The End of Climate-Change Idealism: Facing Geopolitical and Economic Reality
Geopolitical and economic reality is overwhelming climate policies. When economies tighten, climate takes a backseat.
Biden poured billions into renewables, but Trump is flipping the script—slashing EV and clean energy support in favor of fossil fuels. Germany, once the poster child for decarbonization, is shifting focus to security and migration. Billions in climate subsidies are frozen, hydrogen and green steel projects are stalled, and conservatives plan to gut funding, leaving industry on edge.
China just launched its biggest coal-power buildout in a decade. Renewable advocates don’t get it. Intermittent power needs backup, which means more fossil fuels, not less. If renewables can’t stand on their own, what’s the point?
Japan remains hooked on coal and gas, needing a 73% emissions cut by 2035 to meet its stated climate goals; yet AI, data centers, and chip factories push power consumption higher. Argentina and Indonesia are questioning whether the Paris Agreement is worth the cost. Austria’s far-right is pushing climate off the table.
Geopolitics and Economic Pressures Are Moving Climate Policy to the Sidelines
In Europe and OECD countries, climate concerns are being drowned out by more immediate crises—tariffs, trade wars, inflation, and higher energy costs. People want relief, not long-term climate plans. Immigration, crime, and populist battles dominate political debates, while fractured coalitions, fading old-guard parties, and leadership crises make action even harder.
At the recent Munich Security Conference, U.S. Vice President JD Vance made it clear: Europe can’t keep riding on America’s defense budget.
“We have to grow up in that sense and spend much more.”
Translation—Europe needs to step up. That means spending money it doesn’t have. France and Italy—Europe’s largest economies after Germany—are already breaking EU fiscal rules on debt limits. They can’t boost defense spending without slashing other programs. The same goes for Belgium and Greece.
NATO’s Mark Rutte says Europe needs to spend well over 3% of GDP on defense, a shift that would require at least €230 billion more every year—a steep price for nations already stretched thin by energy costs, inflation, and economic stagnation.
Defense spending isn’t optional anymore. Europe either builds its own military or learns to live with the consequences. When survival politics take over, climate goals don’t stand a chance.
Mario Draghi has gone further saying that Europe has neglected funding its own productivity for years. He warned that closing the gap will take €750-800 billion a year.
“The share of investment in GDP would have to rise to levels not seen in Europe since the 1960s and 70s. The effort would be more than double that of the Marshall Plan.”
Europe can’t afford to keep funding programs that don’t drive growth—and unfortunately, climate change falls into that category.
Geopolitical Reality Always Wins
Michael Every argues that economic policy thrives when times are good—when crises hit, realism and economic statecraft take over.
“A more geopolitical world, by definition, should arguably preclude sole reliance on business-as-usual economic or market thinking.”
“One should start by asking what a state’s key interests are in a challenging geopolitical environment; what its grand strategy is; then considering if this can be achieved best with economic policy, or idealist or realist economic statecraft.
Rising energy nationalism, U.S.-China tensions, and supply chain instability mean energy isn’t just an environmental issue—it’s a strategic asset. Nations that ignore this are fooling themselves.
A realistic approach to economic statecraft starts with national interests, not abstract decarbonization goals. In a multipolar world, energy policy is shaped by security concerns and industrial strategy, not wishful thinking. Reality beats idealism every time.
Energy Idealism vs. Reality
The physics of energy matters. Renewables have promise but lack the density, storage, and infrastructure to replace fossil fuels on a political timeline. Betting energy security on wind and solar without a reliable baseload (fossil fuels or nuclear) is energy idealism—and in the real world, idealism doesn’t keep the lights on.
But electricity is only 21% of final energy use—and that’s where the energy transition fantasy really falls apart (Figure 1).
Mining, shipping, trucking, rail, and militaries run on oil—not solar panels and wind farms. That isn’t changing fast enough to matter, especially when voters care more about paying their bills than cutting emissions.
A Realist Energy Strategy
A geopolitical, realist-driven energy policy doesn’t reject renewables—it just treats them differently.
Scaling up wind and solar requires massive investment in grids, storage, and minerals like lithium, cobalt, and copper. Energy security conflicts with globalized renewable supply chains. Countries swapping oil and gas dependence for Chinese solar panels and battery components are just trading one dependency for another.
When economies tighten, affordability beats emissions targets every time. Geopolitical shocks—Ukraine, Taiwan, Red Sea disruptions—expose the cracks in energy transition plans. This is why fossil fuels remain central to energy security, no matter what the idealists believe.
