IEA Wants Energy Lockdowns
By Paul Homewood
From COVID lockdowns to energy lockdowns!
With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine resulting in lower supplies to oil markets ahead of peak demand season, IEA 10-Point Plan proposes actions to ease strains and price pain.
In the face of the emerging global energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, practical actions by governments and citizens in advanced economies and beyond can achieve significant reductions in oil demand in a matter of months, reducing the risk of a major supply crunch, according to new analysis released by the International Energy Agency today.
These efforts would reduce the price pain being felt by consumers around the world, lessen the economic damage, shrink Russia’s hydrocarbon revenues, and help move oil demand towards a more sustainable pathway.
If fully carried out in advanced economies, the measures recommended by the IEA’s new 10-Point Plan to Cut Oil Use would lower oil demand by 2.7 million barrels a day within four months – equivalent to the oil demand of all the cars in China. This would significantly reduce potential strains at a time when a large amount of Russian supplies may no longer reach the market and the peak demand season of July and August is approaching. The measures would have an even greater effect if adopted in part or in full in emerging economies as well.
The new report also includes recommendations for decisions to be taken now by governments and citizens to transition from the short-term emergency actions included in the 10-Point Plan to sustained measures that would put countries’ oil demand into a structural decline consistent with a pathway towards net zero emissions by 2050.
The 10 key actions
- Reduce speed limits on highways by at least 10 km/h
Impact*: Saves around 290 kb/d of oil use from cars, and an additional 140 kb/d from trucks - Work from home up to three days a week where possible
Impact: One day a week saves around 170 kb/d; three days saves around 500 kb/d - Car-free Sundays in cities
Impact: Every Sunday saves around 380 kb/d; one Sunday a month saves 95 kb/d - Make the use of public transport cheaper and incentivise micromobility, walking and cycling
Impact: Saves around 330 kb/d - Alternate private car access to roads in large cities
Impact: Saves around 210 kb/d - Increase car sharing and adopt practices to reduce fuel use
Impact: Saves around 470 kb/d - Promote efficient driving for freight trucks and delivery of goods
Impact: Saves around 320 kb/d - Using high-speed and night trains instead of planes where possible
Impact: Saves around 40 kb/d - Avoid business air travel where alternative options exist
Impact: Saves around 260 kb/d - Reinforce the adoption of electric and more efficient vehicles
Impact: Saves around 100 kb/d
There have been plenty of hints that COVID lockdowns would morph into climate lockdowns. But now the idea is being promoted quite blatantly by the IEA.
It is framed as just being a short term measure to tide us all over the Ukraine crisis. But can anybody honestly imagine such measures being dropped in a few months time?
Indeed, the IEA let the cat out of the bag when they say:
The new report also includes recommendations for decisions to be taken now by governments and citizens to transition from the short-term emergency actions included in the 10-Point Plan to sustained measures that would put countries’ oil demand into a structural decline consistent with a pathway towards net zero emissions by 2050.
Note how it is all presented as being “in our own interest”.
Marc Morano of Climate Depot sums it all up:
The proposed ‘solutions’ to climate change, COVID, and now the Russian war are all exactly the same — hammer the poor and middle class with more restrictions on travel, less freedom, and even more surrendering of power to unelected government regulators.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
NO IEA!! If I want to drive my car and I can afford to spend the money to do so, that’s my FREEDOM to do so. If you want to limit that freedom have the guts to call for fuel rationing. For everybody!!
Currently West is still importing Russian oil & gas and will continue to do so until it can source alternative supplies so not really much point to this. Biggest reduction will come from demand destruction anyhow with the ridiculous prices being charged by garages.
Dear NWO. eff off, then eff off some more, and keep effin off. Unless you want to be lynched.
My sentiments exactly.
Talk about out of touch…
The Largest consumption of Fossil fuels next to Transportation is Electrical Production.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/2021-04/transportation-ghg-2021.png?VersionId=9P9uZr2oPMwERJABrhJ7ZR98UErpe9Bp&itok=vokiX-Cj
This report advocates the adoption of Electric Vehicles, even though for every 100 kwh of electricity requires at least 128 kwh of production. 28% or more is lost as heat in transmission and during charging, OHM’s Law. Also, EV’s cause at least 15% more CO2 per km driven.
https://www.academia.edu/73548362/Electric_Cars_Burn_31_More_Energy_than_Gas_Cars_Revised_
https://www.academia.edu/62574334/Tesla_Versus_Toyota_Camry
How will increasing Electrical Demand reduce fossil fuel demand ? As always the authors of papers like that one do not understand the full life cycle of Electricity from production to end use. Sad but true . . .
