At COP21 in 2015, where I served as a Lead Negotiator for the European Union, we were trying to solve a problem that was political as much as technical: How could nearly 200 countries commit to a common direction while recognizing very different economies, energy systems and development needs? It was a great example of multilateralism in action. The Paris Agreement did not prescribe one technology or one national pathway. It created a durable framework for countries to set plans, frame commitments, report progress and strengthen their efforts over time.
A decade later, that experience continues to shape how I think about climate policy. Agreement is essential, but it is only the beginning. In more than 25 years working across government, industry, academia and United Nations clean-energy projects, I have repeatedly seen that targets assist in shaping policy direction but matter only when they are translated into execution: execution through infrastructure, investment signals, institutional capacity, and projects that people can see improving their lives.
That is the implementation challenge facing leaders at Climate Week NYC this September. The conference theme, “Energy. Impact. Action.,” reflects a shift in the climate conversation from how the low-carbon transition will reshape the global economy to where and how quickly it can be built, who will pay for it, and who should benefit.
Ireland offers a useful case study. Like many countries, it faces infrastructural challenges around grid and planning, high energy costs and rapidly growing energy demand from all parts of the economy. Those are not footnotes to the Irish story. They are the reason it is relevant to other countries confronting the same tensions between decarbonization, affordability, security and economic growth.
As a small, open economy with large technology, life-sciences and advanced-manufacturing sectors, Ireland experiences these pressures in concentrated form. Its most important choice has been to bring climate, energy and industrial policy closer together, rather than asking each to operate on a separate timetable. As a result, the economy is transforming rapidly with industry enhancing their productivity and competitiveness.
The first lesson is that clean energy must be treated as economic infrastructure. Ireland is targeting at least 80 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and 37 gigawatts of offshore renewable energy by 2050. But an abundant wind resource is of little use if power cannot reach homes and businesses. The country is therefore pairing generation goals with a multibillion-euro program of grid reinforcement and modernization through 2030. The supply side energy model is also being met with a demand side model where large energy users are critical to successful deployment of this renewable electricity.
That investment is significant, but it is not a victory lap. Planning, construction capacity, cost control and delivery will determine whether funding becomes usable capacity. The Irish experience is a reminder that the energy transition is now as much a transmission, execution and systems-management challenge as it is a generation challenge.
There is already evidence that environmental activity can create economic value. Ireland’s green economy generated €10.7 billion, or approximately $12.2 billion, in gross output and supported 43,600 full-time-equivalent jobs in 2022, the latest comprehensive measurement by the Central Statistics Office. Those figures show that spending on energy, water, waste, engineering and related services can build capabilities that extend beyond environmental compliance to measurable economic value.
One of the hardest questions is how to accommodate new electricity demand from data centers, semiconductor plants, pharmaceutical manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries.
Ireland’s Large Energy User Action Plan proposes coordinating major new users with renewable generation, storage, grid flexibility and, where appropriate, direct connections. It presents a radical shift from previous policy approaches. Planned green energy parks could co-locate industrial demand with clean supply, while private-wire rules could allow new infrastructure to be built closer to where electricity is used.
The transferable principle is more important than the specific Irish mechanism: Large energy users should not be treated only as passive customers, but enablers for the system to be delivered. That requires safeguards so households are not left carrying the cost, and transparent tests of whether a project delivers jobs, local value, flexibility and emissions reductions.
The social dimension is equally important. In Ireland’s Midlands, former peatlands are being considered for a new generation of energy parks that combine renewable power and peatland rehabilitation. Here, commercial state actors are collaborating to shape low-carbon industry and clean energy deployment. That “brown to green” transition is important because climate policy will retain public support only if it produces regional investment, durable jobs, and new uses for legacy industrial assets.
The same implementation test applies inside factories. At Merck’s Cork facility, 100% renewable electricity, heat recovery and the reuse of up to 95% of high-purity process water are expected to avoid 61 metric tons of emissions annually. Eli Lilly’s solar farm in Kinsale reduces electricity drawn from carbon-based sources by nearly 6 GWh and cuts its carbon footprint by approximately 2,350 metric tons each year. These projects do not replace system-wide reform, but they show how climate commitments can become measurable operating decisions that improve efficiency, conserve resources and strengthen resilience.
Research must also connect technologies to the system in which they will operate. Ireland’s new €52 million (US $59.3 million) Rinn Energy center brings together expertise in renewable supply, smart grids, industrial decarbonization, transport, economics and community transition. That breadth matters. No single technology can solve a problem that spans engineering, markets, regulation and public consent. Similar Rinn centers exist to shape future AI and lie sciences’ research and developments.
Other countries do not need to replicate Ireland’s institutions or targets. The broader lesson is to plan energy supply, grid infrastructure and demand together; require major users to support new capacity and flexibility; make affordability and regional benefits central to project design; and measure whether the timely execution of public and private commitments are delivering meaningful emissions reductions.
That last point applies to my own organization. IDA Ireland’s 2025–2029 strategy includes a target to reduce carbon emissions across its client base by 35 percent by 2030. Nearly 70% of IDA’s top 100 clients have already made net-zero pledges. Achieving that goal will require continued partnership to turn corporate commitments into measurable emissions reductions.
The Paris negotiations taught me that meaningful progress depends on frameworks that align many actors without pretending they all have the same interests. Ireland is attempting that alignment at a national scale. It is worth studying because it is addressing these interconnected challenges as part of a single transition: rising demand, clean energy supply, grid capacity, consumer costs, regional development and industrial investment.
At Climate Week 2026, I want to focus on the policies that can turn climate commitments into power lines, energy storage, resilient industries, lower emissions and lasting public support. That is how ambition becomes infrastructure and agreements lead to action. I look forward to continuing that conversation in New York. Come find me.
Dr. Matt Kennedy is Global Head of Client Transformation at IDA Ireland, advancing multinational sustainability and decarbonization. An energy and environmental engineer, he served as the EU’s lead climate-technology negotiator at COP21 and chaired the UN Climate Technology Centre and Network. He joined Ireland’s Climate Change Advisory Council in 2026.
