Global decarbonisation is a mass-participation effort, requiring nonpartisan engagement and scientific evidence-based, outcomes-led action. Open channels of communication across and between sectors has been key to furthering the consensus on holistic, achievable, and socially inclusive net zero impasses. Policymakers around the world are seeking a balance between national economic prerogatives and co-ordinated, multilateral climate action, paving the way for a multi-speed, single-destination global energy transition. 

But while much work has been done to align net zero incentives across industry boundaries and international borders, frustrations around the pace of progress remain. This opening panel session will focus on the continued importance of dialogue in building understanding between governments, and across industrial sectors and geographies. How are stakeholders in the global energy transition identifying pain points, managing fair and unfair expectations, and developing market-appropriate net zero frameworks? And to what extent have overarching political, economic, commercial and social considerations shifted as the energy transition discussion has matured?

Climate policy interventions across the world suggest differing schools of thought on how legislation can best facilitate the energy transition. While recent policy programmes in the USA and India have focused on incentivising lower carbon activities, the EU has favoured a mix of incentives and regulation. This “carrot or stick” dilemma is part of a wider global discussion on integrated industrial policy for a lower carbon future. The challenge for legislators is to find the point at which market incentives create a “rising tide to lift all boats”; and regulatory frameworks that serve as an effective deterrent against emissions, without placing upward pressure on costs. This picture is further complicated by differing economic and environmental priorities in the Global North and South.

How can policymakers and industry work towards a single, internationally agreed direction of travel that remains sensitive to unique market and sectoral pressures? Could tight regulatory frameworks in one part of the world and generous incentive schemes in another create a push/pull effect that damages international alignment on net zero?

The United Nations Environmental Programme Finance Initiative estimates that climate investment opportunities could be worth up to US $275 trillion between now and 2050. Contrary to fears around the potential costs of net zero, the research points to the enormous economic growth potential of the energy transition. Nonetheless, vast funding gaps remain, with high upfront capital needs, low short-term yields, and uncertain longer-term market conditions testing many investors’ risk appetite.

Tax reduction schemes and subsidies for mature climate technologies have been proven to incentivise demand for mature energy transition technologies. The IEA estimates that renewables will be the largest source of global electricity generation by 2025; meanwhile, one in seven vehicles purchased in 2022 was an electric vehicle – a tripling of the sales share since 2020.

But the technologies that will support the energy transition in hard-to-abate sectors have not matured at an equivalent pace, and remain under-incentivised and in need of capital injections. Furthermore, risk factors in emerging and frontier markets are inhibiting much needed energy transition investment in some of the world’s most climate vulnerable places. Can policymakers go further with support schemes to upscale hydrogen, encourage low emissions fuels, and incentivise carbon capture and other such technologies? Are Public-Private Partnerships a viable means of spreading risk? And could sovereign wealth funds utilise their financial and political capital to de-risk investments in traditionally higher risk markets and breakthrough climate solutions?

While the scientific community has reached near unanimous consensus on manmade climate change, and multilateral plans for a greener global economy are taking shape, popular perception remains in the balance. Across much of the developed world, net zero scepticism is an obdurate feature of public discussion fuelled in part by a new media ecosystem in which it can be difficult to separate reliable and reputable reporting from misleading journalism.

The question of how to effectively counteract fake news is both pressing and unresolved, demanding the full participation of public and private sector organisations. Climate disinformation undermines international consensus, disrupts co-ordinated action on net zero, and can negatively influence consumer behaviours. How can all stakeholders, from governments and businesses to media platforms and private individuals, build resilience to the deliberate corruption of the global conversation on climate?

While net zero scepticism often focuses on the financial cost of decarbonisation, the energy transition represents a major economic opportunity. The renewables sector is poised to expand, creating new jobs, skills bases, research and development specialisms, and a related array of professional and knowledge services. The medium-term fiscal multiplier effect of public investment in infrastructure is calculated by the Global Infrastructure Hub at 1.5%, suggesting that upfront expenditure in green energy networks will generate inclusive economic growth. 

The hydrogen economy has the potential to usher in a new age of bilateral energy relations, underpinning global energy security and reducing volatility in markets. The promise of a shift away from a single global, carbon-intensive energy system towards smaller, geographically distinct and lower-carbon systems promises a future in which energy complementarity and localised expertise builds resilience and self-sufficiency in market economies.

And improved energy efficiency at point-of-use will save on operational costs across hard-to-abate industries, allowing businesses to tap into increasingly climate-conscious consumer markets.

As an evolving economic opportunity linked to Industry 4.0, the energy transition will be powered by innovators, disruptors and entrepreneurs. What can policymakers and stakeholders across the energy, hard-to-abate and global finance sectors do to empower them?

If carbon capture technologies are to be deployable internationally, the industry must develop an infrastructure network comparable in size and scope to the global LNG infrastructure network. Furthermore, if this infrastructure is to effectively drive emissions reductions between now and mid-century, the build-out must be complete within a decade. Such progress seems implausible without policy interventions similar to those that are driving renewables capacities up and costs down.

But carbon capture technologies remain the source of much conjecture. To some, they are as yet unproven, even ineffective; to others, a means by which the hydrocarbon sector can go about its business as usual. So, do carbon capture technologies have an image problem? And if so, how can those negative perceptions be remedied?

The question of who bears ultimate responsibility for climate change – and crucially, who should shoulder the cost of decarbonisation – remains contentious at both macro and micro level.

Research has shown that wealth correlates with emissions. It is well-established that emerging economies have made a lesser historical contribution to human-made climate change. And within wealthier societies, it is those communities impacted by generational poverty that have the smallest carbon footprint, and those same communities that are hardest pressed by the economic realities of energy transition.

Can more be done to make environmentally conscious consumer choices more economically viable? In an age of global polycrisis, is the climate emergency a waning priority for ordinary households? And, if so, how great a threat does that pose to progress on net zero?