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

Greentown Labs adds 6 Texas clean energy startups to Houston incubator

green team

Greentown Labs announced the six startups to join its Houston community in Q2 of 2025.

The companies are among a group of 13 that joined the climatetech incubator, which is co-located in Houston and Boston, in the same time period. The companies that joined the Houston-based lab specialize in a number of clean energy applications, from long-duration energy storage systems to 3D solar towers.

The new Houston members include:

  • Encore CO2, a Louisiana-based company that converts CO2 into ethanol, acetate, ethylene and other sustainable chemicals through its innovative electrolysis technology
  • Janta Power, a Dallas-based company with proprietary 3D-solar-tower technology that deploys solar power vertically rather than flatly, increasing power and energy generation
  • Licube, an Austin-based company focused on sustainable lithium recovery from underutilized sources using its proprietary and patented electrodialysis technology
  • Newfound Materials, a Houston-based company that has developed a predictive engine for materials R&D
  • Pix Force, a Houston-based company that develops AI algorithms to inspect substations, transmission lines and photovoltaic plants using drones
  • Wattsto Energy, a Houston-based manufacturer of a long-duration-energy-storage system with a unique hybrid design that provides fast, safe, sustainable and cost-effective energy storage at the microgrid and grid levels

Seven other companies will join Greentown Boston's incubator. See the full list here.

Greentown Houston also added five startups to its local lab in Q1. Read more about the companies here.

How Planckton Data is building the sustainability label every industry will need

now streaming

There’s a reason “carbon footprint” became a buzzword. It sounds like something we should know. Something we should measure. Something that should be printed next to the calorie count on a label.

But unlike calories, a carbon footprint isn’t universal, standardized, or easy to calculate. In fact, for most companies—especially in energy and heavy industry—it’s still a black box.

That’s the problem Planckton Data is solving.

On this episode of the Energy Tech Startups Podcast, Planckton Data co-founders Robin Goswami and Sandeep Roy sit down to explain how they’re turning complex, inconsistent, and often incomplete emissions data into usable insight. Not for PR. Not for green washing. For real operational and regulatory decisions.

And they’re doing it in a way that turns sustainability from a compliance burden into a competitive advantage.

From calories to carbon: The label analogy that actually works

If you’ve ever picked up two snack bars and compared their calorie counts, you’ve made a decision based on transparency. Robin and Sandeep want that same kind of clarity for industrial products.

Whether it’s a shampoo bottle, a plastic feedstock, or a specialty chemical—there’s now consumer and regulatory pressure to know exactly how sustainable a product is. And to report it.

But that’s where the simplicity ends.

Because unlike food labels, carbon labels can’t be standardized across a single factory. They depend on where and how a product was made, what inputs were used, how far it traveled, and what method was used to calculate the data.

Even two otherwise identical chemicals—one sourced from a refinery in Texas and the other in Europe—can carry very different carbon footprints, depending on logistics, local emission factors, and energy sources.

Planckton’s solution is built to handle exactly this level of complexity.

AI that doesn’t just analyze

For most companies, supply chain emissions data is scattered, outdated, and full of gaps.

That’s where Planckton’s use of AI becomes transformative.

  • It standardizes data from multiple suppliers, geographies, and formats.
  • It uses probabilistic models to fill in the blanks when suppliers don’t provide details.
  • It applies industry-specific product category rules (PCRs) and aligns them with evolving global frameworks like ISO standards and GHG Protocol.
  • It helps companies model decarbonization pathways, not just calculate baselines.

This isn’t generative AI for show. It’s applied machine learning with a purpose: helping large industrial players move from reporting to real action.

And it’s not a side tool. For many of Planckton’s clients, it’s becoming the foundation of their sustainability strategy.

From boardrooms to smokestacks: Where the pressure is coming from

Planckton isn’t just chasing early adopters. They’re helping midstream and upstream industrial suppliers respond to pressure coming from two directions:

  1. Downstream consumer brands—especially in cosmetics, retail, and CPG—are demanding footprint data from every input supplier.
  2. Upstream regulations—especially in Europe—are introducing reporting requirements, carbon taxes, and supply chain disclosure laws.

The team gave a real-world example: a shampoo brand wants to differentiate based on lower emissions. That pressure flows up the value chain to the chemical suppliers. Who, in turn, must track data back to their own suppliers.

It’s a game of carbon traceability—and Planckton helps make it possible.

