Reasons to be cheerful
Five climate scenarios to wish for in 2026
Last year was tough for anyone following global climate policy. Populist politics and climate disinformation seemed relentless and there’s little hope they’ll let up in 2026. But there are some reasons to be optimistic. For one thing, most expert observers agree that the economic and commercial case for renewable energy will only get stronger. Less happily, extreme weather events will at least keep climate concerns top of mind. Beyond those big-picture factors, here are five scenarios that could boost the chances of pro-climate public policy change in the coming year.
CBAM sparks creative policymaking. After years of preparation, the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism comes into force for key high-emitting sectors like cement and steel this month. The measure levies fees on carbon-intensive products imported into the EU from countries that don’t have the kind of carbon prices that EU companies are subject to. Much of the debate about global responses have predictably been about whether the EUs unilateral action is fair. But countries are responding regardless, with many seeking to impose or expand their own carbon pricing policies to avoid paying tariffs to the EU. The real hope is that once carbon pricing is on the agenda, governments everywhere will explore ways to maximise the potential political gains from expanding the pricing of carbon and using the proceeds to benefit businesses and households.
Climate-positive US legislation. While the US has led the rollback of climate policy, one bill remains active in Congress: The Foreign Pollution Fee Act, sponsored by Republican Senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham, seeks to impose its own border carbon adjustment. While not to be confused with imposing a carbon price itself, the measure would be the first to recognise (and seek to protect) the relative carbon-efficiency of the US economy, compared to strategic competitors like China. Similar legislation has been proposed before, and many predict that this too will fail to win sufficient support. The fact that this time it’s Republican sponsored and plays to the prevailing pro-tariff zeitgeist gives a degree of hope.
Waking up about oil. The US “regime tweak” in Venezuela is – among many other things – shining a spotlight on oil, and how US oil infrastructure depends on the kind of heavy oil that Venezuela produces (and the wildly successful US fracking industry doesn’t). This scrutiny could deepen popular understanding of the pros and cons of fossil fuels and help deflate simplistic arguments at both extremes, whether “just stop oil” or “drill, baby, drill.” Activists on either side are unlikely to change their minds. But the better fossil fuels are understood by regular people, the more headroom there is for sensible, practical policymaking about the energy transition.
Technological momentum. There could be a breakthrough in nuclear fusion. Or carbon removal. There could be a step change in battery energy density or recharge times. Or a reduction in AI energy use (similar to the DeepSeek breakthrough in 2025 which showed that large language models could be developed at a fraction of the cost of competitors). Any of these possible developments would be valuable in themselves. But additionally, they would serve to revive the perception of momentum for climate action. While there’s a real risk that techno-optimism undermines the case for economic measures (“hey, we don’t need to pay for climate action because tech will solve the problem!”), when big technological leaps are made, investment and political support are more likely to follow.
Private companies get more serious about public policy. One of the more depressing things about 2025 was the apparent capitulation of large swathes of the corporate world to the US-led climate backlash. There’s plenty of evidence, however, that much of the world’s corporate sector remains quietly committed to climate action despite headlines to the contrary. But for many of these companies, the lowest-hanging fruit in terms of decarbonisation has already been picked and the harder (and more expensive) work remains. It therefore makes sense for companies to get more serious about working together to lobby for practical pro-climate policies. This is already happening to some extent: major US companies across industry sectors are already lobbying on climate issues such as supply chain risk. As climate-related risks become more apparent and quantifiable, the private sector can be relied upon to act in its own self-interest and use its considerable resources to lobby for policy support.
It’s famously difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. And so none of these scenarios are really predictions. Indeed, it’s entirely possible that none of them will happen, and that 2026 will be another crap year for climate policy. But that shouldn’t stop us from thinking about the scenarios in which real, practical policy change might take place. And it won’t stop me from advocating for better communications that promote them.