The IEA report is causing skepticism in member countries and the fossil fuel industry

Major fossil fuel importers and global energy producers discuss International Energy Agency findings report Achieving a net zero emissions by 2050, despite the advice of the caretaker stating that they will continue with the investment in fossil fuels.

The push back highlights the debate over IEA recommendations, including suspending fossil fuel exploration and spending on new projects.

Although the IEA has said it must continue to invest in deposits already found and existing projects, critics say the body does not properly recognize the risks to future energy security. They say there is no going back if the world does not create the right low-carbon alternatives to replace the strong demand for fossil fuels.

Japan, the founding member of the IEA, has always paid close attention to the advice of the Paris-based energy watchdog, but last week’s report sparked skepticism from the economy, trade and industry ministry.

“It is true that there are some sections that the Japanese government does not agree with,” said Minister Hiroshi Kajiyama, stressing recommendations to stop new investment in fossil fuels and phase out coal.

Japan has set a target of zero emissions by 2050, but is struggling to come up with a plan for how to get there. Nuclear fuel is unpopular due to the Fukushima disaster and the country’s mountainous islands are relatively renewable. Many Japanese experts want to at least continue to burn coal and gas and rely on emissions compensation from other countries.

He entered Japan last week G7 Commitment of Environment Ministers to stop all government investment in international coal-fired power plants by the end of this year.

Australian Resources Minister Keith Pitt noted that previous IEA reports explained the greater role of coal, and said the latest scenario did not take into account enough carbon capture technology.

“Coal, oil and gas will continue to be a big part of Australia’s energy mix and export success for decades to come,” Pitt said.

Australia is using public funds to pursue a “gas recovery” policy in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and is facing international pressure to set a zero-emission net target.

The Norwegian center-right government and the main center-left opposition parties, both traditionally in favor of the IEA, have also expressed skepticism ahead of the September elections, as the future of oil is likely.

Oil Minister Tina Bru said it would not “change from a global perspective” if Norway stopped its oil activity and that Europe’s largest oil producers could produce more oil and gas than many other countries than other countries could use to power offshore renewable energy facilities.

IEA scenarios often make up for it the basis of government energy policies, and a recent bomb report on zero emissions was praised by climate groups as an important milestone.

Report determines a route Zero net emissions by 2050, where coal demand is down 90%, gas demand is down 55% and oil demand is down 75%.

IEA chief Fatih Birol directed some criticism on LinkedIn message over the weekend, the zero-net report said it was not the first time the agency had been accused of losing its bearings.

“This makes me miss what the IEA is all about,” he wrote, referring to the critic. “We have been focusing on energy for a secure and sustainable future for all for many years, which requires a transition to clean energy. A secure energy future demands that. The world destroyed by climate change will not be safe from fossil fuel emissions. “

Climate Capital

Where climate change unites businesses, markets and politics. Browse FT coverage here

Several energy associations criticized the report, including one that was considered “very practical” by the World Nuclear Association and the World Coal Association as unrealistic.

The International Gas Union, which represents the gas industry, warned that if the IEA’s zero clean sheet were to be implemented, it would pose a “serious risk” to energy security.

“We would see a significant disruption in energy supply, transportation systems, onshore and offshore supply chains, urban and plant energy suppliers, and there would be a significant increase in energy taxes,” said Andy Calitz, Secretary General of the International Gas Union.

Meanwhile, major oil and gas companies expressed skepticism about whether the steps outlined in the clean zero report would be implemented.

“It’s the stage for a piece of paper,” BP CEO Bernard Looney said at an industry conference last week. He said he respects the IEA and the importance of the report, but added that the world needs fewer scenarios and “more action”.

Reports from Leslie Hook, Anjli Raval, Robin Harding, Jamie Smyth, Richard Milne and Neil Hume.