Different energy sources - fossil fuels, wind power, solar power, and electric - are lined up on a piece of wood, which is precariously balanced on a pivot. The background is a green field in soft focus.

The world is on track to miss key targets in the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions and climate change

COP 30 - which is currently taking place in Belém, Brazil - marks a significant milestone for global efforts to combat climate change.

It represents the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, a legally binding treaty aimed at limiting the rise in global temperatures to less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, which was signed by 195 countries. 

And those signatories are expected to present their new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), outlining their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change. 

However, most have failed to deliver on the promises made in their previous NDCs and the world is nowhere near the trajectory needed to meet the Paris Agreement’s goals. 

That is despite mounting evidence of severe climate events and growing concern that the pace of climate change is accelerating. 

Even more troubling, populist politicians have launched campaigns against climate action, and Net Zero in particular. 

Donald Trump has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Agreement, slashed funding for green energy, and encouraged the oil and gas industry to “drill, baby, drill”.  

All of this has unfolded against a backdrop of heightened geopolitical tension created by Russia’s war against Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza. 

Energy remains at the heart of this fragmented geopolitical landscape, with Washington using energy exports to put pressure on major trading partners.  

It begs the question; how do you make sense of this increasingly complex and messy situation? 

The global energy system is responsible for over 70 per cent of human-generated greenhouse gas emissions. 

To tackle climate change, we must rapidly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and shift to low-carbon electricity, primarily from wind and solar power. 

This presents a huge challenge. Energy historians note that transitioning to new energy sources usually takes several decades, citing previous shifts from coal to oil, then gas. 

They also point out that these transitions involve adding new energy sources alongside those that already exist to meet increasing demand. 

Renewable energy sources are being added to fossil fuel consumption, but the latter continues to grow. 

We haven’t yet reached a point where low-carbon energy begins to replace fossil fuels. 

The ‘gradualist’ perspective uses this historical record to argue that energy transitions are too complex and, for some, too costly. 

It claims that the pace of change demanded by the Paris Agreement is unrealistic. 

Naturally, this view benefits fossil fuel companies and countries that rely heavily on fossil fuel exports. 

However, most countries are net importers of fossil fuels. This might lead them to a different outlook. 

Those who challenge the gradualist view argue that a rapid shift to low-carbon energy is crucial to reduce the physical risks of climate change. 

They contend that this energy transition is unique because it is driven by the necessity to minimise the existential threat posed by climate change. 

A growing number of vocal ‘S-Curve Optimists’ also highlight that clean technology now offers the cheapest method of generating electricity in many parts of the world. 

Consequently, they believe that emerging ‘electrostates’ will soon outpace the ‘petrostates’ in economic strength and geopolitical influence. 

There is certainly growing evidence that the recent global energy crisis is accelerating the shift to low-carbon energy to reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels.  

These two perspectives are also reflected in many of the different energy and climate scenarios that have been drawn up. 

The gradualist approach is common in most exploratory scenarios that project our future based on current trends and depict a future that is far from ‘Paris aligned’. 

Conversely, the perspective of ‘S-Curve Optimists’ supports normative scenarios that set a target – such as achieving a Net Zero energy system by 2050 – and plot a route back to the present to create a ‘Paris compliant’ future. 

Geopolitics plays a key role in shaping both futures. Most exploratory scenarios view geopolitical competition and fragmentation as the main obstacles to progress. 

In contrast to this, normative scenarios depend on a high level of international agreement and cooperation. 

Neither of these scenarios offers a reliable foundation for making future decisions.  

The fact that significant change is already happening and climate risk is accelerating implies that the business-as-usual thinking of the gradualist school is unlikely. 

Likewise, the world is far from the pathway to Net Zero laid out by the normative scenarios and geopolitics continues to increase costs and slow progress. 

There is another way of viewing the current situation – the complex mix. This recognises that we face two transitions simultaneously. 

The first is a high-carbon transition, characterised by decreasing demand for fossil fuels during the 2030s and beyond. 

The second is a low carbon transition, marked by rapid growth in low-carbon energy, electrification, and improved energy efficiency. 

Collectively, these shifts will drive the transformation of the global energy system. 

However, this will be a ‘Messy Transition’. Different countries and regions are starting from different positions and will reach different endpoints. 

Geopolitics will continue to be a significant factor. The world is unlikely to manage an orderly and just transition away from fossil fuels and already faces emerging issues around electricity security, critical materials, and supply chains for clean technology. 

Other factors, such as the role of AI, add further layers of complexity. In the short-term, AI is expected to boost demand for fossil fuels to power data centres, but ultimately it could enable rapid electrification and improved energy efficiency. 

Believing in a fast-tracked, Paris aligned future or a more familiar gradualist approach may be comforting. However, neither is likely to reflect the future we face. 

Instead, we need to accept the inherent messiness of energy system transformation. 

Doing so will help governments and businesses to tackle the challenges and grasp the opportunities created by this messy mix. This in turn will enable a quicker, more orderly, and fairer transition than would otherwise be possible. 

The Geopolitics of Energy System Transformation: Managing the Messy Mix by Michael Bradshaw will be published by Bristol University Press on 30 January 2026. It will be available for free as a PDF or e-Pub electronic publication.

Further reading:

Governments cannot rely on pension funds to address climate change

Why phasing out gas will be harder than transitioning from coal

Regulating AI could stop its rampant energy demand

How will Russia's pivot to Asia affect gas supplies?

 

Mike Bradshaw is Professor of Global Energy and is a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and the UK Energy Research Centre. He teaches Managing Sustainable Energy Transitions and Managing Sustainable Energy Transitions (Outside the UK) on the Full-time MBA and Executive MBA.

Discover more sustainability and energy. Receive our Core Insights newsletter via email or LinkedIn.