Shifting Rhetoric, Stagnant Resolve: A Critical Review of IEA’s "The Path to a New Era for Nuclear Energy"

Introduction: A Rhetorical Turn Without a Backbone

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has long been criticized for downplaying nuclear power – the one technology capable of decisively ending our fossil fuel addiction – in favor of a politically palatable “renewables-only” narrative. Earthrise Accord has previously lambasted this stance as institutional cowardice, arguing that the IEA’s timid modeling and messaging around nuclear energy amount to a symbolic discard of the atom that betrays climate realitiesearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. Now, with the January 2025 publication of The Path to a New Era for Nuclear Energy, the IEA appears to be shifting its rhetoric. The report acknowledges a “strong comeback” for nuclear energy and even touts nuclear as a secure, low-emissions power source needed for rising electricity demandiea.orgiea.org. On the surface, this represents a welcome change in tone – evidence that pro-nuclear voices have finally nudged the Agency’s needle. Notably, the report was informed by contributions from TerraPraxis (the climate nonprofit co-founded by nuclear advocate Kirsty Gogan)terrapraxis.org, suggesting that nuclear realists are gaining a foothold in the IEA’s analysis.

A nuclear power plant at sunset (Cattenom, France). In the 1970s oil crisis, countries like France turned to nuclear energy for energy security, but today institutions like the IEA often leave nuclear in the dusk of their scenarios.

Yet a closer reading reveals that rhetorical shifts have not been matched by policy backbone. The IEA still refuses to place nuclear at the center of climate strategy, instead reinforcing a familiar all-renewables paradigm that ultimately prolongs fossil-fuel dominance. The new report, while better than past efforts, remains cautious in its positioning – emphasizing nuclear’s challenges and treating it as a supplementary option rather than the linchpin of deep decarbonization. This review critically examines the IEA’s latest nuclear report in light of the Agency’s track record. We find that despite some positive language, the IEA continues to sidestep the full truth about nuclear’s indispensability. The result is another half-measure energy roadmap – one that soothes political anxieties but falls woefully short of what nuclear realism and climate science demand for a livable futureearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. In Earthrise Accord’s view, anything less than a full-scale commitment to nuclear is just another form of climate delay and energy disinformation. The IEA’s new era of nuclear rhetoric, alas, still looks like old habits in new packaging.

From Neglect to “New Era”: IEA’s Evolving Stance on Nuclear

Ironically, the IEA’s institutional aversion to nuclear energy contradicts its own origins. The Agency was born in 1974 amid the OPEC oil embargo, when Western nations realized true energy security meant reducing dependence on oil – and that meant aggressively pursuing both efficiency and nuclear power. Indeed, IEA’s own World Energy Outlook 2023 recalls that the 1970s oil crisis “was a major catalyst for change, driving a huge push to scale up energy efficiency and nuclear power”earthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. Countries like France proved what was possible: the 1974 Messmer Plan rapidly built dozens of reactors, achieving energy independence and preventing an estimated 2 billion tons of CO₂ emissions since 1970earthriseaccord.org. Nuclear was seen as a strategic necessity to escape the stranglehold of fossil fuels – exactly the role it should play in today’s climate crisis.

Fast-forward to the present, and until very recently the IEA celebrated a very different set of “solutions.” In the Foreword to WEO 2023, Executive Director Fatih Birol heralded the rise of wind, solar, electric cars and other technologies as the “lasting solutions to today’s energy dilemmas,” implicitly framing nuclear as a relic of the pastearthriseaccord.org. Tellingly, the IEA’s own press materials for its climate roadmaps often omitted nuclear entirely – for example, the World Energy Outlook 2023 press release did not mention nuclear at all, even as it hyped “tripling renewable capacity” and “doubling efficiency” as headline goalsearthriseaccord.org. Within the WEO 2023’s 353-page report, “nuclear” appeared only 114 times, mostly in passing, compared to 408 mentions of “solar,” 233 of “wind,” and a whopping 792 mentions of “gas”earthriseaccord.org. The contrast speaks volumes: an agency created in an era of oil scarcity (alleviated in part by nuclear reactors) had, by 2023, largely sidelined the atom in its vision of the future.

