Energy Crisis Is a Taste of What the IEA Has in Store for Us


By Paul Homewood

Biden may call it the “Putin price hike”, but the root cause of our energy crisis has been festering for a few years now.

Tilak Doshi details how the oil and gas sector in the West has been starved of investment in this Forbes article. Governmental climate policies, pressure on banks from governments, central banks and regulators not to lend to fossil fuel companies, the activities of eco-activist investors, woke hedge funds and judicial decisions have all contributed to a gradual decline in new investment.

Instead oil companies are happier using surplus cash for dividends and share buy backs, or plough money into the heavily subsidised green trough. Anything for an easy life!

Unsurprisingly then supplies are tight and prices rocketing.

But at the moment the imbalance is still tiny – after all we can still buy the stuff. The frightening thing is that this major shock to the global economy is just a taster of what the Climate Alarmist Cult has in store for us.

We just need to recall what the IEA proposed last year:

And here it was from the horse’s mouth:

An immediate ban on all new oil and gas projects would be absolutely catastrophic for global energy markets.

According to the anti-fossil fuel Global Witness, such a ban would quickly lead to substantial cuts in production. By 2030, it will have fallen by 40%:

It does not take an Einstein to work out the effect this would have on markets, prices and consumers. Not least when world demand would have continued to rise, Paris Agreement or no Paris Agreement.

It would be impossible to predict how much prices would rise, as we would be in totally uncharted territory. What is certain though is that those who could not afford energy would have to go without.

Those of us old enough will recall the oil crisis of 1974, caused by the oil embargo, which followed the Arab-Israeli War. Global prices tripled, yet curiously global oil production actually rose slightly in 1974, (though for some reason fell by 5% in 1975). Nevertheless we were on the verge of petrol rationing in the UK; I still remember getting ration coupons.

Less memorable, for some reason, was the 1979 oil crisis, precipitated by the Iranian revolution, which led to a 4% decline in oil output. Crude oil prices doubled, and there were fuel shortages and long queues at petrol stations. This energy crisis was in large part responsible for the global recession of the early 1980s.

But both of these short term crises were tea parties compared to the global shock which the IEA’s policies would instigate. Those earlier crises were quickly nipped in the bud by new oil fields being brought on stream to make up for shortages. Global oil production, for instance, was already 22% higher in 1979 than it had been in 1972, before the Arab- Israeli War.

But in the IEA’s world, there will be no such recovery, only a long, continued contraction. In the IEA’s fantasy world, none of this matters because we will get all of the energy we need from wind and solar power.

But in the real world the results will be cataclysmic. So far we have only been talking about abstract numbers, but with such a collapse in the supply of energy however, the effects will go way beyond a hit to our wallets, or even a bit of rationing.  There will inevitably be civil disorder and riots, poverty and starvation. Societies will be destabilised and governments overthrown.

And all in the name of a baseless fear.

Fortunately, I suspect that most of the world will refuse to follow the West down its suicidal path. But if they were ever in any doubt, the past 12 months have surely been a warning of what lies in store.

4.9 34 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 12, 2022 6:06 am

A problem that politicians have is that they think they can snap their fingers and their desired result appears in an instant. Basically, the central planners have a distorted view of reality and are actually terrible at planning.

Reply to  Scissor
June 12, 2022 6:45 am

Planners direct others through a process. Planners themselves never write plans, because they don’t have expertise in any discipline. All they know is what a planning process should look like.

Reply to  Bruce
June 12, 2022 3:23 pm

Exactly ! Never more so noticeable in municipal land use planning.

Reply to  Scissor
June 12, 2022 9:29 am

A bit like the king of Siam in Kismet…”let it be said, let it be done.”

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Slowroll
June 12, 2022 1:15 pm

A bit like Elon Musk who “predicts” that fully autonomous self-driving cars will be available “in 2 years”, in the belief that his announcing it will spur his staff on to finally eliminate the known complex hazards. Pigs might fly too!

Reply to  Mike Lowe
June 12, 2022 3:26 pm

There’s a limit to human resourcefulness and since the miniaturisation of the chip nothing much of a breakthrough in anything significant has occurred. Peak intelligence may have already passed.

Reply to  Streetcred
June 13, 2022 6:50 am

Peak intelligence may have already passed.

Given we’ve (collectively) outsourced most of our thinking to our personal electronic devices, I would bet it has.

R Terrell
Reply to  TonyG
June 16, 2022 11:04 am

Especially when you consider that most ‘thinking’ is, in reality, nothing more than a fantasy.

Reply to  Streetcred
June 13, 2022 7:39 am

“Nothing much of a breakthrough.”
“The internet of things” has been a major breakthrough.

