The world’s fossil-fuel use is still on track to peak before 2030, despite a surge in political support for coal, oil and gas, according to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA).
The IEA’s latest World Energy Outlook 2025, published during the opening days of the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, shows coal at or close to a peak, with oil set to follow around 2030 and gas by 2035, based on the stated policy intentions of the world’s governments.
Under the same assumptions, the IEA says that clean-energy use will surge, as nuclear power rises 39% by 2035, solar by 344% and wind by 178%.
Still, the outlook has some notable shifts since last year, with coal use revised up by around 6% in the near term, oil seeing a shallower post-peak decline and gas plateauing at higher levels.
This means that the IEA expects global warming to reach 2.5C this century if “stated policies” are implemented as planned, up marginally from 2.4C in last year’s outlook.
In addition, after pressure from the Trump administration in the US, the IEA has resurrected its “current policies scenario”, which – effectively – assumes that governments around the world abandon their stated intentions and only policies already set in legislation are continued.
If this were to happen, the IEA warns, global warming would reach 2.9C by 2100, as oil and gas demand would continue to rise and the decline in coal use would proceed at a slower rate.
This year’s outlook also includes a pathway that limits warming to 1.5C in 2100, but says that this would only be possible after a period of “overshoot”, where temperature rise peaks at 1.65C.
The IEA will publish its “announced pledges scenario” at a later date, to illustrate the impact of new national climate pledges being implemented on time and in full.
(See Carbon Brief’s coverage of previous IEA world energy outlooks from 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016 and 2015.)
World energy outlook
The IEA’s annual World Energy Outlook (WEO) is published every autumn. It is regarded as one of the most influential annual contributions to the understanding of energy and emissions trends.
The outlook explores a range of scenarios, representing different possible futures for the global energy system. These are developed using the IEA’s “global energy and climate model”.
The latest report stresses that “none of [these scenarios] should be regarded as a forecast”.
However, this year’s outlook marks a major shift in emphasis between the scenarios – and it reintroduces a pathway where oil and gas demand continues to rise for many decades.
This pathway is named the “current policies scenario” (CPS), which assumes that governments abandon their planned policies, leaving only those that are already set in legislation.
If the world followed this path, then global temperatures would reach 2.9C above pre-industrial levels by 2100 and would be “set to keep rising from there”, the IEA says.
The CPS was part of the annual outlook until 2020, when the IEA said that it was “difficult to imagine” such a pathway “prevailing in today’s circumstances”.
It has been resurrected following heavy pressure from the US, which is a major funder of the IEA that accounts for 14% of the agency’s budget.
For example, in July Politico reported “a ratcheted-up US pressure campaign” and “months of public frustrations with the IEA from top Trump administration officials”. It noted:
“Some Republicans say the IEA has discouraged investment in fossil fuels by publishing analyses that show near-term peaks in global demand for oil and gas.”
The CPS is the first scenario to be discussed in detail in the report, appearing in chapter three. The CPS similarly appears first in Annex A, the data tables for the report.
The second scenario is the “stated policies scenario” (STEPS), featured in chapter four of this year’s outlook. Here, the outlook also includes policies that governments say they intend to bring forward and that the IEA judges as likely to be implemented in practice.
In this world, global warming would reach 2.5C by 2100 – up marginally from the 2.4C expected in the 2024 edition of the outlook.
Beyond the STEPS and the CPS, the outlook includes two further scenarios.
One is the “net-zero emissions by 2050” (NZE) scenario, which illustrates how the world’s energy system would need to change in order to limit warming in 2100 to 1.5C.
The NZE was first floated in the 2020 edition of the report and was then formally featured in 2021.
The report notes that, unlike in previous editions, this scenario would see warming peak at more than 1.6C above pre-industrial temperatures, before returning to 1.5C by the end of the century.
