As the world barrels toward the end of 2025, the global struggle to break free from fossil fuels is reaching a fever pitch. The clash is playing out on multiple fronts: in courtrooms, in policy debates, and on the ground in communities from Europe to Asia. Despite mounting evidence that burning fossil fuels is driving both climate change and a public health crisis, societies remain stubbornly hooked on polluting energy sources—often with the tacit support of powerful industries and government subsidies.
Marina Romanello, a Principal Research Fellow at University College London and Executive Director of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change, recently summed up the dilemma in an interview reported by The Times of India. “We look at the connection between human greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and health — hence, we study air pollution as well because its main drivers include the same sources of emissions that cause climate change through the burning of dirty fuels,” she explained. Romanello didn’t mince words when describing the world’s “addiction” to fossil fuels—a term she uses deliberately. “That is because we’re seeing the same pattern worldwide — there is now a lot of awareness and knowledge about the harms fossil fuels are causing to our health. Around two million deaths globally are associated with the burning of fossil fuels each year.”
Despite this awareness and the availability of cleaner, cheaper energy alternatives, the pace of transition remains glacial. “We know there are multiple benefits of transitioning away from fossil fuels and an acute existential need to do so. And yet, although we have all the possibilities at hand, we are not ending this dependency,” Romanello said, highlighting the entrenched interests and slow-changing systems that keep societies reliant on oil, gas, and coal.
The health consequences are dire and wide-ranging. As Romanello detailed, air pollution’s most direct impact is on the respiratory system, increasing the risk of infections like pneumonia, cancers, and chronic illnesses. But the threat doesn’t stop there. “The most toxic small particulate matter pollutants go across our lungs and into our bloodstream. They get distributed throughout our whole body,” she said. “Evidence shows air pollution increases cardiovascular disease and the risk of strokes. It also increases the risk of dementia and other neurological conditions because it gets to our brain. It impacts fetal development—children are particularly at risk because their organs are still developing.” The evidence tying air pollution to virtually every organ system continues to grow, painting a grim picture for public health if the fossil fuel era drags on.
One of the stickiest obstacles to change is the continued financial support for fossil fuels. Following the shockwaves from the war in Ukraine, gas prices soared, lining the pockets of a few corporations while leaving ordinary people struggling to pay their energy bills. In response, many governments ramped up subsidies—over one trillion dollars in both 2023 and 2024, according to Romanello. “Yet, the enormous public funds subsidising fossil fuels should actually be redirected to supporting improved health, bettering access to clean energy and making new infrastructure that benefits well-being. However, we’re still seeing many countries allocating more public funds to subsidising fossil fuels than to their total health budget.”
The paradox is especially acute in fast-growing economies like India, which relies on coal for energy and development. Romanello acknowledged the historic role of fossil fuels in lifting economies but warned, “At some point, we have to acknowledge this is now doing more harm than good. Obviously, a nation can’t turn off all its power plants overnight — but it can plan and implement a very rapid transition towards cleaner energy.” She pointed to China and Western Europe, which have begun rapid transitions as of 2025, as examples to follow. “There is no room for coal in a healthy future, so the sooner we begin a meaningful transition to renewable energy, the faster we will move towards a healthier future and a more protected economy.”
Yet, even as policymakers and corporations trumpet new “transition” projects—hydrogen hubs, biofuels, carbon capture and storage—critics warn that these initiatives often serve as fig leaves for the status quo. According to a global review published December 20, 2025 in Energy Research & Social Science and reported by Earth.com, many of these projects are “doing more to lock in the fossil economy than to wind it down.” Researchers from ICTA-UAB and the University of Sussex analyzed 48 environmental conflict cases worldwide and found that these so-called transition initiatives often fall short of climate goals, deepen environmental injustice, and entrench the political power of fossil fuel companies.
The review found that companies frequently rebrand themselves as indispensable partners in the energy transition while lobbying to slow or water down phase-out policies. “These technologies do not mitigate climate change unless they replace and ultimately end the extraction and combustion of oil, gas, and coal,” said researcher Marcel Llavero Pasquina. Many projects, like the proposed H2Med pipeline from Barcelona to Marseille, are marketed as green but could also carry fossil gas, thus extending the life of old infrastructure.
Worse, these projects often have negative impacts beyond their limited carbon benefits. The researchers documented air pollution around refineries, land dispossession for pipelines and feedstocks, and harm to Indigenous and Global South communities. Public subsidies frequently support these projects, amplifying private gains while offloading social and ecological costs onto the public. “They give the appearance of progress while keeping the underlying system intact at a considerable cost to our environment and climate,” said research associate Freddie Daley.
The study argues that real solutions require strict regulation: low carbon projects must demonstrably displace fossil fuel extraction and combustion, not complement it. Carbon capture should be tied to shutting down polluting facilities, not justifying new ones. Hydrogen should be green, not “blue” (derived from fossil gas), and biofuels must pass strict land use and justice tests. Above all, public money should flow to solutions that reduce fossil fuel supply and demand, not to those that perpetuate it.
Meanwhile, another front in the fight against fossil fuels is opening in the courts. As reported by AFP on December 21, 2025, a wave of climate litigation is gathering steam as farmers, fishermen, and communities hit by climate change sue major corporate polluters for damages. Over 60 “polluter pays” cases have been filed globally, with dozens ongoing. Notable examples include a Peruvian farmer suing German energy giant RWE over glacier melt, Indonesian islanders taking Swiss cement producer Holcim to court over rising seas, and a Belgian farmer accusing TotalEnergies of crop losses. In December 2025, typhoon victims in the Philippines filed a lawsuit in the UK targeting Shell, while Pakistani farmers hit by floods announced legal action against RWE and Heidelberg Materials in October.
These lawsuits, once considered long shots, are gaining traction thanks to advances in climate attribution science that tie greenhouse gas emissions to specific extreme weather events and economic harm. While no court has yet ordered a company to pay compensation for global emissions, legal experts believe this could change as precedents accumulate. “Over the past five years especially there has been an absolute revolution in climate change law... the law can evolve, and I believe that in the future these cases will eventually succeed,” said Sophie Marjanac, a lawyer and director of legal strategy at the Polluter Pays Project.
As the world faces mounting health risks, environmental injustice, and rising legal challenges, the message from researchers, advocates, and affected communities is clear: business as usual is no longer an option. The real test for governments and industries will be whether they can break the fossil fuel habit and invest in solutions that deliver genuine progress—for the climate, for public health, and for generations to come.