My sister and her husband traveled several states over to help his family with some stuff. She had to be some place to sign papers at a specific time, but her car would not start.

She called me for advice. I asked her address, and address of destination, and hailed her an Uber – this was the second time I had used uber.

One phone call, and $20, and she was transported from point A to point B in an unknown town.

Lithium batteries. Long story, but I got off trail in national forest and could not pick it back up by disk. Called rescue. They located me by cell signal. They kept calling me across the 2 hours it took to locate me in person. On my lithium battery phone.

Reply to  Mike Lowe
June 13, 2022 5:37 am

Elon Musk’s pigs are already in space!

All we need now is Prince “wing nut” Charly and his misses- Piggy, with maybe a quick muppet fanfare for princess nutnutz..and we can all have some proper entertainment.

R Terrell
Reply to  Slowroll
June 16, 2022 11:03 am

Reminds me of MY favorite saying: “After all is said and done, a whole lot MORE is said, than done.” It fully describes ALL business meetings!

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Scissor
June 12, 2022 10:32 am

Is it possible their plan to destroy the West is working “purrr-fectly” as “a crisis- [real or created]- is
a terrible thing to waste” since it gets scared people to voluntarily lock themselves in a prison for
protection from the “enemy” that lurks outside?

Last edited 23 days ago by Old Man Winter
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Scissor
June 12, 2022 10:57 am

Hayek referred to it as the ‘Fatal Conceit’. All ‘elites’, not just politicians, share the specious idea that they, and a relative handful of their peers, can make better economic decisions than the vast multitude of people can make working within the framework of free markets,

George Daddis
Reply to  Scissor
June 13, 2022 6:38 am

The epitome of this insanity is a pro “green energy” Facebook ad that has been running for several weeks (and this is an exact quote of the entire message):

“How can we make more variable energy sources like solar and wind more reliable?
The answer lies in INVENTING new ways to store energy longer “ (my caps)

This is a flat out admission they do not yet have the technology to make the very transition that they are advocating.

However in addition to snapping their fingers they want you to make financial donations so they can run more “pro green” ads..

David Elstrom
June 12, 2022 6:11 am

All of which is to say that government, rather than working to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the people, is working against the people. One thing is certain. The elite will get all the heat, light, power, luxury housing, gourmet food, limos, private jets, and other luxuries it desires. Sacrifices are for the Deplorables.

Reply to  David Elstrom
June 12, 2022 8:39 am

If we’re going to go all egalitarian, limos and private jets need to be banned, which would include the ban of use of military aircraft by politicians. Helicopters would be OK since they tend to be riskier. Otherwise, they can walk, bike or take an Uber like everyone else.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Scissor
June 12, 2022 9:28 am

We’ve already seen Mayor Pete’s attempt at bike riding. If I remember right, the SUV dropped him off about 2 blocks from his destination and he rode the bike the rest of the way. It’s good thing our Secretary of Transportation is showing us how to decarbonize :<)

Reply to  Joe Crawford
June 12, 2022 9:59 am

I’m not sure there’s anything good to say about him.

Reply to  Scissor
June 12, 2022 7:05 pm

Damn straight.

Last edited 23 days ago by Philip
Old Man Winter
Reply to  Scissor
June 12, 2022 10:15 am

They can cut their security entourages to the level they support for kids in schools.

Reply to  Old Man Winter
June 12, 2022 10:22 am

and the security details need to be unarmed, since according to them, “nobody needs guns”.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  MarkW
June 12, 2022 10:50 am

George Takei thought we didn’t need guns either but did a self-own on Twitter:

“Crazy thought, but those 20 million AR-15s now in this country could sure arm a lot of Ukrainians.”

Tim Young: Crazy thought, Americans should have the same right and ability to protect themselves that Ukrainians do. 😮

Last edited 23 days ago by Old Man Winter
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Elstrom
June 12, 2022 12:20 pm

One thing is certain. The elite will get all the heat, light, power, luxury housing, gourmet food, limos, private jets, and other luxuries it desires.

I think that is the implicit assumption of the ‘elite.’ However, as we have discovered first-hand with supply line problems, some things become unavailable at any price. As companies go bankrupt, some things will no longer be manufactured. As the power grid becomes unstable, electricity will also fail at the gated mansions. They can afford to have backup generators, but will also be in trouble if diesel becomes unavailable because of shortages or supply line hiccups.

My personal opinion is that most people who are uber-wealthy have achieved that status more through luck or larceny than intelligence. Therefore, they will be at a disadvantage in long-term planning.

Where they will be at a serious disadvantage is if civility breaks down and armed people start raiding the mansions for their stockpiles of food and fuel. Hence, a need to disarm the public before things get that bad.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 12, 2022 3:31 pm

” … most people who are uber-wealthy have achieved that status more through luck or larceny than intelligence.”