Why this turnaround? Part of the answer lies in bureaucratic inertia and political anxiety. As global anti-nuclear sentiment grew after accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, the IEA absorbed the zeitgeist. Its analysts baked public skepticism into their models: each Outlook assumed only modest nuclear growth, projecting forward the stagnation of the status quoearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. Over decades, these cautious assumptions ossified into self-fulfilling prophecy. Even as climate urgency mounted, the IEA’s baseline scenarios continued to cast nuclear as a bit player, creating what Earthrise calls “discarded futures” – paths to abundant clean energy that were forsaken due to fear and lack of imaginationearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. The result has been chronically underpowered modeling: for example, WEO 2023’s Stated Policies Scenario (reflecting current pledges) showed global nuclear capacity crawling from ~417 GW in 2022 to just ~620 GW by 2050earthriseaccord.org. Even the IEA’s most ambitious Net Zero Emissions scenario only saw nuclear reach “well over 900 GW” by mid-century – roughly a doubling of today’s fleetearthriseaccord.org. By comparison, solar and wind were imagined to skyrocket by many multiples. Such minimal nuclear growth suggests the IEA remained stuck viewing nuclear as a minor adjunct, rather than a cornerstone of decarbonization. As one industry observer summed up the World Energy Outlook mindset: “the overall impression is that nuclear is at best an afterthought, which receives only grudging attention”earthriseaccord.org. In short, the IEA spent years projecting incremental change when the climate crisis demanded exponential action.

It’s against this backdrop that The Path to a New Era for Nuclear Energy landed in January 2025. The report does mark a shift: it openly discusses nuclear’s recent momentum, citing 70+ GW of new reactors under construction (one of the highest levels in decades) and plans in over 40 countries to expand nuclear’s roleiea.orgiea.org. Birol himself is quoted trumpeting that nuclear is set to generate record levels of electricity in 2025 and acknowledging that firm technologies like nuclear will be needed alongside renewables as power demand soarsiea.orgiea.org. These are encouraging words from an agency that once practically apologized for mentioning nuclear. (In fact, when launching a prior IEA analysis on nuclear, Birol felt compelled to caveat that “some countries, including some IEA Members, do not see a role for nuclear… and the IEA Secretariat fully respects their position”earthriseaccord.org – essentially apologizing for even discussing nuclear so as not to offend anti-nuclear member states. This kind of appeasement set a low bar, and any improvement on it is welcome.) The new report’s content – with its focus on innovation, financing, and even a hopeful spotlight on small modular reactors (SMRs) – suggests the IEA is trying to reinvent its narrative on nuclear. The involvement of groups like TerraPraxis, and figures like Kirsty Gogan, underscores that external pressure from nuclear realists has begun to penetrate the IEA’s thinkingterrapraxis.org.

But has the IEA truly had a change of heart, or just a change of tone? A sober analysis indicates that while the rhetoric has evolved, the IEA still stops far short of advocating what is actually needed: making nuclear energy central to global decarbonization. The Agency’s institutional reflexes – its caution, its political deference, its “all of the above (but mostly renewables)” philosophy – remain firmly intact. Below, we examine the new report through Earthrise Accord’s critical lenses, including symbolic discard, affective contagion, clean energy reparations, and discarded futures, to show how the IEA’s latest effort, despite improvements, still perpetuates a fossil-favored status quo.

Symbolic Embrace or Superficial Gesture?

One of Earthrise Accord’s core critiques has been the symbolic discard of the atom: the idea that institutions ritually exclude or minimize nuclear power to signal alignment with a certain vision of “green” progress. For years, the IEA exemplified this, scrubbing nuclear from its high-level narratives to present a comforting (if unrealistic) story of a future powered solely by wind, sun, and energy efficiency. This symbolic exclusion was a form of performative conformity – reflecting an ingrained stigma that painted “clean energy” as synonymous with renewables only, and cast the atom as an outsider. In effect, the IEA performed solidarity with popular anti-nuclear sentiment by banishing the anxiety-provoking technology from its imagined futureearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. Such storytelling may have soothed some audiences, but it came at the cost of scientific honesty. By sanitizing its scenarios to exclude the “controversial” yet crucial atom, the IEA traded truth for comfort and reinforced public fears by omissionearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org.