This means it would include a high level of temporary “overshoot” of the 1.5C target. The IEA explains that this results from the “reality of persistently high emissions in recent years”. It adds:
“In addition to very rapid progress with the transformation of the energy sector, bringing the temperature rise back down below 1.5C by 2100 also requires widespread deployment of CO2 removal technologies that are currently unproven at large scale.”
Finally, the outlook includes a new scenario where everyone in the world is able to gain access to electricity by 2035 and to clean cooking by 2040, named “ACCESS”.
While the STEPS appears second in the running order of the report, it is mentioned slightly more frequently than the CPS, as shown in the figure below. The CPS is a close second, however, whereas the IEA’s 1.5C pathway (NZE) receives a declining level of attention.
US critics of the IEA have presented its stated policies scenario as “disconnected from reality”, in contrast to what they describe as the “likely scenario” of “business as usual”.
Yet the current policies scenario is far from a “business-as-usual” pathway. The IEA says this explicitly in an article published ahead of the outlook:
“The CPS might seem like a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario, but this terminology can be misleading in an energy system where new technologies are already being deployed at scale, underpinned by robust economics and mature, existing policy frameworks. In these areas, ‘business as usual’ would imply continuing the current process of change and, in some cases, accelerating it.”
In order to create the current policies scenario, where oil and gas use continues to surge into the future, the IEA therefore has to make more pessimistic assumptions about barriers to the uptake of new technologies and about the willingness of governments to row back on their plans. It says:
“The CPS…builds on a narrow reading of today’s policy settings…assuming no change, even where governments have indicated their intention to do so.”
This is not a scenario of “business as usual”. Instead, it is a scenario where countries around the world follow US president Donald Trump in dismantling their plans to shift away from fossil fuels.
More specifically, the current policies scenario assumes that countries around the world renege on their policy commitments and fail to honour their climate pledges.
For example, it assumes that Japan and South Korea fail to implement their latest national electricity plans, that China fails to continue its power-market reforms and abandons its provincial targets for clean power, that EU countries fail to meet their coal phase-out pledges and that US states such as California fail to extend their clean-energy targets.
Similarly, it assumes that Brazil, Turkey and India fail to implement their greenhouse gas emissions trading schemes (ETS) as planned and that China fails to expand its ETS to other industries.
The scenario also assumes that the EU, China, India, Australia, Japan and many others fail to extend or continue strengthening regulations on the energy efficiency of buildings and appliances, as well as those relating to the fuel-economy standards for new vehicles.
In contrast to the portrayal of the stated policies scenario as blindly assuming that all pledges will be met, the IEA notes that it does not give a free pass to aspirational targets. It says:
“[T]argets are not automatically assumed to be met; the prospects and timing for their realisation are subject to an assessment of relevant market, infrastructure and financial constraints…[L]ike the CPS, the STEPS does not assume that aspirational goals, such as those included in the Paris Agreement, are achieved.”
Only in the “announced pledges scenario” (APS) does the IEA assume that countries meet all of their climate pledges on time and full – regardless of how credible they are.
The APS does not appear in this year’s report, presumably because many countries missed the deadlines to publish new climate pledges ahead of COP30.
The IEA says it will publish its APS, assessing the impact of the new pledges, “once there is a more complete picture of these commitments”.
Fossil-fuel peak
In recent years, there has been a significant shift in the IEA’s outlook for fossil fuels under the stated policies scenario, which it has described as “a mirror to the plans of today’s policymakers”.
In 2020, the agency said that prevailing policy conditions pointed towards a “structural” decline in global coal demand, but that it was too soon to declare a peak in oil or gas demand.
By 2021, it said global fossil-fuel use could peak as soon as 2025, but only if all countries got on track to meet their climate goals. Under stated policies, it expected fossil-fuel use to hit a plateau from the late 2020s onwards, declining only marginally by 2050.
There was a dramatic change in 2022, when it said that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting global energy crisis had “turbo-charged” the shift away from fossil fuels.
As a result, it said at the time that it expected a peak in demand for each of the fossil fuels. Coal “within a few years”, oil “in the mid-2030s” and gas ”by the end of the decade”.