The absolute truth … I know a few like that and it makes me wonder how they hang on to it. Then I consider their general ‘meanness’ and grubby ways and I understand.

They say money smells like merde when kept in a pile but becomes almost odourless when spread around.

Last edited 23 days ago by Streetcred
June 12, 2022 6:18 am

The USA doesn’t have that many months to correct output in order to support American agriculture. If this situation doesn’t change, 2023 is going to become very interesting. And I mean that in the Chinese curse sense…

Reply to  Spetzer86
June 12, 2022 6:25 am

The Biden administration obviously doesn’t have the wherewithal to navigate these challenges. There are some that say the damage it’s causing is intentional. I’m not sure it isn’t, for sure the CCP didn’t enrich the Biden family with millions for nothing.

George Daddis
Reply to  Scissor
June 13, 2022 6:45 am

They have provided a clear demonstration that ideology does not substitute for intelligence.
They are incapable of understanding and are blind to the possible negative consequences of their “feel good” policies and actions which are now evident in virtually all aspects of American’s everyday life.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Spetzer86
June 12, 2022 7:11 am

Here’s a question that someone out there can answer, I’m sure. Do farmers use the amount of fertilizer that maximizes yield (any more fertilizer would reduce yield), or do they use the amount that optimizes their profit?

In other words, if fertilizer were free, could farmers be using more to increase yields, but since it comes at a cost, they only use as much as the increased yield can be expected to produce enough extra revenue from additional crop sales to justify the investment?

I suspect that it has always been a trade-off where they reach a point of diminishing returns, so that although applying more fertilizer would marginally increase yield, that increase would not justify the cost.

If so, lower supply/higher cost fertilizer may shift the breakeven point toward applying less fertilizer. Hard to say though, because less yield will raise the price of the crop. If the demand for the crop is inelastic, then the optimum fertilizer use may not change.

It may only be the consumer who suffers. If insufficient fertilizer exists at any price, then obviously yields are going to be lower and crop prices are going to be sky high. In the same way that gas station operators can stay in business despite the cost of their supply doubling, it’s possible for farmers to get through that unscathed. But all consumers will suffer.

There is a lower bound on yield that is set by the outcome from adding no fertilizer. Surely no fertilizer does not mean no yield, at least for a while. Also there is a practical floor on yield set by the supply of fertilizer which is not going to be zero, even if it is going to be grossly inadequate.

I’m just arguing that we’re not facing sudden starvation, but agree that things will get interesting.

Reply to  Rich Davis
June 12, 2022 7:29 am

the amount of fertilizer that maximizes yield (any more fertilizer would reduce yield), or do they use the amount that optimizes their profit?”

Surely, the greater the yield, the greater the profit?

In any event, the UK now realises – I think – that food security is an issue

Ministers quietly abandon ‘green crap’ as focus shifts to food security” – The Times

Rich Davis
Reply to  fretslider
June 12, 2022 8:24 am

No, greater yield does not necessarily equal more profit. Nor does lower yield necessarily mean lower profit. Profit is the difference between Revenue and Cost.

If the cost of the last increment of fertilizer to produce an extra bushel of wheat is greater than the revenue when selling that bushel, then applying that last bit of fertilizer reduces profit even though it increases yield.

High yield often reduces profit for farmers (assuming that all their competitors have similar yield). A bumper crop is not the optimal outcome in many cases, if it depresses the market price. They have to do more work to get less money per unit of production. If the price is low enough, they may lose money that year while having to work harder harvesting a bigger crop.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 12, 2022 8:51 am

With the move to larger farms, many being corporate farms, over the past 20-30 years many farms have put in their own silo’s in order to save the grain till the price is better. As opposed to selling to a middleman at the time of harvest.

This only works, however, if price goes up at some point after harvest. You eventually have to move the grain out before the next harvest occurs.

You can put too much fertilizer on a field. It can “burn” the plants as they emerge thus stunting or killing them.

It’s all a complex equation. Yield is based on seed choice, fertilizer, insecticide, sun, rain, hail, wind, and almost anything else you can think of. As you point out it’s a matter of minimizing investment and cost versus maximizing revenue so your net profit is high enough to pay for next years seed, fertilizer, insecticide, implement repair and purchase, plus a living wage, etc.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Tim Gorman
June 12, 2022 9:15 am

Yes, it’s very complex. Farmers also engage in futures markets to hedge against a lot of those unknowable variables.

The condensed version of what I was saying is that it’s the consumers who will suffer most if there is a fertilizer shortage. Farmers could end up unaffected or conceivably even better off.

If fertilizer derived from fossil fuel were to go away permanently, it would require many deaths from starvation. I don’t believe that things will get that far out of hand. To start with, a great deal of corn currently misused to make ethanol that degrades our gasoline could be diverted to food.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 14, 2022 3:51 am

It could be, but if the Eco-Fascists are in charge, they won’t let that happen.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
June 12, 2022 2:27 pm

More fertilizer beyond some point dos not increase yield, it increases runoff. My impression (from afar) is that technology exists to determine, in any given situation, the optimum amount of fertilizer, water, and probably other aspects, for a desired outcome. No doubt it isn’t perfect, the natural world is contrary. Also, there is the trade off between cost of acquiring and applying the technology vs improvement from using the technology.

Rich Davis
Reply to  AndyHce
June 12, 2022 3:18 pm

Yes, I agree.

Imagine that your fertilizer price is constantly rising and the resulting general reduction in productivity (globally/regionally) is also raising the value of your crop.

It is obvious that plants have an upper limit on how much fertilizer that they can use after which it becomes run-off. But it’s not immediately obvious if the increase in expected value of the crop (adjusting for all risks) will exceed the up-front cost of the fertilizer plus a reasonable profit margin.

The optimum point financially might lie well below the maximum capacity of the crops to make use of it.

If your fertilizer cost doubles, it may still pay to use some fertilizer but probably, the financial optimum is to use less.

If it is very cheap, you may have different considerations (all ultimately boiling down to money though). Not poisoning your well or your neighbors’ wells, while obviously first being a consideration of safety and good will is ultimately a question of avoiding liability. If forage is not of good quality then you may not have reached the maximum yield but you have decreased your revenue/value.

So I think most everyone agrees that there is a difference between the biological optimum for growth and the financial optimum.

Thanks to all for the discussion.

Reply to  Rich Davis
June 13, 2022 5:52 am

“plants have an upper limit on how much fertilizer that they can use after which it becomes run-off.”

after which it just ends up in rivers and streams, then into the fish and the food chain..

(hence the monster sillures that have spread everywhere imaginable, and as a result are unfit for human consumption)

rivers and streams just become “rubbish dumps”..

Reply to  Rich Davis
June 12, 2022 3:37 pm

Ultimately profit is a function of demand.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Streetcred
June 12, 2022 5:15 pm

No, both demand and supply determine the market price, and profit is determined by selling price and your total costs. A badly managed farm could lose money next door to a well managed profitable farm growing the same crop.

Selling price could also be different for the two farms depending on hedging strategy.

So I think that’s so incomplete of an analysis as to be essentially wrong.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  fretslider
June 12, 2022 12:32 pm

No. If yield hits a plateau, then buying more fertilizer is wasted money.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 12, 2022 9:39 am

They will typically, cash-flow allowing, apply as much as they can.

But, the Black Art becomes important

Crops can only use so much fertiliser per day ##.
Thus you need to know how long the crop is actively growing – applying more than that results in unused fert in the soil and in the cases of Nitrate or Urea, be washed away in the autumn rains

Depends on the variety of crop – most crops will grow to be very tall, high yielding and ‘top-heavy’
So far so good but then an assessment of ‘average climate’ is needed. Because the tall high yielding plants are vulnerable to being flattened by high winds and/or rains and you lose everything
So = better to cut back fertiliser to get smaller plants, lower yield but better than nothing.

For some crops, grassy stuff for animal fodder especially, the plants will draw up the Nitrate but not use it.
If you then harvest that crop to make any kind of moist fodder (silage), the extra Nitrogen in there will wreck the natural fermentation process and you will finish up with a pile of black inedible shit for your animals to eat. Which they won’t.
(We all know that from piling up lawn-mowings in a far corner of our gardens, that pile goes black slimy and stinking and stays that way forever.)
Even if the excess Nitrogen doesn’t turn the fodder to slimy mush and it’s still edible, all the extra Nitrogen will upset the stomachs of your bovines charges.
(Penny Dropping Time: = That is when the bovines emit methane and waste the climate)

Wasting the Climate is actually the least of your worries, upsetting the stomach of any ruminant will easily kill them.
Feeding them immense amounts of protein will have the same effect – as in fact it does on us, it destroys ours, and the cows’ kidneys.

## UK farmers classically measure fertiliser in ‘units’
To get Farmer Units you need the NPK analysis off the side of the sack/bag the stuff came in
It may say, for a cow farmer fertiliser growing silage: 20-10-10
Fertiliser always came in sacks of one hundredweight and would be applied by the farmer in his ‘units’ of Bags per Acre

Here’s a worked example:
The silage farmer might apply from his experience and knowledge up to 5 bags per acre of 20-10-10
That would give his crop:

  • 100 units Nitrogen
  • 50 units Phosphate
  • 50 units Potash

The Phosphate and Potash don’t come into it much as any spare will remains in the soil for next year’s crop.
For a healthy grassland sward, it is generally reckoned that the crop will consume 2 units per day
That gives the crop 50 days to reach a good size and it will then be ‘safe’ to harvest it
The 50 days is a good mid-point as it gives time, in a climate with seasons, to grow a second or perhaps even third crop of forage.

