In the world of energy, the supreme authority in producing reliable knowledge is the International Energy Agency (IEA), which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. This organization was created in 1974 to ensure the energy security of rich countries through the establishment of reserves of barrels of oil ready to be placed on the market in the event of a supply disruption, as was the case in 1973 with Arab countries’ oil embargo against the United States and other nations.
Since then, this flagship organization, mainly from developed countries, based in Paris, has enjoyed a sparkling reputation, like its highly qualified staff who produce quality reports in all areas related to energy.
However, in recent years, the IEA has been the target of criticism, summarized in a recent article in Wall Street Journal by a consultant and specialist in the oil industry, Robert McNally. According to him, the Agency has capitulated to the “climate lobby” since 2020 and puts forward oil and gas consumption forecasts based on unrealistic climate policies.
Robert McNally cites a major IEA study, published in 2021, entitled Net Zero by 2050. A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. This is the first-ever report to chart a path forward, now, to transition to a carbon-free energy system that can limit global warming to 1.5 degrees in 2050, in line with the Paris Agreement. 2015. The report identifies 400 milestones necessary to achieve this ambitious goal.
Among these, the IEA has chosen in its public communication to emphasize the need to no longer invest, from now on, in new fossil energy deposits. This mention, about an energy which has contributed significantly for more than 150 years to the standard of living we enjoy, was received in the energy and climate community as a recommendation with immediate effect.
If this thesis is of certain interest on a methodological level, to demonstrate the scale of the transition project, it nevertheless arouses controversy and contributes to politicizing discussions in the energy and climate change sector. It is indeed perilous to base one’s public communication around such a great ambition, a hypothesis which realistically has no chance of coming true.
Record consumption
This hypothesis accredited the idea among many that it would be possible to completely stop the future supply of fossil fuels, without worrying about the consequences of such an action, in particular that of creating scarcity, contributing to an increase prices affecting the poorest countries. The fossil fuel sector accounts for more than 80% of the energy mix, approximately the same proportion as 30 years ago.
In 2022, investments in this sector will reach 1,000 billion US dollars. We are at record levels of oil consumption, at more than 100 million barrels per day. Gas, which Asia is fond of replacing its overly polluting coal, still has many years of growth ahead of it.
The IEA admits all this: in all its forecast scenarios, it confirms that the world economy will still need a lot of fossil fuels in the coming decades.
The population will increase by some 2 billion people by 2050 (from 8 to 10 billion). Developing countries want to achieve the same standards of living as rich countries. This will come with a sharp increase in their energy consumption, including of fossil origin.
Certainly, renewable energies (wind, solar) and electric vehicles have made an absolutely spectacular breakthrough over the past 10 years in our countries thanks to their scaling up by the Chinese. These technologies allow States to more confidently consider the decarbonization of their electricity production.
This is a great hope for the fight against climate change, but also a concern in the face of Chinese domination in these energy sectors. But it is illusory to suggest to the general public the idea that we could, tomorrow, stop all investment in fossil fuels and meet, despite everything, our energy needs, particularly in developing countries.
In terms of general public communication, we can question the real contribution made by the IEA to the cause of transition when it broadcasts, with fanfare, such vain hypotheses, which confuse minds more than they enlighten the debate.