As world leaders prepare to gather in Belém for COP30, the sense of déjà vu is unmistakable. For two weeks the world’s politicians, NGOs, celebrities and international agencies will descend on COP30 to renew pledges, issue stark warnings and exchange business cards. The ritual is familiar: solemn language, ambitious targets and fresh commitments to ever more intrusive state action.
This annual jamboree is rapidly losing relevance, taking place against the backdrop of a fragmenting global order. Principally, it is failing to achieve its ostensible aim: a reduction in global CO₂ emissions, let alone one commensurate with the pledges and alarming rhetoric that periodically grab the headlines. The mechanics of that failure are instructive.
The COP process has from the start been overwhelmingly statist. It has assumed that a top-down policy toolkit of mandates, taxes and subsidies can override market signals and thermodynamic principles. That approach is attractive because it centralises responsibility and wins plaudits on the international stage, but it rejects reality. Genuine economic transformations must go with the grain of people’s choices. By ignoring them you condemn people to less affordable energy, weakened industrial competitiveness and less abundant lives.
If this summit is to survive it must acknowledge the limits of centrally planned decarbonisation
Despite decades of negotiations, global CO₂ emissions have continued their upward trajectory, driven by rising energy demand in developing economies and the practical realities of lifting billions out of energy poverty. By treating emissions as primarily a technical problem solvable by regulation and subsidies, the result is often a displacement of production and emissions rather than their elimination. A summit that fails to reckon honestly with this displacement effect, known as carbon leakage, can be seen as a public relations exercise rather than a lever of meaningful change.
COP delegates have long demonised fossil fuels as a problem to be expunged, instead of an engine of economic development that, despite their environmental implications, have historically delivered mass prosperity and vastly improved human well-being. Energy that is abundant, affordable and reliable powers hospitals, factories and the transport essential to modern life.
By prioritising ideologically driven decarbonisation over pragmatic access to energy, you risk condemning the very people climate policy is supposed to help. That is not to deny environmental harms, but to demand that policy be proportionate and aware of trade-offs.
Into this atmosphere of ritualised alarm has come an overdue rebalancing. Bill Gates, who for years promoted technological fixes for emissions, recently argued that climate change would not be the end of civilisation. His message was two-fold: that alarmism was overblown, but also critically that it was distracting from more-effective ways of improving lives for the world’s poorest people. If these ways generate emissions as they improve human welfare, then human welfare should take priority.
My hope is that Gates’s remarks will accelerate a shift from doom-mongering to a more pragmatic approach that emphasises adaptation, innovation and resilience. This is not before time. The alarmism that has been most fervently embraced by Western countries, has led to their own stagnating living standards and industrial decay, but — even more shamefully — has blocked investments in developing countries that could have lifted some of the world’s poorest people out of poverty.
What, then, would this more pragmatic approach look like?
It must respect physics
The laws of thermodynamics do not bend to ideology. Energy systems that rely heavily on intermittent generation struggle to deliver the firm, high-density power that modern societies depend upon. Gas and nuclear power, both capable of sustaining output regardless of weather or daylight, embody the qualities required for a stable and resilient grid: controllability, energy density, and scalability. If even a fraction of the dollar trillions the world has spent subsidising variable renewables such as wind and solar had been directed toward new-generation nuclear plants, modern gas turbines, and the infrastructure to support them, we would already be much further along the road to meaningful decarbonisation. Real innovation means using the best of science and engineering to provide abundant, low-carbon energy, not gambling on diffuse and intermittent sources that demand vast land areas and constant backup.
Energy realism must replace energy denial
The moral case for cheap, reliable power remains clear. Without firm electricity, hospitals close, industries falter, and development stalls. Millions still live without consistent access to heat, light, or refrigeration, a reality often ignored by policymakers who focus on symbolic emissions targets. Credible climate policies must therefore embrace technologies that deliver dependable power at scale, rather than restricting developing nations to intermittent systems that have already exposed their weaknesses in wealthier countries. Instead of prescribing wind and solar as universal solutions, richer nations should help finance resilient, dispatchable energy systems, including nuclear and efficient natural gas, that can drive industrial growth while steadily reducing carbon intensity.
Prudence must replace punishment
Climate policy should focus on results, not rituals of self-denial. The most rational path forward combines firm energy investments with adaptive measures that protect people from weather extremes and natural variability. This means prioritising carbon reductions where they are technologically and economically achievable, while strengthening resilience where warming impacts cannot be avoided. Wealthier countries should lead by supporting innovation and the deployment of proven firm-power technologies, not by imposing rigid blueprints or punitive restrictions that damage competitiveness.
This approach is not complacent. It is common sense. The climate is changing, and responsible stewardship demands pragmatic action grounded in engineering reality. Success will not come from grandstanding but by realism. COP30 could mark a turning point away from political theatre and toward a mature energy policy that values physical truth over ideological purity. Many have questioned whether we even need an international process to drive emissions reductions; the beauty of this approach is that it is in a country’s interest to adopt it regardless of what other countries are doing.
If this summit is to survive, let alone remain relevant, it must acknowledge the limits of centrally planned decarbonisation and rediscover respect for the technologies that actually work. The economic and environmental benefits of firm, reliable power should be recognised and supported rather than dismissed. Bill Gates’s recent comments questioning exaggerated climate doom suggest that even within the mainstream, attitudes are beginning to shift toward practical problem-solving.
There is a hopeful way forward. Climate policy built on affordability, resilience, and respect for physical reality can unite prosperity with environmental care. By investing in firm, efficient energy and allowing innovators to compete on performance rather than ideology, the world can make genuine progress. If COP30 takes that step, it could restore purpose and credibility to a process that has too long confused symbolism with success.
