Saudi America?

[don]

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

The United States will overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s leading oil producer by about 2017 and will become a net oil exporter by 2030, according to a new report released on Monday by the International Energy Agency.

That increased oil production, combined with new American policies to improve energy efficiency, means that the United States will become “all but self-sufficient” in meeting its energy needs in about two decades — a “dramatic reversal of the trend” in most developed countries, the report says.

“The foundations of the global energy systems are shifting,” said Fatih Birol, chief economist at the Paris-based organization, which produces the annual World Energy Outlook, in an interview before the release. The agency, which advises industrialized nations on energy issues, had previously predicted that Saudi Arabia would be the leading producer until 2035.

The report also predicted that global energy demand would grow by 35 percent to 46 percent between 2010 and 2035, depending on whether policies that have been proposed are actually put in place. Most of that growth will come from China, India and the Middle East, where the consuming class is growing rapidly. The consequences are “potentially far reaching” for global energy markets and trade, the report said.

Dr. Birol noted, for example, that Middle Eastern oil once bound for the United States would probably be rerouted to China. American-mined coal, facing declining demand in its home market, is already heading to Europe and China instead.

There are several components of the sudden shift in the world’s energy supply, but the prime mover is a resurgence of oil and gas production in the United States, particularly the unlocking of new reserves of oil and gas found in shale rock. The widespread adoption of techniques such as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling has made those reserves much more accessible, and in the case of natural gas, resulted in a vast glut that has sent prices plunging.

The report predicted that the United States would overtake Russia as the leading producer of natural gas in 2015.

The strong statements and specific predictions by the energy agency lend new weight to trends that have become increasingly apparent in the last year.

“This striking conclusion confirms a lot of recent projections,” said Michael Levi, senior fellow for energy and environment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Formed in 1974 after the oil crisis by a group of oil-importing nations, including the United States, the International Energy Agency monitors and analyzes global energy trends to insure safe and sustainable supply.

Mr. Levi said that the I.E.A. report was generally “good news” for the United States because it highlights the nation’s new sources of energy. But he cautioned that being self-sufficient did not mean that the country would be insulated from seesawing energy prices, since those oil prices are set by global markets.

“You may be somewhat less vulnerable to price shocks and the U.S. may be slightly more protected, but it doesn’t give you the energy independence some people claim,” he said.

Also, he noted, the agency’s projection of United States self-sufficiency assumed that the country would push ahead with improving gas mileage in cars and energy efficiency in homes and appliances. “It’s supply and demand together that adds up to this striking conclusion,” Mr. Levi said.

Dr. Birol said the agency’s prediction of increasing American self-sufficiency was 55 percent a reflection of more oil production and 45 percent a reflection of improving energy efficiency in the United States, primarily from the Obama administration’s new fuel economy standards for cars. He added that even stronger policies to promote energy efficiency were needed in the United States and many other countries.

The report said that several other factors could also have a large impact on world energy markets over the next few years. These include the recovery of the Iraqi oil industry, which would lead to new supply, and the decision by some countries, notably Germany and Japan, to move away from nuclear energy in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.

The new energy sources will help the United States economy, Dr. Birol said, providing continued cheap energy relative to the rest of the world. The I.E.A. estimates that electricity prices will be about 50 percent cheaper in the United States than in Europe, largely because of a rise in the number of power plants fueled by cheap natural gas, helping American industries and consumers.

But the message is more sobering for the planet, in terms of climate change. Although natural gas is frequently promoted for being relatively low in carbon emissions compared to oil or coal, the new global energy market could make it even harder to prevent dangerous levels of warming.

The United States’ reduced reliance on coal will just mean that coal moves to other places, the report says. And the use of coal, now the dirtiest fuel, continues to rise elsewhere. China’s coal demand will peak around 2020 and then stay steady until 2035, the report predicted, and in 2025, India will overtake the United States as the world’s second-largest coal user.

