A major organization tasked with providing forecasts to assist fossil fuel-dependent countries with transitioning away from so-called green energy alternatives has flip-flopped when it comes to global peak oil consumption.

Two years ago, the IEA diverged from its prognostication of peak oil by 2050, instead placating other climate eco-warriors by changing the timeframe to roughly 2030. As we all know, the Biden administration’s push for the transition to electric vehicles was intense, and the federal government had its incentive-laden thumb on the scales of the EV industry. Despite this, relatively few were purchasing electric vehicles. In fact, hilarity ensued when Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm exposed the extreme limitations of the technology as it now stands.

Now, the IEA has returned to a tepid prediction of peak oil by 2050. One reason, according to Bloomberg columnist Javier Blas, is that the IEA was forced to face a reality check in the form of countries backpedaling from their green initiatives:

[The IEA] was premature, in part because it didn’t anticipate an obvious flaw: governments backpedaling on their clean-energy commitments. Thus, the IEA is now in retreat. The agency, whose analysis is closely followed, isn’t so sure anymore about a peak. Maybe coal will reach a zenith, but oil may not, and gas certainly won’t. And when, and if, fossil-fuel demand eventually tops out, it will do so at a higher level than the agency anticipated, in some cases barely showing any reduction from today’s consumption levels.

The Institute for Energy Research posits, “The IEA has been forced by U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright to restore the agency’s original mission of providing accurate, reality-based data about the world’s energy picture. It has moved in that direction with its forecasts in the World Energy Outlook 2025, released during COP30.”

Under the leadership of Secretary Wright, the U.S. is leaning more heavily on fossil fuels and yearning to become energy independent once again, just as we were during Trump’s first term. This alone changes the “peak oil” calculus.

Either way, the fact of the matter is that the IEA — likely due to ecofascist fervor — decided to become a propaganda outlet and make predictions about peak oil consumption that were simply incorrect. It published a new statement on November 12 during the COP30 conference in Brazil. You know, that climate conference for which part of the Amazon rainforest was destroyed in order to reach the location of the summit.

IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol claimed that the outlook changes were made to suit “the changing economic and energy context.” He added, “There are many uncertainties today — economically, politically and technologically. We want to have a broader range of scenarios to try to address all of these uncertainties, and I hope it will meet the demand of our leaders, our governments, industry and other stakeholders.”

Regardless of the reason, fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere.

• Green alternatives aren’t good enough to reasonably replace them.

• Solar panels aren’t reliable.

• Wind farms cause more environmental damage than they purport to ameliorate. This goes for both land-based wind farms, which are little more than glorified concrete graveyards that kill birds and ruin farmland, and ocean wind farms, which kill whales and potentially threaten humans.

• EVs have limited range. Plus, the infrastructure needed to charge them still relies on … fossil fuels.

People are amazing at adapting and innovating. And problem-solving to protect and preserve the environment and natural resources is certainly important. However, one cannot force change when there are no viable alternatives. The International Energy Agency seems to realize this — at least for now. We’ll see what tune it’s singing the closer we get to 2050.