A Pragmatic Climate Reset

Ten years ago, I made a decision: the global problem I would devote my professional life to solving would be climate change. My way of contributing would be to help scale credible, proven, and economically viable climate technologies.

Looking back, I have been fortunate to play a role in scaling wind energy and lithium-ion batteries. These are now mainstream industries. But in my private life, the story was different. I kept driving a diesel car. I ruled out solar panels for my country home. I kept flying. The income I made was never enough to justify switching to cleaner alternatives. The only real personal change I made was ditching my car after moving to Turkey.

This gap between the professional and the personal is telling. Solar panels have become cheaper, but most climate technologies still look like toys for the rich. Heat pumps are efficient and climate-friendly, but their rollout has been slowed by high upfront costs and low spark-spreads. EVs are finally approaching mass affordability — even European manufacturers are now selling decent models under €30K — yet something still feels out of sync.

Belief vs. Agency

Public attitudes have shifted. Ten years ago, climate change was not real for many. Today, most people I speak with acknowledge that it is. But they don’t see how they can help avert it — or even adapt to it. Instead, conversations quickly slide into myths about “toxic batteries” or “solar panel landfills,” while remaining blind to the tangible health and pollution effects of coal and cars.

On the global stage, this disconnect is even sharper. Climate action has taken hits from every direction:

• Anti-climate rhetoric, especially in U.S. politics.

• High European energy prices, wrongly blamed on renewables.

• Decades of subsidies channeled into technologies with little or no climate impact.

• Scandals around ESG reporting and carbon credits, which have undermined trust.

• Crossing the 1.5°C threshold, while the movement clings to a maximalist, all-or-nothing narrative.

The credibility of climate action has been severely damaged.

Time for a Reset

The climate movement needs a new narrative. Less moral superiority, more pragmatism. Less “green premiums,” more “resilience and savings.”

We should consistently show that climate technologies not only reduce CO₂ but also deliver immediate and tangible benefits: cheaper energy bills, cleaner air, and healthier homes.

I like to stress two points:

1. Focus on the 80%.
We already have the technologies that can decarbonise the majority of emissions quickly and at competitive prices. Solar, wind, batteries, and heat pumps. These are proven and scalable. Hydrogen, SMRs, fusion, e-fuels, and long-duration storage may have a role, but they will not move the needle in the next decade.

2. Be pragmatic about the last 20%.
The hardest-to-abate sectors should be evaluated purely on economic grounds. If decarbonising the final 20% costs more than it delivers in benefits, we should acknowledge that.

A Reset in Practice

For me, the “pragmatic reset” means scaling technologies that make economic sense, fast. It also means being honest about trade-offs. Climate action must be credible, not performative.

I still wrestle with the personal-professional gap. But I am convinced that the only way to bridge it — for me, for industry, for society — is to focus on climate solutions that people actually want to adopt because they improve their lives, not just because they are told they should.

This post was inspired by Michael Liebreich’s recent provocation on the Pragmatic Climate Reset. It raises many important points. One that stood out to me is that the climate movement has lost credibility by clinging to maximalist narratives while failing to deliver practical benefits. If you haven't read it yet. read it here: https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-energy/liebreich-the-pragmatic-climate-reset-part-ii-a-provocation/