The report warns that no more than one-third of the proven reserves of fossil fuels should be used by 2050 to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, as many scientists recommend.

Such restraint is extremely unlikely without a binding international treaty by 2017 that requires countries to limit the growth of their emissions, Dr. Birol said. He added that pushing ahead with technologies that could capture and store carbon dioxide was also crucial.

“The report confirms that, given the current policies, we will blow past every safe target for emissions,” Mr. Levi said. “This should put to rest the idea that the boom in natural gas will save us from that.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/bu...gewanted=print

[zoog]

Re: Saudi America?

I wonder, what color is the sky in their world? Natural gas is gonna be cheap and available forever, yay! Just like housing always goes up...

[don]

Re: Saudi America?

I wonder, what color is the sky in their world? Natural gas is gonna be cheap and available forever, yay! Just like housing always goes up...

Location, location, location , , , but where's all the sand?

[Ghent12]

Re: Saudi America?

I wonder, what color is the sky in their world? Natural gas is gonna be cheap and available forever, yay! Just like housing always goes up...

Hopefully there won't be any government mandates along the lines of forcing suppliers to lend natural gas to sub-prime credit risks. So long as the price is allowed to fluctuate to help coordinate supply with demand, and so long as speculators are allowed to carry the risks of price shocks, then there really will be natural gas that is relatively cheap for decades.

[Ghent12]

Re: Saudi America?

Goodbye, peak cheap oil, we hardly knew ye.

[don]

Re: Saudi America?

for decades we've heard of the desperate need to be free of foreign oil

Free! Free! Free at Last . . . .

leaving us to wonder what it will be like, and what life will be like once it's here

[DRumsfeld2000]

Re: Saudi America?

From what I have read my understanding is that Saudi Arabia produces 11m/bd and the USA consumes around 20m/bd. So where does the other 9m/bd for self sufficiency come from? I also understand that it costs less than $5b to extract in the Middle East whilst I would imagine that shale oil will be like oil sand production where you need at least $60b.
As for natural gas, shale gas costs about $8, with a market price of about $2. Shale gas wells need a lot of water and the USA is starting to feel the effects of mass water extraction and lower levels of rainfall. Also these gas wells have a short term high output and then rapid production decline.
Maybe technology will change all of this.

[gnk]

Re: Saudi America?

There's a big difference between stock and flows. The US is no Saudi Arabia in terms of oil stock. You can't change what you have, but you can change how much of it you use in any given time frame. I think the US is preparing for war and needs to ramp up domestic production to soften future supply shocks. The US can't rely on Venezuela. Canada yes, but Mexico could be a problem when its economy gets hit really bad in a global war scenario. Mexico is bordering on failed state status.

This is why I don't see China becoming a true Superpower. It has very little oil/energy compared to the size of its economy. Historically speaking, nation states evolved along the lines of being able to feed themselves. No food, no country. Now we will see the next phase. No energy - no independence - alliance reliance becomes goal #1. It's going to become a different ballgame now. There will be a strong energy component to alliances.

Unlike the Middle East oil producing states, Russia is no puppet government. Militarily, Russia may not be as strong as the US, but it will be the next most influential country in the world due to it's oil and geopolitical relevance. It straddles the EU and China and the Caspian Sea, and has nat gas and oil. It can strongly affect the outcome of a global conflict.

[santafe2]

Re: Saudi America?

The report warns that no more than one-third of the proven reserves of fossil fuels should be used by 2050 to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, as many scientists recommend.

No one cares. He said, she said. Scientist's data vs. denier rhetoric. There is about 1 degree of separation between US conservatives and liberals. Liberals don't care about the environment if they have to stop driving their BMWs. Conservatives don't care about conserving if they actually have to conserve. There are 2 degrees Celsius built into the current climate pipeline.

