With 151 countries, 257 cities and 969 companies having announced net-zero targets, it is clear that much of society now understands the need to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by mid-century in order to limit dangerous warming.
However, there is less agreement on the actions required to get there.
Since the COP26 UN climate summit in 2021 agreed to a “phasedown of unabated coal”, a growing group of nations have been pushing for a “phase out” of all fossil fuels.
So far, consensus on this remains elusive.
In our new study published in Nature Communications, we explore what the mitigation scenarios compiled in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sixth assessment report (AR6) say about phasing out fossil fuels.
We found that, across all scenarios, global coal, oil and gas supply must decline by an average of 95%, 62% and 42%, respectively, from 2020 to 2050 in order to limit long-term warming to 1.5C with no or limited “overshoot“.
While there is relative consensus in these pathways about the pace of decline needed for coal and oil, the long-term role of gas is highly variable.
We found that scenarios with more gas were reliant on potentially unachievable levels of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) .
If CDR is limited to levels judged plausible by experts, then gas supply must fall twice as quickly to 2050 – by 84% rather than 42% – in order to limit warming to 1.5C. Rates of reduction for coal and oil also increase to 99% and 70%, respectively.
Overall, our research points to the need to rapidly cut the supply and demand of all fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – if the world is to avoid dangerous warming.
Global fossil fuel reduction pathways
The last two annual UN climate summits saw governments failing to agree to the phase out of all fossil fuels.
In response to this year’s “global stocktake” – an assessment of whether countries are on track to achieve the Paris Agreement’s goals – some governments and civil society have put forward options including calls to end fossil fuel exploration well ahead of 2030 and to phase out fossil fuel production by 2050.
To help inform these ongoing debates, we analysed the hundreds of mitigation scenarios that were assembled in the latest IPCC report. We explored what they say about the speed and feasibility of different fossil fuel reduction pathways in line with keeping warming below 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures.
The starting point for our work was the 94 scenarios assessed by the IPCC to limit warming to 1.5C with no or limited overshoot, known as “C1” pathways. The majority of these scenarios suggest substantial reductions in coal and oil supply – whether for energy or non-energy uses – between now and mid-century, as shown by the left and centre panels in the figure below.
However, they show less consensus around the role of gas, with some scenarios seeing an almost complete phaseout by around 2050, while others see continued or even increasing supply out to 2100 (right panel).
Across all 94 scenarios, the central reductions in global coal, oil, and gas between 2020 and 2050 are 95%, 62% and 42%, respectively.
Our next step was to dig into why the gas pathways differ so widely among the C1 scenarios. To do this, we looked at a range of other variables in these 1.5C pathways to see what else is needed in scenarios with higher or lower gas use this century.
As can be seen in the top left panel in the figure below, three typologies of global gas pathways can be identified:
- 1. “Fast decline” pathways showing rapid reductions between now and around mid-century (dark blue line).
- 2. “Slow decline” pathways showing relatively more gradual reductions (mid blue).
- 3. “Rebound” higher-gas pathways showing a near-term decline followed by an increase after around mid-century (light blue).
We found that the modelled gas pathways are largely influenced by three factors, which can also interact with one another and which primarily vary by model family and scenario design.
These factors are carbon pricing, constraints on the availability of CCS and CDR, and constraints on renewable energy deployment.
(We note that CCS can be coupled to fossil fuel use, bioenergy use, or direct air capture; the latter two constitute novel CDR methods. Conventional CDR relies on land-based measures, such as afforestation and reforestation.)
For example, the “REMIND” model family has some of the highest carbon prices, imposes the most stringent assumptions on the global and regional CO2 storage potential and injection rate, and assumes some of the lowest levelised costs of electricity from wind and solar compared to other models. Consequently, all but one C1 scenario from REMIND are grouped into the “fast decline” and “slow decline” clusters.
Conversely, many C1 scenarios generated by the “MESSAGE”, “GEM-E3”, and “WITCH” model families display the “rebound” pattern.
These models typically place no or relatively less stringent constraints on CO2 storage potential and injection rates. Moreover, many of the scenarios from these models are generated under a particular design protocol, in which carbon prices initially increase, but then stabilise or decrease after net-zero CO2 emissions are reached around mid-century and mitigation efforts are relaxed.
