The article from The Free Press (April 2026) by Lucy Biggers, a former climate activist turned "climate realist," delivers a stark warning: rushing to net-zero emissions and 100% renewable energy before the underlying technologies (storage, grid flexibility, firm dispatchable power, and scalable alternatives) are ready risks severe real-world harm — blackouts, economic stagnation, industrial decline, energy poverty, and even hunger. Biggers draws from her own past in the movement (protesting pipelines, pushing the Green New Deal) to argue that good intentions can backfire when they ignore engineering and economic realities. She uses Cuba as a cautionary tale: the island has "achieved net-zero faster than any other" largely through crisis-driven collapse in fossil fuel imports, resulting in prolonged blackouts, families burning books for cooking, and broader despair.⁠

This perspective aligns with a growing body of evidence from energy transitions worldwide. Premature or poorly sequenced decarbonisation — closing reliable baseload sources (coal, nuclear, gas) while renewables remain intermittent and storage/grid upgrades lag — creates fragility. The core issue is the timeline, cost, reliability, and human consequences of forcing the shift too aggressively.

The Engineering Challenge: Intermittency Without Mature Solutions

Wind and solar are now cheap to build in many places, but they produce power variably (no sun at night, no wind on calm days, weather-dependent). A true 100% renewable grid requires massive overbuild, long-duration storage, or firm backups to avoid blackouts. Current battery technology handles short gaps (hours), but seasonal or multi-day lulls demand alternatives that aren't scaled yet at affordable cost.

Real-world examples show the strain:

South Australia (my home state) has pushed hard toward high renewables penetration — often 70-80%+ from wind/solar in recent periods, with ambitions nearing 100%. It has seen price volatility, reliance on expensive gas peakers during calm/low-sun periods, and occasional localised outages (e.g., dust/salt-related flashovers on lines in regional areas). While batteries help absorb surpluses and prices have dropped at times with high renewable output, critics note increased volatility and vulnerability without strong baseload or interconnectors. The state has experienced system stresses that highlight the "just-in-time" risks in a high-renewables setup.⁠

Germany's Energiewende ("energy transition") is the most cited cautionary case in Europe. After aggressive renewable rollout and nuclear phase-out, the country faces some of the highest electricity prices in the developed world. Industrial energy costs have driven de-industrialisation: chemical plants closing, companies relocating (e.g., to the US with cheaper power), job losses, and grid bottlenecks causing curtailment (wasted renewable output) or negative pricing spikes. Blackouts remain rare due to backups, but the economic pain is real — higher costs passed to households and industry, contributing to stagnation.⁠

Broader Europe has seen high prices (often double US levels for industry), factory closures, and competitiveness loss, even as emissions fell. Grid upgrades and storage lag behind generation investment.

Globally, fossil fuels still supplied ~86% of primary energy as of recent data, despite trillions invested in the transition (a record $2.3 trillion in 2025 alone). Renewables grow fast in electricity but struggle to displace dispatchable sources across transport, industry, and heating without breakthroughs in hydrogen, advanced nuclear, or long-duration storage.⁠

Economic Stagnation and Energy Poverty

Forcing rapid coal/nuclear retirements before replacements are ready raises costs and reduces reliability. Energy-intensive industries (steel, chemicals, manufacturing) are especially vulnerable — high prices erode margins, leading to offshoring (often to coal-heavy countries, creating "carbon leakage" with no global emissions gain). Households face higher bills, hitting low-income groups hardest and risking fuel poverty.

In developing contexts, unreliable or expensive energy stifles growth. Blackouts disrupt hospitals, water treatment, refrigeration (food spoilage), and small businesses. The IEA has warned that electricity security becomes critical as demand surges (data centres, EVs, electrification), yet grid and flexibility investments often trail generation buildout.

Hunger and Broader Human Costs: The Sri Lanka ParallelBiggers' warning about hunger echoes the Sri Lanka 2021 organic farming experiment — a rapid, top-down "sustainable" shift. The government banned synthetic fertilizers/pesticides overnight for environmental and health reasons, aiming for 100% organic. Yields collapsed (rice down ~30%, tea exports hit), forcing rice imports for the first time in decades, spiking food prices, and worsening an existing economic crisis. The policy was partially reversed after months of pain, but damage to food security and farmer livelihoods was done. While not purely "net-zero," it illustrates the risk of ideological policy overriding proven systems without viable alternatives ready at scale.⁠

In energy terms, similar abrupt shifts could indirectly threaten food systems: higher energy costs raise fertilizer production/transport prices, disrupt irrigation pumping, or reduce mechanized farming efficiency. In cold climates, unreliable power risks heating failures; in hot ones, cooling/food storage.

Sure, not every renewable push leads to disaster. Costs for solar/wind have fallen dramatically; some regions with hydro, strong grids, or complementary sources manage high penetration better. South Australia has demonstrated innovation with batteries and exports/curtailment. Many experts (IEA, IRENA) see pathways to deep decarbonisation with massive investment in grids, storage, efficiency, and firm low-carbon sources (nuclear, geothermal, hydrogen).

The problem is premature mandates: timelines driven by political targets (e.g., net-zero by 2050) that outpace technology and infrastructure. Over-optimism about batteries or "demand response" ignoring real-world variability has costs. Energy systems must prioritize reliability, affordability, and security first — or the backlash (political, economic, humanitarian) undermines progress.

Cuba's case is extreme (geopolitical isolation + sanctions compounding issues), but it underscores what happens when reliable supply evaporates without substitutes. Australia's own fuel situation shows how tight, import-dependent systems amplify shocks — energy security is fragile.

Lessons for Australia and Beyond

In Adelaide/South Australia, with its high renewables ambition, the nuances matter: steady progress on batteries and interconnectors helps, but over-reliance without diverse firm power risks the volatility seen elsewhere. Nationally, coal plant closures, gas constraints, and renewable intermittency have already strained the NEM (National Electricity Market). Policies should sequence transitions carefully — maintain backups, accelerate R&D/storage/grid, and avoid punishing reliable sources prematurely.

Biggers' shift from activist to realist echoes the fuel crisis nuances: emotionally compelling narratives ("just stop oil," rapid net-zero) can override specificity and trade-offs. Medicine, fuel supply, and energy systems all advance best with evidence, incremental realism, and humility about current technological limits.

Pursuing lower emissions is worthwhile, but doing so by gambling on unready systems risks exactly the blackouts, stagnation, and human suffering the article warns about. The prudent path balances climate ambition with energy reality: invest heavily in innovation while keeping the lights on, industry competitive, and food/fuel affordable today. Rushing risks disaster; sequencing thoughtfully offers a more durable transition.

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-was-a-climate-activist-heres-why-net-zero-leads-to-disaster