Yes Jim, they all have degrees in Art or Theatre – like Princess Nut Nut.
Scientists are the ones who are providing the essential backdrop for the climate change hysteria.
Scientists form the greater part of those who are developing the “replacement” technology to their benefit.
It used to be said that nobody got sacked for buying IBM. These days nobody (except the most incompetent) gets sacked for supporting climate change. But raising a doubt is likely to be career suicide.
Herd mentality operates in scientific community just as much as in most other communities. A kind of herd immunity where members are immune to alternative views.
“I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.”
― Richard P. Feynman
Groupthink is what it is called.
Well Gerry, this is what I wrote on that very subject. It is not only Princess nut, nut . . . But all of our leaders and all their back-room supporters and the whole media establishment. Our education system has built ‘Intellectual Parrots’. Not interrogative minds, not scientific inquisitors, Not minds that doubt – respectfully. We have created a ‘Flavor of the Day’ society that parades from ‘Dreamy idea to Dreamy idea’. All descenting voices shall be shut out.
https://www.academia.edu/73566289/The_Irony_of_The_Written_Word
My Thoughts . . .
What part of ‘they can all go fuck themselves’ might they not understand?
Tick, VG
A pretty sneaky way to lower our emissions to zero by 2050, which of course takes no CO2 out of the atmosphere and hampers those trying. The IEA, itself, has estimated that 7,600 million tons of CO2 will need to be stored by 2050. Not without fuels for transportation.
When will these “experts” figure it out? We can’t do without fuels for moving people, food and all of the materials needed to make any viable transition to renewables. Solar and wind don’t transport anything.
an additional 140 kb/d from trucks
Nonsense. If the trucks are going slower, they’ll need more trucks and more drivers to maintain the same rate/volume of deliveries. No savings there.
Which leads us to the next point as yet not mentioned. People are just buying too much stuff. Obviously, less trucks would be needed if people didn’t consume so much. And don’t get us started on citizens buying food that isn’t locally produced or is out of season. Talk about totally unnecessary trucks running around.
We leave the great honking issue of there being too many people in the first place aside, because it seems likely that our policies will result in incremental reductions in population anyway. Naturally, we do have plans in place if those reductions don’t take place at a desirable rate.
Sorry, Ron, whatever happened to freedom of choice?
Example: I couldn’t give a toss if the likes of DiCaprio etc want to travel the globe in private jets – as long as they accept that it makes no difference to the ‘climate’. That they don’t, and want the rest of us hoi-polloi to go without, is the hypocrisy that I rail against
So what’s the right number of people, how did you work it out and how did you prove you are included in that number?
With regard to population, as countries become more modernised and prosperous the birth rate falls and in places so much so that the population is actually shrinking. The honest truth for the UK is that numbers are being pushed up by immigration, and also by a high birth rate within immigrant communities, especially those that don’t integrate.
Basically, when trump foresaw this, everyone laughed. They’re not laughing now the idiot Brandon is sleeping at the wheel. This is also the result of bowing to wokeism and greenfoolery.
If Govts were serious about saving energy they’d adopt permanent daylight saving. This is the cheapest, easiest and least painful way to save energy. Make clocks flexible to maximise the use of daylight. Too sensible to be adopted i guess.
Nonsense, what you gain in the evening you lose in the morning – love travelling to work in the dark!!!!
SImple! Move to the southern hemisphere in the winter.
Key action no.11:
Close down IEA to reduce methane emissions.
or you could drill for more oil and let us live our normal lives
Social engineering that only comes from unelected authoritarian types. Closet Marxists in other words.
Or from governments in countries with a sham democracy, just like ours.
A first glance their maths seem crap
like that of a dreamy High School student
eg “11 Reinforce the adoption of electric and more efficient vehicles
Impact: Saves around 100 kb/d”
For simplicity assume zero stocks of electric cars
First you have to mine and manufacture all that will use fossil fuels
being heavier and using more special battery components makes their manufacturing CO2 much bigger than for ICE cars.
Indeed the CO2 footprint of an EV is built into the construction phase and takes 4 years to make back
So switching to EVs INCREASES this years CO2
The IEA know this. Early in 2021 they published a report on ‘The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions’ that went into the issue in considerable detail. Presumably that report was written by people who had some idea of what they were talking about whilst this latest piece is just some virtue signalling by the admin side.