The Missing Piece: Energy Realism
Energy needs come first—climate targets come second. Think of it like a power law: oil delivers 80% of energy, electricity 20%—which one is more important?
Renewables? Just 15% of that electricity slice. Wind and solar make up just 3% of total energy supply—and they’re not pulling their weight. After decades of waiting for the rookies to deliver, the crowd is done cheering.
In a multipolar, crisis-prone world, energy policy isn’t about ideological commitments to decarbonization—it’s about power and survival.
I don’t say this lightly. I want a livable planet, too. But the last twenty years show that we have to work with reality, not against it. A successful approach to living within planetary boundaries means acknowledging challenges, adapting strategies, and making sure the path forward is not just aspirational—but achievable.
Climate Change is a Failed Paradigm
Climate change is a systemic crisis fueled by carbon emissions from human expansion. That’s a concept—a single idea that explains a phenomenon.
Climate change is a systemic crisis solved by switching to renewables. That’s a paradigm—a system of thought that shapes how we interpret reality and approach solutions.
The concept of climate change is undeniable. The climate change paradigm has failed.
It’s failed because switching to renewables hasn’t reversed rising emissions or temperatures—despite more than $3 trillion spent since 2020 (Figure 2).
Emissions and temperature move together, and renewables haven’t broken that link (Figure 2). Arguing that it could have been worse isn’t convincing.
The data is clear—we’re in deep trouble. Wishful thinking won’t change that.
This is the right paradigm:
Human expansion beyond planetary limits has pushed Earth’s systems to the brink. The solution isn’t just new technology—it’s a fundamental shift in how we think about energy and resources, and how we relate to Nature—and to our own nature.
It’s time to broaden our perspective. Climate change matters, but it’s not the only crisis, nor is it the only thing that matters. Even among those who care about the Earth, few understand how recent and fragile our wealth—our stored energy—really is.
It was a lucky break. About 10,000 years ago, Earth’s climate stabilized just enough to make agriculture possible.That stability created the first real surpluses any species had ever known—and it changed everything for humans.Then came fossil fuels and the carbon pulse, putting our species on steroids.
Now, our impact on Earth’s ecosystems is unraveling the very stability that made civilization possible. Yet some mistakenly believe a hotter world means more abundance—as if higher temperatures alone will lead to more food.
They fail to see the bigger picture. The natural systems that allowed surplus to exist in the first place—stable seasons, predictable rainfall, fertile soils—are finely tuned to the climate we’ve known. Push past that threshold, and surplus turns to scarcity.
Ecosystem collapse, geopolitical instability, wars, and an overextended financial system propped up by unsustainable claims on energy and materials—these crises are not separate, but deeply connected. There are many battles ahead, and climate change isn’t the only one worth fighting.
I don’t know the future, but I do know this: we have to let go of a failed climate paradigm. Renewables weren’t the answer. Depressing? Maybe. But it’s a far better, more honest path than clinging to solutions we already know don’t work.
Like Art's Work?
Share this Post:
Read More Posts
my friends and I have been following the energy transition for years. we recognized years ago, that the Paris accords and the renewables, and decarbonization transition were headed to failure for the very reasons that you cite. Based on what your saying here, the warming could get worse faster than the IPCC forecasts. the 1.5 degree limit has been exceeded for the last 20 months
Steve,
Climate change is now on autopilot, with nature calling the shots. We acted too late and took the wrong path with renewables, ignoring the real issues of energy consumption and growth—-not that tackling those had much political probability either.
All the best,
Art
Energy isn’t just an environmental issue—it’s a strategic asset. Absolutely, which is one reason why Europe will continue to pursue the electrify path. When you do not have indigenous, copious supplies of hydrocarbons that means relying upon unreliable states in the Middle East, Russia and now the US, who use the supplies to blackmail, coerce and drain wealth, the cost (ignoring any climate effects) is too great. If monies do not leave the economy to go to those states then we are all the richer. China is on the same trajectory for the same reasons.
You also ignore the efficiency side of the coin, for example running a car on electricty uses far less energy than a petrol/gas car which is generally only about 25% efficient in real world conditions.
J,
Europe ignores its offshoring of carbon emissions and its pathetic dependence on China for the components for its green delusions.
All the best,
Art
In the end Planet Earth will become uninhabitable for all life forms but a laudable aspiration could be to extend the habitable era for as long as possible but little indication at present of the degree of cooperation needed to extend its habitable faze. I doubt the cosmos is too bothered about its destiny
David,
I believe that your vision is possible but unlikely.
All the best,
Art
Wind and solar have one significant short- and intermediate-term problem. They can’t be efficiently backed up with any energy source, not even natural gas. Economic batteries would need to be developed. Nations must move to free markets. They should also provide all possible energy sources with equal subsidies, because it would be an economic disaster to remove all environmental exemptions and subsidies from oil and gas at this time.
Mike,
It’s really important that you stop chasing solutions. Please read “Solutions: The Art of Avoiding Reality”
https://www.artberman.com/blog/solutions-the-art-of-avoiding-reality/
All the best,
Art
Art,
Your opinion on geoengineering (aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening, etc.) as a temporary/stop-gap solution to climate change? I am of the opinion that cascading climate events in the near-future will result in governments attempting this.
Fitz,
Stupid solutions abound among reductionist mini-minds. These will compound the predicament and cost $billions (adding to GDP–hooray).
All the best,
Art
Well here we are. Good luck to Europe! Europe was always living and spending on social safety nets in the hope that their American master wouldn’t ever pull the plug on them. It was bound to happen some day. Trump is just an accidental trigger.
Denial only lasts so long.
The first time I read about “green steel”, I almost choked. A movement that bases it’s ideology on such oxymorons cannot survive very long either. Reality will hit at some point.
All of this doesn’t matter of course. These are just small anecdotes in the winding down of our one-off, fossil fuel powered global civilization. More dramatic events are going to happen along the way. Very few people will be prepared for what’s coming.
Good luck to all of us.
Ray,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Europe is in a delusional parallel universe for energy.
All the best,
Art
Beautifully written, Art, thank you. I’ve started taking great care with language. I never say “fossil fuels”. I say “fossil hydrocarbons”. Those substances were not placed on Mother Earth specially for us to burn. I never say “renewables”, or even “rebuildables” as my idol, Nate Hagens, calls them. I call them “intermittants”. I never say “natural resources” or “ecosystem services”. These imply that they are there just for the homo sapiens demi-gods to utilize. It’s “nature” and “ecosystems”, dammit. Humans are part of the web of life, which we are busily chopping into tatters. Sooner or later, a good chunk of humanity will simply fall out of the web, where it will crash and burn. Unfortunately, the most innocent seem to be dropping into the abyss first. At least locally, I seem to be making some headway with our local government on the idea of Community Resilience. Perhaps we can create pockets of sanity. Perhaps some pockets of sanity can survive the coming Troubles.
Robin,
I had nearly finished writing *The End of Climate-Change Idealism: Facing Geopolitical and Economic Reality* when Nate sent me something he’d just recorded for this Friday’s *Frankly.* An offhand comment he made about surpluses was exactly what I needed to tie together key elements of my post (he doesn’t even know that). He’s a real treasure, and I’m lucky to call him a friend.
All the best,
Art
Thorium energy may one day be the most common source of energy. It will take time.
In the mean time I am tired of renewables being pitted against fossil fuels…. just as I am with the political polarization that goes along with it. I like the idea of a natural gas “peaker ” plant. The gas turns on when the sunlight or wind “fails”. One single company can build both so they work together instead of competing.
Then maybe the gas can last long enough for thorium to prove itself… or not…. but I definitely have not given up.
This is an analogy, wishful thinking and a real possibility.
No, Wally, thorium will never be the dominant energy source.
I’d encourage you to step back from the search for solutions. That mindset—jumping to fixes without fully understanding the problem or long-term consequences—is exactly what got us here in the first place.
Anything that enables continued growth of the human project—no matter how “clean”—puts Earth’s ecosystems and the web of life at greater risk. That would be catastrophic for millions of species, whereas climate change, as severe as it is, primarily impacts just one.
Give it some thought.
All the best,
Art
I read somewhere that the “green movement ” was just a money grab by the elites.
While I have a solar array for a small workshop and have a electric scooter and heat with firewood ,I found on somedays you can’t use certain things like a oven because it drains the battery or run all the tools at once ,the population is used to instant access 24/7 as well as the system itself a prime example being the early morning wholesale food markets
AA,
Whatever the green movement was or is, it didn’t conduct very good due diligence about how effective renewable energy might be at mitigating emissions and temperature rises.
All the best,
Art
“Japan remains hooked on coal and gas, needing a 73% emissions cut by 2035 to meet its stated climate goals; yet AI, data centers, and chip factories push power consumption higher.”
