Energy Crisis Is A Taste Of What The IEA Has In Store For Us
By Paul Homewood
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%:
https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/oil-gas-and-mining/overexposed/
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.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Its not about CO2, that is a fig leaf.
It can only be about societal reordering.
This is what it is about:</b?
At a news conference in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added:
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
You will freeze and starve in the dark, and you will enjoy it.
Or else…
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”
Is there a definitive source for this quote? investors.com won’t accept my browser settings
Source. type this into browser which says act checked
news conference in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change,
Quotes of Christiana Figueres
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/19608279.Christiana_Figueres
Thanks John S and Hugh S.
I still can’t find a definitive source for the comments. If these comments were made at a news conference then the comments should be recorded on various media.
Other websites report the news conference in Brussels as Feb 2015
More references:
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/232229-the-climate-comintern-speaks/
https://www.quotemaster.org/q83f6df9f86ac6803126131734ee2abcd
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B-OzCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=%22This+is+the+first+time+in+the+history+of+mankind+that+we+are+setting+ourselves+the+task+of+intentionally,+within+a+defined+period+of+time,+to+change+the+economic+development+model+that+has+been+reigning+for+at+least+150+years,+since+the+Industrial+Revolution,%22&source=bl&ots=OziPqhMZRO&sig=ACfU3U3IBLxxeEcbmXc8xhf1Bb7Fz6uRWg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiM9t31yar4AhXPiFwKHee_DEUQ6AF6BAgEEAM#v=onepage&q=%22This%20is%20the%20first%20time%20in%20the%20history%20of%20mankind%20that%20we%20are%20setting%20ourselves%20the%20task%20of%20intentionally%2C%20within%20a%20defined%20period%20of%20time%2C%20to%20change%20the%20economic%20development%20model%20that%20has%20been%20reigning%20for%20at%20least%20150%20years%2C%20since%20the%20Industrial%20Revolution%2C%22&f=false
https://www.heritage.org/energy-economics/commentary/un-climate-report-merely-blueprint-destroying-the-world-economy
And there are plenty more where those came from!
Thanks Catweazle, I still can’t see anything definitive, so I’ve asked the UN. We’ll see if they bother to reply.
Your link to “The Hill” provides a date of Feb 4th 2015 for Figueres’ statement re: ” intentionally transform the economic development model ” .
I’ve had heated debates with believers previously re the Figueres’ statement, and I’ve previously been unable to provide a definitive source for the statement.
You’d think that all the public utterances of a person in Figueres’ position would be documented in detail and readily accessible for all.
Exactly. There’s no longer any doubt whatsoever.
Any ‘normal’ trade-offs required to justify action on CO2 don’t get anywhere near the levels of society-wrecking instability current Net Zero policies will unleash. They cannot be justified at all.
It’s deliberate.
It’s not CO2.
It’s the Great Reset, here and now.
Here’s a reminder of the Frankfurt School hit list. This goes back decades but today it reads like a ‘How To Wreck The West’ guide.
Every single one of these points (and a few modern ones, too) are being enacted right now across multiple Western societies, with devastating social impacts where they’re being applied. Everywhere. No exceptions.
Our country is being wrecked from within by traitors of the first order. I don’t think ‘traitors’ is too strong a word. No wonder Blair removed Treason from statute.
The 11 Point Plan of the Frankfurt School
1. The creation of racism offenses.
2. Continual change to create confusion.
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority.
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking.
7. Emptying of churches.
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits.
10. Control and dumbing down of media.
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.
One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pansexualism’ – the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women.
To further their aims they would:
• attack the authority of the father
• deny the specific roles of father and mother,
• wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls.
• abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces.
• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’.
https://celticsavageyoutube.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-11-point-plan-of-frankfurt-school.html
(This ‘site has no direct relevance; it just appeared as a source for the 11 Point Plan when I searched for it. Posted for reference.)
The Frankfurt School was intellectuals, academics, and political dissidents dissatisfied with contemporary social-economic systems (capitalist, fascist, communist) of the 1930s. It’s difficult to understand their claptrap.
However, my limited study did not identify a list of elements to disrupt and change society. Can you provide a source(s) for your list?
Wind and solar can’t even keep up with the increases in global energy demand, never mind replacing anything.
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.
And pay a taxi to keep running outside your house to provide your transport when your car doesn’t work.
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.
“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.
Graeme,
‘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.
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!!!
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.
Having spent the week lecturing the serfs they will be too busy weekending in their eco lodges in all that rewilded land.
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.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/uk-sends-billions-of-liters-of-petrol-to-us-where-it-s-cheaper-1.1776643
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Yes by all means