Given real-world evidence that the phase-out and phase-in of technology systems are typically highly path-dependent, we argue in our paper that gas-rebound pathways require a more careful evaluation of underlying modelling assumptions, specifically in relation to CCS.
Keeping 1.5C in reach
As a next step, we looked at how the decline of coal, oil and gas would be affected, if 1.5C pathways are restricted to reflect likely real-world constraints on the availability of CCS and CDR.
In 2020, researchers conducted a survey to ask experts to estimate the likely “feasible potential” of three CDR methods, given technical factors such as geological CO2 storage capacity, as well as non-technical factors, such as sustainability considerations and governance constraints.
As the figure below shows, if CDR is limited to what experts think is reasonably achievable, then staying below 1.5C would mean that global production and use of gas would have to be cut twice as fast, to 84% below 2020 levels by 2050 (dashed blue line in the right-hand panel), rather than the 42% implied by the full set of C1 pathways (solid blue line). The corresponding cuts for coal and oil become 99% and 70%, respectively.
Our analysis finds scenarios with long-term high reliance on gas are contingent upon high levels of deployment of CCS and CDR.
Moreover, we show that such high dependence on CCS and CDR is most likely driven by inadequate model representation of real-world constraints on their potential, as well as on energy system path dependencies.
Our findings show that when CCS and CDR are restricted to plausible levels, gas use must also decline rapidly if warming is to be limited to 1.5C, along with coal and oil. This suggests that narratives around gas as a “bridge”, “transition”, or “cleaner” fuel may be misplaced.
A climate mitigation strategy that entails a fossil fuel phase out with limited CCS and CDR reliance would also bring about localised, near-term benefits from reduced air and water pollution, human rights violations, and biodiversity loss, among others.
To date, few governments and companies have been willing to acknowledge that, to limit warming to 1.5C, the production of all fossil fuels must also be reduced alongside other key climate actions, such as scaling up renewable energy, energy efficiency and electrification, as well as reducing methane emissions from all sources.
Our findings show that, to keep the 1.5C goal in reach, the production and use of gas – as well as coal and oil – will need to decline rapidly and substantially between now and 2050.
The post Guest post: Why all fossil fuels must decline rapidly to stay below 1.5C appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: Why all fossil fuels must decline rapidly to stay below 1.5C
The launch of the Africa Energy Bank (AEB) has been put back yet again, raising doubts about the institution’s future ability to finance fossil fuel projects – its main objective – as global lenders retreat from such investments over climate concerns, experts told Climate Home News.
The bank, which had been billed to launch in September after a series of delays, is now scheduled to begin operations in November, according to the head of the African Energy Chamber, an advocacy body for the continent’s oil and gas sector.
Even as the world aims to transition away from fossil fuels, many African leaders have made clear they want to continue exploring and extracting the continent’s large oil and gas deposits – estimated at around 125 billion barrels of crude and over 600 trillion cubic feet of gas – to boost economic development.
As a group, Africa sided with a number of powerful oil-and-gas producing nations in blocking progress on negotiations to craft a global roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels at last year’s UN COP30 climate talks, although some countries did individually support the proposal.
-
Campaigners oppose Dangote’s planned Kenya refinery over climate and ecological risks
Plans to build Africa’s second largest oil refinery in ecologically sensitive region criticised as “environmental recklessness” -
Tanzania pushed African nations to oppose fossil fuel transition at COP30
While chairing the African group at the summit, the gas-dependent nation advised the continent’s ministers to block language on transitioning away from fossil fuels
Meanwhile, major projects under development across the continent – including the 1,443-km East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) and Dangote’s 700,000-barrel-per-day Kenyan refinery – show that African governments see oil and gas as playing a significant role in meeting their energy and economic needs for many years to come.
In 2022, at a gathering of the African Petroleum Producers’ Organization (APPO) in oil-rich Angola, ministers from its member states adopted a resolution to create the Africa Energy Bank to finance projects for the production, use and trade of oil, gas and broader energy sources.
African control over energy resources
An article on the APPO website explains that the bank was conceived as a way to overcome “disenchantment” with fossil fuels among “the international community” which it said had crystallised around the “energy transition” concept.
“If Western countries, after having long taken advantage of the energy sources they now revile to develop, can afford the luxury of abandoning them, this is not the case in Africa,” it adds, noting that many of the continent’s economies are still largely dependent on oil and gas revenues.