For arable crops, the problem for the farmer is the crop growing too big and lush and thus becoming susceptible to weather damage.
)Another penny Drop Time: Hence why Borlaug’s dwarf varieties work so well – they can be given immense amounts of fert and still don’t grow tall and susceptible to the weather.
But again, the ‘units per day’ calculation comes in otherwise fertiliser is simply being wasted.
However and esp for UK farmers, they are always striving to grow bread-making wheat as opposed to the much lower value biscuit making wheat or just = ‘feed wheat

Bread making wheat is defined by its Hagberg falling Number which in turn depends on it Gluten content.
Of course, Gluten is a protein and to make protein, you need Nitrogen.
Thus UK farmers are always tempted to add a bit more fert to their crops in the hope of getting a high Hagburg Number and thus earn a price premium of easily, 20, 30 or 40%.
But THAT depends on The World Markets and what all the farmer’s peers are doing around the world.

Not easy is it
(You wish you never asked now don’t ya?)
And PLEASE don’t now tell me you still believe in CO2 fertilisation

Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 12, 2022 2:34 pm

You are wasting the black slimy stuff in the corner. It is a major ingredient for building the soil.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 12, 2022 2:55 pm

Thanks Peta very interesting. But yes, I do still believe that CO2 is one of the inputs that determine plant growth. Just not a factor that the typical farmer can adjust.

If it should not be so, then what are all those commercial greenhouses doing wasting their money supplementing CO2?

Reply to  Rich Davis
June 12, 2022 9:45 am

I certainly can’t speak for any commercial farmer, Rich, nor really any other small one, but I apply fertilizer per the recommended schedule for my soil per my annual soil test.

Too much fertilizer can be detrimental to growth of some crops as much as too little.

Last edited 23 days ago by TonyG
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 12, 2022 10:24 am

Farmers are at their core, businessmen. They seek to maximize profit, in the long run.

Reply to  MarkW
June 12, 2022 1:53 pm

And farmers have much more competent / honest scientists working on their fields than climate(s) do.

Reply to  Mr.
June 12, 2022 3:46 pm

Scientists whose careers depend on the accuracy of their recommendations.

Imagine if the climatista’s value was judged solely on the accuracy of their propaganda ? They’d be in the soup line where they belong.

Last edited 23 days ago by Streetcred
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Streetcred
June 14, 2022 3:58 am

Yes, for about 25 years by now!

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Ag products have an inelastic supply/demand curve where the less that’s produced in
total, the more the product’s worth. A 10% rise in supply, in total, will cause
prices to drop >10% if demand stays the same. Individually, farmers usually aim for
maximum profitability & maximum production’s usually where that lies. They also
consider soil fertility, crop rotation, risk/reward, diversification, & short- vs
long-term effects (including cash flow) as you have to survive to stay in the game
& don’t want to inadvertently shoot yourself in the foot- no different from any
other business! Some farmers, like Rud, do both grain & animals making it more
complex. It’s a crapshoot!

Larger equipment for spring planting allows farmers to do less fall applications
of fertilizer which wastes much more fertilizer vs targeted applications at
planting & during the summer. With a late year & differing circumstances- high
fertilizer costs, lower production from Ukraine & Russia in sunflowers, wheat, &
barley- have given N US & S Canadian farmers more options now in this late
planting season. (Usually May 1 is the date after which corn (biggest fertilizer
user) & soybeans (smallest fertilizer user) lose production. USDA also has “no
later than” dates to get crop insurance which can force farmers to choose
“prevented plant” payments vs risking planting or opting out for another crop.
ROLL THOSE DICE- 7 come 11!)

Here are non-irrigated/irrigated/US average (approx) record yields for corn
& soybeans. As you can see, there’s a huge range in them, depending how a
farmer plays the game- corn- 385/615/175 bu/A; soybeans- 150/190/50 bu/A.

Last edited 23 days ago by Old Man Winter
Old Man Winter
Reply to  Old Man Winter
June 12, 2022 1:35 pm

Poorly phrased- “Individually, farmers usually aim for maximum profitability & maximum production’s usually where that lies.”

Better- “Individually, farmers usually aim for maximum profitability which does put a cap on how much fertilizer they will use.”

