IEA Report - Unless there is an "energy revolution," the planet will heat up by about 6°C by 2030

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1937160,00.html

…

A chief economist for the IEA, Fatih Birol, disputed The Guardian report. "I don't see any particular encouragement from the U.S. or any other of our governments," he told TIME on Tuesday. He said the accusations about the IEA downplaying the world's tightening oil supplies surprised him, since "we have said that oil production is declining in existing fields sharply," he said.

…

The dire predictions about the world's depleting fossil fuels are in fact known to those closest to the oil wells: oil executives. Yves-Louis Darricarrre, the global chief of exploration and production for the French energy giant Total, told TIME last week that the world has "oil reserves of about 40 years at current demands." "It is not so easy to supply the world," Darricarrére said in an interview in south Yemen, where the company just opened a liquefied natural-gas plant. "We will reach a plateau and start to decline." He said that expanding access to alternative energy options like electric cars and solar panels will only "add some years to the end" of the world's oil reserves.

The IEA report released Tuesday doesn't sugarcoat the future when it comes to climate change, saying the world faces a looming disaster if its leaders drag their feet in Copenhagen. Among the predictions likely to alarm the big energy consumers:

• Unless there is an "energy revolution," the planet will heat up by about 6 degrees Celsius by 2030 — about three times the rate of global warming considered manageable by most scientists. That, says the normally sober IEA, "would lead almost certainly to massive climatic change and irreparable damage to the planet."
  
  …

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/2009.asp

[Zoeisright]

1. I think even that prediction is conservative.

Reality is making the models look like a dream. Things are deteriorating faster than we ever thought.

[n2doc]

22. That seems to be the case

"faster than predicted" is on nearly every climate related measurement......


This will be catastrophic. The increase in air temps alone are going to turn vast areas into deserts.

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. I think it's sloppy reporting (see below)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=216042&mesg_id=216090

[n2doc]

28. good catch!

That is awful writing.

[Nederland]

2. Pretty bold prediction

6°C by 2030 means more than a 1/4 degree per year, unless they predict that the change is back loaded. Every year that goes by with that much rise makes it look less and less likely and the IEA look like idiots. We shall see...

[joshcryer]

13. I think it's probably back loaded to some extent, haven't yet read the report.

We're already near the 3.0C threshold, which is certainly almost unavoidable at this point (unless CO2 is banned immediately and we do drastic stuff).

[Nederland]

36. Already near the 3.0C threshold?

Using what year as a baseline?

[joshcryer]

45. CO2 takes time to have an effect, the best plans already set us at 3.0C if we end emissions by 2020.

We won't actually *reach* 3.0C until well into the late 2050s or more. Those oceans, they take quite awhile to heat up.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. I think it may be sloppy reporting on TIME's part

From the Executive Summary:
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/2009.asp

…

Non-OECD countries account for all of the projected growth in energy-related CO2 emissions to 2030. Three-quarters of the 11-Gt increase comes from China (where emissions rise by 6 Gt), India (2 Gt) and the Middle East (1 Gt). OECD emissions are projected to fall slightly, due to a slowdown in energy demand (resulting from the crisis in the near term and from big improvements in energy efficiency in the longer term) and the increased reliance on nuclear power and renewables, in large part due to the policies already adopted to mitigate climate change and enhance energy security. By contrast, all major non-OECD countries see their emissions rise. However, while non-OECD countries today account for 52% of the world’s annual emissions of energy-related CO2, they are responsible for only 42% of the world’s cumulative emissions since 1890.

These trends would lead to a rapid increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The rate of growth of fossil-energy consumption projected in the Reference Scenario takes us inexorably towards a long-term concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in excess of 1 000 ppm CO2-eq. The CO2 concentration implied by the Reference Scenario would result in the global average temperature rising by up to 6°C. This would lead almost certainly to massive climatic change and irreparable damage to the planet.

