The energy world is changing fast, yet not fast enough to protect the planet from dangerous warming. The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook 2025, released at the start of COP30 in Brazil, lays out three futures for global emissions. These scenarios show how close — or far — the world is from meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement. The findings are sobering, but they also give countries clear signals on where action must accelerate.
The IEA makes one point very clear: 2024 was the hottest year ever recorded, and for the first time, global temperatures stayed above 1.5°C across the entire year. The last decade was also the hottest in history. This puts huge pressure on countries as they update their national climate plans at COP30.
Yet the IEA also stresses something important — none of its scenarios are forecasts. They are pathways, and the direction we take still depends on policy choices made today.
A World on a Hotter Track: What the IEA’s Scenarios Show
The IEA’s three major scenarios outline different ways the global energy system could evolve. Two reflect today’s conditions. The third shows what it would take actually to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
Current Policies Scenario (CPS): The Dangerous Path
This scenario assumes governments stop at policies already written into law. No new climate pledges. No new incentives. No strengthened targets.
Under this path:
- Coal use falls only slightly.
- Oil and gas demand have been rising for decades.
- Global energy-related emissions stay close to 2024 levels all the way to 2050.
The result is alarming. Global warming will hit 2°C by around 2050 and reach 2.9°C by 2100, and temperatures will still be rising. The IEA even warns there is a 5% chance of hitting 4°C, a level associated with extreme climate disruptions and irreversible tipping points.
The CPS was removed after 2020 because it seemed unrealistic in a world trying to cut emissions. But political pressure, especially from the Trump administration, pushed the IEA to bring it back. Its return shows how vulnerable global climate ambition can be when big economies shift direction.
Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS): Better, but Still Off-Track
This scenario reflects what governments say they plan to do — but not what they have legally locked in.
Here:
- Emissions peak within a few years.
- They fall slightly to 35.2 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2035.
- Advanced economies and China reduce emissions.
- But developing economies emit more as energy demand rises.
Even with these changes, the STEPS pathway still results in 2.5°C of warming by 2100. This is far above the Paris goal of “well below 2°C” and nowhere near keeping warming under 1.5°C. The IEA notes that this year’s STEPS outcome is worse than last year’s due to slower clean energy progress and higher expected coal use.
Net Zero by 2050 Scenario (NZE): The Only Path that Stabilizes the Climate
Net Zero by 2050 Scenario, often called the NZE, shows what a 1.5°C-aligned future would require. It is the only pathway that eventually brings warming back below 1.5°C by the end of the century.
But the challenge has grown sharply. Because real-world emissions remain high, the NZE scenario now includes:
- a higher and longer overshoot of the 1.5°C limit
- warming peaks around 65°C mid-century and slowly declines
Large-Scale Carbon Removal Technologies: The Saviour
The only way to return below that threshold later this century is to combine deep emissions cuts with large-scale carbon removal technologies. These technologies remain expensive and unproven at the scale required.
So the IEA emphasizes that countries must do everything possible to limit the overshoot by cutting emissions faster now. Notably, in the NZE pathway, global emissions fall by more than half by 2035 and reach net zero by 2050.
By the end of the century, carbon removal technologies would need to eliminate nearly four gigatonnes of CO₂ each year to bring temperatures back down.
A Fossil Peak Nears as Clean Energy Surges — but the World Still Falls Short
The IEA shows the energy system shifting, with coal already at or near its peak and oil expected to peak around 2030, though its decline will be slower than once expected. Gas demand levels off around 2035, but at a higher baseline than earlier forecasts, revealing how deeply rooted fossil fuels remain in the global mix.
At the same time, clean energy is rising fast. Solar capacity could more than triple by 2035, wind is set to nearly triple, and nuclear expands by close to 40 percent. Renewables will even overtake oil as the largest energy source by the early 2040s. Yet the world is still not moving fast enough. Under stated policies, renewable capacity reaches about 13,700 gigawatts by 2035, far short of the roughly 19,600 gigawatts required under the net-zero pathway.
Global Carbon Emissions: Peaks and Plateaus
Both IEA scenarios point to sustained high emissions, though at different levels. In the CPS, global energy emissions stay near 2024 levels through 2050, as small coal reductions are offset by rising oil and gas use. In the STEPS, emissions peak soon, drop to 35.2 gigatonnes by 2035, and decline slowly to 2050.
Reductions in advanced economies and China are balanced by rising emissions in developing regions. The gap between CPS and STEPS comes mainly from higher coal emissions, slower industrial efficiency, and delayed adoption of electric and efficient vehicles.
All in all, this gap underscores the need to accelerate clean energy deployment to align with global climate goals.
Why COP30 Matters More Than Ever
With the world heating faster than expected and the 1.5°C threshold already breached annually, COP30 becomes a turning point. The IEA’s outlook directly shapes negotiations because it:
- Shows the world is far off-track.
- Highlights the widening gap between political promises and real action.
- Makes clear that overshoot is now unavoidable.
- Warns that delay will force much heavier reliance on expensive CO₂ removals later.
At COP30, countries need to submit new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The IEA warns that current NDCs do not reflect the full potential of national policies or domestic clean energy momentum. In other words, many countries are doing more at home than they are willing to commit to on paper.
COP30 is a chance to fix this gap.
What Can Be Done to Get on Track? The IEA’s Priority Actions
The message is clear: the world is not on track, and the window to avoid the worst climate impacts is shrinking. Still, the IEA shows that meaningful progress is underway.
It highlights several actions that could quickly bring global emissions closer to the NZE path. The world needs faster renewable energy deployment, stronger energy efficiency improvements, and large reductions in methane emissions from the energy sector.
Electrification of vehicles, buildings, and industry has to accelerate, and sustainable fuels such as biofuels and hydrogen must expand significantly. These steps are well understood, often cost-effective, and achievable with current technology. What remains missing is the political will to scale them up at the speed required.
With COP30, countries certainly have an opportunity to match ambition with action and take decisive steps toward a safer climate future.
The post What the IEA’s New Scenarios Mean for the Global Climate — and for COP30 appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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”
-
Renewable Energy1 year agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Climate Change2 years agoAnalysis: China’s CO2 falls 1% in Q2 2024 in first quarterly drop since Covid-19