Metallurgy would've been affected since charcoal has to be used instead of coke. Since coke can't be used, there's a cap to the production of steel and other metals. This also has implications in the production of other manufactured goods since charcoal can only burn so high a temperature, but I'm not an expert at all.

The Industrial Revolution would probably not occur because the original practical application of the steam engine was to pump water out of mines. The Industrious Revolution, which occurred before the Industrial Revolution in Europe and concurrently with the Industrial Revolution in Asia, would've been seen as how we see the Industrial Revolution today. This doesn't mean the steam engine wouldn't have been invented, only that the steam engine wouldn't have affected human society as much as it did.

Without fossil fuels, people are stuck with charcoal, which would lead to massive deforestation. This would mean lumber is far more expensive. The cost of building a trading ship would be far more expensive than what it is now, which means land trading routes would've been less costly and overall more profitable than maritime trading routes. This has many geopolitical and historical implications as the rise of Europe and establishment of Western hegemony coincided with the Silk Road being overtaken by maritime routes. In other words, no European colonies in the Americas and in the middle of the Pacific, which means no genocide of the Indigenous of the Americas. Perhaps there wouldn't even be an Atlantic slave trade either since the original purpose of the slave trade was to replace the Indigenous slaves toiling in the European colonies. Trade of African slaves would've been controlled by various Arab traders and polities instead.

Capitalism would almost certainly not have began in Europe because the origin of capitalism in Italian city-states and its further development in the Dutch Republic and the UK is intimately tied with maritime trade. Without maritime trade, Venice, Genoa, and so on would've just been a bunch of shitty Italian city-states instead of dominating European trade and giving rise to capitalism. The Dutch Republic wouldn't have colonies in Indonesia, and the UK would just be a backwards collection of islands instead of a Great Power with a powerful navy. Capitalism would've probably had a Chinese or Indian origin instead. Because both polities didn't generate wealth exclusively through trade, capitalism with Chinese/Indian characteristics would've been totally different. Perhaps it would be so different it wouldn't be considered capitalism at all but an alternate post-feudal pre-socialist economy instead.

There's also the chance of massive and rapid deforestation completely destroying an empire, but that gets to more hypotheticals.

Overall, I think without fossil fuels, Europe would've just been a backwards dump while most old-school Asian empires (Ottoman Empire, Safavid Iran, Mughal Empire, Ming/Qing Dynasty) would've maintained their status as Great Powers. The lack of investment in a navy due to the cost of lumber would've meant those empires would probably "settle" within their natural geographic land boundaries rather than have ambitions of forming an ever-expanding empire that span oceans like the British Empire. The history of Africa is one where African polities like Dahomey are allowed to develop and collapse without interference from Europeans. The history of the Americas is basically full blown AU hypotheticals at this point since they wouldn't have had to deal with genocide and settler-colonialism.