The Reference Scenario trends also heighten concerns about the security of energy supplies. While the OECD imports less oil in 2030 than today in the Reference Scenario, some non-OECD countries, notably China and India, see big increases in their imports. Most gas-importing regions, including Europe and developing Asia, also see their net imports rise. The Reference Scenario projections imply an increasingly high level of spending on energy imports, representing a major economic burden for importers. Oil prices are assumed to fall from the 2008 level of $97 per barrel to around $60 per barrel in 2009 (roughly the level of mid-2009), but then rebound with the economic recovery to reach $100 per barrel by 2020 and $115 per barrel by 2030 (in year-2008 dollars). As a result, OECD countries as a group are projected to spend on average close to 2% of their GDP on oil and gas imports to 2030. The burden is even higher in most importing non-OECD countries. On a country basis, China overtakes the United States soon after 2025 to become the world’s biggest spender on oil and gas imports (in monetary terms) while India’s spending on oil and gas imports surpasses that of Japan soon after 2020 to become the world’s third-largest importer. The increasing concentration of the world’s remaining conventional oil and gas reserves in a small group of countries, including Russia and resource-rich Middle East countries, would increase their market power and ability to influence prices.

…

Looks to me like they took the 6°C from the second paragraph, went looking for a date, and found it in the previous paragraph. Result, 6°C by 2030. (2030 also appears as an upper bound in the following paragraph… which I've now added.)

[joshcryer]

47. They changed 'may' to 'will.'

I have to read the full report to understand it. I suspect it's a worst case scenario.

[Louisiana1976]

3. Sometime ago I saw the documentary and then read the book "6 Degrees"

about what would happen to this planet and life on it if the average temp went up by 6 degrees Celsius. It was positively scary.

[ProleNoMore]

4. Remember From Last Year All The PO Deniers Claiming That All Was Fine

Now the truth comes out from the establishment classes.

[joshcryer]

9. Of course, the IEA, normally respected in denialist circles, will now be thrown under the bus.

If the assessment doesn't meet ones bias, then throw out the data!

[ProleNoMore]

10. Seems To Be A Trend

eom

[AlecBGreen]

5. 6 degrees C by 2030?

That sounds a bit much to me. This graph says we've risen less than 1 degree over the last 100 years.



Rising 6 in just over 20... man, that would be catastrophic.

[joshcryer]

7. Exponential growth. In the next 16 years we will release as much as in the past 150.

If the growth rate isn't curbed, then in another 16 years after that we'll have released 4 times as much. Note that the numbers are staggering with 30 billion tonnes of CO2 being released every single year at an increase of about 1.5% a year.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. OK, so, let’s look at a different graph…

Notice the exponential curve:


OK, now looking back at your graph, check out the trend from say… 1970 to present…

[AlecBGreen]

17. hmm

I know CO2 is increasing, and I know the RATE of CO2 increase is increasing, however that is hard to see with this graph. While I know the RATE of increase is increasing, this graph appears to show a linear growth pattern.

Also, we're talking temperature, not CO2 concentration.

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. Try physically tracing the line with your mouse (or finger)

If you don’t feel the curve with your hand, I’ll be quite surprised.

[AlecBGreen]

38. i realize its there

Im just saying the graph doesnt LOOK like a typical exponential function. It looks close to linear. IT IS exponential, just with very slight "concavity" (if thats a real word...)

[Nederland]

35. Is the relationship between temperature and CO2 linear? (nt)

[AlecBGreen]

39. there appears to be a direct relationship bw temp & co2

CO2 is red, temp is blue

[Nederland]

42. Yes, I know that

I was inquiring as to the natural of the relationship: linear, logarithmic, etc.

[bananas]

41. No, it's logarithmic. nt

[Nederland]

52. Logarithmic which way?

You know what I'm asking? In other words, does the first extra 100 ppm of CO2 result in more or less temperature rise than the next extra 100 ppm? Hope you understand the question. I wish I could make a graph...

[bananas]

57. The good way - each added co2 molecule has less effect than the previous - here's two graphs

To answer your question specifically: the first extra 100 ppm of CO2 result in more temperature rise than the next extra 100 ppm.
Each doubling of co2 increases temperature by about 3°C.
Here's two graphs:

1) Temperature vs concentration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

<snip>

Climate sensitivity is defined as the amount of global average surface warming following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. It is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5 °C, with a best estimate of about 3 °C. This range of values is not a projection of the temperature rise we will see in the 21st century, since the future change in carbon dioxide concentrations is unknown, and factors besides carbon dioxide concentrations affect temperature.

<snip>


The projected temperature increase for a range of stabilization scenarios (the coloured bands). The black line in middle of the shaded area indicates 'best estimates'; the red and the blue lines the likely limits. From the work of Working Group III.