Good for us. The US has all the fossil energy we need. Great leadership. Great stewardship.We plan to use every molecule of fossil energy we can extract and we will use it as quickly as we can extract and process it. New York should build the $5B sea wall in a fashion where they can add to it. As I said earlier, New York should take a lesson from New Orleans. No one cares. Years after that sad city is gone, the last idiot will stop working on a sea wall around NYC.

Anyone who has worked a long time in business understands that the walking dead continue to shuffle forth much longer than any sane person could predict. I've lived long enough to understand that one can see the end of a poorly run corporation or country economy five to ten years before it actually folds under. Extrapolate that to climate. The downturn will be multi-generational in its length and include the bonus of variability that humans find confusing. But now that the US is planning its return to the podium of world leadership through the avenue of traditional energy I'm sure humanity in the multi-billions are in deep trouble. This will be a long, difficult century.

[don]

Re: Saudi America?

There's a big difference between stock and flows. The US is no Saudi Arabia in terms of oil stock. You can't change what you have, but you can change how much of it you use in any given time frame. I think the US is preparing for war and needs to ramp up domestic production to soften future supply shocks. The US can't rely on Venezuela. Canada yes, but Mexico could be a problem when its economy gets hit really bad in a global war scenario. Mexico is bordering on failed state status.

This is why I don't see China becoming a true Superpower. It has very little oil/energy compared to the size of its economy. Historically speaking, nation states evolved along the lines of being able to feed themselves. No food, no country. Now we will see the next phase. No energy - no independence - alliance reliance becomes goal #1. It's going to become a different ballgame now. There will be a strong energy component to alliances.

Unlike the Middle East oil producing states, Russia is no puppet government. Militarily, Russia may not be as strong as the US, but it will be the next most influential country in the world due to it's oil and geopolitical relevance. It straddles the EU and China and the Caspian Sea, and has nat gas and oil. It can strongly affect the outcome of a global conflict.

+1

China will be constrained by its relatively puny military reach. It is dependent on a host of foreigh energy sources it cannot defend, short of nuclear war. Ramping up Asian landmass deals would seem paramount.

Russia holds both powerful energy export cards, especially with Europe, and has enough of a military - no where near the force projection equal of the US - and a nuclear capability sufficient to stay in the game.

Germany, for all the loose talk of a IV Reich winning Europe through finance, can only go as far as their armed forces allows. The army may still be less than 100,000 strong. No publicly acknowledged nuclear capability and remains occupied by US armed forces.

I think the US is preparing for war

Military action against Venezuela can't be ruled out. Short of a nuclear standoff, who could intervene?

There will be a strong energy component to alliances.

So true. Been true for a couple of centuries.

[bill]

Re: Saudi America?

There's a big difference between stock and flows. The US is no Saudi Arabia in terms of oil stock. You can't change what you have, but you can change how much of it you use in any given time frame. I think the US is preparing for war and needs to ramp up domestic production to soften future supply shocks. The US can't rely on Venezuela. Canada yes, but Mexico could be a problem when its economy gets hit really bad in a global war scenario. Mexico is bordering on failed state status.

This is why I don't see China becoming a true Superpower. It has very little oil/energy compared to the size of its economy. Historically speaking, nation states evolved along the lines of being able to feed themselves. No food, no country. Now we will see the next phase. No energy - no independence - alliance reliance becomes goal #1. It's going to become a different ballgame now. There will be a strong energy component to alliances.

Fuel contracts signed with?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/kin...nit-2012-10-17

10-17-2012-- Construction continues on the approximately $430 million Battleground Oil Specialty Terminal (BOSTCO) located on the Houston Ship Channel. The first phase of the project includes construction of 52 storage tanks that will have a capacity of 6.6 million barrels for handling residual fuels and other black oil terminal services. Terminal service agreements or letters of intent have been executed with customers for almost all of the capacity. Commercial operations are expected to begin in the third quarter of 2013.

