A Comprehensive Critique Of Net Zero Fantasies
By Paul Homewood
From Manhattan Contrarian:
As yet another example of a bureaucracy gone completely nuts, consider the International Energy Agency. IEA started out in the 1970s as a consortium of Western nations organized to counteract the oil price shocks imposed by OPEC in those years. That seemed reasonable enough. But somewhere along the line, gradually, the mission, let us say, evolved. Today, IEA is fairly described as a center of advocacy for elimination of fossil fuels from the world’s energy supply.
In May 2021 IEA published a big Report with the title “Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector.” You might get the impression from the title and some of the text that this could be just a few helpful “how to” tips on reducing emissions. But you don’t need to get too far into the document to figure out that it’s really another one of those crazed demands for immediate desperate action to save the planet from impending doom — the difference being that this one is directly funded by essentially every major Western government. From the Foreword:
We are approaching a decisive moment for international efforts to tackle the climate crisis – a great challenge of our times. The number of countries that have pledged to reach net‐zero emissions by mid‐century or soon after continues to grow, but so do global greenhouse gas emissions. This gap between rhetoric and action needs to close if we are to have a fighting chance of reaching net zero by 2050 and limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 °C. Doing so requires nothing short of a total transformation of the energy systems that underpin our economies.
Now, two years later, along comes a serious group with a comprehensive critique of the IEA’s Report. The critical group is the Energy Policy Research Foundation, which has been funded in this project by the Real Clear Foundation (the people behind Real Clear Politics). The EPRF has produced its own Report, with a date of June 2023, titled “A Critical Assessment of the IEA’s Net Zero Scenario, ESG, and the Cessation of Investment in New Oil and Gas Fields.” This Report is 75 pages long, and well worth a look. The lead author is named Batt Odgerel; and the editor is Rupert Darwall.
Full post here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
“Today, IEA is fairly described as a center of advocacy for elimination of fossil fuels from the world’s energy supply.”
The head of the IEA is Fatih Birol, a Turkish economist turned energy expert. He has been told of the immense quantitative problem of trying to mitigate the Earth’s climate through carbon capture and storage technologies. His IEA report estimates that by 2050 about 7,600 million metric tons of CO2 would have to be stored. But, that total amount (which includes bioenergy) is not even one part-per-million. Nevertheless, the IEA plows ahead.
My pet theory is that Fatih Birol is angling for the top job at the UN and that motivates what he does at the IEA.
‘Elimination of fossil fuels’ – really?
Global coal production and consumption reach record high
Why don’t the Greens stop haranguing the West, and lay the blame where it belongs; India and China? The Greens probably realize bad mouthing their CCP psychopathic overlord, Xi, would not end well.
Even better would be for the Greens to stop the scaremongering altogether and admit that Mother Nature determines what happens with the climate.
>>Why don’t the Greens stop haranguing the West
Thanks!
Roger Pielke jr is clearly a major proponent of well justified IPCC scepticism. Its gradual transformation to bias has led to its being as rotten as a bad egg. International organisations often follow that same path.
The CO2 Coalition are an additional useful source of info.
I recently saw a statement that the IPCC had partially mutated into cheer leadership or advertising of the (unproven) notion that rising atmospheric levels of manmade CO2 were the main cause of dangers from abnormal climate changes.
I omitted to write down the reference at the time so would much appreciate if anyone could provide it. Thanks!
Somebody on WUWT – Roger Pielke? – correctly described the IPCC as a global warming advocacy group. No pre-eminent scientists work with the IPCC since the 2nd or 3rd report after they found the published report was a travesty of the science.
You forgot to mention the IPCC are in fact, CCP apparatchiks who take their marching orders from Xi Jinping. The sole purpose of the Climate Grit is it a a part of the CCP Unrestricted Warfare program to destroy the economies of the West from within, without firing a shot. And, it is working according to plan.
“Decisive moment…CRISIS…challenge of our times…this is fear mongering hyperbole dressed up a policy. These alarming adjectives more closely describe the rise of the CCP. Wake up, dude, climate is a CCP grift foisted upon the West by the CCP apparatchiks of the WEF. I have been told by top credentialed scientists–joke–that Xi Jinping himself wrote the COP agreements.
The villagers who heard the boy cry wolf were only fooled twice before they quit coming. We have been getting a thousand times that for the climate crisis. It beggars belief that people STILL cry climate after all these decades. How can Dr Fatih Birol imagine people will listen to him? Does he not feel like an idiot?
Why should he feel like an idiot, when infamous hacks make a very good living huckstering the Climate Grift? Look at Al Gore, John Kerry, and the Party of Davos. Even that pudgy teenage scold still goes on tour. There is big money AND big virtue signalling to be had from Climate. It is pure BS but profitable. Why let a little thing like integrity get in the way? But I agree with your observation.
Which begs the question: do these people not know they are full of excrement? How could they not know? Sure, Greta is just a kid, brainwashed by her commie parents. Yeah, Gore probably knows. He is just in it for the easy money. Kerry seems stupid enough he could believe it.