This outlook sharpened further in 2023 and, by 2024, it was saying that each of the fossil fuels would see a peak in global demand before 2030.
This year’s report notes that “some formal country-level [climate] commitments have waned”, pointing to the withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement.
The report says the “new direction” in the US is among “major new policies” in 48 countries. The other changes it lists include Brazil’s “energy transition acceleration programme”, Japan’s new plan for 2040 and the EU’s recently adopted 2040 climate target.
Overall, the IEA data still points to peaks in demand for coal, oil and gas under the stated policies scenario, as shown in the figure below.
Alongside this there is a surge in clean technologies, with renewables overtaking oil to become the world’s largest source of energy – not just electricity – by the early 2040s.
In this year’s outlook under stated policies, the IEA sees global coal demand as already being at – or very close to – a definitive peak, as the chart above shows.
Coal then enters a structural decline, where demand for the fuel is displaced by cheaper alternatives, particularly renewable sources of electricity.
The IEA reiterates that the cost of solar, wind and batteries has respectively fallen by 90%, 70% and 90% since 2010, with further declines of 10-40% expected by 2035.
(The report notes that household energy spending would be lower under the more ambitious NZE scenario than under stated policies, despite the need for greater investment.)
However, this year’s outlook has coal use in 2030 coming in some 6% higher than expected last year, although it ultimately declines to similar levels by 2050.
For oil, the agency’s data still points to a peak in demand this decade, as electric vehicles (EVs) and more efficient combustion engines erode the need for the fuel in road transport.
While this sees oil demand in 2030 reaching similar levels to what the IEA expected last year, the post-peak decline is slightly less marked in the latest outlook, ending some 5% higher in 2050.
The biggest shift compared with last year is for gas, where the IEA suggests that global demand will keep rising until 2035, rather than peaking by 2030.
Still, the outlook has gas demand in 2030 being only 7% higher than expected last year. It notes:
“Long-term natural gas demand growth is kept lower than in recent decades by the expanding deployment of renewables, efficiency gains and electrification of end-uses.”
In terms of clean energy, the outlook sees nuclear power output growing to 39% above 2024 levels by 2035 and doubling by 2050. Solar grows nearly four-fold by 2035 and nearly nine-fold by 2050, while wind power nearly triples and quadruples over the same periods.
Notably, the IEA sees strong growth of clean-energy technologies, even in the current policies scenario. Here, renewables would still become the world’s largest energy source before 2050.
This is despite the severe headwinds assumed in this scenario, including EVs never increasing from their current low share of sales in India or the US.
The CPS would see oil and gas use continuing to rise, with demand for oil reaching 11% above current levels by 2050 and gas climbing 31%, even as renewables nearly triple.
This means that coal use would still decline, falling to a fifth below current levels by 2050.
Finally, while the IEA considers the prospect of global coal demand continuing to rise rather than falling as expected, it gives this idea short shrift. It explains:
“A growth story for coal over the coming decades cannot entirely be ruled out but it would fly in the face of two crucial structural trends witnessed in recent years: the rise of renewable sources of power generation, and the shift in China away from an especially coal-intensive model of growth and infrastructure development. As such, sustained growth for coal demand appears highly unlikely.”
The post IEA: Fossil-fuel use will peak before 2030 – unless ‘stated policies’ are abandoned appeared first on Carbon Brief.
IEA: Fossil-fuel use will peak before 2030 – unless ‘stated policies’ are abandoned
Ronny P Sasmita is a senior analyst at Indonesia Strategic and Economics Action Institution, a think-tank specialising in geopolitical and geoeconomic studies in Indonesia.
The devastation that has swept across Aceh, North Sumatra and West Sumatra in recent weeks has forced Indonesia to confront an uncomfortable truth. What unfolded was not only a natural disaster but a collision between an exceptional climatic cycle and a landscape steadily stripped of its natural defenses.