With the new nuclear report, the IEA finally breaks this pattern – at least superficially. Dedicating a standalone publication to nuclear energy signals that the topic is no longer off-limits or merely an afterthought. The Agency is, in a sense, attempting a symbolic embrace of the atom after decades of shunning it. Gone (for now) are the apologies for discussing nuclear. The report’s very title – The Path to a New Era for Nuclear Energy – suggests a reframing of nuclear as part of the solution, not a relic of the past. This is no small rhetorical shift, and credit is due to those both inside and outside the IEA who pushed for it. Earthrise Accord recognizes the significance of IEA explicitly acknowledging nuclear’s comeback and its role in addressing energy security and climate concernsterrapraxis.orgiea.org. Symbolically, the atom has been let back into the conversation at the IEA’s highest levels.

However, symbolic inclusion is not the same as wholehearted advocacy. A close look at the report shows the IEA still handling nuclear with kid gloves. Old habits of caution and equivocation lurk between the lines. For instance, the report emphasizes that nuclear’s future hinges on overcoming “challenges” – cost overruns, financing hurdles, waste management, public acceptance – which, while true, are highlighted so prominently that the overall tone remains guardediea.orgiea.org. The IEA carefully notes that some countries “do not see a role for nuclear,” and frames its recommendations in a way that avoids offending these sensibilities. This cautious positioning dilutes the impact of the IEA’s newfound pro-nuclear rhetoric. Rather than unapologetically championing nuclear as essential, the Agency appears to be saying, “Nuclear can help – if it clears a whole gauntlet of obstacles and if governments want it.” The underlying message is equivocal, as if the IEA is still half-expecting a backlash for merely talking up nuclear. In short, the report extends a hand to nuclear, but with a nervous glance over the shoulder. It feels less like a bold bear hug and more like a tentative handshake.

Why this reticence? Earthrise Accord would argue it’s the residue of what we call affective contagion – the viral spread of emotional fear and stigma that has long surrounded anything nuclear. Decades of radiophobic messaging and anti-nuclear activism have created a deep cultural anxiety around the word “nuclear,” infecting even technocratic institutions. The IEA may be trying to overcome this bias, but traces remain. After all, this is the same Agency that until recently showed implicit deference to anti-nuclear sentiment, essentially self-censoring its pro-nuclear analysis to avoid ruffling feathersearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. Such behavior is indicative of how affective contagion works: the dread of nuclear – however irrational in light of the technology’s safety record – permeates the halls of policy so thoroughly that even when facts say one thing, feelings quietly dictate anotherearthriseaccord.org. The IEA’s newfound openness to nuclear is progress, but the hesitancy in its prose suggests that the cultural phobia has not fully lifted. The institution has yet to find the courage to tell the whole truth about the atom without hedging. Until it does, one must wonder whether this “new era” is truly substantive or just symbolic.

The Renewables-Only Trap: Fossil Fuels by Omission

Perhaps the most damning shortfall of the IEA’s stance – past and present – is its failure to confront a simple reality: a strategy that relies on 100% renewables (and sidelines nuclear) in practice equates to continued fossil fuel dependence. This is the Trojan horse hidden inside the feel-good narrative of wind and solar supremacy. Intermittent renewables, for all their virtues, always require backup for when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. Without nuclear or some equally scalable firm power source, that backup is inevitably fossil fuels – usually natural gas, sometimes coal or oilearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. Thus, excluding nuclear from the mix is, by omission, endorsing an ongoing role for coal, gas, and oil to guarantee reliabilityearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. As Earthrise Accord bluntly puts it, “the absence of nuclear ensures [fossil] reliance remains permanent.”earthriseaccord.org This dynamic turns a “100% renewable” vision into a dangerous illusion – a gift to the fossil fuel industry wrapped in green paperearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. It sounds clean and progressive, but it leaves a persistent gap that fossil fuel interests are all too happy to fill.

The IEA’s new report, unfortunately, does not break free from this renewables-only trap. Yes, it acknowledges nuclear as a firm, low-carbon source that can complement renewablesiea.org. But nowhere does the IEA flatly state the corollary truth: without a massive nuclear build-out, the world will remain stuck with a large fossil footprint. The Agency’s scenarios continue to reflect this reality even if they don’t say it outright. For example, even as the IEA now predicts a peak in oil, gas, and coal demand this decade under current policies, it still projects that in 2030 the world will derive about 73% of its energy from fossil fuels – only a modest decline from ~80% todayearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. Think about that: after a frenzy of renewable investment and optimistic assumptions, nearly three-quarters of energy in 2030 would still be coming from burning carbon. How can fossil fuels remain so dominant even as wind and solar supposedly surge? The answer, as the report tacitly admits, is that renewables are largely addition rather than replacement unless paired with firm generation like nuclearearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. New solar farms and wind turbines may satisfy incremental demand growth or displace a bit of fuel here and there, but without new nuclear, they cannot retire the entrenched fossil infrastructure. When night falls or calm weather stretches for days, a grid with scant nuclear must fall back on the same old polluting standby sources.

