The episode opens with Alastair Campbell cataloguing the converging energy crises of mid-2026: Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the Iran war and Strait of Hormuz closure, Donald Trump's drill-baby-drill agenda, record-breaking heatwaves, and the insatiable energy appetite of AI data centres. The sheer density of simultaneous shocks sets up the central tension of the episode — how do you navigate decarbonisation, security, affordability, and industrial strategy all at once? Campbell frames the guest as ideally placed to answer: Dan Jørgensen, European Commissioner for Energy and Housing.

The Fuse Energy sponsorship read is shared between both hosts. Alastair Campbell highlights that tariffs are currently up to £200 below the Ofgem price cap and flags a new referral offer. Rory Stewart explains the mechanism: refer a friend who switches both gas and electricity, and both parties receive £50 off their next bill. Campbell closes with the call to action — switch in three minutes at fuseenergy.com/politics, use code POLITICS, and get Trip+ free.

A BetterHelp ad uses the hook of too many open browser tabs to promote online therapy, citing its 2026 State of Stigma report finding that 74% of Americans believe society still discourages asking for help. It directs listeners to betterhelp.com/restpolitics. Immediately after, a pharmaceutical ad reads safety information for Tremfya, a prescription biologic treatment for moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, directing listeners to tremfyaradio.com.

The hosts introduce the episode as a Question Time special and recall meeting Jørgensen at a Helsinki summit. Rory Stewart sets up the analytical framework that will govern the entire conversation: four distinct but overlapping policy goals — decarbonising the economy, securing energy supply, keeping bills affordable, and supporting industrial competitiveness. The central question posed at the outset is when these four objectives align and when they create painful trade-offs.

Dan Jørgensen distinguishes between a price crisis — already underway — and a supply security crisis, which remains a serious risk if hostilities resume. He explains that while a peace settlement could normalise the situation, commercial EU jet fuel stocks are on course to be depleted by the end of summer; after that, national strategic reserves must be released. ^{[1] — Dan Jørgensen "Europe's jet fuel stocks will be depleted by end of summer if the Strait of Hormuz stays closed. After that come national strategic reserve…" 04:30 Play} The problem is structural: Europe only refines around 70% of its own jet fuel domestically. Diesel could be next in line. He closes with a sobering reminder that the crisis is not hypothetical for countries in Asia, who are already facing daily supply shortfalls — and that fertiliser shortages, often overlooked, are compounding the global impact.

Dan Jørgensen takes the listener back to February 2022, when as Danish minister he personally oversaw emergency contingency plans to force companies to close and send uniformed personnel to enforce compliance — all to ensure Denmark had enough gas for hospitals. He stresses that Denmark was far less exposed than Germany; had Putin turned off the taps to Germany, the whole of Europe would have been in recession. ^{[1] — Dan Jørgensen "When Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, Denmark had emergency plans ready to force companies to close — by military escort if necessary — to co…" 06:40 Play} He then delivers the numbers on dependency reduction: coal from Russia down from 50% to zero, oil from 27% to 3%, gas from 45% to roughly 10% — with a legislative ban on Russian gas imports now in place. Europe also uses 20% less gas than it did in 2022. The conclusion Jørgensen draws is unequivocal: the lesson of both energy shocks is that the only sustainable route out is ditching fossil fuels entirely.

Rory Stewart pushes on the uncomfortable near-term reality: even if renewable energy is the long-term answer, Europe has no technological solution today for flying aircraft or running diesel trucks without fossil fuels. Jørgensen concedes the point but reframes it: the transport sector is bifurcated. Passenger cars are already pivoting fast — Germany, the global heartland of the combustion engine, is now selling more EVs than petrol cars ^{[1] — Dan Jørgensen "Germany now sells more EVs than combustion cars: Even Germany, the global heartland of combustion engine manufacturing, is now selling more…" 09:30 Play} , and Norway and Denmark have seen similar shifts driven by tax policy. Aviation and heavy trucking are harder and will take longer. Meanwhile, Jørgensen argues, the cheapest energy is the energy you don't use — making efficiency measures the most immediate available lever. Europe must simultaneously secure short-term jet fuel and diesel supply while accelerating the structural transition.

The question from listener Francesca challenges the fundamental logic of unilateral EU climate action. Jørgensen's response is to dissolve the premise: the green transition is no longer primarily a cost — it is the cheapest route to energy security and lower bills. Europe has paid €50 billion more for energy since the Middle East crisis without receiving an extra molecule. The cheapest energy to produce today, in rank order, is solar, then onshore wind, offshore wind, then gas, coal, and nuclear. He also pushes back on the idea that Europe is acting alone: China is the world's biggest deployer of renewables, India is moving in the same direction, and even Texas sets new wind-turbine installation records every year — all driven by economics, not ideology.

