The International Energy Agency Tells (Doubtful) Bedtime Stories About Energy
Nearly everything we hear about climate change is a lie. Climate change is real, but the "experts" have succeeded in oversimplifying the problem and overcomplicating the solution.
The International Energy Agency, founded in 1974, on the heels of the worldwide energy shortage, is, by its own account, “ … at the heart of global dialogue on energy, providing authoritative analysis, data, policy recommendations, and real-world solutions to help countries provide secure and sustainable energy for all.”
In other words, the IEA is a think tank, presumably the world’s leading think tank on the subject of energy.
I ran across this IEA report, Net Zero By 2050, and I’d like to tell you about it.
Allow me to quote from the report and provide some words of critique.
FULL DISCLOSURE …
Five years as a climate reporter has made me increasingly skeptical of the Prevailing Climate Narrative, which would have us believe that CO2 is just about the only cause of global warming, and fossil fuels are just about the only cause of atmospheric CO2, So the story goes.
This Prevailing Climate Narrative would also have us attribute flooding, drought, wildfires and heat waves to excess atmospheric carbon. Even famines and mass migration are a result of, you guessed it, climate change, never public policy or corruption.
DOES CO2 CAUSE FLOODING?
Climate change is real. Fossil fuels and CO2 are culprits. But the Narrative is way too simple. For example, flooding results from deforestation, land degradation and poor soil, which increase runoff and therefore flooding. When it rains, we get flooding in large measure because the rainwater is not soaking into the ground, due to poor soil and a lack of plant matter.
But it’s too easy to blame flooding on “climate change.”
DOES CO2 CAUSE DROUGHT?
Drought results from deforestation, land degradation and poor soil. It’s too easy to blame drought on “climate change.”
When we see reportage of flooding and drought in the news, “they” can hardly find another cause other than “climate change.”
So “they” are oversimplifying the problem. And “they” are overcomplicating the solutions. The solution, we are told, is to shift away from fossil fuels, toward “renewable energy” and “clean vehicles.”
What’s wrong with “renewable energy”? The sun is a renewable resource. But a solar panel is just a machine. It’s a machine that has to be built, installed, rebuilt and disposed of. All this takes massive amounts of energy, mining, processing, manufacturing, etc. A solar panel is not renewable. It is re-buildable. It has its place, but it is not as clean or renewable as we are led to believe.
The same is true of wind power and electric vehicles. They are just machines that have to be built, installed, rebuilt and disposed of. They have their place, but they will not support this civilization with its monumental hunger for energy. All they will do is feed that hunger for energy.
BIOMASS AND HYDRO
Nor is “biomass” a solution. That means cutting down forests, turning them into wood chips and burning them as fuel. Hopefully the forest will grow back. Hopefully. But it’s not pretty once the “renewable” energy fiends get done with them.
Nor is hydro power as clean or renewable as we are led to believe.
NET ZERO BY 2050
With this in mind, let’s look at what the IEA has to say about “Net Zero by 2050.”
“Net Zero” has an elusive definition, but let’s just say that countries and corporations will PRETEND to draw down as much carbon as they emit.
Let’s go …
The IEA says:
My response:
Nearly all economists, politicians and climate scientists assume that the economy will grow at 2-3% per year.
For the time being as GDP increases, so does energy consumption and so does fossil fuel consumption. Any “decoupling” of GDP and energy is purely speculative. Any decoupling of energy and fossil fuels is purely speculative.
So as long as GDP is going up and up and up, so will energy consumption and fossil fuel consumption.
The IEA says:
My response:
Governments do not have a viable plan for reducing CO2 emissions.
Reducing CO2 emissions would require lowering total energy consumption, which would require lowering GDP, because, as mentioned above, GDP correlates almost perfectly with a) energy consumption and b) fossil fuels.
In order to reduce CO2 emissions, we would have to consent to lowering GDP. That is something no politician or business leader would agree to.
The IEA says:
My response:
This assumes:
That CO2 is the primary cause of rising temperatures, or at least the only cause worthy of mention.
That governments and businesses will somehow consent to lowering CO2 emissions.
And that the large scale implementation of “renewable energy” and “clean vehicles” will cause reductions in CO2 emissions.
I content that “renewable energy” and “clean vehicles” will have at best a negligible impact on CO2, especially with a growing economy that necessarily uses more fossil fuels and emits more carbon dioxide with each passing year.
The IEA says:
My response:
They assume that our task is to transform the energy system with hardly a thought about transforming other sectors of the economy such as:
Defense
The Pentagon is the world’s largest institutional emitter of carbon.
Wars for oil subsidize oil, increasing oil consumption.
Transportation
Taxpayers pay for roads, designed to accommodate more cars and trucks, but not for public transportation. This costs car owners close to $10,000 per car per year, on average, in the U.S. Thus, we have massive subsidies for the auto industry, the oil industry, finance (car loans), insurance (auto insurance), construction (for road building).
Agriculture
Taxpayers subsidize crop insurance, which subsidizes agribusiness corporations, which includes fossil fuel intensive fertilizers, tillage and heavy equipment (tractors priced at $250,000 and up).
Chemical fertilizers that provide nitrogen are made from the Haber-Bosch process, which requires monumental amounts of natural gas. It’s harmful to the soil. It produces junk food. There is a much better way. But you never hear about it in connection to climate change.
Public policy allows ungodly amounts of pesticides which by all accounts are bad for health and the environment, but they enrich the big guys, and that’s what matters. Pesticides degrade ecosystem, causing carbon emissions from organic processes, e.g., oxidation of soil carbon and plant matter.
These sectors of our economy seem designed to maximize fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. They are what they are due to public policies that enrich a lucky few. This is not the natural working of anything resembling a free market.
Markets are not free. They are a creature of public policy. Those who have the power to determine public policy get to decide how markets will be structured, and for whose benefit.
CONCLUSION
The Prevailing Climate Narrative suggests that climate change is a technocratic problem with technocratic solutions. We just need to rearrange how we do energy.
This is an illusion.
The Prevailing Climate Narrative obscures the real, underlying problem, which is that the people have been completely disenfranchised from the decision-making process. They have to keep telling us lies so that we will not interfere with their plans.
Until environmentalists understand that we are being systematically misled, we will continue to be, well, systematically misled. Understanding the problem is half the solution. A proper diagnosis is half the cure.
“The press is the hired agent of a moneyed system, and set up for no other purpose than to tell lies where their interests are involved.” —Henry Francis Adams
Interesting article I whilst I agree with alot of scientists that our ecosystems are changing as you say there is often multiple changes happening with any ecosystem many of which our species is having more of an impact on such as deforestation. We do not often want to talk about specific or detailed cases we want straightforward. Which is where I think this some of this comes from take agriculture the data is would generally show high emissions and water use in cattle but breaks up arable data. Water and land use also has alot of variation that research alludes to but not in the specifics required which is leading to the issues particularly with the livestock sector. Any takes on the impact of lobbying?
I mean in terms of the type of research funding alot of private finance leans into research and you could argue therefore it could have an influence on the research we see and what gets funding. More lobbying type behaviour within science.