The “fashionable pessimism” bemoaning a failing energy transition misses the bigger picture of progress, says a team of energy analysts aiming to reshape the conversation around electricity-based technologies.

“Amid all the noise, one thing is clear: new energy tech is growing consistently, and with increasing impact,” write researchers with Ember and RMI—Daan Walter, Sam Butler-Sloss, and Kingsmill Bond, in their Substack digest, The Electrotech Revolution.

Reports of stalling electric vehicle growth, climbing emissions, missed net-zero targets, and unravelling climate regulations feed a narrative that “the whole project is doomed,” they write. But those despairing trends leave out many instances of progress: global clean energy investment has doubled fossil fuel spending, solar capacity keeps climbing, and in China—“the world’s first electrostate”—half of all new cars sold are electric.

“Electrotech is accelerating so quickly that China may have already hit peak fossil fuel demand this year—and with China, so too will the world,” the researchers say. “You wouldn’t know it from most headlines.”

Two Camps, More Alike Than They Think

The disconnect in public discourse stems from a polarized energy debate, they write, with ideologies splitting people into two entrenched camps: fossil fuel gradualists and net-zero puritans. The fossil gradualists insist that the shift off fossil fuels will be slow and painful, while the net-zero puritans see the world as carbon emitted and mitigated, often downplaying progress “because it falls short of the ideal, immediate change needed.”

These two groups are more alike than they realize, the authors contend. Both see fossil fuels as entrenched in the economy, and both assume the transition is mainly driven by climate concerns—treating economic growth, energy security, and industrial opportunity as side effects rather than as drivers of change.

“To make sense of what’s happening in energy today, we need a new lens,” the team adds. “We propose a third way: the electrotech revolution.”

This approach frames the transition not as a fuel swap, but as the creation of a better, more organized energy system built around electricity. And that change is already under way.

A “cascade of classic technology disruptions” is unfolding to drive electrification—similar to past shifts in computing, telecoms, and transport—demonstrating how change is driven by bottom-up market innovation rather than top-down mandates.

It’s being realized through the deployment of electrotech—technologies including solar, wind, batteries, electric vehicles, heat pumps, smart grids, and digital controls. Renewables are replacing fossil generation on the supply side, while on the demand side, transport, buildings, and industry are gaining efficiency by electrifying. Batteries and digital systems “tie it all together.”

Dropping the Green-Tinted Framing

As the transition gains traction, some familiar narratives need to shift, they suggest. Rather than promoting “cleantech,” the authors say climate-focused advocates should push “electrotech”, distinguishing it from non-electric and underperforming solutions like carbon capture and blue hydrogen.

“Bundling them all together under the cleantech label has dragged electrotech down.”

Instead, the electrotech discourse must stem from its origin as technologies developed for their economic and social benefits—just as fossil fuels once were. To realize electrotech’s full promise, “we need to unchain it from this green-tinted framing—starting with the recognition that its origins long predate the climate movement.”

Climate action was never the main force behind electrotech’s rapid uptake, the three authors add. What’s driving it is a combination of physics, economics, and geopolitics—“forces that would remain just as compelling even if climate change weren’t part of the equation.”

Electrotech bypasses the inefficiencies of fuel combustion, its declining manufacturing costs benefit from scale learning, and it flips the switch on who controls resources. Sun and wind are everywhere, which promises “Saudi-level energy abundance and independence for all.”

Efforts to accelerate this revolution shouldn’t get bogged down trying to solve endgame problems, the authors argue. Questions like how to cut the final 10% to 15% of emissions are not critical—“in reality, they are no constraint on the 75% of the energy system that can already be targeted with today’s electrotech.”

But it’s not all sunshine and opportunity, they warn. “There are serious risks to falling behind.” Future energy systems may be free of fuels, but they’ll rely heavily on software and digital infrastructure, leaving countries that don’t build these capabilities exposed.

And that means staying ahead is essential: “if we don’t ride the wave, we may drown in it.”

More insights about reframing the global energy transition can be found on RMI’s website.