The world’s energy demand grew by 2.3 percent two years ago. Natural Gas was the primary source, followed by renewables, oil, coal, nuclear power, and other sources. The IEA’s chief Fatih Birol concluded that the beginning of a “golden age” for gas was due to the increasing demand for Natural Gas, LNG’s proliferation, and the fracking revolution.
In its most recent report, the IEA has overturned its prognosis made just two years ago. How much leeway is there for interpretation, and in what perspective should it be viewed? The forecast is based on the now-famous ‘Net-zero by 2050 plan,’ which was recently published. The IEA found no new oil or Natural Gas investments are required if nations that have indicated their decarbonization goals for 2050 carry them through.
This does not include existing greenfield projects or resources that have already been discovered. Many people believe the IEA has overstepped its bounds by proposing a “reckless proposition” for quick decarbonization. It’s worth noting that the organization was founded in 1974 in response to the oil crisis to assist in the coordination of a coordinated response to significant disruptions.
On the other hand, the IEA has grown and enlarged its mandate to ‘assist countries in providing secure and sustainable energy for all.’ It’s easy to call the IEA’s statement about the lack of need for new oil and Natural Gas investments “revolutionary,” but it’s made inside a rigid framework of interdependent measures. As a result, if decarbonization is taken seriously, alternative investments should be expanded.The expanding number of governments that have expressed net-zero by 2050 objectives is essential for the IEA’s prediction. However, many questions remain about how these measures will be paid for, particularly by poorer countries.