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

7 Houston energy-focused businesses among Time's best midsize companies 2025

new report

Seven Houston-based businesses focused on the energy industry appear on Time magazine and Statista’s new ranking of the country’s best midsize companies.

Time and Statista ranked companies based on employee satisfaction, revenue growth, and transparency about sustainability. All 500 companies on the list have annual revenue from $100 million to $10 billion.

The Houston energy-focused companies on the list are:

  • No. 141 MRC Global. Score: 85.84
  • No. 176 National Oilwell Varco. Score: 84.50
  • No. 266 Nabor Industries. Score: 81.59
  • No. 296 Archrock. Score: 80.17
  • No. 327 Superior Energy Services. Score: 79.38
  • No. 359 CenterPoint Energy. Score: 78.02
  • No. 461 Oceaneering. Score: 73.87
In total, 13 Houston-based businesses appear, with Houston engineering firm KBR topping the Texas businesses that made the list. KBR earned the No. 30 spot, earning a score of 91.53 out of 100. It is joined by these other Houston companies:
     
  • No. 168 Comfort Systems USA. Score: 84.72
  • No. 175 Crown Castle. Score: 84.51
  • No. 234 Kirby. Score: 82.48
  • No. 332 Insperity. Score: 79.15
  • No. 485 Skyward Specialty Insurance. Score: 73.15

Additional Texas companies on the list include:

  • No. 95 Austin-based Natera. Score: 87.26
  • No. 199 Plano-based Tyler Technologies. Score: 86.49
  • No. 139 McKinney-based Globe Life. Score: 85.88
  • No. 140 Dallas-based Trinity Industries. Score: 85.87
  • No. 149 Southlake-based Sabre. Score: 85.58
  • No. 223 Dallas-based Brinker International. Score: 82.87
  • No. 226 Irving-based Darling Ingredients. Score: 82.86
  • No. 256 Dallas-based Copart. Score: 81.78
  • No. 276 Coppell-based Brink’s. Score: 80.90
  • No. 279 Dallas-based Topgolf. Score: 80.79
  • No. 294 Richardson-based Lennox. Score: 80.22
  • No. 308 Dallas-based Primoris Services. Score: 79.96
  • No. 322 Dallas-based Wingstop Restaurants. Score: 79.49
  • No. 335 Fort Worth-based Omnicell. Score: 78.95
  • No. 337 Plano-based Cinemark. Score: 78.91
  • No. 345 Dallas-based Dave & Buster’s. Score: 78.64
  • No. 349 Dallas-based ATI. Score: 78.44
  • No. 385 Frisco-based Addus HomeCare. Score: 76.86
  • No. 414 New Braunfels-based Rush Enterprises. Score: 75.75
  • No. 431 Dallas-based Comerica Bank. Score: 75.20
  • No. 439 Austin-based Q2 Software. Score: 74.85
  • No. 458 San Antonio-based Frost Bank. Score: 73.94
  • No. 475 Fort Worth-based FirstCash. Score: 73.39
  • No. 498 Irving-based Nexstar Broadcasting Group. Score: 72.71
---
This article originally appeared on our sister site, InnovationMap.

TEX-E names Houston VC leader as new executive director

new hire

The Texas Exchange for Energy & Climate Entrepreneurship (TEX-E) has named Houston venture capital and innovation leader Sandy Guitar as its new executive director.

Guitar succeeds David Pruner, who will move into the board chair role.

Guitar previously served as general partner and managing director at Houston-based VC firm HX Venture Fund and is co-founder of Weathergage Capital. She also sits on the advisory board of Rice University's Liu Idea Lab for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Lilie) and launched the Women Investing in VC in Houston group.

In a LinkedIn post, Guitar shared that she's looking forward to bringing her problem-solving skills to the energy transition.

"Innovating in the energy sector is as significant and intricate a problem as I have ever worked on — one that demands creativity, collaboration, and resourcefulness at every turn," she shared.

"I'm honored to join TEX-E at such a pivotal time in the energy transition," she added in a news release. "Energy and climate innovation is accelerating at the intersection of brilliant minds and bold ideas. I'm excited to help TEX-E amplify that collision between students who think differently and the real-world problems that demand fresh solutions."

According to TEX-E, Guitar will continue to lead the organization's programming that aims to connect student climate entrepreneurs with "industry reality."

"Sandy understands the complexities of the Texas energy ecosystem and brings a forward-looking vision for how related innovation can drive meaningful, lasting impact. She's exactly the leader we need to take TEX-E to the next level and help create the next generation of energy transition innovators," David Baldwin, TEX-E board member, added in the release.

TEX-E was founded in 2022 through partnerships with MIT Martin Trust Center for Entrepreneurship and Greentown Labs. It works with university students from six schools: Rice University, University of Houston, Prairie View A&M University, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University and MIT.

It's known for its student track within the Energy Venture Day and Pitch Competition at CERAWeek, which awarded $25,000 to HEXASpec, a Rice University-led team, at the 2025 event. It also hosted its inaugural TEX-E Conference, centered on the theme of Energy & Entrepreneurship: Navigating the Future of Climate Tech, earlier this year.