A separate web page about the bank, also hosted on APPO’s website, says its objectives include financing the exploration, production and refining of oil and gas, as well as supporting member states in transitioning from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources “while ensuring energy security”.
Said Addi, a former executive with Shell and energy commodities trading house Gunvor, said the new bank was judged necessary because financing for hydrocarbons from many traditional international lenders has become constrained.
In trying to fill this financing gap, Africa is not simply setting up another fund to support oil and gas, he added. “It is also an attempt to give African countries greater control over how their energy resources and infrastructure are financed,” he explained.
Nigeria to host the AEB
The energy bank – a joint initiative of APPO and the African Export–Import Bank (Afreximbank) – has so far suffered several delays and is almost two years behind schedule. The initial plan was to start operations in January 2025, with Nigeria as the host country, but the bank’s opening was delayed to June of that year to allow Nigeria time to finalise the construction of the bank’s headquarters in Abuja.
After the government announced the completion of the offices in late November 2025, a new launch date was set for January 2026, which was moved back to April, June and then September. Now it has shifted again to November, raising concerns that the institution may be losing momentum.
Former Shell executive Addi said that if the capital is eventually paid in, the bank becomes operational and its first projects are commercially credible, then the delays will be regarded as normal teething troubles in setting up a multilateral institution. But, he added, scepticism will be justified if it continues to stall.
Uganda may see lower oil revenues than expected as costs rise and demand falls
Baron Lamarré, an oil and gas expert and former Petronas oil trader, said that missing “three deadlines in a row is not normal”, and warned that if the timeline slips again, “the story flips from ‘ambitious institution finding its footing’ to ‘good idea that lost momentum before it found any’.”
The Nigerian government, APPO and Afreximbank did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.
The funding challenge
The Africa Energy Bank is targeting base capital of $5 billion, with plans to scale up to $120 billion within five years by mobilising private-sector funds. However, it is expected to start operations with initial seed capital of $500 million.
The funding plan is to have the 18 member countries of the APPO contribute $83 million each to the bank as equity for a combined $1.5 billion. Afreximbank, other non-APPO African countries and investors outside the continent are expected to provide the remaining $3.5 billion.
But even the initial $500 million has not been easy to mobilise. In May, APPO Secretary-General Farid Ghezali called on members to deliver on their pledges towards the startup goal before the end of June. But the delays suggest this may not have been met, with experts saying Africa may be finding it difficult to self-fund its oil and gas projects in the absence of international capital.
Lamarré said every extension of the deadline points to the fact that “raising fossil fuel capital in Africa without the majors and their financing networks is brutally hard”.
Why the global electrification agenda misses the point on Africa’s energy crisis
Since 2020, Western lenders, export credit agencies and insurers have been in steady retreat from African hydrocarbons, he said, while oil majors are divesting their African assets, handing over fields to smaller local operators whose credit ratings are not high enough to borrow cheaply.
Even capital from China and the Gulf, which has partially filled the gap, cannot match the volume, tenor or pricing that Western investors once offered, Lamarré argued.
“If mobilising the first $500 million of seed capital [for the AEB] has taken this long, that’s the clearest signal yet of how steep the climb to $120 billion looks,” he said, noting that the continent’s energy financing gap is as large as $30 billion-$45 billion per year.
Africa’s investment landscape, meanwhile, has been shifting. While foreign direct investment dropped from a 2024 peak, inflows remained roughly one-third above the continent’s long-term average in 2025, according to the 2026 World Investment Report from UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD). They are concentrated in a few sectors including critical minerals needed for renewable energy technologies, battery manufacturing and advanced industrial production.
At the same time, data on global energy investment from the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows that fossil fuel investment in Africa has declined over the last decade.
“Trojan horse” for fossil fuels
While the Africa Energy Bank struggles to get off the ground, climate campaigners have criticised its primary aim of financing oil and gas on the continent at a time when the world is starting to move away from high-carbon fuels to cleaner alternatives.
Bhekumuzi Dean Bhebhe, founder of Africa Change Lab, described the bank as a “Trojan horse”, arguing that its focus on fossil fuel financing runs counter to the global energy transition and the African Union’s Agenda 2063 goals of sustainable development and inclusive growth.
The energy bank, he warned, “risks locking Africa into a new cycle of debt, dependency and fossil fuel entrenchment”, adding that its financing blueprint does not pave the way for a climate-resilient future. “In truth, it is to deepen the same extractive, carbon-heavy pathways that the continent should be moving away from,” he added.
