The IEA is no longer credible and no longer functions as designated at formation. The IEA should be disbanded and all funding terminated. Tomorrow is a week late for this action.
Canada is more-liberal than the US on climate issues, and BC is perhaps the most-liberal province in Canada - but we still approved gas pipelines and and LNG terminal. Statements of direction often don't reflect actual decisions for the short-term.
You seem to be thinking folks just aren't in their right minds and are about to go over a cliff, but the BC experience suggests folks ARE in their right minds, do not want to freeze in the dark, and that gas will be replaced only at the rate that gas-fired power plants and building furnaces can be replaced, themselves.
The IEA is basically telling nations to get off their *need* for gas, so that they can - then - stop buying it.
With Germany as its role model and the UK following close behind, what could possibly be wrong with destroying your baseline power supply and doubling down on wind? Birol is the pied piper of poverty. If you listen to him, it will cost you dearly.
Where does an organization like this get its funding? Presumably from stakeholder nations. I could not find a list of stakeholder nations, but presumably these stakeholder countries are regressive and de growth, otherwise, given that it no longer follows its mission statement and purpose stakeholders should have cut off funding. Another reason we need new leadership in this country. Presumably the USA gives the most. I pray it is Trump's Energy Secretary who would deal with this in the appropriate manner.
Thanks for stopping by Richard, seems that more and more once conservative and staid and reliable institutions have gone woke. Searching terms within the IEA website yield a number of nonsensical ESG articles.
Looking forward to your next common sense article.
Great work exposing the IEA fraudsters!
The IEA is no longer credible and no longer functions as designated at formation. The IEA should be disbanded and all funding terminated. Tomorrow is a week late for this action.
Canada is more-liberal than the US on climate issues, and BC is perhaps the most-liberal province in Canada - but we still approved gas pipelines and and LNG terminal. Statements of direction often don't reflect actual decisions for the short-term.
You seem to be thinking folks just aren't in their right minds and are about to go over a cliff, but the BC experience suggests folks ARE in their right minds, do not want to freeze in the dark, and that gas will be replaced only at the rate that gas-fired power plants and building furnaces can be replaced, themselves.
The IEA is basically telling nations to get off their *need* for gas, so that they can - then - stop buying it.
With Germany as its role model and the UK following close behind, what could possibly be wrong with destroying your baseline power supply and doubling down on wind? Birol is the pied piper of poverty. If you listen to him, it will cost you dearly.
Right. Seems like they are all circling down the drain.
Thanks for stopping by Patrick!
TC
Where does an organization like this get its funding? Presumably from stakeholder nations. I could not find a list of stakeholder nations, but presumably these stakeholder countries are regressive and de growth, otherwise, given that it no longer follows its mission statement and purpose stakeholders should have cut off funding. Another reason we need new leadership in this country. Presumably the USA gives the most. I pray it is Trump's Energy Secretary who would deal with this in the appropriate manner.
Thanks for stopping by Dave, agreed!
You nailed it, TC!
Hello Roy, thanks for stopping by.
IEA "virtue signaling" perhaps?
TC
Thanks for stopping by Richard, seems that more and more once conservative and staid and reliable institutions have gone woke. Searching terms within the IEA website yield a number of nonsensical ESG articles.
Looking forward to your next common sense article.
TC