Few would disagree with the need to combat climate change (okay there are a few, but a very small number) and that a transition to clean energy is a major part of the solution. The problem has been how to manage that transition.

There are those that believe is radical action, those who put faith in technology, those who see a orderly transition as needed, and a whole load that sit in-between these places.

Then there is the issue of how to implement that to a public that is concerned with day-today living and costs. Given the geopolitical backdrop, that ‘sell’ is harder and harder. Some policies seem overly ambitious and self-harming (from EV quotas to drilling bans that merely export emissions, and revenue).

From Germany rowing back on heat pump legislation to Trump reversal of offshore wind, there has been a backlash. The question is whether it is justified and whether proponents of transition will be self-aware enough to understand why or create a hardening of positions.

Such ‘hard’ positions are not helped by misuse of data (for example the IPCC’s out of date “doom scenario”) or any flat refusal to accept that fossil fuels exist.

Why is this important? Simply put, the rules will be made by politicians, who will naturally be chasing votes, if a position is seen as unreasonable, then the votes go elsewhere.

What is required is a dialogue with the public, and a plan that can be agreed, but can be flexible, and above all, logical.

---