By William Emmanuel Ukpoju
For much of the past decade, the global energy conversation has been dominated by an ideological narrative: the world was on the cusp of abandoning fossil fuels, and the future belonged exclusively to renewable energy. At the centre of this messaging was the International Energy Agency (IEA), whose leadership confidently declared in September 2023 that “we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era, and we have to prepare ourselves for the next era.” The statement, made by the IEA Executive Director in an interview with the Financial Times, was bold, absolute and unambiguous. To many, it was the official obituary of oil, gas and coal.
But two years later, reality has intervened. Far from fading into the background, fossil fuels remain integral to the global economy’s functioning. More oil, coal and gas are being consumed today than at any time in human history. And with the release of the IEA’s World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2025, the agency has executed one of the most dramatic U-turns in its institutional history, publicly acknowledging what many in the industry, especially within the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), have said consistently: that fossil fuel demand is not peaking anytime soon.
The IEA’s own Current Policy Scenario (CPS) now admits that “oil and gas demand do not peak out to 2050” and that “oil remains the dominant fuel” through mid-century. Even more striking, the IEA’s projected total liquids demand by 2050, just over 119 million barrels per day, aligns closely with OPEC’s World Oil Outlook, which estimates demand at just under 123 mb/d. On a volume-equivalent basis, OPEC calculates the IEA’s CPS number at around 121 mb/d, an almost indistinguishable difference.
The IEA, once the loudest voice predicting a steep decline in fossil fuel use, now recognises the obvious: the world needs all forms of energy. Renewables may grow rapidly, but the idea that they can replace oil and gas within the coming decades is neither technically realistic nor economically sound.
A Tectonic Shift in Narrative
The IEA’s earlier predictions took on a tone of conviction rather than caution. When the agency insisted that a global peak in oil demand would occur before 2030 and called for a halt to new upstream investment, it was not just forecasting; it was advocating. Energy companies, investors and governments were urged to treat oil as a sunset commodity.
OPEC challenged the assumptions, highlighting flawed modelling and arguing that demand trends did not support such a dramatic shift. Yet dissenting views were dismissed as self-interested. The global conversation moved from analysis to slogans, driven less by data and more by political urgency.
But the years that followed exposed the cracks in this vision. Supply chain disruptions, energy insecurity, inflation, slower-than-expected adoption of renewable infrastructure, and geopolitical conflicts emphasised the importance of resilient, diversified energy systems. The European energy crisis of 2022, soaring LNG demand, and record oil consumption levels in 2024 and 2025 demonstrated that energy transitions are evolutionary, not revolutionary.
The IEA’s most recent statements reflect a more pragmatic posture. At CERAWeek in March 2025, the Executive Director acknowledged the need for new investments in oil and gas fields to maintain supply stability. He doubled down in September 2025 at the launch of The Implications of Oil and Gas Field Decline Rates, warning that without upstream investment, the world would lose the equivalent of Brazil and Norway’s combined production each year, drastically destabilising global markets. The IEA now admits that the industry “has to run much faster just to stand still.”
The WEO 2025 confirms this reversal: oil and gas will require the highest level of investment among all fuels over the coming decade.
The Danger of Peak-ism
For too long, energy discourse has been dominated by what OPEC calls “peak-ism”, an obsession with the exact moment when oil demand will crest and decline. But “peak dates” have historically proven unreliable and misleading. Each prediction of imminent decline has been followed by a new surge in consumption.
Rather than supporting robust energy planning, peak-ism has contributed to underinvestment in critical sectors, creating instability and price volatility. This mindset has discouraged long-term upstream financing, limited infrastructure expansion, and fostered regulatory environments hostile to investment. In short, fixation on engineered terminal dates for fossil fuels has damaged rational policymaking and energy security.
The IEA’s former stance, particularly its Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenario, which was normative (prescriptive) rather than exploratory, championed an outcome rather than analysing unfolding realities. Its promotion at the expense of alternative scenarios encouraged unrealistic expectations about the pace of energy transitions and the capacity of renewables to scale without support from traditional fuels.
Energy Transitions are Additive, Not Eliminative
OPEC has consistently reminded the industry that, historically, energy evolution has not been about replacement. Oil did not eliminate coal. Natural gas did not eliminate oil. Nuclear did not eliminate natural gas. Instead, each source expanded total supply and capacity as global population and economic needs increased.
Even renewable growth depends heavily on oil. Solar and wind require petrochemical components, transport logistics rely on diesel, industrial materials depend on petroleum feedstocks, and backup power generation still uses gas. Construction of renewable infrastructure is itself carbon- and resource-intensive. The new WEO 2025 reinforces the principle that the world needs all energies.
A compelling example is the IEA’s new Accelerating Clean Cooking and Electricity Services Scenario (ACCESS), which emphasises the critical role of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) in solving the global clean cooking crisis. ACCESS projects LPG demand for residential cooking reaching 3.4 million barrels per day by 2040, demonstrating that oil products remain vital for social development, health improvement and emissions reduction in emerging economies.
Clean energy transitions must serve real human needs: access, affordability and reliability, not just theoretical carbon accounting.
Investment: A Critical Imperative
The IEA’s new position underlines a fundamental truth: ensuring future oil and gas supply requires massive continuing investment. Decline rates in mature fields average between 6–8% annually. Without reinvestment, global production would collapse far faster than renewable systems could compensate.
As the IEA notes, upstream oil and gas investment leads all energy sectors in need through the 2030s. Yet years of reduced financing, ESG constraints and policy pressure have driven major underinvestment globally. The consequences are visible in market tightness, high price sensitivity and increased vulnerability to geopolitical shocks.
Equally important, maintaining investment does not contradict climate goals. Technologies such as Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage (CCUS), direct air capture (DAC), hydrogen production, and energy-efficient refining require substantial funding and industrial partnerships. Without the economic engine of fossil fuels, these innovations will stall.
Facts, Not Fantasies: Returning to Analytical Rigour
The IEA’s recalibrated perspective opens the door to more balanced and credible energy planning. As OPEC has emphasised, the world needs robust analysis grounded in data, not ideology. Future energy policy must prioritise stability, affordability and environmental responsibility simultaneously.
Energy security relies on realistic expectations, flexible adaptation and investment-friendly policy frameworks. Scenarios built on wishful thinking do not serve the global public good.
The facts remain:
* Global consumption of all major energy sources, oil, gas, coal, and renewables, is at an all-time high.
* Developing economies will drive future demand growth.
* Population expansion and industrialisation require increasing total energy availability.
n Technology pathways require fossil fuel support.
* No credible scenario shows renewables meeting full global energy demand on their own by 2050.
The question is not “fossil fuels or renewables?” It is “all of the above, and more”.
A Turning Point for the Global Energy Dialogue
The IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2025 represents a reckoning with reality. The agency has stepped back from absolutist predictions and rejoined a more disciplined analytical community. Its public acknowledgement that oil and gas demand will continue growing through 2050 marks the end of the narrative that fossil fuels are already obsolete.
The world is not entering the end of the hydrocarbon era; it is entering a new era of energy pragmatism, shaped by collaboration rather than confrontation between energy sources. For industry, policymakers and investors, this is a welcome return to rationality.
We need facts, not fantasies.
We need analysis, not activism.
We need balanced planning, not ideological extremes.
If the IEA maintains this more grounded approach, the global energy sector may finally move beyond the distractions of peak-ism and build a resilient, inclusive and technologically advanced future powered by all available energy sources.
And for the first time in many years, there is reason to believe that the debate has shifted from speculation to substance and from slogans to solutions.