My reckoning is we are about to find out how well we will get on with not enough oil and gas to function as “normal”.
I am quite surprised the Gas pipeline from Russia hasn’t got blown up already by either side, but I suppose the reason is it would be Ukraine or Russia shooting itself in the foot.
According to ENTSOG gas transparency platform shows gas still flowing across most pipelines from East to West so we continue to pay for Russia to invade Ukraine.
Strangely that means Ukraine is still paying Russia and vice versa.
We’ve also being paying Russia to take out the Ukrainian bio-labs, very similar to those in Wuhan, that have been financed by the the US. (And Bill Gates has said we could get another pandemic.)
They are also taking out the money laundering machine, so loved by those in DC, and especially the children of Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Romney.
And then there’s the 14,000 deaths since 2014, caused by the Ukrainian government using artillery against its own people, the Russian speakers that make up the majority in the Donbass, in Eastern Ukraine.
The BBC misinform on more topics than Climate and Energy Policy. As always, they need to stay on message, but we don’t.
Robert Christopher, if you believe the Ukrainian army has killed 14,000 people with artillery in separatist areas you really are absurd.
What is Russia spending its euros and dollars on at the moment?
my plan for the IEA
1. Buy piano wire and issue to concerned motorists
2. Identify and label suitable lamp posts
3. Declare open season on IEA and other NGOs associated with green fraud
3. Publish list of MPs that voted Aye
Seems a bit extreme, why not just make them listen to Spandau Ballet?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2021/06/18/ieas-net-zero-by-2050-report-credible-roadmap-or-unhinged-advocacy/
‘the measures recommended by the IEA’s new 10-Point Plan to Cut Oil Use would lower oil demand by 2.7 million barrels a day within four months’
Amazing !!!
Wait . . . what? The world uses 91 million barrels a day? So this is double-ought nothing.
More to the point is that Russia exports about 6.5mb/d, so even if their numbers are correct it doesn’t solve the problem numerically. Add in the logistics that a large chunk of supply is via pipelines with no realistic alternative sourcing in the case of much of Europe and it looks even more ridiculous. Reality is the IEA has been asleep at the wheel dreaming net zero fantasies instead of looking after members’ security of supply, which was its original remit.
Global Temperatures are increasing because of Global Warming.
The Climate is changing, because of Climate Change.
And now …
“In reality, the surge in energy prices is being driven by soaring gas prices, not the government’s pursuit of net zero, according to the International Energy Agency, which instead urged a doubling-down on the transition away from fossil fuels.”
Or are the soaring gas prices being driven by a surge in energy prices?
The one thing we know for sure, it has nothing to do with NET Zero policies. 🙂
If only I had a History degree, I would be able to understand it.
That the IEA don’t understand that it IS the Net-Zero policy that’s the root of the energy crisis, and that pushing it further will just make it worse, is telling.
Quite right Ilma 630, the ‘intellectuals’ who created these ‘Net Zero’ systems were well intentioned and they were hoping to reduce global pollution. Instead, they brought increased pollution and advocacy groups who stand to prosper from the ‘Slight of Hand’ unintentionally permitted by the whole ‘Carbon Trading’ and ‘Net Zero’ framework. An extremely un-scientific hodge-podge of policies that verge on outright global fraud !!
https://www.academia.edu/71023588/Batteries_Renewable_Energy_and_EV_s_The_Ultimate_in_Environmental_Destruction
I think “verge on” passed some time ago.
Quite right . . . Just trying to be ‘tongue in cheek’ . . . Polite . . .
I used to remember the halcyon days before the IEA’s official title – Internationl Energy Agency – wasn’t an oxymoron and the organisation’s stated aim was the stability of international oil supplies. Can anyone remember exactly when they got hijacked by the counter science climate clowns?
Hi Can I ask advice please. I have asked my local, large, Council how they can justify spending an additional, voluntary, £10,500, per year, on top of their electricity bills with N Power, in order to have “100% Gauranteed Green Energy from Wind and Hydro”. The answer I have received is “we are are paying N Power to reduce the total emissions released by the Council, and it is very good value for money (reducing nearly 4,000 tonnes of CO2 for £10,500 is extremely good value) and we are therefore reducing our contribution to global carbon emissions in order to limit the climate risk we are collectively facing.” This equates to £52,500 extra spent every 5 years, that I would have thought could be better spent for the local constituents. Does their answer have any validity or real benefit, and what could I say the get this contract cancelled. Thanks.