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 12, 2022 12:30 pm

If they were smart, which most probably are, they would maximize their profit. Adding additional fertilizer may only incrementally increase yield, yet exacerbate environmental problems such as making their own well water unpotable, and drawing the attention of environmentalists concerned about surface water quality. Ohio has issues with Lake Erie, being rather shallow and warmer than the other Great Lakes, and thus being susceptible to algae blooms supported by nitrate runoff from fields.

Reply to  Rich Davis
June 12, 2022 2:18 pm

Looking at Sir Lanka’s experiment with no chemical fertilizer it would seem to indicate that the “lower bound on yield that is set by the outcome from adding no fertilizer’ does rather lead to starvation for many.

Rich Davis
Reply to  AndyHce
June 12, 2022 2:49 pm

Yes, true with Sri Lanka but still as I said, the lower bound isn’t zero and even with a shortage, there will still be some chemical fertilizer. It’s a bad scenario to be sure, but perhaps not quite as bad as some scare stories. I would hate to see skeptics discredited by exaggerating the risk. (Just like the alarmists do).

Reply to  Rich Davis
June 13, 2022 6:45 am

I suspect there may be some decisions to change what’s grown depending on exactly what fertilizer is available in what quantities, since different crops respond to different levels differently. Probably going to be difficult to predict exactly what we’re going to see next year as a result.

Reply to  Rich Davis
June 12, 2022 3:37 pm

The ‘no fertiliser’ scenario will eventually kill productivity of the land. Lose / lose.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Streetcred
June 12, 2022 5:28 pm

Yes of course it will. The discussion relates to a hopefully short-term market disruption in the supply of chemical fertilizer and whether it’s reasonable to be discussing famine as a result.

The worst case is not likely to involve zero fertilizer as I said. It can’t go on for long without the negative consequences that you mentioned. And then presumably when supplies are back to normal, there would need to be some form of “catch up”. But the soil would not be depleted in one season from a lower than normal level of fertilizer and it won’t cause a crop failure as some have scare-mongered.

James F. Evans
June 12, 2022 6:24 am

Not a single model (projection) by a climate alarmist “scientist” since 2000 has accurately reflected what actually happened weather-wise in those years up to 2022.

(Anybody know of an accurate model?)

“Net-zero” will collapse the economy and turn almost all energy use decisions into political questions with rationing via who gets what, how much, and for what price.

AGW is dogma for political subjugation.

Hydrocarbons are the foundation of Man’s energy needs (at this point in time).

Drill baby, drill..

Reply to  James F. Evans
June 12, 2022 9:22 am

The Russian model, the Institute for Numerical Methods part of the Russian Academy of Science CIMP5 model, did a good job of projecting temperatures that agreed with the balloon and satellite data sets. I understand they have a pretty elaborate ocean model. Why the idiot modelers don’t learn from them is a real mystery.

Reply to  DrEd
June 12, 2022 9:23 am

CMIP5, sorry. Typo.

James F. Evans
Reply to  DrEd
June 12, 2022 9:32 am

Thank you. That “did a good job”, was it “high” or “low” of the data?

It does intrigue me because now I’d be interested to see what that model projects for the future, say, ten years?

Reply to  James F. Evans
June 12, 2022 5:38 pm

It was pretty much on the money. Slightly above the data for a few years, and on the data for the rest. The data is attributed to John Christie and references “KNMI Climate Explorer”

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  DrEd
June 12, 2022 12:35 pm

Not Invented Here syndrome.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  James F. Evans
June 12, 2022 1:07 pm

I believe this Great Reset is over. Having jumped the gun destroying the West’s own oil and gas industry and its economies with with the world still needing 85% of its energy from fossil fuels, and having run into hard technical problems that are intractable at any acceptable cost re power supply and electrification of transport, the ideologues had to cave and embrace fossil fuels or face famine and freezing to death for their people.

Moreover, the activist scientists have had to walk back the crisis warming, recognizing models are running ‘a way too hot’. They, more privately, are accepting that the meme has been falsified. Witness efforts over two decades to shore up temperature rise by fiddling data, rising hysteria to get policy passed, and now even talking about a possible cooling period!

The stupid heads of state in the West have been stopped in their tracks by fear of a policy Armageddon they’ve brought down on their people. They say they are only pausing the Reset, but they are totally engaged in rescuing their legacy and looking at the next election cycle. This is the end of the nightmare. Good times are still a way off because the damage done is colossal, but the global governance is dead in the water.

Let’s not forget charlatan scientists and ideologues and universities and the UN and other NGOs and institutions and companies and Hi tech personalities and MSM that created this hell on earth.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 14, 2022 3:06 pm

The Great Reset is a victim of its own success. Prices and scarcity have risen so fast, instead of the planned 20-30 years, now the Reset gets reset.

Tom Halla
June 12, 2022 6:26 am

The supply shortages in the US were due to price fixing by Nixon and Carter, which is one reason I despise both.