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...496#post219496

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...14898#poststop


First stop Thailand, Myanmar and ASEAN.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/nati...-30194201.html

11-13-2012
Thailand and the United States will revive and strengthen their security and military cooperation during the visit to Bangkok by Defence Secretary Leon Panetta this week and President Barack Obama next week. The US is "rebalancing" its security focus on the Asia Pacific to counter the rise of China.

[don]

Re: Saudi America?

on that note our full plate of energy news continues . . .

Russia Anticipates Boom in Oil Extracted From Shale

By ANDREW E. KRAMER


TALLINSKY, RUSSIA — For decades, a little-known Cold War technological race played out in the oil fields of the United States and Russia: a race not into space, but deep underground.

The superpowers were searching for a means of extracting oil and natural gas from highly impermeable geological formations like shale rock, a potentially abundant source of petroleum, as the shale boom in the United States today is showing.

The long U.S. struggle to unlock so-called tight rock deposits is well documented. The Soviet effort is less so, though it included, as in the United States, a secretive program that led to the detonation of a nuclear device in a tight rock formation, an engineering approach that ultimately failed.

The industry eventually settled on hydraulic fracturing — the technique of pumping a gelatinous liquid made from the flour of guar into a well. Guar is a starchy grain that grows in India. Under high pressure, this pudding-like mixture opens up cracks to release the oil and natural gas trapped in the rock more efficiently than any bomb.

Russia, the world’s largest energy exporting nation, had set aside its efforts to extract oil and natural gas from tight rocks because it had other reservoirs that were easier to tap. But it is now again jumping back into the race to pump so-called unconventional oil deposits.

“They have a tremendous amount of oil in the ground that is very accessible,” said Tom Reed, the chief financial officer for Ruspetro, an independent oil company that specializes in one type of challenging oil deposit in Siberia that stumped a generation of Soviet geologists.

The trick this time is not competition, but imitation. Oil service companies are importing technologies like fracturing for what some energy analysts say will become a shale oil boom in Russia to rival what has happened in North America.

“By necessity, Americans have gotten really good at squeezing the last drop of oil out of rock,” said Mr. Reed, a Californian who got his start in business in Russia trading distressed debt in the 1990s.


Shell Bets on a Colossal Floating Liquefied Natural Gas Factory Off Australia

By STANLEY REED

THE HAGUE — At a shipyard on a South Korean island called Geoje, an army of welders and metal cutters is beginning to assemble what is by many measures the largest ship ever made.

It will span 488 meters, or about 1,600 feet — about one-third longer than the longest United States aircraft carriers. The vessel, the first of its type, will spend much of its time in one place, over a natural gas field called Prelude, about 120 miles off the coast of Australia. The gargantuan craft’s majority owner is Royal Dutch Shell. Minority partners include Korea Gas.

Perhaps more than any of its rivals, Shell has bet its future on natural gas. That is where the giant ship fits in. It will house what is usually a huge, land-based apparatus for chilling natural gas to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit to liquefy it so it can be transported by another specialized ship.

Shell has equity stakes amounting to about 30 percent of the world’s liquefied natural gas volume, according to the company. Gas used to be sold through fixed contracts, but fast-growing liquefied natural gas is making it into a commodity like oil that can be shipped just about anywhere. Prelude should help the company further expand that franchise.

Since the 1990s, Shell and other companies have explored putting liquefied natural gas factories on ships, a concept that has the dual advantage of reaching remote locations and avoiding the environmental concerns of land construction. In those years, Shell considered floating factories for a field called Kudu, off Namibia in West Africa, and another called Nwa/Doro, off Nigeria. Neither project came to fruition.

When Shell discovered a gas field in an area called the Browse Basin off northwestern Australia in 2007, it thought it finally had the right place.

The Prelude field and one nearby called Concerto are big but not monsters. Each contains about three trillion cubic feet of gas reserves — about what Britain consumes in a year.

