Global Clean Energy Growth Expected to Slow in 2025, IRENA Chief Warns
The head of the International Renewable Energy Agency says the world will add less clean energy capacity this year, signaling a potential inflection point in the energy transition.
The pace of global clean energy expansion is set to decelerate in 2025, according to the director-general of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). The warning marks a notable shift in tone from an agency that has spent years documenting record-breaking renewable installations worldwide, and it raises fresh questions about whether the energy transition can sustain the momentum needed to meet climate targets.
While the source does not detail specific capacity figures, the signal from IRENA's leadership carries significant weight. The agency serves as the principal intergovernmental body tracking renewable deployment globally, and a public acknowledgment of slowing growth from its chief suggests the trend is broad enough — and credible enough — to warrant attention from policymakers and investors alike. A single year of reduced additions does not reverse the long arc of renewable growth, but it can alter financing expectations and political will.
Read more Canada Holds Firm as US-Canada Trade Deal Optimism Fades →
Several structural pressures have been building beneath the surface of the clean energy boom: rising equipment and financing costs, supply chain bottlenecks that emerged post-pandemic, and growing policy uncertainty in key markets. In the United States, federal support for renewables has faced renewed political headwinds, while in Europe, permitting delays continue to frustrate developers. Emerging markets, which IRENA has identified as critical to future growth, often struggle with the grid infrastructure and capital access needed to absorb large-scale renewable projects.
The irony is that the underlying economics of wind and solar remain compelling — costs have fallen dramatically over the past decade. What is slowing deployment, analysts broadly agree, is not technology or price, but the softer architecture of policy, permitting, and finance. That distinction matters enormously for how governments and institutions should respond: the solution is administrative and political as much as it is technological or economic.
Continue reading at Reuters