“Climate change” is a cover story for the billions of tons of heavy metal (aluminum, barium, strontium, silicon, titanium, polymers, coal fly ash, etc.) nanotechnology biosensors sprayed into our atmosphere by planes, rockets, drones, ships and industry which makes the air we breathe electrically conductive for telecommunications, weather warfare, defense shielding and brainwave entrainment. There can be no honest conversation about climate change without mentioning geoengineering, weather warfare and ionosphere heaters such as HAARP (High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program) but stating that climate change is a failed paradigm is a good start.
Angie,
I think you may be giving too much weight to the modern internet version of Buck Rogers. “Geoengineering, weather warfare, and ionosphere heaters like HAARP” have no scientific basis (putting it generously).
All the best,
Art
Thinking about economic complexity, I wonder what kind of economy will emerge from current ‘geopolitical realities’, with arms races, military and corporate, and proxy and civil wars additionally weaponised with further industrial expansion eating resources? Who is going to be realistic enough to preserve currently profitable global supply chains including primary foods?
I think JM Greer was the first to publicly distinguish between a problem and a predicament. He also usefully pointed at history to distinguish between an empire and a civilisation. Empires usually come and go faster than civilisations. In these accelerating times, four years might see a reality moment?
Philip,
John Michael Greer has always been a beacon of clarity for me.
Our civilization has lost touch with Nature and our own natures. That was not true for most of human history, and not even for the first millennium or so of civilization.
You may find this post useful: “Populism: The Fourth Horseman of The Coming Decade” especially the sections on “collective neurosis” and “my kingdom for a horse.”
https://www.artberman.com/blog/populism-the-fourth-horseman-of-the-coming-decade/
All the best,
Art
I think the mythological/storytelling foundation of your last post must be married to an understanding of energy along the lines which you articulate here. I listened to your lecture to Texas educators. Young children can get this stuff. It can be presented to children before the age of 12 in an interactive game, story, or artistic approach. This can be part of a curriculum each year from third to eighth grade. Maybe a week a year. William Rees said that children understood his ecological footprint concept. I think your analogy of pedaling the bicycle and “power” is simple and effective. I got it, and I’m not a scientist. My worry is that the current move away from the liberal arts will only increase psychic and social fragmentation. I agree the way forward is not rushing to solutions, but first understanding the foundational issues regarding earth systems, energy, overshoot and psychic wholeness. It should begin in grade school. I was born in the early 1950s and educated as an artist, yet I was definitely “energy blind”—even though I was aware of my connection with the early humans, of whom it was said that one of the earliest things we know about them is that they could draw. Thanks for your work.
Joseph,
Bill Rees is a friend of mine!
Children are able to grasp what they will be unable to understand in a few years, once their intuitive connection with the unconscious is squashed by the very educational system that you and I support.
I recommend this post from last year: “Populism: The Fourth Horseman of The Coming Decade” especially the sections on “collective neurosis” and “my kingdom for a horse.”
https://www.artberman.com/blog/populism-the-fourth-horseman-of-the-coming-decade/
All the best,
Art
Art
Hope all is well. Well written. If I recall from our coffee talks, realistic optimism was mentioned which is a good place to be. I would say most humans want the best for themselves and others without pain and suffering however until reality shows up at door it’s all “eh, not my problem”. Preaching to the choir.
Cheers.
Hi Fritz,
It’s good to hear from you.
“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” (The more things change, the more they’re the same”).
All the best,
Art
Solar Minimum
https://www.freespeechbacklash.com/article/grand-solar-minimum-here
Nonsense, David.
Read a book.
Art
hello Art
I read that current CO2 levels in the near surface atmoshpere have significantly contributed to increased food production.
Well as a traditional geologist I rejected the idea of a marginal increase in CO2 levels to be apocolyptic anyway.
So hell let’s return to reality – how can we sustain oli and gas production efficiently – and you can forget fracking – too crude for words. How about re-examining those ‘depleted’ fields ?
Keep young and keep going Best regards Jim Pontin
Jim,
That’s completely incorrect.
It’s clear you either didn’t read or didn’t understand the part of the post that directly refuted the false claim that more CO2 and higher temperatures will make the world better off.
Frankly, it’s disappointing to hear such a misinformed view from an earth scientist.
Art
A number of years ago, I stood on the edge of an open pit coal mine in the Four Corners area and saw the huge electrical cables powering the drag lines. The electric haul trucks were taking the coal to an electric coal train. On the horizon, the coal-fired generating stations were bathed in mushroom-shaped clouds of steam. It was both apocalyptic and prophetic.
Robyn,
Coal mining machines remind me of Star Wars “walkers.”