Rory Stewart mounts the episode's most direct intellectual challenge: the claim that green energy is cheap energy is politically dangerous because it isn't always true. Industrial electricity prices in the US are lower than in Europe; the UK has no hydro backup and needs gas-fired stations when renewables don't deliver. Why should the public believe the slogan when their bills tell a different story? ^{[1] — Dan Jørgensen "An energy bill has three components: the raw price of energy, transmission costs, and taxes. The first is physics; the other two are pure p…" 15:58 Play} Jørgensen responds by decomposing the energy bill into its three components: the market price of energy (physics), transmission costs (infrastructure investment), and taxes and levies (pure political choices). On the last element, he points out that several EU member states tax electricity at four times the rate of gas — a structural perversity that both raises bills and discourages electrification. Reversing these tax incentives, he argues, would immediately lower bills, incentivise the switch to electricity, and accelerate the transition.

The North Sea question is the most politically charged of the episode, and Dan Jørgensen's answer is unambiguous: stop drilling and build wind turbines. Denmark, he reveals, was the EU's largest oil producer when he was minister and chose to end all future licensing rounds. ^{[1] — Dan Jørgensen "Denmark was the EU's biggest oil producer when it decided to stop all future North Sea oil and gas licensing. The economic calculus was str…" 17:35 Play} The decision was primarily driven by climate, but economic analysis supported it: the investments required to explore and extract the remaining small reserves simply couldn't compete against falling renewable costs. He argues the North Sea's true value lies in offshore wind — the capacity to generate electricity for the whole of Europe — rather than a few more years of diminishing oil extraction. Norwegian PM Jonas Gjærstøre's counter-argument, that Norway should be allowed to supply Europe's security needs, is addressed in the following chapter.

Rory Stewart introduces a genuine counterpoint from an allied leader: Norwegian PM Jonas Gjærstøre argues Europe is being pushed into dependence on Russia, the US, or the Middle East when Norway — a trusted partner — could supply its own fossil fuels. Jørgensen is respectful but firm: Norway is a friend, not a threat, but it charges market prices, not friendship prices. Dependence on any single supplier is strategically unhealthy. And when cheap, scalable renewable alternatives are available and cost-declining, the rational choice is to build those rather than extend fossil dependency. He cites the EU's near-90-gigawatt annual renewable deployment as evidence the alternative path is already being walked at scale.

Alastair Campbell frames the geopolitical question bluntly: is Trump deliberately trying to keep Europe dependent on American LNG? Jørgensen won't attribute motive, but the facts speak for themselves: 2025 was forecast to be a year of global oil surplus; the Middle East crisis tipped it to a deficit; and the White House runs a body called the American Energy Dominance Council with fossil energy dominance as an explicit objective. ^{[1] — Dan Jørgensen "The White House runs a body called the American Energy Dominance Council — its mandate is not subtle. The US has shifted from net importer …" 21:40 Play} His counter-intuitive argument is that Trump's withdrawal from green investment may actually help Europe attract institutional capital — money originally destined for US renewables may now flow to Europe instead. He also dismisses the idea that Europeans are looking to Trump as a political role model: his influence in Europe is indirect, via LNG trade flows and geopolitics, not ideological emulation.

This is the emotional centrepiece of the episode. When asked whether net zero is achievable and why the argument is being pushed back, Jørgensen sets aside data and economics to speak personally about the climate emergency itself. ^{[1] — Dan Jørgensen "Climate change, that's the biggest threat multiplier we have on this planet, and it will lead to wars and insecurity and immigration." 25:18 Play} He recalls working as a 19-year-old in a London hotel where the only sign of summer was that the rain was slightly warmer — contrasting that with today's lethal heatwaves across the UK and Europe. He argues that climate change is not a future problem: it is hitting the most vulnerable parts of the world now, and Europe is the fastest-heating continent. He invokes it as the 'biggest threat multiplier on the planet' — a driver of wars, instability, and mass migration. It is, he insists, the one crisis that will not be solved and will only get worse, unlike Ukraine or the Middle East. The contrast between this framing and the dry economic arguments he usually deploys is deliberate and striking.

Both hosts read the Vauxhall sponsorship. Rory Stewart describes the Electric Streets of Britain initiative supporting local authorities in expanding on-street EV charging. Alastair Campbell highlights Vauxhall's sponsorship of Team GB athletes on their path to the 2028 Olympics and the new Grandland Griffin, a large family SUV available as full electric or mild hybrid. A £1,500 electric car grant is available; listeners are directed to vauxhall.co.uk.

A Sallie Mae-affiliated ad promotes Sallie.com/go-parents as a one-stop platform for scholarships, funding, and college loans. Immediately after, a urology awareness ad discusses Peyronie's disease — scar tissue causing penile curvature — and encourages men to consult a urology specialist, directing them to TalkAboutPD.com.

