PARIS — The United States has succeeded in removing climate change from the main priorities of the International Energy Agency, following a tense ministerial meeting in Paris that reflected a dramatic shift in political mood around the clean energy transition. In the chair’s summary released at the end of the two-day meeting, addressing climate change is not listed among the agency’s priorities. Instead, the document focuses on energy security, resilience, critical minerals and electricity systems. The development, which comes after the U.S. threatened to leave the agency if it continued to focus on climate change, is a remarkable turnaround from the last ministerial two years ago, when addressing the climate crisis and phasing out fossil fuels was named as the IEA’s top priority. Unusually, there was no joint communique from the ministers at the end of this week’s meeting. The chair’s summary mentioned climate change just once, saying “a large majority of ministers stressed the importance of the energy transition to combat climate change and highlighted the global transition to net zero emissions in line with COP28 outcomes.” Despite that line, climate change was not highlighted as a priority in the closing remarks and was barely mentioned during the final press conference, reflecting the power of the U.S., the group’s richest member which contributes around 14 percent of the agency’s funding. U.S. President Donald Trump has called climate change a “hoax” and efforts to address it a “scam.” Since coming to office just over a year ago, he has taken a sledgehammer to domestic U.S. climate policies, withdrawn from international climate bodies, attempted to stall renewable projects, and promoted the global expansion of fossil fuels production — including through a military intervention in Venezuela. During the talks in Paris, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright had urged the agency to drop its net-zero scenario modeling and refocus on traditional energy security, warning that the U.S. could reconsider its membership if the IEA did not change course. During the closing press conference, IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol sidestepped questions about whether Washington had pushed to dilute climate language. Asked directly about the agency’s net-zero scenario, he noted that the latest World Energy Outlook still includes one, but declined to say whether it would appear in future outlooks. Dutch Climate Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Sophie Hermans, who chaired the meeting, defended the outcome, arguing that each ministerial reflects its “own geopolitical situation.” “And I think the last thing we should do is compare today’s chair summary with, the summary of two years ago, because so much has changed,” she told reporters.

PARIS — The United States is calling on the world’s most influential energy organization to abandon net zero emissions scenario modeling that has informed much of the global green transition, arguing the targets are unrealistic. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright made the call to other energy ministers at a closed-door ministerial meeting of the International Energy Agency in Paris on Wednesday, two people who were part of the discussions told POLITICO. The comments met with a muted response from other ministers, the people said. It comes just a day after Wright publicly threatened to quit the organization unless it abandoned its focus on the energy transition— a call that several countries rejected, including the U.K., Austria and France. The International Energy Agency is a key venue for inter-governmental cooperation around climate and energy policy but has drawn criticism from the U.S. for its increasing advocacy for the green transition. Wright on Tuesday warned the U.S. would quit the IEA outright if it didn’t abandon “leftist fantasies.” At the closed-door meeting Wednesday, Wright said the agency should stop basing its modeling on assumptions that it’s possible to cut emissions to zero, arguing such targets will never be met, according to four people present. Doing away with those baseline assumptions would be a significant shift for the IEA, which has made them central to forecasts that have in turn formed the basis of global political decision-making around the green transition and underpinned billions in green energy investments. Officials familiar with the discussions said Wright’s comments were more diplomatic than his public rhetoric, casting them as an attempt to rationalize the more hardline, anti-renewables