Skip to content

Energy Crisis Is A Taste Of What The IEA Has In Store For Us

June 11, 2022

By Paul Homewood

 Biden I Did That High Gas Prices Sublimation Design Funny image 1

Biden may call it the “Putin price hike”, but the root cause of our energy crisis has been festering for a few years now.

Tilak Doshi details how the oil and gas sector in the West has been starved of investment in this Forbes article. Governmental climate policies, pressure on banks from governments, central banks and regulators not to lend to fossil fuel companies, the activities of eco-activist investors, woke hedge funds and judicial decisions have all contributed to a gradual decline in new investment.

Instead oil companies are happier using surplus cash for dividends and share buy backs, or plough money into the heavily subsidised green trough. Anything for an easy life!

Unsurprisingly then supplies are tight and prices rocketing.

But at the moment the imbalance is still tiny – after all we can still buy the stuff. The frightening thing is that this major shock to the global economy is just a taster of what the Climate Alarmist Cult has in store for us.

We just need to recall what the IEA proposed last year:


And here it was from the horse’s mouth:



An immediate ban on all new oil and gas projects would be absolutely catastrophic for global energy markets.

According to the anti-fossil fuel Global Witness, such a ban would quickly lead to substantial cuts in production. By 2030, oil output will have fallen by 40%:



It does not take an Einstein to work out the effect this would have on markets, prices and consumers. Not least when world demand would have continued to rise, Paris Agreement or no Paris Agreement.

It would be impossible to predict how much prices would rise, as we would be in totally uncharted territory. What is certain though is that those who could not afford energy would have to go without.

Those of us old enough will recall the oil crisis of 1974, caused by the oil embargo, which followed the Arab-Israeli War. Global prices tripled, yet curiously global oil production actually rose slightly in 1974, (though for some reason fell by 5% in 1975). Nevertheless we were on the verge of petrol rationing in the UK; I still remember getting ration coupons.

Less memorable, for some reason, was the 1979 oil crisis, precipitated by the Iranian revolution, which led to a 4% decline in oil output. Crude oil prices doubled, and there were fuel shortages and long queues at petrol stations. This energy crisis was in large part responsible for the global recession of the early 1980s.

But both of these short term crises were tea parties compared to the global shock which the IEA’s policies would instigate. Those earlier crises were quickly nipped in the bud by new oil fields being brought on stream to make up for shortages. Global oil production, for instance, was already 22% higher in 1979 than it had been in 1972, before the Arab- Israeli War.

But in the IEA’s world, there will be no such recovery, only a long, continued contraction. In the IEA’s fantasy world, none of this matters because we will get all of the energy we need from wind and solar power.

But in the real world the results will be cataclysmic. So far we have only been talking about abstract numbers, but with such a collapse in the supply of energy however, the effects will go way beyond a hit to our wallets, or even a bit of rationing.  There will inevitably be civil disorder and riots, poverty and starvation. Societies will be destabilised and governments overthrown.

And all in the name of a baseless fear.

Fortunately, I suspect that most of the world will refuse to follow the West down its suicidal path. But if they were ever in any doubt, the past 12 months have surely been a warning of what lies in store.

  1. June 11, 2022 10:12 pm

    Its not about CO2, that is a fig leaf.
    It can only be about societal reordering.

  2. June 11, 2022 10:40 pm

    Wind and solar can’t even keep up with the increases in global energy demand, never mind replacing anything.

    • catweazle666 permalink
      June 11, 2022 10:43 pm

      A comment from the DT:

      The main Western policy to combat “Climate Change / Global Warming / ESG (Environment Social and Governance)” has been to install, heavily subsidise and give massive preferential legal support to Weather-Dependent “Renewable” Wind and Solar for power generation, in the expectation that Weather Dependent power generation technologies would reduce National emissions of Man-made CO2. The UK only produces ~1% and EU ~7.6% of World CO2 emissions.

      The Productivity of Weather-Dependent power generation is important when comparing the cost of providing an equivalent level of power to the Grid, with conventional power generation technologies. Since 2011 the installed European Weather-Dependent generators have grown from 145GW to 385GW. Their productivity has achieved the following:
      • Onshore wind power 22.5%
      • Offshore wind power 32.7%
      • Solar PV on grid 11.6%
      • Weather-Dependent generation overall 18.7%
      • whereas, conventional power generation working 24/7 achieves ~ 90% productivity accounting for normal maintenance.

      When these productivity values are combined with the capital and long-term costs as assessed by the US EIA in 2022, their comparison results are:
      • Onshore Wind power provision is ~8-9 times the cost of Gas-firing
      • Offshore Wind power is ~16-25 times the cost of Gas-firing.
      • Solar power provision is about ~10-12 times the cost of Gas-firing

      Would anyone sane buy a car costing 8 – 25 times the normal price that only works one day in five, when you never know which day that might be ? And then insist that its technology is used to power the whole economy.

      • StephenP permalink
        June 12, 2022 12:35 am

        And pay a taxi to keep running outside your house to provide your transport when your car doesn’t work.

