So, the IEA, bless their hearts, is backpedaling. Big time. Remember all that talk about weaning ourselves off oil and gas? Yeah, scratch that. Turns out, according to their new model (emphasis on the "new," as in, "we totally whiffed it the first time"), we're gonna be chugging along with fossil fuels until at least 2050.
They’re blaming a potential slowdown in EV adoption and—wait for it—a change in US policies toward "heavier reliance on fossil fuels." Give me a break. It's like blaming the rain for getting wet. Whose policies are we talking about here? And what kind of crystal ball are these guys using, anyway? The kind you buy at a dollar store?
The numbers are… depressing. Oil and gas demand rising to 113 million barrels a day by 2050. That's up from 100 million right now. And EV sales are expected to plateau after 2035. Plateau! As in, flatline. As in, no more exciting growth.
Meanwhile, Australia is patting itself on the back for installing 5.2 GW of solar in 2024. Okay, cool. But the IEA also points out that Australia isn't even in the top ten for annual installations. It's like winning a participation trophy at the Olympics.
Australia does have a world-leading installation rate per capita, which is nice. And rooftop solar meets over 20% of the nation’s electricity demands. But here's the kicker: connection approvals, congestion management, and fragmented access arrangements are making grid-scale projects expensive and risky. So, you know, progress... with a giant asterisk.
They're boasting about 44% of free-standing homes having solar. In Queensland and South Australia, it’s closer to 50%. Good job? But what about Tasmania? Only 20% of homes powered by solar PV. And South Australia is exporting excess power to neighboring states for four hours around midday. Four hours! What happens the rest of the time?
And let’s not forget the LNG boom. Final investment decisions for new LNG projects have surged, with a 50% increase in global LNG supply expected by 2030. So, we're going all-in on natural gas, even as we're supposedly trying to save the planet. Makes perfect sense. Not.
The IEA says electricity and critical mineral security have become "urgent priorities." Well, no duh. But how are we going to achieve that while simultaneously doubling down on fossil fuels? Are they expecting some kind of magical technological breakthrough that will make carbon emissions disappear? Or are they just hoping we’ll all be dead before the worst effects of climate change kick in?
Then again, maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe the IEA is just being "realistic." Maybe we are doomed to a future of fossil fuel dependency. But if that's the case, why even bother with the climate talks? Why pretend we're doing anything to address the problem?