That figure is below the rule of thumb of five or six trillion cubic feet that has been thought to be the minimum to warrant constructing an onshore processing plant. Prelude’s distance from shore also argued for putting the processing on a ship rather than on land.

“The size and remote location makes an ideal development for floating L.N.G.,” says Marjan van Loon, a Shell vice president for liquefied natural gas.

When the hull and another huge piece of equipment called the turret, being built in Dubai, are finished, they will be towed to the gas field and fixed there by huge anchor cables. Prelude is expected to start producing by 2017; it could be beaten to market by other entries like one by Petronas, the Malaysian oil company.

The vessel, which will be able to house as many as 400 people, is expected to remain on the site for 25 years. Then, after refurbishment, it could be recycled for use at another field.


With China and India Ravenous for Energy, Coal’s Future Seems Assured




By PETER GALUSZKA

RICHMOND, Va. — Last summer, nearly half of India’s sweltering population suddenly found the electricity shut off. Air-conditioners whirred to a stop. Refrigerators ceased cooling. The culprits were outmoded power generation stations and a creaky electricity transmission grid.

But another problem stood out. India relies on coal for 55 percent of its electric power and struggles to keep enough on hand.
Coal remains a critical component of the world’s energy supply despite its bad image. In China, demand for coal in 2010 resulted in a traffic jam 75 miles long caused by more than 10,000 trucks carrying supplies from Inner Mongolia. India is increasing coal imports.

So is Europe, as it takes advantage of lower coal prices in the United States. Higher-priced natural gas on the Continent is creating demand for more coal imports from the United States, where coal is taking a drubbing from less expensive natural gas.
Coal may seem an odd contender in a world where promising renewable energy sources like solar, wind and hydroelectric power are attracting attention. Anathema to environmentalists because it creates so much pollution, coal still has the undeniable advantages of being widely available and easy to ship and burn.

The biggest attraction, however, is low cost. By many estimates, including that of Li Junfeng, longtime director general of the National Development and Reform Commission of China, burning coal still costs about one-third as much as using renewable energy like wind or solar.

Coal is not subject to the vagaries of windless or sunless days, and can easily meet base-load demands of electricity consumers without interruption. So can nuclear power, but the nuclear industry is still reeling from the March 2011 disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan. Countries like Germany have turned away from nuclear reactors.

Global demand for coal is expected to grow to 8.9 billion tons by 2016 from 7.9 billion tons this year, with the bulk of new demand — about 700 million tons — coming from China, according to a Peabody Energy study. China is expected to add 240 gigawatts, the equivalent of adding about 160 new coal-fired plants to the 620 operating now, within four years. During that period, India will add an additional 70 gigawatts through more than 46 plants.

“If you poke your head outside of the U.S., coal-fired plants are being built left and right,” said William L. Burns, an energy analyst with Johnson Rice in New Orleans. “Coal is still the cheapest fuel source.”

Besides strong demand for thermal coal, which is burned in power plants, use of metallurgical coal or coking coal, used in blast furnaces, is also expected to more than double in China, to about 1.7 billion metric tons by 2016, as the country’s steel mills churn out more steel for automobiles, skyscrapers and export goods, the Peabody study says.

Coking coal will be increasingly in demand in other steel centers like Brazil and India, pushing coal companies to scrounge for new reserves in places like Botswana, Mongolia and Mozambique.

In all, coal use is expected to increase 50 percent by 2035, said Milton Catelin, chief executive of the World Coal Association in London.

“Last year, coal represented 30 percent of world energy, and that’s the highest share it has had since 1969,” he said.
Within a year or two, coal will surpass oil as the planet’s primary fuel, Mr. Catelin predicted.

For now, coal seems to be sidestepping a serious potential impediment to its use: international accords restricting greenhouse gas emissions. So far, such agreements to prevent climate change have been ineffective.

[don]

Re: Saudi America?

push back and containment . . .

