Energy, Security, and the New Conservative Backlash
London’s International Energy Agency (IEA) Summit on the Future of Energy Security was expected to showcase bold commitments toward a cleaner energy landscape. Instead, it became a battleground over the future of the world’s power supply. The United States, represented by Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for International Affairs Tommy Joyce, raised eyebrows by denouncing anti-fossil fuel policies as “harmful and dangerous,” sharply diverging not only from the spirit of the IEA gathering but also from recent global scientific consensus about the urgency of climate action.
Joyce’s language—more reminiscent of the Trump administration than President Biden’s measured pursuit of carbon neutrality—signaled an abrupt, public split within American energy policy. “We oppose these harmful and dangerous policies,” Joyce declared. The message was clear: If renewables and net-zero targets threaten fossil fuels, Washington, at least under the stewardship of certain officials, will resist. This stance stands out against Biden’s efforts at home to set ambitious emissions targets and re-enter the Paris Climate Accord. The question arising from Joyce’s speech: Will such conservative retrenchment in US rhetoric carry weight internationally—or merely complicate the path forward?
The context is vital. As wars in Ukraine and the Middle East churn global energy markets and Trump-era tariffs sow uncertainty, the intersection of geopolitics and energy security could not be starker. Europe, particularly through the voice of British Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, argued forcefully for a rapid embrace of renewables and nuclear to end the continent’s dependence on imported oil—a dependence all too easily weaponized in times of crisis.
A Divided Summit and Conflicting Futures
IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol struck a more conciliatory note than his own organization’s 2023 forecast, which projected fossil fuel demand would peak before 2030. At the summit, Birol tempered predictions with pragmatism: “Every country has its own energy pathway.” OPEC, meanwhile, predictably championed a “both-and” approach—adding renewables to existing fossil fuels instead of replacing them.
The United States’ sudden conservative turn was not lost on European allies or the energy industry. Is this merely election-year posturing or a fundamental policy shift? The audible absence of China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia—the world’s fossil fuel powerhouses—further complicated matters; if major producers aren’t even at the table, how real is any global agreement?
Speaking on the summit’s sidelines, Dr. Jane Tanner, a climate policy analyst at Oxford’s Smith School, noted, “The US move seems less about practical energy security and more about ideological showmanship. These hesitations delay progress, while communities worldwide are left reeling from extreme weather wrought by fossil dependence.” According to the latest IPCC report, every additional year of delay puts the global 1.5°C target further out of reach—a fact that awkwardly echoed over the conference sessions.
“When officials label science-backed climate policies as ‘harmful and dangerous,’ they risk undermining not only international trust but the collective ability to avert future catastrophes. The stakes are too high for partisan games.”
The divides on full display weren’t just transatlantic. Joyce’s critique of regulating all energy forms except renewables was aimed squarely at net-zero mandates, widely supported by not only the Biden administration but also progressive segments of US industry increasingly making long-term bets on clean energy. The reality: the future of energy is no longer an either/or question—it’s about balancing security, affordability, and climate responsibility.
Weaponizing Energy and the Perils of Policy Paralysis
Ed Miliband’s warning cut to the heart of the matter: “As long as energy can be weaponized against us, our countries and our citizens are vulnerable and exposed.” This vulnerability is no abstract risk. From the Nord Stream sabotage to OPEC supply manipulations, Europe keenly feels the danger of foreign energy dependency. In the US, partisan divides over energy policy yield real-world consequences—a nation that dithers risks ceding leadership, innovation, and resilience.
The conservative case against aggressive climate action is not without its political appeal, especially in fossil fuel-rich states where jobs and regional economies remain tied to oil and gas. But economic transition is no more avoidable than technological progress; industries from Texas to North Dakota are increasingly hedging bets with investments in wind, solar, and hydrogen. Harvard economic historian Naomi Oreskes points out that, historically, government intervention in energy transitions has sparked jobs, innovation, and competitiveness—not collapse.
History offers cautionary tales. In the 1970s, US refusal to swiftly diversify energy sources deepened the pain of oil embargoes and stagflation. Compare that to Germany’s Energiewende, where aggressive incentives fueled not only a renewables boom but a new generation of high-tech jobs. The present resistance to climate policy—whether motivated by ideology or short-term economics—places the nation at similar civilizational crossroads.
Public opinion, too, is shifting. According to Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans—across age brackets and party lines—now acknowledge the need for decisive action on climate and support increased investment in renewables. Skepticism about government mandates persists, yet there is no populist groundswell to “protect” fossil fuels at all cost, as conservative narratives sometimes imply.
A closer look reveals there is no true dichotomy between energy security and environmental responsibility. Studies by the International Renewable Energy Agency show that economies leading in clean energy innovation have both outpaced rivals in job creation and reduced price shocks from volatile oil markets. Energy security is not about clinging to the past; it’s about future-proofing our societies.
What’s Next: The High Price of Delay
You may wonder: Whose vision will define the next decade—the defenders of yesterday’s fuels or the builders of a sustainable tomorrow? The London summit’s outcome makes the answer far from certain. US officials seem caught in a tug-of-war between older power politics and undeniable scientific urgency. For progressive audiences and communities already living through the consequences of climate inaction, the path forward is clear—even if it remains bitterly contested at the highest levels of global diplomacy.
As heatwaves, wildfires, and extreme weather exact mounting human and economic tolls, those who brand solutions as “dangerous” will ultimately answer to history and a public demanding more, not less, ambition. The real hazard isn’t in phasing out fossil fuels – it’s in standing still while the planet moves on.
