"The recent resurgence in focus on renewable energy has a different set of drivers than we saw at the beginning of the decade," says Philip Ripman, Portfolio Manager Storebrand Global Solutions. "What started as a largely green transition story is now increasingly about energy security, both in terms of supply and the ability to deliver power through expanded grid infrastructure."
The return of realism
According to Ripman, the resurgence of interest in renewable energy reflects a fundamental shift in priorities, driven less by environmental idealism and more by economic and geopolitical necessity.
The change highlights a growing recognition of the practical benefits renewable energy can offer. While concerns remain about manufacturing dependence, particularly on China, the long-term characteristics of renewable assets are becoming harder to ignore.
"Once a solar panel is installed, its lifespan is more than 20 years," Ripman notes.
"That's fundamentally different from energy systems that depend on continuous fuel deliveries and ongoing geopolitical stability. Renewables are remarkably insulated from disruptions such as what happens in the Straits of Hormuz once they're operational."
”Just as geopolitical realism changed the investment case for renewable energy, the effects of climate change will reshape the drivers behind areas such as freshwater management, adaption to extreme weather end energy efficiency.”
- Phillip Ripman, Portfolio Manager of Storebrand Global Solutions
He argues that this shift reflects a broader return to realism in policymaking and investment decisions. The same geopolitical considerations that have reshaped energy markets are now converging with another unavoidable force: the increasing economic impact of climate change.
"As costs increase and climate change is felt by a larger part of society, it's inevitable that politics will refocus on the issue," says Ripman. "Just as geopolitical realism changed the investment case for renewable energy, the effects of climate change will reshape the drivers behind areas such as freshwater management, adaptation to extreme weather and energy efficiency."
What makes the current moment different from previous climate debates is that the costs are no longer abstract.
"The change is that costs are now appearing on balance sheets," Ripman says.
For businesses, insurers and households alike, climate risk is increasingly translating into tangible financial consequences. Whether through inflation, supply disruptions or rising insurance premiums, the economic effects are becoming difficult to dismiss.
"When the cost becomes real, it arrives either as inflation or as withdrawal," Ripman explains. "The product simply stops being offered."
Bills are not a matter of opinion
Insurance may provide the clearest example of this dynamic. In regions facing escalating climate risks, insurers are already reconsidering their exposure, leaving property owners with fewer options and higher costs.
"You won't be able to insure your property at any price," warns Ripman. "That is the point at which the politics change, because an insurer exiting a market can't be blamed on a carbon tax. There is no policy scapegoat for a risk that has simply been repriced."
While public debate about the causes of climate change may continue, Ripman believes economic reality will ultimately prove more influential than political rhetoric.
"Voters may disagree about the cause for a long time yet," he says. "But bills are not a matter of opinion."
In that sense, the renewed focus on climate-related policies may not represent a return to environmental activism as much as an acknowledgement that the financial consequences of inaction are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. As climate costs move from projections to profit-and-loss statements, political apathy may be coming to an end.