The IEA (International Energy Agency) has produced a remarkable and alarming report, together with IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency), warning that “unprecedented” and “unparalleled” efforts are necessary “immediately” and “across all countries” to stave off climate disaster. Yet it still sees a significant role for fossil fuels in 2050. How is this possible? Greg Muttitt, Senior Advisor at NGO Oil Change International, argues that the IEA is using very unrealistic assumptions about non-fossil fuel emissions and carbon capture and storage (CCS) to keep coal and oil in the picture. And it hides the huge emission cuts that would be required after 2050.
Recently we welcomed the first step by the International Energy Agency towards describing how energy would look for the world to meet one of the Paris Agreement goals, to keep warming well below 2°C. Specifically, it looked at emissions being limited enough to give a 2-in-3 chance of staying below 2°C. The report was co-published by IEA and its clean energy counterpart IRENA and commissioned by the German government. The two agencies are also working on a 1.5°C scenario, to be published in June.
Remarkably, the IEA foresees significant coal use in 2050, and gas barely declines from current levels
But there’s a problem with the IEA’s new climate scenario: it describes a slower decline in fossil fuels than our analysis of what the climate science actually requires. Here’s the key table:
Remarkably, the IEA foresees significant coal use in 2050, and gas barely declines from current levels. Let’s look at how the IEA reaches this outcome.
The new report starts off well: it takes the carbon budget from the IPCC, as we did in our report The Sky’s Limit: 880 gigatons (Gt) of carbon dioxide can be emitted from 2015 onwards.  But the IEA then does three things that inflate the space for fossil fuels within that budget:
- It understates the potential non-fossil fuel emissions (primarily cement and land use emissions);
- It assumes a major breakthrough in carbon capture and storage (CCS);
- It allocates a disproportionate share of the carbon budget to the pre-2050 period – deeper emissions cuts are hidden outside the period of study.
The combined effect is to inflate the emissions from fossil fuels by about 180 Gt – the equivalent to running an extra 1,500 coal plants from 2015 to 2050. Here’s how the math works:
Disappearing non-fossil emissions
The 880 Gt carbon budget is the total cumulative amount of CO2 that can be emitted from all sources in the future. While fossil fuels are the largest source of CO2 emissions, they are not the only source. The others are the calcination reaction in making cement, and land use changes (such as agriculture and deforestation). So an estimate of these other sources must be deducted from the budget, to see how much room is left for fossil fuel emissions.
The IEA’s estimate of land use emissions (zero) is only slightly smaller than ours: we estimate 20 Gt over the century (when you take into account absorption of CO2 as well as emissions – based on a median of IPCC scenarios).
The IEA sees over 600 GW of CCS-equipped power plants being installed by 2050, equivalent to nearly 20% of today’s coal and gas capacity
But the IEA assumes only 90 Gt of cement emissions over the century. Cement emissions are current 2 Gt per year; the IEA scenario projects them peaking in the 2020s and falling to 1 Gt by 2050, due to material efficiency and CCS. Our estimate is 160 Gt, based on an optimistic reading of the IEA’s own figures.  The difference can only be squared with a very optimistic assumption on CCS, to which we turn next.
So the IEA assumes that only 90 Gt of the carbon budget must be deducted, leaving 790 Gt for fossil fuels. Our already-optimistic assumptions would require 180 Gt to be deducted, and it could be a lot more than this. So at 790 Gt, fossil fuels are getting too much of the global carbon budget.
Burying carbon out of sight
The new IEA scenario assumes that CCS will be quickly ramped up in the 2020s, capturing 3 Gt per year of fossil fuel emissions by 2035, not counting the more than 1 Gt per year of cement emissions. 
This seems highly unlikely, given that both companies and governments (including the UK and theUS) have pulled out of investing in CCS in the last couple of years. The IEA itself has noted that “deployment has stalled”.  A major reason is that CCS-equipped coal or gas power – while obviously attractive to the fossil fuel industry – is significantly more expensive than wind or solar power. The IEA does not explain how it expects a turnaround to occur.
Without these distortions, the IEA would reach the same conclusion that we did in the Sky’s Limit: that there is no room for new fossil fuel development
The IEA sees over 600 GW of CCS-equipped power plants being installed by 2050, equivalent to nearly 20% of today’s coal and gas capacity. Given the long life of power stations, the IEA believes a significant portion of this will be achieved by retrofitting existing plants – which is even more expensive than installing CCS in new plants.
The effect of the IEA’s CCS assumption is to inflate the available carbon budget by around 60 Gt before 2050, and up to 200 Gt over the century, based on an expensive technological fix that has no track record to date.
Hiding emissions cuts off the page
The new report describes the energy system from 2015 to 2050. But the carbon budget stipulates how much the world can emit over all time (until atmospheric concentrations stabilise). So a key part of IEA’s calculation is to decide how much of its 790 Gt budget to allocate before 2050, and how much after. The IEA opts to save just 80 Gt of the budget for post-2050, and 710 Gt for pre-2050. 
This would require a sudden change in the rate of emissions once we reached 2050, as the graph shows.
Since the scenario forecasts only up to 2050, it understates the emissions reductions – and overstates fossil fuel use – during that period. Like a magician’s trick, the real action is happening out of sight.
If emissions fell at a steady rate after 2020, rather than postponing some reductions until after 2050, they would have to decrease by 5% per year. On this basis, the IEA’s pre-2050 carbon budget for energy would fall from 710 to 635 Gt. Compounding this with our more reasonable assumption on non-fossil emissions, we would start with an all-time budget of 880 – 180 = 700 Gt. Reducing emissions at a constant rate after 2020 would allocated 590 Gt of this to pre-2050. In comparison, the IEA has taken a pre-2050 budget of 710 Gt, and inflated it with CCS to about 770.
The IEA’s three distortions buy an extra 180 Gt for fossil fuels (see table). Over the 35 years of the scenario, that’s the equivalent of an extra 1,500 average-sized coal plants.
|(Gt CO2)||IEA Math||More realistic|
|IPCC carbon budget||880||880|
|Minus non-fossil emissions||-90||-180|
|Fossil emissions budget||790||700|
|Minus post-2050 emissions||-80||-110|
|Pre-2050 fossil emissions budget||710||590|
|Plus pre-2050 CCS||+60||+0|
|Pre-2050 fossil extraction budget||770||590|
Without these distortions, the IEA would reach the same conclusion that we did in the Sky’s Limit: that there is no room for new fossil fuel development. Instead, it calls for new investment in fossil fuels – including $200 billion a year of investment in fossil fuel extraction as late as 2050 – investment that will either be wasted or will drive devastating climate change.
Governments and investors routinely use IEA scenarios to inform energy decisions, especially the scenarios in its flagship World Energy Outlook, published every November. But as we’ve seen, even in its new climate scenario, the IEA overstates the future of fossil fuels, due to flawed assumptions and hidden distortions.
It is time for the IEA to come clean. First, the IEA must drop its outdated 450 Scenario and replace it with one in line with Paris. Second, it must fix these distortions, to give a clear picture of the action that’s really needed.
The two main publications referred to here are:
- IEA/IRENA, Perspectives for the Energy Transition, March 2017
- Oil Change International, The Sky’s Limit: Why the Paris Climate Goals Require a Managed Decline of Fossil Fuel Production, September 2016
1: IEA/IRENA, pp.45-47
2: IEA/IRENA, p.48 vs. The Sky’s Limit, Appendix 2 (based on IEA, Cement Technology Roadmap, 2009)
3: IEA/IRENA, Fig.2.4, p.63 vs. The Sky’s Limit, Appendix 3. The IEA is less optimistic than it used to be –the 2015 World Energy Outlook has 5 Gt per year captured by 2035.
4: IEA, World Energy Outlook, 2016, p.55
Greg Muttitt is Senior Advisor at Oil Change International, a research, communication, and advocacy organization focused on exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the coming transition towards clean energy. He is author of the recent report The Sky’s Limit: Why the Paris Climate Goals Require a Managed Decline of Fossil Fuel Production, and of the 2012 book Fuel on the Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq.
This article was first published by Oil Change International and is republished here with permission.
Thank you for that informative reality check.
Nigel West says
Royal Dutch Shell (RDSB) is one of the biggest players in the international gas market. Their share price has risen around 50% over the last 12 months and their dividend yield is over 5%. Glad I bought into that. Despite all the fossil fuel doom and gloom projections in this article.
R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. (ret.) says
No one knows. No one will know for many years; it may take two decades to scope this problem. And the answer may be that the human species will die out. Or prosper.
The article omits a fundamental issue. I read another article recently, from an climate expert, who claims the global climate could sustain a 10,000 PPM CO2 concentration, with little harm. IF true we, all humans, can burn coal for the coming centuries with no carbon capture. And obviously we should turn our attention to other matters, poverty, cancer, or peace among religions.
The one common universal truth is that everyone should be frugal with energy. Big shots who burn tons of jet fuel flying to conferences in vacation destinations who decry carbon combustion have no credibility. Buy more insulation for your attic. Teach the kids to turn off the lights when they leave a room. Do not be a lead foot while driving. But take carbon combustion predictions in two generations with a grain of salt.
The Trump EPA will certainly fundamentally change these predictions. They are challenging the basic science. Many rice bowls will be broken.
We shall see.
Dennis Heidner says
“The article omits a fundamental issue. I read another article recently, from an climate expert, who claims the global climate could sustain a 10,000 PPM CO2 concentration, with little harm. ”
Wow, where ever you read that.. you should be checking to see how much of the rest of the story they invented.
Easy way to test and understand the impact of high CO2 on humans, is to search for and look at the various research work around the world in support of life in a submarine. What the impact on the health of the submariners when they are running at high CO2 levels (2000ppm – 3000ppm) for hours or days at a time.
Then you ask the question — if there are issues at those levels for highly trained crews – what might the impact be on the general population at 10,000ppm.
The result should then be:
“IF true we, all humans… we should turn our attention to other matters…religion.”
The other words are left out — because at 10,000ppm, life as we know and appreciate will have changed radically just based on the biological impacts of the high CO2 levels… Eventually the bodies my evolve… but we may not resemble the humans of today.
Simple wikipedia explanation:
It works as a buffer in the blood as follows: when pH is low, the concentration of hydrogen ions is too high, so one exhales CO2. This will cause the equation to shift left, essentially decreasing the concentration of H+ ions, causing a more basic pH.
When pH is too high, the concentration of hydrogen ions in the blood is too low, so the kidneys excrete bicarbonate (HCO−
3). This causes the equation to shift right, essentially increasing the concentration of hydrogen ions, causing a more acidic pH.
Three important reversible reactions control the above pH balance:
1. H2CO3(aq) ⇌ H3O+(aq) + HCO−
2. H2CO3(aq) ⇌ CO2(aq) + H2O(l)
3. CO2(aq) ⇌ CO2(g)
Exhaled CO2(g) depletes CO2(aq), which in turn consumes H2CO3, causing the aforementioned shift left in the first reaction by Le Châtelier’s principle. By the same principle, when the pH is too high, the kidneys excrete bicarbonate (HCO−
3) into urine as urea via the urea cycle (or Krebs–Henseleit ornithine cycle). By removing the bicarbonate, more H+ is generated from carbonic acid (H2CO3), which comes from CO2(g) produced by cellular respiration.”
Are Hansen says
The IEA is doing such sloppy work that it’s loosing credibility and relevance. It has consistently underestimated the increase in wind and solar, in report after report (the estimates closest to reality seems to be the ones issued by Greenpeace).
Hopefully investors have better info than the IEA, or else they will waste a lot of money on stranded assets
Nigel West says
LoL – ‘Greenpeace close to reality’ – very timely comment for April fools day.