3 ms·

IEA exposes the hidden environmental costs and infeasibility of going green

9 points by Bostonian 5y ago

Bostonian 5y ago
ungated: https://archive.is/rE5zi#selection-3573.4-3573.103 https://archive.is/rE5zi#selection-3573.4-3573.103
lowercase1 5y ago
IEA has consistently underestimated solar/wind deployment and cost improvements. Predicting minimal change each year even as prices drop and deployment soars. Should we really expect them to be accurate on the mineral limitations of batteries/solar/wind? https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/11/20/iea-versus-solar-pv-reality/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/11/20/iea-versus-solar-pv-r...
dangus 5y ago
Always question where opinion articles come from, whether or not they align with your viewpoint: > Mr. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a partner in Montrose Lane, an energy-tech venture fund... The Manhattan Institute is a conservative think tank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy... The article draws heavily from the International Energy Agency (IEA), which seems to be 100% concerned with oil industry matters, and: "The IEA has been criticised for systematically underestimating the role of renewable energy sources in future energy systems such as photovoltaics and their cost reductions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency#Cr... I don't mean to say that I want to dismiss anything that's from a conservative viewpoint...however, with the headline of "Biden is making the wrong choice!" and content of "we can't possibly go green" running in Rupert Murdoch's newspaper, I can't help but think that this is another partisan opinion piece that's using cherry-picked quotes from an authoritative-sounding industry association that they know readers will mistake for a scientific or governing body. But let's put all this aside and assume it's 100% unbiased: the central argument of this article is that we'll have to mine more things in order to use renewable technologies, according to an international industry body. Is oil extraction not a form of mining? In the status quo, we have a massive global mining operation going on in order to burn oil. Considering that, it's hard not to look at this opinion as industry protectionism: someone else found "the next oil" and the oil folks are worried that they'll be stuck selling horses and buggies.
- doggodaddo78 5y ago
  WSJ is owned by the arch conservative Rupert Murdoch. Also, MSM is in the pockets of big oil and extractive industries to delay action on the climate change emergency as long as possible for profits. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

9 points by Bostonian 5y ago

ungated: https://archive.is/rE5zi#selection-3573.4-3573.103 https://archive.is/rE5zi#selection-3573.4-3573.103

IEA has consistently underestimated solar/wind deployment and cost improvements. Predicting minimal change each year even as prices drop and deployment soars. Should we really expect them to be accurate on the mineral limitations of batteries/solar/wind? https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/11/20/iea-versus-solar-pv-reality/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/11/20/iea-versus-solar-pv-r...

dangus 5y ago

Always question where opinion articles come from, whether or not they align with your viewpoint: > Mr. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a partner in Montrose Lane, an energy-tech venture fund... The Manhattan Institute is a conservative think tank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy... The article draws heavily from the International Energy Agency (IEA), which seems to be 100% concerned with oil industry matters, and: "The IEA has been criticised for systematically underestimating the role of renewable energy sources in future energy systems such as photovoltaics and their cost reductions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency#Cr... I don't mean to say that I want to dismiss anything that's from a conservative viewpoint...however, with the headline of "Biden is making the wrong choice!" and content of "we can't possibly go green" running in Rupert Murdoch's newspaper, I can't help but think that this is another partisan opinion piece that's using cherry-picked quotes from an authoritative-sounding industry association that they know readers will mistake for a scientific or governing body. But let's put all this aside and assume it's 100% unbiased: the central argument of this article is that we'll have to mine more things in order to use renewable technologies, according to an international industry body. Is oil extraction not a form of mining? In the status quo, we have a massive global mining operation going on in order to burn oil. Considering that, it's hard not to look at this opinion as industry protectionism: someone else found "the next oil" and the oil folks are worried that they'll be stuck selling horses and buggies.

doggodaddo78 5y ago
WSJ is owned by the arch conservative Rupert Murdoch. Also, MSM is in the pockets of big oil and extractive industries to delay action on the climate change emergency as long as possible for profits. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt