(SeaPRwire) –   Climate campaigners, petroleum company leaders, climate scientists, and financiers are all interpreting the same reality through vastly different lenses and vocabularies. This week provided a particularly vivid illustration of this divided perspective.

While policymakers and environmental advocates convened at an international summit aimed at eliminating fossil fuels, oil and gas companies were focused on maximizing profits in a rapidly changing landscape. These two camps appear to have little common ground. Yet both sophisticated oil producers and climate activists are now starting from a common understanding: the era of endless growth in fossil fuel demand is coming to an end.

This transition is already visible in the power generation sector. For oil, the change is more gradual and often masked by geopolitical factors. A central challenge emerges: how should one adapt to a future market that is likely to be smaller, more stagnant, and far less predictable? This week yielded no grand announcements from either side in response. However, by 2026, the most significant shifts are frequently executed quietly.

The summit this week in Santa Marta, Colombia, represented the endpoint of extensive preparations, drawing delegates from nearly 60 nations to discuss fossil fuel phase-out strategies. Deliberately held outside the formal UN climate talks, the meeting resulted in countries establishing dedicated “work streams.” These groups are tasked with developing specific policies to speed up the energy transition, such as integrating climate objectives into trade agreements and reforming financial systems.

Against a backdrop of high energy prices, such proposals may seem idealistic, yet they reflect a genuine transformation underway. A report from the energy think tank Ember, published during the summit, indicated a “sustained and structural decline” in fossil fuel-based electricity within OECD nations. It also noted a slight but significant drop in fossil fuel power generation last year in both India and China.

Despite the reality of this shift, the world’s major producers and consumers are reluctant to frame it as such. Notably, the key players were absent from the Colombia talks. The largest economies and emitters—including the U.S., India, and China—did not attend. Major oil and gas producers like Russia and Saudi Arabia were also missing.

Nevertheless, these absent nations are confronting the same fundamental data. The United Arab Emirates’ choice to exit OPEC is instructive when viewed this way. OPEC has historically influenced global crude prices by mandating collective output cuts to boost prices, a strategy balancing member states’ short- and long-term goals. This model becomes less effective if you believe today’s oil demand level has a finite horizon. Reducing your own output for the group’s benefit essentially means forgoing potential revenue.

The U.A.E. energy ministry stated the move “reflects the U.A.E.’s long-term strategic and economic vision and evolving energy profile, including accelerated investment in domestic energy production.”

While OPEC’s own projections indicate demand growth for decades, this is not necessarily the prevailing view among specialist economists. Although no credible expert predicts oil demand will vanish imminently, many forecasts show it plateauing before eventually falling. The International Energy Agency’s “stated policies” scenario from last year projected oil demand would remain largely unchanged over the coming ten years.

The possibility of a stagnant industry—even one unfolding over many years—is disruptive for any sector. One clear consequence is increased price volatility as OPEC’s power to control the market wanes. It also forces complex decisions about which resources to develop and where. While no company wants to miss out on revenue, major strategic gambles can also result in substantial losses.

In this uncertain period, observing the actual investment choices and strategic moves of major oil producers offers a clearer signal of future direction than analyzing government pledges or corporate earnings statements.

In closing its official announcement, the U.A.E. energy ministry added that it will “continue investing across the energy value chain,” encompassing “low-carbon solutions.” The U.A.E. was not present in Santa Marta, but its actions may have spoken loudly enough.

To get this story in your inbox, sign up to TIME’s Future Proof newsletter here.