We have seen this play out in real life. Germany, for instance, spent over a decade pursuing its Energiewende—a transition that prioritized closing nuclear plants before coal plants. The result? A rise in coal burning and a greater dependence on imported Russian gas, undermining both emissions goals and energy securityearthriseaccord.org. In California, the premature closure of the San Onofre nuclear station in 2012 (hailed by some as a “green” victory at the time) led directly to a surge in gas-fired electricity to fill the void, boosting the state’s carbon emissions by millions of tons annuallyearthriseaccord.org. These cases illustrate a stark lesson: if you remove nuclear from the equation, you empower fossil fuels. Every nuclear reactor shut down or never built translates to more coal and gas staying on the system to keep the lights onearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. Oil and gas companies know this perfectly well – indeed, many in the fossil lobby quietly cheer on the 100% renewables narrative, knowing that it “sounds progressive yet will always leave a gap…filled by natural gas”earthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. It is a shrewd form of disinformation, one the IEA has (perhaps unwittingly) abetted by mirroring the narrative in its outlooks.

Earthrise Accord has termed the IEA’s complicity in this dynamic a form of climate delay if not outright disinformation. By consistently underestimating nuclear and overestimating how easily renewables alone can shoulder the entire load, the IEA’s scenarios have baked in a fossil fuel crutch to the world’s energy futureearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. The new nuclear report was a chance to finally correct this misstep – to explicitly call out that without aggressive nuclear deployment, fossil dominance will continue. But the report stops shy of that level of candor. It remains wedded to an “all-of-the-above” philosophy that, in practice, still puts renewables first and nuclear second. The danger of this approach is that it perpetuates what Earthrise calls “renewables-only delusions.” It tells policymakers they can have a fully decarbonized grid by scaling up wind and solar alone, when in reality such a grid ends up tethered to gas or coal for stability. The IEA’s failure to unequivocally champion nuclear as co-equal to renewables means it also fails to slam shut the backdoor through which fossil fuels keep infiltrating our energy system. Until that backdoor is closed, our global “clean energy transition” remains half-hearted – a piecemeal change that leaves the climate crisis unresolved and fossil interests intact.

Climate Accountability Absent: The Missed Call for Clean Energy Reparations

If the IEA’s caution around nuclear has helped enable decades of climate delay, one would hope the Agency might at least grapple with the issue of accountability. After all, the slower our clean energy rollout (thanks in part to nuclear’s exclusion), the more cumulative damage is done to vulnerable communities and the entire planet. Earthrise Accord advocates for the concept of Clean Energy Reparations: holding those who delayed and obstructed the transition accountable for financing the solutions we now urgently requireearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. In practice, this means compelling the fossil fuel industry – and the policymakers and institutions that abetted its prolonged dominance – to pay for the clean infrastructure needed to fix the mess. It’s a matter of climate justice: the communities most harmed by fossil fuel pollution and disinformation (often Indigenous, marginalized, and in the Global South) deserve priority access to clean, reliable energy as a form of restitutionearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. Nuclear power, once vilified, can be reimagined as a tool of empowerment and reparative justice – providing steady electricity without the deadly air pollution that has blighted so many livesearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org.

