Another example of a bureaucracy that has gone completely insane, consider the International Energy Agency. The IEA began in the 1970s as a consortium of Western nations organized to counteract the oil price shocks imposed by OPEC during those years. That seems reasonable enough. But somewhere, gradually, the mission, let’s say, evolved. Today, the IEA is fairly described as a center that advocates for the removal of fossil fuels from the world’s energy supply.
In May 2021, the IEA published a Major Report titled “Net Zero in 2050: Roadmap for the Global Energy Industry.” You might get the impression from the title and some of the text that these might just be some helpful “how-to” tips on reducing emissions. But you don’t have to dig too deep into the material to realize that it’s actually one of those other frantic demands for immediate desperate action to save the planet from impending doom – the difference. especially this is funded directly by every major. West Government. From the Preface:
We are approaching a decisive moment for international efforts to tackle the climate crisis – a great challenge of our time. The number of countries that have committed to net zero emissions by mid-century or soon after continues to grow, but so do global greenhouse gas emissions. This gap between words and actions needs to close if we are to have a fighting chance of reaching net zero by 2050 and limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Doing so requires nothing more than a complete transformation of the energy systems that underpin our economy.
Now, two years later, a serious group has emerged with a comprehensive critique of the IEA Report. The key group is the Energy Policy Research Fund, which has been funded for this project by the Real Clear Foundation (the people behind Really Clear Policy). EPRF has issued its own Report, dated June 2023, titled “Critical Review of the Net Zero Scenario of the IEA, ESG and the Discontinuation of Investments in New Oil and Gas Fields.” This report is 75 pages long and well worth a look. The lead author is Batt Odgerel; and the editor is Rupert Darwall.
The main themes of this EPRF Report are very much in line with some of the mantras often repeated on this site: ignorant officials, this time from the IEA, are seeking to force a conversion of a The power supply system is very complex, without knowing what the replacement system will look like. whether it will work, or how much it will cost. My only real criticism of this EPRF Report is that the authors use a serious and high-spirited tone, where instead of contempt and ridicule it would be more appropriate to critique efforts amateur and incompetent of the IEA.
But for that, I’ll pick a few selection quotes. Key excerpt from the Preface:
Analysis by the Energy Policy Research Organization convincingly demonstrates that the IEA’s assumptions are unrealistic, internally inconsistent, and generally favor the case for increased production of hydrocarbon fuels. The IEA’s entire net-zero path revolves around the assumption that a sharp fall in the cost of wind and solar will destroy demand for oil and gas. If that doesn’t hold up, the whole route will go up in smoke. But as this report shows, the IEA’s own analysis contradicts its assumption of the economic superiority of renewables. In fact, the IEA’s “net zero path” is a green illusion that will dramatically increase energy costs, devastate Western economies and increase human suffering. As a result, investment managers and banks that use other people’s money to promote this anti-investment scheme are violating their fiduciary duty to maximize returns for retirees, investors. and shareholders.
I would just add that if the IEA is correct that “the steep fall in wind and solar costs will destroy demand for oil and gas”, then there will be clearly no need or reason for the energy transition due to government coercion. It will happen on its own through private investment.
Here’s how the state of the so-called “energy transition” is happening from the EPRF Report, some 20 years after governments’ collapsed programs to transform the energy economy:
According to BloombergNEF, more than US$6.5 trillion (nominal) was invested worldwide in the energy transition (excluding grid investments) between 2004 and 2022, but the billion The share of non-hydro renewables will only account for 6.7% of total global primary energy consumption in 2021.
And here is the accompanying chart:
The IEA seems to think that electric vehicles will save the world because they are “zero-emissions” and their costs will quickly come down. Here is a chart from the EPRF Report on key materials costs for EV batteries (which are key components of EVs):
And for electric vehicles that are “zero-emissions”:
China leads the world in sales and production of electric vehicles, but it also consumes large amounts of coal. By 2020, coal will account for 60.6% of China’s primary energy needs and 63.3% of electricity production, meaning electric vehicles generated in China indirectly emit greenhouse gases. significantly.
And finally, there’s the slight problem that much or most of the technology taken up by the IEA in their net zero transition scenarios is either unproven at scale or more often not even yet. invented:
“Energy Technology Outlook 2023” (ETP-2023), one of the IEA’s flagship reports, acknowledges that “net zero cannot be achieved without more innovation”. According to the report, under the NZE scenario, around 50% of the total emissions reductions by 2050 will come from technologies that are at the present testing or demonstration stage.
There is much, much more in this Report if you have the time and interest. Anyway, many thanks to EPRF and the Real Clear Foundation for their efforts to expose the absurdity of the campaign to force end fossil fuels before anyone has a clue as to what will replace them.
Related
