N※N

IEA's Realistic Roadmap Shows Fossil Fuels Dominant Until 2040s

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. map-shows-fossil-fuels-dominant-until-2040s.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Wednesday, December 3rd 2025 at 15:39 GMT by Washington Examiner

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-03 230 x 219 / 12259 Bytes

2025-12-03 247 x 204 / 5248 Bytes

2025-12-03 242 x 208 / 8513 Bytes

2025-12-03 247 x 204 / 10111 Bytes

The International Energy Agency’s “Realistic” Roadmap for Fossil Fuels: A Detailed Summary

In a recent Washington Examiner piece titled “International Energy Agency Gets Realistic About Fossil Fuels Transition,” the author explains the latest findings from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and what they mean for the global energy mix, climate policy, and the United States’ own commitments. Drawing on the IEA’s newly released World Energy Outlook 2024 (WEO) and a series of linked sources, the article paints a picture of a gradual, not instant, shift away from fossil fuels—one that requires substantial policy support, market reforms, and international cooperation.

1. The IEA’s “Realistic” Assessment

The crux of the Washington Examiner’s discussion is the IEA’s acknowledgement that the transition from coal, oil, and natural gas to renewable and low‑carbon alternatives will be far slower than many political narratives suggest. The WEO’s headline forecast indicates that global primary energy demand will grow by a modest 0.4% annually over the next decade, and that fossil fuels will continue to provide roughly 70% of that demand through 2050. This is a clear departure from the IEA’s earlier 2023 outlook, which had been more optimistic about a rapid decline in fossil fuel use.

The article notes that the “realistic” label reflects a set of assumptions that the IEA considers more credible:

• Carbon Pricing Levels: The WEO assumes a global average carbon price of $55–$75 per ton of CO₂ by 2025, falling short of the $100+ per ton that many climate advocates argue is necessary to trigger a true shift.
• Subsidies and Incentives: The study projects modest increases in subsidies for renewables, but also highlights a need for more aggressive financial mechanisms—such as green bonds, carbon taxes, and direct state interventions—to offset the higher upfront costs of clean technologies.
• Infrastructure Investment: According to the WEO, infrastructure investment will need to double in the next decade to reach the projected 30% renewable electricity mix by 2035.

2. The Renewable‑Energy Projection

Despite the seemingly conservative tone, the article acknowledges that the IEA does see renewables as the engine of the transition. Solar PV and wind are projected to dominate the increase in electricity generation. In the 2024 WEO, the author points out:

• Wind Power: Wind capacity is expected to grow by 12% per year, reaching 5,500 GW by 2035.
• Solar PV: Solar is slated to double its share of new capacity additions each year through 2030, with an end‑of‑2025 capacity of 1,200 GW.
• Hydropower and Geothermal: These remain relatively stable, with modest gains in a few emerging markets.

However, the Washington Examiner article also underscores a key limitation: Renewable electricity will only reach the 30% mark by the middle of the 2030s. After that point, the energy mix is predicted to plateau until the 2040s, when nuclear and advanced biofuels might begin to play a larger role.

3. The Role of Natural Gas

One of the most controversial aspects highlighted in the article is the continued importance of natural gas. While the IEA notes that coal will decline sharply—especially in China and India—the report finds natural gas “will still dominate the transition.” This is because:

• Flexibility: Natural gas plants can quickly ramp up or down to balance intermittent renewables.
• Hydrogen Pathways: The WEO presents a scenario where “green hydrogen” (produced via electrolytic water splitting powered by renewables) could be used in place of natural gas in many sectors, but only if substantial scale-up occurs by 2035.

The Washington Examiner stresses that any meaningful decline in natural gas usage would require a dramatic policy shift—specifically, a higher carbon price and stronger renewable mandates. As it stands, the IEA’s outlook suggests that gas will still account for roughly 15% of global primary energy demand in 2035.

4. Implications for U.S. Policy

The Washington Examiner article goes on to assess how the IEA’s findings dovetail with or contradict current U.S. climate policy. It references a recent Biden administration announcement of a $2 trillion clean energy investment plan, noting that while the plan is ambitious, it may still fall short of the IEA’s “realistic” baseline if:

• Carbon Pricing: The U.S. federal government does not adopt a nationwide carbon tax or cap‑and‑trade system equivalent to the $55–$75/ton benchmark.
• Subsidy Levels: Current renewable subsidies are projected to be insufficient for the rapid scale‑up required to reach 2035 targets.
• Infrastructure Funding: Without increased federal investment in grid modernization and storage, the renewable surge will be hampered.

The article quotes several U.S. policy analysts who argue that a robust “green New Deal” would need to include “hard‑line carbon pricing, aggressive R&D for storage and hydrogen, and a coordinated approach to grid upgrades” to keep pace with the IEA’s forecast.

5. International Collaboration and the Paris Agreement

Linking to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) pages, the Washington Examiner highlights how the IEA’s “realistic” approach dovetails with the Paris Agreement’s long‑term goals. The article explains:

• Carbon Neutrality by 2050: The IEA projects that achieving net‑zero emissions will require a 90% reduction in CO₂ intensity by 2050—an outcome that hinges on sustained policy support and technology breakthroughs.
• Technology Transfer: The article underscores that developing countries will need technology transfer mechanisms, especially in the realms of battery storage, carbon capture, and grid integration.

The Washington Examiner stresses that any failure to align national policies with the IEA’s baseline will undermine the global effort to keep global temperature rise below 1.5 °C.

6. Critiques and Counterarguments

In addition to summarizing the IEA’s findings, the Washington Examiner article includes a brief section on critiques of the “realistic” outlook. It cites several environmental groups who argue that the IEA’s assumptions undervalue the potential of renewables and overstate the resilience of fossil fuel markets. The author also references a recent independent study that models a higher carbon price, which leads to an earlier shift away from coal and gas.

The article concludes by suggesting that while the IEA’s approach may be “realistic” from a technical standpoint, it remains politically contentious—especially in regions where fossil fuels still dominate the economy.

7. Key Takeaways

1. Fossil fuels will remain a major energy source until the 2040s; the transition will be incremental rather than transformative.
2. Renewables are set to grow rapidly, but only to a 30% share of electricity by mid‑2030s.
3. Natural gas will continue to play a central role until renewable flexibility and green hydrogen become mainstream.
4. U.S. policy must significantly elevate carbon pricing and investment to align with the IEA’s “realistic” baseline.
5. International cooperation and technology transfer are critical for meeting global climate targets.

By pulling together data from the IEA’s World Energy Outlook, UNFCCC documents, and domestic policy analysis, the Washington Examiner piece offers a comprehensive overview of what “realistic” actually looks like for the global energy transition. It invites policymakers, industry leaders, and the public to weigh in on whether this measured pace is acceptable or if a more aggressive approach is required to avert climate catastrophe.