Reply to  Tom Halla
June 12, 2022 6:56 am

The main idiots in charge want to do the same thing. I hope there are enough people in congress who aren’t that stupid but the whole executive order process could be trouble.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Scissor
June 12, 2022 12:39 pm

I hope there are enough people in congress who aren’t that stupid

Those who can do, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach, teach teachers. Those who can’t even teach teachers go into politics.

I think that your hope is misplaced.

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 12, 2022 11:15 am

Yellen is already out their trying to negotiate price controls on oil. The current administration is worse than Nixon and Carter combined. They were not trying to destroy the economy; it increasingly looks like the goal of this administration.

June 12, 2022 6:30 am

“Fortunately, I suspect that most of the world will refuse to follow the West down its suicidal path”

We saw the Maldives example. They wanted free climate money. They claimed they were sinking, fast. Then the tourism dried up. Then they were building airports, marinas and hotels etc and no longer sinking.

The Maldives might have blown their chances [of big money], but many others haven’t…

Egypt says climate finance must be top of agenda at Cop27 talks – Griffian’s Bible

Socialism – the art of managing shortages of just about everything – bar misery.

Sweet Old Bob
June 12, 2022 6:42 am

“And all in the name of a baseless fear.”

No, that’s just a useful “feature” of their plan for total control .

Wish it was the only “feature ” in their plans ….

Steve Case
June 12, 2022 7:00 am

 There will inevitably be civil disorder and riots, poverty and starvation. Societies will be destabilised and governments overthrown.

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations

Reply to  Steve Case
June 12, 2022 4:13 pm

It’s not like they’re trying very hard to hide their agenda.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Ebor
June 14, 2022 4:06 am

At least when they thought only “friendly” ears are listening…

Coach Springer
June 12, 2022 7:09 am

Something basically wrong with an energy agency with a mission of shuttering all sources of energy now powering the world, don’t you think?

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Coach Springer
June 12, 2022 8:17 am

Even more ironic is the fact the IEA was originally set up in 1974 “to ensure the security of oil supplies.”

Giordano Milton
June 12, 2022 7:44 am

The climate crisis is a mass hysteria fed by 2 groups who benefit from the fear: 1) politicians, who gain more power and wealth, and 2) modelers (called “scientists”) who gain money and prestige. After all, with no crisis they would have no job.

Reply to  Giordano Milton
June 12, 2022 7:59 am

Don’t forget the media. They are both the enablers and suppliers. The greenwashing and waste they have enabled is criminal.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  DaveinCalgary
June 12, 2022 12:41 pm

The Fourth Estate has become a Fifth Column.

John Garrett
Reply to  Giordano Milton
June 12, 2022 9:44 am

Don’t forget the subsidy farmers who benefit from the tax credits provided to wind and solar electricity generators.

“For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

-Warren E.Buffett


Berkshire Hathaway Corporation

June 12, 2022 7:47 am

Why are we trying to limit the growth of CO2 when limiting the growth of H2O would be more effective? We even have the technology readily available. We use it nearly everywhere there is the energy to do so. Dehumidifiers and air conditioners are and would be very effective.

Yeah, that idea is as asinine as removing CO2 from the atmosphere and/or keeping it from entering it.

Using GREEN ENERGY would make this as cheap as renewable electricity generation. As a bonus doing this would lower temps in the locale of the devices proving without a doubt that GHGs are the culprit for warming. Or would it?

Last edited 24 days ago by CoRev
Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  CoRev
June 12, 2022 11:18 am

If I can get a subsidy for the one I have to run my basement? Then sign me up.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  CoRev
June 12, 2022 12:43 pm

Plans to convert to fuel cells operated with hydrogen or alcohol will increase the absolute humidity along urban transportation corridors.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 12, 2022 5:04 pm

Clyde, all the more reason to implement the /sarc Safest Green Dehumidifying Solution /sarc Just think how we could save the H2O and transport in the existing ditches, canals, rivers to the world lakes and oceans. Or better still just cycle to farms for irrigation, whether its needed or not. 😉

Yes, this is all sarcasm. But most Greenies wouldn’t realize it. They’re too busy capturing cow burps.

Last edited 23 days ago by CoRev
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 14, 2022 4:09 am

Not to mention just waste energy to achieve absolutely nothing.

lee riffee
June 12, 2022 7:58 am

“The pathway is narrow but brings huge benefits”…..benefits to whom?!? If these clowns get their way, there will be precious few people around to enjoy any supposed benefits.
What happens when farmers can’t use diesel powered equipment to farm, and there are no trucks, trains and freighter ships to carry goods? Basically you will end up with a post-apocalyptic chaos of the likes that is often seen in sci-fi movies. If they consider that a benefit, I’d hate to see what they would consider to be a detriment!

