Fatih Birol has been back in touch with the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/10/iea-oil-forecasts-energy-povertyHe starts off with an odd call to get electricity into those worldwide homes that don't have it.
"It's not likely to happen unless there's a major international concerted effort by rich countries," Birol said. "We will start to push it on to the main agenda at Copenhagen."
Who needs, food? Give them electricity. I had guessed that the whole Copenhagen thing seemed a little bit too well tied in.
Birol will appeal for international support on the issue ahead of the Copenhagen summit when he delivers a speech at the UN in New York on 23 November.
His remit seems to be expanding by the day.
Concerning the Guardian's story:
The IEA responded today by publishing on its website a key chapter from last year's outlook report detailing how it estimates the decline in the rate of production from the world's largest oilfields. The information is normally only available to those who buy the entire report for €150 (£134).
How would producing a historical analysis in any way validate their future predictions, which are totally out of whack with the document? I'm not complaining though, it's a good document IMO.
The IEA's forecast of global oil supplies hitting 105m barrels in 2030 represents its "doomsday" scenario, which, it said, would result in catastrophic global warming and energy supplies becoming increasingly vulnerable to terrorists or accidents. This is based on Copenhagen failing to reach a deal that ensures a higher carbon price, which would make the consumption of fossil fuels such as oil and coal more expensive and encourage the use of low-carbon forms of energy such as renewables and nuclear instead.
These chaps have been coordinating with Governments prior to Copenhagen to shoehorn this onto the agenda. I'm sure of that.
Birol said: "The reason why we showed it is to say this is the way that we are going and we should not go there otherwise there will be an accident in terms of climate change and energy security. We do not want it to happen."
Energy security, eh? You mean we may risk not getting the energy we need? That the figures may in some way be optimistic? Is this a small admission that it's not just climate change here, that it may be something to do with availability of resources, of Peak Oil?
The IEA, set up to advise its 28 member countries, said that the alternative scenario would see oil consumption only increase slightly between now and 2030. This is based on countries agreeing at Copenhagen to stabilise the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million. This would give the world a 50% chance of limiting temperature increases to 2C, it said.
It would also help energy security, right?
He added that last summer's record $147 a barrel oil price had "traumatised" many developing countries into looking for less volatile and costly forms of energy. Birol said oil prices, which had since fallen back to about $80, would continue to be volatile and would rise over the long term.
Surely if we choose the 450 path, supply will outstrip demand and prices will fall?
What we think, we become.
