The FT reports this morning that:
Global oil and gas demand will rise for the next 25 years if the world does not change course, the International Energy Agency has said, in a new scenario that reflects governments' fading commitment to climate change.
The Guardian tackles the same material, saying:
Renewables will grow faster than any major energy source in the next decade, according to the world's energy watchdog, making the transition away from fossil fuels “inevitable”, despite a green backlash in the US and parts of Europe.
The world is expected to build more renewable energy projects in the next five years than has been rolled out over the last 40, according to the flagship annual report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).
Which is true? I suspect both are. But as a comedian once said, it's the way you tell them that counts.
I prefer the Guardian's spin.
I heed the FT's warning.
My point is, we need a media we can interrogate. Lose that, and we are in deep trouble.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I would argue that a demand for energy is not necessarily a demand for oil and gas specifically.
Conflating the two is spin.
Renewables will grow faster because there is less of it, so this too is spin.
As you say, we need journalism that understands basic maths and spin.
So, what are your saying, if you are spin free?
At the moment energy consumption globally is rising. The increase in renewables is merely complementing the increase and CO2 levels still rising. Unless economic growth contacts we are on a path to doom, not just through greenhouse gas increases but general ecological degradation and collapse as well. We are in for a very rough ride to put it mildly unless there is dramatic change in policy and life styles that are not apparent yet. COP 30 seems to be a fruitless cry in the wilderness at the moment. I hope I am wrong.
I agree: we have to cut consumption.
Whichever way it works out, England, well Westminster, can console itself that it can continue to help itself to most of Scotland’s resources, whether renewable or otherwise. Unless we grow a pair.
Western governments appear not to be interested in properly supporting/funding clean energy, improving residential home insulation and so on.
You can expect a muddle along the lines of the new Gates mantra, “it’s not as bad as everyone predicts”.
If you look at the ‘transition’ from coal to oil what in fact happened was that there was additional energy use from oil, not the replacement of coal. Plus of course moving coal consumption from ships, railways and homes to power stations.
Solar (PV) will continue to decline in price – probably by 20% by 2030 (for panels), inverters etc with the move to silicon carbide etc will become more reliable. Main production steps are +/- fully automated.
Main problem with PV in western Europe is it doesn’t in winter – but wind does (but the Brits up load their nimby sub routine when this is proposed). Need a whole-energy approach to de-carb which for the most part is absent – people still think (only) in terms of electrons and discrete systems – not whole systems. Which I find strange. Need to speak to my IEA contacts to find out a bit about the bun fights preceding the report (& what was not included).
BTW: looks like emissions in China are either flat or declining.
Thanks
And yet again demand reduction is ignored. Probably because it’s harder to measure, and doesn’t give politicians cool PR opportunities. It’s much more fun to pose in front of a new wind farm than to stand in a down-market housing estate full of properly insulated dwellings, or to film on a crowded commuter bus doing the same job as several dozen cars.
Agreed