WEF surely knows better. Crying climate is a tool to get people to accept their hegemony.
Don’t know anything about Fatih, but his coming on stage and announcing the SOS we’ve been getting for 35 years is cringe worthy.
‘but the share of non-hydro renewables was just 6.7% of total global primary energy consumption in 2021’
And this gives a false impression. The market didn’t select it; government told them they had to take it.
‘IEA seems to think that electric vehicles will save the world because they have “zero emissions” and their costs will rapidly plunge.’
Their costs have rapidly gone up. I think more than just an increase in material costs.
Why would anybody buy an EV now if prices are going to fall substantially?
That’s part of the trouble – to make their fantasies sellable everything has to fall in price but to make their fantasies achievable we all have to buy now.
Econ 101 teaches us, if you want less of something tax it; if you want more of something subsidize it. Government 101 teaches us, if you really, really, really want a lot of something–mandate it.
The problem with battery cars is that while increased production might provide some reduction in unit costs, they contain large amounts of expensive materials that are difficult to mine, produce a small return for the amount of ore extracted and will be subject to a steady increase in costs in line with demand. Don’t forget that other parts of the Nut Job Zero fantasy are after the same materials.
Good point. Economies of scale can reduce unit price . . . for the body and mechanicals, but NOT the batteries.
In their report ‘Energy Technology Perspectives 2023’ the IEA also noted “the extraction and processing of critical minerals typically relies on fossil fuels”
shouldn’t the people be telling the government what to do, rather than the other way round?
For any particular policy, most people are apathetic, and many are oblivious to their ignorance, and easily led by the Legacy Media. Yet, in this age of everyone has a right to an opinion, important information is easily undetected. In addition, government ministers are at risk of being overwhelmed by incomplete data that they often don’t fully understand, so there does need to be some filtering and a better knowledge base developed by electing MPs with more varied experiences. That the polls, and MPs, showed support for Climate Change policies, when the consequences had not yet been explained, highlights the problem.
What does need to happen is to have more open discussions among the informed public, not just selected by Whitehall, so that different points of view are consolidated and presented, eventually, to ministers who have some basic understanding of the technicalities. We cannot expect to have ministers with prior, detailed, knowledge of every policy implementation, though Andrew Bridgen expertise was a breath of fresh air that Parliament found difficult to accept.
This consolidation process should be the job of the Civil Service, but they appear to be as deficient in STEM knowledge as the current MPs, and just as oblivious to their ignorance!
And the backup used to be journalists, but they are also just as ineffective as the Civil Service and MPs.
That the enormous effort by Paul, and others with similar websites, is ignored by so many in influencial positions is an indication that our senior politicians are not in charge.
“What does need to happen is to have more open discussions”
Can’t happen. Leftard press controls the dialog.
What needs to happen is severe limits on government power. So whatever the results of the discussions, government can’t do anything, anyway.
The bollywood dolly, government stooge that claims to represent us in Parliament recently sent round a leaflet allegedly saying what she has achieved for East Surrey. And therein lies one of the problems given that all these areas should be covered by parish councils, district councils and county councils. MPs are supposed to be elected by us to hold the government to account and not act as a local councillor. And since she has got a government post how can she be scrutinising the government she works for on our behalf?
An example of easily missed, important information is the cubic law of fluid flow by Oxbridge History graduates, rather than the circumstances of local projects.
Knowledge and understanding of this physical law by people in Parliament should have prevented the embarrassing spectacle of expecting windfarms to provide, unaided, a reliable supply of Electricity.
And it would have saved the country £1.3 Trillion.
Gamecock on June 24, 2023 at 11:58 pm
“[re: open discussions]
Can’t happen. Leftard press controls the dialog.”
Are you giving up before you have even started? 🙂
I’m saying you should put your energies elsewhere.
Me no give up. Me American.
I know how some easter islanders felt, when the rest of their islanders suddenly decided to haul enormous stone figures down to the shore. Net Zero is the modern day equivalent. It is just totally bonkers.
Net Zero is easily critiqued as it relies- with no margin for error – on 3 highly unlikely assumptions:
1. We significantly reduce demand for fossil fuels across the board, in the process making ourselves poorer both directly (spending on thing we don’t want) and indirectly (stopping doing things we wa t to dobe.g. holidays).
2. Substitute technologies (EV, heat pumps) reducing significantly in price.
3. New technologies (CO2 capture) succeeding at an economically viable cost.
Nobel of these is very likely, achieving all three is almost impossible. But achieving all 3 is the plan.
Thanks!
Roger Pielke jr is clearly a major proponent of well justified IPCC scepticism. Its gradual transformation to bias has led to its being as rotten as a bad egg. International organisations often follow that same path.
The CO2 Coalition are an additional useful source of info.
Thanks to Gezza for drawing attention to Roger Pielke’s IPCC scepticism.
notify comments
Nowhere have I seen a critique of the 1.5 C fantasy (it should not have the degree symbol as it is a temp range not a value). I could offer one but it would be a little lengthy. It is simply accepted uncritically despite it being worthy of criticism.
. . . and the decimal point is to show they have a sense of humour.