The International Energy Agency (IEA) in the past repeatedly predicted that global oil demand would peak before 2030 and that no new oil and gas exploration would be needed after 2021.
In its energy outlook report for 2025, it has reversed course and now projects oil demand will grow until 2050, reaching 113-million barrels a day under its so-called stated policies scenario. It also called for more exploration, after previously stating that none was needed.
Analysts and agencies forecast a rapid decline in global coal use, with some scenarios predicting near elimination by 2030. However, global coal capacity grew by 13% between 2015 and 2024.
Over the past decade, the energy sector has been awash with bold predictions. Analysts, think-tanks and international agencies have forecast dramatic shifts, framing fossil fuels as relics of a bygone era and urging governments to pivot aggressively towards green technologies. The consequences of those sweeping pronouncements have been profound and, in many cases, devastating.
The forecasts shaped policy decisions, financing flows and corporate strategies worldwide. Governments curtailed investments in hydrocarbons, banks withdrew funding for fossil fuel projects, and industries began dismantling infrastructure in anticipation of a green future.
But reality diverged sharply from those projections. Global fossil fuel demand rebounded faster than expected after the pandemic, and although renewable deployment has been impressive it has not displaced hydrocarbons at the scale predicted. The result has been energy shortages, price spikes and economic instability. Europe’s energy crisis in 2022, triggered partly by overconfidence in renewables and underinvestment in gas, is a stark example. Industries shuttered, unemployment surged and inflation soared — all under the shadow of forecasts that proved nonexistent.
The ripple effects have extended beyond economics. In regions where energy-intensive industries collapsed, political upheaval followed. Leaders who bet on rapid transitions faced backlash as factories closed and poverty deepened. In some cases, the miscalculations contributed to regime changes as electorates punished governments for policies rooted in flawed assumptions.
When forecasts influence trillions in investment and national strategies, errors are not academic; they are existential. Critics argue that pundits and agencies must be held accountable for their actions. Even insiders have sounded the alarm. Former IEA executive Neil Atkinson warned that the organisation’s “current preoccupation with promoting an energy transition has resulted in its signature annual report, the World Energy Outlook, offering policymakers a view of future possibilities that are, at best, distorted and, at worst, dangerously wrong.”
Forecasts will always involve uncertainty, but when they become dogma, they risk destabilising societies. The pundits who championed aggressive timelines for phasing out fossil fuels must answer for the consequences: deindustrialisation, unemployment, and poverty. Policymakers, too, must learn to interrogate assumptions rather than outsource strategy to paid actors.
The energy transition is too critical to be left to guesswork and rent-seeking. When forecasts shape national policy, industrial strategy and trillions in investment, they must meet the highest standards of rigour and transparency. Today, there is no global framework to audit or validate these projections, leaving governments and markets vulnerable to flawed assumptions.
We need international forecasting standards that include benchmarks for methodology, disclosure of assumptions and funding sources, and independent peer review. Agencies and pundits should be held accountable for systemic errors, especially when their scenarios drive decisions that lead to economic dislocation and social harm. Forecasting should inform policy, not dictate it.
Fossil fuels will co-exist with renewables for decades, and all technologies will play pivotal roles. Pretending otherwise is not just naïve; it is dangerous. The future of energy will be shaped by pragmatism, not prophecy. Those who chase illusions risk repeating the mistakes that have already cost industries, economies and political stability.
• Mashele, an energy economist, is a member of the board of the National Transmission Company of South Africa.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.