The study says that the shift to renewables would have huge benefits. Specifically (this is from the I.E.A. introduction) :
“It sets out a cost-effective and economically productive pathway, resulting in a clean, dynamic and resilient energy economy dominated by renewables like solar and wind instead of fossil fuels.”
Not so fast, says Doshi.
“. . . the question remains as to just how credible is the IEA’s call for a complete transformation of the global energy system within two or three decades, a system which developed over two centuries and today relies on fossil fuels for 85% of its needs.”
“The 200+ page report can be summarized by three key milestones requisite to its ‘net zero by 2050’ vision: an immediate end to investments in all new oil and gas developments (coal, of course, is beyond the pale); a ban on all internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035; and a zero-emission power sector by 2040.”
Doshi proceeds to poke holes in the IEA’s argument that net-zero is feasible and a good idea. Furthermore, Doshi contends that rather than a logical analysis, the report is responsive to its “paymasters”—the U.S. and Europe, with their zealotry for shifting to renewables.
“As the IEA’s growth in funding is primarily from the US and Europe, it is not surprising that it also reflects the ‘climate emergency’ predilections of the Biden administration and Western European governments which see climate change as an existential threat and a national security priority. But in taking up the mantle of green advocacy on behalf of its paymasters, the IEA faces the prospect of losing all credibility as an objective advisor on energy security for its OECD members.”
For clarification about what “net-zero” means, see this blog post.
Image by PublicDomainPictures at Pixabay.