‘Social Risk’ Test Ordered by China for Big Projects

By KEITH BRADSHER

BEIJING — The cabinet of China has ordered that all major industrial projects must pass a “social risk assessment” before they begin, a move aimed at curtailing the large and increasingly violent environmental protests of the last year, which forced the suspension or cancellation of chemical plants, coal-fired power plants and a giant copper smelter.

The announcement came at a news conference on Monday held in conjunction with the 18th Party Congress, at which several senior officials addressed social issues ahead of the once-in-a decade transition of power in the Chinese leadership.

“No major projects can be launched without social risk evaluations,” Zhou Shengxian, the environment minister, said at the news conference. “By doing so, I hope we can reduce the number of mass incidents in the future.”

When the protests began, they drew mostly middle-age and older Chinese who had little to lose if the police put disparaging remarks about them into the files that the government maintains on every citizen. But over the past several months, angry youths have gathered from several towns and have used social media to coordinate their activities during clashes with security forces — trends that are certain to have dismayed the country’s political leadership.

The national government had previously said on several occasions that it was studying ways to conduct social risk evaluations, and the current Five-Year Plan through 2015 calls for a mechanism to be created to make such assessments. Some local and provincial governments already have procedures for assessing whether a community will reject a planned project, separate from environmental risk assessments.

But Mr. Zhou is the first to say that the cabinet, known as the State Council, has actually ordered that no more major projects be started without a social risk assessment, said Ma Jun, the director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, one of the best-known environmental groups in Beijing.

Mr. Zhou also noted that effective Sept. 1, all government agencies in China had been ordered to make public all environmental impact assessments by posting them on the Internet, with a description of what the government planned to do about the assessments. The decision was announced at the time, but received limited attention.

Mr. Zhou said that mass protests tended to happen because of one or more of the mistakes that the government now intends to remedy. These mistakes involve projects that start without official approval, without proper environmental impact assessments and without an assessment of community sentiment, he said, and weak local governments may also be a factor.

He did not provide a description of how social risk assessments would be conducted, but he indicated that they would involve looking at the likelihood that a project would set off a public backlash.

Societies inevitably become more aware of environmental issues as they develop, and this is happening in China, Mr. Zhou said. He took a fairly sympathetic tone toward the protesters, changing tack only once, when he used a derogatory term for those who object only to the proximity of a project and not to its environmental fundamentals.

“We are beginning to see a ‘not in my backyard’ phenomenon,” he said.

Each new protest in recent months has set off frenzied national discussions on Sina Weibo, the popular Chinese microblogging site, soaring repeatedly to the top of the list of most-searched subjects.

China has led the world in economic growth for the past three decades, but it has paid a heavy environmental price. Acrid smog coats most large Chinese cities for much of the year, while many lakes and rivers are contaminated with heavy metals and toxic chemicals.

Thousands of young protesters fought with the riot police for two nights in early July in Shifang, in western China, prompting the local government to announce the cancellation of a giant copper smelter that was seen by the demonstrators as a pollution threat. The government also issued a public warning on the Internet that any further protests would be met with force.

But the next night, the largest crowd yet gathered to demand the release of dozens of protesters detained during the two previous nights, and the local government backed down and released them.

Many environmental officials in China want the introduction of social risk assessments because protests against industrial projects often involve broader issues than just the environment and may extend to questions like whether the land for the project was lawfully obtained with proper compensation for its previous owners, Mr. Ma said.

Powerful vested interests often have stakes in projects, and they have far more influence than local environmental officials. But when projects set off rioting, environmental regulators tend to be blamed for having allowed construction to begin.

“The environmental agencies feel they have been put under too much pressure, beyond the authority they’ve got,” Mr. Ma said.
At the news conference on Monday, other senior officials also described problems with surprising candor, although always careful to say how they planned to address the problems.

