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

4 Houston energy companies named best places to work by U.S. News

Where to Work

Nearly a dozen public and private Houston-based companies have been hailed among the best places to work in 2025 by U.S. News and World Report, with four from the energy sector.

The annual "U.S. News Best Companies to Work For" report examines thousands of publicly-traded companies around the world to determine the best employers based on six metrics including work-life balance and flexibility; quality of pay and benefits; job and company stability; career opportunities and professional development; and more. The companies were not ranked, but included based on reader surveys and publicly available data about each workplace.

New for the 2025-2026 ratings,U.S. News expanded its methodology to include privately owned companies and companies with internship opportunities for recent graduates and new, current, and prospective students. Companies were also grouped into job-specific and industry-specific lists, and the publication also added a new list highlighting "employers that are particularly friendly to employees who are also caregivers in their personal lives."

U.S. News included seven publicly-traded companies and four privately owned companies in Houston on the lists.

Houston-based energy companies on the list

It may not come as a surprise that oil and gas corporation Chevron landed at the top of the list of top public employers in the Energy Capital of the World. The energy giant currently employs more than 45,000 people, earns $193.47 billion in annual revenue, and has a market cap of $238.74 billion. The company earned high ratings by U.S. News for its job stability, "belongingness," and quality of pay.

Chevron also appeared in U.S. News'industry-specific "Best in Energy and Resources" list, the "Best Companies in the South" list, and the "Best for Internships" list.

Chevron is joined by three other Houston energy leaders:

  • Calpine – Best in Energy and Resources; Best Companies (overall)
  • ConocoPhillips – Best in Energy and Resources; Best Companies (overall); Best in Caregiving; Best Companies in the South
  • Occidental – Best in Energy and Resources; Best Companies (overall); Best Companies in the South

Other top companies to work for in Houston are:

  • American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) — Best in Engineering and Construction; Best Companies (overall)
  • Hines – Best in Real Estate and Facilities Management; Best Companies (overall)
  • Insperity, Kingwood – Best in Healthcare and Research; Best Companies (overall); Best in Caregiving; Best Companies in the South
  • KBR – Best in Engineering and Construction; Best Companies (overall); Best Companies in the South
  • Men's Warehouse – Best in Consumer Products; Best Companies (overall)
  • PROS – Best in Information Technology; Best Companies (overall); Best Companies in the South
  • Skyward Specialty Insurance – Best in Finance and Insurance; Best Companies (overall); Best Companies in the South
"'Best' is a subjective term relative to career satisfaction, and many aspects factor into someone’s decision to apply for a job with any given company," U.S. News said. "But some universally desired factors can contribute to a good workplace, such as quality pay, good work-life balance, and opportunities for professional development and advancement

In all, 30 employers headquartered in the Lone Star State made it onto U.S. News' 2025-2026 "Best Places to Work For" lists. Houston and the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area tied for the most employers make the list, at 11 companies each. Diamondback Energy in Midland was the only company from West Texas to make it on the list for the second year in a row.

---

A version of this article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

Texas plugs in among states at highest risk for summer power outages in 2025

by the numbers

Warning: Houston could be in for an especially uncomfortable summer.

A new study from solar energy company Wolf River Electric puts Texas at No. 2 among the states most at risk for power outages this summer. Michigan tops the list.

Wolf River Electric analyzed the number of large-scale outages that left more than 5,000 utility customers, including homes, stores and schools, without summertime electricity from 2019 to 2023. During that period, Texas experienced 7,164 summertime power outages.

Despite Michigan being hit with more summertime outages, Texas led the list of states with the most hours of summertime power outages — an annual average of 35,440. That works out to 1,477 days. “This means power cuts in Texas tend to last longer, making summer especially tough for residents and businesses,” the study says.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which operates the electric grid serving 90 percent of the state, predicts its system will set a monthly record for peak demand this August — 85,759 megawatts. That would exceed the current record of 85,508 megawatts, dating back to August 2023.

In 2025, natural gas will account for 37.7 percent of ERCOT’s summertime power-generating capacity, followed by wind (22.9 percent) and solar (19 percent), according to an ERCOT fact sheet.

This year, ERCOT expects four months to surpass peak demand of 80,000 megawatts:

  • June 2025 — 82,243 megawatts
  • July 2025 — 84,103 megawatts
  • August 2025 — 85,759 megawatts
  • September 2025 — 80,773 megawatts

One megawatt is enough power to serve about 250 residential customers amid peak demand, according to ERCOT. Using that figure, the projected peak of 85,759 megawatts in August would supply enough power to serve more than 21.4 million residential customers in Texas.

Data centers, artificial intelligence and population growth are driving up power demand in Texas, straining the ERCOT grid. In January, ERCOT laid out a nearly $33 billion plan to boost power transmission capabilities in its service area.

Texas cities swelter with 50+ more hot days, new climate study shows

summer temps

Mother Nature is cranking up the summertime heat in Texas.

New data from Climate Central shows Houston and Austin are among nine major U.S. cities that now experience at least 50 more days per year with above-normal summer temperatures than they did in 1970. Other Texas cities that made the list were El Paso, McAllen and Tyler. Climate Central is a nonprofit organization that provides climate science research and analysis.

“Climate change is driving increasing temperatures across Texas and causing hotter summers. Austin and Houston now experience at least 50 more days above normal than they did in 1970,” said Kristina Dahl, vice president of science at Climate Central. “This isn’t just about discomfort; it’s about the growing risks to public health and infrastructure. We must prioritize climate resilience and stop burning fossil fuels to address these escalating challenges.”

For Austin, the number of above-normal-temperature summer days climbed by 50 from 1970 to 2024, according to Climate Central. During that period, the average summer temperature in Austin increased by 4.7 degrees.

In Houston, the quarter-century increase in the number of above-normal-temperature summer days was even higher — 56. The average summer temperature there rose by 4.6 degrees from 1970 to 2024, according to Climate Central.

Climate Central says that of the 242 cities it analyzed, 97 percent had seen a rise in the number of hotter-than-normal summer days (June, July and August) between 1970 and 2024. The study found the average jump in summer temperatures since 1970 was 2.6 degrees.

Outside Texas, cities on the list were Reno, Nevada; Albany, Georgia; Las Cruces, New Mexico; and New Orleans.

In the summer, the cities that warmed up the most from 1970 to 2024 were:

  • Reno, up 11.3 degrees.
  • Boise, Idaho, up 6.3 degrees.
  • El Paso, up 6.2 degrees.
  • Las Vegas, up 6.1 degrees.
  • Salt Lake City, up 5.9 degrees.

“As heat-trapping pollution continues to warm the planet,” Climate Central explains, “summer temperatures are arriving earlier and getting hotter — and dangerous heat extremes are becoming more frequent and intense.”

Climate Central’s study was based on weather data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

---

A version of this article first appeared on CultureMap.com.