Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

The Hazards of EIA Energy Forecasts

Popular
The Hazards of EIA Energy Forecasts
iStock

Accepting the conclusions of the latest energy outlook, released last week by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) means also accepting certain climate catastrophe.

As we have noted before, the EIA has made a routine out of releasing unrealistic, distorted and dangerous outlooks on the future of global energy demand. These projections should come with a warning label.


Assuming this scenario will become reality also means accepting the consequences: total failure to stop dangerous climate change. It's important to read the fine print.

The EIA's reference case suggests that fossil fuels will still account for 77 percent of energy use in 2040 alongside rising energy demand. Climate science however, shows that global greenhouse gas emissions must be cut in half well before 2040 in order to have a good chance of avoiding the worst expected climate impacts (and eventually cut to zero mid-century). You can't accept one without the other.

No one can credibly claim to predict the future. However, energy modelers can test specific assumptions to gain insight into what's possible. So what assumptions were used to create the EIA's latest base-case scenario? Here's a sample:

  • Current laws and regulations, including those related to climate change, will not change from today beyond 2040.
  • Contrary to clear trends already underway, electric vehicles fail to meaningfully replace internal combustion engines (only 3 percent of global transportation projected to be electrically powered by 2040).
  • In spite of low and rapidly falling costs, renewable energy fails to meaningfully displace coal and natural gas-fired electricity.

What is the intended value of creating energy outlooks using dangerous assumptions like these? It's no wonder that the EIA reached this absurd conclusion:

'Through 2040, the IEO2017 projects increased world consumption of marketed energy from all fuel sources, except for coal demand, which is projected to remain essentially flat.'

It can be useful of course to contrast existing policy with the future we are trying to achieve to reveal the size of the gap, but that doesn't seem to be the EIA's goal here. If it was, such a comparison would feature prominently. Instead, the EIA appears to cherry-pick assumptions that would protect the fossil fuel industry from difficult questions about its viability in a low-carbon world, while failing to include a scenario which considers what reaching climate success would look like.

Of course, the EIA isn't alone in creating questionable energy outlooks seemingly designed to protect the fossil fuel industry from the difficult realities of the required energy transition. The world's largest oil companies have long been putting out self-serving outlooks to distort our view of the future to their interest. Even the highly influential International Energy Agency has repeatedly failed to put a model that centers climate safety at the heart of its World Energy Outlook.

It's no secret that our perception of the future shapes our decision-making today. The fossil fuel industry needs investors and government to believe it will continue to grow. Flawed energy scenarios make that fiction possible. This works for the fossil fuel companies, but what about the rest of us?

For anyone who actually want to use energy forecasts as a tool to inform sound decision-making, for directing investment wisely, and for meeting the obvious goal of achieving climate safety—we need outlooks with credible assumptions. It's a shame we can't trust the EIA to provide them.

A dugong, also called a sea cow, swims with golden pilot jacks near Marsa Alam, Egypt, Red Sea. Alexis Rosenfeld / Getty Images

In 2010, world leaders agreed to 20 targets to protect Earth's biodiversity over the next decade. By 2020, none of them had been met. Now, the question is whether the world can do any better once new targets are set during the meeting of the UN Convention on Biodiversity in Kunming, China later this year.

Read More Show Less

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

President Joe Biden signs executive orders in the State Dining Room at the White House on Jan. 22, 2021 in Washington, DC. Jabin Botsford / The Washington Post via Getty Images

By Andrew Rosenberg

The first 24 hours of the administration of President Joe Biden were filled not only with ceremony, but also with real action. Executive orders and other directives were quickly signed. More actions have followed. All consequential. Many provide a basis for not just undoing actions of the previous administration, but also making real advances in public policy to protect public health, safety, and the environment.

Read More Show Less

Trending

Melting ice forms a lake on free-floating ice jammed into the Ilulissat Icefjord during unseasonably warm weather on July 30, 2019 near Ilulissat, Greenland. Sean Gallup / Getty Images

A first-of-its-kind study has examined the satellite record to see how the climate crisis is impacting all of the planet's ice.

Read More Show Less
Probiotic rich foods. bit245 / iStock / Getty Images Plus

By Ana Maldonado-Contreras

Takeaways

  • Your gut is home to trillions of bacteria that are vital for keeping you healthy.
  • Some of these microbes help to regulate the immune system.
  • New research, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, shows the presence of certain bacteria in the gut may reveal which people are more vulnerable to a more severe case of COVID-19.

You may not know it, but you have an army of microbes living inside of you that are essential for fighting off threats, including the virus that causes COVID-19.

Read More Show Less
Michael Mann photo inset by Joshua Yospyn.

By Jeff Masters, Ph.D.

The New Climate War: the fight to take back our planet is the latest must-read book by leading climate change scientist and communicator Michael Mann of Penn State University.

Read More Show Less