The International Energy Agency has released its annual World Energy Outlook, and it's fair to say that the outlook is, um, not good. World energy demand is projected to surge by 55 percent by 2030, with China and India accounting for nearly half of that increase and China overtaking the U.S. as the globe's primary energy glutton. Think $100-a-barrel oil is spendy? That's nothin', says the IEA, which predicts the price of crude could reach $159 by 2030. The IEA also expects a 73 percent jump in demand for coal by 2030. Relatedly, it predicts that greenhouse-gas emissions will be 25 percent higher in 2030 than they are now, barring "exceptionally vigorous policy action by all countries." Ha ha ha! Thanks, we needed a good laugh. Says IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol, "I am sorry to say this, but we are headed toward really bad days."
source: The Guardian, Bloomberg, Time, The New York Times
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
PoeticJaffaCake Posted 7:47 am
07 Nov 2007
Permalink
Pathos Posted 1:54 pm
07 Nov 2007
Except that meanwhile, the accompanying 25% increase in greenhouse gas emissions will be busy frying our planet.
So... Break's over. Back to harrassing our legislators for reform till we get it.
And remember... Money generates votes. Vote for pro-environment candidates with your wallet in 2008.
Permalink
solveclimate Posted 12:17 am
08 Nov 2007
for more, see http://solveclimate.com/blog/20071108/wake-call-world-ene ...
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 1:57 am
08 Nov 2007
What can happen though, as is prices soar due to supply, demand and other issues, some areas of economies that rely on oil, coal, etc. are forced to look for cheaper alternatives, which will come to the fore to replace over-priced commodities such as oil. These new technologies and fuels will hopefully and more than likely be environmentally friendly.
Hope won't buy you a coffee and a donut. Higher oil prices could mean increased consumption of coal ... unless there are policies that force electric utilities and industrial consumers, like ethanol plants, to internalize the external costs created through their coal consumption. And getting those policies in place requires action.
Permalink
President Lindsay Posted 3:52 am
13 Nov 2007
Well, for starters, if you really want to stop emissions that means we have to leave fossil fuels in the ground. The fossil fuel companies are the most powerful corporations on the planet. And they control scads of money and politicians.
Then there's the twisted system that gives Iowa such an undue influence over our political system, and if you hope to win in Iowa you have to cheer for biofuels, which everybody from Oxfam to the OECD has denounced as a costly mistake. But not the presidential candidates. No siree, they're all waving their pom-poms for the "biofuel revolution." You know, that revolution that pays ADM 51¢/gallon for ethanol, while driving up the cost of food so more poor people can starve.
Then there's the other N word. Even though our own national laboratories long ago figured out how to use nuclear power safely and fix all the problems associated with it, that knowledge was effectively buried and no candidate dares utter the N word in any serious way aside from pretending that we might use it if we could solve all the problems with it--the ones we've already solved. And if anybody thinks we can meet the world's doubling of energy demand by 2050 without nuclear power, well, I'm afraid such people are as much a part of the problem as lame politicians.
Unless we get some leadership willing to upset these major applecarts, we will be well and truly screwed, just as the IEA says.
Permalink
rptizzle Posted 6:48 am
19 Nov 2007
That is not true. There's a huge market for electric vehicles - the entire planet.
Electric cars use superior technology, and are much cleaner and more efficient. There's no comparison.
Electric cars are not being produced or promoted because the big auto companies have no interest in them. If electric cars catch on, people will realize they don't need the oil companies: they can just unplug their toaster and plug in their car! The cost of electricity is a lot cheaper than gasoline - all of this with gas prices currently RIDICULOUSLY LOW in the US. And we're talking about electricity generated mostly through coal plants in the US. We're not even talking about the possibility of people owning EV and asking themselves "why don't I install solar panels so I don't have to pay the power company for electricity"?
As you can start to see, electric cars can revolutionize the whole industry. A lot of people in power would be out of a job. It's not surprising that the auto industry has no interest in promoting electric cars being that they're so tied to the oil companies. The oil companies want to develop a system to sell hydrogen so that they can continue their monopoly and market manipulation. Oil companies can only maximize their profits if they control the supply of the fuel that everyone wants/depends on. But they cannot have that control when people are using electricity, especially when there's already photovoltaic technology (albeit expensive) that works.
But there's light at the end of the tunnel. If anything, we'll realize that in order for humanity to survive we are going to have to change our ways - big time. The old system of control, domination and wars has never worked and survival will depend on everyone giving that up. The energy problem is just the Universe way telling us to go in a different direction.
Permalink