More than 600 people have now been confirmed dead in the country, more than four hundred remain missing, and entire communities have been torn apart by the force of water, mud, and debris that surged with little warning. The scenes have become tragically familiar, houses swallowed by landslides, rivers breaking their banks, villages buried under mud that once clung to forest roots no longer there.
This year’s climate pattern created the perfect storm. Meteorological agencies warned that an active monsoon phase combined with warm ocean temperatures would push rainfall to exceptional levels across western Indonesia.
With no COP30 roadmap, hopes of saving forests hinge on voluntary initiatives
A rare tropical storm then formed in the Malacca Strait, unleashing torrential rains and wind gusts for several days. The Malacca Strait is one of the least likely places on Earth for tropical cyclones to form, making this event an exceptional anomaly. What might have once been manageable seasonal extremes became lethal when these torrents met degraded catchments and eroded hillsides.
Heavy rain alone does not create walls of mud and logs crashing into villages, it is heavy rain falling on land that is no longer able to hold or absorb it. In many affected districts, people reported water arriving faster and more violently than anyone could remember, carrying with it an astonishing volume of uprooted trees and logs that locals insist did not come from natural forest fall alone.
Conveyor belts of timber
This is where public suspicion has grown. The floods across the three provinces did not just bring water, they brought evidence. Viral videos showed rivers transformed into conveyor belts of timber, beaches covered with logs, and bridges jammed with uprooted trunks.
Environmental groups quickly pointed to long standing problems of deforestation and illegal logging that weaken watersheds and destabilize slopes. Some officials at the local level echoed these concerns, noting that the amount of cut wood carried by the floods appeared far beyond what would be expected from natural tree fall.
While the national government has cautioned against drawing conclusions too quickly, insisting that investigations into the origins of the timber are underway, the visual evidence has only deepened public frustration. Communities living downstream know what an intact forest looks and behaves like during heavy rain, and they know what a damaged one unleashes.
Legal concessions worsen problem
Recent data reinforces the scale of the problem. Independent monitoring groups reported that Indonesia lost more than two hundred sixty thousand hectares of forest in 2024, with over ninety thousand hectares lost on the island of Sumatra alone. This level of annual loss places Indonesia among the world’s highest tropical deforestation hotspots. Although much of this deforestation occurred inside legal concessions, the ecological impact is no less severe.
When natural forest is cleared, whether for plantations, industry, or illicit timber extraction, the soil becomes exposed, drainage shifts, and slopes lose integrity. Even more troubling, authorities uncovered a major illegal logging operation in the Mentawai Islands in late 2025, seizing more than four thousand cubic meters of illicit timber. This suggests that illegal extraction remains alive in areas where oversight is weak and access is difficult.
Comment: Europe must defend its deforestation law – for forests, business and its reputation
Such practices hollow out forest structure in ways that are not always visible until disaster strikes. Government policy has played an ambiguous role in this trajectory. On one hand, Indonesia has made international commitments to curb deforestation and has deployed satellite based early warning systems to identify suspicious land clearing.
On the other hand, the expansion of legal concessions for agriculture, timber, and mining has allowed vast tracts of natural forest to be converted. Even when legal, these transitions often degrade watersheds and reduce the natural capacity of landscapes to regulate water.
Local governments, strapped for revenue and political support, frequently view concessions as economic lifelines, while enforcement against illegal operators remains uneven. The result is a patchwork of legal and illegal pressures that steadily erode ecological resilience.
Protecting forests is a safety issue
The tragedy in Sumatra marks a warning that can no longer be ignored. Climate variability is intensifying, rainfall extremes are becoming more frequent, and the combination of strong storms and weakened landscapes will make disasters deadlier if current trends continue.
Indonesia cannot control the monsoon, but it can control the health of its forests. Protecting the remaining natural forest in Sumatra is no longer simply an environmental issue, it has become a matter of public safety and national stability.
Norway pledges $3bn in boost for Brazil-led tropical forest fund
Looking forward, the government must take a sharper turn. Enforcement against illegal logging must be strengthened through transparent monitoring and community based surveillance in remote areas. The issuance of new concessions in sensitive watersheds should be paused while existing ones undergo ecological audits.
