“When clean alternatives become cheaper, cleaner, more reliable, and more secure, fossil fuel demand collapses – inevitably.” – Lisa Sachs, below
We are back to the 1970s where magical thinking about ‘negawatts’ and the impending competitiveness of solar and wind as grid electricity was the order of the day. Think Jimmy Carter. The U.S. Department of Energy. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Even Synthetic Fuels.
Lisa Sachs of Columbia University, daughter of Jeffrey Sachs, recently posted this as if failed COP30 did not matter. Is she classically ‘in denial’?
The Real Way We Phase Out Fossil Fuels … And It’s Not Through Pledges.
There’s frustration that COP30 didn’t deliver a stronger “phaseout” statement. I understand it, but we’re focused on the wrong lever. Fossil fuels don’t disappear because negotiators agree to it. Fossil fuels disappear when the sectors that use them no longer need them. When clean alternatives become cheaper, cleaner, more reliable, and more secure, fossil fuel demand collapses – inevitably.
Decarbonize the systems → reduce fossil demand → fossil fuels decline:
⚡️ Energy: least-cost renewables, modern grids, storage
🚗 Transport: mass transit, EVs, electrified buses and freight
🏬 Buildings: efficiency, heat pumps, district energy
🏭 Industry: electrification, clean heat, green hydrogen derivatives
🌳 Land + Agriculture: regenerative practices, nature-based solutions
In many regions, clean solutions are already the least-cost option. The job now is to scale them, integrate them, and remove the barriers slowing their uptake.
These are the real levers that phase out fossil fuels (with or without new COP language):
🗺️ Integrated national and regional plans that map least-cost pathways and sequence investments so clean systems can actually replace fossil ones.
🤝 Sector-by-sector coordination to align demand, supply, and policy– the only way transitions become reliable and financeable.
🔌 Faster clean-tech adoption so better alternatives outcompete fossil fuels on cost, performance, efficiency, and security.
💰 Lower the cost of capital in EMDEs [Emerging Markets and Developing Economies] , where borrowing costs run 2–3x higher and make clean energy artificially expensive, delaying fossil retirement.
⚙️Risk-sharing mechanisms that fix mispriced and perceived risks and unlock capital at the scale needed for system-wide transitions
If we deploy clean systems at scale and remove these structural bottlenecks, fossil fuels will fall decisively.
She ends:
Government leadership helps, but it isn’t the sole driver; coordinated action by companies, financiers, cities, and system operators can move these transitions forward at remarkable speed. A structurally aligned transition does far more than any pledge could ever do. It makes the decline of fossil fuels inevitable. And that’s fully within reach.
Really? Even her allies are questioning her naivety.
Margriet Kuijper: “… Whether this effort to phase-out unabated fossil fuel use also leads to accelerated phase-out of fossil fuels depends on which POLICIES will be used to achieve this goal….”
John Ure: “I absolutely agree. However, shifting to renewables is not so easy if the grid infrastructure is not up to it and that is really demanding financially and in terms of quality. But then how to push this up the agenda of a bunch of independent states each of which has its own array of special interests lobbying otherwise? I do think it is important to consider alternatives such as a means to aggregate national contributions and focus them on EMDEs through mechanisms such as an International Green Bank. Otherwise having the answers is meaningless without a means to implement them.”
Ali Cohen: “Your emphasis on national reforms and voluntary alignment overlooks the critical chicken-and-egg dilemma we face: can nations truly act effectively without a coherent and enforceable global financial regulatory framework in place?
We are often told that systemic change begins at home—but how do we expect national policies to succeed when they operate in an increasingly interconnected global market that lacks accountability, transparency, and fair standards? Without a strong, independent global financial regulator, national efforts remain fragmented and vulnerable to external pressures, capital flight, and race-to-the-bottom dynamics.”
Final Comment
A professor is supposed to be a scholar, knowing the different sides of an argument well enough to expound all perspectives with accuracy and even some persuasiveness. Does Lisa Sachs understand the views of Vaclav Smil on energy density? Of Judith Curry on physical climate change? Of Alex Epstein on human betterment from fossil fuels? The overall case against climate alarm presented in the US DOE climate science study?
Does she encourage debate on these fundamentally different perspectives regarding energy and climate in her classroom and at Columbia University? If not, why not?
—————
Other posts on Lisa Sachs:
Carbon Credits Failure: Sachs, Romm, Rockström October 21, 2025
Finance vs. “Climate Finance” (Lisa Sachs’s Problem) October 1, 2025
Lisa Sachs (Columbia University): Assume, Don’t Debate, Premises September 17, 2025
‘Climate Finance’ Degree: Only at Columbia University March 19, 2025
Climate Propaganda at Columbia University: Meet Prof. Lisa Sachs March 18, 2025