One might ask: does the IEA’s new nuclear report acknowledge this moral dimension? Does it recognize the need for a reckoning with past climate inertia – perhaps by urging greater support for nuclear deployment in those regions that fossil interests have trapped in energy poverty? The answer is no. The Path to a New Era for Nuclear Energy sticks to a technocratic analysis of opportunities and challenges; it nowhere addresses the idea of accountability or reparations for the lost decades of transition. The report talks about financing mechanisms, to be sure – but in the narrow sense of attracting investment, not in the sense of demanding polluters pay for the clean-up. This is a glaring omission, if an unsurprising one. The IEA is an intergovernmental body closely tied to its member states and mainstream market paradigms; calling for fossil fuel profits to be redirected into nuclear build-outs in developing countries is likely beyond its political comfort zone. Yet, that is precisely the kind of bold stance that true climate leadership requires. Imagine if the IEA used its platform to declare that oil companies’ windfall profits must fund new-generation nuclear plants, renewables, and grid upgrades in the communities most ravaged by climate change and extractive industries. It would be a paradigm shift – the IEA transforming from passive analyst to active advocate for accountability. As Earthrise Accord notes, such a stance might have been unthinkable for the Agency in its early years, but these are different timesearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org.

By sidestepping the issue of who should pay for the energy transition, the IEA’s report remains politically safe but morally timid. It speaks of the “need for government support” and “new business models” to finance nuclear projectsterrapraxis.org, but it doesn’t name the elephant in the room: the fossil fuel incumbents that owe a huge debt to humanity for the damage their prolonged dominance has wrought. There is no mention of litigation, liability, or climate damages; no hint that countries whose development was stunted by energy poverty and climate disasters deserve massive investment in nuclear and other firm clean energy as a matter of justice. In Earthrise’s view, leaving out this perspective is not just an academic oversight – it has practical implications. If the IEA continues to treat the transition as a forward-looking technical challenge while glossing over the historical accountability of those who delayed action, it effectively lets the perpetrators of climate delay off the hook. Worse, it places the burden of financing on the public or on beleaguered utilities, rather than on the obscene profits of the carbon majors who actively fought against both renewables and nuclear for decades. This is energy disinformation by omission: the IEA is implicitly portraying the slow uptake of nuclear as a happenstance of economics and public opinion, rather than connecting it to the disinformation campaigns and lobbying that fossil interests carried out to thwart competition.

Earthrise Accord calls this what it is – complicity. By failing to call out the root causes of nuclear’s marginalization (and thus our continued fossil reliance), the IEA remains complicit in a narrative that exonerates the villains of this story. True climate realism, which the IEA claims to espouse in its 2050 net-zero modeling, would entail not just admitting nuclear is needed, but also demanding a measure of justice: that those who blocked the “nuclear bridge” to sustainability pay to build it now. The concept of Clean Energy Reparations is admittedly radical in policy circles, but it stems from the radical magnitude of the injustice at hand. If the IEA wants to cast off its cowardly past and become a force for good, it should find the courage to integrate climate justice into its recommendations. That would mean standing up to powerful interests and stating clearly that a livable future requires not only new energy investments, but a transfer of wealth from the polluters to the polluted. Thus far, the IEA has shown no such gumption. The new report stays safely in the lane of “all gain, no pain”, asking little of the status quo besides incremental reforms. It’s a missed opportunity to inject moral urgency into the energy conversation – something Earthrise Accord insists is necessary to break through the complacency.

Reclaiming Discarded Futures: What the IEA Could Have Said

Reading The Path to a New Era for Nuclear Energy, one cannot help but think of the futures we have already lost thanks to decades of nuclear dismissal. These discarded futures – visions of abundant clean energy that never came to pass – haunt the pages of the IEA’s report, even if unacknowledged. Had the world heeded climate scientists and kept scaling nuclear power alongside renewables starting in the 1970s, we might today have electricity grids virtually free of carbon. Fossil fuels could be well on their way to obsolescence, and the climate outlook far less dire. France demonstrated a version of this alternative path decades ago, and others could have followedearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. Instead, fear and disinformation (much of it funded by petro-dollar interests) sabotaged nuclear’s rise. The IEA, rather than resisting this trend, often rubber-stamped it—producing conservative projections that treated nuclear decline as a given, and thereby reinforced policymakers’ skittishness. In doing so, the Agency became a case study in compromised leadership, prioritizing short-term palatability over long-term vision.

The January 2025 report was an opportunity for the IEA to finally reckon with this legacy and help reclaim those discarded futures. To some extent, it tries: the report’s exploration of innovation (like advanced reactors and SMRs) and its recognition of nuclear’s potential to meet burgeoning demand are attempts to carve a new path forwardiea.organs.org. The IEA highlights that with continued innovation and sufficient support, nuclear capacity could substantially expand by 2050 – hinting at a future where nuclear complements renewables to deliver a low-carbon energy system. There is even an implicit nod to a more ambitious scenario: the World Nuclear Association and other experts have called for roughly tripling global nuclear capacity by 2050 as indispensable for climate targetsworld-nuclear.orgworld-nuclear.org. The IEA stops short of endorsing that level of ambition, but by documenting the “fresh impetus” in nuclear investment and policy support, it implicitly acknowledges that a nuclear resurgence is possibleiea.orgiea.org.

