in the Lone Star State. Since its founding in 2008, CPRIT has awarded nearly $3.9 billion in research grants.

“By establishing the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, we are positioning our state to lead the charge against one of the most devastating health challenges of our time,” Huffman said. “With $3 billion in funding over the next decade, we will drive critical research, develop new strategies for prevention and treatment, and support our healthcare community. Now, it’s up to voters to ensure this initiative moves forward.”

More than 500,000 Texans suffer from some form of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, according to Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

“With a steadfast commitment, Texas has the potential to become a world leader in combating [dementia] through the search for effective treatments and, ultimately, a cure,” Patrick said.

Funding for education

In the K-12 sector, lawmakers earmarked an extra $195 million for Houston ISD, $126.7 million for Cypress-Fairbanks ISD, $103.1 million for Katy ISD, $80.6 million for Fort Bend ISD, and $61 million for Aldine ISD, the partnership said.

In higher education, legislators allocated:

  • $1.17 billion for the University of Houston College of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Baylor College of Medicine.
  • $922 million for the University of Houston System.
  • $167 million for Texas Southern University.
  • $10 million for the Center for Biotechnology at San Jacinto College.

Houston-area company leads Texas businesses on Time's most sustainable list

Spring-based IT company Hewlett Packard Enterprise leads the list of eight Texas businesses that appear in Time magazine’s and data provider Statista’s World’s Most Sustainable Companies list for 2025.

HPE landed at No. 68, earning a score of 74.36 out of 100.

Time and Statista said the ranking highlights corporate responsibility and promotes sustainable practices.

“In an era marked by significant environmental challenges and social inequalities, it is crucial to recognize and reward companies prioritizing sustainability,” according to an article on Time’s website. “By featuring these leading entities, the ranking sets a benchmark for other businesses, fostering transparency and accountability and encouraging the integration of sustainability into core corporate strategies.”

Time and Statista’s ranking process started with a list of more than 5,000 of the world’s largest, most influential companies based on factors such as revenue and public prominence. They identified the top 500 companies based on more than 20 data points.

The process weeded out non-sustainable businesses, such as those involved in producing fossil fuels, and zeroed in on:

  • External sustainability ratings
  • Availability and quality of sustainability reports
  • Performance regarding environmental and social responsibility measures

HPE is targeting net-zero status across its supply chain by 2040. Working toward that goal, the company predicts its carbon emissions will decrease by 33 percent from 2020 to 2028.

“The climate transition demands collective action across our entire value chain, and I am resolute in my commitment to ensure that HPE plays a central role in showcasing the attainability of net-zero emissions through our technologies and actions,” said Antonio Neri, HPE’s president and CEO.

Among the ways HPE is reducing carbon emissions are:

  • Shipping certain products in bigger bundles
  • Incorporating environmentally responsible design
  • Using more renewable energy
  • Improving energy efficiency in buildings
  • Eventually shifting to an all-electric automotive fleet

Here’s a rundown of the eight Texas-based companies that made the sustainability list, including their global rankings and scores.

  • No. 68 Spring-based Hewlett Packard Enterprise. Score: 74.36
  • No. 81 Dallas-based CBRE. Score: 73.49
  • No. 142 Dallas-based AMN Healthcare Services. Score: 69.8
  • No. 165 Austin-based Digital Realty. Score: 68.64
  • No. 257 Round Rock-based Dell Technologies. Score: 64.89
  • No. 295 Frisco-based Keurig Dr Pepper. Score: 63.25
  • No. 335 Dallas-based Jacobs Engineering. Score: 61.98
  • No. 471 Dallas-based AT&T. Score: 57.28

France-based Schneider Electric claimed the top spot on the global list. The company opened a 10,500-square-foot, state-of-the-art Energy Innovation Center in Houston earlier this year.