…Not so independent IEA…
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has, until recently, been viewed as an objective forecaster of oil and energy supply and demand.
Power Magazine, for example, said, “Paris based IEA is an autonomous organization” inferring objectivity.
In the same issue, Power Magazine reported:
IEA deemed growth and disruptions of the world’s power sector so significant it dedicated—for the first time—a four-chapter “special focus” on electricity in its annual World Energy Outlook (WEO2018).
Unfortunately, the so-called autonomous organization is now riddled with proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), including its board of directors who mostly have ties to Europe.
Here’s a sampling of board members with quotations from their biographies:
- Faith Birol, Executive Director:
“Chairs the World Economic Forum’s (Davos) Energy Advisory Board and serves on the UN Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Sustainable Energy for All.”
- Mechthild Wörsdörfer, Sustainability, Technology and Outlooks Director:
“Over the years, she served as Director for renewables, research and innovation and energy efficiency, as well as Director of Energy Policy at the European Commission. Ms. Wörsdörfer headed the adoption of the Energy Roadmap 2050, the Energy and Climate Policy 2030 Framework and the Clean Energy Package.”
- Duncan Millard, Head, Energy Data Centre:
“Prior to joining the IEA, he was Chief Statistician for the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).”
Of the ten member board, only two are Americans and one of them is a committed proponent of AGW.
- David Turk, Acting Director, Directorate of Sustainability, Technology, and Outlooks:
“Formerly served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Climate and Technology at the U.S. Department of Energy, where he coordinated the Department’s international clean energy efforts. He also previously served as Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change at the U.S. Department of State. He focused on a range of bilateral and multilateral partnerships to combat climate change.”
These individuals have distinguished careers, however, they are generally committed to the proposition of CO2 induced climate change, and, though the IEA is autonomous, it is definitely not objective when it comes to AGW.
The IEA’s special report, Annual World Energy Outlook (WEO2018), is therefore biased in support of so-called clean energy and the need to cut CO2 emissions.
One item that caught my attention was “zero-cost generation”:
The WEO2018 dedicates a lengthy discussion to how electricity markets of the future will work, concluding: “It is very likely that over the medium to long term, markets will continue to experience further downward pressure on wholesale energy prices as more zero-cost power generation enters the market.”
I know of no zero-cost power generation.
The IEA is referring to mandating that wind and solar be used first, ahead of electricity generated from fossil fuels.
In the US wholesale market, covering two-thirds of the United States, the market is rigged to give wind and solar preference by requiring that electricity from the lowest marginal cost producer be used first. In practice, the lowest marginal cost producer is always wind or solar since they have no fuel costs.
There is no such thing as zero-cost generation, and the IEA is purposely misrepresenting how markets work to ensure the use of wind and solar.
Another commentator who supports AGW said:
“The IEA now appears focused on the energy issues that actually matter – such as how to meet future global energy needs without further ruining the climate.”
The media, using Power Magazine as an example, eulogizes the IEA that now promotes policies supporting AGW, rather than inquiring into the individuals controlling the IEA and recognizing that the IEA has become a biased promoter of AGW.
It’s clear the IEA is no longer an objective reporter of facts but is now a proponent of AGW, or, a supporter of what is now being called the green new deal.
. . .