Yet acknowledging potential is different from unleashing it. Where the report falls flat is in its lack of urgency. It carefully catalogs challenges and needed actions – financing mechanisms, supply chain development, workforce training, regulatory streamliningterrapraxis.organs.org – but it frames these as technical to-dos rather than as an all-out emergency mobilization. The tone remains one of gradual progress: nuclear is making a comeback, there’s momentum, let’s nurture it, etc. What is missing is the alarm bell that should be ringing loud and clear: that without an explosive growth in nuclear power starting immediately, our chances of hitting climate targets dwindle to near zero. Instead of plainly stating, for example, that “excluding or minimising nuclear makes climate goals virtually impossible to achieve”earthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org, the IEA report politely suggests nuclear can play an “important role” if we do X, Y, and Z. This gentle language doesn’t convey the true stakes. It doesn’t admit that every reactor we fail to build is essentially forfeiting a chunk of our carbon budget that will be filled by fossil fuels. Remarkably, studies show nuclear energy has already prevented on the order of 60–70 gigatons of CO₂ emissions over the past half-centuryearthriseaccord.org. It continues to avoid over 1 gigaton per year currentlyearthriseaccord.org. Every lost nuclear project is a lost climate opportunity – a future discarded. The IEA, even in this new report, doesn’t quite speak in those terms.

Earthrise Accord would have liked to see a bolder conclusion from the IEA – something akin to: We have wasted too much time, and now only a crash program of nuclear build-out (alongside renewables) can close the gap in decarbonization. The data in the report supports such a conclusion: the IEA shows electricity demand skyrocketing in coming decades with the rise of electric vehicles, data centers, and AI, far outpacing overall energy demand growthiea.org. It notes that most existing nuclear plants in advanced economies are aging, while China is on track to outbuild Western nations by leaps and boundsiea.orgiea.org. It warns about concentrated supply chains (e.g. Russia’s dominance in uranium enrichment) that pose risks if we don’t diversifyiea.orgiea.org. All these indicators scream for decisive action: for a coalition of countries to sprint ahead in deploying both current large reactors and new SMR designs, for robust international cooperation to secure nuclear fuel supply and training of a new workforce, and for policies that treat nuclear with the same urgency and scale as wartime industrial efforts. The IEA lays out pieces of this picture, but then retreats to a milquetoast stance of cautious optimism. It’s as if they cannot bring themselves to say what is plainly true: that without an aggressive nuclear push, our global “energy transition” will remain incomplete and fossil-fueled. Saying so would, of course, offend some stakeholders and break from the IEA’s typically neutral tone. But anything less amounts to downplaying the very crisis the Agency is tasked to address.

In the end, The Path to a New Era for Nuclear Energy is a step forward for the IEA – yet it is a halting, tentative step where a giant leap is needed. It proves that sustained critique (from voices like Earthrise Accord, pro-nuclear NGOs, scientists, and even enlightened policymakers) can pressure institutions to change their tune. However, changing the tune is not the same as changing the dance. The IEA is still dancing around the core issue: that we cannot achieve a livable climate future without a central role for nuclear power. This is the nuclear realist stance that Earthrise Accord champions, backed by the IPCC’s scenarios and historical evidenceearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. The IEA has yet to fully absorb this reality. Until it does, its guidance will continue to underwrite a slow and inadequate transition – one where fossil fuels quietly keep their grip in the background, to the detriment of us all.

Conclusion: The Courage to Tell the Full Truth

Earthrise Accord has long argued that confronting the climate crisis requires not just innovation in technology, but integrity in truth-telling. In the arena of global energy policy, the IEA’s voice carries tremendous weight. For too long, that voice was muted and muddled on nuclear energy, hampered by political fears and captured by a one-sided narrative. The January 2025 nuclear report shows that the IEA is capable of learning and responding – that it can begin to shift course when the evidence becomes overwhelming. The report’s positive acknowledgements of nuclear’s value, and its detailed analysis of what is needed to expand nuclear deployment, are commendable as far as they goans.organs.org. They indicate that the affective contagion of nuclear fear may finally be loosening its hold on at least some of the Agency’s thinking.