Expert: Debunking the myth that Texas doesn't care about renewable energy

Guest Column

When most people think about Texas, wind turbines and solar panels may not be the first images that come to mind. But in reality, the state now leads the nation in both wind-powered electricity generation and utility-scale solar capacity. In 2024 alone, Texas added approximately 9,700 megawatts of solar and 4,374 megawatts of battery storage, outpacing all other energy sources in new generation capacity that year. So what’s driving Texas’ rapid rise as the renewable energy capital of the United States?

Leader in wind energy

Texas has been a national leader in wind energy for more than a decade, thanks to its vast open landscapes and consistent wind conditions, particularly in regions like West Texas and the Panhandle. These ideal geographic features have enabled the development of massive wind farms, giving Texas the largest installed wind capacity in the United States. Wind energy also plays a strategic role in balancing the grid and complements solar energy well, as it often peaks at night when solar output drops.

Battery storage growth

Increasing battery storage capacity is unlocking more potential from solar and wind. When intermittent energy sources like wind and solar go offline, batteries release stored electricity and provide stability to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas system. Excluding California, Texas has more battery storage than the rest of the United States combined, accounting for over 32% of all the capacity installed nationwide.

Solar electricity generation and utility-scale batteries within ERCOT power grid set records in summer 2024. Between June 1 and August 31, solar contributed nearly 25% of total power demand during mid-day hours. In the evening, as demand stayed high but solar output declined, battery discharges successfully filled the gap. Battery storage solutions are now a core element of ERCOT’s future capacity and demand planning.

Interest in creating a hydrogen economy

Texas is well positioned to become a national hub in the hydrogen economy. The state has everything needed to lead in this emerging space with low-cost natural gas, abundant and growing low carbon electricity, geology well suited for hydrogen and carbon storage, mature hydrogen demand centers, existing hydrogen pipelines, established port infrastructure and more. The state already has an existing hydrogen market with two-thirds of the country’s hydrogen transport infrastructure.

In 2023, the Texas Legislature created the Texas Hydrogen Production Policy Council, which found that:

  • Hydrogen could represent a grid-scale energy storage solution that can help support the increased development of renewable electricity from wind and solar. Renewable electricity that is converted to hydrogen can improve overall grid reliability, resilience and dispatchability.
  • The development of the hydrogen industry, along with its supporting infrastructure and its downstream markets within Texas, could attract billions of dollars of investment. This development may create hundreds of thousands of jobs - especially with younger generations who are passionate about climate science - and greatly boost the Texas economy.
  • Hydrogen supports the current energy economy in Texas as a critical component to both conventional refining and the growing production of new biofuels (such as renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel) within the state.

Legislative action and pressure to reduce carbon emissions

Texas has also seen key legislative actions and policies that have supported the growth of renewable energy in Texas. During the most recent legislative session, lawmakers decided that The Texas Energy Fund, a low-interest loan program aimed at encouraging companies to build more power infrastructure, will receive an additional $5 billion on top of the $5 billion lawmakers approved in 2023. Of that amount, $1.8 billion is earmarked to strengthen existing backup generators, which must be powered by a combination of solar, battery storage and natural gas. These funds signal growing institutional support for a diversified and more resilient energy grid.

Furthermore, there is growing pressure from investors, regulators and consumers to reduce carbon emissions, and as a result, private equity firms in the oil and gas sector are diversifying their portfolios to include wind, solar, battery storage and carbon capture projects. In 2022, private equity investment in renewable energy and clean technology surged to a record-high $26 billion.

The future of the renewable energy workforce

With renewable energy jobs projected to grow to 38 million globally by 2030, the sector is poised to be one of the most promising career landscapes of the future. Given that young people today are increasingly environmentally conscious, there is a powerful opportunity to engage students early and help them see how their values align with meaningful, purpose-driven careers in clean energy. Organizations like the Energy Education Foundation play a vital role in this effort by providing accessible, high-quality resources that bridge the gap between energy literacy and real-world impact. The nonprofit employs comprehensive, science-based educational initiatives to help students and educators explore complex energy topics through clear explanations and engaging learning tools, laying a strong foundation for informed, future-ready learners.

STEM and AI education, which are reshaping how young people think, build, and solve problems, provide a natural gateway into the renewable energy field. From robotics and coding to climate modeling and sustainable engineering, these learning experiences equip students with the critical skills and mindsets needed to thrive in a rapidly evolving energy economy. By investing in engaging, future-focused learning environments now and through leveraging trusted educational partners, like the Energy Education Foundation, we can help ensure that the next generation of learners are not just prepared to enter the clean energy workforce but are empowered to lead it.

With its rapidly growing wind, solar, battery and hydrogen sectors, Texas is redefining its energy identity. To sustain this momentum, the state must continue aligning education, policy, and innovation—not only to meet the energy demands of tomorrow, but to inspire and equip the next generation to lead the way toward a more sustainable, resilient and inclusive energy future.

---

Kristen Barley is the executive director of the Energy Education Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to inspiring the next generation of energy leaders by providing comprehensive, engaging education that spans the entire energy spectrum.