GP / Blog / Environment

Issue forecast

The energy transition: can the world quit fossil fuels fast enough

In 2025 something happened that had not happened since 1919: renewables generated more of the world's electricity than coal. An examiner reading that is not asking whether clean energy is coming. The live question is whether it is arriving fast enough, and who carries the cost of the years in between.

Theme · EnvironmentLast set at A-Level · 2023 (whether fossil fuels should have no part in energy production)Foresight, not a prediction

In short

An energy-transition question rewards a student who can separate two timelines: the technology, which is now cheap and scaling fast, and the politics and infrastructure, which lag. Argue whether the shift is unstoppable or still too slow where it matters, and anchor it in real 2026 figures, not green optimism or fossil fatalism.

Why this could come up now

Energy and the environment recur on a steady beat. The bank has run the fossil-fuels-in-energy stem in 2023 and a development-versus-environment stem in 2025, and the underlying issue of how a society powers itself never really leaves the syllabus area. On cadence and on resonance it is one of the safer environment bets.

The news has tipped from gradual to dramatic. In 2025 renewables overtook coal in global electricity for the first time in roughly a century, solar added a record amount of new capacity, and fossil generation fell rather than rose. A milestone that large, landing in the year a paper is written, is hard for an examiner to ignore.

Framed honestly: this is foresight, not a forecast of wording. No one knows the stem the examiners will set. What we can say is that the energy question is reliably present and unusually timely, and the cost-and-speed angle is its sharpest current form.

201120162019202320242025

set at A-Level most recent appearance. Energy and development-versus-environment recur every few years. Louder now than at any point in the cycle.

What an essay on this would test

These questions test whether you can hold two true things at once: that the clean-energy shift is real and accelerating, and that 'accelerating' is not the same as 'done'. A weak script either cheers the renewables numbers or despairs at the emissions ones. A strong one weighs speed against scale and asks where the transition is genuinely stuck.

They also test whether you can localise. Singapore cannot simply build wind farms across empty land it does not have, so a generic answer about solar and wind will read as evasion. The examiner wants you to know your own constraints, not recite a global slideshow.

Operative angles

fast enough: the argument is rarely whether to transition, but at what pace, and measured against what deadline
no part: a maximal claim worth testing; 'no part at all' is harder to defend than 'a shrinking part'
who bears the cost: workers, poorer states and consumers carry the transition unevenly, which is where the real argument lives

How to answer it: two ways in

Two distinct, defensible routes through the question. A strong script commits to one and uses the other as the concession it answers, rather than sitting on the fence.

Pace: the shift is now unstoppable

Clean energy has crossed the tipping point

The transition is no longer a moral hope but an economic fact: clean power is now the cheapest to build and is scaling faster than fossil fuels can grow, so the direction is set and the only question is speed.

Renewables overtaking coal in the global power mix marks a structural shift, not a one-off, and fossil generation fell rather than rose for the first time outside a recession.
Solar and battery costs have collapsed, so clean energy now wins on price as well as principle, which is what makes the trend durable.
Once an alternative is both cleaner and cheaper, the switch stops depending on goodwill and starts running on self-interest.

Worked exampleIn 2025 renewables generated about 33.8 percent of the world's electricity against coal's 33.0 percent, the first time clean sources overtook coal since 1919, while solar generation rose by a record 636 terawatt hours, around 30 percent in a single year, the largest one-year jump from any power source (Ember Global Electricity Review 2026, as of 2026-06).

Pace: it is too slow and uneven

Fast in the chart, slow where it counts

A record year in the electricity mix flatters a transition that is barely moving in the hard sectors, lags badly in poorer regions, and is happening too slowly to hold the climate line.

Electricity is the easy part; heavy industry, shipping, aviation and heating remain stubbornly fossil-powered and far from a clean substitute.
Even with a record clean-energy year, 2024 was the hottest on record and warming likely passed 1.5 degrees, so the pace is not matching the deadline.
The transition arrives unevenly: rich grids decarbonise while many developing economies still build fossil capacity because it is what they can afford now.

Worked exampleDespite the record clean-energy year, the World Meteorological Organization confirmed 2024 as the warmest year on record at about 1.55 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and at COP30 in November 2025 negotiators acknowledged for the first time the likely overshoot of the 1.5 degree limit (WMO and COP30 Belem outcome, as of 2026-06).

The fuel: stats, facts and examples

33.8% vs 33.0%

renewables overtook coal in the global electricity mix in 2025, the first time since 1919

Source: Ember Global Electricity Review 2026 · as of 2026-06

+636 TWh

record rise in solar generation worldwide in 2025, about 30 percent in a year, the largest single-year increase from any power source

Source: Ember Global Electricity Review 2026 · as of 2026-06

+40%

rise in global battery storage additions in 2025, a record 108 gigawatts deployed

Source: IEA Global Energy Review 2026 · as of 2026-06

2 GWp

Singapore's installed solar capacity, hit in 2025, with the 2030 target raised to 3 GWp

Source: Singapore Energy Market Authority / Budget 2026 · as of 2026-06

Renewables33.8%

Coal33.0%

Gas, nuclear, other33.2%

Source: Ember Global Electricity Review 2026, as of 2026-06

Facts worth deploying

For the first time outside a recession or pandemic, global fossil-fuel electricity generation fell, by about 0.2 percent in 2025, as wind and solar met almost all the year's growth in demand.Source: Ember Global Electricity Review 2026, as of 2026-06

Singapore's constraint is land, not will: with little room for solar farms and no space for wind, it leans on rooftop solar and plans to import clean power through regional grid links rather than generate it all at home.Source: Singapore Energy Market Authority, as of 2026-06

The hardest sectors to decarbonise, including shipping, aviation, steel and cement, still have no cheap clean substitute, which is why the electricity milestone overstates how far the whole transition has come.Source: IEA / general energy-sector consensus, as of 2026-06

FAQ

Is this an economics or a science question in disguise?

It borrows from both, but a GP answer is about choices and trade-offs, not models or engineering. Use the cost collapse and the generation figures to show the shift is real, then argue the harder question: how fast it should go and who should absorb the cost. Keep the focus on the decision, not the technology.

Do I have to use Singapore?

If the stem says 'your society', lead with Singapore and its land constraint, which forces an unusual transition through rooftop solar and regional power imports rather than wind farms. For a global stem, the renewables-overtaking-coal milestone is your strongest single fact. You can use both, contrasting the global picture with Singapore's particular case.

How do I avoid sounding either utopian or fatalistic?

Hold both timelines. Concede that the technology has won on price and is scaling fast, then press on where it remains stuck: heavy industry, poorer grids and a warming line the pace is not yet matching. The calibration between the two is the argument.