According to CNBC, OPEC Secretary-General Haitham Al Ghais declared a “big shift” in energy discussions happening at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference this week. Speaking in an exclusive interview on Tuesday, Al Ghais noted that just three years ago the conversation was dominated by “energy transition” and calls to “get rid of fossil fuels.” Now, he says industry leaders and policymakers are pushing a “balanced approach” that includes continued fossil fuel development alongside newer energy sources. The OPEC leader called this new narrative “music to my ears” because it aligns with what his organization has advocated for the past several years. Multiple industry players at the UAE oil summit echoed this sentiment, championing “energy addition” to meet growing demand from sectors like artificial intelligence while maintaining fossil fuel supply security.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
<h2 id="narrative-shift“>The convenient narrative shift
Here’s the thing about this sudden “energy addition” talk – it’s incredibly convenient timing for an industry facing existential pressure. For years, OPEC and fossil fuel companies have been fighting a losing battle against the energy transition narrative. Now they’ve found language that lets them keep their business model while sounding reasonable. “Balanced approach” basically means “don’t phase us out too quickly.” And let’s be honest – when the people who profit from fossil fuels suddenly love a new energy narrative, maybe we should be skeptical about whose interests it actually serves.
The AI demand wildcard
What’s really interesting is how they’re using artificial intelligence as justification. Suddenly, everyone’s talking about AI’s massive energy appetite as proof we need more fossil fuels. But here’s the question – does AI’s energy demand automatically mean we need more oil and gas? Or could it drive investment toward more reliable, cheaper renewable sources? The fossil fuel industry has always been good at finding new reasons we “need” them. First it was economic development, then energy security, now it’s powering AI. The justification keeps changing, but the underlying message remains the same: keep buying our product.
The climate math problem
Meanwhile, the climate crisis isn’t exactly taking a coffee break. The International Energy Agency has been clear that new fossil fuel development is incompatible with climate targets. We’re already seeing record temperatures, extreme weather, and climate impacts that scientists have been warning about for decades. So when fossil fuel leaders celebrate “energy addition,” what they’re really celebrating is delaying the inevitable transition. It’s a stalling tactic dressed up as pragmatism. The uncomfortable truth is that the world still needs to dramatically reduce fossil fuel use to avoid catastrophic warming. No amount of clever rebranding changes that physical reality.
Follow the money
Look at where the actual investment is going. Renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels in most markets. Electric vehicle adoption continues to accelerate. The economic fundamentals are shifting regardless of what language oil executives prefer. The “energy addition” narrative might buy them some political breathing room, but it doesn’t change the fact that clean energy technologies are becoming more competitive every year. In the end, markets tend to follow economics more than they follow conference talking points. The question isn’t whether we’ll transition – it’s whether we’ll do it fast enough to matter for the climate.