Local governments in Sumatra need sustained funding for reforestation and slope stabilization projects, not one off emergency responses. Finally, national and provincial authorities must collaborate to restore degraded catchments before the next extreme rainfall arrives.
Sumatra has paid an unbearable price for years of ecological neglect combined with a climate growing more volatile. The next disaster is a question of when, not if. Whether it becomes another national tragedy or a turning point will depend on how seriously Indonesia treats the forests that remain standing and the people living beneath them.
The post How Sumatra’s lost trees turned extreme rain into catastrophe appeared first on Climate Home News.
How Sumatra’s lost trees turned extreme rain into catastrophe
Climate Change
Greenpeace activists arrested by police helicopter after seven-hour protest on coal ship
NEWCASTLE, Sunday 30 November 2025 — Two Greenpeace Australia Pacific activists have been arrested by specialist police on a coal ship outside the Port of Newcastle, following a more than seven-hour-long peaceful protest during Rising Tide’s People’s Blockade today.
Photos and footage here
Three activists safely climbed and suspended from coal ship Yangze 16 at around 8:00am AEDT on Sunday, halting its operations and preventing its 12:15pm arrival into the Port of Newcastle. One of the activists, who was secured to the anchor chain, disembarked safely due to changing weather conditions. The other two activists, who were expertly secured to the side of the ship and holding a banner that read: PHASE OUT COAL AND GAS, were arrested at around 3:30pm by police climbers, who landed by helicopter on the ship around 1:45pm.
At the time of writing, no charges have been laid.
It comes as two other coal ships in two days were stopped by a peaceful flotilla at the People’s Blockade of the Port of Newcastle, the world’s biggest coal port. The port has been closed for the rest of Sunday as a result.
From the shore at the People’s Blockade, Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental pillar of a healthy democracy and a basic right of all Australians. Change requires showing up and speaking out, and that’s what our activists are doing in Newcastle today.
“As the world’s third-largest fossil fuel exporter, Australia plays an outsized role in the climate crisis. Peaceful protest to call on the Albanese government to set a timeline to phase out coal and gas, and stop approving new fossil fuel projects, is legitimate and valuable. Greenpeace Australia Pacific stands by and supports our activists, and stands with all peaceful climate defenders who are advocating for real climate action at the Blockade, and all around Australia.”
—ENDS—
For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact:
Kimberley Bernard: +61 407 581 404 or kbernard@greenpeace.org
Lucy Keller: +61 491 135 308 or lkeller@greenpeace.org
Greenpeace activists arrested by police helicopter after seven-hour protest on coal ship
About halfway through the most recent United Nations’ annual climate change conference, COP30 in Belém, Carolina Pasquali, my counterpart at Greenpeace Brazil, started to lose her voice. She was suffering from the kind of hoarseness that kicks in when you have been speaking so much that your vocal cords become inflamed.
Carolina’s voice may have become tired during COP30, but she never fell silent. On the last morning of COP30, at Greenpeace’s final press briefing, I found myself standing behind Carolina as a press pack swarmed her, seeking answers to what was happening.
‘Who is that woman?’ I overheard one of the 56,118 registered delegates ask another.
‘With a crowd like that, she must be the Brazilian environment minister’, was the reasoned but inaccurate answer.
With Brazil hosting COP30, and particularly given the storied history of Greenpeace Brazil as a defender of the Amazon rainforest, Carolina carried an enormous load of leadership and advocacy in the lead-up and during the event. It is no wonder her voice was feeling the strain.
I’ve had the privilege of working with Carolina as part of the Greenpeace global leadership community for a few years now, and she’s an excellent colleague—thoughtful, principled, strategic, a brilliant public speaker, and in possession of a wonderful, wry sense of humour. She’s a friend and a terrific leader whom I admire deeply.