All the best,
Art
Very well written/presented.
While I agree with your assessment(s), I feel this post should be subtitled, “For a whole host of really good reasons, humanity chooses the path of inevitable / eventual hard collapse caused by climate chaos”.
Janet,
Thanks for your comments. Your suggested title exceeds the attention span of many modern humans.
All the best,
Art
Why do I never hear the so called “realists” talk about the fundamental necessity of resilience? As nature has proven over and over that systems that don’t (at 1:3 or higher efficiency-resilience ratios) simply go extinct. Watch the brilliant late Bernard Lietaer explain Robert Ulanowicz’s take on the sustainability of complex networks….https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiY3s2OglV4 (at 21:07)
How many cities have ever performed decent stress tests? For example, something simple like a sudden and extended drop of 10-15% in the supply of diesel…..The results might shock them enough to realize that there is no dichotomy, only strategy on how to survive both the short and long term time scales. The one must support the other or the results become the same.
Gerald,
Realist thinking is rare because it conflicts with the version of reality that people prefer.
As my friends Nate Hagens and DJ White wrote, “Solar panels and wind turbines can power a perfectly good civilization for quite some time, just not this one.”
All the best,
Art
Great article Art,
Laying down the hard truth on the predicament we face.
As you and Scott have pointed out, renewables are not a solution and as I understand things, there are no solutions. Some will say ‘never say never.’ But time is short, too short for any fixes. All there is left to do is to prepare for the inevitable outcome and to minimize suffering. I think a big part of that will be what you have laid out about energy security, oil. Without it, we’re gone much sooner with increased suffering.
Brad,
What you’ve described is the only realistic path forward. I’ve never understood the obsession with solutions when, in daily life, we mostly navigate without them—and that’s never caused much anxiety.
All the best,
Art
Putting aside the impossibility of selling the idea politically, the only solution would seem to be working out how we can live on around 80% less energy. Is that your view?
Andrew,
Have you ever needed a solution just to get from one year to the next, or even one day to the next? Why the obsession with solutions when, in reality, we’ve always found ways to carry on without them?
I am not criticizing—just offering a different perspective.
All the best,
Art
I remember thinking that all we had to do was build up wind turbines and solar panels. Then I listened to Simon Micheaux and read the book “Bright Green Lies”. I have been living in a world free of any simple solutions to cling to. I think we should be trying whatever we can to strengthen our local communities. I think that will make us more resilient as some of our systems become less reliable. It’s also just a more natural and meaningful way for humans to live.
Scott,
You have a clear view of things!
All the best,
Art
I agree, renewables are a failed climate paradigm. It can’t be a valid solution for the poly-crisis we face today. For whatever reason that have conducted us in this blocked future, in spite of whatever scapegoat we can pinpoint as responsable for the mess we’re in, where is the issue? What path can we follow to have a chance of survival in the coming years or decades? Degrowth? How the world can abandon a paradigm that have enriched 1% of the population that control any decision that need to be taken in order to have a chance to get through our fate? Your explication fall short of path to survival on this planet. I don’t know if I understand correctly your injunction, but I don’t think “Drill, baby drill” is a better paradigm than the failed climate paradigm. I hope you can offer a better solution in your next publications. Anyway, thank you for your insight on energy and the fossil fuel dilemma.
Alain,
Solutions are an illusion. The best we can do is understand where we are, chart a course for where we hope to rest for the night, and prepare to continue the journey in the morning. We’re all travelers—nothing more, nothing less.
The good traveler has no fixed plans and is not intent on arrival.
All the best,
Art
Those with an intellectual and career interest in renewables and the “electrify everything” meme will doubtless ask you to provide an alternative “solution”.
Bewildered activists might be demoralised by the reality of what you’re saying. What’s your advice to them? They need guidance.
Unfortunately those who accept the truth of what you’re saying often just want things to carry on as they are.
There are not many electoral incentives for political decision makers to amplify your message of a big rethink of where we are going. Kicking the can down the road is more their style.
But the current general sense of malaise in wealthy societies does suggest there is an appetite for change and a loss of faith in the meaning of what it means to be successful.
How to harness that doubt constructively?
Steve,
Not everyone is ready for this message—and I don’t mean that in an elitist way. Some people want to see things clearly, others don’t. Seeing is the first step—just observing and describing reality as it is, without immediate interpretation or prediction. Awareness comes before understanding. Explanation follows, and only then come hypotheses.
Demanding a solution too soon is either hubris or an unwillingness to face reality.
All the best,
Art