stance of U.S. President Donald Trump. Unlike Trump, Wright acknowledges the scientific basis of global warming. One said that Wright didn’t specifically mention renewables — a key source of energy in much of Europe — and instead focused on a broader criticism of the emissions target that other members might find reasonable. “He’s being diplomatic, saying it’s a fantastic organization,” said the official, granted anonymity to discuss the closed-door talks. “He very smartly divided the political from the organizational, saying, ‘Let’s leave politics out of this, let’s focus on the real world [and] stop wasting our resources on scenarios that are zero percent likely.” EUROPE SHRUGS A steady line of European energy ministers pushed back against Wright’s pressure on Wednesday, dismissing his calls to abandon the phase-out of fossil fuels and insisting they would continue building renewables. Austria’s energy secretary told POLITICO Europe would not be “blackmailed” by the U.S. on clean energy policy. “We should not [allow ourselves to be] blackmailed by him,” Austrian State Secretary for Energy Elisabeth Zehetner said in an interview with POLITICO on the sidelines of a summit of IEA member countries.  Renewables are key for growth and affordability, Zehetner argued, adding that the U.S. focus on fossil fuels at the expense of green energy went against its own interests.  “I can’t understand the argument of the U.S. — they have huge potential in renewable energy, so for one who wants to make a lot of economic deals, they reject a lot of economic chances,” she said. “Maybe it’s an ideological thing.”  U.K. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said, “For the vast majority of countries, the clean energy transition is unstoppable.” He said the U.S. membership of the IEA was Washington’s choice, but added: “The U.S. needs to make its own decisions about whether it stays in the IEA or not. I hope they stay. But that’s their call.” EU energy chief Dan Jorgensen also defended the roll-out of renewables. “The clean energy transition is not some distant scenario. It’s the reality. Not only for Europe, but around the globe. The deployment of clean energy and technologies is accelerating because it makes clear economic sense — for growth, resilience, and long-term prosperity,” he said in a written statement Wednesday. Canada also joined in. “The United States is free to have a perspective,” Canadian Energy Minister Tim Hodgson told POLITICO. “What makes the world interesting is we have a multilateral world … I believe what the IEA is doing today is showing multiple perspectives. They show current trends.” Talks will continue on Thursday, with no outcome expected till the afternoon.

LONDON — California will carry on making the case for “climate action” on the global stage, Governor Gavin Newsom said Monday, as he signed a new clean energy pact with the U.K. Newsom, a Democratic presidential hopeful, met with U.K. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband in London as part of a European tour, where he has tried to reassure the United States’ European allies that Donald Trump’s shake-up of transatlantic relations — and climate politics — is “temporary.” In a new memorandum of understanding, California and the U.K. — which are both still pursuing net zero emissions goals — pledge to collaborate on clean energy technologies like offshore wind, at a time when Trump takes every chance to rail against windmills. The pact will enable better access for U.K. firms including Octopus Energy — the country’s biggest energy supplier — to California’s market, the U.K.’s Energy Security and Net Zero Department said. It will also underpin collaboration between British and Californian research institutions and enshrine both sides’ continued commitment to international efforts to fight climate change through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) treaty. The Trump administration withdrew the U.S. from the UNFCCC earlier this year. Striking a contrast, Newsom said California “will continue showing the world how we can turn innovation and ambition into climate action.”   “California is the best place in America to invest in a clean economy because we set clear goals and we deliver. Today, we deepened our partnership with the United Kingdom on climate action and welcomed nearly a billion dollars in clean tech investment from Octopus Energy,” he added. Miliband said that “strong international partnerships” would strengthen “opportunities for U.K. businesses and secures investment for our country.” 

