IEA falls short of an Energy Revolution needed to avert catastrophic climate change

"The IEA report may see no shortage of oil and gas resources over the coming decades, but there is another resource which does have a limit - the world's climate. The IEA has produced an example of what not to do. In failing to keep temperature rise below 2 degrees, it shows that in fact we should not be investing in new fossil fuel exploration and production infrastructure, but in renewable power and the smart use of energy instead," said Sven Teske, Greenpeace International's Senior Energy Expert.

The latest version of Greenpeace's 'Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook', produced in conjunction with the European Renewable Energy Council, shows how renewable energy, combined with greater energy efficiency, can reduce global energy-related CO2 emissions from today's 28 billion tonnes to 20.9 billion tonnes by 2030 - half of the emissions from the IEA's reference scenario in the same year. Using the same assumptions for economic growth, fuel costs and population development as the IEA, the Greenpeace scenario also includes long-term projections to 2050 - with a 50% CO2 cut and a complete fossil fuel phase-out by 2090.

Key Differences

• The most ambitious (450 ppm) IEA scenario results in an emission peak by 2020. The Energy [R]evolution scenario achieves the 2015 peak that the UN International Panel on Climate Change says is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change.
• The most ambitious IEA scenario brings emissions from energy use down to 25.7 gigatonnes per year in 2030. The Energy [R]evolution reduces these emissions by a further 20%, 20.9 gigatonnes per year, almost half the business as usual emissions.
• The most ambitious IEA scenario relies on unsustainable nuclear power and unproven carbon capture and storage (CCS). The Energy [R]evolution phases out nuclear power and incorporates only proven technologies.
• Energy demand for power generation in the most ambitious IEA scenario and the Energy [R]evolution is almost the same, but the Energy [R]evolution shows that energy demand for the heating, transport and industry sectors could be 13.2% lower.

Key Issues

• There are currently no commercial CCS plants operating or planned, yet the IEA believes two to three coal-fired power plants equipped with CCS will be brought online every month between now and 2030. 
• The projected uptake of nuclear energy in the alternative IEA scenarios is equally unrealistic, requiring the grid connection of a new nuclear reactor every month until 2030, a volume far beyond the nuclear industry's capacity.

"A renewable energy pathway is good for both the planet and the economy. Under business as usual, the IEA projects an investment of US$ 13.6 trillion in the power sector up to 2030. In comparison, the Greenpeace scenario costs only 8% more, but saves more than US$ 18 trillion in fuel cost," added Teske.

To illustrate what an energy revolution means, Greenpeace has opened a climate rescue station in Poland today, urging the Polish government to quit coal ahead of the Poznan climate talks. In October 2008, Greenpeace Poland released a national Energy [R]evolution scenario showing that, despite coal industry claims to the contrary, Poland does not need to base its energy production on coal. The report illustrates how, by 2050, Poland will be able to generate 80% of its electricity from renewable resources, such as wind and solar power.