Tim Gorman
Reply to  lee riffee
June 12, 2022 9:26 am

Look around at the baby formula fiasco. Multiply that by 1000 as basic food can’t be found in the stores.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tim Gorman
June 12, 2022 12:45 pm

Just-in-time delivery makes sense for perishable food. However, for food that has a long shelf life, it has the potential for creating problems.

Reply to  lee riffee
June 12, 2022 1:41 pm

The diesel engine, the engine that powers the world.
Take it away and we are shafted.
This youtube documentary article summarises its importance.

Last edited 23 days ago by StephenP
Reply to  StephenP
June 14, 2022 3:13 pm

made possible by more energy compact fossil fuels. Vaclav Smil wrote about this in his books on access to evermore dense energy forms to useful work and human progress.

June 12, 2022 8:44 am

The magical powers of the IEA will turn this whole graph yellow!

Data & Statistics – IEA

Mike Maguire
June 12, 2022 9:46 am

Obama set the course for this energy freight train going down the wrong track, when he was seen as the optimal partner, controlling the agenda of the United States, in this scheme. He was bribed with the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.

Obama Wins Nobel Prize in Part for Confronting ‘Great Climatic Challenges’   &nbsp;
Former Vice President Al Gore, a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner for his work on global warming, called Obama’s award “thrilling.”

They knew he was their man from statements made previously:

“If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,” Obama said, responding to a question about his cap-and-trade plan. He later added, “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike Maguire
June 12, 2022 10:05 am

Huge money flows being invested for future production are being diverted AWAY from fossil fuels that are greening the planet and into fake environmental solar/wind that cause much greater damage to the planet…..mining, massive land requirements/habitat degradation, killing birds/bats and waste after replacement in 25 years…… to get a small fraction of the energy being obtained from fossil fuels for the equivalent amount of damage to our wonderful planet.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike Maguire
June 12, 2022 10:16 am

There’s a pretty good chance of reversing the endangerment finding by the EPA in the US as voters have sampled the damage from the early stages of the war on fossil fuels.

When both houses, then the White House flip to politicians that all support rational energy policies rooted in authentic environmental/climate principles it should provide the power to reverse the ludicrous Obama era agenda.


Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike Maguire
June 12, 2022 10:18 am

Sorry about that.
Here’s the actual link above:


Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Mike Maguire
June 12, 2022 12:47 pm

He was bribed with the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.

You mean the one that he received before he had even done anything — except community outreach in Chicago?

June 12, 2022 11:38 am

Never underestimate the Dem-driven ESG push on the doom goals.

michael hart
June 12, 2022 1:25 pm

As they say, it’s a feature not a bug.
However, I suspect a large fraction of politicians and the general population still haven’t cottoned onto what the ‘green’ agenda holds in store for most of us.

June 12, 2022 3:45 pm

Free markets are the antidote

June 12, 2022 4:44 pm

No cost is too much on the March to the purity of Marxism.

June 12, 2022 6:37 pm

Tell me something I haven’t been preaching since I don’t know when.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  DipChip
June 12, 2022 8:41 pm

Exhibit A, the Prime Retard of Canada

Gunga Din
June 13, 2022 6:39 am

02/21/2012 05:50 PM EST

Can Steven Chu have a do-over?

President Barack Obama’s Energy secretary unwittingly created a durable GOP talking point in September 2008 when he talked to The Wall Street Journal about the benefits of having gasoline prices rise over 15 years to encourage energy efficiency.

“Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

At the time Chu said that he was not yet Obama’s Energy secretary.
So why did Obama choose him?
PS After he was, he refused to backdown on the comment.

June 13, 2022 7:46 am

It occurred to me a few months ago.
The “left,” heavy with Marxist thought, makes a good case about “colonization.” In a modern sence. I live a great life, with great food and many items / things, both practical and recreational, because people in China and various other spots around the globe have been shifted into low-pay labor jobs.

This is some of the valid points of Marxists: “we” do tend to find the Next Place to Exploit. Once China advances in humaneness, we will go somewhere else.

The model works like this: go somewhere on the globe where the locals a re unsuspecting. Buy their land. Interfere with their way of life. Offer something better such as running water, alcohol, or smokes. Or, as in the movie, Coca Cola.

Build an economic facility: harvest something in great plantations, or manufacture something with cheap labor and low environmental standards. Hire the locals.

So, we take their native way of life, and end it one way or another – such as fishing regulation, land use, etc. Then, offer them another way to make a living.

The Green movement is the same. Take away our gas, and liberty. Offer us something “better.” We eat bugs, and depend on solar energy. And work in the “Service Economy.”

%d bloggers like this: