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

Policy adviser tapped to lead ‘nuclear renaissance’ in Texas

going nuclear

As Texas places a $350 million bet on nuclear energy, a budget and policy adviser for Gov. Greg Abbott has been tapped to head the newly created Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office.

Jarred Shaffer is now director of the nuclear energy office, which administers the $350 million Texas Advanced Nuclear Development Fund. The fund will distribute grants earmarked for the development of more nuclear reactors in Texas.

Abbott said Shaffer’s expertise in energy will help Texas streamline nuclear regulations and guide “direct investments to spur a flourishing and competitive nuclear power industry in the Lone Star State. Texas will lead the nuclear renaissance.”

The Texas Nuclear Alliance says growth of nuclear power in the U.S. has stalled while China and Russia have made significant gains in the nuclear sector.

“As Texas considers its energy future, the time has come to invest in nuclear power — an energy source capable of ensuring grid reliability, economic opportunity, and energy and national security,” Reed Clay, president of the alliance, said.

“Texas is entering a pivotal moment and has a unique opportunity to lead. The rise of artificial intelligence and a rebounding manufacturing base will place unprecedented demands on our electricity infrastructure,” Clay added. “Meeting this moment will require consistent, dependable power, and with our business-friendly climate, streamlined regulatory processes, and energy-savvy workforce, we are well-positioned to become the hub for next-generation nuclear development.”

Abbott’s push for increased reliance on nuclear power in Texas comes as public support for the energy source grows. A 2024 survey commissioned by the Texas Public Policy Institute found 55 percent of Texans support nuclear energy. Nationwide support for nuclear power is even higher. A 2024 survey conducted by Bisconti Research showed a record-high 77 percent of Americans support nuclear energy.

Nuclear power accounted for 7.5 percent of Texas’ electricity as of 2024, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, but made up a little over 20 percent of the state’s clean energy. Currently, four traditional reactors produce nuclear power at two plants in Texas. The total capacity of the four nuclear reactors is nearly 5,000 megawatts.

Because large nuclear plants take years to license and build, small factory-made modular reactors will meet much of the shorter-term demand for nuclear energy. A small modular reactor has a power capacity of up to 300 megawatts. That’s about one-third of the generating power of a traditional nuclear reactor, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

A report from BofA Global Research predicts the global market for small nuclear reactors could reach $1 trillion by 2050. These reactors are cheaper and safer than their larger counterparts, and take less time to build and produce fewer CO2 emissions, according to the report.

Global nuclear capacity must triple in size by 2050 to keep up with energy demand tied to the rise of power-gobbling AI data centers, and to accomplish decarbonization and energy security goals, the BofA report says. Data centers could account for nine percent of U.S. electricity demand by 2035, up from about four percent today, according to BloombergNEF.

As the Energy Capital of the World, Houston stands to play a pivotal role in the evolution of small and large nuclear reactors in Texas and around the world. Here are just three of the nuclear power advancements that are happening in and around Houston:

Houston is poised to grab a big chunk of the more than 100,000 jobs and more than $50 billion in economic benefits that Jimmy Glotfelty, a former member of the Texas Public Utility Commission, predicts Texas will gain from the state’s nuclear boom. He said nuclear energy legislation signed into law this year by Abbott will provide “a leg up on every other state” in the race to capitalize on the burgeoning nuclear economy.

“Everybody in the nuclear space would like to build plants here in Texas,” Inside Climate News quoted Glotfelty as saying. “We are the low-regulatory, low-cost state. We have the supply chain. We have the labor.”

6 must-attend Houston energy transition events in October 2025

Must-Attend Meetings

Editor's note: October is here, and there are many energy events to plug into in Houston this month. From summits and forums to global conferences, there are the energy events to put on your calendar. Learn more below, and register now.

Oct. 7-8: Annual Energy Summit — Resilience in Energy Supply Chains

The ninth annual energy summit is co-hosted by Baker Botts and the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University's Baker Institute. This year's theme, “Resilience in Energy Supply Chains,” will focus on what is shaping the future of energy, and how markets, innovation, and economic growth will define the evolution of global energy supply chains.

This two-day event begins Oct. 7 at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy. The event will also be livestreamed. Get tickets here.

Oct. 14: Current Trends in the Energy Industry

Join SABA and Vinson & Elkins LLP for an evening filled with insightful discussions and networking opportunities for seasoned professionals and those new to the energy industry. Learn from experts about the latest developments in the energy industry, sustainability efforts, and new policies shaping the future.

This event takes place at 6 pm at Vinson & Elkins LLP headquarters. Get tickets here.

