[ad_1]
Japan and Australia have backtracked on the International Energy Agency report by reaching net emissions in 2050, indicating that investment in fossil fuels will continue despite the advice of the watchdog.
The reaction highlights the controversy surrounding IEA recommendations, which include stopping the exploration of fossil fuels and spending on new projects.
While the IEA has said it is necessary to continue investing in already discovered deposits and in existing projects, critics say the body does not adequately recognize the risks to future energy security. They say it does not provide support if the world fails to create suitable low-carbon alternatives to replace the strong demand for fossil fuels.
Japan, a founding member of the IEA, has always paid close attention to the advice of the Paris-based energy watchdog, but last week’s report sparked skepticism from the economy, trade and industry ministry.
“It is true that there are sections with which the Japanese government does not agree,” said Minister Hiroshi Kajiyama, who noted the recommendations to stop new investment in fossil fuels and remove coal.
Japan has adopted a net zero emissions target by 2050, but is struggling to come up with a plan on how to get there. Nuclear fuel is unpopular in the wake of the Fukushima disaster and the country’s mountainous islands make renewable energy relatively expensive. Many Japanese experts want to continue to burn at least some coal and gas and rely on emissions offsets in other countries.
Japan joined last week a promise from G7 environment ministers stop all government investment in international coal-fired power plants later this year.
Australian Resources Minister Keith Pitt noted that previous IEA reports described a more important role for coal and said the latest scenario did not sufficiently explain carbon capture technology.
“Coal, oil and gas will continue to be an important part of Australia’s energy mix and our export success for decades to come,” Pitt said.
Australia uses public funds to pursue a “gas recovery” policy in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and resists international pressure to set a net zero emissions target.
Norway’s center-right government and the main center-left opposition party, both traditionally strong supporters of the IEA, have also expressed some skepticism about the pre-election report in September, where it is likely that the future of oil will play an important role.
Oil Minister Tina Bru said it would not “make a difference from a global perspective” if Norway stopped its oil activities and argued that Europe’s largest oil producer could produce oil and gas with higher emissions. low that many other countries due to renewable energy could be used to power marine facilities.
IEA scenarios often form the basis of government energy policies, and the latest bomb report on zero net emissions was praised by climate groups as a significant milestone.
The report outlines a route to reduce net emissions by 2050 where coal demand falls by 90%, gas demand falls by 55% and oil demand by 75%.
IEA chief Fatih Birol addressed some of the criticism on a LinkedIn publish over the weekend, saying the zero net report was not the first time the agency had been accused of losing its relationships.
“This misses what the IEA is dealing with,” he wrote, referring to the criticism. “For many years, we have focused on shaping a secure and sustainable energy future for all, which requires the transition to clean energy. It requires a secure energy future: a world devastated by climate change due to fossil fuel emissions will not be safe. “
Several energy associations have criticized the report, including the World Nuclear Association, which called it “highly impractical,” and the World Coal Association, which said it was unrealistic.
Climate capital
Where climate change meets business, markets and politics. Explore FT coverage here
The International Gas Union, which represents the gas industry, warned that implementing the IEA’s clean roadmap would pose a serious risk to energy security.
“We would see significant disruptions in energy supplies, transportation systems, land and sea supply chains, in energy suppliers in cities and factories, and a significant increase in energy taxes,” he said. Andy Calitz, Secretary General of the International Gas Union.
Meanwhile, large oil and gas companies expressed skepticism about whether the steps described in the zero net report would be implemented.
“It’s a stage on a piece of paper,” Bernard Looney, CEO of BP, said at an industry conference last week. He said he respected the IEA and the importance of the report, but added that the world needed fewer scenarios and “more action.”
Report by Leslie Hook, Anjli Raval, Robin Harding, Jamie Smyth, Richard Milne and Neil Hume.
[ad_2]
Source link