Rory Stewart sharpens the political communication question: whatever is being done to sell the green transition isn't working, so what needs to change? Jørgensen resists the premise slightly — the direction of travel is right even if it isn't working fast enough — and marshals his strongest economic evidence. ^{[1] — Dan Jørgensen "The IEA calculates that newly deployed renewables save European consumers approximately €33 billion per year on electricity bills. EU grid …" 31:00 Play} The IEA calculates that newly deployed renewables save Europe €33 billion a year on electricity bills; ACER estimates that grid interconnection saves a further €30–40 billion. These are real, tangible savings that would vanish if the transition were reversed. But Rory persists: why doesn't the European public feel it? Jørgensen acknowledges big national differences — Spain has seen bills fall and broadly backs renewables; southeast European states are deploying renewables rapidly but haven't yet reaped the benefits because their grids aren't connected. The answer, he implies, is not a different message but better infrastructure.

Jørgensen offers two sharp case studies of how the green transition fails politically. ^{[1] — Dan Jørgensen "Spain was hit hard by gas dependency in 2022 and has since shifted heavily to renewables — its citizens see cheaper bills and back the tran…" 33:10 Play} The French Gilets Jaunes protests were not a revolt against fighting climate change — they were a revolt against rising personal costs. Similarly, in Sweden, young voters in the most recent election backed right-wing parties not over immigration but over fuel taxes, despite Sweden being the home of Greta Thunberg. The lesson he draws: populations want to fight climate change, but not if it visibly hurts their own finances. Politicians — including himself, he admits — must therefore use every available tool to align individual financial incentives with climate goals: lower taxes on electricity, invest more in grids, subsidise energy efficiency. The political will is there in principle; what's missing is the courage to match pricing policy to stated objectives.

Listeners Zoe, Felix, and Andrew all ask variants of the same question: why isn't rooftop solar on every building? Jørgensen is broadly enthusiastic — solar now attracts twice the investment of fossil fuels globally, in large part because it offers the best business case. ^{[1] — Dan Jørgensen "Global investment in renewables vs fossils: 2:1: Global investment in solar and wind is now twice the amount being invested in fossil fuels…" 36:15 Play} Decentralised solar production has a structural advantage in that it often doesn't need the grid to work. But he names the two biggest systemic bottlenecks: grid expansion and permitting times. New solar parks and wind farms are being approved and built far too slowly, and the infrastructure to transmit their output is lagging even further behind. Subsidies helped solar reach scale, but many markets no longer need them. The political task now is bureaucratic: reform planning systems to enable faster approvals.

Dan Jørgensen uses a remarkable anecdote to illustrate the grid problem viscerally: when he was Danish minister, Denmark would sometimes produce so much wind energy that the German grid couldn't take it. The result? German taxpayers paid Danish operators to switch their turbines off — at the same time Danish taxpayers were being told they needed to subsidise those very turbines. ^{[1] — Dan Jørgensen "Sometimes the German taxpayers' money would be spent to pay us to stop the wind turbines because their grid was not able to take it in. So …" 37:15 Play} This is grid curtailment in practice, and it reveals that the biggest danger to the European energy transition is not a lack of renewable generation capacity but a lack of transmission capacity to deliver that electricity where it's needed. Tidal power, raised by listener James, is addressed briefly: Jørgensen sees it as a future technology with real potential but notes it remains tiny compared to wind and solar today.

James's question about tidal power gives Jørgensen an opportunity to tell the cautionary tale of offshore wind's origin story. ^{[1] — Dan Jørgensen "Denmark: first offshore wind park built 1991: Denmark built the world's first offshore wind park in 1991, a technology once ridiculed as na…" 39:50 Play} When Denmark built the world's first offshore wind park in 1991, the reaction from experts and the public alike was derision — naive idealists wasting money on something impossibly expensive. Today, offshore wind competes on price with coal and gas globally. Jørgensen argues tidal and wave energy could follow the same arc, but needs the same early-stage policy support: contracts for difference to share risk between producers and the state, and sustained government commitment through the years when the technology is not yet competitive. The lesson of offshore wind is that patience and consistent policy unlock cost curves that initially seem impossible.

Listener questions about data centres and AI reveal public anxiety about a looming energy drain. Jørgensen's position is pragmatic: Europe cannot rely solely on American big tech for information infrastructure, so European data centres are a sovereignty necessity, not just a business choice. ^{[1] — Dan Jørgensen "Data centres: 2.5% EU energy, set to double: Data centres currently account for around 2.5% of EU energy consumption, a figure expected to …" 42:00 Play} Data centres currently consume approximately 2.5% of EU energy, and that share is set to double within five years. The EU Commission's response — which Jørgensen is driving — is not to block construction but to set mandatory standards for energy efficiency and require data centres to capture and re-use excess heat. He cites examples of data centres now serving as heat sources for thousands of homes: a liability turned into a distributed heating asset. The EU Council of Ministers is expected to adopt the Commission's proposed approach imminently.