Oct. 14-16: SAF North America

The leading event for the sustainable aviation fuel ecosystem is taking place in Houston, America’s fuel and energy hub. SAF North America brings together the SAF value chain under one roof for three days of high-level discussion. Attendees of the conference will hear from leading experts, who will provide insights on the aviation industry and discuss SAF scale-up, energy security, and pathways to decarbonize aviation in North America. There will also be dynamic exhibitions and networking opportunities.

This event begins Oct. 14 at the Marriott Marquis. Register here.

Oct. 16: Future of Global Energy Conference

The Future of Global Energy Conference, presented by Shell USA, Inc., brings together leaders from across industry, academia, and government to explore the forces shaping the future of energy. Houston is leading the way in the energy sector, leveraging its deep industry expertise, unmatched energy ecosystem, and spirit of innovation. The 2025 conference will spotlight Houston’s ongoing leadership in policy, technology development, and project execution that position the region for long-term success.

This event begins at 8:30 am at Hilton Americas. Register here.

Oct. 21-23: Energy Independence Summit

At Infocast’s inaugural Energy Independence Summit, top leaders across energy, finance, and policy will convene to evaluate where the energy market is headed next. Attendees will gain critical insights into how capital is being deployed, which technologies are emerging as the most viable under OBBBA, how domestic supply chains are affecting costs and timelines, and what regulatory levers may help stabilize the sector. The summit will feature 100 speakers, 24 sessions, networking opportunities, and more.

This event takes place Oct. 21 at the C. Baldwin, Curio Collection by Hilton. Register here.

Oct. 29: 2025 Global Energy Summit

Hosted by the World Affairs Council of Greater Houston, the Global Energy Summit examines the dynamic forces shaping today’s energy landscape. Attendees will engage with a diverse set of industry experts and global thought leaders on the future of energy security, access, and technological advancement. Opening remarks will be made by Cristina Saenz de Santa Maria, COO Maritime of DNV, followed by panel discussions featuring speakers from DNV, Accenture, Amazon Web Services, Center for Houston’s Future, Siemens, SLB, and NRG.

This event begins at 5 pm on Oct. 29 at the Omni Houston. Get tickets here.

Fervo Energy spotlighted by Bill Gates as geothermal’s global growth driver

geothermal predictions

In a new blog post spotlighting Houston-based geothermal power startup Fervo Energy, billionaire Bill Gates — a Fervo investor — predicts geothermal will eventually supply up to 20 percent of the world’s electricity, up from his previous estimate of as much as 5 percent.

Today, geothermal accounts for less than 1 percent of electricity generated around the world, according to the International Energy Agency. The agency forecasts geothermal will represent up to 15 percent of global power by 2050.

“Geothermal power will have a big role to play in our clean energy future, and it’s exciting to see companies like Fervo push the technology to new depths,” Gates wrote.

Gates’ more than $1 billion Breakthrough Energy Ventures fund has contributed to the $982 million pool of money that Fervo has raised since its founding in 2017. Fervo is now a unicorn, meaning its valuation as a private company exceeds $1 billion. Its valuation has been estimated at $1.4 billion.

The Microsoft billionaire published the blog post on his Gates Notes website after touring the site of Fervo’s Cape Station geothermal project, which is under construction in Utah. Fervo says Cape Station will be the world’s largest geothermal plant, capable of someday producing up to 2 gigawatts of power.

Earlier this year, Fervo raised $206 million to put toward the development of Cape Station. Of that amount, $100 million came from Breakthrough Energy Catalyst, a green tech investment program backed by Gates, according to Inc.com.

The first phase of Cape Station is scheduled to be completed in 2026, with first-year power generation pegged at 100 megawatts. An additional 500 megawatts of power-producing capacity is slated to go online in 2028.

“Geothermal is one of the most promising ways to deliver clean energy that’s reliable and affordable,” Gates wrote.

In the blog post, Gates praised the simplicity of geothermal energy.

“The interior of the Earth is incredibly hot, and the deeper you go, the hotter the ground becomes,” he explained. “If you pump fluid deep enough to be warmed by this heat and then pump it back to the surface, you can turn the hot liquid into steam and use it to spin turbines and generate electricity — just like many other types of power plants.”

Gates noted that horizontal drilling is one of Fervo’s biggest innovations. The company extends its wells horizontally by as much as 5,000 feet at the deepest point. It couples horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to extract geothermal energy from rock formations.

Most wells at Cape Station are 8,000 to 9,000 feet deep, and the deepest one is 15,000 feet below the surface, Gates pointed out.

Gates also emphasized the water-conserving, closed-system setup at Cape Station.

“Geothermal energy is one of the more climate-friendly sources of power, but one of its downsides is how much water it uses. … Fervo’s technology captures all the water that would’ve been lost and recirculates it underground to keep the system running,” he wrote.