More than 10 years ago, 195 countries agreed in Paris to limit global warming to well below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C. On the surface, it seems like the energy transition is gaining momentum. Wind turbines are appearing on the horizon, and solar panels are covering our roofs. Renewable energy sources are the fastest-growing sector in the global energy supply.
Ten years, one percent
Yet the system beneath the surface has barely changed. Fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal) are still the world’s primary energy source. In 2013, they accounted for approximately 81% of the global energy supply. Now, more than 10 years later, that figure is still 80%. This is because almost all new renewable energy capacity is used to meet growing demand, not to replace fossil fuels.
In short, the phase-out of fossil fuels hasn't begun. The low-hanging fruit in the energy transition has been picked, but the biggest challenge still lies ahead: structurally reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
The invisible giants
Heavy industry is a pressing example of the challenge. The steel, chemicals, and cement that support our modern life are still primarily produced using enormous quantities of fossil fuels.
The Netherlands, co-organiser of the Santa Marta conference, provides a fitting example. After all, heavy industry accounts for roughly 45% of the country's total energy consumption. The countries' biggest emitters such as Tata Steel and Chemelot remain heavily dependent on fossil fuels.
Making heavy industry sustainable is difficult. The challenge is twofold. First, many industrial processes require extreme heat, far exceeding what current industrial heat pumps using renewable energy can provide. Second, a portion of their emissions is not caused by the burning of fuel, but by chemical reactions integral to their production process, such as in the production of cement or fertilizer. These emissions cannot be simply avoided by switching to green energy.
Inconsistent and insufficient guiding policy as the main bottleneck
Parts of heavy industry are difficult to fully decarbonise due to technological constraints, though not all processes face these limits. This makes clear, long-term policy essential: to decarbonize what we can and scale down what we cannot.
The rules for industrial decarbonisation have changed repeatedly in recent years. A clear example is the CO₂ levy from the Dutch Climate Agreement of 2019. This levy was intended to encourage companies to invest in cleaner energy by setting a minimum price on their emissions. However, in June 2025, the House of Representatives abolished the levy before its effectiveness could be assessed. This kind of policy reversal creates uncertainty for companies. Is the transition actually taking place or not? Decarbonising a steel plant or chemical cracking plant requires billions of euros in investments that will only be recouped after decades. Without clear, long-term rules, companies simply continue clinging on to fossil fuels.
The proof that it can work: offshore wind energy
Where the energy transition stalls in heavy industry, other parts of the energy system show what can work. Offshore wind energy, wind turbines at sea, are a clear example of this.
The success of offshore wind energy is due to consistent, long-term policy. The government set clear goals, ensured stable subsidy schemes, and predictable regulations. As a result, developers dared to invest on a large scale.
The costs of renewable electricity, particularly solar and wind energy, have fallen drastically. Under favourable conditions, renewable energy sources are now price-competitive with, or even cheaper than, electricity from fossil fuels.
The real challenge ahead
To truly make heavy industry sustainable, consistent and long-term policy that does not change with every election cycle is needed. Think of production limits on materials such as aluminium and steel, enforceable transition plans, and sanctions for non-compliance.
Precisely now that the energy agency is speaking of the greatest energy disruption ever, we need clear and predictable rules that steer investments towards the industries of the future. The complexity of this challenge demonstrates that conferences like Santa Marta matter as a first step, but only if they produce binding commitments as a basis for national policy consistency. Not just another declaration.