<snip>

2) Temperature vs cumulative emissions
The "Allen et al (2009)" pdf is at https://regtransfers-sth-se.diino.com/download/f.thompson/migrated_data/EandH/nature08019.pdf

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2343088

<snip>

Here is figure 2 from Allen et al (2009). What we are looking at here is temperature on the vertical axis, being the peak in warming over a pre-industrial average; and total carbon emissions on the horizontal axis. Currently we are at a bit over 0.4 trillion tons. The white crosses are best fit values, where each cross is a difference scenario. The grey shading represents a likelihood distribution.

You can see the logarithmic relation pretty clearly in how the white crosses lie. If you go over to 3 or 4 trillion tons, then the effect is clearly dropping off, as you should expect from the logarithmic relation of atmospheric carbon to temperature. But for total emissions of up to 1 trillion tons (basically emit in the future a bit more than what we've emitted since the start of the industrial revolution), the value proposed works well. It's not bad over higher values up to 1.5 or (yeesh) 2 trillion.

<snip>

[Nederland]

58. Thanks! (nt)

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. I think it's sloppy reporting (see above)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=216042&mesg_id=216090

[AlecBGreen]

40. yeah, 2 glaring errors in the next sentence

"This {6C rise in temp} would lead almost certainly to massive climatic change and irreparable damage to the planet. "

Error 1 - NO SHIT it would lead to massive climatic change. Not "certainly..." or even "possibly..."

Error 2 - No damage is irreparable. My 9th grade Earth Science students could tell you that.

[pscot]

43. If you burn your house down

the damage is "irreparable". You may build anew, but it won't be the same house.

[AlecBGreen]

54. perhaps we are arguing semantics

true, your house is gone, but your overall condition (being housed) is unchanged.

[NickB79]

44. "No damage is irreparable."

Show me a living dodo, passenger pigeon or Tasmanian wolf and I'll concede your point.

[AlecBGreen]

53. I should clarify

species go extinct, and we are accelerating that process. I should have said "no damage to the earth" is permanent. I cannot imagine a scenario where by humans make the earth COMPLETELY inhospitable to life by our actions. If life survives, it can flourish once again.

[pscot]

55. It's going to be like a picnic

Hot, nasty and leaving nothing but ants fighting over the scraps..

[cedric]

6. Time for action then

Based on this isn't it time that President Obama and the Democrats started pulling their fingers out and getting a move on with bringing some reality to Copenhagen instead of providing excuses?

[GliderGuider]

8. It's not time until our masters say it's time.

And that applies even more to Obama than to you and me.

[joshcryer]

11. They're saying it's time. They're saying $10 trillion must be spent immediately on green energy.

The IEA is representing every single power structure in the world (energy is why we fight wars). If they don't act then revolution is bound too ccur and they will be first against the wall.

[GliderGuider]

12. You're not half cynical enough yet.

If someone is telling us it's time you can bet they are not speaking on behalf of the real power structure.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. Perhaps you’re just a tad too cynical at this point

The top of the power structure realizes that there is no structure without a foundation.

I don't think any of the world’s leaders truly believe, “It is better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.”

[GliderGuider]

16. We've known "it's time" for forty years already.

Nothing has happened. I've wondered why, and came up with a lot of fancy sociological and ev-psych reasons for it. I now think that Occam's razor compels me to turn Napoleon's dictum on its head: "Never attribute to the incompetence of the many that which can be adequately explained by the malice of a few."

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Some have warned about the “Greenhouse Effect” for 40 years

I would say there has been a reasonably good scientific consensus for about 20 years.

Recently you went through a bit of a “conversion experience” in your beliefs regarding it. What motivated that change in your thinking?



FWIW: Here's a story from 22 years ago, which mentions the buildup of "carbon monoxide." (sic)

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/19/us/worldwide-pact-sought-on-ozone.html

WORLDWIDE PACT SOUGHT ON OZONE

By PHILIP SHABECOFF, Special to the New York Times
Published: Thursday, February 19, 1987

Members of Congress called today for an international agreement to protect the earth's ozone shield and voiced support for newly proposed legislation to gradually eliminate Americans' use of chemicals that destroy atmospheric ozone.

