The Pragmatic Climate Reset: What It Could Mean for Belgium

Michael Liebreich, well known as the founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance and a leading energy opinion-maker, has last summer stirred debate with his call for a “pragmatic climate reset.” His argument lands at a moment when climate policies are losing traction across several countries, with political pushback mounting against high costs and ambitious targets. Far from advocating retreat, Liebreich sketches a middle path: one that protects credibility and momentum by focusing on what works, at scale, and at acceptable costs.

At the heart of his reasoning lies a diagnosis. Too often, climate debates swing between denialism and idealism. On one side stand those claiming the transition is impossible; on the other, voices insisting only radical, all-in solutions will suffice. Both, Liebreich argues, obscure the reality: transitions are non-linear and cumulative. Incremental growth of clean energy (solar, wind, Evs) eventually squeezes out fossil fuels, even without a single dramatic tipping point. To sustain this trajectory, policies must be politically durable and socially fair.

A reset is also about getting priorities right. Liebreich points out that 90% of the US’ power-sector decarbonization can be achieved below $125 per ton of CO₂, while the final 10% will be far costlier. The same applies to industry. Yet many governments are already channeling scarce funds into this most expensive segment. For example, subsidizing green hydrogen for applications where electrification would be cheaper and faster. In other words, too often climate policy lets the perfect become the enemy of the good. A pragmatic reset would reorient public money toward the high-impact, affordable levers, leaving harder-to-abate sectors for later once technologies and costs evolve.

 

Figure 1: The Marginal Cost of Decarbonising the US Power Grid. Source: Mai et al. 2022, "Getting to 100%: Six strategies for the challenging last 10%"

 

So what does this mean in practice? Liebreich calls for policies that correct distorted energy metrics (such as the “primary energy fallacy”), ensure price signals favor electrification, and prioritize solutions that people actually want to adopt. It is less about lowering ambition than about making ambition stick.

For Belgium, the implications are concrete. On the positive side, our country is leading Europe in electric vehicle uptake. This smart policy, reshaping company car incentives rather than resorting to direct subsidies, has shifted the business case in favor of EVs. This not only reduces fossil fuel use in transport but also lowers primary energy demand, given EVs’ superior efficiency.

But gaps remain. Belgium still burdens electricity with heavy levies while keeping gas relatively cheap, a structural barrier to heat pump adoption. Shifting this balance, as Liebreich stresses, is one of the most effective ways to move households away from fossil heating. At the same time, the delay of the Princess Elisabeth offshore wind auction has been a missed opportunity: both for securing affordable clean electricity and for maintaining investor confidence.

A pragmatic climate reset, then, is not about scaling back Belgium’s ambitions. It is about recalibrating the levers: channeling public funds where they deliver the greatest impact, rewarding electrification where it already works, correcting price misalignments, and ensuring that clean energy build-out proceeds at a pace society and markets can sustain.