Ugandan farmers use British court to try to stop East Africa oil pipeline
Kenya-based climate and energy expert Joab Okanda said the AEB’s plan to finance oil and gas is “a misplaced priority” and it should instead back clean energy in line with the policies of some of Africa’s major export markets like Europe.
In addition, the new bank could struggle to mobilise enough resources to advance large-scale oil and gas projects, he added, noting that its proposed $5-billion initial capital is equivalent to the cost of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline alone.
The AEB’s aim of backing more fossil fuels should be flipped “to support countries that are oil-dependent to start working on their transition plans”, Okanda said.
The post Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes appeared first on Climate Home News.
Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes
A booklet published by the UK’s opposition Conservative party includes a “cost of net-zero” that appears to have been doubled by a spreadsheet error.
The “common sense” policy document argues that “what people ultimately want is a government competent enough to solve the problems for which it takes responsibility”.
In a section that says “sophisticat[ed]…modelling” should not be a substitute for “political judgement”, the “Right Way” document disparages various estimates of the cost of net-zero.
The Conservative document then claims – incorrectly – that the government’s official adviser, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), had put the cost of net-zero at close to £1tn. It says:
“In 2020, the CCC estimated that its route to net-zero would cost £957bn.”
In fact, the CCC’s 2020 estimate was exactly half this amount – £478bn – and last year it published a revised figure of £108bn, largely as a result of the falling cost of electric vehicles (EVs).
Spreadsheet error
The Conservative party’s erroneous claim appears to stem from another report that had accidentally added up numbers twice, using a spreadsheet published by the CCC in 2020.
The 2020 spreadsheet contains a table listing the additional investments that would be needed to build a net-zero economy, from low-carbon electricity generation through to heat pumps and EVs.
These extra capital expenditures, listed as “CAPEX”, add up to a total of £1.38tn over the 30 years of 2020-50. They are set against operational savings, listed as “OPEX”, of £0.90tn.
Added up over 2020-50, the combined CAPEX and OPEX figures come to a total of £478bn.
In addition to the annual sectoral CAPEX and OPEX figures, the CCC’s 2020 spreadsheet also has a line giving combined totals for each year. It appears that someone has added all of these numbers together, resulting in the savings and costs being counted twice.
This double-counted total for the cost of net-zero amounts to £957bn – as shown in the image below – and it appears to be the source of the claim in the Conservative booklet.
At the time of publication in 2020, the CCC said that the £478bn net cost of net-zero amounted to less than 1% of GDP over 30 years – and that the large investment needed would not only result in savings due to lower fossil-fuel imports, but that it would boost GDP overall, by around 2%.
In 2025, the CCC revised its estimates for investment costs and operating savings to £670bn and £562bn respectively, giving a net total of £108bn over 2025-50, or less than 0.2% of GDP.
Earlier this year, the committee said that cutting emissions to net-zero would cost less than a single fossil-fuel price shock and that doing so would have benefits worth £110bn per year.
Paper trail
The erroneous claim in the Conservative document is referenced to the CCC’s 2020 advice on the UK’s sixth “carbon budget”, which, as explained, does not contain the £957bn figure.
The earliest online use of the £957bn figure found by Carbon Brief is a 12 January 2026 article in the Spectator, by retired engineer and self-described “accidental energy analyst” David Turver.
A day later, Turver repeated the mistaken number in a report for the free-market Institute of Economic Affairs. His report cites figure 5.3 of the CCC’s 2020 advice.
However, as set out above, the CCC spreadsheet containing the data for figure 5.3 only adds up to £478bn, half the figure claimed by Turver.
It appears that Turver accidentally added up all of the numbers in the CCC spreadsheet, without noting that it already included a line for the annual total. This results in double-counting the cost.
(Turver’s report also triggered a slew of inaccurate headlines stating that net-zero would cost £7.6tn – or even £9tn. These figures, which came from Turver’s report, were based, among other things, on the implicit assumption that fossil fuels and the cars, boilers and power plants that use them are all free.)
After Turver’s report and article in January 2026, the erroneous £957bn figure was repeated in March by the Great British Think Tank. The organisation has the tagline “data, not vibes” and says of its work: “Every figure [is] sourced from official public bodies.”
The £957bn figure then appeared in the Conservative “Right Way” document in October 2026.
