This gap underscores a broader struggle marked by policy inconsistencies, economic pressures, and geopolitical shifts. As major players like BP pivot away from green investments, wind giant Orsted seeks bailouts amid stock collapses, and the United States moves to dismantle key Obama-era regulations on CO2 emissions, the path to net zero by 2050 appears increasingly fraught. This article explores these developments and their implications for global climate goals.
BP’s Retreat from Renewables: A Sign of Shifting Priorities
Oil major BP, once a vocal proponent of the energy transition, made headlines in 2025 for scaling back its renewable ambitions in favor of fossil fuels. In February, BP announced it would scrap its target to expand renewable generation 20-fold by 2030, redirecting focus toward oil and gas production.
Are you from California or New York and need a tax break?
The company slashed its planned annual investment in renewables to between $1.5 billion and $2 billion, down from previous forecasts of up to $9 billion by 2030, while boosting oil and gas spending to $10 billion annually.
This represents a $5 billion cut in green project budgets, signaling a broader industry trend where profitability trumps sustainability amid volatile energy markets.
BP’s leadership justified the move as a “fundamental reset” to prioritize shareholder returns, with plans to maintain oil and gas output at around 2.4 million barrels per day.
While the company still claims to aim for net-zero emissions by 2050, it has retired specific scope 3 emissions targets and adopted a “different path” that critics argue undermines genuine progress.
Recent Q2 2025 earnings showed a $2.4 billion profit, bolstered by cost cuts and higher oil prices, further reinforcing this fossil fuel-centric strategy.
This rollback not only hampers BP’s contribution to global renewables but also sets a precedent for other energy giants facing similar economic pressures.
Orsted’s Financial Woes: Bailouts and Stock Plunges in the Wind Sector
Danish offshore wind leader Orsted has become emblematic of the renewable sector’s vulnerabilities in 2025. The company, once hailed as a pioneer in green energy, has faced a cascade of setbacks, culminating in requests for government support and dramatic stock declines. In a surprise move, Orsted announced a rights offering of up to 60 billion Danish kroner (approximately $8.7 billion) to shore up its finances, sending shares crashing below their IPO price—the steepest single-day drop on record.
Key projects have been abandoned due to soaring costs, higher interest rates, and supply chain disruptions. Notably, Orsted canceled the Hornsea 4 offshore wind farm in the UK, a massive 2.4 GW project, stating it no longer made economic sense even with government-guaranteed power prices.
In the US, delays and increased expenses on projects like Sunrise Wind led to a $1.7 billion impairment, causing shares to plummet 17% in January.
President Trump’s policies, including a halt on offshore wind leasing and threats against the industry, exacerbated these issues, with Orsted’s stock falling an additional 9.6% in April amid escalated anti-wind rhetoric.
Desperate for stability, Orsted has turned to governments for aid, seeking relief on US projects and potentially higher subsidies in Europe.
This plea for bailouts highlights the sector’s reliance on public funding, as private investment wanes in the face of economic headwinds. Overall, Orsted’s shares have declined 37% since the 2024 US election, painting a grim picture for offshore wind’s viability without robust policy support.
US Deregulation of CO2: Undermining the Foundation of Climate Policy
Adding fuel to the global struggle, the United States under the Trump administration is actively pursuing the repeal of Obama-era regulations classifying CO2 as a pollutant. In July 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed revoking the “endangerment finding”—a 2009 cornerstone that established greenhouse gases as a threat to public health under the Clean Air Act.
This move would limit the EPA’s authority to regulate emissions from vehicles, power plants, and industries, effectively dismantling the basis for rules like the Clean Power Plan, which targeted a 32% reduction in power sector CO2 emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels.
The proposal, based on legal arguments rather than climate science denial, aligns with broader efforts to “unleash American energy” by prioritizing fossil fuels and cutting green funding.
Critics warn this could add up to 4 billion tonnes of extra US emissions by 2030, derailing the country’s net-zero trajectory and exposing citizens to heightened health and economic risks from pollution.
As the US—one of the world’s largest emitters—has not updated its 2030 renewable targets since COP28, this deregulation exacerbates global delays.
Implications for Net Zero Goals: A Precarious Path Ahead
These developments collectively threaten the attainment of net zero emissions by mid-century. BP’s pivot and Orsted’s crises reflect industry-wide challenges, including policy uncertainties and rising costs, which deter investment in renewables.
The US deregulation, by weakening emissions controls, could increase domestic greenhouse gases significantly, undermining international efforts and encouraging similar backsliding elsewhere.
Globally, with only a handful of countries like France and Spain modestly increasing targets, the 11 TW COP28 goal remains elusive, risking grid congestion and energy insecurity.
Self-proclaimed experts emphasize that even current Paris commitments are insufficient, calling for urgent accountability at forums like COP30.
While technological advancements and economic incentives could still accelerate the transition, the convergence of corporate retreats, project failures, and regulatory rollbacks in 2025 signals a critical juncture. Without renewed ambition and stable policies, the global struggle may evolve into a full-blown crisis, jeopardizing a “sustainable” future as defined by the Net Zero crowd. A true sustainable future should include no energy sources requiring subsidies, while providing a minimal impact on the environment. That path includes nuclear and natural gas, and working to reduce the use of oil products for transportation. Reducing demand should include more hybrids, as well as the use of CNG or Natural Gas type solutions in transportation. Profitability and no subsidies should be part of the net zero goals, but it’s more like a wealth transfer and population control mechanism than a program to save the planet.
Is Oil & Gas Right for Your Portfolio?
Crude Oil, LNG, Jet Fuel price quote
ENB Top News
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack
