ASEAN Nations Return to Fossil Fuels, Back Away From Net Zero Plans

By Vijay Jayaraj

For years, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) governments faced pressure from international lenders and climate forums to announce fossil fuel phase-outs, moratoriums on new plants, and heavy bets on wind and solar.

Indonesia and Vietnam secured decarbonization-inspired funding from the Just Energy Transition Partnership. Leaders spoke of achieving net-zero goals by 2050 and exiting coal by 2040 or earlier. Natural gas was regarded as the transition fuel, a necessary evil to get to “renewable” nirvana when wind and solar would be “scaled up.” Then the confident rhetoric met reality.

A sudden oil and natural gas crunch, triggered by the expanding conflict in the Middle East, has laid bare fatal flaws of net zero. Gas markets tightened almost overnight. Shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz got risky. LNG (liquefied natural gas) prices surged. Supply chains stumbled.

Now, ASEAN governments are quietly tearing up climate pledges and returning to oil, coal, and natural gas – the only affordable energy sources that guarantee uninterrupted power for their growing economies. Fossil fuels are back in style.

Since mid-April, reports have described a clear pattern across Asia: LNG disruption, higher spot prices, and a scramble for dispatchable power that coal can still provide more cheaply and immediately than many alternatives. ASEAN does not run on slogans, and factories, ports, malls, and homes don’t operate on wishful thinking. When gas prices jump and supplies tighten, utilities reach for coal because it is available and familiar.

Take Indonesia. On May 2, Energy Minister Bahlil Lahadalia made it plain: “I decided, let coal continue for now. This is about survival mode and efficiency. We must not sacrifice our people with high electricity prices.”

Indonesia has approved higher quotas for coal production and delayed earlier phase-out schedules for coal plants like Cirebon-1. Plans to eliminate coal use sit on the shelf. Affordable power for 280 million people comes first.

In Vietnam, coal-fired generation jumped 44% month-over-month in March, reaching 16 terawatt-hours. That accounted for 56% of the country’s total power output—the highest recent share. Utilities negotiated extra coal imports to fill gaps left by expensive and scarce liquefied natural gas.

Thailand took direct action. Authorities restarted two decommissioned units at the Mae Moh coal-fired power plant and ordered existing coal stations to maximum capacity. The added 600 megawatts helped stabilize electricity costs after gas prices soared.

The Philippines declared a national energy emergency in late March after gasoline prices more than doubled. Coal already supplies about 60% of electricity. The government ramped up output from coal plants and considered easing restrictions on new capacity. Energy Secretary Raphael Lotilla signaled that temporary reliance on coal would prevent shortages.

In Myanmar, long queues at petrol stations complement black-market prices more than double official rates that have slowed rice harvesting and hiked food prices. While the immediate crisis hits diesel and gasoline, power utilities lean harder on domestic coal reserves to avoid broader blackouts. Malaysia and others eye similar steps to protect industrial output and rural economies.

The speed at which ASEAN nations abandoned their net-zero pledges should tell you everything you need to know about the viability of the climate agenda. The moment a real threat emerged, the green energy transition was exposed as a luxury belief held by those who have never had to worry about where their next kilowatt is coming from.

Developing economies are rejecting the climate dogma that demands their perpetual impoverishment. They are actively expanding coal mining operations to ensure a steady supply of domestic fuel. This protects their economies from the wild price swings of imported LNG.

The irony is obvious. Governments that spent years promising rapid decarbonization are now leaning on coal to keep lights on and electricity prices tolerable. The middle class applauds because the alternative is higher bills, fuel rationing, and lost jobs. For ordinary households, energy security is not a subject for a debate club. It is the difference between affordable electricity and unnecessary, even dangerous, interruptions of modern living.

Originally published at The Hill, May 19, 2026.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 11 votes
Article Rating
19 Comments
Bryan A
May 20, 2026 2:09 pm

Wind and Solar can be soooo fickle. Especially at night or if the wind isn’t blowing just right. And if storming your generation is gone and you can’t recharge your EVs to EVacuate.