LONDON — Since Labour swept into office last year, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has traveled the country enthusing over the government’s dream of a humming, futuristic net-zero economy. The good news, according to polling released Wednesday, is that his vision still has the backing of the public. The bad news is that support is slipping — and voters aren’t convinced Miliband is the guy to deliver it. For Miliband’s political opponents, this validates their wider attacks on him as an out-of-touch climate warrior, flogging a net-zero dream voters have rejected. At Reform’s party conference Friday, party chair David Bull referenced “mad Ed swivel-eyed Milliband.” Not to be outdone, the Conservatives have vowed to squeeze every molecule of oil and gas from beneath the North Sea, deadly heatwaves be damned. But it also shines a light on a confusing feature of British politics: a misalignment between the stories politicians want to tell about efforts to stop climate change, and stuff the public actually care about. At Reform’s party conference Friday, the party chair David Bull referenced “mad Ed swivel-eyed Milliband.” | Leon Neal/Getty Images The polling, conducted by progressive think tank More in Common and the Climate Outreach NGO, found the number of people who think reaching net-zero emissions will be good for the U.K. vastly outnumber those who think it will have a negative effect — 48 percent versus 16 percent. More people feel that the shift to clean energy has been fair than unfair. In Scotland, more are proud of the offshore wind industry (63 percent) than the oil and gas industry (54 percent). “Those who seek to divide communities with climate disinformation will not win because they do not represent the interests or values of the British people,” Miliband said in a statement shared with the media. Despite this, voters are hesitant about the personal impact of a country rushing to go green. Seventy-four percent of people think the U.K.’s commitment to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 will eventually cost them money personally. The gap between those who think it will be beneficial for the U.K. versus harmful has shrunk by 20 points in only a year. This is frequently interpreted as a sign that a personal desire to help fix the climate is butting up against the hard realities of net zero, which requires changes like fitting millions of heat pumps and EV chargers and overhauling the energy grid. Further polling released by The Times Tuesday backs up the sense voters are growing more divided on climate change. It shows support for net zero collapsing among Reform and Conservative voters, while overall the issue has slipped from voters’ list of top concerns. But analysts from Climate Outreach said part of the problem isn’t the message but the messengers. “Politicians are not well trusted to speak about climate,” the NGO said in an analysis shared with POLITICO. In fact, elected leaders were the least trusted carriers of the climate message — beneath also-lowly ranked protesters and energy company executives. TRUST ISSUES Voter wariness about pro-climate messages isn’t a feature of green politics in particular, said Emma James, a researcher at Climate Outreach, but a symptom of broader public cynicism about government. “They don’t trust that politicians are there for people like them. Some audience segments feel that the system is rigged against them,” she said. It’s not net zero the public aren’t buying, it’s the ability of this government — or any government — to deliver it. Voters believe the NHS remains broken. National projects like high-speed rail lines and nuclear power stations keep being delayed at higher and higher costs. This creates a problem for Miliband. At a time of deep voter skepticism, his Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) is pursuing precisely that kind of major national project — involving upfront costs, disruption and complex trade-offs, with the promise of huge savings to private and public purses down the line. It will, Miliband argues, generate new jobs. Under Rishi Sunak, the Conservatives went in search of their own set of climate salespeople. | Carl Court/Getty Images “We will win this fight by showing the visible benefits of the clean energy transition,” insisted one Labour official, granted anonymity to discuss the government’s internal deliberations. The story of failure, however, is pervasive and self-reinforcing, said Richard Johnson, a political scientist at Queen Mary University of London. “Policy delivery has to be tied in with a compelling political narrative and the political leadership that can tell that story and interpret what people are seeing in front of their eyes,” he said. “I wonder now if there is such a high level of cynicism … that even if you did tell a compelling narrative around policy delivery, that people would not believe it.” Johnson lays the blame with Miliband’s boss, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, “who has been in a way almost catastrophically unable to put together a compelling narrative for his government. Or, quite frankly, even his own leadership.” Downing Street says it is focused on driving economic growth across the country. This is not isolated to Labour. Under Rishi Sunak, the Conservatives went in search of their own set of climate salespeople — before deciding that there was more political capital in ditching pro-climate policies. Climate Outreach said Miliband could turn this problem into an “opportunity,” as long as he laid off the grand projet and focused on the visible, local benefits of climate policies. And there is some evidence that Labour gets it, seen in the government’s move to chip in for the energy bills of people living in sight of unpopular new electricity pylons. The more conservative or skeptical parts of the British electorate still had deep enthusiasm for messages about protecting the environment, the pollsters said. But most important, the NGO argued, was bringing other voices into the frame. While politicians are viewed very dimly indeed, experts and scientists are seen as credible messengers, the polling shows. So too are those seen to understand what life is like for normal British people. Farmers were among the messengers who cut through most with traditionalists and those described by the pollsters as “patriots.” Jeremy Clarkson, DESNZ needs you.