It had been Greenpeace Brazil’s vision that emergency action to halt deforestation was core to the demands that civil society brought to the COP. Given the event’s location in the Amazon, it seemed axiomatic that the goal of phasing out fossil fuels must be accompanied by the other critical half of the climate challenge: addressing deforestation, the second-largest driver of climate change.
Late in the afternoon on the second-last day of the COP, a fire broke out in the middle of the venue, sending a huge fork of flame towards the sky. It was a terrifying moment for those present in the venue. Thankfully, due to good design, the wise use of non-flammable materials, and the rapid response of first responders, there were no fatalities or serious injuries.
In her next speech, Carolina thanked those who had fought the blaze and overseen the evacuation, for their speed and bravery. And she reflected with due gravitas, this is what humanity can do: act together in the face of an emergency—whether that be a fire in a building or our whole planet facing global heating.
As it happened, COP30 got within striking distance of delivering a response that was fit for purpose in our times of planetary emergency, with support from a critical mass of countries for formal roadmaps to end deforestation as well as transition away from fossil fuels. But the official text ultimately fell short in the final hours of negotiations. As Carolina said: ‘while many governments are willing to act, a powerful minority is not.’
In these moments of failure by politicians and negotiators, it would be easy to give in to legitimate feelings of anger and frustration; but the task before us is to appraise every moment for opportunities for momentum. And the critical mass of nations that are committed to roadmaps for ending deforestation and phasing out fossil fuels offered light amidst the gloom.
And so we follow the path. We take the chances. We think through the next phase of strategy. And onwards. As Carolina said simply, ‘the work now continues.’
I’m not only grateful for Carolina’s friendship and for Greenpeace Brazil’s steadfast dedication to tackling deforestation in the Amazon, but for the entire Greenpeace network’s shared commitment.
Greenpeace is relied on for some heavy lifting at climate COPs, and our team consisted of policy experts, campaigners and other specialists from various geographies who brought their deep policy, communications, and campaigning expertise from around the world to the event,. Our morning briefings, sharing analysis, agreeing on focus and assigning tasks for the day, were possessed of that special energy that comes from a group of many backgrounds working very long hours together in common cause.
I’ve reflected over my time with Greenpeace, that when I visit any of our offices, bases or vessels, anywhere in the world, I feel at home. I am confident that you would have the same sensation of coming home too, because if you are reading this, then you are part of Greenpeace too–you, and me, Carolina, and the tens of millions of people all over the world that share our common vision of an earth restored to flourishing.
So on we go. The work continues, in love and hope, together.
Q & A
In the aftermath of the collapse of Australia’s COP31 bid, many people have reached out to ask: What happened? Why didn’t Australia get COP31? And what now?
In the lead-up to November’s COP, nobody in Australia would have anticipated that we would not be welcoming the global climate community to Adelaide next summer. Up until the very final moment when Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen told reporters that Türkiye would host COP31 with Australia assuming the role of president of negotiations, hope was alive that we would clinch the deal.
I suspect that the full picture of why the COP31 bid slipped through our hands is a complex mix of factors, some of which may never come to light in the public domain. What we do know is that in the UNFCCC system, decisions on COP hosts are made by full consensus rather than voting. So, for as long as Turkiye declined to withdraw its bid, it was never a done deal.
Much will no doubt be said about whether Australia could have done more to boost our chances of securing the bid. But as I said in the immediate aftermath of the announcement, whatever the forum, whoever the President, the urgency and focus of our actions cannot change. Phasing out fossil fuels and ending deforestation must be at the core of the COP31 agenda.
The task for Chris Bowen will now be to use his role as president of negotiations to drive global emissions reductions at speed and scale consistent with the Paris Agreement.
Asia-Pacific faces ‘$500bn-a-year’ hit from rising seas if current policies continue
New Report: Interconnection Queue Rationing Often Anti-competitive, Hurts Consumers
How Sumatra’s lost trees turned extreme rain into catastrophe
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change4 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases4 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy5 months ago
US Grid Strain, Possible Allete Sale