Zhu Zhixin, a vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said that many citizens found it hard to afford medical care at big hospitals in large cities, despite rapid moves in the past decade to introduce at least some health insurance for 95 percent of the population. The government is trying to expand the availability of clinics and other medical institutions in smaller cities and towns, he said.

Jiang Weixin, the minister of housing and urban and rural development, said the government was not ready to relax its strict real estate regulations, which are aimed at discouraging speculation to improve housing affordability. Developers have been complaining that the rules, including limits on the purchase of second and subsequent apartments, have depressed demand and hurt the construction industry.

[GRG55]

Re: Saudi America?

...The United States will overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s leading oil producer by about 2017 and will become a net oil exporter by 2030, according to a new report released on Monday by the International Energy Agency...

The completely hopeless macro forecasting track record of the IEA makes Jim Cramer look like a brilliant stock picker.

If the IEA says the USA will become a net oil exporter by 2030 you can be all but certain it'll never come close to happening...and the IEA, never one for original or bold thinking, will flip-flop its forecasts from joy to gloom and back again several more times during the intervening years.

"...A surge in unconventional supplies, mainly from light tight oil in the United States and oil sands in Canada, natural gas liquids, and a jump in deepwater production in Brazil, push non-OPEC production up after 2015 to a plateau above 53 mb/d, from under 49 mb/d in 2011. This is maintained until the mid-2020s, before falling back..."

Wow. All that effort and money for a whopping 8% production increase.

Over time the IEA has reduced itself to nothing more than an institutional sycophant producing publications designed to flatter and azz-kiss bureaucrats in the governments that fund it by reinforcing and lending legitimacy to their already established policy inclinations.Here's a small sampling of what doubtless brings ecstasy to every self-serving government hack wedded to the notion that the world will surely be a better place if only they could screw with energy markets a bit more than the subsidy filled mess they have already made:

"...Our Efficient World Scenario shows how tackling the barriers to energy efficiency investment can unleash this potential and realise huge gains for energy security, economic
growth and the environment...We propose policy principles that can turn the Efficient World Scenario into reality. Although the specific steps will vary by country and by sector, there are six broad areas that need to be addressed. Energy efficiency needs to be made clearly visible, by strengthening the measurement and disclosure of its economic gains. The profile of energy efficiency needs to be raised, so that efficiency concerns are integrated into decision making throughout government, industry and society. Policy makers need to improve the affordability of energy efficiency, by creating and supporting business models, financing vehicles and incentives to ensure that investors reap an appropriate share of the rewards. By deploying a mix of regulations to discourage the least-efficient approaches and incentives to deploy the most efficient, governments can help push energy-efficient technologies into the mainstream. Monitoring, verification and enforcement activities are essential to realise expected energy savings. These steps would need to be underpinned by greater investment in energy efficiency governance and administrative capacity at all levels..."

Can we stand more?

"...Energy efficiency can keep the door to 2 °C open for just a bit longer...Our 450 Scenario examines the actions necessary to achieve this goal and finds that almost four-fifths of the CO2 emissions allowable by 2035 are already locked-in by existing power plants, factories, buildings, etc. If action to reduce CO2 emissions is not taken before 2017, all the allowable CO2 emissions would be locked-in by energy infrastructure existing at that time. Rapid deployment of energy-efficient technologies – as in our Efficient World Scenario – would postpone this complete lock-in to 2022, buying time to secure a much needed global agreement to cut greenhouse-gas emissions..."

Didn't we do that global agreement thing already? The 1997 Kyoto Protocol? What makes the IEA think another decade of taxpayer funded conferences in exotic global cities is going to make any real difference?

[santafe2]

Re: Saudi America?

Didn't we do that global agreement thing already? The 1997 Kyoto Protocol? What makes the IEA think another decade of taxpayer funded conferences in exotic global cities is going to make any real difference?

Sad that the big money is lining up on both sides now. Big fossil fuel money vs. big green energy money. The 99.99% are in the middle and it won't be good for most.