Why Planckton focused on chemicals first

With backgrounds at Infosys and McKinsey, Robin and Sandeep know how to navigate large-scale digital transformations. They also know that industry specificity matters—especially in sustainability.

So they chose to focus first on the chemicals sector—a space where:

  • Supply chains are complex and often opaque.
  • Product formulations are sensitive.
  • And pressure from cosmetics, packaging, and consumer brands is pushing for measurable, auditable impact data.

It’s a wedge into other verticals like energy, plastics, fertilizers, and industrial manufacturing—but one that’s already showing results.

Carbon accounting needs a financial system

What makes this conversation unique isn’t just the product. It’s the co-founders’ view of the ecosystem.

They see a world where sustainability reporting becomes as robust as financial reporting. Where every company knows its Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions the way it knows revenue, gross margin, and EBITDA.

But that world doesn’t exist yet. The data infrastructure isn’t there. The standards are still in flux. And the tooling—until recently—was clunky, manual, and impossible to scale.

Planckton is building that infrastructure—starting with the industries that need it most.

Houston as a launchpad (not just a legacy hub)

Though Planckton has global ambitions, its roots in Houston matter.

The city’s legacy in energy and chemicals gives it a unique edge in understanding real-world industrial challenges. And the growing ecosystem around energy transition—investors, incubators, and founders—is helping companies like Planckton move fast.

“We thought we’d have to move to San Francisco,” Robin shares. “But the resources we needed were already here—just waiting to be activated.”

The future of sustainability is measurable—and monetizable

The takeaway from this episode is clear: measuring your carbon footprint isn’t just good PR—it’s increasingly tied to market access, regulatory approval, and bottom-line efficiency.

And the companies that embrace this shift now—using platforms like Planckton—won’t just stay compliant. They’ll gain a competitive edge.

Listen to the full conversation with Planckton Data on the Energy Tech Startups Podcast:

Hosted by Jason Ethier and Nada Ahmed, the Digital Wildcatters’ podcast, Energy Tech Startups, delves into Houston's pivotal role in the energy transition, spotlighting entrepreneurs and industry leaders shaping a low-carbon future.


Gold H2 harvests clean hydrogen from depleted California reservoirs in first field trial

breakthrough trial

Houston climatech company Gold H2 completed its first field trial that demonstrates subsurface bio-stimulated hydrogen production, which leverages microbiology and existing infrastructure to produce clean hydrogen.

Gold H2 is a spinoff of another Houston biotech company, Cemvita.

“When we compare our tech to the rest of the stack, I think we blow the competition out of the water," Prabhdeep Singh Sekhon, CEO of Gold H2 Sekhon previously told Energy Capital.

The project represented the first-of-its-kind application of Gold H2’s proprietary biotechnology, which generates hydrogen from depleted oil reservoirs, eliminating the need for new drilling, electrolysis or energy-intensive surface facilities. The Woodlands-based ChampionX LLC served as the oilfield services provider, and the trial was conducted in an oilfield in California’s San Joaquin Basin.

According to the company, Gold H2’s technology could yield up to 250 billion kilograms of low-carbon hydrogen, which is estimated to provide enough clean power to Los Angeles for over 50 years and avoid roughly 1 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent.

“This field trial is tangible proof. We’ve taken a climate liability and turned it into a scalable, low-cost hydrogen solution,” Sekhon said in a news release. “It’s a new blueprint for decarbonization, built for speed, affordability, and global impact.”

Highlights of the trial include:

  • First-ever demonstration of biologically stimulated hydrogen generation at commercial field scale with unprecedented results of 40 percent H2 in the gas stream.
  • Demonstrated how end-of-life oilfield liabilities can be repurposed into hydrogen-producing assets.
  • The trial achieved 400,000 ppm of hydrogen in produced gases, which, according to the company,y is an “unprecedented concentration for a huff-and-puff style operation and a strong indicator of just how robust the process can perform under real-world conditions.”
  • The field trial marked readiness for commercial deployment with targeted hydrogen production costs below $0.50/kg.

“This breakthrough isn’t just a step forward, it’s a leap toward climate impact at scale,” Jillian Evanko, CEO and president at Chart Industries Inc., Gold H2 investor and advisor, added in the release. “By turning depleted oil fields into clean hydrogen generators, Gold H2 has provided a roadmap to produce low-cost, low-carbon energy using the very infrastructure that powered the last century. This changes the game for how the world can decarbonize heavy industry, power grids, and economies, faster and more affordably than we ever thought possible.”