But partial progress is not victory. In its current form, the IEA’s “new era” report still feels like a document trying to have it both ways: to appease pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear camps simultaneously. The result is a cautious, sometimes ambivalent treatment of what should be a clarion call. To truly align its guidance with climate reality, the IEA must move beyond timid incrementalism. It must find the courage to say, unequivocally, that nuclear power needs to be scaled up globally at unprecedented speed and scale – not as an option of last resort, but as a frontline solution. It must dispel the illusion that wind and solar alone can carry the day, by highlighting the mounting evidence that excluding nuclear only perpetuates fossil usageearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. And it must challenge its member governments: stop regarding nuclear as contentious and start regarding it as indispensable. This would indeed be a new era – one of nuclear realism, where policy is grounded in physics and empirical data, not in outdated fears or political taboosearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org.

Such forthrightness will inevitably provoke pushback. Some countries and interest groups will bristle; some IEA members may even threaten to withdraw support. But leadership in a time of crisis demands risking discomfort. The IEA’s mandate, one could argue, is not to reflect its members’ preferences back to them, but to guide them toward a coherent path that ensures energy security and climate safety. Today, that path unambiguously runs through a major expansion of nuclear energy alongside renewables. Every honest analysis – from deep-decarbonization models to historical case studies – reinforces this point. The IEA’s own data, when read without bias, confirms it. What’s needed is for the Agency to shed its last vestiges of institutional cowardice and speak the full truth aloud. In the words of Earthrise Accord’s manifesto: “There can be no timely transition without nuclear, because renewables alone are simply unable to replace the entirety of fossil fuel use.”earthriseaccord.org

The window for a timely transition is closing. We are in a race not just against physics but against disinformation and delay. The IEA’s cautious optimism will not win that race; only bold, unequivocal action will. The Path to a New Era for Nuclear Energy is a start, but it must be a first step. The IEA needs to follow through with concrete shifts in its flagship scenarios – raising its nuclear projections to levels commensurate with a true net-zero trajectory, rather than the anemic figures of past outlooksearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. It needs to integrate nuclear fully into its policy advice, urging governments to streamline nuclear licensing, fund advanced reactor deployment, and include nuclear in clean energy incentive programs just as prominently as wind or solar. It should highlight success stories (like France, Sweden, Ontario) where nuclear delivered rapid decarbonization, and frankly warn that countries ignoring nuclear are likely to miss their climate targets. And critically, the IEA should leverage its platform to call out lingering myths – to dispel the affective contagion by sharing the overwhelming evidence of nuclear’s safety and efficacy, and by pointing out the hidden fossil interests behind a purist renewables-only agendaearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org.

In closing, Earthrise Accord’s stance is one of hopeful skepticism. We applaud the IEA for finally adjusting its rhetoric and acknowledging nuclear energy’s importance – that is a testament to truth overcoming fear, however slowly. But we remain sharply critical of anything less than a full commitment to what the climate emergency demands. There is no room now for half measures or polite omissions. The IEA must not just hint at the right path; it must illuminate it in stark detail, moral urgency and all. If the Agency fails to do so, it will continue to be part of the problem – complicit in the very delay and disinformation that has brought us to the brink. If, however, it finds its voice and speaks clearly – if it urges the world to embrace nuclear alongside renewables, to make polluters finance the transition, and to leave no low-carbon option off the table – then perhaps the IEA can become part of the solution after all. The choice between those roles has never been more stark. The time for courage is now, and the world is watching. Will the watchdog finally bare its teeth and tell the truth about the atom? Only then can we truly enter a new era of clean energy – one defined not by cowardice or compromise, but by the conviction needed to actually win the race against climate catastrophe.

Sources: The analysis above draws on Earthrise Accord’s critique of the IEA’s historical treatment of nuclear energyearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org, the content of the IEA’s January 2025 report on nuclear energyiea.orgterrapraxis.org, and established data on energy systems and climate impacts. All citations in the text refer to source materials that substantiate the facts and quotations presented, including IEA publications, independent analyses, and commentary from industry experts.