By halting exploration for oil and gas as part of a global campaign to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, policy makers working with climate activists have created a “scarce It’s misdirecting innovation resources.”
while being a supporter of Environment, Society, Governance Investments continue to seize the interests of the International Energy Agency (IEA) “Roadmap” For reaching net zero to realize ambition, new research A study of agency forecasts found that they were based on incorrect assumptions.
The IEA’s net-zero vision could only materialize if demand for coal, oil and natural gas plummets, while consumers gravitate toward so-called renewables such as wind and solar. But as reports from the RealClearFoundation and the Energy Policy Research Foundation make clear, this is a dubious proposition. (Related: David Blackmon: Automaker Criticizes Biden’s EV Fantasy)
“The decline in demand for hydrocarbons is best viewed as an expression of political or ideological aspirations rather than an objective assessment of the future rather than a plausible description of the future,” the report said. “If investment in increasing supply fails, demand will increasingly outstrip supply, and prices are much more likely to rise. That’s what I understood when I used
The Foundation is a non-profit organization established to explore energy economics and policy with a focus on energy security. The net-zero policy and the geopolitical implications of his ESG investments are incorporated into the IEA’s roadmap analysis. Much of the problem lies with the widely publicized Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. OPEC, and the influence it can gain over Western countries, including the United States
If oil demand is higher than projected in the IEA roadmap (which is very likely), the foundation says OPEC’s share of the global oil market could rise to a staggering 82 percent by 2050. It is assumed that there is OPEC includes Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.
In its analysis, the foundation warns that “Knowingly or not, ESG investors are undermining the security interests of the West at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions.” As a result, the West is well positioned to maintain a healthy level of independence from OPEC with the right mix of policies. The foundation notes that the IEA was originally set up to “act as a group of Western buyers to counter OPEC’s market power” in response to the “first oil price shock” of the early 1970s. are doing. But given the political craze for “net-zero” efforts, the agency clearly strays from its mandate.
“The IEA could have chosen to stay true to its original mandate, but as a report from the Energy Policy Research Foundation shows, the IEA has become so intent on becoming a net-zero cheerleader that it has become a staunch advocate of climate extremism. It has allowed itself to be used as a tool, misleading policy makers and abandoning its founding purpose, jeopardizing the global economy and Western security.”
A key part of the foundation’s report focused on the potential negative impacts of halting investment in new oil and gas fields, based on the belief that a seamless transition to renewable energy is possible. guessing. US energy consumers can expect to take it on the jaws.
The Foundation estimates that in the first decade under net zero emissions, global oil and gas fuel revenues will be $12.2 trillion to $52.6 more than the IEA assumes in its policy scenario. doing. Simply put, consumers will have to pay less and more for oil and gas, with all the costs associated with the energy transition.
The Foundation’s analysis also highlights the environmental degradation that can result from racing toward net zero given financial and technological realities.
“Reduced oil and gas supplies will have multiple environmental and health impacts around the world. First, many low- and middle-income countries rely on expensive natural gas for heating, It is likely to lead to a resurgence in coal consumption as it can be difficult to obtain,” the report warns. “The result could be a regression in many countries switching from coal to gas, increasing local air pollution and exacerbating health crises in many urban areas.” (Related: David Blackmon: The backlash against net-zero policies is finally starting to take shape)
Self-proclaimed environmental activists might want to take a serious look at how much onshore wind and solar consume. The foundation calculates that the solar and wind capacity needed to reach net zero would require an area the size of California and Texas combined, while the bioenergy needed to generate electricity would require France and Mexico. The area is said to be the sum of
Apparently, it’s not just raw economics that’s at stake. What environmental advocates commonly describe as clean is clean, but neither.
Net zero geopolitical, economic and environmental costs require a political course correction.
Kevin Mooney is a senior investigative journalist at the Commonwealth Foundation, a free market think tank in Pennsylvania, and has written for several national publications. Twitter: @KevinMooneyDC
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers capable of serving large audiences. All reissues must include our company logo, press byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