      • Phoenix44 permalink
        June 12, 2022 9:05 am

        You are double counting. The costs is say twice as much and the availability say only a quarter, so the overall effect is 8 times as expensive when you do get to use it.

  3. Graeme No.3 permalink
    June 11, 2022 10:47 pm

    “The Paris Accord in fact has been signed by only 61 of 191 nations i.e. more than two thirds of the globe’s nations are not obliged to do anything, indeed many plan to increase their emissions” And most of them are keen on more coal use.
    Here in Australia there is much excitment among the new government and the increased number of Greens (official party but especially ‘Teal Independents”) about the coming cutting of emissions. However reality has started to worry the new ministers and as they are based in ‘Sir Humphrey Land’ (or Canberra as the official name is) things must be worse then they are letting on. It is a bit early for them to be worrying about reelection.

    • jongo42 permalink
      June 12, 2022 12:18 am


      ‘It is a bit early for them to be worrying about reelection.’

      Politicians always worry about re-election, It’s what they do.
      Their only value measure is votes, national interest is essentially irrelevant. After all they can do nothing if they are not an MP, can they – as they understand democracy.

      • Graeme No.3 permalink
        June 12, 2022 2:15 am

        It is less than a month since Labor won with a majority +another 10% of ‘Change the Climate Now’ extras if needed, but already they are worrying about the electricity cost crisis, the inflation crisis. the food crisis etc.
        Normal action is to hire more public servants and throw a bag of money at each ‘crisis’ but they’ve discovered (surprisingly quickly) that they’ve been left an empty bag. Why, they are even talking of trimming the public service!!!

  4. StephenP permalink
    June 12, 2022 12:43 am

    Will Figueres and the rest of her ilk be subject to the new restrictions. Not on your nelly.
    They are the elite and know what is best for us.

    • June 12, 2022 8:40 am

      Having spent the week lecturing the serfs they will be too busy weekending in their eco lodges in all that rewilded land.

  5. Harry Davidson permalink
    June 12, 2022 1:21 am

    I have never believed in the Great Reset plot as a serious force. It might be true, but I doubt it. Yes there will almost certainly be real suffering due to the idiocies of western energy policy, but that I think follows from stupidity, a complete lack of awareness of actual engineering, tunnel vision as a virtue and people not understanding that if you break the rules in data handling, from then on you only have garbage.

  6. mwhite permalink
    June 12, 2022 8:34 am

    “Once you take off the taxes and the costs associated with delivery to gas stations, the relative economics of selling petrol the UK and the US start to look very different — different enough to make it attractive to ship the fuel across the Atlantic to a market that appears to offer far lower prices.”

    You couldn’t make it up.

  7. Athelstan. permalink
    June 12, 2022 8:36 am

    CO2 is not the problem, politicians are, the media advertize it, the investment banksters are making fantastic profits and how the ccp guffaw at the implosion of the west, it is the plan and by all the gods it is working.

  8. Sean Galbally permalink
    June 12, 2022 11:08 am

    Carbon dioxide is a good gas, essential for the life of plants and animals. Man-made CO2 from burning fossil fuels is only 0.04 % of atmospheric greenhouse gases and being saturated any way has a negligible effect on warming. 90% of effective greenhouse gases consist of water vapour over which we have no control. We need to stop making ourselves poor by limiting the use of fossil fuels until we have viable alternatives. There is no climate crisis. Climate is controlled by the sun’s activity which has always varied and always will.

  9. johnbillscott permalink
    June 12, 2022 1:03 pm

    I guess the environmental cancer started in 1968 in the Club of Rome which became the WEF and it only gets worse overtime. The WEF has a great indoctrination plan for persons in Western governments to promote their agender to effect the great ReSet

    The article is devoted to the ideas of the Club of Rome and their modern reading. The Club of Rome, founded in 1968, is an international society of politicians, business leaders, and scientists, who appeal for mutual tolerance, understanding, and solidarity in relation to the real problems of the world, and the environmental problems in the first place. The members of the Club prescribe the setting of limits to human expansion over nature, which is explained with superfluous “anthropocentric confidence”, after the words of the foundation member Aurelio Peccei. Recently, these ideas of the Club of Rome have been criticized by economists, philosophers, and politicians, being described as “environmental alarmism”, i.e. as groundless alarm relevant to incorrect notions about the inevitability of ecological crisis and its devastating consequences for humanity. However the global environmental crisis is already an undeniable fact and requires a thorough study of the ethical standards of the human behavior, which are often rooted in moral phenomena such as consumerism, irresponsibility, insensitivity or even selfishness. Nature cannot be only considered as a source of natural resources or benefits to people. The moral motive of nature conservation, despite the power of modern science, is one of the main ideas of the founders and followers of the case of the Club of Rome.

  10. June 13, 2022 12:42 am

    anything but blame people who would just cash in, rather than invest. And how much do you want to bet that half of this is speculation, just like in the runup to 2008?

  11. June 16, 2022 4:26 am

    Dear Paul,
    Congratulations on this analysis of the cause of the Western world’s energy and economic crises which are closely inter-related. Could I have your permission to reprint your article, with due acknowledgement.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: