· 7 min read
On April 30th, behind the doors of Chatham House, a cross-disciplinary group of policy leaders, academics, diplomats, and private sector actors convened to assess what the first 100 days of a second Trump presidency meant for global climate progress. It was not a gathering for wishful thinkers. Over four hours, we confronted a bleak new geopolitical landscape but also glimpsed opportunities to shift alliances, fortify institutions, and sharpen our collective story.
Under the House rules, comments can be shared but not attributed. This article offers a synthesis of what we learned.
1. Permitting, contracts, and the collapse of trust in the U.S. market
The most urgent concern around the table was the collapse of regulatory trust in the U.S. energy market. The decision to revoke the permit for the 2.1 GW Empire Wind project, already permitted, financed, and in procurement, was not just viewed as a policy reversal but described by many as institutional sabotage. Several participants observed that this kind of sudden reversal was the kind of thing usually associated with unstable jurisdictions, not with advanced economies.
The effects are already being felt. “There’s now an enormous chill across the market. And I don’t just mean offshore wind. I mean across the board. Contract law has been tossed aside. Permits no longer mean what they used to. This isn’t economics. It’s ideology.”
Equinor, the project’s lead developer, has not filed a legal challenge. The fact that it hasn’t speaks volumes. “In any other world, Equinor would already have issued writs,” one participant noted. “The fact they haven’t speaks to how investors now fear political retribution.” Without dependable permitting frameworks and legal guarantees, the model for financing clean energy at scale is under threat. And this threat is no longer hypothetical.
2. Europe’s imperfect resilience: Disclosure, sovereignty, and pragmatic momentum
While the United States appears to be stepping away from climate leadership, Europe is attempting to maintain momentum. That effort, however, remains uneven. The recent weakening of the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive was seen as a blow to transparency. One participant put it plainly: “It’s a gift to opponents of climate disclosure.” Yet the sense in the room was that the foundations of the net zero agenda in Europe remain solid. The pressure to deliver climate policy has not disappeared; it has simply shifted form.
The war in Ukraine has forced a reframing of climate strategy through the lens of security. “In Brussels, Dublin, and London, energy transition is now a matter of national security,” one voice noted. “The political logic is hardening. No more Russian gas. No more dependencies.” This has added strategic urgency to what had previously been a values-driven agenda.
Encouragingly, the private sector is still aligned, albeit driven by pragmatism rather than conviction. Several participants pointed to the corporate powerhouses of the tech world including Amazon, Google and Microsoft, who are continuing to sign premium-priced, additionality-based power purchase agreements. These contracts support the development of new clean energy capacity rather than purchasing credits from existing projects. “They could go cheaper. But they’re paying up. That’s a strong signal of long-term confidence in the European market.”
Even so, concerns persist. “Europe is not immune. Anti-ESG sentiment is starting to appear inside major financial institutions. If this spreads, it could shake investor confidence.”
3. Weaponised narratives: Fossil coordination versus clean tech fragmentation
The conversation around narrative and communications hit home. Several participants pointed to a deep structural imbalance between the fossil fuel industry and the clean energy sector in how each controls public discourse. “The fossil sector has had 40 years of crisis comms training. We’re still learning how to tweet,” said one participant, summarising the frustration with brutal honesty.
The recent Iberian grid event illustrated the point. While experts waited to verify what had occurred, fossil-aligned commentators were already dominating the airwaves. “Before the data came out, the story had already been written,” said another. “The truth doesn’t travel as fast as fear.”
This dynamic is being deliberately amplified. “There’s a coordinated attack on net zero, and it is reaching into editorial decisions. In the past year, we’ve watched formerly centrist outlets become openly hostile to clean energy.” Others echoed this, saying, “We are structurally unprepared for this information war. We lack platforms. We lack trusted spokespeople. And we don’t coordinate.”
4. Flight of talent and capital: The U.S. as a brain drain exporter
Perhaps the most quietly devastating trend discussed was the steady departure of climate-aligned talent and capital from the United States.
“In my work with universities, I see professionals actively looking to relocate. They are going to Canada, Europe, and even China,” one participant noted. “They are not waiting around to see what happens next. The message is well understood. They’ve had enough.”
The movement of capital appears to be following the same pattern. “We are seeing institutional investors rebalance their exposure away from U.S.-centric clean energy strategies. They don’t expect further climate investment under Trump, and they don’t trust that the existing incentives will remain in place.” Some are looking toward Latin America or Southeast Asia. Others are doubling down on Europe.
There was a broader warning too. “This isn’t just about financial flows. Once you lose the talent base, the policymaking gets worse. The projects slow down. The system becomes brittle. You don’t get that capacity back overnight.”
5. Glimmers of opportunity: Radical collaboration and a reimagined role for Europe
Even within this difficult context, several participants called attention to the spaces being created by American withdrawal from global leadership. These gaps, they argued, are not just voids to be feared but openings to be seized.
“There is a vacuum. But vacuums are invitations,” one contributor said. “Europe must move from being a rule-setter to a partner. That means showing humility. That means showing up. That means forming real partnerships.”
Included in the models discussed was a new form of trilateral collaboration: Gulf capital, African deployment, and European standards and governance. “Everyone brings something to the table,” a participant said. “The Gulf brings finance. Europe brings experience. Africa brings need and opportunity. If structured correctly, this could become the new blueprint for equitable energy development.” Whether Gulf capital is conflicted was a topic of debate which was ultimately unresolved.
The upcoming renegotiation of the Sustainable Development Goals post-2030 was also seen as a major opening. “With the U.S. stepping away, Europe can put forward a new framework for global cooperation, one that centres around fairness, resilience, and clean energy access.”
6. Narratives that work: Moral clarity and economic realism
If one theme cut across every session, it was the urgent need to reframe the narrative around the energy transition. The group expressed near-unanimous frustration with the overreliance on economic arguments, important, but insufficient. “We’ve leaned too hard on technocratic talking points. That won’t inspire people. It won’t hold the line against fear-based campaigns.”
Instead, many called for a return to the moral case for change. “Talk about clean air. Talk about safe water. Talk about protecting your kids. That is the language people understand.”
We need to start using better metaphors. “We’ve treated fossil fuels as if they were a divine gift. But maybe we should start calling them what they really are: the forbidden fruit. Once tasted, they give us power. But ultimately, they poison the garden.”
And finally, we need to bring in new voices. “We need teachers. We need nurses. We need people who are trusted in their communities. People are not looking to technocrats for inspiration anymore. They’re looking to each other.”
Conclusion
The energy transition has never followed a straight path. But it now enters a new phase of turbulence. The rules are shifting. Long-held alliances are faltering. And the narratives that once sustained momentum are under assault.
Still, the message from Chatham House was not one of despair. We are not without tools. We have the technology. We have the capital. And in many places, we still have the will. What we now require is clarity. In our stories, in our collaborations, and in our resolve.
As one collaborator put it “The ball is still on the penalty spot. It is time for us to take the shot.”
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