1) Their citizens will be no better off because 4000 tonnes is a tiny amount
2) The power won’t be green, it will simply come from the grid, so won’t be sepcifically wind or hydro
3) That wind and hydro power is already being generated. so the council’s green deal won’t increase this, or reduce emissions
Ask them if the electrons have little green stickers on them that are recognised by the council’s electricity meters and how this miraculous technology is implemented.
Judging from the cost of ~£2.60/tonne CO2 this is no more than a purchase of REGO greenwash certificates that have no impact at all on the amount of emissions. It makes no difference to the electricity delivered to the council, which will depend mainly on who your local generators are in your region. With UKA emissions permits selling for over £80/tonne CO2e that tells you what it really costs to reduce emissions now that we’ve done the easy bit.
Well, the IEA got a lot of space in the printed media judging from what surfaced from todays Google search.
But you ain’t seen nuttin’ yet ……….]
Friday’s Times Letter’s page had a splendid juxtaposition under the heading “How to wean Britain off Russian gas” better still the following signed a letter with this closing paragraph….
” Through better energy efficiency such as insulation, switching to electric heat pumps for homes, and by expanding cheap domestic renewables for power generation we can quickly insulate ourselves from this gas crisis and bring down our energy bills , both now and for the future”.
This was signed by the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on the environment, the chairman ,business energy and industrial strategy committee,the chairwoman, climate change APPC, the chairman ,fuel poverty and energy efficiency APPG, the chairwoman , environment and climate change committee, the co-chairwoman Peers for the Planet, the chairman energy studies APPG the chairwoman small islands developing states APPG and the chairman of the environmental audit committee.
Make what you can of the useful contribution within the capacity of that lot.
In splendid contrast an individual apparently not appointed to chair any committee by his friends but writing from Cumbernauld for himself signed the next letter under the shared heading and wrote as follows:
“Alice Thompson ( writing an article earlier in the week. ( my note) “Suddenly we’ve all warmed to green energy”) does not explain how we obtain electricity when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.Our energy bills have soared because we have duplicate energy systems — one for when it is windy and another, powered mostly by gas , when it is not. This country could have plentiful supplies of cheap shale gas if the government would lift the moratorium on fracking………..
It looks like the proliferation of committee and sub committees within the APGG would be better employed informing itself of the realities of the subject. The names of all the post holders at the APPG I have omitted out of consideration for their poor grasp of power generation supply issues. I expect that Paul and others would be able to discover what funding nourishes the business of these committees.
“Our energy bills have soared because we have duplicate energy systems”
A good way to put it.
And the hugely increased costs of managing the two to keep the grid from collapsing.
Mr. Carr, the following is the intellectual understanding of ALL the IEA members as it relates to the sources of electricity in the absence of any knowledge of OHM’s Law . . .
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2014%2F05%2F23%2Farticle-2637397-1E23F84700000578-45_634x328.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fsciencetech%2Farticle-2637397%2FMice-wheel-y-love-running-Wild-rodents-enjoy-using-exercise-wheels-just-caged-pets.html&tbnid=tyTG24gx29IjHM&vet=12ahUKEwjk6Kq20NL2AhUUJ30KHZAFDtUQMygKegUIARCiAg..i&docid=vaXD5boTlwJSUM&w=634&h=328&q=rodent%20exercise%20wheel%20images&ved=2ahUKEwjk6Kq20NL2AhUUJ30KHZAFDtUQMygKegUIARCiAg
We can hold these people accountable to their own standards. I asked the IEA if they were going to issue an additional Press Release detailing how everyone at IEA was meeting or exceeding their “10 key actions” and if they had any provision for firing any IEA employee who violated that. I asked via a pair of tweets aimed at their announcement and via their online contact form:
https://www.iea.org/contact
Don’t be silly! These things don’t apply to the parasites, only the plebs.
If Biden would get his head out of his posterior and open up the US energy reserves, including going FULL SPEED AHEAD with the Keystone pipeline, there would be no energy crunch and the USA would get a huge shot in the arm of an economic boost to pull it out of the artificially-induced COVID slump (courtesy of Democrats).
You can fix ignorance, but you can’t fix stupid.
Bob,
You cannot even fix ignorance if the ignorant are not aware that they are, as the signatories to the Times newspaper Mr Carr highlighted. They go around with a belief in their misconceptions and that is very difficult, probably impossible, to change.
A few power cuts and lack of gas for the V8’s will soon change hearts and minds
The most obvious practical action for governments is to drastically reduce ideally scrap the extortionate TAX at point of sale. Look at the tax element of the actual price at the pump.