Edward Katz
May 20, 2026 2:15 pm

It’s the same old story: what often looks good on paper either fails to materialize in reality or proves to be an outright failure. Initially the countries mentioned above fell for the alarmist rhetoric pushed by government officials, environmental activists and green initiative peddlers. Except when it became obvious that renewable energies couldn’t deliver when energy shortfalls occurred, the ASEAN nations quickly turned back to the old reliables; i.e., fossil fuels in particular It’s too bad that too many Western nations haven’t awakened to these facts yet and continue to pursue nonsensical goals like Net Zero.

Reply to  Edward Katz
May 20, 2026 2:54 pm

Renewables never looked good even on paper—except to climate alarmists who didn’t know electricity grid basics.

  1. They are intermittent, so require a separate underutilized FF backup.
  2. They are not dispatchable.
  3. They provide no grid inertia.
SxyxS
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 21, 2026 2:13 am

If renewables would have looked remotely good on paper,
somewhere, some people/institutions etc would have used it on a massive scale in developing countries ;
yet this never happened despite the fact that it is much easier to set up solar panels and windmills than power plants who on top need permanent reinvestments and resupply from elsewhere.

The problem is, just as with gender equality, that the power and performance gap is way too big – and everyone knew that all the time, until some people came around claiming the opposite.
You don’t employ women for jobs where raw power is needed,
nor do you use green energy for this purpose.

And the power gap between renewables and reliables is way bigger than between men and women.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  SxyxS
May 21, 2026 1:30 pm

You also do not require men to use tampons, nor to you employ them to make babies.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
May 22, 2026 7:25 am

nor to you employ them to make babies.”

Umm, really?

Leon de Boer
May 20, 2026 5:54 pm

But “mynamereloaded” told me all countries except the US were going strong in renewables 🙂

I did challenge him to name them .. I had a total of one the UK.

cwright
Reply to  Leon de Boer
May 21, 2026 3:31 am

And it just happens that the UK has pretty well the most expensive electricity in the known universe….

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  cwright
May 21, 2026 1:31 pm

Most extra-terrestial civilization have mastered matter-anti-matter reactors. 😉

May 20, 2026 9:56 pm

It is instructive that all the companies with data centers/AI that are pushing the demand for electricity are not investing in wind or solar sources [even if coupled with batteries] since they know its unreliable and un-economic — even though the fuel is “free”.
I wish our politicians would take note.

Keitho
Editor
May 21, 2026 3:50 am

That will make Mad Ed really cross as he thinks he is paving the net zero way for others to follow. Maybe turn it around Ed and reopen the North Sea and start fracking on land too.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Keitho
May 21, 2026 1:32 pm

If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

Dave Andrews
May 21, 2026 8:11 am

According to the IEA

“Total global energy demand in 2024 rose….to over 650EJ. Fossil fuels accounted for nearly four fifths of of total energy demand – a share that has declined only marginally since 2000”

“In 2000 advanced economies accounted for over half of global energy demand but that peaked in 2007 and they now account for one third of total demand”

“Energy demand in emerging market and developing economies, led by China, has more than doubled since 2000”

“Overall energy demand grew by over 20% since 2010. Oil, coal and natural gas still dominate each providing over 150EJ 0f global energy demand”

Eye balling their graph oil is at almost 200EJ and coal at c.180EJ, unreliables near 80EJ

“Energy related CO2 emissions reached an all time high in 2024 at 38.2 gigatonnes”

“Per capita co2 emissions in China are now 16% higher than in advanced countries as a group”

IEA ‘World Energy Outlook 2025’ (Nov. 2025)

Sparta Nova 4
May 21, 2026 1:28 pm

Have not looked, but I await the expected:

“But this proves clean, green energy is the future!”
“And it proves “fossil” fuels need to be eliminated.”
“Had the net zero been accomplished, this would not be an issue.”

Drum roll….

Bob
May 21, 2026 5:43 pm

Use the resources you have not the ones other fools wish you would.

May 22, 2026 10:00 am

Wonderful news!