…

Senator Chafee said that ozone depletion and the related problem of the warming of the earth's surface because of the buildup of carbon monoxide and other gases in the atmosphere were ''monumental problems with a doomsday effect.''

…

[kristopher]

26. Timeline on awareness of greenhouse issue

From my notes:
1859: Tyndall establishes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

1890s: Arrhenius surmises that the climate of the earth could potentially be changed by the CO2 emitted from the human use of fossil fuels.

1930s: Guy Callendar assembles evidence that the effects of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are capable of being perceived.

1950s: Plass, Suess and Revelle follow up on Callendar’s research.

1960s: Keeling uses systematic measuring to establish that concentration of atmospheric CO2 is rising.

1965: Environmental Pollution Board of the President’s Science Advisory Council warns that by 2000 there will be 25% increase in CO2 concentrations from 1965 level. “his will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate...could occur.”

1965: President Johnson states in Special Message to Congress that “This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through...a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.”

1966: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Panel on Weather and Climate Modification repeats warning.

1974: Weinberg, Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory “realized that climatological impacts might limit oil production before geology did.”

1978: Robert White (NOAA’s first administrator and a President of the National Academy of Engineering states “We now understand that ... carbon dioxide released during the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable threat to future society ... The potential ... impacts ominous.”

1979: JASON committee (Stanford Research Insitute) publishes 184 page technical report warning of expected doubling of CO2 concentrations “by about 2035” with wide variety of undetermined possible geophysical, economic, political and social consequences.

1979: Carter Science Advisor Frank Press requests National Academy of Sciences for review of JASON committee report. Academy committee headed by MIT meteorologist Jule Charney concurs with JASON report “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.” (Oreskes, 2006)

Global warming as a threat to the ecology was widely recognized within the scientific community by the 1980s. Within a decade, this recognition resulted in global political acknowledgement and action commencing with the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, an agreement setting voluntary limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The international effort was sharpened by a move to mandatory emissions reductions with an agreement by the 3rd Conference of Parties (Kyoto Protocol) which was signed in 1997. Although the United States signed the agreement at the COP3, the treaty was not ratified by the US legislature and entered into force in 2003 without the US as a signatory. This means that even though not required to implement the provisions of the Protocol, the US is expected by international law to “refrain from actions that would undermine the Protocol’s object and purpose”. (Ackerman, 2002, 2)

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. Right. I'm well aware of this timeline

It's not very good for establishing when a “scientific consensus” formed.

(Note this article.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=216042&mesg_id=216104


For example, there were reports from the National Academies. OK, does that mean there was a scientific consensus at that point?

Recently there was a report issued by the National Academies regarding fluoride in drinking water…
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

I don’t believe there is a scientific consensus which agrees with it.

[kristopher]

30. Sure it is.

But since there is no bright line of demarcation, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "scientific consensus". To my mind the consensus has existed since the 70s. Since then, while the prognosis for damage has been firming, we've been having a political and economic discussion.

I fail to see how the popular press account in The Ledger informs the discussion any more, or even as, effectively as the Oreskes timeline.

[OKIsItJustMe]

32. The newspaper account also does not effectively establish a date

It suggests that it happened somewhere in a 10 year window from 1972-1982.

I know I was convinced in the 70's, but I think it’s overstating things to claim, “We've known "it's time" for forty years already.”

Who is “we?” certainly not the general population; and I question whether even the general scientific community “knew it was time” in 1969…

Let me rephrase that… I don’t think in 1969 there was a general concern about the “greenhouse effect.” There certainly was concern about pollution. We knew it was time to do something about that in 1969, and we did. (See "Earth Day," "The Clean Water Act," "The Clean Air Act," "EPA" etc.)

[kristopher]

34. You pick screwy points to make an issue of.

[joshcryer]

49. 1991 IPCC wasn't even committed to making a statement about CO2 and AGW.

It wasn't until the late 90s that there was a consensus about its effects, the data was there.

[joshcryer]

48. There was no consensus until the data was seperate from noise.

As science tends to go.

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. An interesting article from 1982

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qBwVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OvsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3758,4148265&dq=greenhouse+effect&hl=en

Ten years ago a lot of scientists laughed when William W. Kellogg predicted that a man-made "greenhouse" effect would heat up the Earth, dramatically altering the climate.
Today, no one is laughing.

…

[joshcryer]

50. From IPCC 1991 (FAR):

It is still not possible to attribute with high confidence all or even a large part of the observed global warming to the enhanced greenhouse effect. On the other hand it is not possible to refute the claim that greenhouse-gas enhanced climate change has contributed substantially to the observed warming.

[Nederland]

37. That's an interesting use of the term "known" (nt)

[joshcryer]

51. Apologies for my 1991 date, I meant 1990 obviously:

We conclude that despite great limitations in the quantity and quality of the available historical temperature data, the evidence points consistently to a real but irregular warming over the last century. A global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciation without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gases. Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events, it is not yet possible to attribute a specific proportion of the recent, smaller warming to an increase of greenhouse gases.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. Press Release: The time has come to make the hard choices…

http://www.iea.org/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=294

The time has come to make the hard choices needed to combat climate change and enhance global energy security, says the latest IEA World Energy Outlook

http://www.iea.org/w/bookshop/add.aspx?id=388">See Related Publication or Event

10 November 2009 London --- "World leaders gathering in Copenhagen next month for the UN Climate summit have a historic opportunity to avert the worst effects of climate change. The World Energy Outlook 2009 seeks to add momentum to their negotiations at this crucial stage by detailing the practical steps needed for a sustainable energy future as part of a global climate deal,” said Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency today in London at the launch of the new WEO – the annual flagship publication of the IEA.

“WEO-2009 provides both a caution and grounds for optimism. Caution, because a continuation of current trends in energy use puts the world on track for a rise in temperature of up to 6°C and poses serious threats to global energy security. Optimism, because there are cost-effective solutions to avoid severe climate change while also enhancing energy security – and these are within reach as the new Outlook shows,” added Mr. Tanaka.

Although, as one of the consequences of the financial crisis, global energy use is set to fall this year, WEO-2009 projects that it will soon resume its upward trend if government policies don’t change. In this Reference Scenario, demand increases by 40% between now and 2030, reaching 16.8 billion tonnes of oil equivalent. Projected global demand is lower than in last year’s report, reflecting the impact of the economic crisis and of new government policies introduced over the past year. Fossil fuels continue to dominate the energy mix, accounting for more than three-quarters of incremental demand. Non-OECD countries account for over 90% of this increase, and China and India alone for over half. In addition to increasing susceptibility to energy price spikes, the Reference Scenario projects a persistently high level of spending on oil and gas imports which would represent a substantial financial burden on import-dependent consumers. China overtakes the US around 2025 to become the world’s biggest spender on oil and gas imports. The energy poverty challenge also remains unresolved with 1.3 billion people still without electricity in 2030 from 1.5 billion today; though universal access could be achieved with investment of only $35 billion per year in 2008-2030.

WEO-2009 demonstrates that containing climate change is possible but will require a profound transformation of the energy sector. A 450 Scenario sets out an aggressive timetable of actions needed to limit the long-term concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million of carbon-dioxide equivalent and keep the global temperature rise to around 2°C above pre-industrial levels. To achieve this scenario, fossil-fuel demand would need to peak by 2020 and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions to fall to 26.4 gigatonnes in 2030 from 28.8 Gt in 2007.

“At the IEA Ministerial meeting, a large majority of Ministers showed their intention to take the lead, organise themselves and commit to the challenge to reach the 450 Scenario - the energy path of Green Growth. Only by mitigation action in all sectors and regions can we turn the 450 Scenario into reality,” stressed Mr. Tanaka. Energy efficiency is the largest contributor, accounting for over half of total abatement by 2030. Low-carbon energy technologies also play a crucial role: around 60% of global electricity production comes from renewables (37%), nuclear (18%) and plants fitted with carbon capture and storage (5%) in 2030. Furthermore, a dramatic shift in car sales occurs, with hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles representing almost 60% of sales in 2030, from around 1% today.

Compared to the Reference Scenario, cumulative incremental investment of $10.5 trillion is needed in the 450 Scenario in low-carbon energy technologies and energy efficiency by 2030. In addition to avoiding severe climate change, this cost is largely offset by economic, health and energy-security benefits. Energy bills in transport, buildings and industry alone are reduced by $8.6 trillion globally over the period 2010-2030. “The challenge for climate negotiators is to agree on instruments that will give the right incentives to ensure that the necessary investments are made and on mechanisms to finance those investments in non-OECD countries,” said Mr. Tanaka and added: “In our 450 scenario in OECD countries the carbon price reaches $50 per tonne of CO2 in 2020 and $110 in 2030.”

WEO-2009 also identifies higher oil prices, coupled with the downturn in oil sector investment, as a serious threat to the world economy, just as it is beginning to recover. As a result of the financial crisis, investment in upstream oil and gas has already been cut by over $90 billion this year compared with 2008. While oil demand has dropped sharply, in the Reference Scenario it starts recovering in 2010, reaching 88 mb/d in 2015 and then 105 mb/d in 2030. “Calling for increased investment in fossil-fuel supply is not inconsistent with the need to move to a low-carbon energy pathway,” stressed Mr. Tanaka. “Even in the 450 Scenario, OPEC production still increases substantially in the period to 2030, boosting those countries’ revenues in real terms to four times their level of the previous 23 years,” he added.

Whatever climate policies are introduced, natural gas – a special focus in WEO-2009 – is also set to continue to play a bridging role in meeting the world’s sustainable energy needs. In the Reference Scenario, gas demand rises by 41% from 3.0 trillion cubic metres in 2007 to 4.3 tcm in 2030. Gas demand also continues to expand in the 450 Scenario but is 17% lower in 2030 than in the Reference Scenario thanks to more efficient use, lower electricity demand and increased switching to non-fossil energy sources.

The recent rapid development of unconventional gas resources – notably shale gas – in North America has transformed the gas-market outlook. “Unconventional gas is unquestionably a game-changer in North America with potentially significant implications for the rest of the world,” said Mr. Tanaka. The share of unconventional gas in total US gas output jumped from 44% in 2005 to around 50% in 2008 and, in the Reference Scenario, is projected to rise to almost 60% in 2030. The boom in North American unconventional gas production, together with the recession’s impact on demand, is expected to prolong the glut of gas supply for the next few years. The analysis of WEO-2009 shows that the annual under-utilisation of inter-regional pipeline and LNG capacity could rise from around 60 billion cubic metres in 2007 to 200 bcm by 2015. This glut could have far-reaching consequences for the structure of gas markets, with suppliers to Europe and Asia-Pacific coming under pressure to modify pricing terms under long-term contracts, to de-link gas prices from oil prices, sell more gas on a spot basis and to cut prices to stimulate demand.

WEO-2009 also provides a focus on Southeast Asia in recognition of its growing influence on energy markets. In the Reference Scenario, Southeast Asia’s energy demand expands by 76% in 2007-2030. “Coupled with strong growth in China and India, this robust demand in Southeast Asia is refocusing the global energy landscape increasingly towards Asia,“ stated Mr. Tanaka.

[The2ndWheel]

20. "the rate of global warming considered manageable"

You know how you want to see dictatorships fail, because of the control they attempt on people?

[wtmusic]

56. A self-fulfilling prophecy

The better we get at preventing global warming, the more naysayers will say it doesn't exist - and undermine anti-GHG policy.
The long term outlook is not rosy.

[Terry in Austin]

31. Birol is tap-dancing on a tightwire

Birol doesn't need US pressure to downplay oil decline -- he already knows he has to, but he's still trying to get the public used to the idea, so he kind of hedges and splits the difference. He often ends up, as he does here, trying to have it both ways.

IEA's official projection for 2030 production levels is 105 mbpd, the basis for the 6 degree warming projection. However, he http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-fast-1766585.html">implies elsewhere that such production levels are highly improbable, given IEA-estimated decline rates of 6.7%: "the world would have to find the equivalent of four Saudi Arabias to maintain production, and six Saudi Arabias if it is to keep up with the expected increase in demand between now and 2030."

You've got to wonder: which is it going to be, Fatih?

Truth is, he's diplomat first and energy economist second. The IEA has in fact been gradually reducing their projections over the last several years, apparently with the aim of getting the world used to the awful truth about oil, while doing everything they can to keep from "scaring" those jittery markets.

[Willson1945]

33. The clog in the toilet is going to be China and India

Unfortunately, the industrial development of China and India will soon be responsible for over a third of global emissions... and they do not want to play the global warming game at the expense of economic development.

[Kablooie]

46. That would be about 10 degrees F