Letter from Europe: The trouble with the trilemma
Pursuing three different goals as part of the same package may mean achieving none of them
The transition away from fossil fuels is often framed as part of an ‘energy trilemma’, with lowering carbon emissions packaged with ensuring affordability and maintaining security of supply. Wrapping several goals together is generally a bad idea. It tends to be a result of negotiations among many diverse parties, each one with somewhat different objectives. The outcome is a compromise with a number of goals, each one of them usually challenging in its own right. The UN-endorsed sustainable development goals (SDGs) are a good example of this. There are 17 of them, and while there is nothing wrong with making efforts to achieve them all, what is problematic is believing they can all be achiev
Also in this section
28 April 2026
Oil traders warning of $200/bl oil are wrong, and the market should be wary of proclamations that the impact of the oil shortage has only begun to be felt and a that a ‘harsh adjustment’ is coming—even for industrialised nations
28 April 2026
Restoring supply from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Iraq involves complexities far beyond simply adjusting operational controls
28 April 2026
Datacentres will guzzle power at a ferocious rate, but the impact on wider energy markets will be far more complex than previously thought
28 April 2026
The key energy player faces balancing regional routes, political complexities, and creating a clear strategic vision for energy security