Rory Stewart observes that barely any listener questions mentioned transmission and distribution — yet this invisible infrastructure is arguably the most critical constraint in the entire energy system. ^{[1] — Dan Jørgensen "Today it's like 27 member states trying to be a union on energy, but in fact it's like 27 different people making a jigsaw puzzle without l…" 44:30 Play} Jørgensen responds with surprising candour: even after 20 years working on energy, it took him until roughly 5–10 years ago to fully appreciate that grid expansion was probably the single biggest challenge facing the transition. The arrival of data centres at unexpected speed and scale has compounded an already serious problem. His solution is structural: he is pushing for the European Commission to gain authority to draw up a pan-European energy infrastructure plan — comparing the current 27-nation free-for-all to assembling a jigsaw without the picture on the box. The Bornholm energy island — financed largely by Germany but physically in Denmark — is cited as a model for what cross-border infrastructure cooperation can look like.

The final listener question, from a self-described 'deeply cynical 26-year-old', cuts to the heart of the episode: is any government actually serious about climate? Jørgensen acknowledges the question deserves two speeches: a gloomy one and a hopeful one. The gloomy one cites the Giddens Paradox — Anthony Giddens's observation that by the time humans are willing to do everything necessary to stop climate change, the tipping point will already have passed. ^{[1] — Dan Jørgensen "Anthony Giddens identified the key paradox of climate politics: humans only mobilise fully when catastrophe becomes undeniable, but by then…" 45:40 Play} We may, Jørgensen admits, have already crossed it. The hopeful speech points to genuinely encouraging numbers: global renewables investment is twice fossil investment, EU emissions targets are being met, and the economics of the transition are now sound. ^{[2] — Dan Jørgensen "Martin Luther King did not start a civil rights revolution by giving a speech called 'I Have a Nightmare.' We do need to create hope." 46:50 Play} He then invokes Martin Luther King — 'He didn't give a speech called I Have a Nightmare' — to argue that climate advocates must lead with hope and not despair. His honest conclusion, though, is that no, governments including his own are not acting with the urgency the crisis demands, and he admits he too talks more about prices and security than about the planet itself.

As the interview closes, Jørgensen offers a charming aside: apart from The Rest Is Politics, he mainly listens to podcasts about birds. The hosts are delighted, with Alastair Campbell revealing he loves birds and Jørgensen humorously declining the label 'twitcher'. The exchange doubles as a reminder that the EU Energy Commissioner giving 45 minutes on a busy London trip to answer listener questions is an unusual act of public engagement — noted warmly by both hosts before the guest departs.

With Jørgensen gone, Rory and Alastair engage in what is arguably the most intellectually honest exchange of the episode. Rory Stewart's verdict is uncomfortable: the reason the green transition argument is losing public ground is not a conspiracy by Trump or the far right — it is because ordinary businesses and households sense that the 'green energy is cheap energy' narrative doesn't fully add up. He notes that a German industrialist listening to Jørgensen would be tearing their hair out. ^{[1] — Rory Stewart "After the interview, Rory and Alastair disagree sharply. Rory argues that insisting green energy is always cheap and that there are no trad…" 49:48 Play} Alastair Campbell pushes back hard: a Business Breakthrough Barometer survey shows 92% of European business leaders see competitive advantage in the renewables approach; the political problem is not the economics but the right-left polarisation of the debate, exploited by figures like Richard Tice and the Reform Party. He is also critical of Tony Blair's recent signals on North Sea drilling, despite praising the Tony Blair Institute's climate papers as among the best Jørgensen has read. The exchange ends with Rory calling for global solutions — taxing embedded carbon in imports from China — and Alastair insisting that dismissing the 1% European contribution as futile is itself part of the problem.

Both hosts sign off, thanking listeners for their questions and committing to revisit energy and climate themes given the volume of interest. The NordVPN sponsorship — exclusive deal with a 30-day money-back guarantee — is noted in the episode description directing listeners to nordvpn.com/restispolitics.

The episode ends with a cross-promotional preview from The Rest Is Classified. Presenters Gordon and David introduce their new series on the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, a Russian security service officer living in London who was killed with a rare radioactive toxin. The preview highlights the involvement of foreign agents on British soil, the political conspiracy that reaches to Vladimir Putin, and the British government's alleged suppression of the truth to protect diplomatic relationships. Listeners are directed to find the full series wherever they get their podcasts.